Down the middle?

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's a general concensus by many, but anyway... regardless, if you were (an intelligent) and true antiwar candidate, would you leave youself open to interpretation that you would use nuclear force and definitely consider it a viable response to an already fragile situation?

That would be incredibly stupid and irresponsible now wouldn't it?

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

My original point was. Obama said he supported" all military option are on the table", and this is interpreted to include nukes especially as there have been grumblings about using them dating back to 2005. All options on the table is Bush speak.

something is not a general consensus when you're one of the very few that can't/doesn't comprehend reality.

from his website on foreign policy issues:

Iran
The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have NOT exhausted our NON-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.
Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.


(now I personally do not support the WTO, but i can see where diplomatically it's needs to be open to all countries that want to be involved)




Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it's to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.





you still going to insist that Obama is looking to drop nukes on Iran?

prism wrote:

you still going to insist that Obama is looking to drop nukes on Iran?

I never said he was looking for it, just that he has been quoted fully supporting Israel and openly promoting providing military aid to them. Israel commits some brutal acts and Obama supports this as well by unconditionally providing support to Israel as a staunch ally. He should realize that. He certainly knows about it what goes on with the Palestinians.

He isn't exactly speaking against anything by offering full military support and financial aid for them to carry on as per usual. He could be a lot more resembling of a humanitarian stance there to say the least. So yeah, that's a red flag. Also when you say all military options are on the table, it not exactly a peaceful anti-war sentiment, especially when everyone is talking nuclear. Rather foolish for an ant-war guy to get his wires crossed up like that.

This isn't a stretch by any means to say there is some cause for legitimate concern there from a self proclaimed ambassador of peace.

Somethings missing from the picture.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That's the thing. He says that, and then turns around and says he will provide full military aid to Israel, and that Israel's security is the main priority above all else.

Does he even realize what is taking place there?

I know he does.

he does not say that israel's sercurity is the main priority above all else. those are YOUR words.


what Obama said does not imply that he favors using military force or dropping nukes on Iran. you might just want to read his words that were already posted in post #25

also when Obama said that in regards to Iran that "all options are on the table" he did not say "all military options are on the table" once again those are YOUR words. your twisting around the things that candidates actually say to suit your agenda just makes YOU look like a tool...a very dull tool at that.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

My original point was. Obama said he supported" all military option are on the table", and this is interpreted to include nukes especially as there have been grumblings about using them dating back to 2005. All options on the table is Bush speak.

If someone says they are an antiwar candidate and they are saying they're not against using nuclear force something is not jiving. I would think an antiwar candidate would outright proclaim he was definitely against using nuclear force as an option.

Don't you think? All military options are on the table, but I'm against using them?

What do you mean by "anti-war" candidate? Why would anybody vote for a candidate who came out and said he was against war under any circumstances?

And the point of having nuclear weapons is that you DON'T have to use them. They kind of lose their scariness when you have a leader saying, "Yeah we have them. But don't worry. We'll never use them ever."

slightofjeff wrote:

What do you mean by "anti-war" candidate? Why would anybody vote for a candidate who came out and said he was against war under any circumstances?

And the point of having nuclear weapons is that you DON'T have to use them. They kind of lose their scariness when you have a leader saying, "Yeah we have them. But don't worry. We'll never use them ever."

Ok let me ask you this? Are you getting an overwhelmingly strong peace vibe from the examples I listed?

I sure as hell am not seeing it. Something doesn't jive with what he says and how he supposedly "feels" about Peace.

It isn't adding up.

jlew24asu wrote:

when are you going to get it. saying all options on the table doesnt = We will nuke you

It sure as hell doesn't mean it doesn't now does it?

If you claim the rules before a fight are anything goes...expect dirty fighting.

There have been grumblings and now NATO is saying it IS a viable option.

So yeah...there it is.

jlew24asu wrote:

source? or did a little birdie tell you.

I've only posted 4 links on this site already.

:rolleyes: