BF2S Forums Obama > McCain

The#1Spot wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Masques wrote:

LOL at the moment when McCain tell that al quaida is training in Iran and you see the zionist liebermann telling him in the ear what to say hahahaha

I cannot believe that this man is the republican nominee.. so many people in the US are clueless.. McCain is even more stupid than Bush..

Wtf wake up republicans

How can someone support that moron??!?

The only thing I agree on him on is that gay marriage should be illegal

CameronPoe wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Obama is a moron.  You can't make deals with fanatics who don't respect you, have no real intention of honoring any agreement, and who's final goal is to see you and your people destroyed.

Who is really the warmonger Cam?  My money is on Amadinnajaket.

And Cam what do you want us to tell Iran?  "Stop giving border access to insurgents.  Stop giving insurgents weapons and supplies. Stop or we will..."  What Cam?  "Stop and we'll give you money?  Stop or we'll bomb you?"  Give me a break!  It is pointless dialogue and you know it too.

The US military is looking at alternative fuel sources.  In fact they are using some in our B-1's.  This is very good news for the US and bad news for the Mid East.

Iran have never once, not ever, and has never shown any inclination of seeing 'you and your people destroyed'. You're delusional if you think that or if you think they would ever be capable of such nonsense. All Iran are guilty of is trying to exert their influence locally and to maintain sovereignty over their own politics and resources. It is the US, a nation that lies thousands of miles from Iran, that is the one doing the threatening when it comes to US-Iran relations. In case you hadn't noticed Israel is not a part of the USA. What the US need to do is to realise that they have to afford these nations parity of esteem and not maraud all over their turf like some global resource-hungry consumerist overlord. Ahmedinejad, who is a moron, was still brave enough to come to your doorstep to speak at your unviersities and yet you guys are too chicken to speak to him? Pathetic.

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-05-21 17:40:33)

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Obama is a moron.  You can't make deals with fanatics who don't respect you, have no real intention of honoring any agreement, and who's final goal is to see you and your people destroyed.

Who is really the warmonger Cam?  My money is on Amadinnajaket.

And Cam what do you want us to tell Iran?  "Stop giving border access to insurgents.  Stop giving insurgents weapons and supplies. Stop or we will..."  What Cam?  "Stop and we'll give you money?  Stop or we'll bomb you?"  Give me a break!  It is pointless dialogue and you know it too.

The US military is looking at alternative fuel sources.  In fact they are using some in our B-1's.  This is very good news for the US and bad news for the Mid East.

Iran have never once, not ever, and has never shown any inclination of seeing 'you and your people destroyed'. You're delusional if you think that or if you think they would ever be capable of such nonsense. All Iran are guilty of is trying to exert their influence locally and to maintain sovereignty over their own politics and resources. It is the US, a nation that lies thousands of miles from Iran, that is the one doing the threatening when it comes to US-Iran relations. In case you hadn't noticed Israel is not a part of the USA. What the US need to do is to realise that they have to afford these nations parity of esteem and not maraud all over their turf like some global resource-hungry consumerist overlord. Ahmedinejad, who is a moron, was still brave enough to come to your doorstep to speak at your unviersities and yet you guys are too chicken to speak to him? Pathetic.

Wow... you definitely drop to out of your mind status with this post...lol...  Aquavelvajad is just misunderstood... lol...   Wipe Israel off the map and Israel is a stinking corpse...   and we let Aquavelvajad come here to speak because we have free speech... Do your really think Iran would let Bush come and speak to one of their universities unabated?   you seem awfully plugged into the hatred of Israel and making excuses about the ME in general...what's the payoff to supporting groups that don't rsspect your western way of life and the craziest ones among them would kill you without batting an eye...    and why do the ME folks who come to the US in droves not act like we we are trying to get them or threaten them...?   They come here and work and make money and buy nice houses and nice cars...  oh how awful.... lol...  I'm probably not going to be able to open a Duncan Donuts in Iran anytime soon...lol...

Dilbert_X wrote:

McCain said he, too, would be willing to meet with the Iranians, but only on the condition that they recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism, abandon their nuclear weapons program, and stop training and supplying Iraqi militants:
"Meaningful negotiations could take place if they stop sponsoring terrorist organizations…those are the preconditions for sitting down with the Iranians."

Americans just can't smell their own doo can they?

How about some alternate conditions:-
America stop sponsoring terrorist nations - Israel
America abandon its nuclear weapons and its civil nuclear program
America recognise Hamas as the democratically elected govt of Palestine
America stop destabilising Iraq

Then maybe the Iranians might want to come to the table

FEOS wrote:

I love all this "warmongering" talk.

Certainly a lot of "warmongering" from McCain.

McCain on "many options before military action" against Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00646.html

"I don't think it's inevitable that we're in a conflict with Iran," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But I certainly see it as one scenario that could, and I emphasize could, take place if we are not effective" in persuading Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions or in enlisting reluctant nations to back punitive sanctions, McCain said.

"There's a whole lot of things we can do before we seriously consider the military option," he emphasized. But he added: "I still say there's only one thing worse than military action against Iran and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

McCain on Obama:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05 … _iran.html

Warmonger McCain who refuses to meet with Iran wrote:

This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.

McCain's willingness to meet with Iran:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T … rorist.asp

McCain said he, too, would be willing to meet with the Iranians, but only on the condition that they recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism, abandon their nuclear weapons program, and stop training and supplying Iraqi militants:


    "Meaningful negotiations could take place if they stop sponsoring terrorist organizations…those are the preconditions for sitting down with the Iranians."


McCain said they could signal their willingness to do these things through their ambassador to Baghdad, but that Ambassador Crocker had informed him "they haven't shown the slightest inclination to do those things.

How DARE he expect Iran to stop doing those things?! What a fascist!

Where is the "warmongering" talk coming from?

France and Germany?

Or maybe Middle Eastern states?

There's certainly no diplomacy going on...

CameronPoe wrote:

None of that really gels with this:

"McCain contended that Obama wants to "sit down and negotiate with a government exporting most lethal devices used against soldiers. He wants to sit down face-to-face with a government that is very clear about developing nuclear weapons. ... They are sponsors of terrorist organizations. That's a huge difference in my opinion. And I'll let the American people decide whether that's a significant difference or not. I believe it is.""

"An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically, when he is very unpopular among the Iranian people," McCain said.

Perhaps McCain is a self-contradictory idiot, probably given his view on Hamas:

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

McCains middle name seems to be "Precondition" on Iran. Why treat Iran differently from Hamas? Let's face it - Iran do not pose a threat to the US. All of this is horseshit.

FEOS wrote:

There's nothing contradictory about that. There should absolutely be preconditions for high-level meetings with Iran. He never said there shouldn't be...he was describing Obama's unconditional approach as flawed.

Why treat Iran different than Hamas? Is Hamas supplying the insurgents in Iraq with advanced weaponry and training? Is Hamas building weapons-related nuclear capability in defiance of UN resolutions?

Didn't think so.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-05-23 01:21:33)

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There's nothing contradictory about that. There should absolutely be preconditions for high-level meetings with Iran. He never said there shouldn't be...he was describing Obama's unconditional approach as flawed.

Why treat Iran different than Hamas? Is Hamas supplying the insurgents in Iraq with advanced weaponry and training? Is Hamas building weapons-related nuclear capability in defiance of UN resolutions?

Didn't think so.

Laying preconditions betrays the fact that he simply would prefer it if he never had to talk to Iran. Engaging in diplomacy with someone to deal with some of the issues you just mentioned requires open dialogue without preconditions and he damn well knows it. Talking to Iran lessens the case for pre-emptive military action - his and Bush's plan all along. I didn't see Reagan laying preconditions down for Gorbachev in the 80s...

FEOS wrote:

There were plenty of pre-conditions for US-Soviet discussions throughout the 80's. Why do you think some summits were boycotted?

At Reykjavik, Reagan sought to include discussion of human rights, emigration of Soviet Jews and dissidents, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, Gorbachev sought to limit the talks solely to arms control. In the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Soviets accepted in principle the "double-zero" proposal for eliminating INF weapons from Europe (INF denoting "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces" as distinct from ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles). The Russians also proposed a complete ballistic missile ban by 1996. The U.S. countered with a proposal to eliminate 50 percent of ballistic missiles: once the controversial Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) had been tested and shared, the remainder could be eliminated.

Gorbachev later said, regarding the summit, “We viewed the Geneva meeting realistically, without grand expectations, yet we hoped to lay the foundations for a serious dialogue in the future.”[10] Similar to former president Eisenhower in 1955, Reagan believed that a personal relationship among leaders was the necessary first step to breaking down the barriers of tension that existed between the two countries. Reagan’s goal was to convince Gorbachev that America desired peace above all else.