Obama chimes in at AIPAC today

24567

Comments

  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I have a very wide field of view on this situation outside of the usual MSNABCCBSNBCFOX news.

    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.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    ledvedderman wrote:
    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.


    lol....far wider than that. You just have to break free from the western media.

    nice try though.
    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)
    (")_(")
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    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.

    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.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • firstquartermoon
    firstquartermoon Posts: 103
    2005 "World Without Zionism" speech:

    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
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    lol....far wider than that. You just have to break free from the western media.

    nice try though.

    Does it ever cross your mind that we too do our research outside of the western media?
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,892
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    lol....far wider than that. You just have to break free from the western media.

    nice try though.


    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.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    ledvedderman wrote:
    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...

    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
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • firstquartermoon
    firstquartermoon Posts: 103
    firstquartermoon wrote:
    2005 "World Without Zionism" speech:

    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

    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.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    cincybearcat wrote:
    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.


    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.
    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)
    (")_(")
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    firstquartermoon wrote:
    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.


    Another victim of propaganda you are.

    Israeli people? or oppressive Zionist regime akin to apartheid?

    try again
    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)
    (")_(")
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Does it ever cross your mind that we too do our research outside of the western media?


    Too much research isn't automatically a bad thing. But you just need to make an effort to remain objective and unbiased. You're not exactly innocent here of being biased and not too objective concerning Obama, either. So let's try to be fair here. :)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • firstquartermoon
    firstquartermoon Posts: 103
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.

    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


    It might be more convincing if there weren't so many edits in the qoutes. Between Obama saying that action needs to be taken about Iran's nuclear program...maybe even military action. What was said in between?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    firstquartermoon wrote:
    It might be more convincing if there weren't so many edits in the qoutes. Between Obama saying that action needs to be taken about Iran's nuclear program...maybe even military action. What was said in between?

    You have a point and I'm not sure to be honest. But I do know that I don't like what he had to say in some of those quotes no matter what the context. He is clearly demonizing the Iranian gov't and saber rattling, do you disagree with that assessment?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Too much research isn't automatically a bad thing. But you just need to make an effort to remain objective and unbiased. You're not exactly innocent here of being biased and not too objective concerning Obama, either. So let's try to be fair here. :)

    I'm clearly a supporter of his, however when he says something that I disagree with I will call him out on it. 1) I wish he would be for allowing gays to marry, not just have civil unions. 2) I don't buy the whole "being unaware of the NAU angle". 3) As someone pointed out earlier, he is a little unclear on his position for gun control.

    There's many others, but I'm not just baaa'ing all the time either.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • firstquartermoon
    firstquartermoon Posts: 103
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    You have a point ... But I do know that I don't like ...the Iranian gov't and saber rattling, do you disagree with that assessment?

    See what context does?

    On topic, If rattling sabers dissuades an actual military action, and helps bring peace to an unstable area, then maybe.
  • Its Evolution Baby
    Its Evolution Baby Posts: 849
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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

    Umm just because someone is not against using force doesn't mean they are hawkish like Bush or McCain. Look at all liberal presidents we have had in the last 100 years: FDR, JFK, Clinton etc. They all used force when necessary. The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama will try to use diplomacy before force where it was not the case with Bush.

    I hate War but we need to have National Security policies. This has been the case since the Greeks and Romans ruled the world and it won't change as long as Humans rule the earth.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    The US is already at war and has declared so financially with Iran. I'm surprised Obama is rubbing in the salt despite this.

    The will obey it seems. No nuclear power for them.
    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)
    (")_(")
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,892
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    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.


    I believe you were the one commenting on our lack of a wordly information.

    But back on point, Obama didn;t say any of the things you are accusing him of.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,892
    firstquartermoon wrote:
    See what context does?

    On topic, If rattling sabers dissuades an actual military action, and helps bring peace to an unstable area, then maybe.


    One could argue that saber rattling is a form of diplomacy to avoid military conflict. So long as you do speak in private and keep communication going.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • firstquartermoon
    firstquartermoon Posts: 103
    cincybearcat wrote:
    One could argue that saber rattling is a form of diplomacy to avoid military conflict. So long as you do speak in private and keep communication going.

    My point exactly. I may have forgotten to add the second part.

Categories