Jump to content

Obama....where does he really stand on this?


Recommended Posts

Obama is becoming a true politician, he can speak out of both side of his mouth on the same subject. As he tours Jewish community centers and Synagogues Obama seems to be trying really hard to put the Jewish vote at ease to gain their support in November. Seems to me as if he is not getting taken to task over this enough, no one is asking why he thinks meeting with Iran is any different than meeting with Hamas (which he criticized Carter for doing) when both Hamas and Iran have the same stated goal, the elimination of Israel.

 

"We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," Obama said. "We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."Link

 

Obama's promise to hold a summit of Muslim nations "including Iran and Syria" Link

 

"The greatest threat to Israel today obviously comes from Iran," Mr. Obama said yesterday. "The threat of Iran is real and it is great, and my goal as president will be to eliminate it. "Link

 

The threat from Iran IS real, the Iranians want nothing less then to rid the world of Israel, there President has said as much. How is this different from what Hamas or Hezbollah is saying?

 

Obama says he is not willing to sit down with Hamas or Hezbollah until they "renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements" but he is willing to sit down with Syria and Iran? When have either of these countries, "Renounced terrorism, accepted Israel's right to even exists or abide by past agreements?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

When Barck Hussein Obama actually begins talking about specific change, he sounds a lot like John Forbes Kerry. Kerry seemed to have at least two positions on every important issue, sometimes within the same interview. Obama is developing that sort of multi-faceted view of the world.

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us, and yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet." - Obama on 5/19/2008

 

"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave. But what I've said is that we should not just talk to our friends. We should be willing to engage our enemies as well. That's what diplomacy is all about."

.

.

.

Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said. "The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They're the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely.- Obama on 5/20/2008

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Obama is completely two-faced on this issue, he knows it, but frankly it is not an issue that will take hold in November except in Jewish circles.
This may become a very hot issue soon because Israel is running out of time to stop Iran from going nuclear. Olmert is a short timer and there are signs that a growing number of Israelis are accepting the fact that they either need to deal with the Iranians themselves of face nuclear annihilation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations?

 

When groups fire missiles indiscriminately into residential neighborhoods, send mentally challenged adults and there own children on suicide bomb missions and detonate them by remote control, I see no reason to not call them what they are...terror organizations.

 

Your personal attack was unwarranted and inappropriate.

What he's saying is that it isn't a "interesting euphemism" at all... in IR, that's what groups like Hamas and Hizbullah are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he's saying is that it isn't a "interesting euphemism" at all... in IR, that's what groups like Hamas and Hizbullah are.
I am not surprised. Jargon originating on on college campuses and/or the State Department is frequently misleading. I prefer to use terms that accurately describe such groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not surprised. Jargon originating on on college campuses and/or the State Department is frequently misleading. I prefer to use terms that accurately describe such groups.
This is what someone like Henry Kissinger would call them. But glad to see the "pointy egg head" attack, while misleading, is alive and well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if we're on a personal crusade against terror as a political tool, you might want to look at some of the founding fathers of Israel, including a few former Prime Ministers. Take the bombing of the King David Hotel, for example. Other Irgun attacks in the 30's, including bombing buses and strapping bombs to donkeys to explode in crowded marketplaces, might also be instructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Barck Hussein Obama actually begins talking about specific change, he sounds a lot like John Forbes Kerry. Kerry seemed to have at least two positions on every important issue, sometimes within the same interview. Obama is developing that sort of multi-faceted view of the world.

 

 

 

Don't really get you here. While Iran does pose some threat to the U.S. (more to Israel, obviously) they certainly don't pose the kind of existential threat that the Soviet Union did. I think Obama's got it right on the head there.

 

What if we combined those into one sentence?

 

"They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us, but they are a grave threat"

 

Thinking seriously on Iran, I'd say that describes the situation perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what someone like Henry Kissinger would call them. But glad to see the "pointy egg head" attack, while misleading, is alive and well.
Henry Kissinger is also willing to call a terrorist a terrorist when the shoe fits.

 

You may be right about Kissinger's use of the jargon "non-state actors," but he does not use the term at all on his own website and his website does contain many references to "terrorist.=," "terror," "terrorism," etc. It is good to see that Dr. Kissinger has not adopted Reuter's rules when referring to terrorist thugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, do you think I won't call them terrorists? They obviously are terrorists.

 

Hamas and Hizbullah use attacks on government offices and civilians for political purposes. This is what terrorists do. They are terrorists.

 

Look how many times I can use the word 'terrorist!'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if we're on a personal crusade against terror as a political tool, you might want to look at some of the founding fathers of Israel, including a few former Prime Ministers. Take the bombing of the King David Hotel, for example. Other Irgun attacks in the 30's, including bombing buses and strapping bombs to donkeys to explode in crowded marketplaces, might also be instructive.
We have all heard of some of the atrocities commited by Israelis 70 years ago. Do you place living, breathing Israelis on the same moral plane as the butchers of Hezbollah and Hamas?

 

We have no way of addressing terrorist acts that may have occurred 70 years ago. All we can do is conduct our foreign policy to minimize future terror attacks, which are currently being committed primarily by radical Muslim terrorist groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.