Voted for McCain? We would be at war with Iran by now

Well, Nothing like war on 3 fronts, aye folks?



I wonder also, if Iran was having the proverbial "trigger being pulled" on them, who else would we be at war with?

Anyone ever hear of the Anglo-Saxon Mission? PNAC? How about just the logic of 3 warfronts while defending Israel.

Some ask why Obama was elected...consider the alternative.

I usually agree with you, but not this time. McCain said no mention of war, and to say that he was inferring war is a jump in my opinion.

What McCain said is that if we are not prepared to do anything, we have no business threatening that we are going to.

That to me, makes sense. Let's face it, if you can't back up threats with actions, you lose all credibility and the next time you threaten, nobody takes you seriously.

Further, McCain reiterated the deadline dates Obama set forth for Iran, none of which accomplished anything other than us moving the deadline date.

Now, perhaps McCain would have sent us to war with Iran, but that's not what he said in this video and making that jump is putting words into his mouth. Not saying it's the wrong conclusion to make, just saying that's not what he said.

reply to post by lpowell0627


True, he didn't spell it out exactly, but for political speech, its about as clear as you can get.
Lets not forget how his position is overall...this guy's mind isn't too difficult to understand


and of course, that lefty liberal, Pat Buchanan weighs in (sarcasm...Buchanan is a far right neocon)

sort of a important video to watch here to fully understand...from the lips of a hardline conservative.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I like all of your posts here but I must correct you on one thing. Pat Buchanan is a Paleocon NOT a Neocon. He attacks all the Neocons as not real Republicans and not real Conservatives, he says they are just warmongering liberals. That's just what he calls them.

Hmmm... so let me get this straight. So, no matter which way you vote, you still have to fight Iran?

In that case, why have vote?

Originally posted by MegaCurious
Hmmm... so let me get this straight. So, no matter which way you vote, you still have to fight Iran?

In that case, why have vote?

Don't blame me, I voted for Ralph Nader.

Originally posted by MegaCurious
Hmmm... so let me get this straight. So, no matter which way you vote, you still have to fight Iran?

In that case, why have vote?

Because when it's your guy dropping bombs, renewing the patriot act, calling for global government, and passing liberty killing executive orders it's a good thing. When the other guy is doing it it's a bad thing.

That's pretty much the spirit behind every post or poster with the "oh yeah, but so and so would have done blah blah" theme.

It's an honor to be killed by the master you chose. It's shameful to be killed by the master the other guy chose. That's the gist of the two-party system in America.

reply to post by lpowell0627


That's funny, I usually don't agree with SFX but this time I do

Anyway, this is further proof of the l-r paradigm that keeps it all together, just like Crazy Glue.

Do you like the puppet in my right hand or the one in my left hand?

Obama is a better puppet to have than McCain would have been. If nothing more his speeches are great to watch and fill you with warm fuzzy feelings (not joking his speeches make me feel great). However when your faced with the cold hard reality he is still a puppet and even if he is the better of the two choices it's still a problem.

Mccain was there to lose.

Obama is who you got and they could only get obama in running against someone who no one would vote for.

Obama was given the election. Ron Paul got the republic nomination i reckon, but supposedly people voted for mccain(cough,cough).

Nobody will be at war with Iran for at least another 8 to 14 months and it will only be started if israil attack first. the war is pointless and a hoax, its just an excuse to kill lots of people and cause cahos. i can gurantee that wars such as this will be constructed by the bilderberg grioup who are instructed by the 7 aristocrats who are instructed by inside governments/military who are instructed by grey and Reptilian aliens.

reply to post by lpowell0627


I think he did say what the OP is inferring. He said don't point a gun at someone unless you are going to pull the trigger which is what 99% of LEOs will say to you as well. He also said its about time we pull the trigger.

I don't think we should go to war with Iran unless we are attacked, we should never preemptively start a war. We will win it in the short term but we'll lose it over the long term.

I personally didn't have a problem with Iraq because we suspended the war in 2003 based on conditions which Hussein did not live up to and in fact he continually fired on our military in violation of the surrender agreement. He started the original war and he lost it and didn't live up to the surrender agreement so he had to go.

I completely disagree with the current occupation though. It would have been cheaper in both dollars and lives to just go in, unseat Saddam and restore the terms of the cease fire and leave.

Iran is not a model citizen of the world but until they pull the trigger on someone I don't think we need to be unseating their government - that should be the role of the opposition inside of Iran. I go back and forth on whether they are insane enough to use a nuclear weapon to stake themselves as a world power.

I do think they have far weaker security than the rest of the nuclear powers, have completely insane people in their governments, and are much more likely to lose a nuclear weapon. Regardless of whether they pull the trigger or some terrorist group pulls the trigger they have to be held responsible for in my eyes.

He can't get over his experience of being a POW!

No way this guy could ever be President, so to say he could have put us at war means nothing.

His mind is warped by his personal experience, he's getting old, and dementia has set in.

Who cares, since the past is not what our future is.

I like him when I lived in Arizona, but, he's not for the rest of the country, in any sort of leardership capacity.

Get over it!

reply to post by SaturnFX


I love how peopel assume that a President can just start a war without approval of anybody.

This is not the case.

Wether McCain wanted to go to Iran, he'd need a good reason. He'd have to convince the Senate and the House to do so, along with that the American people.

Republican Or Democrat, two sides of the same coin. Doesn't matter who gets elected.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I love how peopel assume that a President can just start a war without approval of anybody.

Congress is the only branch that can declare war. The last president to formally ask congress to declare war was Roosevelt and of course we've had many more wars since then. We'd probably be safer with McCain because the Democrats in congress would NEVER give him a war against Iran. They might be persuaded to support Obama though if they felt the war would be a good enough distraction for an upcoming election. That seems to be the new M-O. Distract the people with a significant event leading in to an election cycle so that they forget about their other policy concerns.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I love how peopel assume that a President can just start a war without approval of anybody.

Your absolutely right, Congress must declare the war...the issue here is that any president can set forth the motions to get war going, from innundating the general public with endless campaigns on how the Iranians are hiding under your bed, to potential false flags and a sudden discovery of WMDs pointing at Israel and Narnia...

A president rarely has trouble getting a overbloated military nation to start war to "protect our freedom" and "Get those bastards who did 9/11" (those bastards = anyone not currently attached to the American continent..with the exception of California)

reply to post by SaturnFX


The propaganda campaign against Iran has escalated as of late, so I have a hard time seeing the difference McCain would have made. Other than perhaps having somewhat stronger rhetoric against them.

Altough Obama's approach is still the better of the two. He's still pushing diplomatic relations in a time where war seems to be ont he top of everybody's list.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I love how peopel assume that a President can just start a war without approval of anybody.

This is not the case.

Wether McCain wanted to go to Iran, he'd need a good reason. He'd have to convince the Senate and the House to do so, along with that the American people.

Republican Or Democrat, two sides of the same coin. Doesn't matter who gets elected.

~Keeper

Absolutely. Even both Bushes, no matter what anyone thinks of them, unleashed a massive PR campaign prior to launching attacks on Iraq in both wars.

I think that barring an Israeli, or some other entity to initiate hostilities that either McCain or Obama would need to sell this to the masses before they can do much about this. And frankly after the last 2 sales, they have a an extremely tough sell to make.

But to adequately respond to the OP, I do recall in any gun training that I have ever had, that "You never unholster your weapon unless you intend to use it and You never point your weapon at anyone unless you intend to kill them." I think that this is what Senator McCain is talking about.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Listen...Iran...well, the government at least, is a super pain in the ass.

However...

They are also one of the most moderate nations in the middle east now. The people are generally divided between western wannabe's and hardliners.
The young want to revolt and join the international community, but everytime there is saber rattling and the threat of war, a few more liberals there turn into conservative hardliner anti-west types and stall any true reform or revolution for years.

What needs to happen is a opposite approach. To saturate Iran with western culture, products, ideals, broadcast unfettered wireless net access, television, etc...and turn the people into west addicts..that would clear this whole mess up in a couple years.

McCain's whole stance was to continously point missiles at them and demand they obey the US...Obama's stance is to try and cut the money lines...both are wrong, but Obama is betting on capitalists in the country getting pissed and influencing the government to cave..better than the people fearing endless bombs and demanding their government disarm).

The solution is to make them an addict of moderation...not enforce religious and political isolation...that only emboldens the existing dictators and creates a scared and dependent population.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You know..on second thought, I agree with you.

I can see how McCain would have picked up the rhetoric far earlier than Obama would have, or has.

He would have had the war mongering stance from the beginning. A patriot act to him of course.

Your right about Iran, the people are moderate, the government crazies. If they were to be saturated with Western Culture, without assimilating to it, they could prove to be America's biggest ally in the middle east in 10 years if they turned into a democracy.

A real one anyway.

The most important thing to remember when attempting to saturate a country with different views, is to make sure we don't do it in a way that removes the importance of their culture or way of thinking. It needs to be done in a " Take what you want and mix it with what you have", sort of way.

A smart leader would understand this and work towards getting the people of Iran a good leader, not a puppet or a dictator as they have now.

~Keeper

[edit on 4/17/2010 by tothetenthpower]