Obama chimes in at AIPAC today

RolandTD20Kdrummer

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!

fuck

not surprised. you'll never see a man in the white house not itching to please aipac.

cincybearcat

What he said seems to make a lot of sense to me.

You conversion of what he said was pretty laughable really...but that may have been your point.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cincybearcat wrote:

What he said seems to make a lot of sense to me.

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....

DriftingByTheStorm

cincybearcat wrote:

What he said seems to make a lot of sense to me.

You conversion of what he said was pretty laughable really...but that may have been your point.

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:

firstquartermoon

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well Iran should Obey it's master after all right?

all based on propagandic unsubstantiated lies at that...

yeap....

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?

cincybearcat

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

firstquartermoon wrote:

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?

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.

ledvedderman

I'm assuming you are taking the words "eliminate the threat" as "turn them into fucking glass".

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

ledvedderman wrote:

I'm assuming you are taking the words "eliminate the threat" as "turn them into fucking glass".

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?

ledvedderman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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?

Where do you get this shit? Where has Senator Obama ever said that the Iranians are "terrorists"?

cincybearcat

By the way...Obama didn't use the term "unwavering support", the person that wrote the article did...


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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

ledvedderman wrote:

Where do you get this shit? Where has Senator Obama ever said that the Iranians are "terrorists"?

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.

ledvedderman

Really? Because, I seem to remember Senator Obama voting against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that declared the Iranian guard a terrorist organization.

I'm sure Israel was all for him voting against that...

cincybearcat

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

No wonder your always angry...you take peoples words and change them into something that pisses you off

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cincybearcat wrote:

By the way...Obama didn't use the term "unwavering support", the person that wrote the article did...


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.

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

ledvedderman

cincybearcat wrote:

No wonder your always angry...you take peoples words and change them into something that pisses you off

bingo...

cincybearcat

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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

So why did you post his words?

Seriously, you reading into it what you want to here in order to get upset.

ledvedderman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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

So...really, you're basing this on your "ability" to read between the lines to what you think he is doing???

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cincybearcat wrote:

No wonder your always angry...you take peoples words and change them into something that pisses you off

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

ledvedderman wrote:

So...really, you're basing this on your "ability" to read between the lines to what you think he is doing???

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.