What are people on the left wing going to do when Obama rules from the center right?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

PJ_Saluki wrote:

What, I can't just pull a number out of my ass? Plus, that 500,000 seems like something that came out of one's ass.

Maybe look at the big picture perhaps? This war on terror is not a quick fix solution approach by any means. It was never designed to be in the first place.

PJ_Saluki wrote:

It was ridiculous when he said it, too.

If Bush was left in office he wouldn't approach additional middle eastern countries with military influence? Really? I think you're the only one to think this.

PJ_Saluki wrote:

That's exactly what Iran wants. They're firing off rockets and testing new surface-to-air missiles. We already know Iran has nuclear materials. Russia is attempting to build a power plant there.

But, I guess this is one of the quotes you're referencing: “I think that a nuclear armed Iran is not just a threat to us, it’s a threat to Israel. And it is a game changer in the region. It’s unacceptable. And that’s why I’ve said that I won’t take any options off the table, including military, to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

P-E Obama said he wouldn't take any options off the table. That includes negotiation.

Are you comfortable with a nuclear Iran? Should their neighbors be OK with it? What about the world?

I'm far more comfortable than starting a war with them, and creating an even deeper long term more unresolvable wound, and besides they are going to get there anyways. This is a reality people have to begin to understand.

Mutiny! he cried

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

its easy to just make up numbers to suit your beliefs.. I'm sure it makes you feel really good about yourself. I however will go with estimates from multiple people who are close to the situation.

Right, the ones who said the war would pay for itself

pearljamfan1212

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

Right, the ones who said the war would pay for itself

ok, maybe its just better to pull numbers from my ass. yay this is fun!

Collin

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Are you comfortable with a nuclear Iran? Should their neighbors be OK with it? What about the world?

Yes, yes and yes.

Or no, no and no. Depends on how you look at it. I'm not really comfortable with France having nukes, or the US, you know the most aggressive country that starts wars whenever it feels like it?

PJ_Saluki

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

If Bush was left in office he wouldn't approach additional middle eastern countries with military influence? Really? I think you're the only one to think this.

I'll repeat: If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Who cares what POTUS Bush would have done? Does it matter if he can't do it?

Roland wrote:

I'm far more comfortable than starting a war with them, and creating an even deeper long term more unresolvable wound, and besides they are going to get there anyways. This is a reality people have to begin to understand.

We haven't started a war. Saber-rattling has long been a tool of diplomacy. P-E Obama was letting Iran and voters know that he wouldn't be a pussy. It helped take away one of McCain's perceived advantages. We're not at some point of military no-return right now. I hope it leads to the negotiation table, because if Iran gets a nuke, it's not the U.S. about whom they'll need to worry. We'll see what happens.

Gonzo1977

I think if you followed Barack Obama throughout the 08 campaign, it was prettty evident that he was not a far left candidate.

If you took the time to go over his platform...it was painfully obvious that he was taking a centrist approach from the very start.

This whole idea of Obama being a Card Carrying Communist was a brick shot thrown up by the desperate shit-slinging rightwingers like Palin, Limbaugh, and Hannity.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

ok, maybe its just better to pull numbers from my ass. yay this is fun!

The MIC are masters at it. Shame they have fooled you into believing their daydream view of the future conflicts that will arise in order for you to go along with the program.

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The MIC are masters at it. Shame they have fooled you into believing their daydream view of the future conflicts that will arise in order for you to go along with the program.

why are you turning this into something more then its not. you pulled some number out of your ass saying 500,000 troops will need to go to Afghanistan. thats simply not true.

if the Iraqi parliament ratifies the agreement. thousands of troops will come home from Iraq by the end of 2011. some will go to afgahistan, some will come home.

PJ_Saluki

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The MIC are masters at it. Shame they have fooled you into believing their daydream view of the future conflicts that will arise in order for you to go along with the program.

Who are the MIC and what the hell is a "daydream view of the future conflicts"? Huh?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

PJ_Saluki wrote:

I'll repeat: If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Who cares what POTUS Bush would have done? Does it matter if he can't do it?

The statement was the troops are coming home no matter what. They reality is they aren't coming home no matter what on the current "war against terror" trend, and really who cares if you aunt has a cock and balls or not? lol...

PJ_Saluki wrote:

We haven't started a war. Saber-rattling has long been a tool of diplomacy. P-E Obama was letting Iran and voters know that he wouldn't be a pussy. It helped take away one of McCain's perceived advantages. We're not at some point of military no-return right now. I hope it leads to the negotiation table, because if Iran gets a nuke, it's not the U.S. about whom they'll need to worry. We'll see what happens.

The war in Iran has already started. It's beyond Saber rattling at present day. Obama is just rubbing in salt with his "I will do everything...everything" rhetoric. It's extremely counter productive, unless additional war is the goal. Also see his blatant AIPAC pandering for a glimpse into what is to come.

polaris

unifiedscene wrote:

Oooh, what did I prove? Do I win something?

see post #2 and #3 in this thread ...

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The statement was the troops are coming home no matter what. They reality is they aren't coming home no matter what on the current "war against terror" trend, and really who cares if you aunt has a cock and balls or not? lol...


The war in Iran has already started. It's beyond Saber rattling at present day. Obama is just rubbing in salt with his "I will do everything...everything" rhetoric. It's extremely counter productive, unless additional war is the goal. Also see his blatant AIPAC pandering for a glimpse into what is to come.

troops are coming home from Iraq by the end of 2011. some, not all, will go to Afghanistan.

man you are really a war hawk huh?

I wish I was able to make up my own reality. you sure do seem to enjoy it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

why are you turning this into something more then its not. you pulled some number out of your ass saying 500,000 troops will need to go to Afghanistan. thats simply not true.

if the Iraqi parliament ratifies the agreement. thousands of troops will come home from Iraq by the end of 2011. some will go to afgahistan, some will come home.

I'm amazed you're still caught up in the specifics when were talking philosophies.

Ok, just a few more troops... pull out then what? It's solved? Hardly. Go back in with a few more troops...repeat...repeat...infinity. it never ends with the military imperialist route, it only widens.

Think ahead into the future a little more.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

troops are coming home from Iraq by the end of 2011. some, not all, will go to Afghanistan.

man you are really a war hawk huh?

I wish I was able to make up my own reality. you sure do seem to enjoy it.

super...how long they coming home for? speaking of reality.

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

super...how long they coming home for? speaking of reality.

well according to you, until we invade and occupy Iran. yea speaking of, wow.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

well according to you, until we invade and occupy Iran. yea speaking of, wow.

Iran will not be able to have nuclear capabilities....do the math.

can you think around that?

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Iran will not be able to have nuclear capabilities....do the math.

can you think around that?

ok you're right. you win. war is imminent. jesus I feel like I'm playing a video game.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

ok you're right. you win. war is imminent. jesus I feel like I'm playing a video game.

You don't see the cause and effect? Maybe you are in a video game

Given the history. What do you think Iran is going to do? roll over and stop because the US says so?

Do you ever get the feeling they [Iran] are extremely fed up, and done listening to western imperialist demands at any point in your calculations?

What do you think is the end result by default given the criteria?

pearljamfan1212

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You don't see the cause and effect? Maybe you are in a video game

Given the history. What do you think Iran is going to do? roll over and stop because the US says so?

Do you ever get the feeling they [Iran] are extremely fed up, and done listening to western imperialist demands at any point in your calculations?

What do you think is the end result by default given the criteria?

Iran will move forward with their program. and from I've read they are many years away from weapons grade stuff. maybe 5+ years from now. at most, bombs would be dropped from afar, probably with Israel's lead, on nuke sites.

a full invasion and occupation of Iran is not on the table.


maybe you should start a world of warcraft thread of something. you seem to enjoy fantasy land.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

Iran will move forward with their program. and from I've read they are many years away from weapons grade stuff. maybe 5+ years from now. at most, bombs would be dropped from afar, probably with Israel's lead, on nuke sites.

a full invasion and occupation of Iran is not on the table.


maybe you should start a world of warcraft thread of something. you seem to enjoy fantasy land.

Yes, but it's not about five years from now is it? It's about Iran's nuclear program coming to a full stop altogether or else...and by the way "all options *are* on the table" (which is direct and repeating quote from Obama himself). When you look at the reality of what is going on, there is little room negotiation and interpretation of what this really means.

It's an non negotiable ultimatum leading headlong into military conflict as a means of resolution. Plain and simple.

Try thinking from Iran's perspective on the issue. It definitely helps to evaluate all sides of the equation