Obama chimes in at AIPAC today

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

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.

Abookamongstthemany

cincybearcat wrote:

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

You know the Cold War was complete bullshit.

and war goes beyond just saber rattling and is exactly my point here.

Abookamongstthemany

ledvedderman wrote:

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

Okay then, what do you see as the pressing issues that face us today?

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

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?

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You know the Cold War was complete bullshit.

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.

Abookamongstthemany

audome25 wrote:

"becasue he wears blue and I wear blue!

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?

cincybearcat

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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?

Hey, that must mean I'm fairly consistent in your opinion, huh?

Abookamongstthemany

cincybearcat wrote:

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 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?

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

cincybearcat wrote:

Hey, that must mean I'm fairly consistent in your opinion, huh?

Yes, actually....you filthy warmongering con.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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?

Obama said he'd meet with Ahmadinijad.

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

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?

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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?

1. Que?

2. Wha?

3. Bush has also said that he won't talk to leaders until they agree with him anyway.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

Obama said he'd meet with Ahmadinijad.

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.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

3. Bush has also said that he won't talk to leaders until they agree with him anyway.

And where is this quote?

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

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.

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And where is this quote

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.