Obama gives his first TV interview as President

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

Whatever is necessary. The difference between what he is doing now and what our country has been doing in the past is that we are giving diplomacy a better chance. If you don't have confidence that he will be willing to do what is necessary then that is your own opinion, but understand that your entire argument revolves around your own personal confidence and has nothing to do with facts.

Oh I see.. so if Obama gives diplomacy a BETTER chance, THEN goes to war its OK? Exactly how do you define 'better' here? Seems a little vague to me.

Better = not initiating the first strike. It's a precedent set by great men in our nation's history, for instance Eisenhower chose to leave the Soviets alone before they had fully developed the nuclear bomb. The soviets were a much greater threat than Iran, however Eisenhower stood by the great American belief of moral superiority where we do NOT initiate first strike.

To betray ideals that have taken hundreds of years to perfect in pursuing a reckless foreign policy is not what we should be championing. If Obama does first strike Iran then I will hold him as accountable as Bush in Iraq, no matter the diplomatic dialogue preceding it.

The most unfortunate part of Bush's presidency is the betrayal of the first strike policy never violated by any other previous president, a grave set back for the U.S.

 

[Xellos2099]

So it is better to get attack first then strike back? You must be smoking some good stuff. Moral mean jack if you put your own civilian at risk.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

Send over all the republican keyboard commandos. They should be able to collapse Iran with their concentrated whining within months.

Why should the Republican keyboard commandos go over?

Exactly. Why go now this late in the game. I didn't expect your kind's cowardice to diminish over time, why would you get brave all of a sudden.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So it is better to get attack first then strike back? You must be smoking some good stuff. Moral mean jack if you put your own civilian at risk.

Xellos,

42 (?) presidents made this decision. I am not smoking good shit, I'm just not some internet tough guy who shrugs off the morality of the situation. There have been far graver threats to the U.S. than some lunatic terrorists (read Japanese, Germans, Soviets) where presidents made the moral decision to not first strike. Please go ahead and invalidate hundreds of thousands of soldier's deaths in the past fighting with the morality of America behind them so we "might" "potentially" stave off some lunatic from blowing up a building or something which "might" kill "some" people.

I love how people act like this is the gravest threat in the world, get a grip on reality the U.S. has dealt with far worse enemies without sacrificing it's integrity via first strikes and torture. The past threats that have faced the U.S. were orders of magnitude greater.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So it is better to get attack first then strike back? You must be smoking some good stuff. Moral mean jack if you put your own civilian at risk.

Xellos,

42 (?) presidents made this decision. I am not smoking good shit, I'm just not some internet tough guy who shrugs off the morality of the situation. There have been far graver threats to the U.S. than some lunatic terrorists (read Japanese, Germans, Soviets) where presidents made the moral decision to not first strike. Please go ahead and invalidate hundreds of thousands of soldier's deaths in the past fighting with the morality of America behind them so we "might" "potentially" stave off some lunatic from blowing up a building or something which "might" kill "some" people.

I love how people act like this is the gravest threat in the world, get a grip on reality the U.S. has dealt with far worse enemies without sacrificing it's integrity via first strikes and torture. The past threats that have faced the U.S. were orders of magnitude greater.

Heh, on that point, any number of things such as :

Fatty foods
Cigarettes
Alcohol
Automobiles
Swimming
OTC or Prescription Medications

Kill DROVES more Americans than Terrorists ever have, or ever will.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

Whatever is necessary. The difference between what he is doing now and what our country has been doing in the past is that we are giving diplomacy a better chance. If you don't have confidence that he will be willing to do what is necessary then that is your own opinion, but understand that your entire argument revolves around your own personal confidence and has nothing to do with facts.

Oh I see.. so if Obama gives diplomacy a BETTER chance, THEN goes to war its OK? Exactly how do you define 'better' here? Seems a little vague to me.

If, at this point in time, you cant see what Bush did, in choosing a costly war over diplomacy, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. I cant tell if you are a moron, or just a total asshole. Neither of which is worth shit to me.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

Send over all the republican keyboard commandos. They should be able to collapse Iran with their concentrated whining within months.

Why should the Republican keyboard commandos go over?

Exactly. Why go now this late in the game. I didn't expect your kind's cowardice to diminish over time, why would you get brave all of a sudden.

You are not making any sense. I asked the question if Obama fails to achieve peace through diplomacy.. THEN what.. CitizenKain responded with 'Send the republicans'. How does that make any sense? Or are you just in favor of killing Republicans?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

Whatever is necessary. The difference between what he is doing now and what our country has been doing in the past is that we are giving diplomacy a better chance. If you don't have confidence that he will be willing to do what is necessary then that is your own opinion, but understand that your entire argument revolves around your own personal confidence and has nothing to do with facts.

Oh I see.. so if Obama gives diplomacy a BETTER chance, THEN goes to war its OK? Exactly how do you define 'better' here? Seems a little vague to me.

Better = not initiating the first strike. It's a precedent set by great men in our nation's history, for instance Eisenhower chose to leave the Soviets alone before they had fully developed the nuclear bomb. The soviets were a much greater threat than Iran, however Eisenhower stood by the great American belief of moral superiority where we do NOT initiate first strike.

To betray ideals that have taken hundreds of years to perfect in pursuing a reckless foreign policy is not what we should be championing. If Obama does first strike Iran then I will hold him as accountable as Bush in Iraq, no matter the diplomatic dialogue preceding it.

The most unfortunate part of Bush's presidency is the betrayal of the first strike policy never violated by any other previous president, a grave set back for the U.S.

I don't remember the Germans, Vietnamese, or Koreans attacking us first. Iraq never attacked us in 1991. Panama never attacked us. Care to enlighten me? If not, care to revise your statement that no President has ever violated this 'first strike' policy you refer to?

 

[CanOWorms]

I hope many of the forum members read or listen to the part of the interview regarding colonialism. So many people here repeatedly insist that the history of colonialism is irrelevant.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The Japanese certainly did attack us first. Approximately 2500 people died because we were sticking our heads in the ground. I guessing the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc who died during that attack should be proud because we didn't attack Japan first? At least they can hold 'moral superiority' up high when they are 8 feet under.

 

[Budmantom]

Did he surrender?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So it is better to get attack first then strike back? You must be smoking some good stuff. Moral mean jack if you put your own civilian at risk.

You need to look at yourself as a member first of the human race, then your nation. When you treat others as unimportant copare to your 'tribe', they can do the same to you.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So it is better to get attack first then strike back? You must be smoking some good stuff. Moral mean jack if you put your own civilian at risk.

You need to look at yourself as a member first of the human race, then your nation. When you treat others as unimportant copare to your 'tribe', they can do the same to you.

Seems like you just justified attacking first. If Radical Islam wants to wipe non-believers from the face of the earth.. we can attack them?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Did he surrender?

I think they may have passed out like the women do in Obama's speeches.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

Whatever is necessary. The difference between what he is doing now and what our country has been doing in the past is that we are giving diplomacy a better chance. If you don't have confidence that he will be willing to do what is necessary then that is your own opinion, but understand that your entire argument revolves around your own personal confidence and has nothing to do with facts.

Oh I see.. so if Obama gives diplomacy a BETTER chance, THEN goes to war its OK? Exactly how do you define 'better' here? Seems a little vague to me.

Better = not initiating the first strike. It's a precedent set by great men in our nation's history, for instance Eisenhower chose to leave the Soviets alone before they had fully developed the nuclear bomb. The soviets were a much greater threat than Iran, however Eisenhower stood by the great American belief of moral superiority where we do NOT initiate first strike.

To betray ideals that have taken hundreds of years to perfect in pursuing a reckless foreign policy is not what we should be championing. If Obama does first strike Iran then I will hold him as accountable as Bush in Iraq, no matter the diplomatic dialogue preceding it.

The most unfortunate part of Bush's presidency is the betrayal of the first strike policy never violated by any other previous president, a grave set back for the U.S.

I don't remember the Germans, Vietnamese, or Koreans attacking us first. Iraq never attacked us in 1991. Panama never attacked us. Care to enlighten me? If not, care to revise your statement that no President has ever violated this 'first strike' policy you refer to?

Germans = (invasion) WW1 the infamous passenger transport sinking by a U-boat. WW2 = japanese and they were allies with Germany hence mutual declaration of war.

Vietnam = (No invasion) South Vietnam government was under attack from North Vietnam, we defended South Vietnam. We got brought in by France and withheld from assaulting (read bombing) North vietnam for a very long time.

Korean = (No invasion) South Korea was under attack from North Korea and we went in to defend them.

Iraq = (No invasion) We kicked Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Panama upsets my point, both Bush presidents have partaken in first strikes, sorry my bad. I mean the official reason is supposedly the opposition party won the election, blah, blah but Bush and his predecessor (guess who that is) didn't like Noriega basically.

If you wish for more history lessons don't hestitate to request them in the future.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So it is better to get attack first then strike back? You must be smoking some good stuff. Moral mean jack if you put your own civilian at risk.

You need to look at yourself as a member first of the human race, then your nation. When you treat others as unimportant copare to your 'tribe', they can do the same to you.

Seems like you just justified attacking first. If Radical Islam wants to wipe non-believers from the face of the earth.. we can attack them?

Why are war mongering republicans acting like scared girls? You do realize Radical Islam has nothing on the past threats we've faced. We've stared down 10's of thousands of nukes from the soviets and you are running around scared shittless by guys hiding in caves. We didn't torture in the cold war era nor did we aggressively pursue first strike policy. However a bunch of cave dwellers have you wetting your pants and wanting to pursue this policy.

Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Did he surrender?

I think they may have passed out like the women do in Obama's speeches.

Isn't there a rule about a troll responding to another troll? If not, there should be.

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2265.html?hpid=topnews

I find this interesting and probably the reason why the conservative chicken hawks among us act the way they do.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Did he surrender?

Just for a change of pace, why don't you try contributing something... anything to this board? How you haven't been banned yet escapes me.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Did he surrender?

Just for a change of pace, why don't you try contributing something... anything to this board? How you haven't been banned yet escapes me.

Why are you so angry?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Did he surrender?

Just for a change of pace, why don't you try contributing something... anything to this board? How you haven't been banned yet escapes me.

Why are you so angry?

I'm not. Like I've said before, you aren't offensive or anything... you're just really boring.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

He is a war president, if you haven't figured that out yet you are clueless.

Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution says otherwise. No declaration of war has been passed wrt Iraq. The direct invasion of another country without a declaration of war is a bad precedent that needs to come to a swift end. President Obama (and his predecessor) shouldn't have the legal standing to invoke war powers. Congress was neutered long ago on this issue and needs to regrow its testicles.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

He is a war president, if you haven't figured that out yet you are clueless.

Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution says otherwise. No declaration of war has been passed wrt Iraq. The direct invasion of another country without a declaration of war is a bad precedent that needs to come to a swift end. President Obama (and his predecessor) shouldn't have the legal standing to invoke war powers. Congress was neutered long ago on this issue and needs to regrow its testicles.

Did congress pass a declaration of war on terror anywhere? I wonder if they did, since that could be used very broadly.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
When listening doesn't work. What will Obama do then?

Whatever is necessary. The difference between what he is doing now and what our country has been doing in the past is that we are giving diplomacy a better chance. If you don't have confidence that he will be willing to do what is necessary then that is your own opinion, but understand that your entire argument revolves around your own personal confidence and has nothing to do with facts.

Oh I see.. so if Obama gives diplomacy a BETTER chance, THEN goes to war its OK? Exactly how do you define 'better' here? Seems a little vague to me.

Better = not initiating the first strike. It's a precedent set by great men in our nation's history, for instance Eisenhower chose to leave the Soviets alone before they had fully developed the nuclear bomb. The soviets were a much greater threat than Iran, however Eisenhower stood by the great American belief of moral superiority where we do NOT initiate first strike.

To betray ideals that have taken hundreds of years to perfect in pursuing a reckless foreign policy is not what we should be championing. If Obama does first strike Iran then I will hold him as accountable as Bush in Iraq, no matter the diplomatic dialogue preceding it.

The most unfortunate part of Bush's presidency is the betrayal of the first strike policy never violated by any other previous president, a grave set back for the U.S.

I don't remember the Germans, Vietnamese, or Koreans attacking us first. Iraq never attacked us in 1991. Panama never attacked us. Care to enlighten me? If not, care to revise your statement that no President has ever violated this 'first strike' policy you refer to?

Germans = (invasion) WW1 the infamous passenger transport sinking by a U-boat. WW2 = japanese and they were allies with Germany hence mutual declaration of war.

Vietnam = (No invasion) South Vietnam government was under attack from North Vietnam, we defended South Vietnam. We got brought in by France and withheld from assaulting (read bombing) North vietnam for a very long time.

Korean = (No invasion) South Korea was under attack from North Korea and we went in to defend them.

Iraq = (No invasion) We kicked Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Panama upsets my point, both Bush presidents have partaken in first strikes, sorry my bad. I mean the official reason is supposedly the opposition party won the election, blah, blah but Bush and his predecessor (guess who that is) didn't like Noriega basically.

If you wish for more history lessons don't hestitate to request them in the future.

Ok, just so I am clear.. since you are giving lessons. If someone like Vietnam attacks itself, we're OK with going in and attacking. If Korea attacks itself.. we are again ok with going in and attacking? Remember there was no South Vietnam (There still isn't) and at the time of the attacks there was no South Korea.. it was just Korea and Vietnam. I don't think Vietnam or Korea attacked us, unless my understanding of history is flawed. I'm sure your superior history skills could educate me.

You could use your own arguments against you as well. Some might argue Iraq was at war with itself as well. Sunni, Shiite, and whatever the heck the people were called up north. So are we OK attacking like Vietnam and Korea?

After Iraq attacked Kuwait they signed a surrender agreement with the United States. That agreement included provisions for inspections and a no fly zone. They attacked our planes and refused our inspectors. Could that not be used to justify a strike? Did GWB truly strike first?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So it is better to get attack first then strike back? You must be smoking some good stuff. Moral mean jack if you put your own civilian at risk.

You need to look at yourself as a member first of the human race, then your nation. When you treat others as unimportant copare to your 'tribe', they can do the same to you.

Seems like you just justified attacking first. If Radical Islam wants to wipe non-believers from the face of the earth.. we can attack them?

Why are war mongering republicans acting like scared girls? You do realize Radical Islam has nothing on the past threats we've faced. We've stared down 10's of thousands of nukes from the soviets and you are running around scared shittless by guys hiding in caves. We didn't torture in the cold war era nor did we aggressively pursue first strike policy. However a bunch of cave dwellers have you wetting your pants and wanting to pursue this policy.

Absolutely pathetic.

So take it to the next step then. Are you saying terrorism is NOT something we should be concerned about and they are not a threat to us? Radical Islam is something we just let be and everything will be fine? This is why liberalism is so dishonest.. because you can say things like that, and when you are wrong.. you just say OOPS and move on. When conservatives make hard choices like pre-emptive strikes and are wrong, you want to put them on trial for war crimes. If they are right, they just did their job.

Now as for the statement 'We didn't torture in the cold war era'.. Umm.. REALLY?! Do you honestly believe that? You don't think there was a TON of illegal activity going on by BOTH sides during the cold war? Do you think if we caught a Russian spy we gave them a Fanta and asked them their thoughts on the Superbowl? The difference is we didn't HEAR about it.

Besides, I didn't say we should act pre-emptively.. I simply asked if it was OK if others treated us 'unimportant' as one of the OP's above said.