BARACK OBAMA ON IRAN
Yesterday, Iran test launched nine medium and long range missles with the capability of hitting targets throughout the Middle East including Israel and every post where United States troops are stationed.
Barack Obama's first response to this significant demonstration by Iran was to call on a uniting of the world community in placing economic sanctions against Iran to stop thier development of nuclear and other offensive weapons.
Obama also claims that US policy has not included sanctions. Yet not only has the US backed numerous failed sanctions imposed by the UN but has sanctioned many companies in Iran who have been known to be involved with the development of the Iranian nuclear program and has limited all trade to Iran to that of only food an medicine.
Yet Obama insists that sanctions have not been imposed and that gathering the world community in sanctioning Iran as well as dealing directly in one on one talks will end the madness that has been a trade mark of Iran and its Islamic expansionism goals since the seventies.
Rhetoric and sanctions did not prevent nine missiles from launching yesterday but Obama still insists that this is the only answer.
Additionally as the above video shows which position is the real Obama? The one in which he says that Iran is a small country and poses NO threat to The United States or the one where he claims that Iran poses a , "grave," threat ?
While military action is the last resort John McCain's response of placing a missile shield to protect the Middle East from a rain of Iranian missiles does provide a realistic and protective answer to an attack by Iran short of going to war.
The missile shield has been proven to work and it is also a much more effective stance than Obama's, "let's talk," while Iran continues to advance their nuclear program and weapons development using talks and sanctions as a ploy to continue their programs.
Barack Obama's naive apprach and flip flop stance on Iran is not only yet another sign of his total lack of foreign policy experience but also a dangerous stance for one who wishes to be President of The United States and is charged by the Constitution to protect this nation.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:28 PM
10 Comments:
You have a spliced up video. If you look at the full speeches and compare them you will find no real contradiction. It is a stump speech that does not change from day-to-day.
Iran is a tiny country that poses no real threat to the U.S. - which is unlike the former Soviet Union. However, in both speeches (not just the spliced clips you are showing), he talks about Iran's role in supporting terrorism. They are not going to overrun the U.S. Do you really think we should FEAR IRAN? Obama doesn't and neither do I.
Our real problem with Iran is that Bush has no coherent strategy. We fund efforts for regime change and then say that we want to negotiate a diplomatic soluction with those same Iran leaders. We label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists and as killers of American troops in Iraq, but then sit idly by as Iraq's leaders openly meet and negotiate with Iran's leaders. It is ridiculous - if we were serious we would stop all funding of Iraq's government, security, and reconstruction if we wanted to punish them for being friendly with Iran.
Iran can see that Bush talked tough with North Korea but as soon as North Korea conducted missle tests and detonated nuclear devices we gave them all kinds of free fuel, money, and economic support.
On top of all of that, Iran is the number 2 oil producer in OPEC. We buy significant levels of Iranian oil. They have seperate energy deals with China, India, and Japan. Russia and France have major business interests in Iran. The fact is that we have no coherent policy and we have little say in the world about what to do with Iran. Iran is just going to wait for a better deal with the U.S. because that is what Bush is going to offer. He has already offered fuel and to build a nuclear power plant - they just want to negotiate an even better deal. That is what Bush did with North Korea.
U.S. exports to Iran are also up from just $8 million in 2001 to $150 million.
Let's see, who is running the State Department - oh yeah, Bush.
Just another example of the ridiculous incoherance of Bush's Iran policy. It is all talk, no substance or consistency, and it panders to U.S. corporate interests rather than serious national security concerns.
LOL.. there is no splice up of the vid and they've been running it all day.
The video doesn't appear to be spliced to me, but even if it were, It doesn't mean that Obama isn't an idiot!
Rob says that Bush hasn't got a "coherent" strategy.
It's too bad the only way we could see just what an effective policy Bush has is for Obama to be elected.
If anyone thinks that Jimmy Carter handled Iran well, they'll LOVE Obama.
P.S. Have you heard the tape where Jesse Jackson theatens to "rip his n#$@ off" when speaking of Obama?
Mike, can you explain Bush's strategy? Please enlighten us.
I have made my case that there is no strategy. Why don't you make your case? Let's have an honest debate.
I'm not sure if you are gleeful about Jesse Jackson's comments or not. However, I don't see how it hurts Obama - the comment can only help him. Having Jesse mad at Obama will probably help Obama seem more conservative.
David Axelrod probably asked Jesse to say it to help Obama. And O'Reilly did his part to spread the word.
I think Obama has a Geological and a Serious Threat differential in his thought process!
Bush’s foreign policy with respect to Iran may not be perfect but I cannot help but be suspect of Obamas’ seeking dialog with the enemy without pre-conditions. Its naive and history has shown on many instances that this approach, a form of appeasement if you will, can backfire. It sort of brings Prime Minister Chamberlain late 1930’s actions to mind.
About those missile tests, let us not lose sight of the fact; Iran has demonstrated that it can fire more than one Shahab missile at once and that sends an important signal, one that suggests that before long, they will be in a position to overcome a ballistic missile defense system.
Talking to an enemy is not appeasement. Please explain to me how seeking a dialog with Iran is "sort of" like Chamberlain in the 1930s.
What pre-conditions would you demand?
You sound a little hazy about history and geo-political realities, but I would love to understand your points.
Post a Comment
<< Home