Peace in our time

PorterM said:
Who is going to blow Israel to kingdom come and are you predicting it will happen in January 2009?
Click to expand...

I'd just assumed that an Obama Presidency would be hailed in Iran as the next best thing to the showing of a white flag. Is that not what you're saying?

Mind you, that's assuming Iran is still actually there rather than a mere smouldering mass of oil wells and charred korans after George has left office.
 
charver said:
I'd just assumed that an Obama Presidency would be hailed in Iran as the next best thing to the showing of a white flag. Is that not what you're saying?

Mind you, that's assuming Iran is still actually there rather than a mere smouldering mass of oil wells and charred korans after George has left office.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess if we left it a "smouldering mass of oil wells", then everyone would know it was not for the oil.

What do you think about an Obama Presidency? In your honest and well-informed opinion, how do you think Iran would see an Obama Presidency?
 
PorterM said:
Well, I guess if we left it a "smouldering mass of oil wells", then everyone would know it was not for the oil.

What do you think about an Obama Presidency? In your honest and well-informed opinion, how do you think Iran would see an Obama Presidency?
Click to expand...

The same as any other American Presidency.

They may prefer him to McCain but they'll have listened to his speech at AIPAC and realised that he's your ordinary run of the mill American Israel lover, albeit one with whom they are more likely to be able to cut a deal with than McCain. Then again who knows what the Iranians are thinking (apart from destroying America and being particularly evil that is).

Mind you, the American Presidential election of may have more effect on the Iranian Presidential election than you imagine.
 
In October 2007, President Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

"Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq."

Manchester Union-Leader, 10/11/07
 
indisputable said:
In October 2007, President Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

"Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq."

Manchester Union-Leader, 10/11/07
Click to expand...

What an idiot.

If you'd just used a false pretext to go to war with one country, beginning with the letter "I", why on earth would you attempt to use the same tactics to go to war with an entirely different country, even though that too begins with the letter "I" and is kind of next door to the first country?

This Obama chap has no shame.
 
Not according to "Turban" Durbin, who said "If I thought there was any way [Kyl-Lieberman] could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran, I would have voted no." (Julianna Goldman, "Durbin Says Obama Will Win Iowa Caucus; Disagrees On Iran," Bloomberg, 10/12/07


"Regime change will surely come to both North Korea and Iran. That is the ultimate salvation. But between now and then lies danger. How to safely navigate the interval?"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...tions_time_has_passed?page=full&comments=true
 
indisputable said:
Not according to "Turban" Durbin, who said "If I thought there was any way [Kyl-Lieberman] could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran, I would have voted no." (Julianna Goldman, "Durbin Says Obama Will Win Iowa Caucus; Disagrees On Iran," Bloomberg, 10/12/07


"Regime change will surely come to both North Korea and Iran. That is the ultimate salvation. But between now and then lies danger. How to safely navigate the interval?"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...tions_time_has_passed?page=full&comments=true
Click to expand...

You never normally have a problem disbelieving a Democrat. Maybe you're just disbelieving the wrong one?
 
The point was not "Turban Durbin's" veracity, or lack thereof, but the fact that even a confirmed Bush-hater disagreed with the Anointed One. No doubt he will repent.

"(President) Obama's record is mixed. On the one hand, he has co-sponsored a bill to impose further sanctions on Iran, and has spoken out on the seriousness of the Iranian threat. On the other, while he supported the sanctions that the Administration eventually imposed on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, he opposed the amendment that Hillary Clinton voted for because, "it tied our presence in Iraq to an effort to counter the Iranian threat, which he felt could 1) give a green light to premature military action against Iran, and 2) provide a rationale to keep our troops in Iraq, when of course, he believes we need to end our presence there. In other words, (President) Obama placed the risk of a US military response to Iran and the risk of lengthening the US stay in Iraq as higher and more important than the risk that international sanctions will be too weak to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Such logic is warped and mistaken.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1200572504951
 
indisputable said:
The point was not "Turban Durbin's" veracity, or lack thereof, but the fact that even a confirmed Bush-hater disagreed with the Anointed One. No doubt he will repent.
Click to expand...

What?

The hard left reactionary movement for the appeasement of Iran is not united?

The cracks are appearing.

McCain becomes a shoo-in.

Is that champagne corks popping i can hear i the background?
 
indisputable said:
Spare me your attempts at Geordie humor.

Apparently you are unaware that Kyl-Liberman passed (despite President Obamas' "heroic" opposition) in September 2007.

Has America invaded Iran yet?

So much for President Obamas' paranoid prognostications...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly aware it passed (i had to go and find out what the hell it was, not being an American blessed with the divine right of all knowledge) That would confirm a split would it not?

I'm not aware you've invaded Iran yet, no. (although some may point out there's still time yet)

Paranoid prognostications, eh? (good alliteration) Although voting against a ready made excuse and the failure to act on that ready made excuse does not negate the original threat. Only an idiot would take the chance of giving Bush any kind of imagined mandate. Unfortunately the Democrat party is full of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top