Did anybody see Obama on "Meet the Press" on Sunday?

[GoOwls]

I did, I took notes......it's the middle of the night though and I'm going to try to go to sleep again, so those of you who saw it, what did you think? Did Russert do a good and fair job?

Ya'll knock yourselves out today on this, if you choose, and I'll try to get back tonight and post on my notes I took.....if anybody even saw it besides me....;)

[Firebird]

I did, I took notes......it's the middle of the night though and I'm going to try to go to sleep again, so those of you who saw it, what did you think? Did Russert do a good and fair job?

Ya'll knock yourselves out today on this, if you choose, and I'll try to get back tonight and post on my notes I took.....if anybody even saw it besides me....;)

You take notes on "Meet the Press"?

[slorch]

You take notes on "Meet the Press"?

look at the libs crawlin all over each other to defend Ob...did you say you took notes? I don't see any libs anywhere...:D

[mad_fan]

You take notes on "Meet the Press"?

I take note all the time watching TV news and sports...
Ageist...:mad:

[mad_fan]

look at the libs crawlin all over each other to defend Ob...did you say you took notes? I don't see any libs anywhere...:D

Your day will come...

[mad_fan]

In any case...I didnt see it...I was watching a rerun of some ultra-right-wing US Supreme Court Justice...:D

[t-long20]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/04/gall.mccainbase.ap.jpg

[GoOwls]

You take notes on "Meet the Press"?

It's a very antiquated way of making sure you don't make a fool of yourself when quoting someone.....:D

[GoOwls]

OK, since I'm the only informed one here on Obama's stated points of view....(note the total lack of any liberal voices here who saw anything)...you'll have to take my word for it.....;)

First, Tim Russert, the super lib, was surprisingly tough on his questions. He pressed the point on a few occasions and didn't let Obama get off easy without making it obvious Obama was avoiding the questions.

The Reverend Wright issue is in full spin mode now....surprise there. Five weeks ago, Obama can't disavow him under any circumstances...now he's "offended and Reverend Wrights comments should be denounced".

Political pressure is an "itch-with a B" ain't it?

Obama is right on being against the gas tax holiday for the summer though when Hillary and McCain are for it. It a band-aid for a bigger problem and solves nothing. Farmers need to be given incentives to grow more corn, besides the already high demand for it. Farmers will grow what is profitable and if it is more profitable to grow the corn, the ethanol drain on the corn for the food market will be eased and prices on corn related products will fall back in place.

Russert: Would you support a military response if it was proven that Iran is assisting in the death of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Obama: yada, yada, yada, negotiate, negotiate.....why is he avoiding the question completely and promoting that we talk and negotiate with people who have no intent of negotiating with us?????

Russert: If you withdraw the troops and genocide in Iraq becomes apparent, will that effect your decision?

Obama: dance, dance, dance...UN this, we can't do that......geeze Louise, ANSWER THE DANG QUESTION AND TAKE OFF YOUR DANCING SHOES.

Russert: Hillary was asked about Americas response if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, she said, "if they did, we would attack Iran & we have the capability to obliterate them", Obama, what would you do?

Obama: "I object to the launguage used and I compare her ideas to George Bush's sabre rattling".

Russert: Would you attack?

Obama: "I would use launguage that gets new points across & doesn't upset the U.N.".

(Obama, after you take your dress off, please JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION)

Russert: Would you expand the umbrella of nuclear coverage to protect other Arab nations not in the UN?

Obama: That assumes Iran will get them. Our job is to negotiate to make sure they don't get them. (here we go again, assuming they want to negotiate to begin with, and waiting until they get them to do somethiong about it) (ANSWER THE DANG QUESTION)

(to paraphrase) Russert: Should we escalate our military presence in Afghanistan?

Obama: (to shorten up a lot of double speak), YES, a definate YES.

(my boys who've been on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan think the opposite, that Iraq is worth saving, but Afghanistan is a god-forsaken place that doesn't want any help at all...they are perfectly content living in a world of 2000 years ago. But Obama wants out of Iran, and a stepped up presence in Afghanistan even though as long as Pakistan lets terrorists have a safe haven across the border, we will never do anthing with Afghanistan)

OK....that's it...in a paraphrased nutshell....have at it.

[jtk1519]

Russert is very far from a lib. I make it a point to listen to Sean Hannity's radio show every time he is on because he is honest with no detectable bias. Russert is the closest thing to a good, old fashioned, unbiased journalist that we have in America. He's one of the greats IMO.

[GoOwls]

Russert is very far from a lib. I make it a point to listen to Sean Hannity's radio show every time he is on because he is honest with no detectable bias. Russert is the closest thing to a good, old fashioned, unbiased journalist that we have in America. He's one of the greats IMO.

True, I'm thinking back a few years and holding it against him.....he has gotten much more moderate over the last 5 years or so.....thanks for the assist.

He was a bit more lib back in the Clinton years and back beyond that....if memory serves me correctly.

Maybe he figures he must be more moderate with him being the host of a show that made it's mark being moderate and fair to all politicians, unlike the shows of Moyers...etc.

[CyFallsMom]

GoOwls - you hit the nail right on the head - I have yet to hear this man answer a question in anything that resembles a straight line. Hillary is not much better but she does answer the question. She, to me anyway, comes off as more intelligent in debates. He seems like he's posturing a lot and he gives her such condescending looks. I just wish he could give a straight answer. If he did that from the get-go, I might even be in his camp. That's my issue with him - not that he's black, elitist or whatever. I would just like to hear something other than - as you said - dancing. He shrugged off the debate Clinton wanted to have without moderators. I think he was scared to do it - she would have chewed him up and spit him out.

[Favpack]

I will certainly admit this - as long as Hillary and Barack continue at a neck and neck pace - barely a few votes separate them - the Republicans can gleefully keep the spotlight off their fairly poor excuse for a Presidential candidate.

I think nothing will be decided in Indy and NC.

Advantage Red states.

[Firebird]

OK, since I'm the only informed one here on Obama's stated points of view....(note the total lack of any liberal voices here who saw anything)...you'll have to take my word for it.....;)

First, Tim Russert, the super lib, was surprisingly tough on his questions. He pressed the point on a few occasions and didn't let Obama get off easy without making it obvious Obama was avoiding the questions.

The Reverend Wright issue is in full spin mode now....surprise there. Five weeks ago, Obama can't disavow him under any circumstances...now he's "offended and Reverend Wrights comments should be denounced".

Political pressure is an "itch-with a B" ain't it?

Obama is right on being against the gas tax holiday for the summer though when Hillary and McCain are for it. It a band-aid for a bigger problem and solves nothing. Farmers need to be given incentives to grow more corn, besides the already high demand for it. Farmers will grow what is profitable and if it is more profitable to grow the corn, the ethanol drain on the corn for the food market will be eased and prices on corn related products will fall back in place.

Russert: Would you support a military response if it was proven that Iran is assisting in the death of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Obama: yada, yada, yada, negotiate, negotiate.....why is he avoiding the question completely and promoting that we talk and negotiate with people who have no intent of negotiating with us?????

Russert: If you withdraw the troops and genocide in Iraq becomes apparent, will that effect your decision?

Obama: dance, dance, dance...UN this, we can't do that......geeze Louise, ANSWER THE DANG QUESTION AND TAKE OFF YOUR DANCING SHOES.

Russert: Hillary was asked about Americas response if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, she said, "if they did, we would attack Iran & we have the capability to obliterate them", Obama, what would you do?

Obama: "I object to the launguage used and I compare her ideas to George Bush's sabre rattling".

Russert: Would you attack?

Obama: "I would use launguage that gets new points across & doesn't upset the U.N.".

(Obama, after you take your dress off, please JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION)

Russert: Would you expand the umbrella of nuclear coverage to protect other Arab nations not in the UN?

Obama: That assumes Iran will get them. Our job is to negotiate to make sure they don't get them. (here we go again, assuming they want to negotiate to begin with, and waiting until they get them to do somethiong about it) (ANSWER THE DANG QUESTION)

(to paraphrase) Russert: Should we escalate our military presence in Afghanistan?

Obama: (to shorten up a lot of double speak), YES, a definate YES.

(my boys who've been on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan think the opposite, that Iraq is worth saving, but Afghanistan is a god-forsaken place that doesn't want any help at all...they are perfectly content living in a world of 2000 years ago. But Obama wants out of Iran, and a stepped up presence in Afghanistan even though as long as Pakistan lets terrorists have a safe haven across the border, we will never do anthing with Afghanistan)

OK....that's it...in a paraphrased nutshell....have at it.

I've gotta take issue with your "notes" ("yada yada"..."dance dance dance".... Is that really what he said, GoOwls?:p). I'm looking at the transcript right now.
Here's Obama's response to the Iran-Iraq Question:

Well, let, let me not speculate yet. I want to, I want to take a, take a look at the kind of evidence that the administration is putting forward, what these plans are exactly. I've always said that, you know, as commander in chief, I don't take military options off the table and I think it's appropriate for us to plan for a whole host of contingencies. But let's look at the larger picture. Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq, they are stronger because of our decision to go in; and what we have to do is figure out how are we going to recalibrate our strategic position in the region. I think that starts with pulling our combat troops out of Iraq. We have placed them in harm's way, we have fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment, we are distracted from what's the real battle front that we need to focus on, which is Afghanistan and, and rooting out al-Qaeda. And if we put forward a plan where we are not going to be a permanent occupier in Iraq and we force the Iraqis to stand up and negotiate and come to a compromise that includes, by the way, a regional discussion with Iran, with Syria, as well as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and other regional powers, then I think we are going to be in a better posture to deal with the long-term threat of Iran and particularly its development of nuclear weapons. That's something that this administration has failed to do. I have consistently said that we've got to talk directly to Iran, send them a clear message that they have to stop, not only with their potential funding of militias inside of Iraq, but they also have to stop funding Hamas, they have to stop funding Hezbollah, they've got to stand down on their nuclear weapons. There will be continued consequences for those kinds of actions, but that here are also some carrots and possible benefits if they change behavior. Those kinds of direct talks have not taken place. That's the kind of change in foreign policy that I plan to put in place when I'm president of the United States.

Here is his response on genocide:


Tim, I would--of course I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we've talked about is a very deliberate and, and prudent approach to the withdrawal, one to two brigades per month. At that pace it would take about 16 months. Assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office, we're talking about potentially two years away. At that point we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years. And the danger we've got is that, with our military overstretched, with acknowledgement by our own Army officials that we don't have a strategic reserve right now to deal with other problems, we can't get more troops into Afghanistan, we're having trouble leveraging NATO to send in more troops in Afghanistan to deal with a growing Taliban and al-Qaeda threat, that unless we change postures in a deliberate fashion, our overall strategic posture in the region is going to be weaker.

Now, I, I have said that even as we're withdrawing, we are going to continue to partner with the Iraqi government, to train their military. We're going to continue to partner with them on, on humanitarian issues. I think we can get the United Nations and the international community to be part of a process of monitoring that ensures that we're not seeing ethnic cleansing and genocide as we pull out. But what we can't do is sustain a long-term occupation in Iraq and expect to be able to deal with the other threats that exist in that neighborhood.

Your summary of his response over the Israel/Iran talk is spot on, but here is his answer with regards to extending the nuclear umbrella to other Arab states (which are all in the UN):

Well, it--look, this is presupposing something that I'm unwilling to presuppose, and that is that Iran's going to get nuclear weapons. My intention is to make sure they don't. And the way we do that is, as I indicated before, to rally the international community, to engage direct talks with Iran, to send a clear signal about the consequences of continuing to develop nuclear weapons, but also to send a signal that if they are willing to stand down, that we can provide them with the kind of assistance that they need in order to help their people. So my central goal is to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

I, I'm troubled by the idea that, as a throwaway line in the debate, you start expanding the U.S. nuclear umbrella potentially to a whole host of other countries without any clear idea of what these criteria are, who might be involved and so forth. I think there's no doubt that we need to think about what our strategic posture is with respect to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other ally--other friends in the region. But, you know, right now we don't have a formal alliance with many of these other countries. And if we are to develop that, we should do it prudently, cautiously, in consultation with Congress.

[DrEdward]

But reading Obama's words on Iran, he still seems to believe that the solution to Iranian problems is simply talking. Is there any doubt that Iran knows how the US feels or how that many members of the UN have viewed them? Most of the world appears to have wanted to talk with/negotiate with Iran, but Iran seems to want no part of any such negotiations. Obama can't really say much else other than talk to them, as he doesn't seem to have much of a policy position other than to get out of Iraq (which, by the way, seems that it would simply add to the Iranian influence in the region. Although I would agree that is speculation on my part.)

[t-long20]

Man Obama is such a scary person. I never knew one man could be so terrifying.

[Firebird]

And now, my comments:

1. If Obama seems like he is waffling and unclear on the concept of what he wants to do with regards to foreign policy, that's because he is. Living overseas as a child does not count as foreign policy experience. He has some education in international relations as an undegrad at Columbia, but after that he was a lawyer and then served in the Illinois state senate and as a freshman U.S. senator. Much of his time as a U.S. senator was spent getting his campaign together. So he really doesn't have a clear about the issue and is going to rely mostly on what his advisors say. He also knows what the people likely to vote for him want to hear, which is that he'll pull out of Iraq, that he'll negotiatiate, and that he will do things multilaterally and improve America's image. This is all in keeping with his efforts to portray himself as the anti-Bush.


2. In spite of all that, he's spot on with some things. He is absolutely right that it would be a stupid idea to just start talking about extending the nuclear umbrella all over the Middle East. He's right that so far, the Iranians have been the single largest beneficiary of the Iraq war. Because of that, our choices pretty much are to:

A. Talk to them
B. Issue empty threats

We don't have the ability to do something serious to Iran militarily. They've hardened and dispersed their nuclear facilities and bomb strikes would set it back temporarily while simultaneously convince the regime even more that they needed nuclear weapons. And we don't have the army to actually start a real war with Iran. So talk is pretty much it.

In the long run, Iran probably will get nuclear weapons and we need to start thinking about how to live with a nuclear Iran. In the wake of Iraq, states with serious disagreements with the U.S. have logically concluded that the way to avoid attack or invasion is to get nuclear weapons. Time to dust off deterrence options.

[Firebird]

But reading Obama's words on Iran, he still seems to believe that the solution to Iranian problems is simply talking. Is there any doubt that Iran knows how the US feels or how that many members of the UN have viewed them? Most of the world appears to have wanted to talk with/negotiate with Iran, but Iran seems to want no part of any such negotiations. Obama can't really say much else other than talk to them, as he doesn't seem to have much of a policy position other than to get out of Iraq (which, by the way, seems that it would simply add to the Iranian influence in the region. Although I would agree that is speculation on my part.)

I really think that the best option is to try and negotiatie while treating Iran obtaining nuclear weapons as a fait accompli. The non-proliferation regime is pretty much dead at this point. Better to learn how to manage new nuclear states.

On many levels, it will be far easier to deal with a delcared nuclear state instead of an opaque proliferator.

[drgnbkr]

And now, my comments:

1. If Obama seems like he is waffling and unclear on the concept of what he wants to do with regards to foreign policy, that's because he is. Living overseas as a child does not count as foreign policy experience. He has some education in international relations as an undegrad at Columbia, but after that he was a lawyer and then served in the Illinois state senate and as a freshman U.S. senator. Much of his time as a U.S. senator was spent getting his campaign together. So he really doesn't have a clear about the issue and is going to rely mostly on what his advisors say. He also knows what the people likely to vote for him want to hear, which is that he'll pull out of Iraq, that he'll negotiatiate, and that he will do things multilaterally and improve America's image. This is all in keeping with his efforts to portray himself as the anti-Bush.


2. In spite of all that, he's spot on with some things. He is absolutely right that it would be a stupid idea to just start talking about extending the nuclear umbrella all over the Middle East. He's right that so far, the Iranians have been the single largest beneficiary of the Iraq war. Because of that, our choices pretty much are to:

A. Talk to them
B. Issue empty threats

We don't have the ability to do something serious to Iran militarily. They've hardened and dispersed their nuclear facilities and bomb strikes would set it back temporarily while simultaneously convince the regime even more that they needed nuclear weapons. And we don't have the army to actually start a real war with Iran. So talk is pretty much it.

In the long run, Iran probably will get nuclear weapons and we need to start thinking about how to live with a nuclear Iran. In the wake of Iraq, states with serious disagreements with the U.S. have logically concluded that the way to avoid attack or invasion is to get nuclear weapons. Time to dust off deterrence options.

I would have to disagree with the last portion of your post. IMO, there is no way either the US or Israel will allow Iran to join the nuclear club. One or the other, or both countries will take measures to prevent that from happening. The notion that our hands are tied, because of operations in Iraq is flat out wrong, and Israel's very existence is predicated on Iran remaining a verbal, rather than a nuclear threat. Obama can talk about talking with Iran all he wants, and there will be those who buy into his gibberish.

[Firebird]

I would have to disagree with the last portion of your post. IMO, there is no way either the US or Israel will allow Iran to join the nuclear club. One or the other, or both countries will take measures to prevent that from happening. The notion that our hands are tied, because of operations in Iraq is flat out wrong, and Israel's very existence is predicated on Iran remaining a verbal, rather than a nuclear threat. Obama can talk about talking with Iran all he wants, and there will be those who buy into his gibberish.

I'd disagree with you there. Israel's existence is predicated on Iran not using a nuclear weapon against Israel. It's one thing for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, another thing to use it. It's not automatic that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel, any more than it was automatic that the USSR would use them against us as soon as they got it. Rememer, Israel has close to 200 nuclear weapons with which to respond. Should Iran develop a weapon, Israel would very likely declare its arsenal, but in fact Mid-East stability could be better with two nuclear states.

I also don't see the U.S. doing something major to Iran. If you know of another army, then that's a a great thing, but as it stands we don't have even 7,000 spare troops to send to Afghanistan without:

A. Pulling out a brigade from elsewhere, likely Korea
B. Pulling out the "Homeland Defense" brigade
C. Extending rotations to 15 months for the Army or 12 for the Marines
D. Mobilizing the entire national guard


And that's just 7,000 troops. Even by extending rotations and calling up the national guard, the idea that we could mount a successful invasion of Iran, which is no Iraq, would be dicey at best, unless we seriously altered our stance elsewhere. An invasion of Iran would easily require the same number of troops used for Iraq, almost certainly more. Where do we have them? Do you think the public would countenance a draft or the mobilization of the entire national guard? What would we do with Iraq next door?

No, the options are conventional air strikes which would probably not work or a nuclear strike against several sites with massive damage and civilian causalties. Or an Israeli nuclear strike. No U.S president will ever authorize a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. An Israeli pres might be slightly more likely, but still not at all. So in reality, it's gonna be talk and then live with a nuclear Iran. It's best to start thinking about that now.

[HUM398]

Obama sounds like a coward.

[t-long20]

Obama sounds like a coward.

Luckily for some of yall hes been losing votes and his pastor has had a negative effect. Some polls have shown that if Hillary gets the nomination than Obama voters will simply vote for her. I sure hope Hillary knows how to run the White House. Obama should be the least of your worries.

[pied]

I spoke to my aunt yesterday who is a very big liberal. She is an Obama supporter and said she HATES Hillary. She said her and my uncle would be moving out of the country if she wins and I half believe her.

Some people get very involved with their candidate.

[HUM398]

Luckily for some of yall hes been losing votes and his pastor has had a negative effect. Some polls have shown that if Hillary gets the nomination than Obama voters will simply vote for her. I sure hope Hillary knows how to run the White House. Obama should be the least of your worries.

Who said i was worried.

I just said he sounds like a coward.

[t-long20]

I spoke to my aunt yesterday who is a very big liberal. She is an Obama supporter and said she HATES Hillary. She said her and my uncle would be moving out of the country if she wins and I half believe her.

Some people get very involved with their candidate.

According to polls 28% of Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain if Obama got the nomination.

As oppossed to only 19% of Obama supporters who would vote for McCain if Hillary got the nomination.

A surprising number of supporters of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would throw their votes to Republican John McCain if their candidate does not become the Democratic presidential nominee, according to a new Gallup poll released on Wednesday. While only 19 percent of Obama supporters said they would vote for McCain over Clinton, 28 percent of Clinton supporters would switch their vote to the Republican nominee.

[t-long20]

Who said i was worried.

I just said he sounds like a coward.

Not you in particular but everyone else. *cough* slorch,jmsfan,etc.

[pied]

According to polls 28% of Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain if Obama got the nomination.

As oppossed to only 19% of Obama supporters who would vote for McCain if Hillary got the nomination.


She said that they would vote for McCain if she gets the nomination. I don't believe her, although I think they probably would just not vote.

[JMSFan]

Not you in particular but everyone else. *cough* slorch,jmsfan,etc.

Im not worried. :confused: I dont drink the Obama Kool Aid either. :D

[slorch]

Not you in particular but everyone else. *cough* slorch,jmsfan,etc.

I don't worry about politicians.

Policy, yes, but egomaniacal truth dodgers, no.

Got something else for me today?

[drgnbkr]

I'd disagree with you there. Israel's existence is predicated on Iran not using a nuclear weapon against Israel. It's one thing for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, another thing to use it. It's not automatic that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel, any more than it was automatic that the USSR would use them against us as soon as they got it. Rememer, Israel has close to 200 nuclear weapons with which to respond. Should Iran develop a weapon, Israel would very likely declare its arsenal, but in fact Mid-East stability could be better with two nuclear states.

I also don't see the U.S. doing something major to Iran. If you know of another army, then that's a a great thing, but as it stands we don't have even 7,000 spare troops to send to Afghanistan without:

A. Pulling out a brigade from elsewhere, likely Korea
B. Pulling out the "Homeland Defense" brigade
C. Extending rotations to 15 months for the Army or 12 for the Marines
D. Mobilizing the entire national guard


And that's just 7,000 troops. Even by extending rotations and calling up the national guard, the idea that we could mount a successful invasion of Iran, which is no Iraq, would be dicey at best, unless we seriously altered our stance elsewhere. An invasion of Iran would easily require the same number of troops used for Iraq, almost certainly more. Where do we have them? Do you think the public would countenance a draft or the mobilization of the entire national guard? What would we do with Iraq next door?

No, the options are conventional air strikes which would probably not work or a nuclear strike against several sites with massive damage and civilian causalties. Or an Israeli nuclear strike. No U.S president will ever authorize a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. An Israeli pres might be slightly more likely, but still not at all. So in reality, it's gonna be talk and then live with a nuclear Iran. It's best to start thinking about that now.

Iran has already promised to "wipe Israel from the map". The Israeli's will not sit and allow Iran to make or otherwise posess Nukes. I also think you are vastly under appreciative of our military's abilities...but that's just me. We will see, probably sooner than later...All just my opinion.

[jtk1519]

Iran already has nukes. Firebird is right. You don't bully around somebody with the same gun you're carrying. And countries have been promising to wipe Israel off the map for decades. Even with nukes, nobody will take on Israel because they know the US would get involved. 1 vs. 2 are not favorable odds. All that means that we have enough firepower to keep our (and Israel's) enemies at bay, but we don't have enough to force Iran to do anything. I said back when Ahmadinejad visited the US that we should be talking to Iran. Not necessarily negotiating anything, but we should maintain diplomatic relations with them. That's not cowardly... it's common sense.

[ktCarl]

Iran already has nukes. Firebird is right. You don't bully around somebody with the same gun you're carrying. And countries have been promising to wipe Israel off the map for decades. Even with nukes, nobody will take on Israel because they know the US would get involved. 1 vs. 2 are not favorable odds. All that means that we have enough firepower to keep our (and Israel's) enemies at bay, but we don't have enough to force Iran to do anything. I said back when Ahmadinejad visited the US that we should be talking to Iran. Not necessarily negotiating anything, but we should maintain diplomatic relations with them. That's not cowardly... it's common sense.

Doesn't Israel have nukes? They will certainly use them if threatened with annihilation.


I'm listening to Obama right now give his victory speech in N.C. and it's the same old 'chicken in every pot' speech. I see no change.

[jtk1519]

Doesn't Israel have nukes? They will certainly use them if threatened with annihilation.

Yes, they do. A far larger and more advanced arsenal than Iran. Iran knows that if they try and take on Israel, they are taking on Israel and the US. That is why I don't consider Iran a major threat to Israel.

[Bobcat81]

And now, my comments:

1. If Obama seems like he is waffling and unclear on the concept of what he wants to do with regards to foreign policy, that's because he is. Living overseas as a child does not count as foreign policy experience. He has some education in international relations as an undegrad at Columbia, but after that he was a lawyer and then served in the Illinois state senate and as a freshman U.S. senator. Much of his time as a U.S. senator was spent getting his campaign together. So he really doesn't have a clear about the issue and is going to rely mostly on what his advisors say. He also knows what the people likely to vote for him want to hear, which is that he'll pull out of Iraq, that he'll negotiatiate, and that he will do things multilaterally and improve America's image. This is all in keeping with his efforts to portray himself as the anti-Bush.


2. In spite of all that, he's spot on with some things. He is absolutely right that it would be a stupid idea to just start talking about extending the nuclear umbrella all over the Middle East. He's right that so far, the Iranians have been the single largest beneficiary of the Iraq war. Because of that, our choices pretty much are to:

A. Talk to them
B. Issue empty threats

We don't have the ability to do something serious to Iran militarily. They've hardened and dispersed their nuclear facilities and bomb strikes would set it back temporarily while simultaneously convince the regime even more that they needed nuclear weapons. And we don't have the army to actually start a real war with Iran. So talk is pretty much it.

In the long run, Iran probably will get nuclear weapons and we need to start thinking about how to live with a nuclear Iran. In the wake of Iraq, states with serious disagreements with the U.S. have logically concluded that the way to avoid attack or invasion is to get nuclear weapons. Time to dust off deterrence options.


Netanyahu is supposedly thinking of running for President again. That should set Iran back on it's heels.

[CyFallsMom]

I'm listening to Obama right now give his victory speech in N.C. and it's the same old 'chicken in every pot' speech. I see no change.

OMG - I know!! There was a commercial during DWTS so I switched over to see who was winning the two states and he was on there doing his "I Had A Dream" impersonation. I have news for him - he couldn't lick Martin Luther King's boots (IMO). Dr. King was cut from a different mold than this man is. And his WIFE - Do NOT get me going! Last night some reporter was telling her she reminded people of Jackie Kennedy - GET A LIFE!! and NOT ON YOUR LIFE. Jackie had more class in her little pinky thumbnail and she didn't go out of her way to put down my country...the country of my birth and of my family for 8 generations.

[Firebird]

Iran already has nukes. Firebird is right. You don't bully around somebody with the same gun you're carrying. And countries have been promising to wipe Israel off the map for decades. Even with nukes, nobody will take on Israel because they know the US would get involved. 1 vs. 2 are not favorable odds. All that means that we have enough firepower to keep our (and Israel's) enemies at bay, but we don't have enough to force Iran to do anything. I said back when Ahmadinejad visited the US that we should be talking to Iran. Not necessarily negotiating anything, but we should maintain diplomatic relations with them. That's not cowardly... it's common sense.

I don't at all mean to say that a nuclear armed Iran will not be a problem.

There just seems to be a general feeling that as soon as Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they will send it hurtling towards Tel Aviv without second thought. Not so. You have to parse out statements made for internal consumption, and for posturing. All indications are that the regime in Iran, despite their dramatic flair for the apocalyptic, wants the same things other regimes want..to stay in power, to feel secure within their borders, to expand their influence. The surest way to end that party is to launch a nuclear attack against a state with a much, much bigger arsenal than you.

What a nuclear Iran would be able to do is play with violence on a lower scale without fear of major retaliation. For instance, their support of terror and meddling in Iraq could suddenly become much more overt. The people in Iran watched Iraq and drew an entirely logical conclusion-- that the U.S. is pissed off and ready to invade and occupy the nations that piss them off. However, the U.S. will not invade and occupy a nation that can retaliate against allies or the region with nuclear weapons. The costs are too great.

Plus, Iran has its own agenda. Iran wants to be the regional player in the middle east. With nuclear weapons, it has a sort of veto power over U.S. force projection in its neighborhood, similar to the way the U.S. and Soviet Union had their own backyards into which the other did not stray. Iran can bully and shove around its next door neighbors a bit--but not too much. Remember, Pakistan and India are to the east, Russia to the north, and Israel to the west. All of those states are nuclearly armed and none of them will countenance too much Iranian meddling in their own "spheres." Still, the Persian Gulf would become pretty much an Iranian lake, which is what the folks in Tehran want.

So while Iran will be given a freer hand to engage in support of terror or insurgencies and to shove around their Arab neighbors, the idea that they will actually start letting these things off is far fetched. That would almost certainly only happen in the event of a major crisis with accompanying miscalculation. But nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of nuclear war, so people would certainly tread far more lightly around Iran. Which again, is the whole point. If you want to understand what Iran is seeking, stop reading the entrails of mullah's speeches and Koranic literature and instead bone up on how great powers interact and seek to rise. Islam may provide the source of the tension, but it doesn't dictate how governments react.

I still maintain that a nuclear Iran is trouble, but not unmanagable trouble. More to the point, we are at a juncture where our own options are very limited.

[GoOwls]

Man Obama is such a scary person. I never knew one man could be so terrifying.

and t-long comes over to the dark side....:D

[GoOwls]

firebird.....yada, yada, yada, and dance, dance, dance are just shorthand for "stuff I wasn't going to write down while taking notes the old way...by hand"....:D

[drgnbkr]

Man Obama is such a scary person. I never knew one man could be so terrifying.

Not real worried about Obama...terrifying? Not....:cool:

[t-long20]

and t-long comes over to the dark side....:D

You have finally convinced me.:D

[GoOwls]

Look...I'm not gonna even try to spell his name, but the prez of Iran, that dude has already said that he would sacrifice Iran to obliterate Israel...that way all of them would get their 57, or how many ever virgins, in Radical Muslim heaven.

It won't be very popular, but we had better have a nuclear weapons utilization plan for our allies in the Middle East...it's not a matter of if...it's a matter of when, a kook sets one off....:eek:

[Firebird]

Look...I'm not gonna even try to spell his name, but the prez of Iran, that dude has already said that he would sacrifice Iran to obliterate Israel...that way all of them would get their 57, or how many ever virgins, in Radical Muslim heaven.

It won't be very popular, but we had better have a nuclear weapons utilization plan for our allies in the Middle East...it's not a matter of if...it's a matter of when, a kook sets one off....:eek:

Rhetoric vs. Reality......Rhetoric vs. Reality.....Rhetoric vs. Reality....

[slorch]

Rhetoric vs. Reality......Rhetoric vs. Reality.....Rhetoric vs. Reality....

So when Kruschev(sp) said, "We will bury you," it was rhetorical?;)

[Firebird]

So when Kruschev(sp) said, "We will bury you," it was rhetorical?;)

Yes. Just like banging the shoe on the table.

[slorch]

OK...:rolleyes:

So at what point do we start paying attention to folks?

(not being argumentative, just seeking your opinion.)

[chhspantherfan]

Rhetoric vs. Reality......Rhetoric vs. Reality.....Rhetoric vs. Reality....

Firebird, you are an educated, astute, and passionate individual. You might want to rethink your post here.

For instance, carjacker points a gun at you and says. "Get out of the car or I will shoot you." Is that rhetoric or reality? (rhetorical question of course:rolleyes:)

[slorch]

Firebird, you are an educated, astute, and passionate individual. You might want to rethink your post here.

For instance, carjacker points a gun at you and says. "Get out of the car or I will shoot you." Is that rhetoric or reality? (rhetorical question of course:rolleyes:)

nice illustration to ask the same thing I wanted to know.

At what point can someone making statements like that not be able to say, "You misunderstood me. I was just trying to get your attention?"

After someone is already dead? Does the carjacker have to pull the trigger to make it real?

IMO, once the gun is pointed at me, it became a lifeending event for one of us.

[t-long20]

(not being argumentative

Thats not the way it works around here slorch. You can't have your cake and eat it too.;)

[slorch]

Thats not the way it works around here slorch. You can't have your cake and eat it too.;)

I get it.:D

but honestly, I wanted to peel back the onion, so to speak, and see where he was going with it. Obviously, someone else had the same question...

Have a good day, man- I gotta go to work.

[Firebird]

You have to ask where the gun is pointed, first of all. Could it be that these statements are intended for domsetic consumption, given that the entire regime's foundation is predicated on support for Islamist causes world-wide. Hmmmmmmmmm.....


Which is more likely that a leader of an (in truth, quite unpopular) regime would make inflammatory statements designed specifically to appeal to popular sentiment and thereby propogate the regime

OR

That the regime, which has shown itself quite astute at going right up to the edge yet still remain in power, would invite its own destruction by attacking a nuclear state with many more and much more sophisticated weapons.

[Bobcat81]

You have to ask where the gun is pointed, first of all. Could it be that these statements are intended for domsetic consumption, given that the entire regime's foundation is predicated on support for Islamist causes world-wide. Hmmmmmmmmm.....


Which is more likely that a leader of an (in truth, quite unpopular) regime would make inflammatory statements designed specifically to appeal to popular sentiment and thereby propogate the regime

OR

That the regime, which has shown itself quite astute at going right up to the edge yet still remain in power, would invite its own destruction by attacking a nuclear state with many more and much more sophisticated weapons.


Domestic consumption? Knowing he's being televised globally? You have to take it for what it is. There's no need to try to cut into it to try to find some hidden meaning. You pull your guns out and you're looking someone sqaure in the eye, it's pretty clear who the bullet is for.

Given the circumstances & relationships over the years, If i were Israel, I would have to assume the above to be true. Who in their right mind could expect Isreal to wait till the missiles are fired in order to protect itself?

It happens every time. since Iran became a threat, Israel has ALWAYS had a strike plan in place. That's a no brainer. Israel will wait for useless sanctions & negotiations to run their course then, as in the past, they will send in what ever they have to in order to neutralise the threat. They aren't going to sit back and wait for our "politically correct" process to fail. They can't afford to.

[Firebird]

Domestic consumption? Knowing he's being televised globally? You have to take it for what it is. There's no need to try to cut into it to try to find some hidden meaning. You pull your guns out and you're looking someone sqaure in the eye, it's pretty clear who the bullet is for.

Given the circumstances & relationships over the years, If i were Israel, I would have to assume the above to be true. Who in their right mind could expect Isreal to wait till the missiles are fired in order to protect itself?

It happens every time. since Iran became a threat, Israel has ALWAYS had a strike plan in place. That's a no brainer. Israel will wait for useless sanctions & negotiations to run their course then, as in the past, they will send in what ever they have to in order to neutralise the threat. They aren't going to sit back and wait for our "politically correct" process to fail. They can't afford to.

Only he didn't say it on global TV. He said it to a group of Islamic Students in Tehran at the interior ministry and so far as I know, it wasn't televised at all. It was picked up by a news agency and then broadcast across the wires. I know it's tough to believe, but leaders in other countries often make statements that are never intended for other nations. All the evidence points to that-- especially the fact that as soon as it hit the western press, the Iranian government started spinning and retracting.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that Ahmadinijad is the shot caller in Tehran.

Israel is out of luck. Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened and disperesed and Israel can't get them all through an air strike. They can't get them through an invasion. Tough luck, Iran is going nuclear if it wants too.

[chhspantherfan]

Only he didn't say it on global TV. He said it to a group of Islamic Students in Tehran at the interior ministry and so far as I know, it wasn't televised at all. It was picked up by a news agency and then broadcast across the wires. I know it's tough to believe, but leaders in other countries often make statements that are never intended for other nations. All the evidence points to that-- especially the fact that as soon as it hit the western press, the Iranian government started spinning and retracting.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that Ahmadinijad is the shot caller in Tehran.

Israel is out of luck. Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened and disperesed and Israel can't get them all through an air strike. They can't get them through an invasion. Tough luck, Iran is going nuclear if it wants too.


Why are you in Washington, DC?
who do you work for?

just askin';)

[Bobcat81]

Only he didn't say it on global TV. He said it to a group of Islamic Students in Tehran at the interior ministry and so far as I know, it wasn't televised at all. It was picked up by a news agency and then broadcast across the wires. I know it's tough to believe, but leaders in other countries often make statements that are never intended for other nations. All the evidence points to that-- especially the fact that as soon as it hit the western press, the Iranian government started spinning and retracting.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that Ahmadinijad is the shot caller in Tehran.

Israel is out of luck. Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened and disperesed and Israel can't get them all through an air strike. They can't get them through an invasion. Tough luck, Iran is going nuclear if it wants too.

I wouldn't cancel Israels lack of ability to thwart the threat just yet. The Mossad is very capable of implementing a plan of destruction of it's own. If bunker busting bombs from air strikes, or even mini-nukes won't work, the Mossad will find a way to infiltrate the systems (or operators) in place and take them out.

It's been a while back but i posted a documentary on just such an operation by the Israelis & the Mossad ten years ago or so. If there was ever a two legged "plague" about to consume Irans nuclear technology, it will come at the hands of the Mossad.

[drgnbkr]

Only he didn't say it on global TV. He said it to a group of Islamic Students in Tehran at the interior ministry and so far as I know, it wasn't televised at all. It was picked up by a news agency and then broadcast across the wires. I know it's tough to believe, but leaders in other countries often make statements that are never intended for other nations. All the evidence points to that-- especially the fact that as soon as it hit the western press, the Iranian government started spinning and retracting.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that Ahmadinijad is the shot caller in Tehran.

Israel is out of luck. Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened and disperesed and Israel can't get them all through an air strike. They can't get them through an invasion. Tough luck, Iran is going nuclear if it wants too.

If you are the leader of a country, even one as whacked out as akminijahad or whatever, you know that everything you say is going to be in the public domain. So he was saying it directly to the Israeli's first and the rest of the world second. There is no doubt about that.

[Bobcat81]

The documentary detailing the extremes Israel will go to to ensure it's survival. Israeli intelligence & the Mossad's plan to bring down Iraq's nuclear capabilty in 1981. The aristrikes were just the tip of the sword of what measures were taken to eliminate those involved in Irans nuclear program.

I highly recommend watching it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svzzrvN92Pg&feature=related

[drgnbkr]

The documentary detailing the extremes Israel will go to to ensure it's survival. Israeli intelligence & the Mossad's plan to bring down Iraq's nuclear capabilty in 1981. The aristrikes were just the tip of the sword of what measures were taken to eliminate those involved in Irans nuclear program.

I highly recommend watching it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svzzrvN92Pg&feature=related

We will no doubt see a repeat performance soon by the Israeli military...they don't fool around and ask permision from the UN or anyone else..Admirable!

[GoOwls]

Rhetoric vs. Reality......Rhetoric vs. Reality.....Rhetoric vs. Reality....

dumb vs dumber.....dumb vs dumber......dumb vs dumber.....:rolleyes:

Was the WTC, The Pentagon, that field in Pennsylvania, and 9/11 really all that long ago...seems to have been forgotten by some.

At what point was Saddam rhetoric or reality...when he invaded Kuwait, gassed the Kurds, or said he had nukes.....please....when?

When, exactly was Hitler rhetoric or reality.....when he won the Chancelorship, militarized and broke treaties, invaded Poland, invaded North Africa........

Please...if you run a country, history compels you to take all threats as real threats and not rhetoric. If some leaders made boastful leaders pay for those type of comments, we wouldn't have so much stupid rhetoric, would we.

Stupid comments were made to be eaten and it's time someone fired up the grill.

[mojotrain]

Look...I'm not gonna even try to spell his name, but the prez of Iran, that dude has already said that he would sacrifice Iran to obliterate Israel...that way all of them would get their 57, or how many ever virgins, in Radical Muslim heaven.

It won't be very popular, but we had better have a nuclear weapons utilization plan for our allies in the Middle East...it's not a matter of if...it's a matter of when, a kook sets one off....:eek:

Iran having Nukes is a lot different than India, China or Russia having them. Those countries are not sucidal. They know that to niuke the USA would be suicide to them. Iran has a religion that says they must be suicidial and they must kill millions before they can see virgins or whoever it is they want to see. Boy are they gonna be shocked when they get there!