Obama chimes in at AIPAC today
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7435883.stm
"Barack Obama has pledged unwavering support for Israel in his first foreign policy speech since declaring himself the Democratic nominee for president.
He told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), a prominent Jewish lobby, Israel's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable".
He also said he would do "everything" to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon. "
"Turning his attention to Iran, Mr Obama said the US-led war in Iraq had emboldened the Islamic state, which posed a real, grave danger.
"My goal will be to eliminate this threat," he said.
Mr Obama said "aggressive, principled diplomacy" was needed to deal with Tehran but added that he would "always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel". "
Ultimately Obama will unleash the hounds on the Iranian terrorists unless Iran bows down.
Bombs in Iran 08!
"Barack Obama has pledged unwavering support for Israel in his first foreign policy speech since declaring himself the Democratic nominee for president.
He told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), a prominent Jewish lobby, Israel's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable".
He also said he would do "everything" to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon. "
"Turning his attention to Iran, Mr Obama said the US-led war in Iraq had emboldened the Islamic state, which posed a real, grave danger.
"My goal will be to eliminate this threat," he said.
Mr Obama said "aggressive, principled diplomacy" was needed to deal with Tehran but added that he would "always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel". "
Ultimately Obama will unleash the hounds on the Iranian terrorists unless Iran bows down.
Bombs in Iran 08!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
You conversion of what he said was pretty laughable really...but that may have been your point.
Well Iran should Obey it's master after all right?
all based on propagandic unsubstantiated lies at that...
yeap....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Seems to make a lot of sense?
Questions:
Why does Israel need the "unwavering support" of America?
Why is Iran a "real, grave danger"?
Why do they need to be intimidated with the "threat of military action"?
Answer those questions,
and withOUT making some 100% unsubstantiated statement like "Iran wants nukes".
Also think about the ironic context of what you may be implying in your response, in that the unproven allegations that Iran is secretly trying to become a rogue nuclear nation are HILLARIOUS when one considers that Israel IS a rogue nuclear nation, armed by US aid.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
To your first point: No. Iran should attack whoever it wants. (whether or not it will happen is up for debate, so let's set that aside for later.) Offering support for our allies is ridiculous (sarcasm).
Second: The Iranian leadership (that blames Israel for 9/11 (my first and hopefully last reference to that day)) has called you and told you that they hold no ill will toward them? Fine. Okay.
Diplomacy, with the threat of retaliation if there ever is violence toward our ally. Obama's a kook alright.
BTW, Most americans (the ones that vote in this country in november) don't want a president that doesn't seem strong in the face of violent adversity, as we saw in '04.
Yes, Obama isn't against using military force if it is required. But what candidate with a chance of winning has?
Not sure you get to tell me how to answer the questions...but I'll answer honestly anyhow:
1) Good point, no one should give "unwavering" support to anyone. It should waiver if circumstances change.
2) I don't trust the Iranian gov't. I believe they truly want to rid the world of Israelis. I believe they do deserve attention.
3) I don't think military action should be taken off the table...ever. Peace through strength. It should be used wisely, but you shouldn't consider it unusable.
Nothing ironic about any of this context.
Ultimately Obama is saying it will uphold US global hegemony in enacting military force on anyone in the middle east that opposes the neocon/zionist agenda.
= no change.
zip.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't believe that military action should ever really be off the table. However, intensive diplomacy should used before that ever becomes an option.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Well Iran et all WILL have to bow down under Obama or suffer the consequences because they're terrorists....not people.
They will bow down or suffer.
you know that right?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Where do you get this shit? Where has Senator Obama ever said that the Iranians are "terrorists"?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Anyhow, I think Obama's message is more about using diplomacy and not war (hence the message about the Iraq war emboldening Iran)...which is kinda funny since others seem to think he is saying the exact opposite.
ok "serious and grave threat" simple word semantics...
The situation is becoming crystal clear regardless.
Protect Israel at all costs on the pedestal they sit upon.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm sure Israel was all for him voting against that...
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
No wonder your always angry...you take peoples words and change them into something that pisses you off
You have to look at his actions over his words. He's drawing a line in the sand, and past that line is war.
Sounds peaceful and progressive
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
bingo...
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
So why did you post his words?
Seriously, you reading into it what you want to here in order to get upset.
So...really, you're basing this on your "ability" to read between the lines to what you think he is doing???
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I'm just seeing them for what they are. Always angry? ..lol that's your angle I
guess...
I have a very wide field of view on this situation outside of the usual MSNABCCBSNBCFOX news.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No just in what he is saying directly. It's quite clear.
You have to factor in Iran's rights as well....of which there are few to none in this scenario.
Do or die. Sounds just like Bush to me.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You're right. Anyone that disagrees with you only knows the major networks---we're not advanced enough to discover the wonders of wikipedia and youtube.com.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
lol....far wider than that. You just have to break free from the western media.
nice try though.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No. That's where you are wrong. Bush isn't "do or die". You can "do" all you want with Bush and he'll still bomb the shit out of you. An Obama administration would be different. There would be no rush to conflict, however, if Iran does attack Israel unprovoked...there should be consequences to go along with that.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world
Does it ever cross your mind that we too do our research outside of the western media?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Having a widescreen monitor to watch You Tube videos and read the musings of some 13 year-old blogger in Norway doesn't make you wordly.
I've posted this stuff before but here is some more hawkish sounding talks from Obama on Iran and a lot of this sounds strikingly similar to the rhetoric we have heard from Bush and Co....if you disagree could you point to me the main differences in Bush's approach to Iran and Obama's here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/01/new-08-iran-rift-obama-_n_70807.html
The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said.
in context:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article
He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."
in context:
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521
Mike Gravel Exposes Clinton & Obama on Iran,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o
McCain vs Obama on foreign policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NoN0ndnVWM
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The leader of Iran wants the Isreali people wiped off the map, and Obama's words upset you?
Sounds like he's pretty upset to me.
Oh...it's on to me directly now... ok I'll entertain the fact that you've already run out of gas on the knowledge part.
You don't know the half of it unfortunately.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Another victim of propaganda you are.
Israeli people? or oppressive Zionist regime akin to apartheid?
try again
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")