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

[AcesFull]

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!'

Impressive.

[02Ram54]

Now that we have that out of the way, and seeing as how terrorist organizations ARE non-state actors, and are certainly different from states like Iran and Syria, do you want to address my initial point made in post #5 over an hour ago?

[AcesFull]

Now that we have that out of the way, and seeing as how terrorist organizations ARE non-state actors, and are certainly different from states like Iran and Syria, do you want to address my initial point made in post #5 over an hour ago?

Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Sen. Obama said in one of the debates in very clear terms that he would personally meet with Iranian leaders with no preconditions. It was a stupid thing to say and it was not a case of misspeaking.

 

Obama has since modified his position to include the precondition of Iran renouncing terrorism. Obama's position shifted when those who understand the negotiating process set him straight on the issue - and I am glad that he changed course. (He never admitted that the position stated during the debate was a mistake as far as I know.)

 

I agree that Hizbollah and Hamas are different situations but Obama should have gone further in his criticism of Jimmy Carter and made it clear that such free lance meddling in foreign policy would not be tolerated once he took office. Obama also should have been quicker to respond to Carter's planned trip. Obama seems like a reluctant decision maker.

[TeddyBear]

Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Sen. Obama said in one of the debates in very clear terms that he would personally meet with Iranian leaders with no preconditions. It was a stupid thing to say and it was not a case of misspeaking.

 

Obama has since modified his position to include the precondition of Iran renouncing terrorism. Obama's position shifted when those who understand the negotiating process set him straight on the issue - and I am glad that he changed course. (He never admitted that the position stated during the debate was a mistake as far as I know.)

 

I agree that Hizbollah and Hamas are different situations but Obama should have gone further in his criticism of Jimmy Carter and made it clear that such free lance meddling in foreign policy would not be tolerated once he took office. Obama also should have been quicker to respond to Carter's planned trip. Obama seems like a reluctant decision maker.

 

 

 

Well, one could call Obama a reluctant decision maker, or one could conclude that he refuses to rush into making decisions, and refuses to be pushed into making decisions.

 

It's really subjective. It's the same subjectivity I apply when I conclude that Bush is a bully, unwilling to wait for all the facts before rushing headlong into a decision. At least it's apparent by Obama's revisions in his statement that he at least listens to his advisors.

[AcesFull]

Well, one could call Obama a reluctant decision maker, or one could conclude that he refuses to rush into making decisions, and refuses to be pushed into making decisions.

Do you believe that his decision to leave Trinity United Methodist Church after 20 years was the result of 20 years of careful deliberation or a reaction to political pressure? When he promised Jews at the AIPAC Policy Conference, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." was that statement the result of careful deliberation? Or was his statement the following day: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations." the result of careful deliberations? (The second statement followed a stiff rebuke of his previous statement by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas).

 

It's really subjective. It's the same subjectivity I apply when I conclude that Bush is a bully, unwilling to wait for all the facts before rushing headlong into a decision. At least it's apparent by Obama's revisions in his statement that he at least listens to his advisors.

I agree my view of Obama is subjective. I see him as an extremely inexperienced candidate who has not had time to learn much about foreign policy. Making a bold statement about the status of Jerusalem should have been preceded by a large dose of advice from his experts. There should be no need for damage control on such a big issue in a tenderbox like the Middle East.

[halfback20]

If we're going to avoid all terrorist supporting countries shouldn't we be avoiding Saudi Arabia as well? Do we not negotiate with them? Aren't they considered an ally to the United States?

[Jumper_Dad]

Good point HB20, I am normally on the opposite side on politics from you but agree wholeheartedly on this. The Saudis ARE the unsettling force in the middle east.

[NEXT]

Melanie Phillips

Friday, 6th June 2008

 

So the new dawn of American politics has brought us, on day one, what exactly? First off, Obama makes a speech to the American Jews of AIPAC that is such a brazen piece of cynicism as to make one’s eyes water. The man whose support for Israel has hitherto been, let us say, equivocal, who thinks ‘no-one is suffering more than the Palestinian people’ who he therefore thinks are suffering more than the Israelis they routinely murder, whose every foreign affairs adviser is viscerally hostile towards Israel with one of them, Daniel Kurzer, saying last month that Israel should surrender part of Jerusalem to the Arabs, suddenly tells the Jewish lobby group AIPAC in his first major speech after clinching the Democratic nomination that he is Israel’s bestest friend in the whole wide world and insists that

 

Jerusalem must always remain the capital of Israel and must never be divided.

 

His number one fans in the Middle East, Hamas, didn’t like that one little bit; nor did that man of peace Mahmoud Abbas. But they needn’t have thrown their keffiyehs out of their prams so quickly. For within hours Obama had backtracked, as the Jerusalem Post reports:

 

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain ‘undivided,’ his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday’’. .. a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes ‘Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties’ as part of ‘an agreement that they both can live with.’ ‘Two principles should apply to any outcome,’ which the adviser gave as: ‘Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.’

 

I think this is what’s called ‘change we can believe in’.

 

How can someone who goes in for this kind of outrageous doublespeak – not to mention claiming that talking to Iran without preconditions amounts to tough and principled diplomacy possibly be considered a serious contender for the American Presidency? The man represents a positive danger to the free world. Are the Americans completely nuts?

 

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/756736/change-we-can-all-believe-in.thtml

[GO CATS]

If we're going to avoid all terrorist supporting countries shouldn't we be avoiding Saudi Arabia as well? Do we not negotiate with them? Aren't they considered an ally to the United States?

 

:thumb:

[AcesFull]

If we're going to avoid all terrorist supporting countries shouldn't we be avoiding Saudi Arabia as well? Do we not negotiate with them? Aren't they considered an ally to the United States?

If we had some degree of independence from Saudi oil, then we could take a much tougher stand on their tolerance of terrorist groups. It's just another downside of a failed energy policy.

[rockmom]

By hiding behind this McCarthyism line is just a way of avoiding questions. When a person cannot answer the question always make accusations that have nothing to do with the facts. Obama is going to do a lot of this because I learned a long time ago liberals do not like facts or the truth.

 

 

Really?! Would you care to elaborate?

[halfback20]

If we had some degree of independence from Saudi oil, then we could take a much tougher stand on their tolerance of terrorist groups. It's just another downside of a failed energy policy.

 

So it is okay for our country to negotiate with a terrorist supporting country if oil is involved?

[02Ram54]

So it is okay for our country to negotiate with a terrorist supporting country if oil is involved?

 

Note: Iran is #2 in regional oil production.

[02Ram54]

For the record, there's a lot about Saudi Arabia that the average American doesn't know. For example, 90% (yes, 9 out of 10) of their private sector employees are not Saudis. The rest of the population lives off subsidy from the government so that they don't revolt, primarily in the form of official theological study. This official government religious teaching is of the most extreme, radical sects of Islam because the guy who came up with this system was the founder of that sect and married into the royal family.

 

We give S.A. weapon systems in exchange for $1 per barrel cheaper oil and their representation of our interests at OPEC. Without this $1/barrel (which was quite a discount once upon a time) we might not be dependent on their oil today, so a good move on their part. Part of that representation was that oil from OPEC was tradable only in dollars, which has led to what some call the petrolization of the dollar.

[pigman]

^ Who made this deal? I think hb20 was pointing out the double standard acesfull is using.