Go, Obama! ... I think ...

Bu2

Obama targets Iran oil millions Wed May 16, 4:37 PM ET



US Democratic presidential hope Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) polished his national security credentials on Wednesday, introducing a Senate bill encouraging investors to cash out of projects which benefit Iran.

Obama, who most national polls have in second place in the Democratic field behind Hillary Clinton, targeted Iran's lucrative oil and gas industry in a bill spurred by the US belief the Islamic Republic is building nuclear arms.

The measure, also introduced in the House of Representatives by lawmakers Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record) and Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), would help investors and state and local governments divest from instruments which benefit Iran.

"The Iranian government uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East," Obama said in a statement.

"Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result.

"All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies."

Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, said the move would help the United States put the "squeeze on Iran."

"It encourages companies and individuals to remove their money from any investment that might support Tehran's heedless quest for nuclear weapons."

Iran denies US claims that it is producing nuclear weapons, but maintains its right to develop nuclear power.

If the move becomes law, it would require the US government to list every six months, companies which have an investment of more than 20 million dollars in Iran's energy sector.

Supporters say it would offer a powerful disincentive for foreign firms to engage with Iran.

US officials said Wednesday that they would continue to press for sanctions against Iran, despite the apparent failure of existing measures to halt Tehran's nuclear drive.

International weapons inspectors on Tuesday confirmed Iran appeared to be making steady progress toward its goal of building 3,000 centrifuges, which could allow it to process enough nuclear material to build one atomic bomb per year.

The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in March imposing sanctions against Iran's missile and nuclear programs after it repeatedly ignored ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.

The world body gave Iran 60 days to suspend enrichment or face further punitive measures, meaning that the latest deadline will expire next week.




Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse

Okay, so you all know by now, Obama is my man. So I shoud be all happy, and stuff, because he's coming up with a new idea that -- up front -- looks like a good one.

But this is the second time my man has mentioned Iran in a way that gets my back up. The first time he did it was when he said "all options should be on the table when it comes to Iran".

He's playing up the Iran thing. It's starting to make me a little nervous.

Somebody help me through my mid-primary crisis, here.

norm

unfortunately this looks like something to garner votes....not that the bill is bad but perhaps he should have been doing these things before he ran for president.....

Bu2

for some time now.

But what bothers me is he's suddenly grabbing hold of the "terrorism" argument to get bills passed and that's so.....Republican.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Obama's a nutcase...

Another gloss and shine horse and pony show...

He already has the hooks on his back where the puppet strings attach...

mca47

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Obama's a nutcase...

Another gloss and shine horse and pony show...

He already has the hooks on his back where the puppet strings attach...

Who do you support?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mca47 wrote:

Who do you support?

anarchy...

robbie

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Obama's a nutcase...

Another gloss and shine horse and pony show...

He already has the hooks on his back where the puppet strings attach...

Really? i may be completely ignorant on the subject, but isn't obama raising his money through small contributions by millions of contributors as opposed to huge donations by oil companies? also does'nt he write his own speeches, and speak without a script or notes on many occasions? again, i am not stating this as fact, but it was my impression.... that sounds way more independent than owing oil companies billions of dollars by the time you take office, and have a team of professional writers control everything you say......

MrBrian

Bu2 wrote:

Obama targets Iran oil millions Wed May 16, 4:37 PM ET


"All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies."

Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, said the move would help the United States put the "squeeze on Iran."

"It encourages companies and individuals to remove their money from any investment that might support Tehran's heedless quest for nuclear weapons."

Iran denies US claims that it is producing nuclear weapons, but maintains its right to develop nuclear power.

----
Okay, so you all know by now, Obama is my man. So I shoud be all happy, and stuff, because he's coming up with a new idea that -- up front -- looks like a good one.

But this is the second time my man has mentioned Iran in a way that gets my back up. The first time he did it was when he said "all options should be on the table when it comes to Iran".

He's playing up the Iran thing. It's starting to make me a little nervous.

Somebody help me through my mid-primary crisis, here.

Why do people support him in the first place? really, what has he done or said that makes him such a good choice?

spiral out

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Obama's a nutcase...

Another gloss and shine horse and pony show...

He already has the hooks on his back where the puppet strings attach...

Yep they have been in there for a while now.

RainDog

Bu2 wrote:

for some time now.

But what bothers me is he's suddenly grabbing hold of the "terrorism" argument to get bills passed and that's so.....Republican.

At some point we're likely going to have to "deal" with Iran. They seem to want some sort of conflict, and enough people in this country are more than happy to give it to them. This move by Obama seems far more sensible than openly threatening war.

As for the whole "all options are on the table" line, that's such a platitude I'm not sure it even means anything - outside of simply saying "don't forget, I'm armed." It's ridiculous posturing, but voters do respond to it.

cornnifer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

He already has the hooks on his back where the puppet strings attach...

Who's pulling yours?

NCfan

RainDog wrote:

At some point we're likely going to have to "deal" with Iran. They seem to want some sort of conflict, and enough people in this country are more than happy to give it to them. This move by Obama seems far more sensible than openly threatening war.

As for the whole "all options are on the table" line, that's such a platitude I'm not sure it even means anything - outside of simply saying "don't forget, I'm armed." It's ridiculous posturing, but voters do respond to it.

I don't really think it is ridiculous posturing. It needs to be said, especially with liberal politicians running around screaming about NOT using military force under any circumstances.

"All options on the table" says hey let's try to work this out peacefully but at the end of the day, we're not going to let you have a bomb.

"The use of force is not an option" says hey let's try to work this out peacefully, but at the end of the day if you do end up getting a bomb we're not going to do anything meaningful "aka" fight about it.

For people who view the US in the mannor in which the Iranian government does, option 2 is an open invitation for them to take advantage of our good will.

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

I don't really think it is ridiculous posturing. It needs to be said, especially with liberal politicians running around screaming about NOT using military force under any circumstances.

"All options on the table" says hey let's try to work this out peacefully but at the end of the day, we're not going to let you have a bomb.

"The use of force is not an option" says hey let's try to work this out peacefully, but at the end of the day if you do end up getting a bomb we're not going to do anything meaningful "aka" fight about it.

For people who view the US in the mannor in which the Iranian government does, option 2 is an open invitation for them to take advantage of our good will.

"All options are on the table" is a given. Everyone knows we're armed and history has shown that we will use force (with wildly differing results, but that's another discussion). Saying it reminds me of the muscular wuss archetype. That huge guy at the bar who constantly has to tell everyone how tough he is. "I could lay that guy out if I wanted to," or "if someone ever did that to me, I'd kill 'em" over and over again until those still listening start to wonder if this guy really is as tough as he says he is. Maybe he's just a push-over who likes to lift weights.

All anyone has to do is view our disaster in Iraq to make the argument that maybe we aren't as hard as we say. And everyone laughs when the embarased tough guy tries to act all tough again.

Another analogy would be the guy who constantly tells everyone how big his dick is.

And for the record, it's not just liberal politicians who want to tone down the militant rhetoric. See Ron Paul.

NCfan

RainDog wrote:

"All options are on the table" is a given. Everyone knows we're armed and history has shown that we will use force (with wildly differing results, but that's another discussion). Saying it reminds me of the muscular wuss archetype. That huge guy at the bar who constantly has to tell everyone how tough he is. "I could lay that guy out if I wanted to," or "if someone ever did that to me, I'd kill 'em" over and over again until those still listening start to wonder if this guy really is as tough as he says he is. Maybe he's just a push-over who likes to lift weights.

All anyone has to do is view our disaster in Iraq to make the argument that maybe we aren't as hard as we say. And everyone laughs when the embarased tough guy tries to act all tough again.

Another analogy would be the guy who constantly tells everyone how big his dick is.

And for the record, it's not just liberal politicians who want to tone down the militant rhetoric. See Ron Paul.

All options on the table is NOT a given with respect to the Iran/nuclear issue. There are many in congress/government, see Ron Paul, who would rather live with a nuclear armed Iran than resort to military force to prevent it.

Iran announced last week that they are enriching uranium on an industrial scale. This is pretty much an announcement to the world that they are now a nuclear power. It is only a matter of time before they have enough material to build a bomb. So at this point, the only sanctions that will work are the ones that will require a monumental and global effort to enforce. This small esculation of ankle-biting sanctions and resolutions isn't going to make the Iranians stop their encrichment.

Basically, we have to pull China, Russia and the EU together and stand in unison on full-scale economic sanctions for Iran. If China and Russia don't want a war, they better get on board.

At the end of the day, Isreal is going to take action regardless what the rest of us do, and who can blame them?

macgyver06

i love how people say stuff about a guy..but cant back it up WITH ANYTHING AT ALL... lol... hollow

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

All options on the table is NOT a given with respect to the Iran/nuclear issue. There are many in congress/government, see Ron Paul, who would rather live with a nuclear armed Iran than resort to military force to prevent it.

Iran announced last week that they are enriching uranium on an industrial scale. This is pretty much an announcement to the world that they are now a nuclear power. It is only a matter of time before they have enough material to build a bomb. So at this point, the only sanctions that will work are the ones that will require a monumental and global effort to enforce. This small esculation of ankle-biting sanctions and resolutions isn't going to make the Iranians stop their encrichment.

Basically, we have to pull China, Russia and the EU together and stand in unison on full-scale economic sanctions for Iran. If China and Russia don't want a war, they better get on board.

At the end of the day, Isreal is going to take action regardless what the rest of us do, and who can blame them?

I am not in favor of military force to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Not because I want Iran to have them, but because we do not currently have the capacity to stop them militarily. We blew our wad on Iraq and have nothing left to spend on Iran without a draft - unless we simply bomb them, which isn't an effective way of stopping them, in my opinion. If Isreal wants to take them out, so be it. It's about time for a war that didn't involve us.

At one point, we had some real barganing chips. But now we don't, and Iran knows it. They're not stupid. If we had a fully loaded and ready military, they might posture, but they wouldn't produce. Now, what's going to stop them? War? Why not - because it wouldn't just be us against them (saying we'd persue this unilaterally like we did in Iraq), but us against the entire region; because we now have enemies all over the place - and they are legion. You can argue that we had these enemies before Iraq, and you'd be right, but we didn't have them like we do now. We're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea for the time being.

How do we back up our talk if Europe, China and Russia don't all sign on? You can say "all options are on the table," and you'd literally be right - only we don't have as many options as before. So, when do we invade?

blackredyellow

Bu2 wrote:

Obama targets Iran oil millions Wed May 16, 4:37 PM ET



US Democratic presidential hope Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) polished his national security credentials on Wednesday, introducing a Senate bill encouraging investors to cash out of projects which benefit Iran.

Obama, who most national polls have in second place in the Democratic field behind Hillary Clinton, targeted Iran's lucrative oil and gas industry in a bill spurred by the US belief the Islamic Republic is building nuclear arms.

The measure, also introduced in the House of Representatives by lawmakers Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record) and Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), would help investors and state and local governments divest from instruments which benefit Iran.

"The Iranian government uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East," Obama said in a statement.

"Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result.

"All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies."

Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, said the move would help the United States put the "squeeze on Iran."

"It encourages companies and individuals to remove their money from any investment that might support Tehran's heedless quest for nuclear weapons."

Iran denies US claims that it is producing nuclear weapons, but maintains its right to develop nuclear power.

If the move becomes law, it would require the US government to list every six months, companies which have an investment of more than 20 million dollars in Iran's energy sector.

Supporters say it would offer a powerful disincentive for foreign firms to engage with Iran.

US officials said Wednesday that they would continue to press for sanctions against Iran, despite the apparent failure of existing measures to halt Tehran's nuclear drive.

International weapons inspectors on Tuesday confirmed Iran appeared to be making steady progress toward its goal of building 3,000 centrifuges, which could allow it to process enough nuclear material to build one atomic bomb per year.

The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in March imposing sanctions against Iran's missile and nuclear programs after it repeatedly ignored ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.

The world body gave Iran 60 days to suspend enrichment or face further punitive measures, meaning that the latest deadline will expire next week.




Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse

Okay, so you all know by now, Obama is my man. So I shoud be all happy, and stuff, because he's coming up with a new idea that -- up front -- looks like a good one.

But this is the second time my man has mentioned Iran in a way that gets my back up. The first time he did it was when he said "all options should be on the table when it comes to Iran".

He's playing up the Iran thing. It's starting to make me a little nervous.

Somebody help me through my mid-primary crisis, here.

mid-primary crisis? it's not even a pre-primary crisis yet lol... I can't believe that we actually have 3 year presidential campaigns.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cornnifer wrote:

Who's pulling yours?

omg?! a sphincter says what?

RU even close to serious?

Oh wait I get it...you were being what you thought was cute and and really smart at the time...

lol...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

RainDog wrote:

At some point we're likely going to have to "deal" with Iran. They seem to want some sort of conflict, and enough people in this country are more than happy to give it to them.

...that's some pretty messed up propaganda stuffed opinion right there...

I can't believe I just read that...

.

Abookamongstthemany

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

lol...that's some pretty messed up opinion right there...

I can't believe I just read that...

.

I can't believe it either but it seems just like the Republicans supported Bush through whatever...Dems are gonna be no better. There's really no difference and we've known that.

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I can't believe it either but it seems just like the Republicans supported Bush through whatever...Dems are gonna be no better. There's really no difference and we've known that.

there are differnces on social issues