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.
Ralph Nader would be smart enough to know that Afghanistan and Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Just like he's smart enough to see our support of Israel and saber rattling towards Iran for what it is. I don't think he would have started a war, so we can agree to disagree on that and on your assessment that pacifism will never exist with the human race. It is my assertion that the human race will cease to exist without implementing much MORE pacifism....and feel free to agree to disagree with me on that matter, too.
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
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.
How do you know what he wants exactly? It changes all the time depending on what crowd he's in front of.
And who said anything about randomly threatening to bomb anyone? Why try to make up a point against some illusionary opinion that's not there?
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
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.
This is what I was speaking to earlier. You ignore my point and rail on about one small reference I made.
You said: "Obama is doing the same thing Bush did by warmongering"
Bush beat us over the head that we were in danger, and he still does it to this day, to get us into war.
My question was: When has Obama beat us over the head with fear to get us into war with Iran? When has he stated that he has decided to go to war, and nothing with change his mind?
I don't really expect a response, and am always surprised by the one small item you choose to latch onto and make a post about.
I asked how Bush and Obama were similar, using the warmongering rhetoric Bush did leading into the Iraq war (and just for clarification that is the latest war we've gotten ourselves into). Instead of answering my question, you insult my intelligence and pass over my point.
The Iraq war is the only war Bush sold us. And you brought up the fact that Bush sold us a war. My brain made the connection.
You also said that Obama is the same.
Where are the qoutes? When has he said we're going to war? When has he tried to sell us this war, telling us that diplomacy won't work? Answer that, please.
and war goes beyond just saber rattling and is exactly my point here.
Sure it was.
And like I said, saber rattling can be effective if you follow it with diplomacy by speaking in private with your adversaries...it can be very effective.
It achieves the end we all want, no military conflict, but it helps speed up the process if you can be stern and talk tough, and also back it up if push comes to shove.
And like I said, saber rattling can be effective if you follow it with diplomacy by speaking in private with your adversaries...it can be very effective.
It achieves the end we all want, no military conflict, but it helps speed up the process if you can be stern and talk tough, and also back it up if push comes to shove.
And you're sure that's what's going on here? That this is all just talking loud with no real threat of war or aggression behind it? And you're sure that threatening a country that already doesn't trust us and knows very well just what we are capable of is a good idea and won't give them even more reason to despise us and build up a greater defense and fuel terrorist sentiments among it's population?
The end justifies the means, eh?
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
How do you know what he wants exactly? It changes all the time depending on what crowd he's in front of.
And who said anything about randomly threatening to bomb anyone? Why try to make up a point against some illusionary opinion that's not there?
He says that he wants diplomacy. He says that if our allies are attacked unprovoked there will be consequences.
My comment about threatening to bomb everyone was in fact not the point of the post. You ignored the post, took one sentence, and railed on it.
My point is that he hasn't said that he's going to bomb them, but that he isn't against using military force if neccesary.
And you're sure that's what's going on here? That this is all just talking loud with no real threat of war or aggression behind it? And you're sure that threatening a country that already doesn't trust us and knows very well just what we are capable of is a good idea and won't give them even more reason to despise us and build up a greater defense and fuel terrorist sentiments among it's population?
The end justifies the means, eh?
He wasn't threatening them. He was telling AIPAC that they don't need to be afraid of an attack from Iran, because we would back them up.
Does that mean he's telling Iran that they are going to be bombed out of the blue, no.
Diplomacy without anything to back it up gives them no reason to listen.
He says that he wants diplomacy. He says that if our allies are attacked unprovoked there will be consequences.
My comment about threatening to bomb everyone was in fact not the point of the post. You ignored the post, took one sentence, and railed on it.
My point is that he hasn't said that he's going to bomb them, but that he isn't against using military force if neccesary.
So he hasn't said anything really, then? That's the usual Obama stance.
I'm not really for orange but I'm not against it either.
Bush has also said we will use diplomacy first but he's a terrible warmongerer. Why the double standard?
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
sounds like Bush would prefer diplomacy, too but how much stock can we really take into that?
and we all know how good Obama is with talking to folks. I'm more worried about
actions here. He can easily say that 'at least I tried to talk with Iran' and then have a greenlight to do what he pleases. I don't know if that will be the case or not but given some of the strong language Obama has used concerning the use of force against Iran, I certainly am weary of it.
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
Ralph Nader would be smart enough to know that Afghanistan and Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Just like he's smart enough to see our support of Israel and saber rattling towards Iran for what it is. I don't think he would have started a war, so we can agree to disagree on that and on your assessment that pacifism will never exist with the human race. It is my assertion that the human race will cease to exist without implementing much MORE pacifism....and feel free to agree to disagree with me on that matter, too.
I agree our country needs more Pacifism. But we disagree that Obama won't lead to this. I think he will rebuild our countries relationships with past Allies that hated Bush. That way if we find ourselves in another war we would have more help and support fighting it. I also believe a preemptive war like we did in Iraq would not occur under Obama.
I believe sometimes he does talk tough but that to me is a sign of Leadership not being a Hawk.
And if Nader did nothing after 9/11 then he would have been a bigger failure then Bush. And his own country would have removed him from office.
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!!!)
He wasn't threatening them. He was telling AIPAC that they don't need to be afraid of an attack from Iran, because we would back them up.
Does that mean he's telling Iran that they are going to be bombed out of the blue, no.
Diplomacy without anything to back it up gives them no reason to listen.
No reason to listen? So the way you get people to listen to you is to threaten them with violence?
You get people to listen to you by being reasonable.
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
Setting aside his stated reluctance to enter the presidential campaign, President Bush on Thursday strongly criticized Barack Obama’s expressed readiness to meet with foreign leaders cast as tyrants, warning that such discussions “can be extremely counterproductive” and “send the wrong signal.”
...challenge to Obama’s readiness to meet with the pariahs of American foreign policy that Bush plunged most directly into the presidential campaign.
The president said that “sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro” would lend the status of the American presidency to the new Cuban leader.
“He gains a lot from it by saying, ‘Look at me, I’m now recognized by the president of the United States,’ ” Bush said.
“I’m not suggesting there’s never a time to talk, but I’m suggesting now is not the time … to talk with Raul Castro,” Bush said.
“He’s nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.
“The decisions of the U.S. president to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive,” he said. “It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake.”
sounds like Bush would prefer diplomacy, too but how much stock can we really take into that?
From the article you linked to:
"Few of his aides expect that Iran's leaders will meet Mr. Bush's main condition: that Iran first re-suspend all of its nuclear activities, including shutting down every centrifuge that could add to its small stockpile of enriched uranium."
And, if you've been paying attention to the primaries, you know that Obama has been hit repeatedly for saying he'd meet without these preconditions.
But you don't believe him. You believe Nader, though. But, since neither has ever been president before, there really is no way of qualifying either candidate's remarks with actual executive actions.
No reason to listen? So the way you get people to listen to you is to threaten them with violence?
You get people to listen to you by being reasonable.
When dealing with unreasonable people, this is sometimes easier said than done.
Would you rather have Obama say: "Agree to peace, and I'll nuke Israel myself."? (This is a hypothetical qoute not to be construed as real or accurate. In fact, I'm sure it'll never happen. But Iran would find it pretty reasonable.)
I agree our country needs more Pacifism. But we disagree that Obama won't lead to this. I think he will rebuild our countries relationships with past Allies that hated Bush. That way if we find ourselves in another war we would have more help and support fighting it. I also believe a preemptive war like we did in Iraq would not occur under Obama.
I believe sometimes he does talk tough but that to me is a sign of Leadership not being a Hawk.
And if Nader did nothing after 9/11 then he would have been a bigger failure then Bush. And his own country would have removed him from office.
I didn't say Nader should do nothing. I said going to war with those other countries would not have been his answer and that's a good thing because look at the disasters they turned out to be. What have we accomplished since 9/11 with these uses of force? I'm saying Nader would have used much better foresight, imo and wouldn't be so quick to jump the gun and attack another country.
And don't make me laugh about this country removing a failure of a president from office. Hahahahahahahaha Riiiiiiight. So Nader would be impeached for not going into the very same war that everyone has been riding Bush's ass about for years now?? Wow.
What I'm saying here is that Obama's 'hard talks' on Iran aren't very far removed from Bush's. yet Obama is seen as some anti-war good guy who's going to save us all by doing the exact same kinds of things like threaten to attack another country preemptively....and the wonders of the US foreign policy rolls on...
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
From the article you linked to:
"Few of his aides expect that Iran's leaders will meet Mr. Bush's main condition: that Iran first re-suspend all of its nuclear activities, including shutting down every centrifuge that could add to its small stockpile of enriched uranium."
And, if you've been paying attention to the primaries, you know that Obama has been hit repeatedly for saying he'd meet without these preconditions.
But you don't believe him. You believe Nader, though. But, since neither has ever been president before, there really is no way of qualifying either candidate's remarks with actual executive actions.
I completely agree.
But I do feel a little cheated by giving him/her the qoute, when it is obviously mine. Oh, well. No harm no foul. Edit: Oops. I read it wrong. Sorry.
I didn't say Nader should do nothing. I said going to war with those other countries would not have been his answer and that's a good thing because look at the disasters they turned out to be. What have we accomplished since 9/11 with these uses of force? I'm saying Nader would have used much better foresight, imo and wouldn't be so quick to jump the gun and attack another country.
And don't make me laugh about this country removing a failure of a president from office. Hahahahahahahaha Riiiiiiight. So Nader would be impeached for not going into the very same war that everyone has been riding Bush's ass about for years now?? Wow.
What I'm saying here is that Obama's 'hard talks' on Iran aren't very far removed from Bush's. yet Obama is seen as some anti-war good guy who's going to save us all by doing the exact same kinds of things like threaten to attack another country preemptively....and the wonders of the US foreign policy rolls on...
Now who's confusing wars? If everyone said Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, attacked us, and Nader said, "Let's change our policies to not upset them." you bet your ass he'd be gone.
When dealing with unreasonable people, this is sometimes easier said than done.
Would you rather have Obama say: "Agree to peace, and I'll nuke Israel myself."? (This is a hypothetical qoute not to be construed as real or accurate. In fact, I'm sure it'll never happen. But Iran would find it pretty reasonable.)
Who is being unreasonable, exactly.... Iran or the US? maybe both? just a thought.
No, I would rather Obama not say that either. So those are the only choices inside Obama's bag of wonderful ideas? Lord help us.
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
Now who's confusing wars? If everyone said Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, attacked us, and Nader said, "Let's change our policies to not upset them." you bet your ass he'd be gone.
Is it always some extreme either/or with you?
So what did we accomplish exactly by invading Afghanistan? Are there no more terrorists? Nope...there's actually even more now. IS Bin Laden captured? Nope...couldn't manage that either. So what was the point and why are you so quick to defend something that was a blatant failure?
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
From the article you linked to:
"Few of his aides expect that Iran's leaders will meet Mr. Bush's main condition: that Iran first re-suspend all of its nuclear activities, including shutting down every centrifuge that could add to its small stockpile of enriched uranium."
And, if you've been paying attention to the primaries, you know that Obama has been hit repeatedly for saying he'd meet without these preconditions.
But you don't believe him. You believe Nader, though. But, since neither has ever been president before, there really is no way of qualifying either candidate's remarks with actual executive actions.
I made my point in the part of my reply you left out.
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
Setting aside his stated reluctance to enter the presidential campaign, President Bush on Thursday strongly criticized Barack Obama’s expressed readiness to meet with foreign leaders cast as tyrants, warning that such discussions “can be extremely counterproductive” and “send the wrong signal.”
...challenge to Obama’s readiness to meet with the pariahs of American foreign policy that Bush plunged most directly into the presidential campaign.
The president said that “sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro” would lend the status of the American presidency to the new Cuban leader.
“He gains a lot from it by saying, ‘Look at me, I’m now recognized by the president of the United States,’ ” Bush said.
“I’m not suggesting there’s never a time to talk, but I’m suggesting now is not the time … to talk with Raul Castro,” Bush said.
“He’s nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.
“The decisions of the U.S. president to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive,” he said. “It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake.”
Not exaclty a direct qoute, but it seems pretty reasonable to think that he wouldn't talk.
To use RainDog's logic: Bush never said he wouldn't ever talk to those leaders and since Obama has never been in the position to maybe he will back out, too.
Even if Obama or Bush did talk with Iran, that in no way means they wouldn't still use aggression. I will say Obama makes it seem he is more willing to listen...of course he does, he's gotta win votes from the left. However, his constant talks of threatening Iran with force are much more telling in my eyes than him saying he would talk with them. As usual, Obama gets away with saying things pointing in two different directions and it's all fine and good.
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
Comments
Ralph Nader would be smart enough to know that Afghanistan and Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Just like he's smart enough to see our support of Israel and saber rattling towards Iran for what it is. I don't think he would have started a war, so we can agree to disagree on that and on your assessment that pacifism will never exist with the human race. It is my assertion that the human race will cease to exist without implementing much MORE pacifism....and feel free to agree to disagree with me on that matter, too.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You know the Cold War was complete bullshit.
and war goes beyond just saber rattling and is exactly my point here.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Okay then, what do you see as the pressing issues that face us today?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
How do you know what he wants exactly? It changes all the time depending on what crowd he's in front of.
And who said anything about randomly threatening to bomb anyone? Why try to make up a point against some illusionary opinion that's not there?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This is what I was speaking to earlier. You ignore my point and rail on about one small reference I made.
You said: "Obama is doing the same thing Bush did by warmongering"
Bush beat us over the head that we were in danger, and he still does it to this day, to get us into war.
My question was: When has Obama beat us over the head with fear to get us into war with Iran? When has he stated that he has decided to go to war, and nothing with change his mind?
I don't really expect a response, and am always surprised by the one small item you choose to latch onto and make a post about.
I asked how Bush and Obama were similar, using the warmongering rhetoric Bush did leading into the Iraq war (and just for clarification that is the latest war we've gotten ourselves into). Instead of answering my question, you insult my intelligence and pass over my point.
The Iraq war is the only war Bush sold us. And you brought up the fact that Bush sold us a war. My brain made the connection.
You also said that Obama is the same.
Where are the qoutes? When has he said we're going to war? When has he tried to sell us this war, telling us that diplomacy won't work? Answer that, please.
Sure it was.
And like I said, saber rattling can be effective if you follow it with diplomacy by speaking in private with your adversaries...it can be very effective.
It achieves the end we all want, no military conflict, but it helps speed up the process if you can be stern and talk tough, and also back it up if push comes to shove.
That's it.
If there was some difference in Obama's position on Iran and Bush's, I'd really like to see it. Anyone?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hey, that must mean I'm fairly consistent in your opinion, huh?
And you're sure that's what's going on here? That this is all just talking loud with no real threat of war or aggression behind it? And you're sure that threatening a country that already doesn't trust us and knows very well just what we are capable of is a good idea and won't give them even more reason to despise us and build up a greater defense and fuel terrorist sentiments among it's population?
The end justifies the means, eh?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
He says that he wants diplomacy. He says that if our allies are attacked unprovoked there will be consequences.
My comment about threatening to bomb everyone was in fact not the point of the post. You ignored the post, took one sentence, and railed on it.
My point is that he hasn't said that he's going to bomb them, but that he isn't against using military force if neccesary.
Yes, actually....you filthy warmongering con.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
He wasn't threatening them. He was telling AIPAC that they don't need to be afraid of an attack from Iran, because we would back them up.
Does that mean he's telling Iran that they are going to be bombed out of the blue, no.
Diplomacy without anything to back it up gives them no reason to listen.
So he hasn't said anything really, then? That's the usual Obama stance.
I'm not really for orange but I'm not against it either.
Bush has also said we will use diplomacy first but he's a terrible warmongerer. Why the double standard?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
2. Wha?
3. Bush has also said that he won't talk to leaders until they agree with him anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/world/middleeast/01iran.html
sounds like Bush would prefer diplomacy, too but how much stock can we really take into that?
and we all know how good Obama is with talking to folks. I'm more worried about
actions here. He can easily say that 'at least I tried to talk with Iran' and then have a greenlight to do what he pleases. I don't know if that will be the case or not but given some of the strong language Obama has used concerning the use of force against Iran, I certainly am weary of it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And where is this quote?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I agree our country needs more Pacifism. But we disagree that Obama won't lead to this. I think he will rebuild our countries relationships with past Allies that hated Bush. That way if we find ourselves in another war we would have more help and support fighting it. I also believe a preemptive war like we did in Iraq would not occur under Obama.
I believe sometimes he does talk tough but that to me is a sign of Leadership not being a Hawk.
And if Nader did nothing after 9/11 then he would have been a bigger failure then Bush. And his own country would have removed him from office.
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!!!)
No reason to listen? So the way you get people to listen to you is to threaten them with violence?
You get people to listen to you by being reasonable.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Setting aside his stated reluctance to enter the presidential campaign, President Bush on Thursday strongly criticized Barack Obama’s expressed readiness to meet with foreign leaders cast as tyrants, warning that such discussions “can be extremely counterproductive” and “send the wrong signal.”
...challenge to Obama’s readiness to meet with the pariahs of American foreign policy that Bush plunged most directly into the presidential campaign.
The president said that “sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro” would lend the status of the American presidency to the new Cuban leader.
“He gains a lot from it by saying, ‘Look at me, I’m now recognized by the president of the United States,’ ” Bush said.
“I’m not suggesting there’s never a time to talk, but I’m suggesting now is not the time … to talk with Raul Castro,” Bush said.
“He’s nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.
“The decisions of the U.S. president to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive,” he said. “It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/29/nation/na-bush29
Not exaclty a direct qoute, but it seems pretty reasonable to think that he wouldn't talk.
"Few of his aides expect that Iran's leaders will meet Mr. Bush's main condition: that Iran first re-suspend all of its nuclear activities, including shutting down every centrifuge that could add to its small stockpile of enriched uranium."
And, if you've been paying attention to the primaries, you know that Obama has been hit repeatedly for saying he'd meet without these preconditions.
But you don't believe him. You believe Nader, though. But, since neither has ever been president before, there really is no way of qualifying either candidate's remarks with actual executive actions.
When dealing with unreasonable people, this is sometimes easier said than done.
Would you rather have Obama say: "Agree to peace, and I'll nuke Israel myself."? (This is a hypothetical qoute not to be construed as real or accurate. In fact, I'm sure it'll never happen. But Iran would find it pretty reasonable.)
I didn't say Nader should do nothing. I said going to war with those other countries would not have been his answer and that's a good thing because look at the disasters they turned out to be. What have we accomplished since 9/11 with these uses of force? I'm saying Nader would have used much better foresight, imo and wouldn't be so quick to jump the gun and attack another country.
And don't make me laugh about this country removing a failure of a president from office. Hahahahahahahaha Riiiiiiight. So Nader would be impeached for not going into the very same war that everyone has been riding Bush's ass about for years now?? Wow.
What I'm saying here is that Obama's 'hard talks' on Iran aren't very far removed from Bush's. yet Obama is seen as some anti-war good guy who's going to save us all by doing the exact same kinds of things like threaten to attack another country preemptively....and the wonders of the US foreign policy rolls on...
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I completely agree.
But I do feel a little cheated by giving him/her the qoute, when it is obviously mine. Oh, well. No harm no foul. Edit: Oops. I read it wrong. Sorry.
Now who's confusing wars? If everyone said Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, attacked us, and Nader said, "Let's change our policies to not upset them." you bet your ass he'd be gone.
Who is being unreasonable, exactly.... Iran or the US? maybe both? just a thought.
No, I would rather Obama not say that either. So those are the only choices inside Obama's bag of wonderful ideas? Lord help us.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Is it always some extreme either/or with you?
So what did we accomplish exactly by invading Afghanistan? Are there no more terrorists? Nope...there's actually even more now. IS Bin Laden captured? Nope...couldn't manage that either. So what was the point and why are you so quick to defend something that was a blatant failure?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I made my point in the part of my reply you left out.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
To use RainDog's logic: Bush never said he wouldn't ever talk to those leaders and since Obama has never been in the position to maybe he will back out, too.
Even if Obama or Bush did talk with Iran, that in no way means they wouldn't still use aggression. I will say Obama makes it seem he is more willing to listen...of course he does, he's gotta win votes from the left. However, his constant talks of threatening Iran with force are much more telling in my eyes than him saying he would talk with them. As usual, Obama gets away with saying things pointing in two different directions and it's all fine and good.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde