Obama says goal 'to eliminate' Iran threat

Obama says goal 'to eliminate' Iran threat

www.breitbart.com

Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama vowed Wednesday he would work to "eliminate" the threat posed by Iran to security in the Middle East and around the globe.
"There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran," he told the powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).

"The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he said, adding loudly to add emphasis that he would "everything" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 4/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

Well, well, well. Obama apparantly has some fangs, too. How does this revelation sit with the Obama supporters that have been hoping and claiming that Obama would be a much more peaceful president than Bush?

Really this just supports the theory that no matter what the candidates say to get elected, they are really all the same inside.

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6/4/2008 by centurion1211]

There are many ways to eliminate a threat. One way is by using "aggressive, principled diplomacy", which is what he calls for. That's peaceful. One can eliminate a threat without eliminating thousands of people who disagree with them.

And I have no doubt that Obama has fangs and would use them if necessary.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Calling for "aggressive, principled diplomacy" to tackle the problem of the Islamic regime in Tehran, he also warned he would never take the military option off the table in guaranteeing US and Israeli security.

all as usual imperialist war mongers , man one day as stellar says the Russian Federation will have to good care to ensure that imperialist Bloodthirsty USA be gone once and for all , to save the world from American genocide...

I was brought back with a start to just such evil-doers of my American screen childhood last week by a memoir from a once-upon-a-time insider of the Bush presidency. No, not former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who swept into the headlines by accusing the President of using "propaganda" and the "complicit enablers" of the media to take the U.S. to war in 2002-2003. I'm thinking of another insider, former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez. He got next to no attention for a presidential outburst he recorded in his memoir, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story, so bloodthirsty and cartoonish that it should have caught the attention of the nation -- and so eerily in character, given the last years of presidential behavior, that you know it has to be on the money.



Let me briefly set the scene, as Sanchez tells it on pages 349-350 of Wiser in Battle. It's April 6, 2004. L. Paul Bremer III, head of the occupation's Coalition Provisional Authority, as well as the President's colonial viceroy in Baghdad, and Gen. Sanchez were in Iraq in video teleconference with the President, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. (Assumedly, the event was recorded and so revisitable by a note-taking Sanchez.) The first full-scale American offensive against the resistant Sunni city of Fallujah was just being launched, while, in Iraq's Shiite south, the U.S. military was preparing for a campaign against cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

www.zmag.org...

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Hold on so when the Iranian leader says the Zionist regime will disappear people claim he is a monster, but when a US leader says he will eliminate the Iran threat he is a hero? Makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are many ways to eliminate a threat. One way is by using "aggressive, principled diplomacy", which is what he calls for. That's peaceful. One can eliminate a threat without eliminating thousands of people who disagree with them.

And I have no doubt that Obama has fangs and would use them if necessary.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Nice attempt at "cherry-picking", however, he finished the statement you quoted with this:

Calling for "aggressive, principled diplomacy" to tackle the problem of the Islamic regime in Tehran, he also warned he would never take the military option off the table in guaranteeing US and Israeli security.

Sounds pretty warlike, and really no different than many of the people whos policies he has complained about - which is my point.

Also, notice the reference to defending Israel, the rest of the world's whipping boy. His muslim and arab supporters must now be wringing their hands and moaning a collective, "No!".

[edit on 6/4/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


Its not just Iran. What about those statements about attacking insurgent camps in Pakistan, the opinion of the Pakistani government be damned? Sounds like 'with us or against us,' at least to me.

www.usatoday.com...

They never respond to those comments because they CAN'T respond to it. Its indefensible if you believe this perception that Obama is an absolute pacifist. Many of his supporters do. In reality, HE IS NOT. (and I'm not aiming that at the earlier poster; I do not know what he believes in that regard).

*Raises hand, jumping around in back of conference rom* I have an awesome idea. Why don't we, as the United States of America, deal with the problems of Americans, and stop "protecting" the rest of the world from "Terrorists"? From what I have read the Isreali millitary can protect itself plenty.

So, if Obama truly means what he has said, how does the left continue to support him when they want peace at any price?

And if these are just examples of pandering - a nice word for lies - then how is Obama different from Bush that so many have vilified for "lying"? Surely, the dems can't claim to be supporting a liar after all they've said about Bush?

What to do, what to do?

Originally posted by centurion1211
So, if Obama truly means what he has said, how does the left continue to support him when they want peace at any price?

I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask them. But I wasn't under the impression that EVERYONE on the left wants peace at any price. I think there are many left-leaning liberals who would support a necessary war. If one happens to come along.

reply to post by Finn1916


Cause now we got a nancy boy that thinks he has to get out there and cap some ass so the people will believe he is strong. This is the most dangerous kind. No plan and lots of mouth, with no experience to back it up.

That's what gets a greenhorn in trouble fast. I don't see him lasting a week in the old western town of the 1880s.

Originally posted by Equinox99
Hold on so when the Iranian leader says the Zionist regime will disappear people claim he is a monster, but when a US leader says he will eliminate the Iran threat he is a hero? Makes no sense to me.

And if Bush or McCain said that, they'd be labelled a "warmonger". You're right, doesn't make much sense.

What has happen to our Government in America?
Where is THIER PROOF, that Iran is building WMD?
I have not seen anything so far, only Properganda.
This GREED, for Irans oil is what all this is about!

Evil has taken over the USA government.
When evil takes over anything, it always end up destroyed its self, and everything it touches.

That means the end of the USA as we know it.

Our own Government is already passing Laws against WE THE PEOPLE and violateing the laws of the CONSTITUTION.

Freedom comes with a price, we have to fight for it, and some times die for it, so the rest of us can live free.
Our Government is trying to take all of this away from us, in the name of TERRORIST!
The only Terrorist in this war is our own Government.

It is time to stand up and take back our Country.
If we don't then (WE THE PEOPLE) do NOT deserve freedom.

So write, call, your congressmen email them, that this war they want with Iran is on Lies, Show us the proof!



[edit on 4-6-2008 by cashlink]

Well what a surprise! There again, it is the annual "suck up to Israel" AIPAC conference this week so they've all been lining up to show their allegiance.

To do otherwise would be political suicide, and they all know it, so it's best if they all roll over and pledge unswerving support, and more American money and lives, in pursuit of Israels dominance of the region.
Israel has more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy half the ME but it's better that someone else spend all the money and lives necessary - never them.

Shouldn't the presidential candidates and congress be spending a bit more time looking after American interests back home right now, rather than pledging American lives to something that doesn't benefit the US one bit (unless they think the Iranians will welcome them with showers of flowers, like the Iraqis did, when they march in to steal the oilfields for US corporations)

reply to post by Equinox99


Yes. As I said, I have no doubt he would use "teeth" if he felt it necessary. It's just that that's not his first choice.

Originally posted by Equinox99
Hold on so when the Iranian leader says the Zionist regime will disappear people claim he is a monster, but when a US leader says he will eliminate the Iran threat he is a hero? Makes no sense to me.

Firstly, I never claimed the Iranian leader was a monster. So that doesn't apply to me. You'll have to speak to those who hold that opinion.

And secondly, when Obama claims he will eliminate the threat posed by Iran (if there is one) by first using aggressive diplomacy and being willing to use military force if necessary, then yeah, he's pretty much a hero to me.

Is there a problem with that?

Originally posted by jerico65
And if Bush or McCain said that, they'd be labelled a "warmonger".

I wonder why... Do you suppose it could be because they have proven themselves over and over to BE warmongers? Yeah, if either of them start talking about eliminating a threat, I'm naturally going to remember that GW started a war and McCain supported him all the way.

As I said, there are many ways to eliminate a threat.

Come on people.
It all boils down to, "do you believe Amadenajad means what he says, and is capable of carrying out anything he says"?
If you can answer that question well than you can move on to whether Obama is a warmonger or if you can compare the Iraq war to any action taken against Iran.
If Amadenajad is for real, than my man Ron Paul would not be the best choice for commander and chief. If Amadenajad is just an impotent whack job, well than please continue on with your political debate.
But, for those of you that are going to draw comparisons between Iraq and Iran and use the terms "warmonger" and "propaganda" etc....then make it clear that you don't believe a word Amadenajad has said AND you don't believe he could carry out anything. That is the only way that your comments will avoid sounding innane.

reply to post by cashlink


Their proof are the words of powerful lobbyists. As someone mentioned before me AIPAC which is a very powerful lobbyists. Your government is all corrupt, evidence is not needed to go to war. Money is and if money is paid to right people then a war started with the money of the tax payers.

Soon-to-be Former President Bush has made a commitment to the people of Israel:

Pres. Bush' speech

Presidential hopeful Obama is simply telling the players that he's on board with that!