digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at reuters.com

Obama to eliminate Iran

reuters.com — "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jeanine22, on 06/04/2008, -205/+168smash the military industrial complex
    Ron Paul/Jessie Ventura 2008
    • lukeev, on 06/04/2008, -41/+32Jessie Ventura, pet detective?
      • lazerus9, on 06/04/2008, -11/+18Moron
        • robdiggity, on 06/04/2008, -7/+8Seriously.

          Everybody knows he was a cross-dressing pro wrestler before he REALLY went off the deep end and started his political career.
        • lukeev, on 06/04/2008, -5/+12Take a joke - I know who it is. I was just trying to lighten things up after the standard issue "military industrial complex" comment I read all the time (and because it's true, but scary). Seriously, take a joke.
      • sanman, on 06/04/2008, -14/+4Obamabots > Islamobots
      • unreg, on 06/05/2008, -7/+8Ahh, now that Obama has the nomination wrapped up, it's time to start pandering to the Jews.

        Wonder what he'll offer the Latinos? The Asians. The gays.
        • elnerdo, on 06/05/2008, -1/+12Nah, I don't think that the Latinos want the Asians or the gays.
        • luet, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2I see what you did there, elnerdo.
        • paralock, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1I doubt he will start pandering to the homosexuals. Gays have had an awful election cycle, with none of the major candidates supporting gay marriage. Obama and McCain both just want to keep the status quo.

          As for the latinos, he has to offer them something to win them back. His campaign has alienated a lot of groups that ran in flocks to Hillary (okay, so really he never won them over in the first place, they didn't actually stop supporting him).
    • stevets, on 06/04/2008, -19/+35This appears to be the bulk of your comments. I have seen you post this in many other politically related stories.

      You are not contributing anything to the discussion of these articles and you insist on posting the same thing over and over.

      This is what is commonly referred to as spam. Minus 1 digg for you.
      • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -9/+3***** that - he's right (except for the RP nonsense - that guy is a scam) the MIC has proven it to me with this - they ***** own everything in american politics.
    • wild, on 06/04/2008, -10/+22“I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said, adding for emphasis: “Everything.

      “That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.”

      Do you understand how this is the quote, and you are blurring the truth? How can you possibly stand for Ron Paul when you are intentionally lying to make your case? Pathetic.
      • PhantomBantam, on 06/05/2008, -8/+11Bush did everything in his power to stop Sadam from getting nuclear weapons. Everything.
        • rpgmaker, on 06/05/2008, -3/+5Like calling "WITCH!" on him and hanging him up. Really pathetic.
        • 55mph, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7You are not referring to his father, Bush Sr.

          He sold Iraq nuclear technology. You can't tell the players without a historic score card.

          Iraq abandoned the US Dollar in their Oil transactions. That was Saddams undoing.

          Pakistan is in tatters, has nuclear weapons yet nobody talks about it. Why. No OIL!

          Now that Iran has abandoned the US Dollar, it's their turn to get annihilated.
        • didiman, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Obama's definition of everything is pattycake, tea parties, and sing-alongs
        • TruthExposed, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Very good point Phantom.
        • TruthExposed, on 06/05/2008, -0/+355 - I am glad to hear that other people have made that connection. It is the only theory that allows all the pieces to fit.
      • amadeusdemarzi, on 06/05/2008, -9/+7Thank you for the breath of fresh air, Wild, so many paul bots seem to be jumping on these statements and misrepresenting the truth.

        It's a sad world when individuals cannot think for themselves and instead spread mistruths, whether intentional or not.

        Preparing to be dugg down to oblivion :)
        • jvittetoe, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4roflflf, 'think for themselves,' roflflfl
      • samuellclemens, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1people also said that people who say obama is pro-patriot act are lying.
      • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3What are YOU talking about? Iran has no intention of obtaining nuclear weapons! Like all countries and all people, Iran is our friend not an enemy. It is AMERICA that already has nuclear weapons and have used them! Hypocrite! This is a non-existent threat. Anyone other than the people of the United States of America can clearly see that it is the American government that are the threat! They've already unfairly attacked Iraq AND Afghanistan murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

        I thought Obama was here to bring change? What change? He's just repeating what George Bush said!
    • hansk, on 06/04/2008, -5/+5yah good luck with that
    • Inflammo, on 06/05/2008, -18/+5Jesse Ventura? The man is a complete nut.
      • TheWorm, on 06/05/2008, -20/+3So is Ron Paul
        • Inflammo, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4No, he actually is a smart guy. Ventura only quotes and regurgitates things he learned from Loose Change
        • jvittetoe, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1You're a product of conventional wisdom.
    • solistus, on 06/05/2008, -10/+6Stop spamming every Obama thread with your pipe dream. Reported for spam; this message has been posted VERBATIM on several other stories, none of which mention Ron Paul or Jessie Ventura.
    • unreg, on 06/05/2008, -4/+26Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
      • willskillz, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2GASP! Obama, pandering to Israeli interest? Say it isn't so? I guess some things never change. I feel sorry for the man personally because if he wasn't spewing pro-Israel, hate fueled, rhetoric he'd be an anti-Semite. And that's bad.
        • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Exactly. I couldn't believe this when I heard it. It just confirms to me that there is no election that these people are just changing faces but keeping the same policies - the only policies that they disagree on are relatively insignificant!
    • RickHavoc, on 06/05/2008, -6/+3If you look at history you'll find many examples where a threat was eliminated through diplomacy. Right now our biggest threat is the kind of simplistic thinking that caused the inaccurate title.
    • bigbchew, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3In my opinion, all minimist libertarians like the above only promise to turn the clock back on the growth of the government empire. Why not eliminate the structure all together?
      See http://www.freedomainradio.com for discussions on alternatives.
    • magus_melchior, on 06/05/2008, -5/+3@jeanine22: You do both of your idols a great disservice by employing tactics Karl Rove and Dick Cheney would be proud of.

      Get this through your head: Believing a fantasy doesn't make it reality, and manipulating information to make others believe your fantasy makes you as reprehensible as the 2003 White House and Pentagon.
      • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2many of the people of America live in a fantasy world. They'd believe ANYTHING except for facts.
    • apophenic, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5THA DREAM TICKET
    • JMScheib, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2Jessie Ventura is a joke now.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2Ahem. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N ... I'm all for "Smashing the military industrial complex" but Ron Paul's not gonna "smash" some of his biggest supporters.
    • TruthExposed, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Here is more evidence that Obama is a militant from his own website:
      http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlan ...
      go about 1/2 way down and you will see that 1 of the biggest changes Obama wants to implement is to greatly expand the military - by about 92,000 people.
    • Rich711, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Obama is going to eliminate Iran with some serious sit downs and stern talk, "there is light at the end of the tunnel"

      Obama is such a good public speaker.
  • CreatureLady, on 06/04/2008, -123/+1053To be clear, Senator Obama said that he will do everything within his power to eliminate the threat from Iran. He did not say he would try to eliminate Iran, as the title of this digg post implies. There's a difference.
    • Demolama, on 06/04/2008, -68/+224what Iranian threat? What could that country possibly do to the United States? Its the same type of BS that said Iraq was a threat to the US that got us into Iraq to begin with. Same old song and dance... Enjoy your change
      • PongGod, on 06/04/2008, -56/+95Obama is for change... all the change in our pockets.
        • slayerab, on 06/05/2008, -4/+10Obama can keep the change
        • weech, on 06/05/2008, -3/+1sometimes you gotta lie to kick it
        • aliengoods, on 06/05/2008, -5/+1Wow PongGod, did you think of that all by yourself, or did you need help?
      • bullcutter, on 06/04/2008, -30/+4well, the Iranian mullahs are a bunch of backwards assholes, intent on keeping their people poor and stupid. but i agree, they are not the problem to the United States.

        if anybody should strike Iran, its Israel, not US.
        • goffy59, on 06/05/2008, -4/+11***** Israel.
        • PRlME, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2with peanut butter!
        • blackjack75, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2And why exactly would Israel strike Iran? Because they are afraid they may attack them? By your logic we should have attacked the U.S.S.R.
        • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2nobody should strike anyone you bloodthirsty idiots!
      • wild, on 06/04/2008, -19/+90You know, you can be an ignorant jackass, or an informed jackass. You are clearly the former.

        The actual article title: "Obama vows to stop Iran from having nuclear arms"

        And the description pulls a partial quote out of context. Burying this tripe as inaccurate.
        • unreg, on 06/05/2008, -14/+6Works with Bush, oughta work with Obama.
        • Razz, on 06/05/2008, -4/+9Perhaps. But it's just as inaccurate and bullcrap as Ahmadenijad's assertion of eliminating Israel
        • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7Exactly, nobody criticizes the Bush administration over the handling of the North Korean situation. He is looking to eliminate the threat through the power of sitting down and talking, yes he's repeated this before and people said he was an appeaser, yet what do they say about those who handled the North Korean situation or what are their opinions of the 6 party talks? Obviously Obama is looking to have a similar exchange with Iran and it's neighbors which would eventually lead to them dismantling their weapons program in much the same way that North Korea has.
        • didiman, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1boombye i guess you forgot when all of the democrats, including obama, were criticizing bush's approach to north Korea. Obama also said the surge wouldn't work. His judgment is worse than a 5 year olds.
      • ozydingo, on 06/05/2008, -3/+17Read the first sentence of th article perhaps? "Barack Obama said on Wednesday Iran posed a serious threat in the Middle East and vowed to stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon."
      • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4Much like with North Korea, he is willing to talk to them, just like we were with North Korea because they posed a threat, now that threat has somewhat been eliminated, this is the same elimination he is talking about, the elimination of the threat that they may soon possess. Or is that too hard for people to understand???

        See Republicans will engage in 6 party talks with North Korea, which was a bigger threat to the South than Iran was to Israel. But Bush refuses to have 6 party talks or have any similar meetings with Iran as they did with North Korea. They can sit and talk with Kim Jung Il's people, but not the Iranians? North Korea was as much a threat to South Korea as Iran could be to Israel.
        • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1What threat? Do you know how poor North Korea is?
      • georgemason01, on 06/05/2008, -3/+10Interesting how we only hear this kind of talk when he is speaking to AIPAC.
      • solid12345, on 06/05/2008, -5/+2Who determines what or what is not a threat?

        In only 3-5 years Germany went from a destitute, poverty-ridden nation to having the world's most powerful army, and the United States also was caught with its pants down on Pearl Harbor but was able to raise our military and manufacturing might to meet the war effort.

        Just because Iran "seems" weak now comparatively does not mean they are not a potential threat.
      • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3I've dugg you down because that's not what the problem is. The problem is that Obama is threatening Iran despite the fact that Iran have not done anything - they have no nuclear weapons, they aren't making any and have no intention to do so! Stop this scaremongering - everyone who hasn't listened to these lies will realise that the real threat is America. They are the ones with nuclear weapons, they are the ones that aren't afraid to use them and they are the ones that unfairly attacked and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead, and they are the ones making more threats for no reason!
        If you still haven't guessed it already, these wars are not about getting revenge for 9/11, or stopping "dangerous" countries. It's about making a hell load of money and murdering a hell load of people! ***** sake people did the lies of Iraq not teach you people anything?
    • jstohler, on 06/04/2008, -25/+141I have no idea why you're being dugg down -- your description is 100% correct. Obama didn't say anything about eliminating Iran, only their nuclear weapons.

      Buried for inaccuracy.
      • Shendelzare, on 06/05/2008, -17/+8Bush said "no nation building" and look what we got...

        Obama has repeatedly threatened Iran and Pakistan, and he said himself that he would be leaving troops in Iraq until at least 2013. Is NOBODY PAYING ATTENTION HERE????

        Obama is fraud. He's not going to change a damn thing. He is just a CFR shill in the pocket of the Israeli lobby.

        Your only hope is to vote for Ron Paul to restore sanity to your government. Obama is not even in office yet and he is already threatening Iran and Pakistan.
        • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2Shut up, the one thing Republicans got right was North Korea, and in that situation, it had more to do with Intel than politicians.
      • 3ugene, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Your right, it is a misleading title. It assumes that we have the power to eliminate Iran, much like we thought we had the power to liberate Iraq. Look how that turned out. I did digg this, but only because it is rare to see a digg submission that doesn't have a pro Obama slant. He tries to come across as an anti-war candidate when in all actuality, he wants to keep the bases in Iraq running indefinitely and start a war with some other middle eastern country. Furthermore he would like to remain Israel's bitch as proven in one of his most recent speeches. Why anybody educated on the problems with this country would vote for him is beyond me.
        • itsthebrod, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Uhh, it'd be a helluva lot easier to eliminate Iran than to liberate them. One requires inserting an army into a country. The other requires dropping a few computer-guided nukes from thousands of miles away.
        • mystcnurse, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Curious, which candidate would not remain Israel's "bitch"?

          We're back to the "lesser of the two evils" Same 'ol, same 'ol. Staying home on election day.
      • eecan, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Getting rid of the weapons... that sounds familiar...
    • rebotfc, on 06/04/2008, -17/+26CreatureLady is being dugg down because this submission is being gamed big-time.
      • magus_melchior, on 06/05/2008, -5/+10There's at least 40 of them (probably a small number plus sock-puppets) digging up anti-Obama comments and burying dissenters. The very first comment is telling, and I think there's a few Limbaugh-type trolls baiting Ron Paul fans here.

        To Ron Paul supporters: I know that knowing Paul being unable to win the Presidency as a Republican hurts, but please don't stoop to tactics that Karl Rove would use. You are all better than that, and it's disappointing to see so many taking such an easy attack route.
        • NeoConned08, on 06/05/2008, -9/+6Hey buddy,
          Obama doesn't deal with lobbyists and is anti war. Yet he is going to expand the size of the military, and now goes in front of AIPAC, a zionist lobbying group, and threatens another nation. Enjoy your change.
        • siszam, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3I don't support Ron Paul. I can't stand him. But I'm not blindly following any candidate the way people blindly followed and trusted Bush.

          Obama is the best choice but he isn't a perfect choice. He isn't a saint and if we don't question his refusal to denounce all war then we are no better than those who still worship Bush.

          You don't become president unless you've sold out the right people at some point. Rational people should be questioning everything government does after the betrayals we've faced the past seven years.
        • 3ugene, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4I am proud to support Paul and despise Obama. Please forgive me for having a mind of my own. Oh and please take off your tinfoil hat. Just because this submission isn't an Obamorgy you don't have to become a conspiracy theorist and cry foul without any evidence.
    • meuse, on 06/04/2008, -39/+20Everyone knows what Obama meant. He wants war.
      • freakk123, on 06/05/2008, -5/+5Um, no, it would seem everyone disagrees with you on that point.
      • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2No he wants what happened to North Korea. Elimination of a threat.
    • digitronix, on 06/04/2008, -15/+50The president has no constitutional authority to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. What Obama can do instead is to disband nuclear weapons in the United States and set a shining example for other nations.
      • pajeff2, on 06/04/2008, -12/+16If we are all dead son our constitution isn't going to do us any good...First things first...
        • iofthestorm, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6Yes, but that's basically what Bush said about Iraq... and incidentally this is completely out of context. Buried as inaccurate.
        • mikhial66, on 06/05/2008, -3/+12And that line of thinking has brought us torture, the Iraq War, illegal wiretaps, etc.
        • compu73rg33k, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7Don't you think Iran is saying the exact goddamn thing? They completely mistrust the US, and for good reason! It goes back to the 50's when the CIA toppled a popularly elected government and re-installed the former monarchy! And since they mistrust us, they see that we have nukes able to blow up Iran (and the rest of the world) many times over, and they think the only way to protect themselves is to equalize themselves with the US - by obtaining nuclear weapons!

          We have them, why shouldn't they? Not to mention with all this goddamn Iran war talk, I'd be scared as ***** of the US if I was in Iran too! I mean ***** we already invaded their neighbour. They feel the need to protect themselves, and that feeling was created out of ***** FOREIGN POLICY BY THE POLITICIANS WE ELECT! How can you think that NOT talking to them and just blowing them up is the right thing to do? And then when they start preparing to defend themselves we point out zOMG LOOK THEY WANT NUCLEAR WEAPONS! Never mind we already have them, and more.

          And the US completely mistrusts Iran, because ... Iran completely mistrusts us? Is that not asinine?
        • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2This is classic problem-reaction-solution manipulation. They make up the problem (Iran have nuclear weapons or whatever), they wait for your reaction (***** Iran!) and then they come up with the awful solution (invade Iran and murder millions of men, woman and children!).

          Iran don't have nuclear weapons, aren't making any and have no intention to do so.
          America on the other hand, have nuclear weapons AND weapons of mass destruction and are not afraid to use them.
          Who's the REAL threat?
      • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -1/+26 party talks for the forgetful.
      • 3ugene, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4That would require integrity. We had our chance for integrity in a president, but he lost in the primary. Now we get a freshman senator who will use nuclear weapons to force our ideals on other people or a hot tempered neo-con who will do the same. Got any spare change?
      • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Oh thank god I've come across a digger with a bit of sense...
    • flogistan, on 06/04/2008, -7/+28Why do I get the feeling you don't care to "be clear" when they're making things up that Amadinijad never really said?
      • solid12345, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Ahmedenijad has consistently said it clear, just yesterday he said the "Zionist entity" will be geographically erased from the middle east. Yes you can interpret it as the Israeli government will be gone, but do you "really" think if Iran invaded and took out Israel they would spare the lives of the remaining Israelis not killed in such a war?
        • TheBanditKing, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2FYI there are Jewish communities living happy and safe in Iran.
        • kooft, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Hitler purged Germany of Jews and other 'untermensch' before exporting his holocaust to the rest of Europe. When we see Iran exterminate domestic Jews, then and only then will I believe it's their intention to exterminate all Jews. Until such time we have to take him at his word when he says "the regime occupying Jerusalem".

          I don't for a second pretend that Jews aren't mistreated in Iran, but you'd think with the way everyone portrays Ahmadinejad that there wouldn't be a single Jew in Iran.
        • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Don't be ridiculous Iran is NOT going to attack Israel. And Iran does not pose a threat to the USA. The USA poses a threat to Iran. THEY are the real threat!
    • wishninja, on 06/04/2008, -4/+2I went specifically looking for this article and there are many submitting on this quote pick the spin you like and dig away no one is stopping you.
    • sigg14, on 06/05/2008, -7/+25same thing bush said about Iraq. learn to read between the lines, don't let your support for someone replace common sense
      • sauron256, on 06/05/2008, -6/+3Obama isn't Bush. He's said many times he will pursue diplomatic channels rather than resorting to bombs.
        • Franswahili, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4bush said that too
        • jamdogg, on 06/05/2008, -1/+326thUSMC you sound like such a decent human being who has contributed great advancements to the world you were born into. When you die and your life flashes before your eyes, may you rest in peace.
    • kaelyiesta, on 06/05/2008, -9/+19Actually, it was ambiguous. The threat he intends to 'obliterate' could be the 'danger from Iran' or Iran itself.

      Either way, this language smacks of the same imperialist warmongering this country has been hooked on since its infancy.
      • ProfBagelwood, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6...unless he's open to diplomacy.

        There's nothing imperialist about talking and making compromises.
      • RobotShrink, on 06/05/2008, -5/+1Kaelyiesta, dont be a complete moron. There was virtually no ambiguity involved, the only ambiguity was the slanderous comments created by the original poster. Anyone who read Obamas comments would have understand exactly what he is saying. Why should we respect you and your ilk if you are going to lie so blatantly. Please, the only ambiguity was by intentionally misreading his comments in the most simplistic and anally retentive manner possible - which I imagine you do as often as possible in order to create idiotic straw man arguments.
    • shawnoel, on 06/05/2008, -13/+6Uhhh....okay. CreatureLady said:
      "To be clear, Senator Obama said that he will do everything within his power to eliminate the threat from Iran. He did not say he would try to eliminate Iran, as the title of this digg post implies. There's a difference."
      This was pertaining to Obama's comment which is:
      "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,"
      Actually CreatureLady....Osama said the "danger" from Iran is "grave" and he would eliminate the "threat". You see? Not eliminate the "danger"....but the "threat". Iran is the "threat'....not the "danger". I believe the title is accurate. He also said he would hunt down "terrorist" around the world and eliminate them. Consider these "primers" put in detonation devices....one could blow-up. Know what I mean jelly bean? The real "terrorists" are sitting in Washington D.C. and they control Osama and Hitlery. Good luck.
      • RobotShrink, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2Shawnoel, are you so intellectually deficient that you are unaware that threats and dangers are synonyms ? Did you really misunderstand what obama said? Please give me a break, and get some neurons.

        That will be $100 for this session.

        Robotshrink
        • shawnoel, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the education. So I could say," I saw a baby and greeted the infant." Now that could mean that I greeted the baby or it could mean that I saw a baby and then greeted the baby's lil' brother or sis. Also, I could threaten to kick your can....but you wouldn't be in any danger unless you were in the same vicinity as me. It's a play on words nimrod. I didn't misunderstand what Obama-lama-ding-dong said. He said that he would support Israel by taking money from me and giving it to them. Accurate enough professor? If I thought the 100 beans would buy you a clue I would give it to you. Good luck.
      • caninedevotion, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4Seeing as you make a semi-articulate attempt to justify your ***** positions, I am going to go ahead and take the low road. Go ***** yourself.
        • shawnoel, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Doggy-Style? Also the word you should have used is "made".
    • wmarcello, on 06/05/2008, -7/+17Of course there's a difference, but nevertheless it is very disappointing to hear that tough-talk coming out of Obama's mouth. If we were talking about any other country than Israel, I think Barack's response would have been different. Is this pro-Israel demographic so important that you're willing to go against your principles?
    • kingtobo, on 06/05/2008, -6/+13The title certainly is misleading, but it doesn't change the fact that it's worrying to see Obama get this militant the day he clinches the nomination.
    • ExplosivesWTC, on 06/05/2008, -16/+19Obama is nothing more than a globalist puppet for Zbigniew Brzezinski. Whatever Ziggy says goes. I can't believe the people are so hyped about Obama. Things will actually get worse under his Presidency. There was one chance and not enough people woke up, Ron Paul.

      Once you understand Bilderberg and the TriLateral Commission and how Ziggy formed Al Qaeda (Al CIA Da) then you know. 9/11 was an inside job and more and more people are seeing it for what it was, a false flag terrorist act used to start wars. The controlled demolition evidence is off the charts.
      • brstilson, on 06/05/2008, -7/+7"The controlled demolition evidence is off the charts. "

        There's actually no evidence for it. The indicators that are used to "prove" this theory have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked with far more reasonable explanations.

        Often, the people calling others "sheep" are the ones who deserve that label the most.
        • Daemion43, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4Actually, there is only evidence indicating controlled demolition. What doesn't exist, is any evidence at all pointing to the pancake theory.
      • swimtwobirds, on 06/05/2008, -3/+0ah come on wtc, I know the internet's a free space, but thats the chosen moniker?
        Make a stir fry I say, as a sad sack with a forlorn wok I don't make use of it often enough,
        but, you know; meditative cooking, excuse to glug a fat bottle of red and stretch out,
        monkey content with a full half drunk belly. zen watchful and occasionally pissed,
        thats the motto. And I'm Irish, hence the drinking angle.
        • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1What has that got to do with the conversation?
      • RealHyperX, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4ExplosivesWTC - you are worse than a liberal. At least liberals believe in the pie in the sky, but when they start making money and paying taxes, they turn more conservative. You are an idiot. WTC was not some US masterplan.

        Make up your mind. If Bush is as stupid as you think, could he pull it off, and not have anyone squeal about it.
        • jvittetoe, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Bush is an alcoholic with dyslexia. That doesn't make him 'stupid.' As well, the term 'US' is a very broad all encompassing term. The government is like a pyramid. The lower you are on it, the more compartmentalized you are. 9/11 was probably organized by rouge factions within the govt, not the entire 'US.' Now, if you are warned to keep hush or your life, your wifes life and your 3 children life could be compromised, you will very well take your million dollar cut and live your life. And if you do try to speak out, the media calls you a nut and your immediately discredited. You would be fighting an incomprehensible uphill battle all while risking your family's life.

          I know its hard to believe a government would do such a thing, let alone, an American, red white and blue, government, but when you read real history, the kind that wasn't written by rich white men, then you'll see governments have been doing this very thing from the beginning. Do you think your government actually gives a flying ***** about you or the next guy? Of course not. They crave power, not money. Money, they can print that, but power, thats their aphrodisiac.
        • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1If you'd actually listened you would have realised that 9/11 truth seekers generally don't believe that George Bush was responsible for 9/1. It is ridiculous to suggest that a man so stupid could have done something like this. George Bush is merely a puppet.
      • jcm267, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Please post this evidence, Jamey. While you are at it I suggest you start looking for a good lawyer so that you can bring those who are responsible to court. If you really do have this evidence (ha!), you really should be sharing it with everyone else.
    • FadieZ, on 06/05/2008, -6/+19Though I support Obama, I still dugg the article - despite the title. People need to know this is Obama's stance on Iran so that he may know that his people will not support this kind of policy
    • lemur, on 06/05/2008, -5/+14Yeah, this is just about as bad as the "I will wipe Israel off the map" quote misattributed to Ahmadinejad. Not only did he not say that, but for those of you who don't understand Farsi, imagine why he would use a well known English idiom in a speech delivered in Farsi.
      • solid12345, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Yes, he only plans to give those Israelis a stern talking to

        Seriously what do you think he mean't? The Revolutionary Guard holds exercises with their troops marching as a sword and piercing a star of david. They want to kill every last Jew over there or send them fleeing to Europe or America, don't kid yourself.
        • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1What are you talking about? Iran has no intention of attacking Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not. The US have nuclear weapons and support Israel too, to further that point.
    • mal1964, on 06/05/2008, -5/+12"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,"
      • mal1964, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4rotflmao, Obama's quote is getting dugg down!
      • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1What threat? Actually, someone please tell me what threat Iran actually poses because the only thing I'm hearing is that Iran has no nuclear weapons, is not making any and has no intention to.
    • rawg, on 06/05/2008, -7/+6Agree with you CreatureLady. The poster of this article is being disingenuous by changing the title because he knows most diggers won't click through to the actual article. The original title is "Obama vows to stop Iran from having nuclear arms"

      FTA: ""I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation."

      • vincebodie, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1In other words, the whole friggin' world except for Iran can have nukes... hell WE can have tens of thousands of them - but if Iran gets even one, Barrack will do "everything" in his power... That's a statement of preemptive war. Period.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/05/2008, -7/+9What and Obamatards havent been disingenuous by posting half of quotes and utter nonsense for their own benefit?
    • Canadian0207, on 06/05/2008, -7/+21if clinton said this, you'd all be singing a different song
      • magus_melchior, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Maybe, but most diggers hate being suckered.
      • mal1964, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Maybe a few will come down from planet Obama, To the real world again.
      • bigsteve, on 06/05/2008, -6/+4No I wouldn't, I wouldn't even if it was McCain. Obama says he'll eliminate the threat of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon, and the summary says "Obama to eliminate Iran." It's a blatant misrepresentation ... a 3rd grader couldn't screw it up.
    • scamper22, on 06/05/2008, -6/+7Yeah yeah...
      you liberals and your nuances.

      Like when Ahmendenijad says he wants to remove the zionist regime (aka the zionist government of israel), we all know he really means he wants to kill all the jews and wipe jewish people into the sea.

      //sarcasm
      • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1***** dugg you down before I saw the sarcasm. Oh well you should have made yourself more clear from the beginning!
    • moviemania, on 06/05/2008, -5/+1CreatureLady is spot on. As soon as I read the title, I said WTH...that's not accurate. I watched his speech this morning and as soon as he said what he said, I knew exactly what he meant. However, it did occur to me that some dummy would think he said to "eliminate Iran"...sure enough, here is a dummy.
    • hittnrun, on 06/05/2008, -12/+6Obama plays the religion card...
      Obamabots say not a word.

      Obama plays the race card...
      Obamabots say nothing...

      Obama plays the FEAR card...
      Obamabots fall in line.

      You fvcking idiots are never to be believed.
      Your word and your honor is worth NOTHING.

      It's not worth the sh!t I am about to take.

      WORDS = NOTHING
      WORDS are all this fake OREO has to offer.


      • shawnoel, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5I agree with everything but the use of the word oreo. Also....Obama supporters are not bots. That term is reserved for Ron Paul supporters such as myself. (Remember Spam-Bots) Obama-lama-dind-dong's supporters are just dings on his dong. They believe that Obama is telling the truth....ha ha ha ha! Too funny! I've copied this page so next year I will re-digg it with a slight change in the title so these dings can see they were donged. Most Obama supporters I meet say, " He wants change"....and when I ask what specific change there will be.....crickets. They don't even know what he stands for because Obama doesn't know what he stands for. Why? Because he hasn't been told what to think or say yet.
      • Bartboy919, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3When had Obama ever played the religion card or fear card? If anything, he fought against those things. I clearly remember in his speech on Tuesday that he wants to get people to vote not out of fear, but out of hope for change. By the way, I can see your Anti-obama, do you support McCain, who in fact spreads fear and religious paranoia?
      • Caiman, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, racial slurs are the way to make sure people take you seriously! Dick.
    • NeoConned08, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

      we will go to war with iran and it ain't cuz of nukes.
    • mbm1512, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1As if every title about bush and mccain is true....
    • Mikhail101, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Im pretty sure this threat is as big as the one in iraq, sarcasm
    • 1b2a, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1...even if it takes two men to disarm Iran.
    • Seidoger, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Obama to eliminate Iran
      ^
      | =/=
      v
      The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat

      Even though, it is still pretty bad to read about that, like that. Tsk tsk tsk.
      Whoever is in power: USA one day, USA everyday.
    • brundlefly76, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Yeah the difference is you cant get anything frontpaged on digg unless you are one of about a dozen people OR you embarrassingly sensationalize your headline.
    • 0nslaught, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8So, what do people think of this hypothetical situation?

      "The danger from Israel is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," --Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech to a conference of the Chinese Arabian Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Arabic lobby group.

      "I will do everything in my power to prevent Israel from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said to a standing ovation.

      Just wondering.
    • LomasLou, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2"To be clear, Senator Obama said that he will do everything within his power to eliminate the threat from Iran."

      That's what Dubya said about Iraq ,,, I'm just saying.
    • Spuy767, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1How does the quotes out of context shoe feel on the other foot?
    • flink405, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2George Bush and John McCain have said the same thing.
      Why oh why is Obama sounding more and more like a Republican????

      Change we can believe in......yeah, right.
    • TruthExposed, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3And Bush did not eliminate Iraq - Iraq still exists.
      Here is more evidence that Obama is a militant from his own website:
      http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlan ...
      go about 1/2 way down and you will see that 1 of the biggest changes Obama wants to implement is to greatly expand the military - by about 92,000 people.
    • JustinCase18, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Obama's solution to eliminate the threat.....SURRENDER!!!!
  • jhuckabee, on 06/04/2008, -93/+343Buried for misleading title. Obama will eliminate THREAT of Iran. He's no George Bush or John McCain.
    • paralock, on 06/04/2008, -27/+61What does eliminating the threat entail, other than the same thing it did in Iraq.

      Do you realize that other than the Bushes, a Democrat has started since World War Two (We will say Japan started WWII for us, even though it is because of FDR that they attacked, see Backdoor to War).
      • THETEH, on 06/04/2008, -10/+17Has it dawned on you that Obama has stood against warmongering since his campaign began? I'm pretty sure he did not mean in this speech that he plans to "eliminate" Iran.
        • Waiting2awake, on 06/04/2008, -4/+20You know what? You are probably right. I think that is a fairly good bet. However - what I think this shows more than anything else is his willingness to play politics and semantics just as much as the Admin in there now.

          I wish I knew the answer for America, but it would seem that ALL your given candidates were already bought and paid for.....

        • 0nslaught, on 06/05/2008, -1/+11I'm not sure what your definition of warmongering is, but Obama is hardly against more war.

          www.barackobama.com

          Obama: Expand the wars -- starting with Pakistan
          "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

          "So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world."

          "... take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa."

          http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_n ...

          You are free to support those policies, of course, but I'm not sure how this makes him the peace/anti-war candidate that many seem to think he is.
        • romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6Seriously, sometimes I think Digg (except me :P) is a culmination of the stupidest people on the internet.

          If I don't want my friend to get a pitbull because it will "destabilize the neighbourhood", I don't ***** KILL MY FRIEND. You guys are so ***** stupid it's making me sick.
        • chaosblade77, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1@0nslaught

          You realize we've been trying to get into Pakistan to fight the terrorists almost as long as we've been in Afghanistan don't you? We've had information about Al-Qaeda camps camps just over the boarder for a long time, we just haven't had clearance to get into Pakistan because of their corrupt politics under Musharraf (which we were funding...).

          The point isn't to attack the Pakistani way of life, just to attack the terrorist camps like we did in Afghanistan. Different from the Iraq situation because we went in there with an intent to remove Saddam from power and form a democracy. Chances are if we did get into Pakistan (which would likely be through negotiation) it would not require more troops than we keep in Afghanistan as it is, simply moving them across the border would be sufficient.

          While not having any combat would be great, a lot of people seem to think we can "finish the job" against Al-Qaeda by defeating them in Pakistan, since we were unable to chase them once they left Afghanistan. Pretty much any of the candidates now except Ron Paul are going to support the same thing.
        • wubblie, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3He also said he would support the right of Israel to defend itself, and in this same speech (though this article did not mention it), he also " warned he would never take the military option off the table." So, it sounds like if diplomacy doesn't work to eliminate the threat, then bombs away, either by us or by Israel-either way, we will become involved. How is this different than Bush's stance on Iraq before the war again- when he set an ultimatum, tried diplomacy, then went to war? Call me cynical, but I highly doubt that diplomacy will work with Iran at this point, so you can see what will follow.
        • wishninja, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Obama is not anti-war he is anti-Iraq war but he has his own list of countries he wants to invadebomb. Ron Paul was the anti-war candidate. Obama is the "i like the way he talks"/ "wouldn't it be nice to have a black man as president" / "love to be pandered to"/ canidate. Thats fine if its what you are voting for but don't expect people who are against CFR candidates to just fall in line. Obama is not a doe he is a hawk.

        • marx2k, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1@wubblie - Please cite where Bush tried diplomacy with Iraq? He was even calling UN nuke inspector Hans Blix a liar when Hans said there are no WMDs in Iraq.
      • jstohler, on 06/04/2008, -7/+6Read the ***** story.
      • mizatt, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8Take a look at FDR-era Democrats and Democrats now. You might notice some key policy and ideology differences.
        • SpinningHead, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1And the fact that getting into WW2 prevented a fascist takeover of half the globe and the invasion of Iraq only halted affordable gas prices and the strength of the dollar.
        • paralock, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I'm not talking about FDR-era Democrats, I am talking about 1990-era Democrats, like Bill Clinton with Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.
      • ozydingo, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4What does eliminating the threat entail, other than what the Bush administration has done in Iraq? Are you serious? Has this administration shaped our perception on foreign policy so much that you genuinely believe that statement could not mean anything else? That is just sad.
        • THETEH, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Well seeing as Obama has been saying for months that he wants to open up talks with Iran and NOT fight a war with them, yes. Eliminating the threat could mean continuing negotiating & easing tensions.
        • ozydingo, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1That was my point. My first question was in mocking paraphrase, I wasn't asking the question myself.
        • THETEH, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1oh yeah...

          now I feel kind of foolish. I ranted at the wrong person.

          Sorry!
      • magus_melchior, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3"Do you realize that other than the Bushes, a Democrat has started since World War Two (We will say Japan started WWII for us, even though it is because of FDR that they attacked, see Backdoor to War)."
        There's a phrase for people like you, and it's "conspiracy theorist". You didn't produce evidence that Obama is anything like FDR or Truman.
        • paralock, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I'm not refering to FDR or Truman, I am refering to Bill Clinton.
    • PongGod, on 06/04/2008, -20/+42That's funny because his rhetoric is exactly the same as Bush and McCain.
      • MH94, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4...which is the same as any other American politician whose aiming to please AIPAC in order to reach power. I was (and am) for Obama from the beginning, but it is shameful to see him sucking up to AIPAC and placing its agenda as America's priority; which he aims to enforce as president.
        He started this campaign with a stance against lobbies in general. I just hate to see him caving in!
      • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2And it's funny because it worked in North Korea too. The threat of Nuclear weapons being launched at us from N. Korea was eliminated due to the 6 party talks and such.
        • paralock, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2That is because North Korea was actually developing nuclear technology, Iran is not. We are going to recieve the same sorts of lies we did with Iraq. Iran is not developing nuclear technology, so his threat is the exact same as Bush's.
        • boombye, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1That's retarded. They have said their Nuclear program is for energy, while Bush thinks it's for weapons... So are you to say that they have no Nuclear program going on at all? Are you that stupid?

          Wow some narrow minded, stupid retards on digg. Seriously I won't bother talking about this issue on here anymore with civies
      • romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3Jesus Christ. Read this:

        http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

        And STFU.
        • DuffyDirect, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3yeah because hes logs onto his website to plan his policies and doesn't think the words that come STRAIGHT OUT OF HIS MOUTH, right?
        • romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2He is by no means anti-war. He is, however, SMART. Taking war off the table is the stupidest thing a president could do. Keeping it on the table is, in fact, a NEGOTIATION TACTIC.

          ***** sakes, I can't believe you people.
        • madmonkey300, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Taking war off the table is the moral thing to do. Having a standing army and being on the defensive is the SMART thing to do. Talking with Iran is the SMARTER thing to do. Read the constitution you stupid drone. Endorse peace instead of war!
      • Soave, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5This is Digg. If Obama says it, it's good. If Bush/McCain/Clinton/anyone else says it, it's bad.
    • PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -11/+30Somehow I don't think his idea of eliminating the threat of Iran is going to entail sending Ahmadinejad a subscription to the Wine-of-the-Month Club.
      • romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -6/+1False dichotomy, douchebag.
        • romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -3/+1Who the ***** denies that this is a false dichotomy? Two people? The above poster is clearly presenting his statement as one of two choices (otherwise it would be an entirely empty statement). Eliminating Iran entails:

          1) Becoming best friends with Ahmadinejad
          2) Marching straight to war with Iran

          When there is a CLEAR third choice: diplomacy! Thus, FALSE DICHOTOMY!

          Good thing Digg's released its new comment system, so you two dumb ***** can digg me back up.
        • swicken, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2buried, more to annoy you
    • metric7, on 06/05/2008, -1/+9You'll see.
    • gdehms, on 06/05/2008, -7/+7"McCain has criticized Obama's call for talks with Iran, a state Israeli leaders consider a threat to Israel's security."

      You see how it said Obama wants to TALK with Iran? That's better than just charging straight in.
      • Zanzabar33, on 06/05/2008, -8/+10Wow... I love how people are on the Denial Offensive for Obama. They are trying to manipulate his words into sounding like he isnt making a threat. The morons drink the cool-aide of Obama.
        • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -5/+1North Korea is an example of a threat eliminated, this is the same thing he's talking about. Iran itself is not the threat, it is their pending capabilities which are.
        • gdehms, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2If Obama is considering military action against Iran then you sure as hell won't see me supporting him.

          However, he said, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." You are trying to manipulate his words to say that he will just immediately take military action against Iran, when he clearly wants to talk with them first.
        • Zanzabar33, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1So what is everything in his power? Come on grow up and stop trying to pretend, wipe your mouth too...
        • DuffyDirect, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3He won't bomb Iran don't you understand? He will streat SR-71s with cloud generators over the entire nation of Iran -- darkening the skies and destroying the one true source of energy in Iran: THE SUN! If we block the sun before the nuclear reactors go online, the threat will be eliminated! Puppies will curl up in our laps and sing with us to sleep!
    • bhod, on 06/05/2008, -12/+6Hurry fellow 'Obamabots' (I know, I hate the name too) let's digg this blasphemous article down and squash it. Even if our Obama said something like this, let's hide it. Obama is the only change we can believe in. And bury everyone in the comment section who doesn't believe in Obama.

      Obama '08!
      • magus_melchior, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Your sarcasm (and your inner Limbaugh) is showing.
    • mal1964, on 06/05/2008, -1/+12"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,"
      • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -3/+1MIC FUD
      • SpinningHead, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3The object of the 1st sentence is danger, not Iran. English classes would help in understanding that removing the threat does not equal bombing...unless you're a republican. Clinton worked to remove the threat from N Korea....through diplomacy. The Bush admin figured that out about 10min ago.
        • mal1964, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Get a Life!
          WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday Iran posed a serious threat in the Middle East and vowed to stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

          "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.
          http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAT0095 ...
        • romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1@mal

          Exactly what of your post serves to discredit what SpinningHead said?! He does not imply that war is imminent! *****!
        • mal1964, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3@romisturb
          And who in the ***** said i did!
          Get a life you waste of skin!
        • romistrub, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1So wait? That post wasn't intended as a rebuttal?! Then why the ***** did you waste your time? We already know his position on the issue!
        • SpinningHead, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1So now you're saying you agree, but keep responding with "get a life"? Lower the meds.
        • mal1964, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Hey you two dumb *****, Yes it was a rebuttal ***** for brains here is Ladies comment
          "To be clear, Senator Obama said that he will do everything within his power to eliminate the threat from Iran. He did not say he would try to eliminate Iran, as the title of this digg post implies. There's a difference."

          She translated for Obama, So since the quote was not included i posted the his quote. Now people can translate for themselves, But you two idiots cant!
        • SpinningHead, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Yeah, were the idiots for realizing that the structure of the sentence dictates the removal of the threat and not the removal of Iran. We are also ***** for realizing removal of a threat can be accomplished by diplomacy (the same thing neocons hate Obama for) rather than bombing. Ask Kennedy or Reagan.
      • madmonkey300, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2More war. How could you Obama drones be so stupid?
        • SpinningHead, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Only rabid conservatives think bombing is the only way to remove a threat. Clinton removed the N Korean threat by D-I-P-L-O-M-A-C-Y. Even Reagan knew that talks with Russia were the only way to remove the threat the Soviet Union posed. Read a book. They have them at libraries and bookstores.
    • akashra, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Bugger.
    • NeoConned08, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

      we will go to war with iran and it ain't cuz of nukes.
      • Metasquares, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1No, I'm pretty sure it will be the nukes and the general insanity of the country's leadership. You don't need to look for any hidden motives here; just listen to the news.
        • paralock, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1If people listened to the news they would know that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, so there has to be some other motive, such as with Bush's war in Iraq.
      • ZeRux, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Give me a ***** break please. I see innacurate, sensationalist headlines on digg everyday - "Huckabee jokes about assasinating Obama" is just one example. I say it's about ***** time for Obama's puppets to got served their own medicine.
    • madmonkey300, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3sounds like the same damn thing to me: WAR
    • leexy, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3I am not American, so I don't have axes to grind Dem/Rep-wise. To me, and to most of the world it seems, there's no difference between the actions of US president. They have substantial differences in their domestic programs (although they're converging), but when it comes to foreign policy, none of them really makes the rules. Everything's decided by lobbies. The usual suspects being the MIC and AIPAC. The difference between Dems and Reps in this is merely the level of harsh we'll-annihilate-you-all rhetoric. This should be obvious to anyone who's paid any kind of attention to history.
    • ciaran036, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2There IS NO THREAT!!! Iran does not have nuclear weapons, has no intention of making any and no intention of making any!!
    • yahoofrom, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I think Obama actually said :
      "I uh.. will do everything in my power to uh... prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and uh.. everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything,"
  • mitchellk, on 06/04/2008, -62/+231Didn't he just say a week or two ago that Iran, Venezuela, etc. were TINY countries that were no threat to the US?
    • lukeev, on 06/04/2008, -13/+90I never thought I'd see the day when politicians lied their asses off. Never.
      • PongGod, on 06/04/2008, -5/+33Yeah, politicians actually LYING? Outrageous!
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/04/2008, -3/+25Its amazing so many still believe the dog and pony show huh?
      • datafeaster, on 06/04/2008, -13/+4It's not "Lying".

        Everyone's taking this out of context: He was just fundraising.
    • davidhallstrom, on 06/04/2008, -6/+20To mitchelk. Good point.
    • tyler9090, on 06/04/2008, -11/+19the point is that it's a threat to Israel
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/04/2008, -1/+8How?
      • dgarry7, on 06/04/2008, -0/+20Israel has 300 nukes..they can take care of themselves.
        • pintomp3, on 06/05/2008, -1/+9maybe we can finally stop sending them billions of our tax dollars.
        • Julik, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2The US has nukes too... 9/11 still hurt the country.
        • Jones82, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3"The US has nukes too... 9/11 still hurt the country."

          What's your point? We can still take care of ourselves as can Israel.
        • Julik, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't you rather prevent something like that from happening in the first place?
    • AboveandBeyond, on 06/04/2008, -11/+23yea but that was before he won the nomination, so know you can either vote for McCain or Obama, the choice is yours..foreign policy is the same, AIPAC plan is running very smoothly.
    • skizzabadoo, on 06/04/2008, -9/+38Actually, he was saying that compared to the threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Iran and Venezuela are tiny threats. He wasn't saying that they don't pose a potential threat to our allies, but it is tiny compared to the Cold War.
      • rpgmaker, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6How exactly is Venezuela a threat to the US? Is the US that has been trying to assassinate Chavez since he got elected. No threat have been pronounce by Chavez other than all the things we all know America is: An empire.

        Other than disagree with Chavez economic policies he is nothing. Threat to the US? I will assume that you are actually considering that because of what the US media has led you to believe but if you try to see the pattern you will eventually see it: OIL. This wars were waged for gold and economic routes before, you should have known by now...
        • swicken, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2I've always laughed at your government for its hatred of Chavez and Castro.
      • DuffyDirect, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1So a country with 10 nukes is less of a threat than a country with 100,000 nukes. Yup, we're safe from the world being blown up 5,000 times over and are only in danger of our continental states being irradiated and decimated. Sounds good...
        • ultar6, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Iran has nukes? I haven't heard that before. I've heard that Iran has a nuclear program. Some say Iran wants to have nukes.

          Compared to a country that has 10 nukes, or 100,000, Iran poses a very small threat today. The goal is to make sure they don't pose that larger threat in five or ten years.

          How do you accomplish that goal? Do you escalate the rhetoric and threaten imminently to bomb them out of existence, or do you engage your adversary and find enough common ground to eliminate the threat and forge productive relations?

          Kennedy did it with the Soviets. Reagan did it with the Soviets. Heck, even though it was one-sided, even Bush did it with Libya.

          If you start out with the assumption that your adversary will never see things your way, you're left only with bombing them out of existence.

          Singing 'Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran' is not funny, nor is it appropriate.
        • Metasquares, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1By your reasoning, we would not be here today. Despite the stockpile, the USA has made no move to use such a weapon since the end of WWII. That means we're likely to use precisely 0 of these nukes. Contrast with Iran, which, according to the rhetoric of its leader, would potentially lob all 10 of them into Israel. 10 > 0, so yes, I think Iran is a bigger threat.
    • jamesalfaro, on 06/04/2008, -15/+10What Obama said is still correct, they aren't a threat to the US right now. But if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, then they would surely want to use it, probably against the US.
    • PrincessSalami, on 06/05/2008, -3/+11Yes but he wasn't talking to a pro-Israel lobby group at the time.
      • xGORDOx, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5Exactly, because one thing all politicians have in common is that they are shameless opportunists.
    • richbleak, on 06/05/2008, -8/+18Why is it so ***** hard for people to piece a sentence together if there is so much as a comma included within it? Are you all stupid or intentionally misrepresenting his comments? He said:

      "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the soviet union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way that the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

      Under the logic employed by half of you mouth-breathing morons, the statement "The Earth is tiny compared to the Sun" actually means that the Earth doesn't exist. Please go learn something while the adults discuss politics.
      • xgkx, on 06/05/2008, -9/+5You're the moron. Obama is a warmonger. He does not represent any meaningful change. I will not vote for the military industrial complex that Obama advocates. I do not support Israel.
      • richbleak, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Listen, I am right there with you on Iran; the threat is practically non-existent. I also think that aspects of our Israel policy are extremely troubling. I would hope, though, that you would be able to look at this through the lens of U.S. politics. Name a scenario in which Obama takes any other stance at this stage and still get elected? This is the nature of our society right now, I am sorry to say. Until the people can be eased into understanding what a modern society should look like, it is necessary for people that are a little ahead of their time to dress their public stances with a bit of "conventional wisdom" in order to satisfy the completely out-of-whack ideals of an extremely large and influential chunk of voters.

        I wish someone like Ron Paul could get elected at this point, but it will not happen. That is the unfortunate side-effect of speaking unvarnished truth to a population that is too uneducated or scared to hear it. I understand that you don't think Obama is the best choice, but surely you must admit he is a far better option than McCain? At least support the idea of getting the far lesser of two evils where one of them is guaranteed. Once that has been ensured, that's when we can work to change the mindset of the confused population on these serious issues.

        I strongly support Barack Obama because I understand what must be said for anyone with the right ideas to get to a place where they can implement them; I take them in that context and don't give them much weight. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with his presidency.
      • ultar6, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Rich - Well put. Thanks for the context.

        xgkx - Thanks for providing the perspective of the person who suddenly realizes that their way of thinking and the fallacies they use to justify their views are finally and thankfully, over.
    • Nitrodist88, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3So what? Does that stop him from saying that he wants those countries from having nuclear arms? For *****'s sake people, read the article before you comment on it. The god damn title when you go to the link says that he's all for stopping Iran from getting nuclear arms.
    • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2The threat will be eliminated just like the threat in North Korea was eliminated or is currently being eliminated.

      The threat from Iran does not equate to Iran being a threat. the real threat is their pending capabilities which much be stopped and talks just like the ones with North Korea need to be started. Why have 6 party talks with North Korea but refuse to have 6 party talks or any talks with Iran?

      Why are people so slow?
    • Soave, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3With Clinton out, he can say things like this to try to win Republican voters without worrying about his standing with Democrats.
    • SpenderH, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Hard to see, the dark side is.
    • multimed, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I know his response to this:

      "That type of question is totally off limits. That's politics as usual and I'm the candidate for change."
  • silentboom, on 06/04/2008, -148/+197There is no difference in Hitlery, Obamanation or McWar. They will all attack Iran because that is the POLICY! Pre-emptive war. Do not be fooled by these liars, look at their voting records, not one of them actually stands for anything.
    • lukeev, on 06/04/2008, -7/+36Don't forget those crafty leprechauns of mass distraction hiding underneath the desert sands!
      • PlagueOfMorons, on 06/04/2008, -2/+6Sure and begorrah, don't you steal my nuclear lucky charms, you thieving rascals! Or my pot of sand! Er... gold.
    • tmlee, on 06/04/2008, -2/+20Just wanted to pull an excerpt from NYTimes with more detail of what Obama said at AIPAC:

      He talked tough on Iran, describing it in terms suggestive of a rogue nation. He made clear that he would place the military might of the United States behind Israel in the event of an Iranian attack on the Jewish state.

      But he stopped short of explicitly echoing Mrs. Clinton, who earlier in the primary campaign threatened to obliterate Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel. Some more conservative Jewish Democrats have sought a similar declaration from Mr. Obama, which he did not deliver.

      “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said, adding for emphasis: “Everything.

      “That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.”

      He gave a brief nod at his speech’s start to the Internet rumors that swirl about his commitment to the Jewish state.
      • wishninja, on 06/04/2008, -2/+9he says eliminate, she says obliterate
        • DuffyDirect, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1id rather obliterate the *****. they ***** with rome, they ***** wiht the byzantines, theyre still ***** with us. ***** them!
        • mortrix, on 06/05/2008, -1/+0That's what we call a "euphemism." But contextually, he is being clear about his stance on national security.
      • qxrt, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3"“I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said, adding for emphasis: “Everything."

        That second "everything" brings the Onion article to mind referring to his practicing perfect facial posture. I bet that second "everything" (probably while staring intensely at the camera, too) gives a warm fuzzy feeling to all the Obama fans. Gosh, it makes him look and sound so "presidential"...whatever that's worth nowadays.

        I guess he needs it to draw out all the superficial supporters, but I wish he'd act a bit more human-like. Whatever Bush's many faults, at least he seemed personally likeable. Obama makes no effort at hiding his arrogance.
        • wubblie, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3I have been thinking the same thing in listening to him lately. His rhetorical style is starting to seem really patronizing. I found myself rolling my eyes a couple of times during his speech yesterday. The other people around me seemed really impressed by how "profound" he was though, so it seems to work on some people.
      • shadovvman, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Call me crazy, but somehow a policy of "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests" does NOT make me feel safe against a country that would love to destroy us.
    • btschul, on 06/04/2008, -14/+40FYI; Ron Paul is still in the running
      • lfernandez91, on 06/05/2008, -18/+8Oh stop it. Let it go.
        • btschul, on 06/05/2008, -5/+16yeah, the constitution is kinda annoying. let it go. freedom is kinda annoying. let it go. taxes are fun!!! we want more taxes!!!
      • brstilson, on 06/05/2008, -5/+6with zero chance of winning. He will make a good protest vote, but that's about it. I just hope he pulls more votes from McCain than he does from Obama. (Yes, I know his policy is on the completely opposite end of the spectrum)
        • RationalXubrnce, on 06/05/2008, -2/+8Zero chance of winning because all of the so called proponents of "change" will refuse to vote for him and instead rationalize pulling the lever for another sellout system man. Albeit a charismatic and competent one.
        • chaosblade77, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Likely, Paul appeals much more to very conservative republicans (at least those who know about him). McCain is just too liberal for a lot of them.
        • btschul, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8if all the people who support him but say "he has zero chance of winning" would get their head out of their ass and actually SPREAD THE WORD instead of just saying "he has zero chance of winning" he would have a ***** chance at winning! and there would actually be hope for america.
        • Seafea, on 06/05/2008, -6/+1Even if everyone who supported him, but said he had zero chances of winning went out and voted for him in November, he would still have zero chance of winning.
        • btschul, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7not if we all spread the word about him. the problem is that the media ignores him, therefore most of america doesn't even know he exists, much less that he is the best candidate running. there are four people running for president, but 90% of america thinks there are only 3
    • ozydingo, on 06/05/2008, -6/+6Your clever play on the candidates' names really makes me want to listen to you.
    • OfficeSpacing, on 06/05/2008, -9/+2Mabye the fact that all members of BOTH parties think Iran is a danger and something should be done about it, is a clue that YOU, rather than them, are wrong.

      That's right. You are WRONG. Deal with it you egomaniac
      • RationalXubrnce, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4 Or a clue that they figured out that without Jewish money and positive portrayal in a largely Jewish American media it's impossible to become president.
      • georgemason01, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7You strike me as the type of person who will gladly accept an RFID chip because it would make shopping easier.
        • DuffyDirect, on 06/05/2008, -4/+1you strike me as the type who ***** in the plant and drinks shots of wheat grass at the vegan resturaunt in grandmas boy
        • unknownsoldierX, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Nobody knows what the hell you are talking about. You're one of the few that saw that pathetic POSof a movie, and just about the only one that would reference it and think it was clever.
    • mshtml, on 06/05/2008, -0/+17In fact they do stand for a few things...

      Preemptive war
      NAFTA
      NAFTA Super Highway
      Collapsing the US economy with endless welfare and empire spending
      Mass immigration

      All leading to the NAU where Canada and Mexico have authorization to police the USA freeing more of our troops up to go aboard and start more wars and extend the duration of our current occupations.
      • georgemason01, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7Obama is also on record as denying plans for an NAU exist. Nothing to worry about there.

        Sorry Obama fans, what I meant was, WE ARE CHANGE!
        • bhod, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Upvoted for the 'change' part, downvoted for the rest.
      • Nereus90, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Are you saying that Canada and Mexico are more war mongering than the U.S.? Heh.
    • Pake, on 06/05/2008, -11/+5/sniff
      /sniff
      I smell a Ron Paul lunatic.
      /checks profile
      Yup. Man, you guys are so damn easy to find.
    • tierpinho, on 06/05/2008, -5/+4here here, qft, now wake up sheeple, babababababaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
      • boombye, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Yeah, you can do that without war retard. Do you want me to draw you a picture?

        If you need another example of how it could be done, look @ 6 party talks involving North Korea's weapons program. They posed a threat to their own neighbor S. Korea, where are troops are stationed, that was a very dire circumstance and somehow we sat and talked through it somehow, and still are. But at least we didn't ignore them and wait for something bad to happen, which is what the Republican approach towards Iran so far has been, it's either they want to attack them or wait for something bad to happen. Why not just have a similar exchange with them like we did with North Korea?

        Sorry I must be perplexing.
    • hellsing47, on 06/05/2008, -6/+2Look at them names. Did you think those up all on your own?

      Each of the 36 people that dugg this guy up needs hit.
    • NeoConned08, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

      we will go to war with iran and it ain't cuz of nukes.
    • MadHarvey, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3I came across this youtube video the other day with Tom Morello and Serj Tankian. I thought they some interesting things to say how change really happens and history is made:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm-HRsjz0xA

      @3:40
  • JKap, on 06/04/2008, -86/+140Obama will make an excellent president of Oceania here in 1984.
    • paralock, on 06/04/2008, -6/+22He absolutely will.
    • llamabread, on 06/04/2008, -7/+29War is Peace
      Freedom is Slavery
      Ignorance is Strength

      I think we have it covered pretty well here in America. We have been in who knows how many wars in the last 60 years, but haven't declared war since WWII. We would gladly give up our liberties for the illusion of security. And as you probably can tell, our culture doesn't encourage intelligence, just reality TV.

      We are closer to 1984 than we would like to believe.
    • kaelyiesta, on 06/05/2008, -2/+14What are you talking about? He has always been president of Oceania.
      • drunkirish, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2The fact that this doesn't have more diggs is criminal.

        Or, most diggers just don't read.
        • bhod, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Most diggers like me probably only read about Obama. I've read half of his book and that's it.
      • Infidelcastr0, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Even though I support Obama, that comment was made of win.
    • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8Man, if I had a once a year +100 diggs, I'd give it to you for that.

      I have always been cynical about the Obama as outsider come to shine a light on the fleecing of the american people by the MIC and their lying FUD, and now I can tell my starstruck wife - see I was right. Bill Hicks was right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U

      We're *****.
    • rmeddy, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Newspeak is ingsoc and ingsoc is newspeak
  • paralock, on 06/04/2008, -92/+86This is absolutely ridiculous. Now that Obama knows he has the nomination he is going to align his views with the center. We have absolutely no reason to attack Iran, a country that is absolutely no threat to the United States. Obama will not get us in Iraq, all he will do is get us into a war with Iran and Sudan and any other country you could think of that he feels like fighting.
    • Terr01, on 06/04/2008, -4/+13"Center"?
    • n0gnuz, on 06/04/2008, -4/+28How are militant Jewish nationalists, Christian Zionists, and war industry executives considered 'the center?'
      • akatsuki, on 06/05/2008, -0/+15Welcome to America.
      • pintomp3, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8since the corporate media has convinced everyone that iran is a threat.
      • Modizzle, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Well, Evangelical Christians believe in not killing. Albeit the only thing they believe in not killing is unborn babies, the mere thought of preserving life pushes them a little closer to the liberal side.
    • rolf, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1I think you meant he will not get us "out" of Iraq, not "in". And really, he already committed to removing our "combat troops", but a cynical person can read that as not all troops, like the support/nationbuilding ones.

      I hope I'm wrong.
    • purelithium, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4Where does he use the word "attack"?
      • bigsteve, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Thank you. He doesn't. I have some faith in the man, the most faith I've had in a politician in memory. He was also the one advocating more communication with foreign powers, and trying to change the stigma that talking with leaders is somehow a sign of weakness.

        Which is ridiculous.
    • jack104, on 06/05/2008, -6/+3Pose no threat? Yea, I'd classify any third world theocracy with a lunatic dictator at the wheel, attempting to acquire nuclear weapons no threat too.
      • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2MIC FUD

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U
      • kuantan97, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Other than the Bush regime, who is saying Iran is trying to acquire nukes? Certainly not the National Intelligence Estimate.
      • Terr01, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't expect anyone online to have major expertise, but you obviously don't know jack ***** about Iran's government.

        Ahmadinejad does not control their armed forces. Their "President" is not the same as our "President", even if the names are the same.

        He's not a "lunatic dictator". Even if there WERE a Big Red Button, his finger is nowhere near it because his job description is more that of a glorified Minister Of The Economy.
    • mshtml, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4If by center you mean spreading neocon war propaganda...
      • jack104, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0yea neocon war propoganda....careful, your sounding a little paranoid. Oh...wait....i got it, your a liberal.
  • davidg11, on 06/04/2008, -51/+17Anyone who thinks Iran is NO THREAT does not deserve to be President.

    • paralock, on 06/04/2008, -7/+36What is Iran going to do to the United States? Really, if they turned around and attacked Israel with a nuke, the Jewish Republic would turn around and nuke them (Israel does have nukes, as most of the world knows and accepts).

      Also, a governmental report even stated that Iran is not developing nuclear technology for military use.

      People need to stop seeking monsters in the rest of the world and mind our own business. Hunting for bears only gets the United States hurt. It is called blowback, and if you want to experience it again, then go ahead and attack Iran, but if you value your saftey, leave the country alone. They are only dangerous to the United States if the United States messes with them and they feel threatened.

      You people are just asking for another Vietnam and Iraq.
      • stevetrojanman, on 06/04/2008, -19/+2Uhh...do you not listen to anything that Huge Chavez and Imadinnerjacket say in their speeches? Things along the lines of the US is an imperialist empire that is a "threat" to our existence...

        The thing that you don't seem to understand is that they perceive our existence as a threat...so your stipulation of their being dangerous has already been met.

        With regards to Iran not being a threat to the US...maybe not alone, but they're buddy buddy with North Korea and Venezuela, countries that have locale and technology advantages that Iran does not. Those three working together could be a threat to the United States.
        • paralock, on 06/04/2008, -3/+16For Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela to be a threat that would require them to work together. Do you think an atheist-pushing Commie is going to work with an Islamic extremist and that a South American statist will want to work with either one of them?

          Our existence is a threat because we are an imperialist empire. We have troops in 130 countries. That is our existence that is threatening them. If we were actually a peaceful country that minded our own business why would they care?
        • vincebodie, on 06/04/2008, -1/+17The thing that you don't seem to understand is that they perceive our military existence in their part of the world as a threat...so your stipulation of their being dangerous has already been met.

          Michael Scheuer was the head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit. His book "Imperial Hubris" explains very clearly why they hate us for what we do, not for who we are.

          http://books.google.com/books?id=lVaRkVnp9HUC&prin ...
        • neuron79, on 06/04/2008, -2/+12So to prove to them that we are not an imperialist country we should preemptively attack them?

          That will certainly change their minds.

          /s
        • NeoConned08, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!! pwned!!!
      • tim3094, on 06/05/2008, -2/+0I love how people make countries like china and iran look like benevolent places which only want to save mankind, but the evil US government is stopping them because they are run by Jews and big businessmen men who want to profit if poverty and war.

        Wake up people, Iran is very oppressive compared to what we've got in America and Europe, and if you though bush was stupid you should research the Iranian president on youtube (watch?v=U-sC26wpUGQ question on justifying capital punishment for gays)
  • JKap, on 06/04/2008, -84/+138Attack Iran? Yes we can!
    • lukeev, on 06/04/2008, -4/+11No no, he's at least a cunning and wily rhetorician.

      "We will not not attack Iran. Ahem."
    • btschul, on 06/04/2008, -8/+27Obombthem 08!!
      ***** sheep
    • mal1964, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Isn't Bush suppose to do it before he leaves office, A ploy to help McCain win office?
    • bhod, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2If they are a threat to us and our bestest ally Israel, I don't see why not. It'd only be a small price to pay.
  • s2ao, on 06/04/2008, -76/+227So CHANGE is same old "unconditional support to Israel" ?
    So disappointing -- we all hoped for better, more intelligent workd from Obama...
    • paralock, on 06/04/2008, -20/+73Yep, Obama will make a change. He will change from Iraq to Iran.
      • FrankHope, on 06/04/2008, -5/+22exactly. pre-emptive war which is an Imperial strategy is now the official policy of both parties.

        the problem is the empire is crumbling financially. Israel will suck us dry and then turn to China for support. The US is finished.
        • Xcel, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Not Ron Paul's strategy...
        • Xcel, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Not Ron Paul's strategy...
        • nakani, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Xcel: the Constitution is for n00bs. Besides, I heard Ron Paul is a racist! Hey, CNN is on!! *click*
        • dw321, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0China will never support Israel. I also seem to recall Israel did not want China to be one the UN Peace Keeper during the Hezbollah/Isarel cease fire. According ex-President Carter, Israel has 200 nuke bomb and this means if there is a Nuke war, China with their 2350 Nukes (possibly more) will protect their interest.
      • 0nslaught, on 06/05/2008, -0/+9He no longer wants to attack Pakistan first?

        www.barackobama.com

        Obama: Expand the wars -- starting with Pakistan
        "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

        "So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world."

        "... take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa."

        http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_n ...

        Ah, Pakistan.. Iran.. whichever.
    • Cattywampus, on 06/05/2008, -3/+12Meet the new politics, same as the old politics.

      "I get down on my knees and pray... we don't get fooled again."
      --The Who
    • RobotShrink, on 06/05/2008, -9/+1s2ao, to state the obvious: unconditional support for Israel is infinitely better than conditional support for Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sendero Luminoso, the KKK, or any of these other vicious terrorist psychopath groups. Obama has too many functional brain cells to align his viewpoints with the terror-lovin radical leftists.
    • jamessavik, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7It's not about supporting Israel.
      It is about reaching out to moderates who would never consider voting for a pussy liberal in a world full of sharks.
    • veggiemoore, on