Obama is a clone of McCain... - Page 3

winthrop · 06-04-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kana

Additionally, Obama isn't merely talking about what would happen if Iran used nuclear weapons. He's actually talking about preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons. He didn't actually say "war", leaving it open to interpretation, but there is no doubt how the Iranians will interpret it.

But that gets back to the issue of deterrent. A nuclear exchange of
any size would be an unprecedented disaster for the entire world.
What is wrong with a simple message,

"Okay, it is hypocritical to deny you what Israel has, but if you use them
aggressively against anyone, you are done".

Of course the problem is that we may all be done as a result,
but what, as you note, after talk has failed, does one use as a
deterrent?

ibex · 06-04-2008, 02:14 PM

Once Israel got the bomb, it was naive of the US or anybody else to expect its neighbors not to acquire nukes eventually. Israel cannot dictate our foreign policy but AIPAC is so powerful and ingrained into the Washington establishment that the election of any candidate who would defy them, or better still toss them out of DC altogether would never even get nominated, let alone elected.

OldManOnFire · 06-04-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kana

Here's the full quote:

Obama toughens Iran stance, backs Israel on Jerusalem | Reuters

This worries me. He will do everything to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes? Doesn't everything include war?

Exactly my point...just like McCain...more sabre-rattling, more bully-tactics...and this is called change??

OldManOnFire · 06-04-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kana

But if we can't talk the Iranians out of acquiring nuclear weapons through diplomacy, then what? Sanctions? If the sanctions don't work, then what?

Is war an appropriate measure to prevent nuclear proliferation?

And what happened to this tiny little thing called 'sovereignty'??

Why is it okay for the US to have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads and tell another sovereign nation they can't have any??

Here's my solution: The USA needs to promise Iran that if they abandon development of nuclear weapons, that the USA will protect Iran from any unprovoked aggression. If the USA wants to be the world's police...then time to act like it and provide security to all...

Kana · 06-04-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

And what happened to this tiny little thing called 'sovereignty'??

Why is it okay for the US to have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads and tell another sovereign nation they can't have any??

It's imperial arrogance. I know the use of the 'I' word will set some people off, but that's what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

Here's my solution: The USA needs to promise Iran that if they abandon development of nuclear weapons, that the USA will protect Iran from any unprovoked aggression. If the USA wants to be the world's police...then time to act like it and provide security to all...

I doubt that would work for one reason... one of the reasons the Iranians would want nuclear weapons is to deter the US government from invading their country.

Richterscale · 06-04-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

This morning while Obama is sucking up to the pro-Israel groups and pandering for the Jewish vote, he said 'I will do everything to protect Israel and to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons'.

This statement was an appeasement to the Jewish community and a direct threat to Iran. And Obama supporters call this change?? The guy is not yet president and already he is following the typical bully-tactics of the US...this is not change!

I would enjoy hearing anyone explain to me how Obama is any different than McCain when it comes to Iran???

First off, learn what appeasement means.

And also, EVERYTHING also includes negotiation, which this administration, and John McCain, that guy you think Obama is a clone of, says that's off the table. So just how exactly is this the same again?

OldManOnFire · 06-05-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

One hopes not at all, but certainly not as the first preferred option, as
has been the policy under Bush/Cheney.
This is where the talking comes in, including pointing out all the possible
repercussions. Not as a threat, but frank conversation. War should be avoided
and even the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad share that interest.

Here's a question for you Winthrop:

If talking does no good and Iran 'might' be building nuclear weapons, without UN approval and a broad coalition...does the US have any right whatsoever to preemptively attack Iran??

OldManOnFire · 06-05-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowhand

He also said he would be willing to sit down with reasonable leaders of Iran at a time of his choosing..That is something McCain balks at

Does it really make any difference who is sitting with whom??

Representatives of Iran are talking to representatives of the US every day...not at the presidential level...but at whatever levels are necessary. This is nothing new even for insane-Bush. There are so-called diplomats everywhere in the world maintaining some forms of communications.

CosmicRocker · 06-05-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanadesaga

Wrong. There are small tactical nuclear weapons. Developed during the Cold War in case of a massive Soviet troop invasion from Eastern Europe. Limited yield, limited devastation.

yes, and there are also neutron bombs.
these "tactical nukes"only take out chunks of land - or in neutron bombs case kill only life, leaving buildings intact .

but do you think there is such as a thing as a "limited nuclear war?"

Once the shit flys, no-one's gonna say -"well it was only a SMALL nuke"

Obliteration is just a step away.

OldManOnFire · 06-05-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Appropriate? I am unwilling to say death and destruction is ever an
appropriate means to settle political disputes. I do think, however,
that while Iran may have as much a right to nuclear weapons as
any other country, they should know, as does the rest of the world,
the ramifications of their use, particularly against a relatively
peaceful ally of the U.S. It is not a desirable outcome in any case,
but what sort of deterrent has proved as effective?
I am delighted to be out from under the Cold War MAD sword of
Damocles, but it did essentially prevent a nuclear war between
(admittedly sane) opponents.
If everything fails, then yes, we are all so much toast.

There are approximately 22,000 nuclear weapons located throughout the world. It's just a matter of time before one or more go off accidentally or on purpose. I wonder what the US war scenario is if this happens?? Do we forgive someone for doing this or do we follow with nuclear retaliation? If retaliation do others then get involved...where does it end? And no matter who is bombing whom, how does this negatively affect all other nations and citizens?

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