It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama says goal 'to eliminate' Iran threat

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post 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?


Hey Centurion,
I think the left and right want peace, they just have different opinions on how to achieve it. Obama's tough talk is due to his apparent nomination as the Democratic candidate. He's trying to win over those swing conservative liberals or liberal conservatives or whatever you call them!


This is also called pandering - which just a nice term for lying to get votes.


I think Obama is smart enough to learn from Bush's mistakes in one regard: Americans (like all humans) thrive on victory. Bush had a lot of war support (here on US soil) until the years lagged on in Iraq, with no end in sight. I think Obama would choose his fights very carefully... think more like quick jabs ala Clinton ordering the cruise missiles to be fired. Basically any conflict where a clear winning strategy could be achieved within his tenure.


I was starting to agree with you until you mentioned Clinton and his cruise missile attacks. These served no purpose other than to stir up some desert dust and to deflect attention away from his affair with Monica. There are other better examples you could use.




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Purduegrad05
 


It is funny you should say this:



Equinox...

This is the type of thinking that has applied to US Foreign Policy, and other major super powers throughout history in their treatment of weaker nations. The term Hypocrit pretty much sums up our policy towards others nations, especially those in the middle east and others that we deem "terrorist states". Whatever we say about them is the truth and any military action that we take against those countries is justified. However, when they attempt to defend themselves or at least say they will, they are labeled with such absurd titles like "axis of evil", "democracy haters", "terrorists", etc.etc.....The biggest terrorist state in the world is the US!!


The other day I was actually reading about a politician who is sick and tired of Zionists hijacking the US Foreign Policy. I will try to find the article and post it up.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
League of countries defeated in Afghanistan?


Yes, it's not in the league of countries defeated in Vietnam...


League of defeated super-powers?



So who defeated the USSR and when did they do so? Did i miss the third world war? How do you reckon the US defeated the USSR and which US intelligence and defense officials, who had reason to know, actually claims this?

Stellar



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


It is very telling that your only conception of the elimination of a threat is through violence. Hes been consistently saying this. Welcome to the party.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Ive lost track you Obama deniers have flip flopped so many times. Is he a secret muslim or an Israel lover. Which is it today?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
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).


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA . Now he's a secret muslim israel loving Bush 3rd term candidate? How does your own tail taste as you chew it off?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

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?


Who is the left and where are your citations for peace at any price. Assuming that you are again indulging in intellectually dishonest hyperbole then we have eliminated your premise . What is left? Perhaps the concept that the 'left' as defined as anyone who doesn't agree with you, want peace at 'any price' as defined as a price you are not personally comfortable with.

Be specific. What is the 'any price' to which you are referring? Is it less than $1.2 Trillion?


And if these are just examples of pandering


Thankfully they are not so i just threw the rest of that paragraph away without reading it...


What to do, what to do?


And I quote: 'Get Over It!'


[edit on 6-6-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

So who defeated the USSR and when did they do so?


The USSR did. In 1917.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Does anyone think this may be double speak? Don't Obama and company (Farakhan, etc) believe that the black people are Israel? That they were the original "hebrews" and that Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple is their inheritance? There's a name for this but I don't recall off the top of my head, what it is. But he could feasibly say "I wlll defend Israel" and not mean the current occupants of Israel.


Is this the secret Muslim theory? Not following. Who is 'and company'?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


My opinion?

If they are so bitter at the loss of Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama that they are willing to put ANOTHER Republican in the White House after the eight years of mess this current one has caused then PLEASE do not complain when the continuation of Bush policy is enforced by his friend John McCain.

It will happen. So the question becomes this: Is your EGO more powerful than than your common sense?

Have at it.

- Lee



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I guess the Democrats did a bad job back in the 90s that a Republican was voted in office in year 2000.

No Republican is the same anyways whether you voted McCain or some other Republican, otherwise there wouldn't be competition between two Republican candidates. Same for Hillary and Obama as Democrats. Perhaps you should not vote for either party since they tend to do things the same and just go for a third party. Remember that the Democrats were responsible for Vietnam War. It may happened again and we shouldn't vote for the Demos.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Hopefully that Halliburton crap will stop when Obama gets in. Iran has been busted many times with blue prints of nuclear weapons by the U.N. not the U.S.

They do not need their underground facilities with 3000 centrifuges running while they are getting all the refined Uranium from Russia they need now do they? The U.S. said that it would give it to them should they decide to let us watch their operations. Yet they are expanding the site and adding more centrifuges. The same ones that they bought from Pakistan and the same type that are used for making weapons grade Uranium.

If they wanted the proper centrifuges for peaceful nuclear energy they could have bought them from Russia and not bought some from Pakistan secretly with bomb blueprints. Lybia, Egypt among other bought the same thing from AQ Kahn so we know what they have.

Any court of law would find there is more than enough proof that they are building a bomb.

Don't be fooled by Iran, Like I had said the U.N. is making the claims that Iran is hiding stuff not the U.S. so check the facts.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Eisenhower was republican.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


And what is your point? He supported the French. JFK sent the American advisors and Johnson sent pretty much almost everything. Nixon sustained the fighting of Johnson's war, which Obama could be the next Nixon.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

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]

Yeah, he will talk to them until they give up!

Or show he is tough, like Jimmy Carter did at Desert One!

[edit on 7-6-2008 by CharlesMartel]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by wytworm
 


And what is your point? He supported the French. JFK sent the American advisors and Johnson sent pretty much almost everything. Nixon sustained the fighting of Johnson's war, which Obama could be the next Nixon.


Just makes me wonder how a comment like Democrats starting the Vietnam war got in there.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


You'll have to excuse me, but I seem to have misplaced my gibberish-to-English translator. I'm sorry. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Something about Israelis, Bush's 3rd term, and something about secret Muslims? Whatever your point was, it was really funny, at least to you it seems. Well, I'm not an expert about the Israelis, but I do know that Bush cannot run for a third term according to the Constitution of the United States and, IMO, there's nothing wrong with being Muslim and there's no reason to keep it secret.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that my earlier post cited Barack Obama's stance on Pakistan as an example that he is much more hawkish than his supporters will acknowledge.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Thats too bad! I am still laughing...better luck next time!

[edit on 7-6-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


Indeed. I suppose that it was too much to ask that you address the article or Obama's statements. I'll take it as your support of his position that another nation's sovereignty may be invaded to attack terror camps without that nation's permission, so long as Obama approves it.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Bait denied! That one was easy.

Reread the thread. Ask a specific question on the points you don't understand.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join