• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything."

HeXploiT

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Obama vows to stop Iran from having nuclear arms.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday Iran posed a serious threat in the Middle East and vowed to stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation.

Obama also vowed to vigorously support Israel's right to defend itself and pledged an active effort to pursue a Middle East peace agreement in a broad speech on the region he delivered a day after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world," Obama said.

Some of Obama's critics have sought to undercut his support with Jewish voters by suggesting that he would be more inclined than the Bush administration and Republican presidential candidate John McCain to put pressure on Israel to make concessions in any peace negotiations.

Obama has been seeking to dispel that notion in campaign events that include the AIPAC speech and a forum with Jewish voters in Florida last month.

McCain has criticized Obama's call for talks with Iran, a state Israeli leaders consider a threat to Israel's security.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan, editing by David Alexander)
Click to expand...

Source: Rueters

As many of You I am a staunch Zionist which is merely to say that I believe the nation of Israel belongs to the Jews and I will never support anything or anyone that puts pressure on Israel to give up land.
That said I firmly believe that forcing wars does Israel no good.
If I didn't know this was Barack Obama speaking I'd say it was John McCain. My biggest problem with Barack Obama is that he still has milk behind his ears and I fear that he will be blown with the winds of war in Washington. I think that the people who voted for Obama thinking he would get us out of war made a huge mistake.
I definitely DO NOT wish to see a nuclear arsenal in the hands of the Iranians yet I also do not wish to start a war with that nation.
I think the wool has been pulled over your eyes concerning this man.
I think there will be no "change".
 
Lol, nice one. What happened to sitting down for a chat with no preconditions. Must be that good ole politics as usual to try and court the jew vote. And how is this going to pass through his koolaid base as the democratic fringe seems to be where most of the anti-isrealites hang out.
 
No surprise here. Our two parties only debate the details of the same foreign policy. And no matter who the next president is, the groundwork for an invasion of Iran will begin. Remember that Clinton was "tough" on Iraq as well.

We need a new foreign policy, and neither of these two parties are offering any kind of change whatsoever.
 
So every policitian the USA has to offer has the same stance. Kiss Israeli's ass.

I'd say if Israel is allowed to have nukes, so should Iran. If we put up a wall that says "no no" to Iran, then Israel should give up its aresenal.
 
He's pandering to the douchebags at AIPAC.

Also, his policies still differ GREATLY from McCain who wouldn't even consider having talks with Iran before launching a strike.

So there is a clear difference: it's called DIPLOMACY. One candidate supports it, the other doesn't.
 
As I said in an earlier post. The US itself will not go to war with Iran with the current admin or a dem admin (McCain seems to want war with his little "bomb bomb bomb Iran fiasco"). What you will probably see is Obama engaged in talks with Iran, with Israel standing by to deal with the issue like they dealt with the Syrian nuclear threat. You are too use to assuming that anytime someone talks tough against a country they want to war with it, while only recently has that been the case. As much as people here like to mock it diplomacy worked pretty well in keeping the peace for 50 some odd years with the USSR, and "beating the shit out of them talk is cheap" worked pretty badly as can be seen by Vietnam and Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's pandering to the douchebags at AIPAC.

Also, his policies still differ GREATLY from McCain who wouldn't even consider having talks with Iran before launching a strike.

So there is a clear difference: it's called DIPLOMACY. One candidate supports it, the other doesn't.
Click to expand...

The difference is minimal. It's the same interventionist, "USA-is-the-world's-police," "do-what-we-say-or-else" foreign policy. They are only arguing over details, meaningless details.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's pandering to the douchebags at AIPAC.

Also, his policies still differ GREATLY from McCain who wouldn't even consider having talks with Iran before launching a strike.

So there is a clear difference: it's called DIPLOMACY. One candidate supports it, the other doesn't.
Click to expand...

So one will talk then invade, the other wont talk and invade.

That is a "huge" difference :disgust:
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's pandering to the douchebags at AIPAC.

Also, his policies still differ GREATLY from McCain who wouldn't even consider having talks with Iran before launching a strike.

So there is a clear difference: it's called DIPLOMACY. One candidate supports it, the other doesn't.
Click to expand...

So one will talk then invade, the other wont talk and invade.

That is a "huge" difference :disgust:
Click to expand...

Neither one of them would invade. But both will be tougher with sanctions and inspections, and both would continue the "evil rhetoric" toward of Iran. There would never be an invasion of Iran until their military is completely bombed back to the stone age, and inspections prove they are truly weak, weak enough to be invaded.
 
Every Jewish voice counts.

Shouldn't you be blaming the Jewish community, who adores being pandered to every election cycle on behalf of the 51st state.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Don't read too far into this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't listen to what he says. :roll:

Go back and read transcripts of Clinton's speeches regarding Iraq. And look at all the Dem's that supported the invasion of Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Every Jewish voice counts.

Shouldn't you be blaming the Jewish community, who adores being pandered to every election cycle on behalf of the 51st state.
Click to expand...

Yeah, God forbid they pander to you and me.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Every Jewish voice counts.

Shouldn't you be blaming the Jewish community, who adores being pandered to every election cycle on behalf of the 51st state.
Click to expand...

It is the jews fault Obama is blathering like a neocon and promising the do "eveything" within his power to stop Iran?
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Every Jewish voice counts.

Shouldn't you be blaming the Jewish community, who adores being pandered to every election cycle on behalf of the 51st state.
Click to expand...

It is the jews fault Obama is blathering like a neocon and promising the do "eveything" within his power to stop Iran?
Click to expand...
They feed on it like pigs at a trough, and every politician who's scheduled to speak in front of AIPAC knows it.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
As I said in an earlier post. The US itself will not go to war with Iran with the current admin or a dem admin (McCain seems to want war with his little "bomb bomb bomb Iran fiasco"). What you will probably see is Obama engaged in talks with Iran, with Israel standing by to deal with the issue like they dealt with the Syrian nuclear threat. You are too use to assuming that anytime someone talks tough against a country they want to war with it, while only recently has that been the case. As much as people here like to mock it diplomacy worked pretty well in keeping the peace for 50 some odd years with the USSR, and "beating the shit out of them talk is cheap" worked pretty badly as can be seen by Vietnam and Iraq.
Click to expand...

Yes, but with the USSR we had MAD to keep each other at bay. The situation with Iran is that we're trying to avoid MAD. Granted, Iran isn't quite the adversary the USSR was.
 
Originally posted by: lupi
Lol, nice one. What happened to sitting down for a chat with no preconditions. Must be that good ole politics as usual to try and court the jew vote. And how is this going to pass through his koolaid base as the democratic fringe seems to be where most of the anti-isrealites hang out.
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing happened to sitting down for a chat with no preconditions, what he said in this excerpt has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Do you even read the OP before you start trolling?
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's pandering to the douchebags at AIPAC.

Also, his policies still differ GREATLY from McCain who wouldn't even consider having talks with Iran before launching a strike.

So there is a clear difference: it's called DIPLOMACY. One candidate supports it, the other doesn't.
Click to expand...

Proof on the Bolded section please.

 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Every Jewish voice counts.

Shouldn't you be blaming the Jewish community, who adores being pandered to every election cycle on behalf of the 51st state.
Click to expand...

It is the jews fault Obama is blathering like a neocon and promising the do "eveything" within his power to stop Iran?
Click to expand...
They feed on it like pigs at a trough, and every politician who's scheduled to speak in front of AIPAC knows it.
Click to expand...

Words may be words, but actions are actions. See sponsor.

Just the same "do what we say" dictator-like foreign policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top