Obama chimes in at AIPAC today

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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?

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.

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.)

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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...

firstquartermoon

RainDog wrote:

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.

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

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?

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

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.

fuck

If Nader was president, there wouldn't have been a 9/11.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

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.

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.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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?

EXACTLY. That is where Bush failed. He never finished in Afghanistan and went to Iraq which was beyond stupid and unnecessary.

Obama has said this repeatedly that he would never have left Afghanistan and we should redeploy troops to Iraq to finish up with Al Queda.

In the days after 9/11 the world was with us and then Bush went and pissed it all away. Obama will build our relationships with our past allies which is something that McCain will not do. Our country could become in grave danger if our only Allies are Isreal, Japan and the UK.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I made my point in the part of my reply you left out.

And I made my point to that point in my last paragraph, but simply forgot to repaste your quote back in.

Strangest Tribe

I wish Iran would get nukes so all this dog and pony shit would subside.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

EXACTLY. That is where Bush failed. He never finished in Afghanistan and went to Iraq which was beyond stupid and unnecessary.

Obama has said this repeatedly that he would never have left Afghanistan and we should redeploy troops to Iraq to finish up with Al Queda.

In the days after 9/11 the world was with us and then Bush went and pissed it all away. Obama will build our relationships with our past allies which is something that McCain will not do. Our country could become in grave danger if our only Allies are Isreal, Japan and the UK.

What could we have done in Afghanistan that needs/needed to be finished up? What is the objective there and how is it going to help us in the future? Is staying in Afghanistan going to end terrorism? All signs point to us invading and occupying these countries as leading to MORE terrorism.

Our country would be just fine if we'd stop attacking other countries and use defense for just what it means.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

My logic, eh? Well, that's it then. This passive-aggressive call out has convinced me. I'm on your side now!

Of course I didn't really think I wasn't, but eh? You know.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Using Abookamongstthemany's logic: Why does it always have to be some extreme either/or? Couldn't it be that international relations are much more complex than either "I promise to never hurt you. Let's talk!" or "You brownies is all gonna die!"

Couldn't it be that having a strong hand when dealing with known violent regimes is good for diplomacy - and could in fact lead to less violence, maybe even no violence?

firstquartermoon

RainDog wrote:

My logic, eh? Well, that's it then. This passive-aggressive call out has convinced me. I'm on your side now!

Of course I didn't really think I wasn't, but eh? You know.


Using Abookamongstthemany's logic: Why does it always have to be some extreme either/or? Couldn't it be that international relations are much more complex than either "I promise to never hurt you. Let's talk!" or "You brownies is all gonna die!"

Couldn't it be that having a strong hand when dealing with known violent regimes is good for diplomacy - and could in fact lead to less violence, maybe even no violence?

I, too was slightly confused, and reread your post. I still don't know what he/she's talking about. I think he/she has selective reading.

Here's a ponderance for you. If you and he agree, and you and I are making the same point, does that mean that he/she and I have been argueing the same side of the argument for the last hour, wasting our lives? (I think that if the first answer is no, the second is still yes.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

My logic, eh? Well, that's it then. This passive-aggressive call out has convinced me. I'm on your side now!

Of course I didn't really think I wasn't, but eh? You know.


Using Abookamongstthemany's logic: Why does it always have to be some extreme either/or? Couldn't it be that international relations are much more complex than either "I promise to never hurt you. Let's talk!" or "You brownies is all gonna die!"

Couldn't it be that having a strong hand when dealing with known violent regimes is good for diplomacy - and could in fact lead to less violence, maybe even no violence?

I don't believe threatening a country with violence in a region where we have meddled, exploited, devastated and destroyed time and time again isn't the way to go, imo, no matter who is the one doing the threatening be it Nader, Bush, McCain or Obama. That is my point here. I don't view it as productive, progressive or in any way a 'change'. Simply saying you will talk with Iran while demonzing them in speeches whenever it suits your purposes doesn't say too much to me.

Strangest Tribe

it's simple


pandering

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't believe threatening a country with violence in a region where we have meddled, exploited, devastated and destroyed time and time again isn't the way to go, imo, no matter who is the one doing the threatening be it Nader, Bush, McCain or Obama. That is my point here. I don't view it as productive, progressive or in any way a 'change'. Simply saying you will talk with Iran while demonzing them in speeches whenever it suits your purposes doesn't say too much to me.

That demonizing goes both ways, though. And you can't simply say "I promise, from the bottom of my heart, to never use violence against you. Now, let's have a conversation."

The fact is, the Iranian government isn't the most rational government around. Willingness to discuss issues with them, even with muscle flexing, is a huge step in the right direction. We haven't discussed anything with them for 2 decades, I believe.

Now, I'm off to see a free concert and drink some beer. You all have a good one!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

really.. I guess thee BBC has turned into a tabloid then