ITW..

Anyway, what none of you, ANY of you noticed, was what Obama did NOT say…That he would ask for/authorize or otherwise take MILITARY action!  Notice that?

~~~~

You’re right here, again. (can’t figure how I’m agreeing with you so much these days). But, he DIDN’T say anything about any military action against Iran, and of course I didn’t focus on that myself. For me, it just seemed to be a departure from what he has maintained for nearly 2 years, which is that discussions need to happen WITHOUT these pre-conditions.

Now of course I’m myopic on that from having studied it so long, because all anybody from the current thug regime has been able to say is..stop enrichment, or we’re just gonna keep sanctioning your ass, and each time, they get the rest of the UNSC to go along with more and more sanctions, and of course NEVER bother with any discussions. (and it’s not been for a lack of trying on the part of Tehran, since they actually HAVE made multiple attempts set up some dialog).

So, I missed it as well, as soon as I read Obama say that Tehran needed to stop there uranium enrichment, or the pressure would keep building. That is the ONE thing that Iran isn’t likely to give up, at least not without some assurances or a time frame for how long they have to be treated like stepchildren, and not allowed the same technology that the rest of the world has access to.

And from what I’ve read yesterday, Tehran STILL isn’t willing to do that, though it *does* appear that they might be stalling for more time, until they can deal with a reasonable US official.

Not sure why Fadel got upset about the yarmulke. I even have one, since a local group (Jews for Obama) had a whole bunch of them stenciled up and all. (blue with white stitching). And yeah, I hang out with ‘em sometimes. So, I got one too. What can I say? (I don’t wear it).

Still, like Patrick Henry, I kinda would like to see Obama add a pilgrimage to Mecca sometime in the future. (I’m not sure what the rules are on that though. I’m pretty certain one needs to be a Muslim to do that, as it is a requirement of Islam).

Even if he doesn’t do that, he seemed to get along pretty well with the guys in Iraq.

Personable fella, isn’t he?

Well, it looks like only old ITW actually sees what’s going on—and all the rabid anti-semites are once again frothing at the mouth. 

Hey! Fadel—How DARE you dis a religious symbol like a yarmulke like that!  I’ll bet you’d be screaming for someone to be banned if they talked about “ragheads” and “sand-n*****s” (two favs of the fascist right).  You’re no better than them—but that’s not news….

Anyway, what none of you, ANY of you noticed, was what Obama did NOT say…That he would ask for/authorize or otherwise take MILITARY action!  Notice that?  He’s saying HE will put the US in line with the European policies of strictly economic and political pressure.  But no war. That is drastically different from the White House and Mad-Dog Cheney having to be chained to keep from ordering strikes on his own.  It’s also drastically different from McSame talking about military action.

In dipl-speak, what this means is that Obama will change the US position and that, again in dipl-speak, means that DISCUSSION is possible.  And that’s a discussion that should have happened in 2003, instead of the “Evil Axis” blunder.

Unlike all of you, I’m actually encouraged that Obama is going to clearly REMOVE the threat of war with Iran, as long as President Mussolini doesn’t start it anyway.

By David Model, July 26 at 9:01 am #
•  “…Obama’s foreign policy positions with respect to Iran and Afghanistan reveal that he has adopted the establishment position and has opted out of changing course…”
David, I’d pretty much said the same in my earlier rant on this. Even offered to send a copy of the NPT to Obama’s Kindle or Blackberry. I don’t know what the deal is on this switch, (because it definitely *IS* a switch from his long held previous position) but I’m sure worked-up about it. (or, at least I was when I first read this). I should probably add that I can’t find a copy (anywhere) of the text of this latest ‘deal’ being offered to Iran as an incentive for them to halt their enrichment. I did say nearly 3 years ago however, that Iran wasn’t going to do it, for all of the obvious reasons. They have a right to enrich uranium, and to a nuclear energy program, and nothing abridges or absolves that right.

However, that is a separate issue from Afghanistan/Pakistan entirely. I’m uneasy about stepped-up military action in Afghanistan itself, but I’m not ignorant to the fact that terrorism does exist, and that it’s not going to simply go away, especially in light of the fact that the Dick Bush so-called ‘war on terror’ has CREATED far, far, far more of it. I don’t pretend to know the answers for combating it, but the extremism seems to me at least, to be centered in Pakistan, regardless of whatever connections the Taliban has previous had with al-Qaeda. And while I also don’t believe al-Qaeda to be nearly the enormous and all-encompassing boogey-man that they’ve been given credit/status as, they DO exist, and are mostly confined to Pakistan, if only because that’s where they get the most ‘protection’. The Dick Bush administration has provided over $22 billion of our tax dollars to Musharraff to supposedly get rid of this ‘element’, and he’s protected them instead. And, allow us to remember, Pakistan has the bomb.

So, it’s complex, and I don’t know the answers. On Iran, I can only hope that Obama is posturing to the extent that will allow for his election. Doesn’t mean we have to like it, (and I don’t) but politics generally involves some ugly activity.

And I’m with Paolo as well…I’d prefer we just BUY whatever we need from the region. But then, I’ve been saying that for a long time.

Well if Sarkosy is happy with Obama as president than everything his detractors have been saying about Obama is true.  Sarkosy is a flippin’ fascist.

Am I the only one who really doesn’t want a president to “look tough” in dealing with foreign countries?

I don’t really give a hoot whether the president “looks tough.” Actually, I would prefer he NOT “look tough.” Folks, we don’t own the world. I would prefer a president who would focus on his Constitutional duties, and not “look tough” in dealing with countries on the far side of the globe.

If Iran or Saudi Arabia or Iraq or any other country has oil (or anything else useful to us), I would prefer we just BUY the stuff. “Looking tough” by threatening an unprovoked attack strikes me as a supremely inefficient and mindless way of getting what we want or need.

Obama feels he needs to “look tough” to prevent his being attacked as (I suppose) a limp-wristed, “peacenik” liberal.

Observe, by the way, the weird linguistic techniques of casting peace advocates as (virtually), gays. This emphasizes the strange American fixation on and fear of homosexuality. Man, but warmongering has some weird psychological underpinnings—don’t you think?

Obama knows he has to play (pander to) the zionists, they control the media and at this point in the campaign, Obama is astute enough to know he needs them.

Once he gets into office and the affects of the press become less of a burden to him I expect some pink slips to go out to some of these entrenched zionist political hacks.

A disappointing set of statements on Iran by Senator Obama, and all too predictable as the statements of a Democratic nominee trying to “look just as tough” as the Republican nominee.

Unfortunately, this language reinforcing the myth of an imminent Iranian threat only plays into the current Administration’s hopes of getting into a military scrape with that nation before it leaves office. 

This is just not an issue to play politics with .... didn’t *anybody* learn the price of enabling the Administration’s warmongering while chasing votes the last time around?  How many thousands must die while we play this game for another round?

Obama’s foreign policy positions with respect to Iran and Afghanistan reveal that he has adopted the establishment position and has opted out of changing course.

It has been clearly demonstrated by the American Intelligence Estimates and the IAEA that Iran is only developing fissile material for nuclear reactors.  There is a huge difference between uranium that has been processed to 4% purity and 97% purity.

Under the NPT, Iran has every right to produce uranium for nuclear reactors.  On the other hand, the US is providing technological assistance on India’s nuclear program where not only are there nuclear weapons but India has not signed the NPT.

As for Afghanistan, there is no winning there.  Everyone is losing and, in particular the Afghan people.  The Taliban control over half the country and have the support of the majority of the Afghan people.  In addition, the US is supporting the Northern Alliance and the Warlords who are no better and possibly worse than the Taliban.  But of course, the US must protect the pipeline in the Caspian basin with all their new military bases.

Obama needs some new foreign policy advisors who know what is really going on in the world.

http://www.stateofdarkness.com

Iran has every right to its nuclear program. No one touches Israel on this, which has more than 200 nuclear weapons. Obama is just as or more aggressive towards Iran than John McCain or Dubya. He’s just another pro-Zionist political hack gleaming in the limelight, he’s now enjoying. This guy has duped so many and I hope they start to wake up.

Whoops, Barack!!!  If you’ve pissed off our Cyrena, you’ve made a bad move.

Paolo - Thanks for reminding us of the NPT.  Got to wonder why it’s so seldom brought up by anybody, exception of course being the MSM which never seems to bring up anything of substance on any issue.

Looks like we’re pulling the same s__t on Iran as we did on Iraq - requiring them to prove that they don’t have something or aren’t doing something - of course impossible to do.  Remember Rummy’s infamous “Absence of proof is not proof of absence” garbage? (The media called it ‘brilliant’ which pretty well reveals the intellectual development of the media.)

There is no need to complain about Senator Obama’s war mongering, the apologists will put their blinders on and utter the mantra: “I do believe in Barack Obama, I do, I do, I do!”
It has been reported that Senator Obama’s wailing wall prayer was for God to protect him and his family and to guide him to be an instrument of God’s will.
Now that is what I call a good and crunchy prayer, sort of like a fresh bag of Fritos.

If the US any any of it’s leaders had any honor and decency left they would couple their demands for other nations to stop the process of nuclear arms production with an announcement of the destruction of their own nuclear weapons stockpile.  Instead, the US goes on and on with the development of ever newer and more horrific WMD’s -  with Obama’s wholehearted support.  If the US were an individual human being he would be certifiably sociopathic.

I’m with you Paolo. I do like him, and I believe that he has what it takes to be the best president we’ve had in decades. And, I don’t much care about the presumed ‘pandering’ either, since I don’t know that all of it necessarily is ‘pandering’ as opposed to a measure of diplomacy. So, despite the overwhelming concerns of others about whatever he says or does in Israel, I know that I’ve heard him say, (with my own ears) that he does NOT agree with everything Israel does, and while he didn’t elaborate any more than any other political candidate would do, I’m more patient on that.

That aside, I have a very serious issue with THIS. For one thing, it is a huge departure from his position in the past. For another thing, he KNOWS better. If he hasn’t acquainted himself with the NPT, (which is possible I suppose, since his focus was on US Constitutional Law, and I know a whole bunch of Constitutional Law professors who don’t know a single thing about International Law, and will admit it right up front), then he SHOULD!!

If he’s leaving that to so-called experts like former State Department Officials, then that’s very bad news.

Meantime, I’ve tried to search around for the actual ‘package’ that has been offered to Iran, and I can’t find anything…this is all I could come up with.. 

~“Although Europeans and Americans have described the package of potential economic and political incentives as generous, some analysts say it lacks a key element that has left Iran balking: a promise that the U.S. would renounce any plans to attempt to topple Iran’s government.

“The main, main issue for Tehran is the security guarantee, and that is lacking,” said Saeed Leylaz, an Iranian political analyst. “Iranian and American problems are security problems, not diplomatic ones.”

The senior U.S. official emphasized that by sending Burns, Washington had hoped to accomplish several goals, including provoking a new debate among Iranians about the advantages of accepting the package of incentives, and increasing the unity of the six other nations.

Iran faces numerous economic problems that may make it seek to improve its international standing.”~

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran20-2008jul20,0,6811385,print.story

The last part really pisses me off, because it’s just a continuation of the bullying by way of having already set-up this ‘image’ of Iran as having a “bad reputation”, for doing absolutely nothing illegal.
A ‘created’ image. Fascists always do this. They ‘create’ supposed enemies so that later, when they come along and attack them, it will seem like there was some legitimate reason.

Anyway, I don’t know why I can’t find a full text of the so-called ‘package’ or deal being offered to Iran. (I don’t know why, is it ‘secret’ or something) But at the end of the day, it does them no good to accept such an infringement on their rights. And, last I heard, they still aren’t going to.

I thought as far back as 2 years ago, that Iran should probably just withdraw from the Treaty. It isn’t helping them, which is the whole point in agreeing to it, and being a signatory to it. They can withdraw with a 3 month notice to the UN. Why put up with harassment?

Now fortunately (for them) cooler heads within their own ministry don’t agree, because who knows what the US would do to them – then. So, it’s been better to remain and cooperate. But, that hasn’t helped them either. They’ve BEEN cooperative! And, it still hasn’t done a damn bit of good!!

•  PARIS — Senator Barack Obama on Friday warned Iran not to wait for a new American president and accept an international proposal now to stop enriching uranium. If not, he said, “the pressure, I think, is only going to build.”

•  “…said the two men agreed that Iran poses “an extraordinarily grave situation” with dangers to Israel, the West and the possibility of nuclear non-proliferation. The world, he said, must send “a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program.””

Well, looks like the Senator and I have actually come to a point that I would consider a MAJOR disagreement, and what I would also cite as a major flip-flop on his end. All the other stuff that the hate-mongers have whined about were mostly illegitimate. This is a major point of departure though, from his long held position of speaking to adversaries without pre-conditions.

He’s totally out of line in referencing Iran’s nuclear program as ‘illicit’ unless he knows something very different than what the experts from the IAEA and our own NIE have been telling the rest of us. There is nothing to suggest, (and I’ve been paying very careful attention) that there is ANYTHING ‘illicit’ about Iran’s nuclear program. And if we’re gonna be on the side of the rule of law, then Iran has every right to enrich uranium.

So, what brought THIS on? Obama knows the law on this as well as anybody. Or…he SHOULD. Do I need to send a copy of the NPT to his Kindle or Blackberry? What the hell is wrong with him?

And what international ‘deal’ is he talking about that the Iranians should accept? They’ve accepted such ‘conditions’ in the past…even self-imposed suspension of their program, to prove a measure of good faith. But, it was open ended…like the Euros didn’t even consider a time frame for how long they should be expected to halt their program. No, it was more like, “Well, we’ll see if you’re good or not. We’ll see if you ‘behave’. But the bottom line was that they don’t want Iran to have a nuclear program, EVER.

And now Obama is buying into this same mentality of treating them like some sort of a step-child? I smell the slimy hands of his new ‘team’ in this, (Albright?) and I don’t like it a bit. This is extending the bullshit, and on behalf of…WHOM? Yeah, France was among those who were putting the pressure on Iran early on…like 6 or so years ago. Britain and somebody else as well…maybe Germany. But, I figured that was all about the meddling of the Dick Bush Rice team. Make Iran look like the bad guy. Worked for a long time too.

Then GW decided to make a nuclear DEAL with INDIA, (just right next door there) and had already claimed PAKISTAN as an ‘ally’ in the so-called ‘war on terror” providing Musharraf with billions of tax-payer dollars, while Pakistan, ALSO next door, sits on nukes as well.

So here’s Iran, surrounded by nuclear armed states SUPPORTED in their nuclear efforts by the US, and everybody is telling Iran that she can’t have the nuclear energy program that the law provides every right to. WTF???

And now Obama is on the same bandwagon. Nope. This won’t do.

Meantime, does anybody know where a copy of this international ‘deal’ can be found? I’m gonna search around now, but if somebody already knows…I’d be grateful for the link.

Extraordinary threat my ass. Iran hasn’t posed any extraordinary threat to anybody. They might get pissed off enough to become a threat though, after being harassed and falsely accused for so damn long.

Hearing almost all of what Obama said during this overseas trip, and watching his appearances and demeanor, the general impression I got was almost positive, and there is no doubt that he looks, talks and projects a man who is made for presidential stuff, at least as his rhetorical skills and looks are concerned.

However, there was one image that spoiled all that positive impression in my eyes, and that’s when the Israelis led him like a sheep to their Wailing Wall, after putting that cheap little religious symbol on his head (i.e. yarmulke). Has he done something of that nature in Iraq, where religious symbols are many and even more stronger than the Jewish ones, then I would have given him a pass. But this act, added to his previous pandering to Zionists made me conclude that he is just another pandering politician who would do what it takes to get elected.

That’s why I already made my decision that he will not get my vote. But neither will McCain, whom I consider the worst of two evils! So for me, the only fact that seems to be permanent in relation to American politics is that the more things change, the more they stay the same, if they don’t get worse!

If I ever again would become interested in politics, it would be an attempt to explain and elaborate on a theory that “pandering” is the “cancer” of the body politics!

As a libertarian, I want to like Barack Obama, but then he comes up with junk like this.

Once again: Iran is a signatory to the NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY. All signatories have an absolute right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. There has been, to date, ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE that Iran has any nuclear weapons program whatsoever.

Once again: Israel has over a hundred nukes, and is not a signatory to the NPT. Why the two-faced, hypocritical favoritism towards Israel?

Once again: Iran has a GNP about the size of Denmark’s. Launching an aggressive war takes a whole lot of money, which Iran does not have. Obama had it right the first time: Iran is a small [in terms of GNP], weak country that is not a threat to anyone.

Once again: Iran has not invaded another country since before the founding of the USA. How many invasions—provoked or unprovoked—has the US launched in that period of time?

I only hope Obama is kowtowing to the Israel lobby as a strategy for getting elected. In other words, I hope he is just being cynical and opportunistic, and that maybe he would try to sneak in some non-interventionist policies on the sly while he is President. At other times, however, I have to believe he is bought and paid for, like any other cynical, manipulating pol.