Forums | MacLife

I think it's rather amusing that everlong thinks that the Iraq Liberation Act, passed in 1998, irreversibly committed the US into invading the country five years later, and keeping troops there 'til, oh I don't know-- 2053. And yet he lambasts Obama for thinking a scant 18 months beyond the end of his second term.

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Why, if you are going to get in a tizzy over borders, and names of foreign countries shoudn't the right wing blogs get in a tizzy over this? I'm pretty sure that Mccain knows about the borders in the ME and I'm sure that OBama knows how many states there are, but why, if you can't refrain from pointing out the mistakes shouldnt the righties point out obama's?

No no, it's certainly fair-game.  Granted, the '57 states' thing has been used to support the notion that Obama is some sort of "secret muslim" (something about '57 Islamic States').  That's reasonable.

I'm sure its a code to Senator John Kerry (a.k.a. Heinz 57) "will you be my Vice President ? "

jerwin wrote:

Obama has plans to annex Upper Canada.

Probably just Quebec and not the oil and timber areas.

everlong205 wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

they're not trying to enrich uranium in defiance of the international community?
Even Obama is on board saying that they are a grave threat. He just thinks that he can magically get them to change their tune by talking sense to them.
I guess when he in fact does try to negotiate (if he becomes elected) and meets the same brick wall and then attempts to impose tougher sanctions he will then be amongst the warmongers  lying about Iran.

Even if he does come up against such a brick wall, its better to attempt to negotiate, and fail, then to not negotiate and preemptively attack... again.

We, and our allies have been negotiating with Iran for years now. Are you not aware of this?

Perhaps Obama wishes to negotiate with the Iranians formally and diplomatically, not informally and by proxy. Y'know, treat them as the power in the region they are, and not a group of madmen.

Cool Obama said he was ok with Israel's attack on syria. But,er... isn't that endorsement of Bush's doctrine of preemption? Cool. didn't know he was such a neocon.

And the attack was triggered without even all that much negotiation either. How does that in fact play out though with our dealings with Iran? Considering all the attempts at negotiations which have failed, how does that factor into how we or israel should deal with Iran?

We should be, for what it costs us...

Or maybe taking what Obama says and reading into your own meaning to it and then extending it into completely different areas.

Israel can't "endorse" "bush's doctrine of preemption". If they preemptively attack, it's the business of Israel and has nothing to do with the policies of the US in waging preemptive war.

edit: I have no idea if Obama would "back" Israel in an attack on Iran. I do believe that we have some agreements with them as allies that Obama will need to consider.

Last edited by user (2008-07-23 1:50 pm)

bratboy wrote:

What did Obama say in regards to Iran?

We're gonna drop daisies & butterflies on them

everlong205 wrote:

user wrote:

What does Israel attacking/negotiating/not negotiating with another country have to do with our own policies? Are we running their country, too?

Isn't it an endorsement of bush's doctrine of preemption? I guess Israel is allowed to do it,but we're not?

I keep hearing how in fact Bush is rattling the saber yet just today Obama said Iran cannot go nuclear and we cannot allow it to go nuclear. Is that a refutation of all those saying Bush is simply rattling sabers?

He's saying iran is a threat, is trying to get nukes and that it can't be allowed and that the Us will do everything to try to prevent this crisis. Sounds kind of serious. maybe he's drinking Bush's koolaid.

Considering that, and considering that any talks are prety much at a stalemate, were israel to carry out an attack of this kind, I'm assuming Barack would back it, or at least theoretically back it?

That last sentence really doesn't follow from the previous ones. I find it highly unlikely that Obama would back an Israeli attack on Iran (I can't see how any sane person would, but hey who knows).