NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/02/12/obama-administration-accuses-iran-of-pursuing-nuclear-weapons/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story
Didn't we screw up that nation enough 50 years ago? Interventionist/imperialist foreign policy of the US since at least WW2 hasn't done much to earn international respect. Why the hell do our national leaders from both parties need to meddle in every nation? Why the lies, half-truths and propaganda to excuse every act?

I swear. If I read one more thread or hear one more talking point about Obama and "change", I'm going to "pow" Alice straight to the moon.

so one day the US wants to enter diplomacy with them, the next its making accusations it cant back up, i dont know about you but i dont think thats how diplomacy works

edit: 100th post, yay! :-D

Nice to see that the Israeli lobby hasn't lost any clout with the change in administration.

:rolleyes:

"Is it really all that much better to promise relatively less severe remedies to a false dilemma than your colleagues? Or does it simply legitimize the falsehood that has already been perpetrated and lead us all closer to a tragic and wholly unnecessary conclusion?"

Really. Using a softer tone while swinging the same mace and making the same threats. What an amazing improvement. It's the same damn thing as Bush.

Well, Iran may be after nuclear weapons. Though I wonder what evidence Obama's Administration has to back it up? If they have some, they should share it. If they have none, they should get some before they make accusations.

theres more of this hippocracy, there closing guantanamo, but refusing to send a UK citizen charged with nothing back here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7885310.stm

How long do you think it'll be before an international coalition led by the US occupies Iran over these accusations of the Islamic Republic seeking weapons of mass destruction?

I was told that if I didn't vote for Obama there would be massive unemployment, out-of-control inflation, and never-ending war in the Middle East. Well, I didn't vote for him and look what's happened. I have to find the person who told me this prophecy, maybe he'll get just as lucky picking lottery numbers.

I swear. If I read one more thread or hear one more talking point about Obama and "change", I'm going to "pow" Alice straight to the moon.Careful with that joke; it's an antique.

I want my vote back and I want him out of office NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Impeach Sauron!! Put Sarah Palin in the White House!!

theres more of this hippocracy, there closing guantanamo, but refusing to send a UK citizen charged with nothing back here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7885310.stm

Tell me more of this mystic land where Hippos have the vote!

Impeach Sauron!! Put Sarah Palin in the White House!!

Well, let's not do something crazy, here.

Tell me more of this mystic land where Hippos have the vote!

lol, typo i meant Hipocrisy not hippocracy

Tell me more of this mystic land where Hippos have the vote!

Right. We face the specter of yet another needless war, and you're mocking spelling errors. Nice to see some priorities.

Note: the reference to 50 years ago on my OP refers to this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) Some of you (especially my fellow Americans) may not have heard of it. They will never expect us to bring good. I can't blame them for not trusting any western nations.

Tell me more of this mystic land where Hippos have the vote!

Actually, if you stick to the Greek (like the word democracy), a "hippocracy" would be government by horses.

Careful with that joke; it's an antique.
Anyone else have the sudden urge to hop a train to Rhode Island and sing about it?

Right. We face the specter of yet another needless war, and you're mocking spelling errors. Nice to see some priorities.If you don't laugh every once in a while, the terrorists win.

Anyone else have the sudden urge to hop a train to Rhode Island and sing about it?Do I ever!

I am beginning to think originality is a fictional thing.

Right. We face the specter of yet another needless war, and you're mocking spelling errors. Nice to see some priorities

Prime Minister Obaysch demands his country's recognition! Hippos are people too!

Actually, if you stick to the Greek (like the word democracy), a "hippocracy" would be government by horses.

I think Caligula came closer to that dream than any other. Wonderful activist, that man.

You know, as idiotic as these comments from the Obama Administration may seem (how do we know the source isn't biased?), they do not nessissarily mean that the Obama Administration is heading for war in Iran.:rolleyes:

Do I ever!

I am beginning to think originality is a fictional thing.

meh...there's an old literary theory that there are 5 core stories, and everything is a variation on them.

I think Caligula came closer to that dream than any other. Wonderful activist, that man.

PETA should use him as a mascot.

My post number is a palindrome!

i swear. If i read one more thread or hear one more talking point about obama and "change", i'm going to "pow" alice straight to the moon.

thank you!

I swear. If I read one more thread or hear one more talking point about Obama and "change", I'm going to "pow" Alice straight to the moon.

Im still hearing people complain about that...

Where's the Change Obama?

thank you!

Im still hearing people complain about that...

Where's the Change Obama?

Did I mention that my mom's name is Alice? I don't think she'd like the moon much. Please, Obama, think of Sark's mom.

Im still hearing people complain about that...

Where's the Change Obama?

Iran and Iraq are different places. I mean come on there is a whole letter different in their names

This is legitimately a "Where's the change?" moment. I thought Obama was go with diplomacy, you know, the wuss route.

Ah, found it:
And there are indications that the U.S. and Iran are interested in holding serious diplomatic discussions for the first time in three decades. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said this week that his nation was "ready to hold talks based on mutual respect," and Obama indicated that his administration would look for opportunities "in the coming months."
I don't remember Obama promising to believe everything Iran said.

This is legitimately a "Where's the change?" moment. I thought Obama was go with diplomacy, you know, the wuss route.

Right, because a real man always makes bloodshead his first choice. Only pussies talk.:rolleyes:

Didn't we screw up that nation enough 50 years ago?
Not really, no. Rather the Shah than the Ayatollahs tbqh.
Interventionist/imperialist foreign policy of the US since at least WW2 hasn't done much to earn international respect. Why the hell do our national leaders from both parties need to meddle in every nation?
For fun and for profit.
Why the lies, half-truths and propaganda to excuse every act?
Because stupids make up the majority of the population and you need to keep them angry at things which aren't you.

Right, because a real man always makes bloodshead his first choice. Only pussies talk.:rolleyes:

Yes, and that's exactly what's happening here.

I was told that if I didn't vote for Obama there would be massive unemployment, out-of-control inflation, and never-ending war in the Middle East.

I know, right? I mean, why are we still in two protracted wars and a crippling economic recession? The man's had almost a full month to fix it!

I know, right? I mean, why are we still in two protracted wars and a crippling economic recession? The man's had almost a full month to fix it!

I'm beginning to think that Obama is not the Jesus Christ I voted for.

I'm beginning to think that Obama is not the Jesus Christ I voted for.
And where is my jetpack!?

And where is my jetpack!?

Your a Scot. no one wants you flying up in the Air. heaven forbid a child looks up and sees whats under your kilt.

And where is my jetpack!?

where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars. I don’t see any flying cars.

Ahh, it's fun to see Sisko get mad.

heaven forbid a child looks up and sees whats under your kilt.
A brute reality of everyday life in Scotland.

Kilts and jetpacks...

Your a Scot. no one wants you flying up in the Air. heaven forbid a child looks up and sees whats under your kilt.

Well a Scotsman clad in kilt left a bar on evening fair
And one could tell by how we walked that he drunk more than his share
He fumbled round until he could no longer keep his feet
Then he stumbled off into the grass to sleep beside the street
Ring ding diddle diddle I de oh ring di diddly I oh
He stumbled off into the grass to sleep beside the street

About that time two young and lovely girls just happend by
And one says to the other with a twinkle in her eye
See yon sleeping Scotsman so strong and handsome built
I wonder if it's true what they don't wear beneath the kilt
Ring ding diddle diddle I de oh ring di diddly I oh
I wonder if it's true what they don't wear beneath the kilt

They crept up on that sleeping Scotsman quiet as could be
Lifted up his kilt about an inch so they could see
And there behold, for them to see, beneath his Scottish skirt
Was nothing more than God had graced him with upon his birth
Ring ding diddle diddle I de oh ring di diddly I oh
Was nothing more than God had graced him with upon his birth

They marveled for a moment, then one said we must be gone
Let's leave a present for our friend, before we move along
As a gift they left a blue silk ribbon, tied into a bow
Around the bonnie star, the Scots kilt did lift and show
Ring ding diddle diddle I de oh ring di diddly I oh
Around the bonnie star, the Scots kilt did lift and show

Now the Scotsman woke to nature's call and stumbled towards a tree
Behind a bush, he lift his kilt and gawks at what he sees
And in a startled voice he says to what's before his eyes.
O lad I don't know where you been but I see you won first prize
Ring ding diddle diddle I de oh ring di diddly I oh
O lad I don't know where you been but I see you won first prize

And where is my jetpack!?

Obama is using it for his selfish bodily ascensions.

O lad I don't know where you been but I see you won first prize
Ring ding diddle diddle I de oh ring di diddly I oh
O lad I don't know where you been but I see you won first prize
Brings a tear to the eye...

Yes, and that's exactly what's happening here.

Oh I'm sorry, I missed the part where Obama declared war on Iran.:rolleyes:

Even if the comments are idiotic, this does not mean that Obama is planning or desires war with Iran. Everybody please get that through your head. Just because it turns out Obama isn't perfect does not mean he is an exact copy of George fucking W. Bush.

Oh I'm sorry, I missed the part where Obama declared war on Iran.:rolleyes:

Even if the comments are idiotic, this does not mean that Obama is planning or desires war with Iran. Everybody please get that through your head. Just because it turns out Obama isn't perfect does not mean he is an exact copy of George fucking W. Bush.

So I thought I'd work my mojo. To counter their mojo. We got cross-mojonation, and their heads started exploding. Well, you know...

I thought that you were refering to Obama's activities as "bloodthirsty" and non diplomatic, to which I replied, in sarcasm, which you took seriously...I do believe we crossed our streams.

So I thought I'd work my mojo. To counter their mojo. We got cross-mojonation, and their heads started exploding. Well, you know...

I thought that you were refering to Obama's activities as "bloodthirsty" and non diplomatic, to which I replied, in sarcasm, which you took seriously...I do believe we crossed our streams.

I see.

To clarify, then, I was mocking Ferrous Oxide's apparent belief that diplomacy is for wimps. I think Obama's comments are likely stupid, possibly inacurate, and perhaps not very diplomatic, but it would be quite a leap to go from that to claiming this is Iraq Mk 2.

But you should perhaps keep in mind that sarcasm can be easy to miss, especially on-line.

I see.

To clarify, then, I was mocking Ferrous Oxide's apparent belief that diplomacy is for wimps. I think Obama's comments are likely stupid, possibly inacurate, and perhaps not very diplomatic, but it would be quite a leap to go from that to claiming this is Iraq Mk 2.

But you should perhaps keep in mind that sarcasm can be easy to miss, especially on-line.

well, the idea of "inacurate and not very diplomatic", frankly I admit I haven't a damned idea what's going on in Iran, but I do remember the last time we heard the "We swear to GOD he's making WMDs" line got trotted out.

Are we going to have this 'change' thing every time someone wakes up and realises the sky is still blue? I don't quite remember Obama promising to give iran a free hand to do whatever it liked, including developing nuclear weapons.

well, the idea of "inacurate and not very diplomatic", frankly I admit I haven't a damned idea what's going on in Iran, but I do remember the last time we heard the "We swear to GOD he's making WMDs" line got trotted out.

Yeah well. Just because something was a lie once does not make it a lie every time. Of course, their's evidence according to the articles that Iran does not have a nuclear program, but even if Obama is making dishonest or mistaken claims, it doesn't nessissarily mean he is doing so with the same goals as Bush. I think Obama is smart enough to realize that an unprovoked war in Iran would end his Presidency, sink the economy, and hopelessly strain America's military. Like him or not, trust him or not, this man is intelligent and informed.

Nice to see that the Israeli lobby hasn't lost any clout with the change in administration.

:rolleyes:
Yes, because you have to be in the pocket of the evil Israeli lobby to not like the idea of a fanatical Islamic theocracy having control of nuclear weapons....:rolleyes:
Impeach Sauron!! Put Sarah Palin in the White House!!
You know, eventually you're gonna have to start defending the candidate you support instead of just making fun of those that are criticizing him for something....the whole "WHERE IS THE CHANGE" thing everytime someone says something against an Obama-policy is getting old. Very, very quickly.

(And I agree with Obama and the administration on this stance, btw)

... Well i still have some faith in Obama since he seemed better than bush in EVERY aspect. But i couldnt vote, coz im British. Shame... Oh well, ill just eat cookies and fart as usual.

oh and i eman, i couldnt vote for him, im actually in Britain lol.

You know, eventually you're gonna have to start defending the candidate you support instead of just making fun of those that are criticizing him for something....the whole "WHERE IS THE CHANGE" thing everytime someone says something against an Obama-policy is getting old. Very, very quickly.

(And I agree with Obama and the administration on this stance, btw)
You do know he's seeking diplomatic options of resolving this whole thing, right? Still sure you agree with him?

You do know he's seeking diplomatic options of resolving this whole thing, right? Still sure you agree with him?
Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.

Keeping diplomacy open with the option to use force and the willingness to state so, is the only thing that works as it shows that we are willing to work with you, but don't take our kindness as weakness.

Well, Iran may be after nuclear weapons. Though I wonder what evidence Obama's Administration has to back it up? If they have some, they should share it. If they have none, they should get some before they make accusations.
Well let's look at this.

They have the motive to make nuclear weapons:
Hate Israel, despise the west,
know that having nukes= Can't touch this=We can do whatever the hell we want.(Fund terrorists, make asses of ourselves, invade other countries, AKA act just like the US and Israel)
And they quite clearly now have the means.
Educated people, enough equipment to make weapons grade material.

The question is why WOULDN'T they be?

A nuke is the ultimate "Get out of international Jail free" card.

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.

Keeping diplomacy open with the option to use force and the willingness to state so, is the only thing that works as it shows that we are willing to work with you, but don't take our kindness as weakness.

So was that a yes, or a no?

Well let's look at this.

They have the motive to make nuclear weapons:
Hate Israel, despise the west,
know that having nukes= Can't touch this=We can do whatever the hell we want.(Fund terrorists, make asses of ourselves, invade other countries, AKA act just like the US and Israel)
And they quite clearly now have the means.
Educated people, enough equipment to make weapons grade material.

The question is why WOULDN'T they be?

A nuke is the ultimate "Get out of international Jail free" card.
Frankly, if I were them, I'd be interested in making them not because they hate Israel, but more because they've become slowly convinced thanks to the Bush administration that they're not going to stick around much longer, so they're desperate for something--anything--which will keep them from being pounded into the dirt.

And let's not forget that the leadership is not the same as the population, especially in a country like this where the leadership isn't entirely elected.

So was that a yes, or a no?
Obviously, you fool. :p If I didn't, why would I have just said what you have just quoted?

When Iran nukes Israel, I'll be here to say, "I told you so."

When Iran nukes Israel, I'll be here to say, "I told you so."

Wow, you're going to respond to the death of millions with a petty comment on an internet forum? Aren't you a big man.

Wow, you're going to respond to the death of millions with a petty comment on an internet forum? Aren't you a big man.

Sure, why not? Most of you are responding to the threat of Iran nuking Israel with petty comments.

Sure, why not? Most of you are responding to the threat of Iran nuking Israel with petty comments.

Probably because we're not so naive to assume that the leadership of Iran is so stupid. Nuclear weaponry is a deterrent against force being used against the possessor, not a weapon to be used by the possessor.

Probably because we're not so naive to assume that the leadership of Iran is so stupid. Nuclear weaponry is a deterrent against force being used against the possessor, not a weapon to be used by the possessor.


umm.....

umm.....
What? You disagree? That's essentially what nuclear weapons are nowadays. Deterrents.

And to be perfectly honest, I do believe that the leadership of Iran is not so stupid as to assume it can get away with using a nuclear weapon on Israel. If they nuke Israel, they will be nuked in turn. The only reason, therefore, for them to seek nuclear weapons is so they can prevent conventional force from being used against them with the promise that if it is, they will respond with nuclear force.

A deterrent.

What? You disagree? That's essentially what nuclear weapons are nowadays. Deterrents.

And to be perfectly honest, I do believe that the leadership of Iran is not so stupid as to assume it can get away with using a nuclear weapon on Israel. If they nuke Israel, they will be nuked in turn. The only reason, therefore, for them to seek nuclear weapons is so they can prevent conventional force from being used against them with the promise that if it is, they will respond with nuclear force.

A deterrent.
In International Politics, a common error to make is to look at the opponent's situation through our own mind, culture and reasons.

For example, someone who leads a theocracy, who believes they are working under the authority of God, who believes in the literal interpretation of the Koran as guidelines and laws for how to conduct policy, may not view things through the same light of reason you might. In fact, they may not view things through any light of reason as religion is about belief and reason is about facts.

Just a thought....

In International Politics, a common error to make is to look at the opponent's situation through our own mind, culture and reasons.

For example, someone who leads a theocracy, who believes they are working under the authority of God, who believes in the literal interpretation of the Koran as guidelines and laws for how to conduct policy, may not view things through the same light of reason you might. In fact, they may not view things through any light of reason as religion is about belief and reason is about facts.

Just a thought....

I contend that there is still reason in their actions, because they wouldn't have remained in power this long otherwise.

While you're right that I am potentially making an error here, another error would be to assume they must automatically be stupid if they are religious extremists. Underestimating a foe is just as big a mistake as assuming they look at things the way you do.

I contend that there is still reason in their actions, because they wouldn't have remained in power this long otherwise.

While you're right that I am potentially making an error here, another error would be to assume they must automatically be stupid if they are religious extremists. Underestimating a foe is just as big a mistake as assuming they look at things the way you do.

I never used the word stupid....

Anyway, obviously it's uncertain, but I make it a point not to trust an extremist islamic theocracy with nuclear weapons. How anyone could be comfterable with that, I have no idea....

I never used the word stupid....

Anyway, obviously it's uncertain, but I make it a point not to trust an extremist islamic theocracy with nuclear weapons. How anyone could be comfterable with that, I have no idea....

I didn't say I was comfortable. I'm not. I'm simply suggesting that their rationale is more along the lines of "Let's preserve ourselves" rather than "Let's go nuke Israel."

I never used the word stupid....

Anyway, obviously it's uncertain, but I make it a point not to trust an extremist islamic theocracy with nuclear weapons. How anyone could be comfterable with that, I have no idea....
Aye as opposed to the Israeli government... a big part of Likud is basically from Irgun who were terrorist scum as bad as Hezbollah.

1. I'm fairly certain Israel has nukes. Anyone who attacks them gets the consequence of Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran knows this, and if they are seeking nukes, it's to level the playing field with Israel. Israel's leaders haven't exactly hidden their desire to invade their neighbors.

2. U.S. spy agencies concluded that Iran has halted work on a nuclear weapon program, yet: President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability.

Obama's nominee to serve as CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, left little doubt about his view last week when he testified on Capitol Hill. "From all the information I've seen," Panetta said, "I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."

3. Operatives from the US and Britain conspired to overthrow a democraticaly-elected government in 1953. Iranians haven't forgotten that, and are justifiably suspicious of the motives of western nations. If anything, the US seems to threaten them more than they threaten the US, and that seems to have been consistent throughout the past 60+ years. More belligerence isn't going to fix that.

4. I thought the whole idea was to change foreign policy from belligerence to diplomacy and internal policy from government lies to open honesty. Here we have Obama making threats to a non-threatening nation and lying about their status as a threat.

Conclusion: I have NO patience for government obfuscation anymore. My tolerance for government bullshit is GONE. Clinton was bad, Bush worse, and Obama is showing NO change in anything except which party gets lip service or minor concessions. I know you leftists are tired of being asked, "Where's the change," but if a guy RUNS on the platform of change, we kinda EXPECT some change. Instead, I see:

A. more threats of war
B. more irresponsible spending
C. more lies to the people

IMHO, this issue is Obama's first major opportunity to show a new attitude, but he's not really doing anything significantly different.

Oh I'm sorry, I missed the part where Obama declared war on Iran.:rolleyes:

Even if the comments are idiotic, this does not mean that Obama is planning or desires war with Iran. Everybody please get that through your head. Just because it turns out Obama isn't perfect does not mean he is an exact copy of George fucking W. Bush.

He wants to send the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. well Iran is in the way.

Iran and Iraq are different places. I mean come on there is a whole letter different in their names

I meant people are still complaining about the "where's the change" comments...

Im waiting on Obama to Change this, lol...

1
I know you leftists are tired of being asked, "Where's the change," but if a guy RUNS on the platform of change, we kinda EXPECT some change.

His platform wasn't a single verb which "you conservatives" get to redefine every time you post a thread like this. The reason we get tired of it is because you apparently never comprehend this. Guy says "Change," now you point at anything that isn't some arbitrary, random change (His office is HEATED! HOLY SHIT!) and try to conclude that this means he's a liar who's breaking his campaign promises.

It never works, and you people never acknowledge this.

Instead, I see:

A. more threats of war

Bush didn't bring "threats of" war. He brought war.

Here is my Take.
does obama seem better then Bush ? Yes.

Does that mean we should not scrutinize Obama ?
Does that mean that even at the hint of war we should not make our opinion on the matter heard ?
Democracy is made in debate and questioning not in saying leader A is good we should OBEY.

How is he wrong for wanting to continue nuclear non-proliferation? Given the risk that nuclear weapons pose it's a really good idea to prevent more countries from getting them. While it's most likely true that Iran would not ever use such a weapon, it's also true that the dynamics of a conflict between, say, Iran and Israel is significantly different than one fought between the US and USSR.

If the parties involved don't have large enough arsenals for MAD, the chance of them using nukes against each other is probably a lot more likely. Now, I don't know if we can say that for sure, but considering I don't really want to live an IRL version of Fallout because we decided to back down from nuclear non-proliferation it's not worth testing the theory.

If the parties involved don't have large enough arsenals for MAD, the chance of them using nukes against each other is probably a lot more likely.
Given the diplomat ties that both countries have, and the paranoias that exist otherwise, MAD is, well, assured, no matter which country strikes first.

How is he wrong for wanting to continue nuclear non-proliferation? Given the risk that nuclear weapons pose it's a really good idea to prevent more countries from getting them. While it's most likely true that Iran would not ever use such a weapon, it's also true that the dynamics of a conflict between, say, Iran and Israel is significantly different than one fought between the US and USSR.

If the parties involved don't have large enough arsenals for MAD, the chance of them using nukes against each other is probably a lot more likely. Now, I don't know if we can say that for sure, but considering I don't really want to live an IRL version of Fallout because we decided to back down from nuclear non-proliferation it's not worth testing the theory.

was bushes stated aim in invading Iraq to prevent nuclear proliferation ?
the goal is fine. what we need to keep an eye on is the means.

Here is my Take.
does obama seem better then Bush ? Yes.

Does that mean we should not scrutinize Obama ?
Does that mean that even at the hint of war we should not make our opinion on the matter heard ?
Democracy is made in debate and questioning not in saying leader A is good we should OBEY.

He's not threatening war. The article in the op in fact states that both parties are still intent on meeting to talk (which, for those who can seem to find it for whatever reason, is the fucking change). Obama did make a mistake and then corrected himself, pointing to it being nuclear capability. It's not 'hint of war' if before you sit down with someone you acknowledge, "Hey, I see what you're doing there." I have to say this again, I don't remember Obama campaigning on "I'll believe everything Iran says." He's still planning on talking to them. He didn't frame his comment with "and if you don't stop it we'll bomb you to the stone age." He's just going, "Hey, look, we're not stupid. There's more to building a nuclear bomb than just the detonation device and the nuclear material." If he's wrong, yeah, I expect him to back off of it. But he simply doesn't have the track record that Bush managed to create where once this kind of thing started the blinders were on and there was no stopping it. And again, the intent is completely different. He still intends to talk, not bomb. As soon as he starts talking about bombing, that's a different conversation. But pretending that it's this one is just wrong.

1. I'm fairly certain Israel has nukes. Anyone who attacks them gets the consequence of Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran knows this, and if they are seeking nukes, it's to level the playing field with Israel. Israel's leaders haven't exactly hidden their desire to invade their neighbors.

2. U.S. spy agencies concluded that Iran has halted work on a nuclear weapon program, yet:

3. Operatives from the US and Britain conspired to overthrow a democraticaly-elected government in 1953. Iranians haven't forgotten that, and are justifiably suspicious of the motives of western nations. If anything, the US seems to threaten them more than they threaten the US, and that seems to have been consistent throughout the past 60+ years. More belligerence isn't going to fix that.

4. I thought the whole idea was to change foreign policy from belligerence to diplomacy and internal policy from government lies to open honesty. Here we have Obama making threats to a non-threatening nation and lying about their status as a threat.

Conclusion: I have NO patience for government obfuscation anymore. My tolerance for government bullshit is GONE. Clinton was bad, Bush worse, and Obama is showing NO change in anything except which party gets lip service or minor concessions. I know you leftists are tired of being asked, "Where's the change," but if a guy RUNS on the platform of change, we kinda EXPECT some change. Instead, I see:

A. more threats of war
B. more irresponsible spending
C. more lies to the people

IMHO, this issue is Obama's first major opportunity to show a new attitude, but he's not really doing anything significantly different.

1)I don't know why you'd think that. Israel has never invaded anyone to gain territory. Occasionally they have invaded to protect their sovereignty but never stayed despite the fact that they could have (see egypt)

2)After gaining nuclear weapons technology . . .and somehow now they're working on ballistic missiles . . .how bout that.

3)And succeeded. . .remember who is in power now? That's right the government they put in power, the religiously extremist government that has time and again said they would like nothing more to commit genocide against the Jewish nation. Oh and they are holocaust deniers too.

4)non-threatening? tell me . . .how so exactly?

5)he is showing change. He is backing a staunch US ally who was left out in the cold by the bush administration.

1)I don't know why you'd think that. Israel has never invaded anyone to gain territory. Occasionally they have invaded to protect their sovereignty but never stayed despite the fact that they could have (see egypt)
Maybe you should read up a little more on your history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Israeli_control_.281967-94.29

2)After gaining nuclear weapons technology . . .and somehow now they're working on ballistic missiles . . .how bout that.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/index.html
Following the launch of the first Offeq satellite, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reportedly calculated that the Shavit "could transport a nuclear warhead a minimum of 5,300 km" if deployed as a ballistic missile, and analysts at the Defense Department estimated a range of 7,200 km for the missile, with an unspecified payload capacity. In July 1990, Steve Fetter, a physicist at the University of Maryland, calculated the payload and range parameters of the Shavit, based on data about the two Offeq launches provided in the press. He found that if the Shavit were deployed as a ballistic missile it could deliver a 775-kg payload a distance of 4,000 km, putting the whole of the Middle East (and a large part of the former Soviet Union) within striking distance.

Maybe you should read up a little more on your history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Israeli_control_.281967-94.29


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/index.html

never claimed the israelies didn't have Ballistic missiles just that others did.

More importantly they gave most of that territory back.

5)he is showing change. He is backing a staunch US ally who was left out in the cold by the bush administration.
What? Who are you talking about? Israel? They had carte blanche under the Bush administration - almost unwavering, unconditional support. They were as warm and cuddly as they have ever been.

More importantly they gave most of that territory back.
The hell they did. The Golan heights and the occupied territories are still occupied.

In International Politics, a common error to make is to look at the opponent's situation through our own mind, culture and reasons.

For example, someone who leads a theocracy, who believes they are working under the authority of God, who believes in the literal interpretation of the Koran as guidelines and laws for how to conduct policy, may not view things through the same light of reason you might. In fact, they may not view things through any light of reason as religion is about belief and reason is about facts.

Just a thought....

You don't see the Iranian mullahs strapping on bomb vests and charging Israel with AKs do you? Or for that matter, actually going to war with Israel. You might argue that they know they'll get their asses kicked, but it only reinforces my point.

The one constant you'll find in any power structure, no matter what sort of culture or mindset, the people who hold the reins of power love it too much to give it up easily.

Instead, I see:

A. more threats of war
B. more irresponsible spending
C. more lies to the people


Where exactly do you see this?

Snip

even a misconception or a misquote needs to be looked at when it is as serious as war.

even a misconception or a misquote needs to be looked at when it is as serious as war.

Yeah...great, except the misstep was what he was accusing them of, not his intentions...so...yah know...

Yeah...great, except the misstep was what he was accusing them of, not his intentions...so...yah know...

thats fine so the investigation results are some right wing nut was a jackass.

thats fine so the investigation results are some right wing nut was a jackass.

What?

What?

we investigate the obama is war mongering.

the results of the investigation are.
That some anti obama nut is talking trash. Not war mongering.

Right, because a real man always makes bloodshead his first choice. Only pussies talk.:rolleyes:

HELL YEAH!

http://i1.tinypic.com/o0o07q.gif



:p

Threats of War, Economic Meltdown, Civil Unrest, the Failure of a Beloved President....


Sounds like a job for...


http://bp3.blogger.com/_a-Su2SAnGYU/RlkyFMmMhxI/AAAAAAAAAmI/JU06YCWDpME/s400/the+decider.jpg

Impeach Sauron!! Put Sarah Palin in the White House!!
lol, we finally agree on something Gauthier.

Well let's look at this.

They have the motive to make nuclear weapons:
Hate Israel, despise the west,

So does a large portion of the rest of the world, including much of the west.

know that having nukes= Can't touch this=We can do whatever the hell we want.(Fund terrorists, make asses of ourselves, invade other countries, AKA act just like the US and Israel)
And they quite clearly now have the means.
Educated people, enough equipment to make weapons grade material.

Motive and means are not the same as proof. If the evidence isn't their, or even worse, against them pursuing nuclear weapons, then you need to reconsider your position.

The question is why WOULDN'T they be?

Why wouldn't the other countries that have elected not to have them? How about international reputation, peace, and hell, what about just the cost?

A nuke is the ultimate "Get out of international Jail free" card.

In Iran's case, its also their best shot at getting nuked.