Sensible Erection | Same Old, Same Old

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

quote [ 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," Mr. Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group. ]

Have fun with that shiny new president of yours.

[politics] [by stugatz@12:50amGMT] [-7 Flamebait]

Comments

Ronin.ca said @ 12:54am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
Can I ask a question beyond partisan politics?

Isn't the idea of Iran with a nuke just a tiny bit worrisome to anyone who is completely sane?

Leave aside who else has the nukes. Leave aside that an American said it.

Just think about the question.

lilmookieesquire said @ 1:03am GMT on 4th Jun
What could possibly go wro- *nuclear launch detected*

walkingtaco said @ 2:09am GMT on 4th Jun
We need more Vespine Gas!!

sherlock said @ 10:24am GMT on 4th Jun
mine more overlords!

RoboRonnie said @ 1:17am GMT on 4th Jun
You're referring, of course, to Israel being threatened? It does all seem so inevitable, doesn't it? Or, do you think they may sell it to someone, who actually may have the rocketry to hit the U.S. with one?

maryyugo said @ 1:20am GMT on 4th Jun
all of the above. monkeyman or some rogues in his employ may sell components, entire bombs, and/or delivery systems to terrorists and extremists who may try to smuggle and detonate them in some israeli, american, european or other port city, all for the glory of allah of course. the rocketry isn't necessary and not even accurate timing devices are required if you are suicidal and you can build the device into a large truck, or small boat.

KingPellinore said @ 1:24am GMT on 4th Jun
My god, they might do some shit! They are muslim, after all!

Bomb them!

maryyugo said @ 1:27am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:-2 Troll]
don't be an idiot. these days it's mostly muslims doing "the shit". maybe you'd like monkeyman to have the bomb. i'd prefer not. it makes things a lot simpler.

KingPellinore said @ 1:35am GMT on 4th Jun
I totally want monkeyman to have the bomb. Then he and Barack Hussein Obama can have super powered muslim babies!

Ronin.ca said @ 2:39am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
I wish this site would indent a bit better..

I don't like nuclear bombs. I prefer that there are less of them and not more. I'm deeply troubled by Indian and Pakistan having them. I'm not happy at all about the big countries that also have them. So the prospect of any more countries having the bomb seems, on it's face, like a really bad thing to me.

Now, my larger problem with certain countries having nukes is that the nuclear option is less of a military decision and more of a political one.

"Will my population tolerate me using this weapon? Will my allies? Will my population get nuked in retaliation? Is the end result worthy of the means of using the bomb?"

Iran, Pakistan and North Korea (though to a lesser degree, I'm more troubled by the fact that something like 90% of the SK and US troops in South Korea are within artillery range) are not countries that are run by the same political calculus as even a messy, chaotic democracy like India.

I'm not really sure how to gauge what their reaction will be to certain things. I put China in a different class, since they are so huge and have a great deal more to lose, economically etc, and as they have a seat at all the big tables.

So my over all dislike of nukes in anyones hands, my wish that nuclear proliferation would stop nowish coupled with what I just said about political calculus means that I'm very very unhappy with the idea of Iran with a nuclear arsenal.

RoboRonnie said @ 3:09am GMT on 4th Jun
I totally agree with you, if you're saying that nuclear weapons are just scary and insane and evil. Essentially. Given that, anyone wielding such things is somewhat the same by association. As per your 1st statement, in which we're to set aside those who already have them as an issue here and focus on the relevance/meaning of Iran getting nukes- I think you're right about nuclear weapons being a political item as much as a military one. They will be used to increase the weight of their words internationally, as an attention-getting device if nothing else. For negotiating power. The question, imo, at that point becomes whether or not a sovereign country such as Iran deserves that power. Obviously, with a weakened/chaotic Iraq, Iran becomes more of a threat to U.S. influence in the region in general (without Iran's old rival/enemy of the former Iraqi regime)... I hope the U.S. can bribe Iran with food aid not to use Nuke tech, and allow U.N. inspections... that's win-win, if you ask me.

Ronin.ca said @ 3:12am GMT on 4th Jun
Yes.

sanepride said @ 2:20am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
Sure it's worrisome. So the question is - do we harangue and threaten them, making them more paranoid and isolated and feeling the need to have nukes? Or do we engage them in dialog and trade and try to help the feel a little more at ease in the world?

Most of Iran is young and moderate, wanting like most people, to live in peace and prosperity. Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners are unpopular and most likely will not be in power beyond their terms. The danger comes from demagoguery that makes all of Iran a dangerous enemy.

Ronin.ca said @ 2:42am GMT on 4th Jun
I'm not sure that there isn't some kind of middle approach.

It seems to me that you say "ok, we're willing to talk to you about just about anything you want, but here is a line. If you cross this line, honestly, there is fuck all we can do for you. This line is not a negotiating point, this line is not going to move."

sanepride said @ 3:10am GMT on 4th Jun
The middle approach is using the carrot as well as the stick. Lately it's been just the stick.

Ronin.ca said @ 3:11am GMT on 4th Jun
Exactly, I'm thinking that using one to the exclusion of the other isn't the best way to go always.

medyv said @ 2:32am GMT on 4th Jun
This isn't about an Iran armed with nuclear weapons -- no evidence has been provided to date to support the US' allegations on that score. It's about American hegemony in the Middle East, which Iran has been perceived as an obstacle to for nearly thirty years. The furor over the Iranian nuclear program is just a very thin pretext for the pursuit of that hegemony.

Ronin.ca said @ 2:46am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:2]
Hi, let my introduce myself, I'm the shoals upon which your argument breaks up.

I'm Canadian. I am a left wing Canadian. I think that most of the American left is too far right and that most of the American left that is to the left of me is insane.

I don't want a hegemony by anyone anywhere.

I also don't want Iran to have nukes. It is my belief that they want nukes badly.

medyv said @ 2:59am GMT on 4th Jun
That belief isn't based in fact or evidence. The whole issue is just a slightly more subtle version of the Iraqi WMD fraud.

Ronin.ca said @ 3:01am GMT on 4th Jun
Prove to me one way or the other without being a complete cock about it and we can talk.

medyv said @ 3:46am GMT on 4th Jun
There's quite a bit that's involved in the subject, dating back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and US policy up to the present, but the basic question here is this: have the US and its allies provided any tangible evidence for their allegations about an Iranian nuclear weapons program? The answer is no.

When examined in the context of the recent upsurge in US hostility towards Iran, the Bush administration's use of military aggression against countries in Central Asia and the Middle East and so on, it's not so difficult to read between the lines and declare the nuclear issue a politically motivated one.

maryyugo said @ 4:03am GMT on 4th Jun
there's bushehr, isfahan, natanz, arak and then there's you:
image hosted by ImageVenue.com

wyckedfae said @ 12:59am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:3 Insightful]
He's not a fucking president yet, get that through your fucking skulls.

endopol said @ 5:20am GMT on 4th Jun
The green party's got a lot of ground to cover between now and November, mate.

Amul Muzz said @ 9:15am GMT on 4th Jun
You will know when he is President because the Republicans will start up the lawsuit/impeachment machine again.

KingPellinore said @ 1:00am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:2 Funny]
But I thought Obama was a muslim?

Saint_Marck said @ 1:02am GMT on 4th Jun
Yeah I thought he wore muslin?

oddzer said @ 1:16am GMT on 4th Jun
yeah, doesn't he eat muesli?

badgerbaiter said @ 1:24am GMT on 4th Jun
I heard he was Mussolini....

HexiDave said @ 1:26am GMT on 4th Jun
Purple monkey dishwasher?

Crysallis said @ 2:21am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Yes... master... *loads gun*

Amul Muzz said @ 2:36am GMT on 4th Jun
MMmmMmm... Polka-dot Dress... Polka-dot Dress...

happyman said @ 6:44am GMT on 4th Jun
i'll peek through the polka-dot dress, rhymes and stories and so much more, so come in, through the polka-dot dress.

KingPellinore said @ 1:27am GMT on 4th Jun
I got an email saying he listens to Mussorgsky...

He must be a Communist!

Amul Muzz said @ 1:27am GMT on 4th Jun
Isn't he a Mason?

maryyugo said @ 1:29am GMT on 4th Jun
i think you meant "mormon"

cb361 said @ 2:07am GMT on 4th Jun
No, he's a poor man.

Amul Muzz said @ 2:55am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Obama is Ethyl Merman?

Ethyl Merman said @ 3:14am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
There's No-bama like O-bama!

cb361 said @ 4:01am GMT on 4th Jun
Medical notes : Lt. Horowitz's condition has taken a turn for the worse.

maryyugo said @ 4:04am GMT on 4th Jun
ethyl is obsolete-- too much lead.

maryyugo said @ 1:29am GMT on 4th Jun
actually: illumanati.

sanepride said @ 2:11am GMT on 4th Jun
He's an ill manatee?

KingPellinore said @ 2:22am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
No, he caught the 11am Matinee

maryyugo said @ 2:40am GMT on 4th Jun
ar you saying he's an ill-eagle?

granitewitch said @ 1:03am GMT on 4th Jun
The difference here is that he's not going to decide it's in the nation's best interests to invade a sovereign nation on the speculation that They Might Be Up To No Good.

Iran is a threat, no question of it, and needs to be addressed accordingly. The difference between him and Pappy Bush is that he's not going to try playing cowboys and indians and assume that the people want their government gone and will fall sobbing in gratitude upon his manly chest.

medyv said @ 2:34am GMT on 4th Jun
Iran is a threat? Are you serious? To who? To what? The largest and most powerful military machine located halfway around the world?

maryyugo said @ 2:41am GMT on 4th Jun
uh... notice israel? little itty bitty israel? they're sort of in iran's way, or so iran thinks if you'd bother to listen to what ahmadinejad says.

medyv said @ 2:44am GMT on 4th Jun
Oh, my bad. I had no idea Israel's interests were those of the United States.

Ronin.ca said @ 2:48am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
Yeah, fuck them if they get nuked.

Hell, I can't even think why those troops of the US's were in Europe, who cares if stupid European's get killed...

Ronin.ca said @ 2:56am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Actually, I think I'd like to go further with this:

I don't want anyone anywhere to be nuked. Ever.

I don't care if they are people who have attacked me and mine or not.

I want a world where there is never going to be a nuclear attack of any kind at all.

And, frankly, I'm willing to have people kill in my name to stop any attack.

If this means that periodically someone's borders have to be violated (anyone's, if you could prove to me that the US was going to launch I'd be pretty comfortable with someone with airpower overflying Canada) then so be it.

Finally nukes aren't like conventional weapons. They just aren't. If you shoot someone with a bullet, once the bullet stops it doesn't go on killing. Even DU rounds (as bad as they are) are fairly localized in their effects (as in a small area may or may not - I don't quite understand the science on this- be affected).

But nukes?

I'm sorry, but that is everyone's business. All of us. The whole fucking planets.

Period.

maryyugo said @ 2:49am GMT on 4th Jun
oh, ok. let's just let monkeyman eat them.

FifthSpango said @ 7:52am GMT on 4th Jun
Ok, Please could you 'splain the monkeyman thing to me?

maryyugo said @ 2:46pm GMT on 4th Jun
it's a pejorative term for ahmadinejad probably based on his caricature looking like this. also, because his utterances are so primitive, stone age and backwards, he's devolved towards monkeyhood.

Dioxin said @ 5:29pm GMT on 4th Jun
You shut up with that heathen talk or you're going straight to hell!

oddzer said @ 1:19am GMT on 4th Jun
At least he didn't make up a little song about it.

maryyugo said @ 1:26am GMT on 4th Jun
"But I thought Obama was a muslim? "

i was debating making this a post: over the past weekend i heard second hand that a friend from montana, a well educated, accredited attorney, mother of three, business person, not a bumpkin, was saying that obama was "educated in islam".

not even knowing he had been in an islamic country, i looked it up. he spent most of his formative years in ** hawaii ** (surely a bastion of islam) ... and he apparently lived in indonesia for a few years as a small child. so the way the wiki puts it:

"Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, from ages 6 to 10, where classes were taught in the Indonesian language. He first attended St. Francis Assisi Catholic school for almost three years, where he received weekly lessons in that Christian faith, although he was registered by his family as a Muslim, his father's stated religion.[10][11] When his family moved to a new neighborhood, Menteng,[12] he attended the secular, government-run SDN Menteng 1 school for his fourth year, and received similar weekly lessons in Islam and the Qur'an.[12][10][13][14][15] Obama's stepfather was "not religious", and "never went to prayer services except for big communal events", according to Obama's sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng.[13] When Obama was in third grade he wrote an essay saying that he wanted to become president. "

from: here.

so if i understand this right, he attended catholic school for three of his four years in indonesia (not sure that's a whole lot better than a muslim school but still....) and he was getting his lessons in islam for one year. it was his non-religious father's "stated" religion.

yup. for sure. obama is muslim.

the problem will be that unless the campaign is very clear and very strident about this, there will still be way too many americans voting who will continue to believe it.

KingPellinore said @ 1:37am GMT on 4th Jun
So, Barack HUSSEIN Obama is definitely a muslim, right?

maryyugo said @ 2:43am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
absolutely-- prays to mecca five times a day, literally on the senate floor. there's been a conspiracy to avoid having this photographed but now, with his nomination assured, the clandestine video's of obama prostrating himself to pray are sure to be leaked. watch for them on youtube.

cardinal said @ 4:01am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
I find the question of whether or not he's Muslim not nearly as interesting as why it matters to so many people.

maryyugo said @ 4:09am GMT on 4th Jun
oh it matters. i'm not sure the specific "theological" (superstitious) parts of islam are all that different from the other religions but the male supremacy incorporated into laws, the idea of religiously based government, female repression and totally irrational, violent, and dangerous concepts of sharia law are tolerated if not supported to some degree or other by most muslims. and that is of great concern to most americans.

what interests me is how anyone with any access to media, internet, or any source of information could still think obama is muslim!

maryyugo said @ 4:10am GMT on 4th Jun
i meant to add: but many otherwise reasonably intelligent people do!

KingPellinore said @ 4:24am GMT on 4th Jun
Here, mary, let me fix that for you:

"oh it matters. i'm not sure the specific "theological" (superstitious) parts of islam christianity are all that different from the other religions but the male supremacy incorporated into laws, the idea of religiously based government, female repression and totally irrational, violent, and dangerous concepts of ~~sharia~~Judeo-Christian law are tolerated if not supported to some degree or other by most ~~muslims~~. and that is of ~~great~~ absolutely no concern to most americans.

KingPellinore said @ 4:25am GMT on 4th Jun

SHIT

maryyugo said @ 5:27am GMT on 4th Jun
or defecation in pc-speak?

cardinal said @ 11:26pm GMT on 4th Jun
i'm not sure the specific "theological" (superstitious) parts of Christianity are all that different from the other religions but the male supremacy incorporated into laws, the idea of religiously based government, female repression and totally irrational, violent, and dangerous concepts of the biblical law are tolerated if not supported to some degree or other by most Christians. and that is of great concern to most of the world.

You guys need more Muslims. Most of the Muslims I know aren't very orthodox and if they are, it just basically means they don't drink and they wash themselves every time they take a piss.

maryyugo said @ 12:17am GMT on 5th Jun
"they wash themselves every time they take a piss"

they what? wash their hands? doesn't every civilized person do that? or do they take a whole bath each time they piss? inquiring minds want to know.

Volcaos said @ 1:16am GMT on 5th Jun
you are so fucking ignorant. It is incredible how you can spout so much bile against something you know nothing about. It amazes me every fucking time.

They wash themselves like in a bidet, you know, down there. You really never met a Muslim or had any Muslim friends in your life...

Your attitude to Islam is so similar to McCarthyian attitudes to communism, you simply demonise it, you never even try to understand any of it, you are the equivalent of a redneck on the porch in a rocking chair with a coon hound and a shotgun in 1952 protecting your land from them "reds" who want to rape your sister and eat babies for breakfast.

Fuck you.

rezties said @ 1:29am GMT on 4th Jun
Or he could be trying to sweep up some votes from some of the more impressionable crowd that the same speech worked on not once, but twice before in Bush's favor.

I heard he just got the democratic nomination or something, even. Who knows, these two things could be related.

maryyugo said @ 1:30am GMT on 4th Jun
regardless of what you think about this, it isn't flamebait-- it's worth discussing.

taeyn said @ 1:32am GMT on 4th Jun
"have fun with that shiny new president of yours." makes this flamebait. or a bad troll. the topic is worth discussion, but the post is still flamebait.

maryyugo said @ 1:33am GMT on 4th Jun
maybe so but if you mod into nonexistence it won't be discussed

sanepride said @ 2:09am GMT on 4th Jun
What's to discuss? He was talking to AIPAC. He needs their support. He told them he would guarantee Israel's security and not allow Iran to get nukes.
What the hell else would he tell them?

wyckedfae said @ 2:25am GMT on 4th Jun
Apparently he should have put on a funny hat and gone "BOOBALOOBAGOOBIE!"

sanepride said @ 3:12am GMT on 4th Jun
Now that would be postworthy.

wyckedfae said @ 4:35am GMT on 4th Jun
That'd solidify his awesomeness, in my book. That, and if he were on Space Ghost.

medyv said @ 2:42am GMT on 4th Jun
Indeed. It is wholly inconceivable that anyone in their right mind would suggest ending vast amounts of financial and military aid to a regime with a long record of human rights abuses, invasions and military attacks against its neighbors and violent repression of its indigenous Arab population.

Likewise, who would dare question the farcical and baseless pretext for the escalating hostility and intimidation of Iran, with all its terrible prospects for military intervention? Next you'll start claiming its rational to question the Global War On Terror!

maryyugo said @ 2:45am GMT on 4th Jun
now *that* is flamebait. pure and simple.

sanepride said @ 3:14am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
Oh yes. Israel is the sole villain pure and simple. I must say you have a remarkably simple view of the world. It must be very comforting.

medyv said @ 3:38am GMT on 4th Jun
I think you missed my point. You're treating policies that are indefensible in many ways as common sense.

What is considered self-evident in American "political discourse" -- that Iran is an evil threat, that Israel is good, that the US has the right and the obligation to wipe out "terror" and so on -- is not necessarily so.

Ronin.ca said @ 3:44am GMT on 4th Jun
"terror" ?

God I'm going to regret that.

sanepride said @ 3:54am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Interesting]
You mean what you consider self evident in your over-simplification of American political discourse.
I'm not taking the stance that Iran is an 'evil threat', or even a threat at all. Likewise I'm not going to take AIPAC's argument that Israel, which happens to be the only country in the Middle East that resembles an open-society democracy, can do no wrong. Despite your broad generalizations, even the most misguided policies of the Bush administration are more complex than you make them out to be.

Anti-fuites said @ 1:34am GMT on 4th Jun
Okay, I guess I'll go play counter-strike for a few weeks then. Be sure and let me know when everyone's gotten the politic bug out of their systems and we've gotten back to posts about cake and 80s porn.

wyckedfae said @ 1:40am GMT on 4th Jun
There's a filter. Use it.

Anti-fuites said @ 1:43am GMT on 4th Jun
I don't generally mind politics posts, I'll join in on them often enough. It's just the whole four posts/day on an outcome people understood for a month.

wyckedfae said @ 2:03am GMT on 4th Jun
"understood for a month"

Nothing was perfectly certain. You have a point, sure, and this post in particular is a bunch of shit, but they have *mostly* been worthwhile posts since it's the end of an overdrawn, ridiculous process.

Anti-fuites said @ 2:40am GMT on 4th Jun
I think I'm mostly just trying to plant seeds. I'd rather not every campaign rumor and smear talking point get posted for the next 18 weeks. Come October I know there'll be no stopping it but at least let me have my Summer.

sanepride said @ 1:51am GMT on 4th Jun
There's a 'Sensible Election'. Use it too.

wyckedfae said @ 2:01am GMT on 4th Jun
Not my post, but you have a point. *shrug*

sanepride said @ 2:05am GMT on 4th Jun
Sorry - that wasn't directed specifically at you. Just pointing out.

wyckedfae said @ 2:24am GMT on 4th Jun
Modding this comment up since I didn't mod the other one the way a good boy should.

wyckedfae said @ 3:36am GMT on 4th Jun
...If only I could actually mod properly, I'd be doing great. I'll find another comment somewhere to mod. *mumbles*

sanepride said @ 1:52am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:3 Underrated]
What? A successful politician telling a specific audience what they want to hear? Shocking!

medyv said @ 2:56am GMT on 4th Jun
Think tanks and lobbying groups like AIPAC aren't Joe Blow's Country Cookin', where millionaire politicians go to interact with the common man and shamelessly pander to their audience. They're where these figures go to outline their policies to the people that matter: their fellow members of the financial and political elite who ultimately decide what America does and does not do around the world.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that Obama plans to depart from the longstanding and unquestioning US support for Israel once in office, I'd like to see it. Until then: same old, same old.

sanepride said @ 3:08am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
I never suggested he plans to depart from US policy of support for Israel. But that does not necessarily exclude a policy of engaging Iran in less belligerent and threatening ways. Unlike McCain and Clinton he did not specifically allude to a military option.

medyv said @ 9:52am GMT on 4th Jun
Incorrect sir:

"Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation."

sanepride said @ 11:03am GMT on 4th Jun
OK OK. But he did emphasize diplomacy as a top priority.

BlutStein1984 said @ 2:48am GMT on 4th Jun
Is the idea of Iran getting nukes comforting? No
Does the treaty they signed allow them to develop nuclear power? Yes

Will we end up going to war with Iran? Probably. Sadly I feel both major powers are just as capable of going to war over this and its starting to sound like it did before we went back into Iraq.

I fully understand that Israel is a close ally and friend but since when did our president have to campaign to offer strong national defense for another country in order to get elected to this country? Shouldn't American border security rank just a little higher than Israel's security? I'm not saying we shouldn't help out our friends but I wish we could take care of our own issues first and not try to position ourselves into another war in the middle east.

Like a good portion of our bad foreign policy we are currently giving three times more aid to the Arab nations around Israel than we give Israel itself. If we were really interested in helping Israel we wouldn't be playing both sides of the fence, trying to please everyone and hedge our bets. As it is we are merely add fuel to already unstable powder keg.

Bob Denver said @ 3:15am GMT on 4th Jun
"I fully understand that Israel is a close ally and friend"...

Really? What has Israel done? They've spied on America, their policies have put American interests (oil) in the Middle East at risk. They have conducted illegal operations outside their national borders (Mossad assassinations). Finally most of the friendship goes from the US to Israel, not the other way around.

Israel is useful because of its being "the Holy Land" and at least spiritually valuable to the two greatest faiths in the US. Also because it was a country born of profound anti-jewish sentiment by Europe ("well...we don't want them back...let's give them their own country...Palestine? Sure, why not!") it must be supported because that sentiment continues to this day.

In words perhaps Israel is a friend and ally to the US but certainly not in deeds.

sanepride said @ 4:07am GMT on 4th Jun
profound anti-jewish sentiment by Europe

I nominate this phrase for understatement of the week.

Volcaos said @ 5:12am GMT on 4th Jun
I am pretty sure he is not referring to the Holocaust but to the anti-Jewish sentiment that still existed after the war and that led to the creation of the state of Israel, and not necessarily in Axis countries.

Nihil said @ 6:00am GMT on 4th Jun
When I was being an asshole as a kid, my father would tell me: "damnit, don't be a Jew".

vahid said @ 6:56am GMT on 4th Jun
wow.

maryyugo said @ 7:01am GMT on 4th Jun
nice. you know, somehow i can't visualize a jewish, buddhist, christian, or pagan ever telling his kid "damnit, don't be a muslim".

Nostrildamus said @ 4:14pm GMT on 4th Jun [Score:-2 Troll]
.. and your lack of imagination means it doesn't ever happen, of course.

sanepride said @ 7:16am GMT on 4th Jun
Is your father Borat?

Nihil said @ 7:57am GMT on 4th Jun
The moustache was remarkably similar.

anonymousbob said @ 3:25am GMT on 4th Jun
Anonymousbob's adventures in the Middle East:
Iraq - check
Afghanistan - Next
Iran - Will be there for the 1st wave of the invasion

Man am I gonna have a lot of ribbons.

Ronin.ca said @ 3:28am GMT on 4th Jun
I ask this in all seriousness.. you got enough armor?

anonymousbob said @ 4:11am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Informative]
Yes, too much in fact.
On a foot patrol we would carry almost 100lbs of gear (food, water, saw, ammo, pyro, radio, ifak, etc etc.) I weigh 160lbs. The Modular Tatical Vest is what I wore in Iraq.

It is bulky, cumbersome, and deathly hot. Thankfully we were there for the winter so we didn't have to wear it in too much heat. Frankly it blows. Our platoon commander graduated from annapolis so he was a fag and made us carry tons of extra shit.

BlutStein1984 said @ 3:39am GMT on 5th Jun
If you don't mind me asking, what is the policy for our troops when it comes to body armor? Are you allowed to buy and wear whatever you want as long at it meets some minimum requirements or are you only allowed to wear what they issue you?

ring riot said @ 3:46am GMT on 4th Jun
Um. Eliminating a threat via first attempts at talks and diplomacy does not equal BOMBING THEM PRE-EMPTIVELY WITH ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, as McCain seems hell-bent on encouraging.

Thanks for playing, though.

Xiph0 said @ 5:40am GMT on 4th Jun
However, that's entirely what's being implied here. You don't go to a group of zionist lobbyists and say "We're going to sit down with Iran, and Then we might bomb them" - it's not what they want to hear.

/Voting for Obama.
//Still fucking hates all the support every candidate gives to Israel.
///Thinks we should've cut them off when we caught them spying on us.

kaptainsteve said @ 4:01am GMT on 4th Jun
So much for Obama being less militaristic than McCain, but then again, he only said this to get the Jewish vote, so he probably don't mean it!

Nihil said @ 7:12am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:3 Insightful]
Please downmod.

I initially upmodded because I enjoyed the discussion that was sparked, and I *do* think there is too much gushing in the Obama camp even as I am part of it...

... but then I went and looked at the full text.

There is no greater threat to Israel – or to the peace and stability of the region – than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today’s policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran – the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

etc. etc., two more paragraphs of Bush and McCain criticism, then:

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing – if, and only if – it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of (etc., etc.)

So, to recap? Fuck this travesty of a post.

maryyugo said @ 8:03am GMT on 4th Jun [Score:-1 Overrated]
the guy said it. why not discuss it? ok-- let's just suppress everything you dislike. sure.

Nihil said @ 8:24am GMT on 4th Jun
It is my understanding that selective quoting is frowned upon on this site. Especially when it's then used as an excuse to act smug and trollish.

medyv said @ 9:54am GMT on 4th Jun
Wait... what? The theme this post hammered on was Obama's unequivocal embrace of the decades long "commitment to Israel's security" -- i.e., funding a war machine, to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars a year, that may or may not advance US interests in the Middle East. Your posting of the entire speech actually does a great deal to validate the original poster's message: it shows the incredible depths to which Obama sinks in his slavish praise for the Zionist regime and the degree to which an Obama government would unquestioningly support Israel against its every conceivable enemy.

Just read the speech: he begins by posing Israel as the only "just and necessary" response to the Holocaust -- the propaganda coup de grace for Israel that, in reality, has little to do with Zionism. Many mid-twentieth century Zionists were more concerned with establishing Eretz Israel than they were with saving the lives of six million European Jews. And one can only be amazed by his praise for Israeli children's "uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school" when several generations of Palestinian children have grown up either in refugee camps or ghettos cordoned off and occupied by the Israeli military.

Obama also rejects out of hand negotiations with the democratically elected Palestinian Hamas government. In a flashback to Reagan's policies towards the democratically elected FSLN regime in Nicaragua, we're reminded that democratically elected governments are only legitimate when America approves of their views and policies. He places virtually all of the onus on the Palestinians to achieve "peace" with Israel, demanding they "reign in extremists" while offering only meant-to-be-ignored "advice" to the Israelis to "refrain from building new settlements" -- no need, my Israeli friends, to dismantle those illegally still in existence.

His declarations of "friendship" with Israel are so ludicrously one sided that one could be excused for believing that Israel is the world's sole superpower, the United States its client state: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (since fucking when?!), the US "must never force Israel to the negotiating table" nor "block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests," the US will "stand up for Israel in the United Nations" and so on. The only conceivable difference between Obama and McCain here might be the actual dollar amount of military aid their respective administrations would unconditionally provide to Israel.

With the Iran issue, Obama again embraces, as he has in the past, the stated aim of aggressively neutralizing the Iranian "threat" as has been US policy since 2001's "axis of evil." We see a tactical difference between Obama and Bush/McCain over a willingness to use diplomacy to counter Iran (though it should be pointed out that Obama would "always keep the threat of military action on the table"), but not any sort of disagreement over the fundamentals of American foreign policy.

asxz said @ 2:57pm GMT on 4th Jun
Israel is a "war mcahine", funded by outside interests, but Hamas is a democratically elected government?

Er.. is it opposite day on your homeworld?

Try being a Baptist in Gaza and then try being a Muslim in Israel and see which of your holy sites gets bombed. Asshat.

medyv said @ 11:52pm GMT on 4th Jun
Israel has, by far, the most powerful military in the Middle East. It has been engaged in a decades long occupation of the Palestinian territories and has militarily attacked its neighbors on innumerable occasions, with the US taxpayer footing a large part of the bill. I don't think my description was out of place.

As for Hamas, it _was_ democratically elected in the Palestinian territories. What you or I think about Hamas does not alter the facts.

And your last line had nothing to do with anything in my comment. I was writing about the ludicrously pro-Israel stance of Obama, not the religious freedoms of Israel vs. Gaza.

valen85 said @ 12:45am GMT on 5th Jun
what's wrong with pro-israel?
we need a base of influence there

Nihil said @ 6:32pm GMT on 4th Jun
If you think a significant number of people want Obama to stop supporting Israel, you are sadly mistaken.

This post is deceptive because it quotes the "eliminate a threat" sentence to make it sound like Obama is directly threatening air strikes just like McCain did.

Using pressure and diplomacy in favour of Israel's interests and against Iran's sits perfectly well with almost everyone, and I would guess even with a majority of SEers.

Also, fuck you for your black and white views of a massively screwed up geopolitical scenario. It's people like you that provide the hatred and stupidity that fuels wars in the first place. You hit it correctly with the settlement issue, the rest of your post is tunnel-vision drivel.

medyv said @ 12:24am GMT on 5th Jun
I don't think there's as much support as that. US policy towards Israel is increasingly looking like US policy towards Cuba, in which powerful lobbying groups exercise a greatly disproportional influence. I don't see what else could explain the wholly one-sided nature of US-Israeli relations.

I'm not expecting a major candidate to do what's right and disavow any ties with the Israeli government, but any political observer should be troubled by the lockstep agreement from both parties in their noxiously zealous defense of Israel and its every activity. I was a bit taken aback by Obama's declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel now, when the overwhelming majority of the world recognizes Tel Aviv. If Israel were to invade and annex southern Lebanon tomorrow, no doubt each of the candidates would declare the new territories part of Israel's sacrosanct national borders.

Even the tactical differences that usually characterize the debates between Democrats and Republicans, like where and how to use military force to achieve universally agreed on "American interests," are apparently nonexistent when it comes to Israel. That should be disconcerting for anyone that basis their support for a candidate or party on their supposedly wildly different visions on each and every issue.

"This post is deceptive because it quotes the "eliminate a threat" sentence to make it sound like Obama is directly threatening air strikes just like McCain did."

Is it really deceptive? The only difference is that Obama is indirectly threatening air strikes. And if you read his whole speech, his main criticism of McCain is that the Iraq war was an unnecessary and costly diversion from the "real threat" of Iran. The implicit prospect of military action using the troops freed up from Iraq against the "real enemy" is pretty clear there.

And tunnel-vision drivel? What about my description of Obama's views, which I based entirely on his speech, was inaccurate or an oversimplification?

maryyugo said @ 12:28am GMT on 5th Jun
"I don't see what else could explain the wholly one-sided nature of US-Israeli relations."

perhaps the fact that israel is a socially and technically advanced and mostly like a secular democracy. their stated purpose is to be left alone with stable boundaries. their neighbors want them eradicated and constantly attack them, targetting mostly civilians. perhaps that explains it just a little. by the way, did you notice? israel has *no oil*. wow. we should let them sink. no oil? who needs them?

medyv said @ 12:36am GMT on 5th Jun
The US does not bestow tens of billions of dollars in unconditional military aid to every socially and technically advanced secular democracy.

Vibrating @ the Speed of Light said @ 2:14am GMT on 5th Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
What other socially and technically advanced secular democracy is under constant attack and threat from it's neighbors?

medyv said @ 4:19am GMT on 5th Jun
You've got that backwards. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is constantly attacking and threatening its neighbors. Just in the last few years, Israel has invaded and attacked both Lebanon (2006) and Syria (2003/2008).

The idea that the Middle East's incontestably strongest military power and its only country with nuclear weapons is somehow the region's victim is ludicrous beyond belief.

benjamander said @ 7:30am GMT on 4th Jun
As I see it, if he's willing to sit down and talk without preconditions, and if he continues to speak eloquently and thoughtfully (not the "why does everyone pick on me" that Hilary lost my support with on that debate right before super tuesday), he can effect change without resorting to throwing rocks at people for throwing rocks.

In other news, everyone needs to realize that we need to get rid of our nukes before anyone else is going to do anything about theirs.

maryyugo said @ 8:04am GMT on 4th Jun
"everyone needs to realize that we need to get rid of our nukes before anyone else is going to do anything about theirs. "

that will not happen as long as religious (or other type) maniacs control countries with nuclear weapons or said maniacs have access to that technology in any way. and that's unlikely to stop very soon.

benjamander said @ 9:49am GMT on 4th Jun
But why does our religious and other type maniac have that privilege?

maryyugo said @ 2:49pm GMT on 4th Jun
because we have never used nukes except twice in defense and we never would use them for any other purpose. that's not the stated intent of the lunatic militants and the rabble terrorists like al quaeda when they think some man in the sky is telling them to slaughter infidels to get favors in some mystical heaven. but then, you already knew that.

asxz said @ 3:00pm GMT on 4th Jun
"Twice in defense"? You still don't think Hiroshima was enough? Nagasaki was defense? I love people who are quick to denigrate the politics of other countries but unquestioningly accept their own country's BS.

Volcaos said @ 6:04pm GMT on 4th Jun
You still think Hiroshima was self-defence?

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:31pm GMT on 4th Jun
Hey, did you not see Godzilla rampaging in NY?

maryyugo said @ 12:24am GMT on 5th Jun
oh noes-- not another history revisionist. the japanese were not ready to surrender unconditionally even after hiroshima. read some books please. you know, those musty cellulose clumps with the funny little black stains that you can still sometimes find in libraries?

maryyugo said @ 12:23am GMT on 5th Jun
was nagasaki necessary? it's hard to know for sure. it was hotly debated at the time. in fact a demo in the desert instead of hiroshima was debated.

but the japanese were not easily deterred from fighting to the last person capable. the point of the second bomb was to show that the first one was no fluke and that there would be more if those were not sufficient. it worked and the japanese capitulated. a full and unconditional surrender was judged to be the only safe type and two nuclear explosions over cities were required to bring that about. happy second guessing and retrospectoscoping.

maryyugo said @ 12:25am GMT on 5th Jun
ps: within a few weeks more bombs probably could have been produced. if the us was trying to punish japan instead of getting a quick full surrender, why not just bomb them some more? why not fire bomb them? why not gas them?