Obama: Wrong On Iran

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by chosenbyone

Thanks, AA. I am waiting patiently.

Here's what you are looking for and, I believe, what AA is referencing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pw-oPjSeb4

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=217102

This is the focus on that portion of the debate:

Obama had responded from the gut, working off a correct critique of the Bush administration's skeptical approach toward diplomacy. But his answer lacked the sophistication of Clinton's and Edwards' replies. And this moment illustrated perhaps the top peril for the Obama campaign: with this post-9/11 presidential contest, to a large degree, a question of who should be the next commander in chief, any misstep related to foreign policy is a big deal for a candidate who has little experience in national security matters.

[TRFrance]

I feel that if Obama becomes president, he will quickly surpass Jimmy Carter as America's worst president ever.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I feel that if Obama becomes president, he will quickly surpass Jimmy Carter as America's worst president ever.

How can you be so correct in your political views but we fuss about other stuff? I want to shout a loud "Amen!" to some of the stuff you say and throw tomatoes at you at other times.

Of course... the tomatoes splattered on the wall behind me had to have come from somewhere as well...

[vrblackwell]

Chosenbyone

The video that PO posted should be sufficient enough. That has always been his policy until he realized how unpopular it was with the majority of Americans.

Obama is a very inexperienced, and yes I agree, he will be worse then Jimmy Carter.

[ChristopherHall]

Most people don't understand how complex these things are. Obama agreed to "talks" with Iran. He never indicated what would be "negotiated".

Here's the deal, Obama's political enemies think you're so stupid that in your mind "talks" equals negotiations and compromise. Talks are only intended to begin dialogue to see how the enemy perceives "us" and how we can better take action to deal with such perception. For example is Iran thinks we are going to invade them, we know that we take action to calm those fears. We began talks with Russia, Korea, Britain, and nearly every other enemy we've ever had and those talks we most certainly would have faced far more military clashes with those enemies.

Talks are talks. They are not "negotiations". They are not "compromises". Iran isn't going away. Iran isn't going to wake up tomorrow and say, "Ya know...them American's are OK." We need to engage in strong diplomatic talks with all concerned.

Bush has trashed America's image...and now we need someone with the guts to rebuild that image. Not another policy of ignore them and bomb them.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Most people don't understand how complex these things are. Obama agreed to "talks" with Iran. He never indicated what would be "negotiated".

Here's the deal, Obama's political enemies think you're so stupid that in your mind "talks" equals negotiations and compromise. Talks are only intended to begin dialogue to see how the enemy perceives "us" and how we can better take action to deal with such perception. For example is Iran thinks we are going to invade them, we know that we take action to calm those fears. We began talks with Russia, Korea, Britain, and nearly every other enemy we've ever had and those talks we most certainly would have faced far more military clashes with those enemies.

Talks are talks. They are not "negotiations". They are not "compromises". Iran isn't going away. Iran isn't going to wake up tomorrow and say, "Ya know...them American's are OK." We need to engage in strong diplomatic talks with all concerned.

Bush has trashed America's image...and now we need someone with the guts to rebuild that image. Not another policy of ignore them and bomb them.

Christopher,
I do see what you are saying when weighing the "talks", "negotiations" and "compromise".

BUT, Obama will still have to answer, this fall, the questions - "What will you talk about that has not already been said by more seasoned people than you? What will you "talk" about that will make a "change"? What will you "talk" about that will be hope? What will you "talk" about that will bring positive "action"?



WHAT will you talk about, Obama? What solutions do YOU have?

[Michael The Disciple]

I am fully against Obama. Baby killing and Gay promotion is the ruin of the nation now. But in this instance yes talk to the Iranian guy. People say what would be the first thing you would say to him. I would say "What could Israel do to get you to quit threatening them?

Go from there. If there is nothing that can be done get up and walk away.

Nothing ventured nothing gained.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Christopher,
I do see what you are saying when weighing the "talks", "negotiations" and "compromise".

BUT, Obama will still have to answer, this fall, the questions - "What will you talk about that has not already been said by more seasoned people than you? What will you "talk" about that will make a "change"? What will you "talk" about that will be hope? What will you "talk" about that will bring positive "action"?



WHAT will you talk about, Obama? What solutions do YOU have?

I don't think Obama will have any solutions that are different from those who came before. I do think that he may have a different perspective, being relatively new to the international scene. Often being "less seasoned" means one is less bound to traditional perspectives. I think his more likely to think outside of the box.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I am fully against Obama. Baby killing and Gay promotion is the ruin of the nation now. But in this instance yes talk to the Iranian guy. People say what would be the first thing you would say to him. I would say "What could Israel do to get you to quit threatening them?

Go from there. If there is nothing that can be done get up and walk away.

Nothing ventured nothing gained.

True.

Let me propose something to you. The majority of the justices that ruled in favor of gay marriage in California, and even in cases gone to the SCOTUS were appointed by Conservative Republicans. Also Republicans have done virtually nothing to stem the tide of abortions in our country. In the South, we even see Republicans hindering legislation proposed by Pro-Life Democrats.

The Republicans aren't going to address these issues. In fact...government can't address these issues. Democrat or Republican...we as the Church have to condemn these issues on moral grounds.

So in my opinion the idea that the GOP is the answer to the issues of abortion and gay marriage is a joke. They've had power and have done virtually NOTHING. This election is about the economy, health care, the war, and newer and better fuel technologies. Sadly, Republicans are just offering more of the same.

[DividedThigh]

obamas statements about foreign policy clearly show his lack of seasoning and experience on the international stage, he will be worse than jimma carta for sure, might be good for him to get elected so people can see what a mess he can make in four years, gwb in some small minds has trashed our countries image, but i actually like the fact that the islamo fascists hate him, it means they fear us, all for that, dt