Obama chimes in at AIPAC today

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

I want someone better than all those presidents you listed. No one can force us to attack another country and they are pros at selling war to the public via fear. The smooth talking Obama, I see, will have no problems leading this nation into whatever conflict he decides to. I haven't see one of his supporters speak out about this or even act weary but those same types wanted Bush's head for evening mentioning the same thing.

All this talk is leading us up to another war very possibly....and as the saying goes 'I'm already against it.'

Why is it that talk like this from Bush is seen as warmongering and fear tactics but from the smiling, young Obama suddenly it all becomes so understandable????
I view that double standard and straight bullshit through and through.

'War is okay as long as it's a Democrats selling it to us!'

*pukes*

Abookamongstthemany

ledvedderman wrote:

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.

But what of the big issues? Those are the ones that will matter and are supposed to separate him from Bush, McCain, Hillary and Bill Clinton...and on those issues he seems very much intune with the policies of the past.

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I want someone better than all those presidents you listed. No one can force us to attack another country and they are pros at selling war to the public via fear. The smooth talking Obama, I see, will have no problems leading this nation into whatever conflict he decides to. I haven't see one of his supporters speak out about this or even act weary but those same types wanted Bush's head for evening mentioning the same thing.

All this talk is leading us up to another war very possibly....and as the saying goes 'I'm already against it.'

Why is it that talk like this from Bush is seen as warmongering and fear tactics but from the smiling, young Obama suddenly it all becomes so understandable????
I view that double standard and straight bullshit through and through.

'War is okay as long as it's a Democrats selling it to us!'

*pukes*

How many times has Obama told us that we need to go to war or be killed? Has he said that he's decided and that nothing will change his mind?
Please link to some qoutes (without ellipsesis (sp?) would be nice).

ledvedderman

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I want someone better than all those presidents you listed. No one can force us to attack another country and they are pros at selling war to the public via fear. The smooth talking Obama, I see, will have no problems leading this nation into whatever conflict he decides to. I haven't see one of his supporters speak out about this or even act weary but those same types wanted Bush's head for evening mentioning the same thing.

All this talk is leading us up to another war very possibly....and as the saying goes 'I'm already against it.'

Why is it that talk like this from Bush is seen as warmongering and fear tactics but from the smiling, young Obama suddenly it all becomes so understandable????
I view that double standard and straight bullshit through and through.

'War is okay as long as it's a Democrats selling it to us!'

*pukes*

No one is saying that. We are saying that what Obama is saying, is not what Roland is trying to spin it into. I've stated that if Israel is attacked unprovoked by Iran, there should be consequences.

Abookamongstthemany

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.

Somehow I doubt threatening to bomb a country is going to make them feel more at ease about us and convince them they don't need to be building a large defense against us....especially when looking at it from Iran's preceptive where we have fucked with them in the past, destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan, help aid and fund Israel to destroy Palestine and Lebanon.....oh gee, I'm sure they'll really take well to us threatening them like this! :rolleyes:

Abookamongstthemany

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.

That's worked out so well for us in the past.

ledvedderman

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But what of the big issues? Those are the ones that will matter and are supposed to separate him from Bush, McCain, Hillary and Bill Clinton...and on those issues he seems very much intune with the policies of the past.

In all due respect Abook, not everyone shares the same ideals as what clasifies as a "big issue". You and I clearly do not.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

How many times has Obama told us that we need to go to war or be killed? Has he said that he's decided and that nothing will change his mind?
Please link to some qoutes (without ellipsesis (sp?) would be nice).

Where has Bush said this about Iran? They are never that direct.

fuck

ledvedderman wrote:

however, if Iran does attack Israel unprovoked...there should be consequences to go along with that.

why is that even a possibility? Iran has not said they would attack Israel unprovoked or anything. the only possibility is for the US or Israel to attack Iran unprovoked and NOT the other way around.

"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.

Why is Iran "a real, grave danger"?? They have done absolutely nothing wrong or in violation of international law, unlike Israel. What is this "threat" he wants to "eliminate"? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no threat at all.

Why does he go talk to AIPAC and pledge support to Israel, but not call them out on all the human rights laws they are in violation of? Why does he not talk about the Palestinians' rights? Why does he choose to ignore this all and, instead, go on to talk about the "threat" Iran poses.

He also said he would do "everything" to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

wtf does that even mean? There has been no proof to support this claim. If Obama really wanted peace, he shouldn't be talking shit like this. He should be saying he wants diplomatic talks with Iran, NOT to "stop them from getting a weapon", but to say he wants peace with them. That he understands the US' role in the region has been far too overwhelming for the people living there, and that he hopes to fix that. If he thinks he is going to win Iran over like this, then he's clearly an idiot just saying what AIPAC wants to hear.

Obama can get peace if he wants. The problem is that he just has to play into the lobbyists' hands, like all corrupt politicians. Unfortunately, many of you people actually believe he's going to bring "change." The big men in Washington really did a good job here. Let's get some black guy, give him a nice slogan, and sell him off to the public...

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Somehow I doubt threatening to bomb a country is going to make them feel more at ease about us and convince them they don't need to be building a large defense against us....especially when looking at it from Iran's preceptive where we have fucked with them in the past, destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan, help aid and fund Israel to destroy Palestine and Lebanon.....oh gee, I'm sure they'll really take well to us threatening them like this! :rolleyes:

Threatening to bomb them obviously (as stated in the qoutes at the very beginning of the discussion) isn't the only method, but is a determent to future aggression.
Please, disregard my view, find one thing you don't like about my post, and rail on that for another post. (sarcasm)

Abookamongstthemany

ledvedderman wrote:

No one is saying that. We are saying that what Obama is saying, is not what Roland is trying to spin it into. I've stated that if Israel is attacked unprovoked by Iran, there should be consequences.

I'm not talking about what Rolnad posted, I'm talking about what I posted. So what he said in the pieces I posted doesn't sound very familiar to you at all?

If Bush had said the exact same things, there would be 20 threads crying about 'here we go again...bush is a warmongerer'

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Where has Bush said this about Iran? They are never that direct.

I never said they did. You were the one that said Obama is doing with Iran what Bush has done in the past. I was referencing the Iraq war, when we were inundated with our government telling us why we had to go to war. If Obama has ever made statements similar to the ones made leading to the Iraq war (and there must be for you to be so worried) would you please share them with us?

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

Threatening to bomb them obviously (as stated in the qoutes at the very beginning of the discussion) isn't the only method, but is a determent to future aggression.
Please, disregard my view, find one thing you don't like about my post, and rail on that for another post. (sarcasm)

And it could cause more aggression just as easily. You know, threatening people usually doesn't turn out too well...that's pretty universal. Iran can see what we have done. 'It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.'

And whatever you're going on about in the last half of your reply is anybody's guess.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

I never said they did. You were the one that said Obama is doing with Iran what Bush has done in the past. I was referencing the Iraq war, when we were inundated with our government telling us why we had to go to war. If Obama has ever made statements similar to the ones made leading to the Iraq war (and there must be for you to be so worried) would you please share them with us?

No one is talking about the Iraq war here. The political climate is waaay different now than just after 9/11 before the war started....so your point is moot.

audome25

ledvedderman wrote:

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.

right like when bush bombed this shit out of north korea.

oh no we payed them off. right.

Its Evolution Baby

Abooks...

I want to pose a question to you. What do you think President Ralph Nadar would have done post 9/11? Or what about Post Pearl Harbor?

You bet your ass he would have started a war.

Its the job of ANY COUNTRY leader to protect its people and land. It is also a job to stand with your Allies. Obama is not a Hawk like Bush but he will defend his Country and Allies if provoked. But he is OPEN TO COMMUNICATION. That is the big difference between McCain and Obama. I believe you would find the actual Ralph Nader to be very similar to Obama on National Security.

And again most on this board do not like war and are against the War in Iraq but pure Pacifism will never exist with the Human Race; mostly due to religion.

Abookamongstthemany

_outlaw wrote:

why is that even a possibility? Iran has not said they would attack Israel unprovoked or anything. the only possibility is for the US or Israel to attack Iran unprovoked and NOT the other way around.

"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.

Why is Iran "a real, grave danger"?? They have done absolutely nothing wrong or in violation of international law, unlike Israel. What is this "threat" he wants to "eliminate"? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no threat at all.

Why does he go talk to AIPAC and pledge support to Israel, but not call them out on all the human rights laws they are in violation of? Why does he not talk about the Palestinians' rights? Why does he choose to ignore this all and, instead, go on to talk about the "threat" Iran poses.

He also said he would do "everything" to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

wtf does that even mean? There has been no proof to support this claim. If Obama really wanted peace, he shouldn't be talking shit like this. He should be saying he wants diplomatic talks with Iran, NOT to "stop them from getting a weapon", but to say he wants peace with them. That he understands the US' role in the region has been far too overwhelming for the people living there, and that he hopes to fix that. If he thinks he is going to win Iran over like this, then he's clearly an idiot just saying what AIPAC wants to hear.

Obama can get peace if he wants. The problem is that he just has to play into the lobbyists' hands, like all corrupt politicians. Unfortunately, many of you people actually believe he's going to bring "change." The big men in Washington really did a good job here. Let's get some black guy, give him a nice slogan, and sell him off to the public...

Excellent post!

audome25

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why is it that talk like this from Bush is seen as warmongering and fear tactics but from the smiling, young Obama suddenly it all becomes so understandable????
I view that double standard and straight bullshit through and through.

'War is okay as long as it's a Democrats selling it to us!'

*pukes*

"becasue he wears blue and I wear blue!

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And it could cause more aggression just as easily. You know, threatening people usually doesn't turn out too well...that's pretty universal. Iran can see what we have done. 'It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.'

And whatever you're going on about in the last half of your reply is anybody's guess.

I don't think Obama is going to go around randomly threatening to bomb everyone.
He was speaking to a very small demographic, and tailored his speech as such. If he were speaking to low-income white Americans, he would probably talk about how he wants to get Bin Laden, eliminate the threat Al Qaeda holds over the world...oh, that's right he does.
He wants diplomacy, but he wants to make sure our enemies know that he's not entirely against military action if needed. It's just that simple.

cincybearcat

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That's worked out so well for us in the past.

You remember the Cold War...you remember any 'War' with that?