Obama: "Iran not a “serious threat� ,,,,,, don't worry be happy

[Tigermike 3,055]

Iran not a “serious threat”?

posted at 9:15 am on May 19, 2008

by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama gave an interesting description of Iran and the threat it poses to the United States and our national interests at an appearance in Oregon last night. “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama told a cheering audience, explaining why he doesn’t think we need to worry about “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Obama also displays a weird sense of history when he suggests that the Berlin Wall fell because we engaged Mikhail Gorbachev:

Wow. Where to begin with this silliness?

Let’s start with the Soviet Union. We talked with the Soviet Union because they also had nuclear weapons. Obama seems to forget that the entire point of our Iran policy is to prevent being put in the position of having to cut deals with a terrorist-supporting, radical Islamist non-rational state. When the enemy already has the capability of destroying you several times over, negotiations are needed to keep one side from initiating a war. Only an idiot would think that the negotiations intended on disarming the Soviets, or they us. The same dynamic applies to our engagement with Mao Zedong and Red China; Mao was smart enough to hold himself out as a potential partner in a power balance against the Soviets.

The Soviet Union collapsed economically; they did not just decide to capitulate. The Berlin Wall did not fall as a result of negotiations, but because the regime propping it up ceased to exist. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Because Ronald Reagan won an economic war with Moscow, forcing it to spend more and more and falling further and further behind. The Strategic Defense Initiative provided the coup de grace to the Soviets, who knew they could never match us in missile defense, and tried negotiating an end to the economic war instead, with disastrous results.

That would be the same SDI that Democrats staunchly opposed, sneeringly called “Star Wars” and proclaiming it a threat to peaceful coexistence. They wanted a decades-long series of summits instead of the end of communism, which sounds strikingly familiar in Obama’s speech. Reagan had to fight the Democrats to beat the Soviets, not through presidential-level diplomacy but through economic isolation and military strength.

Listen to Obama talk about the “common interests” supposedly shared between the US and the Iranian mullahcracy. What interests would those be? The destruction of Israel, the denial of the Holocaust, the financial and military support of Hamas and Hezbollah, or the killing of American soldiers in Iraq? And please point out the presidential-level, unconditional contacts that brought down the Berlin Wall. Our “common interests” didn’t exist between the East German and American governments; they existed between the people of East Germany and America in the promise of real freedom. When the Soviet power structure imploded, it was the people of East Germany who tore down the wall, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who watched it happen impotently.

Furthermore, the danger in Iranian nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the capacity of its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations will allow them to partner with any small group of lunatics who want to smuggle a nuclear weapon into any Western city — London, Rome, Washington DC, Los Angeles, take your pick. That’s the problem with nuclear proliferation; it doesn’t take a large army to threaten annihilation any longer, which is why we work so hard to keep those weapons out of the hands of non-rational actors like Iran. The Soviets may have been evil, but they were rational, and we could count on their desire to survive to rely on the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranians believe that a worldwide conflagration will have Allah deliver the world to Islam, so a nuclear exchange may fall within their policy, and that’s assuming we could establish their culpability for a sneak nuclear attack to the extent where a President Obama would order a nuclear reprisal.

This speech reveals Obama to have no grasp of history, no grasp of strategic implications of a nuclear Iran, and no clue how to secure the nation and handle foreign policy. (Is he saying obama is in over his head?)

Update: Obama suggests that Iran isn’t a real threat because they only spend “1/100th” of what we spend on defense. Not only does that make it sound like the US is a much greater threat to world peace, but it ignores the entire issue of asymmetrical warfare. How much does al-Qaeda spend on its attacks? A lot less than Iran, I’d suspect. Does that make AQ a much lower threat? If so, shouldn’t we be bombing Iran in the next five minutes or so?

Yeah it had to come from a Right Wing Blog. Face it not only are you not likely to hear obama make this speech on the MSM but would Chris Mathews give it any thought other than to wet his pants and gush over how great obama sounds?

[tiger88 934]

Yeah, Iran's not a serious threat. Thats why they are currently under UN sanctions. Even the UN recognizes the danger.

[Justin5 20]

Iran is NOT a serious threat LIKE the Soviet Union. They are completely different threats. If you disagree with this you are severely misinformed.

In no way does he say that IRAN [is] NOT A SERIOUS THREAT. You are (purposely) misinterpreting his statements.

[Justin5 20]

McCain: "Americans...want...failure. Troops...want...chaos."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14390980/

Its says it right in there.

[Auburn85 432]

Yeah, Iran's not a serious threat. Thats why they are currently under UN sanctions. Even the UN recognizes the danger.

Nope, you're absolutely wrong. Iran is no threat. We are the biggest threat. Why would they be using resources for this?

http://www.nysun.com/news/foreign/united-n...d-states-racism

[tiger88 934]

The threat of a nuclear Iran is as big of a threat in many ways to the danger Russia posed. That is what the sanctions are for, to try and prevent it from happening.

"“They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,......”. Not at the moment, but if they acquire nuclear arms, which they seem to be in the process of doing, they will be just as dangerous in many ways. If there is one thing 9-11 should have taught us it is that you don't have to have a huge budget to do massive amounts of damage.

Someone will have to drop a nuke on us to get obama to act if he were ever lucky enough to be pres., which he won't be.

[tiger88 934]

Yeah, Iran's not a serious threat. Thats why they are currently under UN sanctions. Even the UN recognizes the danger.

Nope, you're absolutely wrong. Iran is no threat. We are the biggest threat. Why would they be using resources for this?

http://www.nysun.com/news/foreign/united-n...d-states-racism

That is such a freaking joke. Surely there is something in Senegal that demands this mans attention more than this.

[Justin5 20]

McCain: "Americans...want...failure. Troops...want...chaos."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14390980/

Its says it right in there.

I just can't believe that McCain thinks that the troops WANT chaos. Doesn't that seem odd?

[AURaptor 1,126]

McCain: "Americans...want...failure. Troops...want...chaos."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14390980/

Its says it right in there.

I just can't believe that McCain thinks that the troops WANT chaos. Doesn't that seem odd?

Go away, troll.

[Justin5 20]

McCain: "Americans...want...failure. Troops...want...chaos."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14390980/

Its says it right in there.

I just can't believe that McCain thinks that the troops WANT chaos. Doesn't that seem odd?

Go away, troll.

What? I thought this was a contest to see who could misinterpret a quote the best?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Iran is NOT a serious threat LIKE the Soviet Union. They are completely different threats. If you disagree with this you are severely misinformed.

In no way does he say that IRAN [is] NOT A SERIOUS THREAT. You are (purposely) misinterpreting his statements.

When "misinterpretations" are this blatant, they're called "lies."

[Tiger Al 0]

Iran is NOT a serious threat LIKE the Soviet Union. They are completely different threats. If you disagree with this you are severely misinformed.

In no way does he say that IRAN NOT A SERIOUS THREAT. You are (purposely) misinterpreting his statements.

I'm gonna have to cerrect you, Justin. Tigermike never said that. Tigermike is merely parroting Ed Morrissey.

To quote Ed; "Wow. Where to begin with this silliness?" Ed says:

We talked with the Soviet Union because they also had nuclear weapons. Obama seems to forget that the entire point of our Iran policy is to prevent being put in the position of having to cut deals with a terrorist-supporting, radical Islamist non-rational state.

There you have it. According to Ed, we should WAIT until we know for certain that Iran has nuclear weapons before we talk to them. Alternatively, maybe he's advocating spending another $500,000,000,000+ and sacrificing another 4000+ American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines because they don't have nuclear weapons and we're too good to talk to them.

The Soviet Union collapsed economically; they did not just decide to capitulate. The Berlin Wall did not fall as a result of negotiations, but because the regime propping it up ceased to exist. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Because Ronald Reagan won an economic war with Moscow, forcing it to spend more and more and falling further and further behind.

Reagan didn't do it by himself, contrary to what Ed says. He stood on the work of previous administrations. He was 1/3 of a perfect storm of personalities that also included Pope John Paul and Lech Walesa that came together to force the downfall of the USSR. Reagan made his contribution, but, I think if the other two were out of the picture the end would've been different.

That would be the same SDI that Democrats staunchly opposed, sneeringly called “Star Wars” and proclaiming it a threat to peaceful coexistence. They wanted a decades-long series of summits instead of the end of communism, which sounds strikingly familiar in Obama’s speech. Reagan had to fight the Democrats to beat the Soviets, not through presidential-level diplomacy but through economic isolation and military strength.

No. It was sneered at because it cost a lot of money and didn't work. At some point you stop throwing good money after bad. To its credit, some ballistic missile technology did come of it.

Furthermore, the danger in Iranian nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the capacity of its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations will allow them to partner with any small group of lunatics who want to smuggle a nuclear weapon into any Western city — London, Rome, Washington DC, Los Angeles, take your pick. That’s the problem with nuclear proliferation; it doesn’t take a large army to threaten annihilation any longer, which is why we work so hard to keep those weapons out of the hands of non-rational actors like Iran. The Soviets may have been evil, but they were rational, and we could count on their desire to survive to rely on the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranians believe that a worldwide conflagration will have Allah deliver the world to Islam, so a nuclear exchange may fall within their policy, and that’s assuming we could establish their culpability for a sneak nuclear attack to the extent where a President Obama would order a nuclear reprisal.

Where have I heard this very same argument before? I guess Ed figures if it worked once before...

[arnaldoabru 11]

Blinded by the Right is up an running.We had a President and an administration who bent, distorted the facts and truth.Why should this be any different.

[pensacola tiger 0]

There seems to be a dearth of knowledge as it pertains to history and international affairs here. Iran is the biggest threat to our safety and will continue to be as long as the Russians are helping them develop nuclear capability. And they don't need ICBMs to attack the US. All they need is either someone to smuggle a few devices into the US, or more likely a short range (ie SCUD) missle that could be launched from a cargo ship. Iran has already test launched a tactical ballistic missle from a ship. And all of the talking in the world isn't going to stop these guys. They don't think like we do. Learn something about their ideology. And remember Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be whiped off the map". And yet he calls Israel the "Little Satan" and the US the "Great Satan". So who do you think is in his sites? Iran is seriously working to develop nuclear weapons and they have the help and backing of Russia. This is fact, not right-wing ranting. Look it up, read about it, be educated. And then see if you think that Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to the US.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

There seems to be a dearth of knowledge as it pertains to history and international affairs here. Iran is the biggest threat to our safety and will continue to be as long as the Russians are helping them develop nuclear capability. And they don't need ICBMs to attack the US. All they need is either someone to smuggle a few devices into the US, or more likely a short range (ie SCUD) missle that could be launched from a cargo ship. Iran has already test launched a tactical ballistic missle from a ship. And all of the talking in the world isn't going to stop these guys. They don't think like we do. Learn something about their ideology. And remember Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be whiped off the map". And yet he calls Israel the "Little Satan" and the US the "Great Satan". So who do you think is in his sites? Iran is seriously working to develop nuclear weapons and they have the help and backing of Russia. This is fact, not right-wing ranting. Look it up, read about it, be educated. And then see if you think that Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to the US.

Are you really this dense? No one has said that Iran is not a threat. There seems to be a dearth of knowledge of current events here.

Here's a little history for you-- "We will bury you!" Kruschev. We still talked to the bastard.

[lca408 366]

Here's a little history for you-- "We will bury you!" Kruschev. We still talked to the bastard.

Just a little clarification: Kruschev was speaking of Russia's economic "prowess," not his desire to destroy the United States. He had just completed a tour of the U.S. and had been impressed with the expansive American agricultural machine, as well as our steady economic growth. Kruschev believed that because Russia was soo huge, he could produce similar results which would dwarf our success. It didn't.

Ryan

[Tiger Al 0]

Here's a little history for you-- "We will bury you!" Kruschev. We still talked to the bastard.

Just a little clarification: Kruschev was speaking of Russia's economic "prowess," not his desire to destroy the United States. He had just completed a tour of the U.S. and had been impressed with the expansive American agricultural machine, as well as our steady economic growth. Kruschev believed that because Russia was soo huge, he could produce similar results which would dwarf our success. It didn't.

Ryan

Mmmm, not so much. It was a reference to a Marxist saying that the proletariat, or working class, is the undertaker of capitalism. It was seen as the inevitable progression of class struggle towards communism. In Marxist ideology, historical materialism examines social classes, political structures/ideologies and from this comes the idea that Khrushchev was conveying.

I think Tex's point was that it was inflammatory rhetoric, yet, we didn't let that stop us from communicating with our enemy.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Here's a little history for you-- "We will bury you!" Kruschev. We still talked to the bastard.

Just a little clarification: Kruschev was speaking of Russia's economic "prowess," not his desire to destroy the United States. He had just completed a tour of the U.S. and had been impressed with the expansive American agricultural machine, as well as our steady economic growth. Kruschev believed that because Russia was soo huge, he could produce similar results which would dwarf our success. It didn't.

Ryan

Mmmm, not so much. It was a reference to a Marxist saying that the proletariat, or working class, is the undertaker of capitalism. It was seen as the inevitable progression of class struggle towards communism. In Marxist ideology, historical materialism examines social classes, political structures/ideologies and from this comes the idea that Khrushchev was conveying.

I think Tex's point was that it was inflammatory rhetoric, yet, we didn't let that stop us from communicating with our enemy.

Since you are so up on Marxism and the proletariat, here is a quote by Obama.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. - Barack Obama

link

Wouldn't that be a perfect example of "global" class warfare? Wouldn't that make latter day Marxist everywhere smile?

I don't understand, if we can afford it, why shouldn't it "happen"?

Iran is NOT a serious threat LIKE the Soviet Union. They are completely different threats. If you disagree with this you are severely misinformed.

In no way does he say that IRAN NOT A SERIOUS THREAT. You are (purposely) misinterpreting his statements.

I'm gonna have to cerrect you, Justin. Tigermike never said that. Tigermike is merely parroting Ed Morrissey. (Not parroting, quoting. Parroting is what rr does for Obama.)

To quote Ed; "Wow. Where to begin with this silliness?" Ed says:

We talked with the Soviet Union because they also had nuclear weapons. Obama seems to forget that the entire point of our Iran policy is to prevent being put in the position of having to cut deals with a terrorist-supporting, radical Islamist non-rational state.

There you have it. According to Ed, we should WAIT until we know for certain that Iran has nuclear weapons before we talk to them. Alternatively, maybe he's advocating spending another $500,000,000,000+ and sacrificing another 4000+ American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines because they don't have nuclear weapons and we're too good to talk to them. (Actually that is not what he said.)

The Soviet Union collapsed economically; they did not just decide to capitulate. The Berlin Wall did not fall as a result of negotiations, but because the regime propping it up ceased to exist. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Because Ronald Reagan won an economic war with Moscow, forcing it to spend more and more and falling further and further behind.

Reagan didn't do it by himself, contrary to what Ed says. He stood on the work of previous administrations. He was 1/3 of a perfect storm of personalities that also included Pope John Paul and Lech Walesa that came together to force the downfall of the USSR. Reagan made his contribution, but, I think if the other two were out of the picture the end would've been different. (Contrary to what Al says no where in this piece did he say that Reagan did it by himself. As for Pope John Paul and Lech Walesa they were figures during that time but not main figures. He said "The Soviet Union collapsed economically". That covers a lot of ground. Least of which was that the Soviet agricultural policy was a complete disaster, the Chernobyl accident, Saudi Arabia's oil policy of the mid 80's, Afghanistan and separatist movements.)

That would be the same SDI that Democrats staunchly opposed, sneeringly called “Star Wars” and proclaiming it a threat to peaceful coexistence. They wanted a decades-long series of summits instead of the end of communism, which sounds strikingly familiar in Obama’s speech. Reagan had to fight the Democrats to beat the Soviets, not through presidential-level diplomacy but through economic isolation and military strength.

No. It was sneered at because it cost a lot of money and didn't work. At some point you stop throwing good money after bad. To its credit, some ballistic missile technology did come of it. (Would that be the same missile defense that was recently tested for the benefit of the world?)

Furthermore, the danger in Iranian nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the capacity of its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations will allow them to partner with any small group of lunatics who want to smuggle a nuclear weapon into any Western city — London, Rome, Washington DC, Los Angeles, take your pick. That’s the problem with nuclear proliferation; it doesn’t take a large army to threaten annihilation any longer, which is why we work so hard to keep those weapons out of the hands of non-rational actors like Iran. The Soviets may have been evil, but they were rational, and we could count on their desire to survive to rely on the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranians believe that a worldwide conflagration will have Allah deliver the world to Islam, so a nuclear exchange may fall within their policy, and that’s assuming we could establish their culpability for a sneak nuclear attack to the extent where a President Obama would order a nuclear reprisal.

Where have I heard this very same argument before? I guess Ed figures if it worked once before... (So it is your contention that the Iranians would never stoop so low, expecially after Obama told them not to.)

Nearing the end of his presidency, Ronald Reagan came to Moscow and he signed a major arms-control agreement and warmly embraced Gorbachev. A journalist asked the president if he still thought it was the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era."

If anyone would like to read a good, try this.

The Soviet Collapse

Grain and Oil

By Yegor Gaidar

Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2007

Grain

Oil

Crash

Loans

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2599.../pub_detail.asp

One thing that didn't help or hurt the USSR was Jimmy Carter's 1980 grain embargo.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19800901faes...in-embargo.html

[pensacola tiger 0]

There seems to be a dearth of knowledge as it pertains to history and international affairs here. Iran is the biggest threat to our safety and will continue to be as long as the Russians are helping them develop nuclear capability. And they don't need ICBMs to attack the US. All they need is either someone to smuggle a few devices into the US, or more likely a short range (ie SCUD) missle that could be launched from a cargo ship. Iran has already test launched a tactical ballistic missle from a ship. And all of the talking in the world isn't going to stop these guys. They don't think like we do. Learn something about their ideology. And remember Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be whiped off the map". And yet he calls Israel the "Little Satan" and the US the "Great Satan". So who do you think is in his sites? Iran is seriously working to develop nuclear weapons and they have the help and backing of Russia. This is fact, not right-wing ranting. Look it up, read about it, be educated. And then see if you think that Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to the US.

Are you really this dense? No one has said that Iran is not a threat. There seems to be a dearth of knowledge of current events here.

Here's a little history for you-- "We will bury you!" Kruschev. We still talked to the bastard.

Are YOU really that dense. I didn't say not to talk to him. I said the talking wasn't going to work. And yes, the US did talk to Kruschev...and talked, and talked, and talked. But while we did we didn't bury our heads in the sand and imply that the threat from Russia was less serious than any other threat had ever been. And we didn't sit around the campfire and sing "I'd Like to Teach the World To Sing". We flexed our muscle, prepared for whatever might come and made very sure that the Russian government, military and people knew exactly what they were looking at should they attack us. And I lived through that and saw it everyday. So there is no dearth of knowledge of THOSE current affairs here. And there also is no lack of knowledge of the affairs that are current now. See, I don't sit around and read and watch only articles that praise my candidate. I read about global issues. And I listen to views from every side that weighs in on an issue. Then I make up my mind who makes the most sense based on the facts. Can you say the same? I think not.

[autigeremt 6,716]

There's huge difference between Russian politics of that era, and the religious ideology of the Iranian government. Russia did not lean on religion as the basis for it's existence, therefore it had power and materialistic goals.

Iran, on the other hand, is led by radical islamic clerics who would like to see the entire middle east under islamic rule. This is the largest, most dangerous factor of all!!!!! Russia did not want to use their nuclear force due to collateral damage and return fire.

Iran would most likely use theirs to strike against Isreal in the name of Muhamad. They would Martyr themselves for their believed place in paradise.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

There seems to be a dearth of knowledge as it pertains to history and international affairs here. Iran is the biggest threat to our safety and will continue to be as long as the Russians are helping them develop nuclear capability. And they don't need ICBMs to attack the US. All they need is either someone to smuggle a few devices into the US, or more likely a short range (ie SCUD) missle that could be launched from a cargo ship. Iran has already test launched a tactical ballistic missle from a ship. And all of the talking in the world isn't going to stop these guys. They don't think like we do. Learn something about their ideology. And remember Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be whiped off the map". And yet he calls Israel the "Little Satan" and the US the "Great Satan". So who do you think is in his sites? Iran is seriously working to develop nuclear weapons and they have the help and backing of Russia. This is fact, not right-wing ranting. Look it up, read about it, be educated. And then see if you think that Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to the US.

Are you really this dense? No one has said that Iran is not a threat. There seems to be a dearth of knowledge of current events here.

Here's a little history for you-- "We will bury you!" Kruschev. We still talked to the bastard.

Are YOU really that dense. I didn't say not to talk to him. I said the talking wasn't going to work. And yes, the US did talk to Kruschev...and talked, and talked, and talked. But while we did we didn't bury our heads in the sand and imply that the threat from Russia was less serious than any other threat had ever been. And we didn't sit around the campfire and sing "I'd Like to Teach the World To Sing". We flexed our muscle, prepared for whatever might come and made very sure that the Russian government, military and people knew exactly what they were looking at should they attack us. And I lived through that and saw it everyday. So there is no dearth of knowledge of THOSE current affairs here. And there also is no lack of knowledge of the affairs that are current now. See, I don't sit around and read and watch only articles that praise my candidate. I read about global issues. And I listen to views from every side that weighs in on an issue. Then I make up my mind who makes the most sense based on the facts. Can you say the same? I think not.

Yeah, I can say it and mean it. You can just say it. You make up straw arguments because that appears to be all you can win.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I don't understand, if we can afford it, why shouldn't it "happen"?

You don't understand. We can't afford it. If we expect the world to adjust their habits to feed our habits-- oil is a limited resource-- it ain't gonna happen.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

There seems to be a dearth of knowledge as it pertains to history and international affairs here. Iran is the biggest threat to our safety and will continue to be as long as the Russians are helping them develop nuclear capability. And they don't need ICBMs to attack the US. All they need is either someone to smuggle a few devices into the US, or more likely a short range (ie SCUD) missle that could be launched from a cargo ship. Iran has already test launched a tactical ballistic missle from a ship. And all of the talking in the world isn't going to stop these guys. They don't think like we do. Learn something about their ideology. And remember Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be whiped off the map". And yet he calls Israel the "Little Satan" and the US the "Great Satan". So who do you think is in his sites? Iran is seriously working to develop nuclear weapons and they have the help and backing of Russia. This is fact, not right-wing ranting. Look it up, read about it, be educated. And then see if you think that Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to the US.

Are you really this dense? No one has said that Iran is not a threat. There seems to be a dearth of knowledge of current events here.

Here's a little history for you-- "We will bury you!" Kruschev. We still talked to the bastard.

Are YOU really that dense. I didn't say not to talk to him. I said the talking wasn't going to work. And yes, the US did talk to Kruschev...and talked, and talked, and talked. But while we did we didn't bury our heads in the sand and imply that the threat from Russia was less serious than any other threat had ever been. And we didn't sit around the campfire and sing "I'd Like to Teach the World To Sing". We flexed our muscle, prepared for whatever might come and made very sure that the Russian government, military and people knew exactly what they were looking at should they attack us. And I lived through that and saw it everyday. So there is no dearth of knowledge of THOSE current affairs here. And there also is no lack of knowledge of the affairs that are current now. See, I don't sit around and read and watch only articles that praise my candidate. I read about global issues. And I listen to views from every side that weighs in on an issue. Then I make up my mind who makes the most sense based on the facts. Can you say the same? I think not.

Yeah, I can say it and mean it. You can just say it. You don't even seem to read the posts you respond to. You make up straw arguments because that appears to be all you can win.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Yeah, Iran's not a serious threat. Thats why they are currently under UN sanctions. Even the UN recognizes the danger.

Nope, you're absolutely wrong. Iran is no threat. We are the biggest threat. Why would they be using resources for this?

http://www.nysun.com/news/foreign/united-n...d-states-racism

puh-lease! That guy has a report he wrote 20 years ago that he just inserts the name of whatever organization he is being paid to investigate. You dont even have to read it to know:

1) If Obama isnt elected, that proves US is racist.

2) If Obama is questioned about his ties to Wright, that proves US is racist.

3) If Obama is questioned about his ties to Ayers, that proves US is racist.

4) If Obama is questioned about his ties to TUCOC, that proves US is racist.

5) If Obama is questioned about his foreign ploicy foolishness, that proves US is racist.

6) If you dont believe AND act as if he is the Messiah, you are a racist.

I may still vote for the guy, but this "You cant even ask questions crap" especially from the Obama camp is a little too Clintonesque for me.

[Tiger Al 0]

Since you are so up on Marxism and the proletariat, here is a quote by Obama.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. - Barack Obama

link

Wouldn't that be a perfect example of "global" class warfare? Wouldn't that make latter day Marxist everywhere smile?

I don't understand, if we can afford it, why shouldn't it "happen"?

I think Obama's statement is a perfect example of responsibility while yours is a perfect example of greed.