Would that be before or after the bombing campaign?

look fred, we all hope we avoid unnecessary conflict, i am just pointing out that there is a clear pattern in these speeches on foreign policy, and it’s very dangerous. i agree that everything that obama’s said is very promising, but don’t rule out the opportunity for war when you have a politician espousing these ideas. see the forest for the trees is all i am suggesting, and of course i offer this with due respect.

i gotta say though: the whole thing seems like smoke and mirrors to me in context to the argument of resource war. they’re gonna dig up whatever excuses they can to secure these territories… even if they have to engage in diplomatic talks first, then bomb after.

of course, i could be wrong…
and i sincerely hope that i am. :)

wearechange Says:
——————————————————————————–

my linking/quoting skills are waning. here’s a better presentation of the argument.

Scott Ritter has good reason to fear American actions historically and is just keeping the air clear on the facts. I’m sure Obama is well informed, much better informed than bush ever was or mccain ever will be. The republicans wanted war…..Obama does not and in reality cannot. Where’s the beef?

You take one sentence and use it to imply that Obama has no intentions of working peacefully with Iran. In other words, the objective is to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands.

All other peaceful uses can be negotiated, just as with other nations that you list such as Germany, Japan, etc.

The quote you used actually says “increase pressure”. How do you get to the use of force as being an inevitable consequense of an Obama presidency?

Loosen your tin foil hat man…

On Obama Speaking before a pro-Israel crowd:
Obama’s appearance was seen as a move to court Jewish donors, although the event wasn’t a fund-raiser. He did pose for photos with AIPAC members at a private reception before the speech. Although the event was billed as a “forum,” he took no questions from the audience or media and left immediately after his half-hour speech.

Even though many in the crowd endorsed his remarks, some said they are waiting to hear more from him in the coming months to better gauge his position on Israel and other foreign-policy questions.

“He is an unknown,” said Diane Dubey, an AIPAC member from Lincolnwood.

Others said Obama, who largely read from prepared remarks, seemed slightly less passionate about the topic than presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, who spoke at AIPAC’s national convention last year. Both Clinton and Obama will be at the convention March 11 in Washington.

“He speaks beautifully, but we don’t find a lot of emotion in what he says,” said Mark Sherman of Northbrook.

he also said:

While Obama wouldn’t rule out force, he said the United States should engage in “aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions” to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

Let me remind you of your first statement, this is what you said wearechange:

ya know, obama has the same hard-line rhetoric on “terrah” as GW and mccain. you guys do realize that, right?

So I guess my answer is, no I don’t realize that at all.

increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment

do you know what he’s saying here? he’s condemning iran’s right to enrich uranium for legitimate energy production, as iran is allowed to do under international treaty. why are we saying iran cannot have nuclear energy facilities? because we want to build up a case for going to war with iran. because most people won’t investigate this story… they’ll just follow blindly into another war… just like we did in iraq. just like we did in afghanistan… just like we’ve in every other war we’ve either provoked or outright started.

Steve Ritter, I interviewed pro-war veteran Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell on Monday on Democracy Now! He founded the group Vets for Victory. He’s also on the board of Vets for Freedom. This is what he said about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

STEVE RUSSELL: If you look at the testimony of Dr. Ahmed Obeidi, who was Saddam’s nuclear physicist, he had a Zippe centrifuge in hand. This was a Western-manufactured centrifuge. Centrifuge, it refines uranium, in simple terms. Only a handful of nations have acquired this Western-made technology. Let me name a few of them: Israel, Pakistan, North Korea. You look at these nations, they have one thing in common: they all developed the bomb. They had this technology in hand. Now, what they didn’t have was the complete oversight or lack of oversight to develop their nuclear weapons program. We found yellowcake. We have a Zippe centrifuge there. No other nation left to themselves was not able to develop the bomb with the Zippe centrifuge in hand.

AMY GOODMAN: Retired Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell.

SCOTT RITTER: Well, I respect Colonel Russell’s service to his country. What I don’t understand is why Steve Russell feels that he’s empowered to talk about weapons inspections in Iraq. I sort of was deeply involved in that program from ’91 to ’98. His name never appeared on any of the inspector rosters. He wasn’t there as an inspector, and because he wasn’t, he has gotten some of the issues wrong. I wouldn’t quote Mahdi Obeidi in a positive way. And anyway, that just shows how ideologically motivated this guy is.

The Zippe centrifuge, it’s Dutch-designed. So there’s another nation that has it that doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program. The same technology has been used by Germany to enrich uranium. They don’t have a nuclear weapons program. The Japanese use it; they don’t have a nuclear weapons program. The Canadian—my point is, many nations use centrifuges to enrich uranium. It is one of the most cost-effective means of enriching uranium for nuclear energy. Nations have used this technology in an illicit fashion: Israel, Pakistan, maybe North Korea—we’re not quite sure about that, because we don’t know if they have a uranium enrichment program or not. But we do know that Iraq acquired this technology. They never perfected it. The Iranians are using a derivative—the P1 centrifuge is a Zippe derivative—to enrich uranium.

But he misses the point, because he speaks of international law, operating outside the framework of international law. To say Israel and Pakistan, he’s right. North Korea is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they only went forward on their nuclear program after they withdrew from it. Iran is a signatory. And the key aspect of Steve Russell’s comment is outside the framework of international monitoring. Iran is 100 percent monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and they have a complete understanding of the scale and scope of Iran’s centrifuge program, a complete accounting of the totality of Iran’s nuclear material. So I don’t know what Steve Russell is trying to do, to link Iraq, which he does so inaccurately, with the situation in Iran, but he’s off base.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/3/fmr_un_weapons_inspector_scott_ritter

Obama speaking:
The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza.

The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.

Doesn’t remind me of bush or make me think Obama is planning any wars at all. Quite the contrary.

I find it a more satisfying an-alogy to describe them as stinky wet burrito farts. He opens the door, sticks his butt in, lets one rip and then races back to his cubicle at Troll Central where he immediately stuffs his face with Cheetos in order to control his giggling fit.

however, he still maintains the “hard line” on current/future enemies of US and our “allies”… here is what obama said to the AIPC:

“And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That’s why we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end.”

(yes, obama is a card-carrying cfr member)

my point is that these are significant news stories. let’s not get swept away in all partisan BS. i know it’s uplifting to recognize what looks to be a democratic victory in the polls, but please don’t forget what the real issues are. the reason obama’s been so successful is because we really do need change.

Because it is one of the 25% who are people with low ego strength and without the courage of their convictions. Therefore it runs by, drops a turd and splits. It is incapable of debating it’s points without going back to that authority figure to tell it what to do next.

wearechange Says:

is that all TP is? is that the point of this site… to simply catch the other guy in a lie? does anyone actually care about the issues?

Good eye, wearechange. You nailed it. That’s all TP is. Now since your suspicion has been confirmed, I assume you’ll have no further reason to hang around here, hm?

RIP GOP!

wearechange Says:
i think some of you will be sorely disappointed when you see just how much change ya get on the dollar these days… inflation, dig?

Comon wearechange, you can’t possibly believe that Obama can or will do worse than what we have now or what mccain would do. Do you? Seriously?