"Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran" (and Hillary's hawkish?)

Full title: "Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran"

In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml


yeah, its from a couple years ago.


much later, he says...


It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan;

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

--------------


but Hillary is hawkish...

But for the love of god, can we please talk about Democratic issues? I like you, think about national security and what Borak might or might not do.

But we're falling completely into a Republican trap. They have nothing to show for 7 years in the White House accept for the biggest transference of wealth in the nation's history. So they have to talk about things that are nebulous and open to conjecture.

So we debate with them. WHo's the better argument on national defense? Who knows? It's all speculative, and that's exactly what they want while they are robbing us blind.

Let's talk about the hard things that can't be faked like the deficit and social security.

Two items that will sink our boat before Al Quieda...

They say al qaeda...you say, "They're running free in Pakistan, what do you plan to do about that, since all our forces are being wasted in Iraq which is costing billions of badly accounted for American dollars much of which went to subsidize NOT our troops, but YOUR mercenaries."

Pakistan has nukes. If that country goes into a civil war - and the nukes get into the wrong hands, all hell is going to break lose.

But we need a commander in chief that is going to deal with these matters in an intelligent way, not make stupid mistakes like we did in Iraq. Or to threaten Iran, which just makes all the terrorists hate us even more. That's why I trust Biden. He is the only one that I feel that will handle these matters in an intelligent way, because he has a deep knowledge of foreign relations from 30 years of dealing with it. heck - he even spoke to Musharraf and Bhutto on the phone. I don't even think Bsh did that.

All of the candidates, except for Kucinich and Gravel will tell you the same thing. There is a time and a place when we have to use our military might. But if it is handled correctly it will not be the mess we are in now. If Obama ends up in the WH, I pray that he picks Kerry or Biden for VP, he's too green.

You think we should bomb Pakistan? Because they already have the nukes but we may not like their government?

I mean jesus, am I the only one who remembers when the evil communists had thousands of warheads pointed directly at us? North Korea, anyone? Or are they next? Are we going to try to bomb every country we don't like who has nukes or come to our fucking senses already? We live in a nuclear age, it's the ultimate weapon. And like any ultimate weapon of it's day, any country that wants to be "taken seriously" will get one.

We can't go to war with the world anymore.

indepth understanding of foreign relations.

If the taliban gets ahold of the nukes, do you really think we are just going to sit here and watch them blow up India and Israel?

If the Taliban gets nukes and threatens either of those countries, they are suicidal. Because both India and Israel also have nukes. They don't need us to protect them.

who voted against Kyl-Lieberman, and warned about Pakistan during the last debate.

:-)

Nothing good can come out of going down that road.

you wish to yoke yourself to whatever comes out of your mouth. While these comments aren't nearly as unreasonable as the OP suggests they are, they do seem to conflict with the "Obama the Peacenik" image his supporters have attempted to convey. I don't really think that's fair to him to do, personally--he never suggested he was against all wars. Just 'dumb wars.'

That view is considered nutty and indefensible anywhere outside the US. There is no moral justification for it. Bombing Iran only sends the message that, if you have resources and don't do what we say, you're next.

quoting segments of an interview to attack both Obama and by extension the entire Democratic Party leadership including John Kerry.


Scraping the bottom of the barrel, are we?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

actually, I think this is closer to the surface than the bottom. I'm a little afraid to know what lurks at the bottom.

Obama's platform is Peace through Diplomacy.

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3674325

Why am I NOT surprised?:eyes: