Reply #242: Thanks..All very good questions ...

[Senator Obama]

and your civil tone is much appreciated. I been responding to a lot of hate mail on this thread just posing as somewhat of a devils advocate. You're the first to attempt to respond to my original question about how do we solve this mess short of a military conflict, which despite my postings I'm not sure that's a solution at all.

Oil in Iran is undoubtedly a motive for our presence but I have to say in this case that geopolitics trumps that. What I mean in essence is that even if Iran had no energy resources of interest, given the current makeup of their government, it would still be pretty high importance to stop them from getting access to nukes. Overarching in that consideration is the Israeli-Arab conflict and the fact that we have not achieved a Palestinian solution.

No matter how much money we pump into alternative fuels, we could not deploy them in sufficient time to make reliance on middle east energy a moot point. Even when we do break our dependence on middle east oil, we still have to be mindful of the Israeli arab conflict. If by some chance we were able to abandon the middle east tomorrow in favor of some cheap alternative energy, that would be a great solution for us, but in return it would be an absolute guarantee that the region would sink into complete poverty and lawlessness. Consider that most of the richer middle eastern state rely almost entirely on oil exports for revenue. Look at Saudi Arabia. Because they are not producing as much oil as they used to, they have had to reduce their stipends to Saudi citizens. When the oil dries up or demand for same dries up, there will be a lot more disenchanted impoverished ME folks. I really believe that poverty and lack of opportunity is the root cause for many of the average folks in the region taking up terrorism as an occupation.

No it is not hopeless. But God knows I hope we can strike a deal. This whole thing seem so easy to me. I personally can't stand the air that Bush breathes, but in this case I think the man is going to get a bad rap even if he goes to great lengths to pursue diplomacy and rally international support. Given all the pressure on the US to stand down, why can't the Iranians diffuse the situation by simply complying with NPT as certified by the IAEA? They could have a win win by having their nuclear energy and striking back at us economically with the oil bourse. And there would be nothing we could legally do. And this time the DEMOCRATS under that situation had better damn well oppose any military action. Given the lack of ethics and morality on the right side these days, as another DUer noted, Bush could be caught molesting children in the Rose Garden and the right would yawn. If Iran submits to the satisfaction of IAEA, no matter what Bush says, we should stand down. I would not under any circumstances support a strike if IAEA says otherwise. I don't trust Bush as far as I can spit.

I can only hope that the Iranian government comes to their senses and provides transparency to comply with their obligations under IAEA. That is one way to nip this in the bud. That is the move of a responsible government and I think anyone sane would rightfully be suspicious of their motives if they won't comply.
I only wish I could see another way to attack this problem if Iran remains intransigent. Perhaps sanctions imposed by the UN along with withdrawal of Russian technological support would work. I simply don't know how effective that would be but I'd certainly make sure I'm satisfied that we've considered that alternative before we make a military move.

Hoping that cooler heads prevail...

Obama...and btw in just in case anybody is wondering I'm not the real guy..LOL..