Mccain criticizes Obama for willingness to meet with Iran - Page 2

poetrychic · 06-02-2008, 12:23 PM

p.s. since you didn't post the link i looked it up, here's the rest of the story you "forgot" to include:

McCain has warm relations with the group, which is influential in the Jewish community. His call for sanctions against gasoline imports is a priority that AIPAC's members plan to lobby for on Capitol Hill later in the week.

In contrast, Obama has worked to reassure Jewish voters who have expressed some unease about his candidacy.

"I welcome the Muslim world's accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel's security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm," Obama said in an interview last month with The Atlantic magazine. "You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel's security."

(This version CORRECTS UPDATES with Obama comment and background; corrects that Obama voted against Revolutionary Guard measure sted Central Bank measure.)

McCain criticizes Obama on Iran - Yahoo! News

why'd you leave that part out?

ibex · 06-02-2008, 12:56 PM

why'd you leave that part out?

[/quote]

That quote refutes the image he holds of Obama, that's why.

BillCosby · 06-02-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

He criticized Obama for seeming to suggest that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear program because the U.S. refuses to engage in presidential-level talks. McCain said the Clinton administration in particular tried to engage Iran for two years, even lifting some sanctions, to no avail.

It's all their fault............

What about when the the Iranian "moderates" reached out to your bush & he didn't even bother to slap the hand away..... Even after they helped after 911............

Please just save your selective reading of history for the sheepl feast & the gathering of the wagons under the big perpetual war tent.

BBBoooBBBOOOOOOOOO

CosmicRocker · 06-02-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poetrychic

p.s. since you didn't post the link i looked it up, here's the rest of the story you "forgot" to include:

McCain has warm relations with the group, which is influential in the Jewish community. His call for sanctions against gasoline imports is a priority that AIPAC's members plan to lobby for on Capitol Hill later in the week.

In contrast, Obama has worked to reassure Jewish voters who have expressed some unease about his candidacy.

"I welcome the Muslim world's accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel's security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm," Obama said in an interview last month with The Atlantic magazine. "You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel's security."

(This version CORRECTS UPDATES with Obama comment and background; corrects that Obama voted against Revolutionary Guard measure sted Central Bank measure.)

McCain criticizes Obama on Iran - Yahoo! News

why'd you leave that part out?

i didn't use
"select all" - and the cursor wouldn't move any further.
Did it on a break from work.

It didn't change anything, but i'll be sure to post the entire link, if that bothers you.

PS. I'll answer your post later on today on "pre-conditons",
i'm late for the pool.

CosmicRocker · 06-02-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibex

why'd you leave that part out?

That quote refutes the image he holds of Obama, that's why.[/quote]quote waasn't germane to the story - time pressures at work.
didn't think it was that important to relaod the cursor.

CosmicRocker · 06-02-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poetrychic

this has been explained thoroughly in the other thread...but for shits and giggles, let's just use your supposition that the next president continues bush's policies of making a country jump through hoops before we'll even sit down at the table with them (also known as pre-conditions), in your example above iran must withdraw funding for hamas (though last night you said hezbollah) before we'll even agree to talk with themand using this supposition, what happens when iran says "NO!", because they won't be bullied and they won't be dictated to in order to even come to the table, then what happens? tensions grow, no one ever talks, anti-this and anti-that sentiment grows stronger and everything escalates into who knows what...

is that the type of scenario you're imagining our president bring upon our country? because that's what happens when you keep playing and using this supposition, what happens when iran says "NO!", because they won't be bullied and they won't be dictated to in order to even come to the table, then what happens?school yard bully and no one listens on either side...and you better believe that as this country's infrastructure becomes weaker due to a horrible economy etc. that we are going to have increasingly less and less leverage to use against our "enemies" in order to secure the path the united states wants to take, the only real thing we would have left is threat of a nuclear option, and someone will call our bluff...if that happens, in order to save face we would have to use the bomb again, against someone, and you can bet that would create a shitstrom like no one else's business...
is that what you're wishing for?

WHAT??

what does our internal infrastructure have to do with foreign policy?
The roads are bad - so to save face let's nuke someone??

This whole thing you wrote is so weird..

Quote:

in your example above iran must withdraw funding for hamas (though last night you said hezbollah) before we'll even agree to talk with them and using this supposition, what happens when iran says "NO!", because they won't be bullied and they won't be dictated to in order to even come to the table, then what happens? tensions grow, no one ever talks

Hezbollah mostly -Hamas to a lesser extent.

If they say no - then we need not negotiate.
Iran has much moe of a need to get off sanctions, thatn we do to enegage them
Their economy is in a shambles. They even need to import light crude. Their economy is a basket case.

They are a pariah in international business, and their rulers are largely despised by their own population.

So they need us more than we need to talk to them.

It's doubtful they will ever agree to losing their grip on hegemony,
as their proxies in the Shiite Crescent keep the region unstable.

It would be good to negotiate some points, the main thing we care about is their weaponization.
But we have losts of options, including blocking the Strait of Hormuz, and a blockade of their ports.

So it's up to them to give some good faith examples.
we're fine keeping them international pariahs, if necessary.

Jonesy · 06-03-2008, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain raised the specter of a nuclear Iran in a speech to a pro-Israel group, once again chastising Democrat Barack Obama for his willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and other U.S. foes.

McCain has criticized Obama for saying in a debate last year that he would meet leaders of Iran and other U.S. foes without preconditions. The Arizona senator argues Obama is naive and inexperienced to think that such a meeting would yield progress.

"It's hard to see what such a summit with President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another," McCain told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

He criticized Obama for seeming to suggest that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear program because the U.S. refuses to engage in presidential-level talks. McCain said the Clinton administration in particular tried to engage Iran for two years, even lifting some sanctions, to no avail.

"Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before," McCain said as dozens in the audience laughed.

His campaign said he was referring to Obama's comments in an interview last month with Fox News: "Iran is stronger now than when George Bush took office. And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah. We have had no impact whatsoever as we pursue our policies."

Obama's campaign said Monday that McCain supports an Iraq war that has made the U.S. and Israel less secure.

"He promises to continue a war in Iraq that has emboldened Iran and strengthened its hand," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said. "He promises sanctions that the Bush administration has been unable to persuade the (United Nations) Security Council to deliver."

In his speech, McCain called for measures aimed at increasing pressure on Iran, such as severely limiting Iranian imports of gasoline, targeted sanctions such as denying visas and freezing assets and a worldwide campaign to divest from companies doing business with Iran.

McCain called for financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which he said aids in terrorism and weapons proliferation, and he criticized Obama for opposing a measure to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops in Iraq

Change happens from the ground-up, not the top-down. Talking to the people of Iran could only wield progress. Ahmadinejad does not equal Iran anymore than Bush equals America.

Old (D)emocrats sure are some unloyal bastards. They switch to (R)epublican thinking as soon as it better suits their goals. It is called democracy, bitches and ho's. For those who don't know, democracy = the people rule. In a free society, only the people could rule.

poetrychic · 06-03-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

WHAT??

what does our internal infrastructure have to do with foreign policy?
The roads are bad - so to save face let's nuke someone??

This whole thing you wrote is so weird..

before we move any further with this conversation, i need to ask if you actually understand that our internal infrastructure equates to more than just "roads being bad"?

infrastructure correlates to "an underlying base or foundation especially for an organisation or system"...it encompasses far more than "the roads are bad"...so yes, a deteriorating infrastructure combined with an economy that is also in shambles does not equal good things for the united states when trying to leverage our "power" against our enemies...

BillCosby · 06-03-2008, 04:43 PM

Regardless of the question force is always the answer..............

Regardless of the situation any reference about talking to anyone unwilling to kowtow to us interest the response is always remember sniveling chamberlain........ Forget about the thousands of times talking actually did some good........

After all why talk if you got a military big enough to get the job done...

BillCosby · 06-05-2008, 01:01 PM

Munich, 1938
Tue Jun 3, 3:00 AM ET

When President Bush, before the Knesset, used the word "appeasement" to label those who would negotiate with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he invoked the most powerful analogy in any debate over war and peace.

No man wishes to be regarded as an "appeaser."

But, as this writer has discovered since my book "Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World" was launched Memorial Day, there is a deep well of ignorance about what happened that September, 70 years ago.

Why did Neville Chamberlain go to Munich? How did Munich lead to World War II?

The seeds of the crisis were planted at the Paris peace conference of 1919. There, the victorious Allies carved the new nation of Czechoslovakia out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

But instead of following their principle of self-determination, the Allies placed under the rule of 7 million Czechs 3 million Germans, 3 million Slovaks, 800,000 Hungarians, 150,000 Poles and 500,000 Ruthenians. These foolish decisions spat upon Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points, under the terms of which the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians had laid down their arms.

By 1938, Germany had arisen, re-armed and brought Austria into the Reich, and was demanding the right of self-determination now be granted to the 3 million Germans in Czechoslovakia, who were clamoring to be free of Prague to rejoin their kinsmen.

Britain had no alliance with, and no obligation to fight for, the Czechs. But France did. And Britain feared that if Adolf Hitler used force to bring the Sudeten Germans back to German rule, France might fight. And if France declared war, Britain would be drawn in, and a second bloodbath would ensue as it had in 1914.

Chamberlain went to Munich because he did not believe that keeping 3 million Germans inside a nation to which they had been consigned against their will was worth a world war.

Moreover, Britain was unprepared for war. She had no draft, no Spitfires, no divisions ready to be sent to France. Why should the British Empire commit suicide by declaring war on Germany, to support a Paris peace agreement that he, Chamberlain, believed had been unjustly and dishonorably imposed on a defeated Germany?

Chamberlain believed not — and, after three trips to Germany that September, he effected the transfer of the Sudeten Germans to Berlin's rule, where they wished to be. He came home in triumph to be hailed as the greatest peacemaker of all time.

Why, then, are "Munich" and "appeasement" terms of obloquy?

The answer lies in what happened next.

Chamberlain returned from Munich to a rapturous reception, waving a paper he and Hitler had signed, and declared: "For the second time in 60 years, a British prime minister has returned from Germany with peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time."

This was palpable nonsense. Hitler had already turned to the next item on his menu, Danzig, a city of 350,000 Germans, detached from the Reich at Versailles and made a Free City to give the new Poland an outlet to the sea. Hitler did not want war with Poland. Indeed, he wanted the kind of alliance with Poland he had with Italy. But, first, Danzig must be resolved.

Here, too, the British Government agreed: Danzig should be returned. For of all the amputations of German lands and peoples at Versailles, European statesmen, even Winston Churchill, regarded Danzig and the Polish Corridor that sliced Germany in two as the most outrageous. The problem was the Poles, who refused to discuss Danzig.

Then, in March, Czechoslovakia suddenly began to fall apart. The Sudetenland had been annexed by Germany. Hungary had taken back its lost lands, and Poland had annexed the disputed region of Teschen. Slovakia and Ruthenia now moved to declare independence, and Prague began to march on the provinces.

Hitler intervened to guarantee the independence of Slovakia and gave Hungary a green light to re-annex Ruthenia. Czech President Hacha then asked to see Hitler, who bullied him for three hours into signing away Czech sovereignty and making his nation the German Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

Chamberlain, now humiliated, mocked by Tory back-benchers, panicking over wild false rumors of German attacks on Romania and Poland, made the greatest blunder in British history. Unasked, he issued a war guarantee to Poland, empowering a Polish dictatorship of colonels that had joined Hitler in dismembering Czechoslovakia to drag the British Empire into war with Germany over a city, Danzig, the British thought should be returned to Germany.

It was not Munich. It was the war guarantee that guaranteed the war that brought down the Empire, and gave us the Holocaust, 50 million dead and the Stalinization of half of Europe.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at Creators Syndicate - Celebrating 20 Years as a World-Class Syndicate Of Talent.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode