Iran Endorses Obama

[kamiller42]

The government that wishes to wipe Israel off the map gave its nod to Obama.

[quote]"We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because [b]he is more flexible[/b] and rational, even though we know American policy will not change that much," Larijani said at a press conference during a visit to Bahrain.
[url="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611840,00.html"]Source[/url][/quote]
In other words, we can play him like a fiddle.

[kujo]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1684308' date='Oct 23 2008, 01:05 PM']The government that wishes to wipe Israel off the map gave its nod to Obama.


In other words, we can play him like a fiddle.[/quote]

In other words, it is eager to engage in diplomacy rather than saber-rattling and Bush-era standoffishness.

Why is it wrong that our "enemies" would like to speak with one candidate over another?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' post='1684436' date='Oct 23 2008, 05:44 PM']In other words, it is eager to engage in diplomacy rather than saber-rattling and Bush-era standoffishness.

Why is it wrong that our "enemies" would like to speak with one candidate over another?[/quote]


Yeah maybe... but The same guy also said that Jews are "the most detested people in all humanity"

"Today, the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse and there is no way for it to out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters….American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders. Today, the thought of hegemony quickly becomes a demerit."

"Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear"

"Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame."

[kujo]

His statements are despicable, as are the ideology and the ignorance behind them.

Could he be speaking to his constituency? Maybe.

Either way, we should not ostricize and ignore him because he is a legitimate political leader occupying a legitimate political office. Furthermore, given the fact that his extreme views are so troublesome, it would be a good idea to try to dull the sharpness of his blade rather than emblazen his rhetoric with defensiveness.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' post='1684461' date='Oct 23 2008, 06:28 PM']His statements are despicable, as are the ideology and the ignorance behind them.

Could he be speaking to his constituency? Maybe.

Either way, we should not ostricize and ignore him because he is a legitimate political leader occupying a legitimate political office. Furthermore, given the fact that his extreme views are so troublesome, it would be a good idea to try to dull the sharpness of his blade rather than emblazen his rhetoric with defensiveness.[/quote]

I would agree we talk, but with preconditions, at least we should not just go and talk to someone that has said such things, and worse. And when such talks exist, we should keep in mind that he is likely untrustworthy, based on his actions, and the violate things he has stated.

[kujo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1684475' date='Oct 23 2008, 07:35 PM']I would agree we talk, but with preconditions, at least we should not just go and talk to someone that has said such things, and worse. And when such talks exist, we should keep in mind that he is likely untrustworthy, based on his actions, and the violate things he has stated.[/quote]

Preconditions would, of course, be necessary, as would a healthy dose of the reality you mention; however, we must go in there hoping for and working diligently towards peaceful relations and an end to the hostile relationship we have with them now. It would require compromise, but skillful diplomacy should allow us to accomplish our goals.

[Justin86]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1684475' date='Oct 24 2008, 07:35 AM']I would agree we talk, but with preconditions, at least we should not just go and talk to someone that has said such things, and worse. And when such talks exist, we should keep in mind that he is likely untrustworthy, based on his actions, and the violate things he has stated.[/quote]


[quote name='kujo' post='1684485' date='Oct 24 2008, 07:50 AM']Preconditions would, of course, be necessary, as would a healthy dose of the reality you mention; however, we must go in there hoping for and working diligently towards peaceful relations and an end to the hostile relationship we have with them now. It would require compromise, but skillful diplomacy should allow us to accomplish our goals.[/quote]
The problem with Obama is that he wants to talk to these kinds of people without preconditions. We can't just be legitimizing his statements by budding up to him like he's the leader of the UK or something.

[kujo]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1684504' date='Oct 23 2008, 08:11 PM']The problem with Obama is that he wants to talk to these kinds of people without preconditions. We can't just be legitimizing his statements by budding up to him like he's the leader of the UK or something.[/quote]

Directly from Obama's website:

"Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

It seems like they're saying they would speak without preconditions, but the actual speaking would include economic and political carrots while also raising the stick and saying that its current policy direction is not acceptable.

Doesn't seem [i]too[/i] far away from my views, particularly since Obama has said the military option is "on the table" for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, and in stark contrast to earlier statements, he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States." ([url="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4999088"]ABC News[/url])

Edited October 23, 2008 by kujo

[Hassan]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1684308' date='Oct 23 2008, 11:05 AM']The government that wishes to wipe Israel off the map gave its nod to Obama.


In other words, we can play him like a fiddle.[/quote]

or perhapse they mean, "he's less likely to do something idiotic like bomb us"

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kujo' post='1684436' date='Oct 23 2008, 05:44 PM']In other words, it is eager to engage in diplomacy rather than saber-rattling and Bush-era standoffishness.

Why is it wrong that our "enemies" would like to speak with one candidate over another?[/quote]
Sad when America's own citizens see Bush is the saber rattler and fail to see the actual saber rattler is Ahmadinejad. [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081023/wl_mcclatchy/3080999_1"]How is this for saber rattling[/url]?

Meeting with tyrants like Ahmadinejad at a presidential level without pre-conditions is foolish. America will meet and has met with anyone at lower levels. That is nothing new. What is new is Obama wanting to legitimize psychotic leaders like Ahmadinejad by meeting with them at a presidential level without pre-conditions. I sense a new generation of Neville Chamberlains. Casting our pearls before swine is not diplomacy.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1684639' date='Oct 23 2008, 08:36 PM']Sad when America's own citizens see Bush is the saber rattler and fail to see the actual saber rattler is Ahmadinejad. [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081023/wl_mcclatchy/3080999_1"]How is this for saber rattling[/url]?

Meeting with tyrants like Ahmadinejad at a presidential level without pre-conditions is foolish. America will meet and has met with anyone at lower levels. That is nothing new. What is new is Obama wanting to legitimize psychotic leaders like Ahmadinejad by meeting with them at a presidential level without pre-conditions. I sense a new generation of Neville Chamberlains. Casting our pearls before swine is not diplomacy.[/quote]
No, it's much better to piss them off until they just bomb us and kill us all.

I'm glad we have people like you to set us on the right track

[Hassan]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1684639' date='Oct 23 2008, 09:36 PM']Sad when America's own citizens see Bush is the saber rattler and fail to see the actual saber rattler is Ahmadinejad. [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081023/wl_mcclatchy/3080999_1"]How is this for saber rattling[/url]?[/quote]

Sure, if covert military opperations, threats of military strikes, and claiming the country is "evil" does not work then negotiate.

I am glad Bush will reopen diplomatic channels.

[quote]Meeting with tyrants like Ahmadinejad at a presidential level without pre-conditions is foolish. America will meet and has met with anyone at lower levels. That is nothing new. What is new is Obama wanting to legitimize psychotic leaders like Ahmadinejad by meeting with them at a presidential level without pre-conditions. I sense a new generation of Neville Chamberlains. Casting our pearls before swine is not diplomacy.[/quote]

A few things wring here

1-Ahmadinejad is not a tyrant.

2-being a religious fundamentalist does not make one "psychotic"

3-Obama has saince recanted on an absence of preconditions

4-What specific preconditions should be set down?

5-For the love of God can the right go five minutes without comparing claiming some world leader is a "new Hitler" or someone is a "new chamberlain" Obama is not Chamberlain, Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, this is not post WWI Europe we are talking about.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kujo' post='1684518' date='Oct 24 2008, 08:22 AM']Directly from Obama's website:

"Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

It seems like they're saying they would speak without preconditions, but the actual speaking would include economic and political carrots while also raising the stick and saying that its current policy direction is not acceptable.

Doesn't seem [i]too[/i] far away from my views, particularly since Obama has said the military option is "on the table" for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, and in stark contrast to earlier statements, he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States." ([url="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4999088"]ABC News[/url])[/quote]
You really believe "the military option" is on the table for a Democratic President? In response to the first World Trade Center bombing Clinton bombed an aspirin factory, and shot a missile up a camel's butt. I have seen no evidence Obama's "military option" would be anymore effective.

Oh, and I'm not buying Obama's recant of his "no pre-conditions". He actually lied in the first debate and tried to say Henry Kissinger agreed with him! He still holds it, I'm sure of it.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Justin86

[Hassan]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1684666' date='Oct 23 2008, 10:49 PM']You really believe "the military option" is on the table for a Democratic President? In response to the first World Trade Center bombing Clinton bombed an aspirin factory, and shot a missile up a camel's butt. I have seen no evidence Obama's "military option" would be anymore effective.

Oh, and I'm not buying Obama's recant of his "no pre-conditions". He actually lied in the first debate and tried to say Henry Kissinger agreed with him! He still holds it, I'm sure of it.[/quote]

That "asprin factors" was, I beleive, the source of about have the supply of meds in the Sudan. Furthermore there is strong evidence that Clinton exagerated the evidence.

It was very likely a war crime and I think Clinton should have been investigated for it.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1684652' date='Oct 23 2008, 10:43 PM']Sure, if covert military opperations, threats of military strikes, and claiming the country is "evil" does not work then negotiate.

I am glad Bush will reopen diplomatic channels.[/quote]
Diplomatic channels were never closed. It's the lefties and most media pushing the idea it was closed over and over.

Here is a 2006 article that documents how wrong you and Fidei are...

[quote]Bush urges Iran nuclear diplomacy

US President George W Bush has said he wants to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis[b] through peaceful means[/b].

After talks in Washington with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr Bush said both leaders sought to solve the issue "[b]diplomatically by working together[/b]".

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4610636.stm"]Source[/url][/quote]
Yup. That sounds like a bomb first Iran policy to me. And I can find plenty of more articles just like that.

You and Fidei and maybe some others have some stereotyped image of Bush's foreign policy strategy is, and you are wrong.

[quote]A few things wring here

1-Ahmadinejad is not a tyrant.

2-being a religious fundamentalist does not make one "psychotic"

3-Obama has saince recanted on an absence of preconditions

4-What specific preconditions should be set down?

5-For the love of God can the right go five minutes without comparing claiming some world leader is a "new Hitler" or someone is a "new chamberlain" Obama is not Chamberlain, Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, this is not post WWI Europe we are talking about.
1 -[/quote]
Get the facts about the human rights violations carried out and being carried out by Ahmadinejad and his administration.

2 - You don't think his comments about Israel and the Jewish people are a bit crazy? The label fundamentalist does not abdicate one from being insane. See David Koresh for example.

3 - I missed that. So if McCain was right all along, why should anyone vote for Obama?

4 - Allow uninhibited inspections of nuclear facilities. Cease all nuclear weapons development.

5 - I think if we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.