Obama chimes in at AIPAC today

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

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."

Why not? At least promise to not preemptively use violence against them.

RainDog wrote:

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.

because we have been busy being their enemy. you know...like what happens when you threaten someone and have a past with them and using violence against them

RainDog wrote:

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

*completely jealous* I'm stuck in a house with a broken central air unit and it's 90 degrees out! Tomorrow and the repairman can't come soon enough!

Have a good one and enjoy!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

two situations exist.

Obama is either lying to the world, or Israel, about his true intentions.

Either way, he's lying to someone.

If I were an Obama fan, I wouldn't be fluffing off his ongoing rhetoric of upholding Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war on another country according to the best interests of the apartheid regime folks who are running the show in Israel right now. "Unbreakable alliance" he says....one and the same.

In a nutshell, Iran is a insubordinate little shit and must be schooled....yet again ....apparently.

Obama Peace Train 08!

yeah...

my2hands

ledvedderman wrote:

Where do you get this shit? Where has Senator Obama ever said that the Iranians are "terrorists"?

they take an inch and make it into a mile to fit their pre concieved perceptions


it happens more and more around here

RolandTD20Kdrummer

my2hands wrote:

they take an inch and make it into a mile to fit their pre concieved perceptions


it happens more and more around here

Call them whatever you want....

War is coming to their soil on the exact same premise of terrorism...

forest form the trees my friend.

my2hands

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Call them whatever you want....

War is coming to their soil on the exact same premise of terrorism...

forest form the trees my friend.

so you're railing against the person that has clearly stated he will actually engage in diplomacy with iran?


you guys are really stretching to make Obama out to be a war monger, it used to be comical now it is just silly... but perhaps some people think all politicians are secretly programmed to be military industrial complex new world order puppets :rolleyes:

by the way... have you guys completely missed the little iranian threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" constantly the past few years... or perhaps that doesnt fit your already determined agenda so you ignore it (now go ahead and stretch that out to me saying i am advocating war with Iran :rolleyes: )

RolandTD20Kdrummer

my2hands wrote:

so you're railing against the person that has clearly stated he will actually engage in diplomacy with iran?


you guys are really stretching to make Obama out to be a war monger, it used to be comical now it is just silly... but perhaps some people think all politicians are secretly programmed to be military industrial complex new world order puppets :rolleyes:

by the way... have you guys completely missed the little iranian threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" constantly the past few years... or perhaps that doesnt fit your already determined agenda so you ignore it (now go ahead and stretch that out to me saying i am advocating war with Iran :rolleyes: )

When you weigh it out...the diplomacy vibe is falling short.


Iran never said it's going to wipe israel off the map....oh ffs... cmon people.

firstquartermoon

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

When you weigh it out...the diplomacy vibe is falling short.


Iran never said it's going to wipe israel off the map....oh ffs... cmon people.

On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map. The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:

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



Of course he didn't.:rolleyes:

RolandTD20Kdrummer

firstquartermoon wrote:

On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map. The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:

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



Of course he didn't.:rolleyes:

See bolded. He's right. Same as Bush is not the entire United States, and that guy should also be wiped from the pages of history.

no brainer. Wiping a country from the map?...never happened.

never said.

my2hands

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

no brainer. Wiping a country from the map?...never happened.

never said.

you are flat out amazing :rolleyes:

why is it so many people are ignoring reality all of the sudden?

my2hands

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

See bolded. He's right. Same as Bush is not the entire United States, and that guy should also be wiped from the pages of history.

no brainer. Wiping a country from the map?...never happened.

never said.

you think he meant the israeli "government" by saying "occupying regime"?


he is clearly refering to the entire state of Israel dude, clear as day

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7435883.stm

"Barack Obama has pledged unwavering support for Israel in his first foreign policy speech since declaring himself the Democratic nominee for president.

He told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), a prominent Jewish lobby, Israel's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable".

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

"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.

Mr Obama said "aggressive, principled diplomacy" was needed to deal with Tehran but added that he would "always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel". "


Ultimately Obama will unleash the hounds on the Iranian terrorists unless Iran bows down.

Bombs in Iran 08!

You are taking his quotes out of context just like you accuse everyone else of doing to your man in Iran.

cincybearcat

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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

Hahaha...not so much...even less now.

But I do agree with what I'll call, aggresive diplomacy. Done right, it avoids conflict in my opinion. Though, it must be managed well or it goes over the line. So you need the right people handling it...as we've seen.

Sludge Factory

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.

Talking tough is not a sign of Leadership. Talking reasonable would be. Just take any number of management courses and I'm pretty sure Leaders are expected to treat others with respect and not ominious potential threats.

Its Evolution Baby

Sludge Factory wrote:

Talking tough is not a sign of Leadership. Talking reasonable would be. Just take any number of management courses and I'm pretty sure Leaders are expected to treat others with respect and not ominious potential threats.

I'm sorry but talking tough is a sign of leadership. Parents coaches teachers etc do it all of the time. By talking tough I don't necessarily mean threaten but it means standing your ground and not backing down in certain instances.

Someone who talks tough all of the time is a douche like Bush, but a president is expected to use threats at times for diplomacy. All Presidents have and will continue to use this tool.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I'm sorry but talking tough is a sign of leadership. Parents coaches teachers etc do it all of the time. By talking tough I don't necessarily mean threaten but it means standing your ground and not backing down in certain instances.

Someone who talks tough all of the time is a douche like Bush, but a president is expected to use threats at times for diplomacy. All Presidents have and will continue to use this tool.

So presidents should be encouraged to coerce other countries into submitting to what they want by threatening them with violence?? And you don't see how that causes resentment and anger which in turn fuels distrust and terrorism....especially in regions like the middle east where our foreign policy speaks for itself and has cause these people so much suffering. We are supposed to come in like bullying assholes and tell them if we don't get our way we will bomb the shit out of them?

You reason with people to get them to see your point of view, not threaten them with violence. If your reasons are true and hold water then you wouldn't need to resort to violent threats in the first place.

Sludge Factory

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I'm sorry but talking tough is a sign of leadership. Parents coaches teachers etc do it all of the time. By talking tough I don't necessarily mean threaten but it means standing your ground and not backing down in certain instances.

Someone who talks tough all of the time is a douche like Bush, but a president is expected to use threats at times for diplomacy. All Presidents have and will continue to use this tool.

Maybe I'm misreading something here, but what you just wrote appears to be somewhat contradictory.

You say that by talking tough you don't mean threaten, but then go on to say a president is expected to use threats.

I wonder, where did this expectation come from that leaders are supposedly supposed to be tough talkers? Maybe it comes from a long line of traditionally incompetent leaders who attempt to compensate their own inability to actually "lead" effectively by using so called "big talk".

Even though we have the capabilities to bully other people around, we don't need to go around throwing it in other people's faces. I'm pretty sure it is a given that the U.S. is a powerhouse. Why the need to always ruffle our feathers towards other countries?

mammasan

This is no suprise. I don't think it's even remotely possible to win the presidency if you don't whore yourself out to AIPAC.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

my2hands wrote:

you think he meant the israeli "government" by saying "occupying regime"?


he is clearly refering to the entire state of Israel dude, clear as day

He means Zionism dude.

look into it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

You are taking his quotes out of context just like you accuse everyone else of doing to your man in Iran.

Oh right...diplomacy.

Drop all nuclear ambitions or perish.. we command you. We own you. Do as we say.

No, we have a right to nuclear power.

Ok....you're terrorists....you want to destroy the world....attack.

Nice diplomacy scenario.

Sounds like master slave to me but whatever get you Obama fans through the night.

Love is Blind so they say..and some people love them some Obama that's for sure.

my2hands

dude... no one is buying your picture that obama is a war monger itching to invade iran :rolleyes: