• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Obama Bluffing?

Is another WAR Okay?

  • Yes...we need to protect the free world!

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • No...we have given enough to the world!

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • Maybe...please explain

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • You gotta be Kidding me

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Total voters
    17

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If...we do this, does he deserve to be criticized for militarism?

"
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's goal in coming talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to persuade him that the United States "has Israel's back" so that Israel has no need to rush toward air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the president said in a newly published interview.
In a meeting at the White House on Monday, the president told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg he will try to persuade the Israeli leader that an attack now would backfire at a time when Iran is under increasing international pressure.
In an interview granted earlier this week and posted on the Atlantic magazine's website Friday morning, Goldberg reported that Obama is dismissive of a strategy of containment as unworkable and called it "unacceptable" for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Obama said he plans to tell Netanyahu that he will order military strikes against Iran's nuclear program if the current international sanctions are not successful in deterring its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The possibility of an American strike against Iran is a serious one, Goldberg reported.
"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," Obama said, according to the report. "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Obama on Iran: 'I don't bluff' - Wire Lifestyle - The Sacramento Bee

 
If we do this, we better do it from afar, and never put a boot on the ground.

I'm talkin' fresh glass deserts.
 
My guess is he'll try his best to delay military action until after the election, I have no doubt he'd strike Iran if he didn't have to worry about scaring away Independents and some of his own supporters.
 
Obama doesn't have what it takes to start something with Iran. Not going to happen. And that's good as the last thing we need is another war in the ME.
 
Obama doesn't have what it takes to start something with Iran. Not going to happen. And that's good as the last thing we need is another war in the ME.


The Middle East is always in some type of war one way or another and the world must be involved for many reasons, one way or another! :shrug:


ME and war are almost synonyms :(
 
Obama's always bluffing.
 
Obama doesn't have what it takes to start something with Iran. Not going to happen. And that's good as the last thing we need is another war in the ME.

War powers act... Obama can twitch funny and Invade Iran and bankrupt the west if he desires.


Unfortunate that he has to travel over there and kiss butt.
 
Did Obama say that he would use military force to keep Iran from having a Nuclear Weapon? Or did he use weasel "it's unacceptable and we won't accept it because it's unacceptable" style-language?
 
The Middle East is always in some type of war one way or another and the world must be involved for many reasons, one way or another! :shrug:


ME and war are almost synonyms :(

The threat to Israel is a huge poitical lie... Meir Dagan, Tamir Pardo and Martin Van Creveld have said so...

Obama knows what Bibi is trying to do... he's not going to be hoodwinked.
 
the threat to Israel is literally cataclysmic. especially thanks to the Smartest President Ever's decision to get rid of missile shield development in vain hopes that it would convince the Russians to convince the Iranians to stop building up a nuclear program.
 
the threat to Israel is literally cataclysmic. especially thanks to the Smartest President Ever's decision to get rid of missile shield development in vain hopes that it would convince the Russians to convince the Iranians to stop building up a nuclear program.

Iran will NEVER attack Israel.. That would be suicde.

And, if Israel attacks Iran.. Iran will not bomb Jerusalem..

You see.. Muslims will not destroy the holy sites of the Patriarchs.
 
Israel has indicated that they might act immediately and unilaterally if the US is not on board. If the US is on board, we have more control of the timeline.

It is my own opinion that war with Iran is an exceptionally poor option, and I hope that the president is able to steer it away from that.
 
The threat to Israel is a huge poitical lie... Meir Dagan, Tamir Pardo and Martin Van Creveld have said so...

Obama knows what Bibi is trying to do... he's not going to be hoodwinked.

No threat to Israel or any other non Muslim country by Iran is a huge lie.

Obama may not be hoodwinked, but it is pretty certain that he will try to hoodwink the American public until after November
 
Obama doesn't have what it takes to start something with Iran. Not going to happen. And that's good as the last thing we need is another war in the ME.

I disagree with the former, but I do agree with the latter.
 
Do the Iranian extremists know what happened to another extremist from Germany a century ago ?
Do we know of a world organization ??, the UN ?
If not, then its best that we and world learn .
 
Iran will NEVER attack Israel.. That would be suicde.

that is incorrect. Allah would protect Iran from any counterattack, because the Holy City of Qom is a part of His plan to bring back the Last Imam and bring the rest of Dar al Haarb to obedience through conquest. In fact, the destruction of Israel is necessary for this happy event to take place, and thus they are assured not only of Allah's protection, but also His divine blessings.


all of the "rational actor" types keep forgetting. everyone is a rational actor. they simply do not share the same assumptions.

And, if Israel attacks Iran.. Iran will not bomb Jerusalem..

You see.. Muslims will not destroy the holy sites of the Patriarchs.

what a fascinating notion. So you would argue, for example, that Muslims have not bombed, rocketed, or mortared Jersualem?
 
that is incorrect. Allah would protect Iran from any counterattack, because the Holy City of Qom is a part of His plan to bring back the Last Imam and bring the rest of Dar al Haarb to obedience through conquest. In fact, the destruction of Israel is necessary for this happy event to take place, and thus they are assured not only of Allah's protection, but also His divine blessings.


all of the "rational actor" types keep forgetting. everyone is a rational actor. they simply do not share the same assumptions.



what a fascinating notion. So you would argue, for example, that Muslims have not bombed, rocketed, or mortared Jersualem?

Muslims who believe in that nonsense are a minority.. no different than our minority of Scofield Heretics and Rapture Ready nutters.
 
Did Obama say that he would use military force to keep Iran from having a Nuclear Weapon? Or did he use weasel "it's unacceptable and we won't accept it because it's unacceptable" style-language?

What... you can't read?
 
The one who is gong to decide if there will be a war or not is Iran, not the US.
 
Muslims who believe in that nonsense are a minority..

that is correct. 13th Imam Shia are indeed a minority of Muslims.

However, if your statement is intended to argue that members of the radical Islamist Government of Iran who believe that are a minority.... the you are not in fact, correct. The destruction of Israel is not only a major foriegn policy goal of the IRI, but they consider it to be Divine Command. Furthermore, the Nuclear Program is under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps; which is explicitly chosen for their greater demonstrated level of devotion to that theology.


Instead you are left hoping that maybe the top guys don't really mean what they say and have been promoted for believing all their lives. You are hoping that some magical unknowable event alters their worldview upon the attainment of high rank within the regime, an event we are unable to pinpoint, describe, ore measure the effects of. A remarkably poor strategic choice. Unless of course, you thought "Hope" and "Change" were sufficient governing platforms. In which case you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near major foriegn policy decision making.
 
Last edited:
What... you can't read?


:) I've been pretty busy as of late, and only catch bits and pieces. If he said he was willing to bomb Iran to keep them from passing a threshold, all well and good. I'm just relatively suspicious that the actual policy is "delay the decision as to whether or not we are at that threshold until after the election, and hope that that works"; which would go not a little way towards explaining why the White House seeks to argue for pushing that threshold as far to the right as possible.
 
that is correct. 13th Imam Shia are indeed a minority of Muslims.

However, if your statement is intended to argue that members of the radical Islamist Government of Iran who believe that are a minority.... the you are not in fact, correct. The destruction of Israel is not only a major foriegn policy goal of the IRI, but they consider it to be Divine Command.

Its not about destroying Israel, it about an end to the regime that continues settlement expansion at the expense of the Palestinians. The problem can be resolved without war or any loss of life.
 
"Reality reversal is a principle being applied on a large scale. We may recall the United Nations reports on the humanitarian crisis in Libya alleging that tens of thousands of immigrant workers were fleeing the country to escape from violence. The conclusion drawn and spewed by the Western media was that the Gaddafi "regime" had to be toppled in favor of the Benghazi rebels. And yet, it was not the government of Tripoli who was responsible for this tragedy, but the so-called revolutionaries in Cyrenaica who were hunting down black Africans. Stirred by a racist ideology, they accused them of being at the service of Colonel Gaddafi and lynched whoever they could get their hands on."

"In Syria, the images of armed groups perched on the rooftops and firing at random into the crowd or on police forces were broadcast on national television networks. Yet, these same images were relayed and used by Western and Saudi television channels to attribute these crimes to the government of Damascus."



The Plan to Destabilize Syria
 
I am so sick and tired of treating crisis overseas with bigger urgency then our current economic problems. There are so many things we need fixed here in America, the last thing I care about is war between two countries that are still fighting religous wars with no end in sight. Iran will never launch a nuclear weapon, they know they would get blown off the map. American's would be shocked to find out that everything would be A.O.K. if we didn't get involved in this B.S.

However, don't kid yourself. Obama will blast these guys into the stone age if necessary.
 
Last edited:
"Reality reversal is a principle being applied on a large scale. We may recall the United Nations reports on the humanitarian crisis in Libya alleging that tens of thousands of immigrant workers were fleeing the country to escape from violence. The conclusion drawn and spewed by the Western media was that the Gaddafi "regime" had to be toppled in favor of the Benghazi rebels. And yet, it was not the government of Tripoli who was responsible for this tragedy, but the so-called revolutionaries in Cyrenaica who were hunting down black Africans. Stirred by a racist ideology, they accused them of being at the service of Colonel Gaddafi and lynched whoever they could get their hands on."

"In Syria, the images of armed groups perched on the rooftops and firing at random into the crowd or on police forces were broadcast on national television networks. Yet, these same images were relayed and used by Western and Saudi television channels to attribute these crimes to the government of Damascus."



The Plan to Destabilize Syria

Sorry.. Global Research is a crock.. No better than Debka and World Net Daily... and this is laughable:

The skirmishes were led by small commandos, mostly made up of some forty men, combining individuals recruited on the spot with foreign mercenary overseers belonging to Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s network. Bandar travelled to Jordan where he supervised the kick off of operations, together with CIA and Mossad officials.
 
Back
Top Bottom