The views expressed in any article published in this blog are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Joseph Foster or Bob Lupoli.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERCIA

THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERCIA.
John Meyers an excellent Article, see below. The Iraq war was based on WMD, none was found, the Afghan war was to capture a criminal that criminal was finally found and killed by our special forces, had we used that approach from the beginning we could have got him 10 years ago. As to Democracy for Afghan if our zest was for Democracy we should invade two of our closest Allies Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

With regards to Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler there is no relation to that event and the Iraq and Afghanistan war, let’s assume Chamberlain did not appease Hitler are you suggesting Britain alone should have stood against Hitler, remember the USA did not declare war against Germany until Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, Britain stood alone for two years fighting the forces of Hitler. For those that want to be educated it was Russia that broke the back of the mighty German military power. Here is what Churchill said in 1944 to the house of parliament; were it not for Russia that broke the back of the German Army, the UK and the USA will be living in an era of dark ages. Read about the Eastern front which was not given great importance after the end of WW11 because our relation was soured with the Soviet Union for their refusal to with draw from Eastern Europe.

Hitler had amassed 4.5 million troops against Russia and over 12,000 Aircraft and thousands and upon thousands of Tanks, in the history of warfare there has never been any battles that will equal to that of the Eastern front, when the US and British forces crossed the English channel it did so with no German Air power to oppose them, since Russia had destroyed the entire German Air force.

Why did we not stop appeasing Russia after they refused to with draw from Eastern Europe, the reason was Mutual Assured Destruction of both Russia and the USA?

Those that advocate more wars are not fit to be elected to high office they neither serve the interest of the USA. Afghan has 67 tribes and these tribes are in conflict with each other, The USA could restore Democracy in Afghanistan if it plans to send over 500,000 troops and spend in excess of 5 trillion dollars, and with that there is no guarantee of success. In my book I wrote a Chapter titled, ‘’The Afghan Fiasco’’

Joseph Foster, Author ‘’Seeing Red’’ ‘How America is losing the future’
My blog Stand Up For America! – Seeing Red; http://boblupoli.blogspot.com/


The Militarization of America
March 21, 2012 by John Myers

America is a declining empire trying to resurrect itself through military intervention and armed occupation. The more than $1 trillion decade with Iraq has finally ended. But neocon dreams of democracy for Iraq did not pan out. Iraq has a corrupt, shaky and ineffective government. Thousands of people continue to die in sectarian violence as Iraq wallows in a bloody civil war.

As for Afghanistan, most of the original terrorists in al-Qaida who planned 9/11 are either dead, in prison, on the run or holed up in Pakistan. Washington tells us that Pakistan is our most trusted Muslim ally, ignoring Peter Bergen’s 2011 New York Times bestseller The Longest War: The enduring conflict between America and al-Qaeda. Bergen writes that Pakistan has consistently been found to be “one of the most anti-American countries in the world.” It seems obvious that the continued occupation of Afghanistan — a country that has defeated the armies of the Russian tsars, the British Empire and the Soviet Union — is doomed to fail.

We Need Cronkite
What makes news today are celebrity overdoses, dirt on Presidential candidates and the best new reality series. But consider what Walter Cronkite said on Feb. 27, 1968, following the Tet Offensive: “It seems now more certain than ever, that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.”

Cronkite made this statement four years into that war. America is into its second decade of fighting in Afghanistan, and even a stalemate now seems impossible.

If the goals of victory were the killing of Osama bin Laden and the almost complete destruction of al-Qaida within Afghanistan, then victory has been achieved. But if the neoconservatives still believe we can institute a democratic government in Kabul, they are either naïve or initiating wars simply for the sake of war.

For decades, our government has been arrogant in imposing Western principals and ideals. Washington cannot understand that Afghanistan, a tribal and Muslim country, will not accept Western ideals any more than we would accept a prescript declared on us by a foreign power.

Imposing On Others
I am a peaceful fellow who is past middle age. I always tried to either walk or, better yet, run away from a real conflict. But if armed Chinese soldiers occupied and patrolled the streets of my city, I would clean the barrel on my hunting rifle. I am willing to bet that a great many of you would do the same to resist foreign occupation. Yet Washington thinks American ideals should be welcomed with outstretched arms. Some of this has to do with the experience of World War II and how Europeans welcomed the United States as a liberator.

Here is the catch: The period 1925 to 1945 was an aberration — 20 years of dictators. Consider that before Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, much of Europe had thrived for decades with democracy. The United States helped restore that political order (except in Spain, which suffered with Franco until his death in 1975).

While the United States left scores of military bases in Europe to protect the West from a possible Soviet invasion, there was no occupation. The boys were back home months after victory in Europe. The Nazis had occupied Europe. Because of that, the murderous will of the French, Polish and Dutch resistance was visited upon German troops.

On this subject I was struck last year while re-watching Ken Burns’ PBS series, The Civil War, first broadcast in 1990. In one segment the documentary tells of how Union cavalry surrounded a lone Confederate soldier who had no horse and whose clothes were dirty and tattered. A Union officer said to him that it was obvious that he had no wealth and not the means to own slaves.
The officer asked: “Why are you fighting this war?”

The Confederate answered: “Because you are here.”

The Washington establishment fails to consider this universal truth in human nature. Senator John McCain continues to advocate the bombing of both Syria and Iran. And with the courageous exception of Ron Paul, the contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination strongly favor using the military over diplomacy and oppose any reductions in defense spending.

Exactly who is this enemy that America must outgun? Nobody has a good answer.

Neoconservatives always call upon the lesson the world learned when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler. How much better the world would have been, they argue, if Britain had stood up to Germany.

But is that the only lesson of the past 100 years? What of President John Kennedy’s refusal to launch a military strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis? It can be argued that America’s diplomacy-first gambit saved the human race.

If you don’t like the Kennedy example, consider World War I. Because some crackpot shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand, war erupted. That war cost 20 million lives. Diplomacy could have prevented that war and, as a result, prevented the rise of Hitler and, thus, World War II.

I can only scratch my head when I listen to leaders like McCain. Have any of them read history?

Wars Serve A Purpose
Why war trumps diplomacy is explained by Stephen Glain in his new book, State vs. Defense: The Battle to Define America’s Empire. Glain concludes:

U.S. relations with the world, and increasingly America’s security policy at home, have become thoroughly and all but irreparably militarized. The culprits are not the nation’s military leaders, though they can be aggressive and cunning interagency operators, but civilian elites who have seen to it that the nation is engaged in a self-perpetuating cycle of low-grade conflict. They have been hiding in plain sight, hyping threats and exaggerating the capabilities and resources of adversaries. They have convinced a plurality of citizens that their best guarantee of security is not peace but war, and they did so with the help of a supine or complicit Congress. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. presidents have ordered troops into battle twenty-two times, compared with fourteen times during the Cold War. Not once did they appeal to lawmakers for a declaration of war.

I am not saying we should never use force. I believe America has enemies, and those enemies should be dealt with in a swift and deadly manner. I also believe that only if another nation is a real and “legitimate threat” to the United States should we initiate war.

America should be using the best special forces in the world with surgical strikes on those that would do us harm. America should use the RQ-1 Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles on terrorist groups and even possible terrorist groups. I am prepared to live with some collateral damage that will result from such strikes. This will be less deadly to foreign civilians and will save the lives of our young men and women in uniform, while helping to restore America’s standing in the world.

Compare this strategy to the armed occupation of Afghanistan. It is a non sequitur, and the real powers who run this country know it.
They know, and they just don’t care.

Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Judicial Watch: 2011 Ten Most Corrupt Politicians (including Obama)

Joe: here are the Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians according to Judicial Watch. –Bob


Spencer Bachus (R-AL): He has become the face of a congressional “insider trading” scandal that has rocked the Washington establishment as 2011 draws to a close. Rep. Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was one of the principal targets of a 60 Minutes Investigative report on the scandal, which aired on CBS in September 2011.

The report was based, at least in part, on the book Throw Them All Out by author Peter Schweizer, which outed a slew of members of Congress who allegedly profited in the financial markets by trading on insider information. Bachus was not the only congressman cited by 60 Minutes – others included Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – but the Alabama Republican stood out for his remarkable “good fortune” in shorting the stock market.

Former Senator John Ensign (R-NV): John Ensign, former U.S. Senator from Nevada and former Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, was forced to resign from office in May 2011 as the result of an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. In a scandal that first broke in 2009, Senator Ensign publicly admitted to an affair with the wife of long-time staffer Douglas Hampton. Ensign then allegedly tried to cover up the affair by bribing the couple with lucrative gifts and political favors.

According to The New York Times,  after Hampton discovered the affair involving his wife Cynthia, the senator bought his silence by giving him “a strong boost into a lobbying career.” Ensign asked political backers to find Hampton a job. “Payments of $96,000 to the Hamptons also were made by Senator Ensign’s parents, who insist this was a gift, not hush money. Once a lobbying job was secured, Senator Ensign and his chief of staff continued to help Mr. Hampton, advocating his clients’ cases directly with federal agencies.”

Attorney General Eric Holder: Attorney General Eric Holder now operates the most politicized and ideological Department of Justice (DOJ) in recent history. And revelations from the Operation Fast and Furious scandal suggest that programs approved by the Holder DOJ may have resulted in the needless deaths of many, including a federal law enforcement officer.

Fast and Furious was a DOJ/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “gun-running” operation in which guns were sold to Mexican drug cartels and others, apparently in hopes that the guns would end up at crime scenes. This reckless insanity seems to have resulted in, among other crimes, the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed in a shootout with Mexican criminals in December 2010. Fast and Furious guns were found at the scene of his death.

Holder must go. Pick your reason – Black Panthers race-based decision making, abandoning the Defense of Marriage Act, Fast and Furious killings and lies, or turning the DOJ into an arm of the radicalized left – but Holder must go.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL): In a year full of shocking congressional sex scandals, perhaps none is more serious than that involving Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, who allegedly sexually harassed a female government employee and then engaged in a cruel campaign of retaliation when she rebuffed his advances. (On March 7, 2011, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Hastings on behalf of the victim, Ms. Winsome Packer.)

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) and the Blagojevich Co-Conspirators: It took more than two years and two trials, but disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod “Blago” Blagojevich was finally brought to justice on June 27, 2011, for a number of crimes, including his efforts to “sell” President Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. He became the state’s fourth governor, and one of at least 79 Illinois public officials, to be found guilty of a crime since 1972, proving that Illinois has certainly lived up to its reputation as a cesspool of corruption.

President Barack Obama: President Obama makes Judicial Watch’s “Ten Most Wanted” list for a fifth consecutive year. (The former Illinois Senator was also a “Dishonorable Mention” in 2006.) And when it comes to Obama corruption, it may not get any bigger than Solyndra. Solyndra was once known as the poster child for the Obama administration’s massive “green energy” initiative, but it has become the poster child for the corruption that ensues when the government meddles in the private sector. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in September 2011, leaving 1,100 workers without jobs and the American taxpayers on the hook for $535 million thanks to an Obama administration stimulus loan guarantee.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA): A first-timer on Judicial Watch’s “Ten Most Wanted” list, Rep. Laura Richardson is in hot water for reportedly misusing her congressional staff for personal and political gain. Rep. Richardson is now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee regarding allegations by former staff member Maria Angel Macias . Macias alleges that she was required by Richardson to order other staffers to run personal errands for the Democrat congresswoman – such as picking up her dry cleaning – and to work on her re-election campaign at taxpayer expense.

Rep. David Rivera (R-FL): Rep. David Rivera, U.S. Representative for Florida’s 25th congressional district, is mired in numerous ethics controversies stemming from charges of money laundering and tax evasion schemes initiated when Rivera served in the Florida House of Representatives. The Republican congressman, serving his first term, is currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Miami-Dade Police public corruption unit, and the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s office.

Of particular interest is the investigation by the FBI and the IRS regarding Rep. Rivera’s dealings with the Flagler Dog Track, now known as the Magic City Casino. The basis for the investigation relates to payments reportedly totaling as much as $1 million made by the casino to Millennium Marketing in the guise of a consulting contract. Most of the money is said to have been paid in 2008.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Rep. Maxine Waters is one of the most senior and one of the most outspoken members of Congress. She is also one of the most corrupt.

In August 2010, an investigative subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee charged Rep. Waters with three counts of violating House rules and ethics regulations in connection with her use of power and influence on behalf of OneUnited  Bank. She was expected to face an ethics trial in late 2010, but the committee delayed the trial indefinitely on November 29, 2010, citing newly discovered documentary evidence that may impact proceedings.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK): Rep. Don Young may have achieved a new level of corruption in 2011. The House Ethics Committee announced just before Christmas that the Alaska Republican Congressman was cleared of allegations by the House Ethics Committee that he exceeded the limit on campaign donations to his legal defense fund – which was set up to defend Young against an entirely different set of corruption charges! There was good reason the House Ethics Committee released this decision after most of official Washington left for the Christmas holiday: because the Committee’s “exoneration” is a joke.

House ethics rules prohibit contributions from any single source that exceed $5,000. Young received $63,000 from “twelve companies that…were in fact owned by Gary Chouest, his wife, and his five children, or some combination of those seven individuals.” Despite an independent analysis by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) that the shell-game was a rather transparent violation of the contribution limit, the House Ethics Committee gave Young a free pass because the 12 companies controlled by essentially one individual were “separate legal entities”!

On July 24, 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that Young was under federal investigation for taking bribes, illegal gratuities, and unreported gifts from VECO Corporation, an Anchorage, Alaska- based company. Two executives in the company, including former company CEO Bill Allen, had already pled guilty to bribing members of the Alaska legislature. Reportedly, Young received $157,000 from VECO.

Jerry Brown - Same Old Thing - Tax the Rich

Joe:  what many people don’t realize is California is already way over reliant on the wealthy to pay taxes. This is why we have huge swings in tax revenue. It always boom or bust. This article is so interesting because the LA Times is calling a spade a spade, York actually states, “…bowing to pressure from liberal activists..” and “In a deal with a union…”. Interesting stuff, see below. -Bob

In a deal with a union on his ballot initiative, the governor pares the sales-tax provision and hikes rates on the rich.
By Anthony York, Los Angeles Times
March 15, 2012   Reporting from Sacramento— 

Months ago, Gov. Jerry Brown won business and labor backing for an initiative that combined higher taxes on California's top income earners with a half-cent sales tax — a strategy he said would share the pain of addressing the state's budget woes.

But on Wednesday, bowing to pressure from liberal activists, the governor modified his proposal, agreeing to cut the sales tax hike in half and place a greater share of the burden on the wealthy.

Brown cast the revision as a strategic move to reduce the number of tax proposals voters may face on the November ballot — and increase the chances that the electorate will embrace at least one measure to provide a sorely needed revenue increase.

"This united effort makes victory more likely and will go a long way toward balancing our budget and protecting our schools, universities and public safety," Brown said in a statement.

The deal takes off the table a proposal, sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, that had sought a special millionaires tax. It immediately drew criticism from political observers, who said Brown was tarnishing his carefully cultivated image of an honest broker who would not be moved by political pressure.

"It's a strong display of the governor's weakness," said Rob Stutzman, a GOP operative. "He gets his knees buckled by a backwater union. It's not even one of the powerhouses."

According to Brown's allies, the changes are fairly modest and the structure of the plan remains the governor's.

Brown had originally proposed raising income tax rates on those making at least $250,000 while increasing the state sales tax, which hits all consumers, by half a cent. Under the revised plan, sales taxes would go up by a quarter-cent and wage earners making more than $300,000 would have to dig even deeper into their pockets.

That formula would raise up to $2 billion more next year than under Brown's initial proposal. But revenues eventually would flatten out to the level of the earlier initiative, $5 billion to $7 billion annually, according to early analysis by Democratic aides.

"The governor's original measure was more difficult to pass," said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign, a liberal group that had joined with the teachers federation in backing a millionaire's tax. "This one will be easier because we're all in it together and it's more progressive."

After a news conference at a Boeing facility in Long Beach to celebrate the new 787 Dreamliner, Brown was asked why it took him so long to reach a compromise.

"The life of politics is something that changes and evolves," the governor said. "I have no ego in this."

The 11th-hour nature of the deal brings with it a number of complications.

Brown has about six weeks to get the new measure on the ballot. That involves having the attorney general's office issue some necessary paperwork, receiving an evaluation of the plan from state finance officials and getting clearance from the secretary of state's office to gather the more than 1 million signatures needed — an expensive proposition.

As a safeguard, Brown's aides said, he would continue to gather signatures for his original measure. That led skeptics on Wednesday to predict that the governor could still decide to place his first proposal on the ballot, despite the deal.
Veteran signature-gatherers, however, questioned whether Brown could meet the deadline.

anthony.york@latimes.com
Michael J. Mishak and Nicholas Riccardi in Sacramento and W.J. Hennigan in Long Beach contributed to this report.

Carl DeMaio: San Diego Top Pensioner $307,758!!!


Joe:  this San Diegan and City Council member was on the John & Ken Show on KFI the other day. He said that a librarian was making $129,000 in salary and that her pension because of “spiking” is now $169,000. Public pension unions simply went way too far and now they are bankrupting cities, I’m hearing that Stockton is next. Los Angeles is a few years down the road. Something like 80% of the states revenue comes from of the people who pay taxes, keep in mind many people in California do not pay taxes. -Bob

SAN DIEGO – City Councilmember Carl DeMaio today released his eighth annual report disclosing pension payouts to individual city employees. The report shows the top city pensioner took in a staggering $307,758 in 2011 – and the top 10 city pensioners will split more than $55 million for the remainder of their lives.
The report also shows a whopping 80% increase in the number of six-figure ($100,000 or more) city pension payouts in the past two years alone.
“Just when you thought the number of excessive pension payouts could not get any higher, it has,” lamented DeMaio.
“At a time when roads are falling apart, these pension payouts are simply offensive to taxpayers – and highlight the need to reform unsustainable pension benefits in city government,” DeMaio noted.
The report breaks out public safety pension payouts from general worker payouts – and catalogues pensions being paid out after the effective date of the notorious “MP2” pension spiking plan approved in 2002.
The report shows 71% of the pension payouts for public safety members who retired after 2003 are higher than the total median household income of $63,069 for San Diego families.
To reduce these kinds of payouts in the future, DeMaio is proposing city leaders act to cap pensionable pay, eliminate use of bonuses and specialty pays in pension calculations, and fully reform the DROP program to make it “cost free.”
Shocking Facts on Pension Payouts:
80%
The percentage increase in last two years in the number of city retirees receiving six-figure ($100,000 or more) pension payouts.

$307,758
The top annual retirement allowance paid in CY2011 – plus a second undisclosed allowance from a taxpayer-funded 401(k) account for this employee.

$55 Million +
The total value of pension payouts that the top 10 city pensioners alone will receive for the rest of their lives.

70.5%
The percentage of public safety retirees since 2003 that are receiving more than $63,069 in retirement – which is the median San Diego County household income.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

International Longshoremen’s Association & China - BFF's


WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE …UNION NAMES CHINESE PREMIER 'BEST FRIEND OF AMERICAN WORKER'
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - 
At the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s regular press conference last week, spokesperson Liu Weimin’s revealed that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was awarded ”the Best Friend of American Worker” by the US International Longshoremen’s Association. The Chinese ambassador to the United States reportedly received the award on his behalf. Liu explained:

It is learned that this year marks the 10th anniversary of the cooperation between China Cosco Group and the US port of Boston. The past decade has witnessed sound cooperation between the two sides, which sustains and creates a large amount of job opportunities for Boston. It reflects the mutually beneficial nature of China-US economic cooperation and trade. The award presented by the US International Longshoremen’s Association to Premier Wen Jiabao is to thank the Chinese Government for its efforts to encourage Chinese enterprises’ investment in the US and to promote bilateral economic cooperation and trade. This gratitude is sincere and heartfelt. Premier Wen Jiabao visited the Port of Boston during his visit to the US in 2003.

The International Longshoremen’s Association, an AFL-CIO affiliate, has not publicized the award. It is not mentioned on the ILA website, nor has it been reported in the American main-stream press. The Longshoremen did not return a request for comment.

The Chinese-government-backed China Daily, however, in an anti-GOP article, reported on the award and recognized the diplomatic relationship between the union and the Chinese government:

When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacked China’s trade practices recently, he probably didn’t expect that the Chinese premier he met in 2003 – when Romney praised trade between the two countries – would later be granted the “Best Friend of American Worker” award.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was given the award on Friday in Boston by the International Longshoremen’s Association in appreciation of China’s strong support of job growth for US workers. …

ILA Vice-President William McNamara said that his association was honored to give Wen the award and thanked China for its great contributions in creating more job opportunities for US workers. …

Chinese Ambassador to the US Zhang Yesui received the award on behalf of the Chinese premier, and said that it represents a unique recognition of Wen’s support of the COSCO-Massport (the Massachusetts Port Authority of the US) partnership, which reflects the win-win nature of China-US business relations. …

Amid stubbornly high unemployment and a persistent economic recession, the GOP presidential candidates have often assailed China’s intellectual property and currency policies as they seek to convince voters they can create jobs and turn the economy around.

On Tuesday, the AFL-CIO, of which the Longshoremen Association is an affiliate, endorsed President Obama for reelection.

Unions plan to spend $400 million in the upcoming campaign season, according to the New York Times.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Iran and War: Don't Rush!

Joseph Foster, Author ‘’Seeing Red’’ ‘How America is losing the future’

ARGUMENT AGINST RUSH TO WAR.
I support the comments in the Article written below by an outstanding journalist;
Those that beat the drums of war and rush to war in my opinion are irresponsible, they forget the tragic mistake of rush to war as to the Iraq fiasco and the unfounded fear of WMD none were found after the invasion. I do not equate Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler with the Iran crisis.

Iran is not on the march invading other countries. Intensive diplomacy in time will convince Iran that it is in their National interest that they do not develop nuclear weapons. The supreme leader of Iran has made a statement that it is against his religion to kill massive of innocent people in a war since nuclear bomb damage is not confined to your opponent Army. Iran has repeatedly told the west that it does not want to develop nuclear weapons. If they prove to have lied their first bomb will give us justification to wage a war against Iran and the world based on such evidence will support our move. I believe if we were to have the leaders of Iran invited to the white house and give these leaders some respect and attention it may break the deadlock in the negotiations.

Joseph Foster, Author ‘’Seeing Red’’ ‘How America is losing the future’
Stand Up For America! – Seeing Red; http://boblupoli.blogspot.com/

Excerpts from a long essay on Iran that is behind Time magazine's pay wall:
What if Iran does manage to develop a couple of crude nukes in several years? Obama says a nuclear Iran would set off an arms race in the Middle East. But a nuclear North Korea has not led the two countries directly threatened by its weapons - South Korea and Japan - to go nuclear. Saudi Arabia and Egypt did not go nuclear in response to Israel's developing a large and robust arsenal of nuclear weapons....

Obama has explained that a nuclear Iran would be a problem like India and Pakistan with their nuclear weapons. But India and Pakistan went to war three times in 30 years before they had nuclear weapons. Since they went nuclear, they have been restrained and have not fought a war in 40 years. That case shows the stabilizing, not destabilizing, effects of deterrence. If Israel genuinely believes that deterrence doesn't work in the Middle East, why does it have a large nuclear arsenal if not to deter its enemies?
Iran's weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists, says the President. But would a country that has labored for decades to pursue a nuclear program and suffered huge sanctions and costs to do so then turn around and give the fruits of its efforts to a gang of militants?

Meanwhile, Joe Cirincione, a veteran nuclear proliferation analyst and president of the Ploughshares Fund, a global security group, says in an interview, "Predictions about the end of the world have only a slightly worse track record than predictions about Iran getting a nuclear bomb."

Every year, for the last twenty years, some fool has been saying that Iran is going to get a bomb within six months or a year. You hear people talking about that now, but it’s not true. The best intelligence, according to the US intelligence community and our top military officials, concludes that Iran has not yet decided to make a bomb. If Iran did decide to make a bomb and went all out, it would take them about six months to a year to make the material for one bomb the highly enriched uranium. It would take them another six months or so to fashion that into a crude devise, and it would take them another year or two to be able to fashion that into a warhead to put on a missile for delivery. They are somewhere between eighteen months and three years from having a weapon that could be delivered by missile, and at least a year, maybe three, from having any kind of weapon at all if they decide to do so.