<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>(attacking Muslims) any assertion to the contrary would be irresponsible at best -- Muslim or no ....<p><hr></blockquote><p> I would prefer to see an emphasis on correcting foreign policy mistakes because it's reasonable to suppose that the threat from Muslims would then go away.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>One has said that she will attack a state if that state attacks on of our allies -- not an unusual position in the realm of geopolitics<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well it's quite unusual for anyone to make an ally of persons practising genocide and crimes against humanity as part of foreign policy and of 194 nations that could have made an ally of Israel only one has done so - the United States. Hillary was talking about what she described as an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel by Iran but she didn't explain how a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons can launch a nuclear attack on one that does. She got the nations the wrong way around - Israel has the nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>None, as far as I'm aware, has said something to the effect of: "Attack Muslims and that will prevent events like 9/11" ... unless you have a quote to the contrary, of course ...<p><hr></blockquote><p>As a matter of fact I do. We all know that American forces are in Iraq as part of the so called war on terror following 9/11 and whereas most of us realised that such a justification was bogus Hillary, for example, for some of her audiences if not all, has said that she wants to keep them there at least into 2010 to fulfill the "remaining military mission" to combat what she calls "terrorists" and to counter any Iranian moves into Iraq. <br><br>By "terrorists" she includes people who are legitimately agitating against the criminal acts of Western occupying forces so let's at least correct the terminology as far as those people are concerned to 'freedom fighters." Iran of course has every right to assist persons resisting foreign occupation, homicides and human rights abuses, so the US forces she wants to keep there in Iraq are by implication to stay on for the purposes of attacking Muslims going about their lawful business.<br><br>km<br><br><br>
Loc: Alexandria, VA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm glad you said "borders", because all rhetoric aside, the few comments he made about military policy were anything but doveish.<p><hr></blockquote><p>As I said -- that's probably another discussion ;-)<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Not that I read ... but I would be gladly corrected, if you could show me a quote. All I read was that he were open to talks, if Iran were to reconsider her position on nuclear power.<p><hr></blockquote><p> NY Times piece on Obama's Iran policy<br><br><br>Also, part of the YouTube debate:<br><br>"COOPER: Let's go to another YouTube video.<br><br>QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.<br><br>In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?<br><br>COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.<br><br>Senator Obama?<br><br>OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.<br><br>(APPLAUSE)<br><br>Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.<br><br>And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.<br><br>They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."<br><br>Full transcript<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Quite honestly, I would expect each of the three to want the job in order to improve things. We aren't doubting patriotism now, are we? That would be so ..... 20th Century! ;)<p><hr></blockquote><p>You stated you thought Obama was pandering as much as the others -- my reply was that if I had to be pandered-to, I'd rather it be with a positive pandering message, than a negative or irrelevant one. Not sure where patriotism entered into things ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I do not believe that he will do anything against the military's advice.<p><hr></blockquote><p>one thing people who have met with Obama have noted is that he critically listens and debates with them and then makes up his mind even if he chooses to disagree with them. a prominent law professor who is conservative <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story">wrote this</a>: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.<br><br>Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counterargument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.<br><br>This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.<p><hr></blockquote><p>keep in mind, Obama is going to promote the military leaders who are more in line with his own foreign policy beliefs. i think i've told you that before, yet you seem to ignore it and continue to believe that he's going to hear what the Bush people are telling Bush.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.