at this rate Obama will oversee use of next nuclear weapon

Carlos_Ray

I, like many people, celebrated when Obama won the election. I thought he would change things in America and repair the damage done by the Bush administration. I feel embarrassed for my naivety.

His speeches, though articulate, are empty and meaningless. He is basically continuing the policies of the Bush administration but in a more under handed fashion. At least with Bush we all knew were we stood.

Obama claimed he would strive to bring peace to the middle east, Yet he appointed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. A woman so staunchly pro-Israeli that she ended some of her election campaign speeches with “God Bless America and God bless Israel.” A woman that made it clear that America and Israel would remain firm allies no matter what Israel did. How is this women supposed to achieve peace in the Middle East while her position couldn’t be more biased?

We are now in a situation, where Israelis are continuing building settlements on Palestinian lands. It has alienated its only Arab ally (Turkey) by murdering its citizens. It has shocked the world by its total disregard for international law and human rights… So what does Obama do this week? Does he reprimand Israel?? No of course not, he announces with joy, even tougher sanctions on Iran!!

Lets not be fooled. We all know the whole Iran issue has nothing to do with global security. It’s about Israel. If Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons it nullifies the nuclear weapons of Israel. Israel won’t be able to act with impunity anymore. It won’t be able to attack , bomb and kill at will.

The next country to use a nuclear weapon in anger will be Israel. Of that I am positive. They have demonstrated again and again that they couldn’t care less about anybody outside their borders (true doubly so for Muslims). I fear Obama will facilitate it by isolating and vilifying Iran. Israel has itchy trigger fingers.


In light of recent events the UN sanctions are hypocritical at best.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10280356.stm

Slugs

To tell you I told you so at this point would just be plain wrong...

But BY **** DID I TELL YOU SO!

OutlawPete

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

So what does Obama do this week?

Shag Michelle and cheer on the USA on Saturday.

starbelgrade

Can we do it? YES WE CAN?

Funny that no-one actually thought to ask him if he was going to do anything in particular.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Whereas McCain would have been a completely safe bet for planet safety...? Gimme a break!

rockmongrel

We get it, you don't like Israel.

GLaDOS

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Whereas McCain would have been a completely safe bet for planet safety...? Gimme a break!

Sarah Palin as vice president of the most powerful nation in the world. Think about that....

Carlos_Ray

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Whereas McCain would have been a completely safe bet for planet safety...? Gimme a break!

Did I say that?

Glico Man

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Sarah Palin as vice president of the most powerful nation in the world. Think about that....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQTNlhsDo4Y

Black Swan

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I, like many people, celebrated when Obama won the election. I thought he would change things in America and repair the damage done by the Bush administration. I feel embarrassed for my naivety.

Yes, I too was hoping for the Second Coming: A mystical leader that would magically transform the USA and world in the 17 months that he has been in office, completely reversing the Great Recession, eliminating the highest federal deficit in the history of America, restoring the Dow from its dramatic 50 percent loss in value, and end two wars that had been raging without solution for years. And for such a super hero, it would be a piece of cake for him to solve the problems in Israel/Palestine, especially since they have only been happily fighting each other for thousands of years. So yes, I am disappointed in Obama too!

And now O'BOMBa is predicted? Well, let's all join together and sing a song from the 60s that my Da does when drunk. We will all feel better after, for sure... (Oh, it helps if you swing a pint in your hand while you sing it!)

"We can be thankful
Tranquil and proud
That man's been endowed
With the mushroomed shaped cloud.

And I know for certain
That some lovely day
Someone will touch the spark off
And we will all be blown away!"

Cheers! Raises a toast with a pint of Guinness.

squod

g-h-e-y thread

marcsignal

if anything ever happens Obama, I hope the CIA have the good sense to immediately shoot Hilary Clinton. (albiet in secret)

The world would be a safer place without that menopausal wizened up old sow's finger on the button :eek:
She makes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look and sound like a gay hairdresser.

oppenheimer1

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I, like many people, celebrated when Obama won the election. I thought he would change things in America and repair the damage done by the Bush administration. I feel embarrassed for my naivety.

His speeches, though articulate, are empty and meaningless. He is basically continuing the policies of the Bush administration but in a more under handed fashion. At least with Bush we all knew were we stood.

Obama claimed he would strive to bring peace to the middle east, Yet he appointed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. A woman so staunchly pro-Israeli that she ended some of her election campaign speeches with “God Bless America and God bless Israel.” A woman that made it clear that America and Israel would remain firm allies no matter what Israel did. How is this women supposed to achieve peace in the Middle East while her position couldn’t be more biased?

We are now in a situation, where Israelis are continuing building settlements on Palestinian lands. It has alienated its only Arab ally (Turkey) by murdering its citizens. It has shocked the world by its total disregard for international law and human rights… So what does Obama do this week? Does he reprimand Israel?? No of course not, he announces with joy, even tougher sanctions on Iran!!

Lets not be fooled. We all know the whole Iran issue has nothing to do with global security. It’s about Israel. If Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons it nullifies the nuclear weapons of Israel. Israel won’t be able to act with impunity anymore. It won’t be able to attack , bomb and kill at will.

The next country to use a nuclear weapon in anger will be Israel. Of that I am positive. They have demonstrated again and again that they couldn’t care less about anybody outside their borders (true doubly so for Muslims). I fear Obama will facilitate it by isolating and vilifying Iran. Israel has itchy trigger figures.


In light of recent events the UN sanctions are hypocritical at best.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10280356.stm

HAHA did you actually think Obama would abandon Israel? You obviously have no idea how powerful the pro-israeili lobby is in the states.

Glenshane Pass

Palin Vs Obama?

And they have the cheek to give out about "one party states". Same story

marcsignal

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

HAHA did you actually think Obama would abandon Israel? You obviously have no idea how powerful the pro-israeili lobby is in the states.

true, i reckon things in the middle east wont change in that regard until the Chinese overtake the US as the worlds leading superpower

TheZohanS

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Whereas McCain would have been a completely safe bet for planet safety...? Gimme a break!

Should have voted in McBain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDEuLXLNGBo

amacachi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

irishconvert

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I, like many people, celebrated when Obama won the election. I thought he would change things in America and repair the damage done by the Bush administration. I feel embarrassed for my naivety.

His speeches, though articulate, are empty and meaningless. He is basically continuing the policies of the Bush administration but in a more under handed fashion. At least with Bush we all knew were we stood.

Obama claimed he would strive to bring peace to the middle east, Yet he appointed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. A woman so staunchly pro-Israeli that she ended some of her election campaign speeches with “God Bless America and God bless Israel.” A woman that made it clear that America and Israel would remain firm allies no matter what Israel did. How is this women supposed to achieve peace in the Middle East while her position couldn’t be more biased?

We are now in a situation, where Israelis are continuing building settlements on Palestinian lands. It has alienated its only Arab ally (Turkey) by murdering its citizens. It has shocked the world by its total disregard for international law and human rights… So what does Obama do this week? Does he reprimand Israel?? No of course not, he announces with joy, even tougher sanctions on Iran!!

Lets not be fooled. We all know the whole Iran issue has nothing to do with global security. It’s about Israel. If Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons it nullifies the nuclear weapons of Israel. Israel won’t be able to act with impunity anymore. It won’t be able to attack , bomb and kill at will.

The next country to use a nuclear weapon in anger will be Israel. Of that I am positive. They have demonstrated again and again that they couldn’t care less about anybody outside their borders (true doubly so for Muslims). I fear Obama will facilitate it by isolating and vilifying Iran. Israel has itchy trigger figures.


In light of recent events the UN sanctions are hypocritical at best.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10280356.stm

Very good analysis, I agree with every word above.

Good post Op.. I liked him aswell until I started reading about what his term in office has achieved.. By now, I absolutely hate him.
He's upped the was budget, put more troops in iraq etc. and this Iran thing is a disgrace. I'm on my mobile so cant get links but I read an article detailing their history in terms of war and suicide bombings. They're no more a threat than you or me.. We'll be looking back in ten or fifteen years at Iran just like we're looking at Iraq now. A complete waste of lives and an illegal invasion to keep Israel and oil supply safe.
The worst thing is he'll get re-elected. McCain might have been worse, I dunno, but at least we'd have had a hot vice president over there.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Scaremongering and saber rattling is all this is. Speculate much?

pickarooney

marcsignal wrote: »

if anything ever happens Obama, I hope the CIA have the good sense to immediately shoot Hilary Clinton. (albiet in secret)

The world would be a safer place without that menopausal wizened up old sow's finger on the button :eek:
She makes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look and sound like a gay hairdresser.

Now, I don't want to insinuate that you're completely and utterly clueless, but are you aware that Hilary Clinton is not, in fact, the vice-president of the United States?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Did I say that?

No, just balanacing out the conversation.

Ikky Poo2

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, just balanacing out the conversation.

What? One good post balanced with one crap post?

Chairman Meow

I love how people just assumed he would bring about a total change and bring about world peace and end hunger before ascending christ-like back to the heavens jsut because he was Black.
I found it hilarious that people i knew here in Ireland were throwing 'election parties' when he won. Its with no small measure of smugness i read threads like this and think 'i was right from the beginning, i knew he wouldnt change a damn thing'.
Still he got that nobel peace prize, eh?

ejmaztec

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I love how people just assumed he would bring about a total change and bring about world peace and end hunger before ascending christ-like back to the heavens jsut because he was Black.
I found it hilarious that people i knew here in Ireland were throwing 'election parties' when he won. Its with no small measure of smugness i read threads like this and think 'i was right from the beginning, i knew he wouldnt change a damn thing'.
Still he got that nobel peace prize, eh?

That was like paying a cowboy builder up front for an extension, and him disappearing with the cash five minutes later.

irishconvert

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I love how people just assumed he would bring about a total change and bring about world peace and end hunger before ascending christ-like back to the heavens jsut because he was Black.

It was nothing to do with him being black. He is very charismaticand gives very good speeches. People were hoping for change after 8 years of disaster under Bush. Obama is "blessed" with a gift of easily deciving people.

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I found it hilarious that people i knew here in Ireland were throwing 'election parties' when he won. Its with no small measure of smugness i read threads like this and think 'i was right from the beginning, i knew he wouldnt change a damn thing'.
Still he got that nobel peace prize, eh?

It's crazy alright.

It was nothing to do with him being black

MarkR

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Lets not be fooled. We all know the whole Iran issue has nothing to do with global security. It’s about Israel. If Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons it nullifies the nuclear weapons of Israel. Israel won’t be able to act with impunity anymore. It won’t be able to attack , bomb and kill at will.

The next country to use a nuclear weapon in anger will be Israel. Of that I am positive. They have demonstrated again and again that they couldn’t care less about anybody outside their borders (true doubly so for Muslims). I fear Obama will facilitate it by isolating and vilifying Iran. Israel has itchy trigger figures.

I can't see how Isreal and Iran having Nuclear weapons would make anything better.

Pacing Mule

pickarooney wrote: »

Now, I don't want to insinuate that you're completely and utterly clueless, but are you aware that Hilary Clinton is not, in fact, the vice-president of the United States?

I was about to post something similar but I was probably going to insinuate.

enda1

The Turks aren't Arabs OP.

There are some Arab's in Turkey (some Turk's are Arabs) but the nation is not nor are its majority.

IvySlayer

How Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize was a ****ing joke. I hate people pointing out that he reduced the number of nuclear weapons. Bull****, it was cheaper to get rid of them. They still have about 5,000.

Get rid of them all Barack, then I'll praise you.

Sanjuro

As The Who once said- 'meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.'

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

What? One good post balanced with one crap post?

Oooh, techy, Aids - who pissed in your buttermilk..?

My point being: the president of the United States is always going to be high on the list of most likely to oversee the use of a neuclear weapon, regardless of who holds office. McCain likes his wars. The Republcans, generally speaking I know, like wars. In theory, he'd be more likley to fire first, ask questions later.

US-Palestinian/Isreali relations would probably be much the same under McCain becaue money talks? Do you think McCain is less likley to fire a nuke than Obama?

Or Palin for that matter?

toiletduck

IvySlayer wrote: »

How Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize was a ****ing joke. I hate people pointing out that he reduced the number of nuclear weapons. Bull****, it was cheaper to get rid of them. They still have about 5,000.

Yeah, not to mention that Bush didn't get one for reducing the US's stockpile of nukes in half :pac:

SV

I like Obama, I like Israel.


couldn't have worked out any better for me.

orourkeda

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Whereas McCain would have been a completely safe bet for planet safety...? Gimme a break!

Even slagging off John McCain doesnt take away from the fact that the american people have again allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by a fraud president.

orourkeda

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I love how people just assumed he would bring about a total change and bring about world peace and end hunger before ascending christ-like back to the heavens jsut because he was Black.
I found it hilarious that people i knew here in Ireland were throwing 'election parties' when he won. Its with no small measure of smugness i read threads like this and think 'i was right from the beginning, i knew he wouldnt change a damn thing'.
Still he got that nobel peace prize, eh?

Election parties. That has to be the most obnoxious thing I've ever heard.

The peace prize has to be the most bizarre decision of the 21st century.

What if anything did he ever do to merit election to the worlds most powerful political office. Little if anything. He's a fraud and has been from the very start.

When people say that they thought he was going to change the world I wonder what exactly they based this notion on.

orourkeda

Karla Many Schoolmaster wrote: »

Scaremongering and saber rattling is all this is. Speculate much?

What is scaremongering?

The U.S president isnt what he was cracked up to be. Thats a fact not scaremongering.

Smcgie

The US is a regimental military run country.

The Iraq war was about energy security for the US.
The BP oil spill bashing is leading to us investment banks making a fortune shorting BP.
Obama is a puppet - simples

Myrddin

Its pathetic amusing watching us Irish complaining about the politicians of another country. If we had anyone even remotely like any president of the states in the last hundred years - it would be a massive jump in the standard of Irish politics.

FUNKY LOVER

i suggest if you get a bit of time watch this.

Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

orourkeda wrote: »

Even slagging off John McCain doesnt take away from the fact that the american people have again allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by a fraud president.

Not salgging him off, just saying he'd more defense/attack orietnated than Obama.

As regards the hoodwinking - well it IS America. Remeber the Simpsons pisstake with Kang and Kodos unning for presiedent?

MarkR

MarkR wrote: »

I can't see how Isreal and Iran having Nuclear weapons would make anything better.

You cant see how both countries having them is better than one?!
Nuclear weapons are the biggest safeguard against war the world has ever seen.. Since they were dropped in world war 2, they've guaranteed peace between the superpowers and any two countries that have them.
They should get a Nobel Peace Prize as far I'm concerned since it forces countries into a stalemate by merely existing.

Carlos_Ray

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I love how people just assumed he would bring about a total change and bring about world peace and end hunger before ascending christ-like back to the heavens jsut because he was Black.
I found it hilarious that people i knew here in Ireland were throwing 'election parties' when he won. Its with no small measure of smugness i read threads like this and think 'i was right from the beginning, i knew he wouldnt change a damn thing'.
Still he got that nobel peace prize, eh?

I didn't expect him to make such drastic changes, however, I did expect him to bring Israel to heel. Since the second intifada Israel has basically turned into a rogue state and is, imo, the biggest security threat to the world.

Before the Iraq invasion, the Israeli lobby in the pentagon advocated using nuclear weapons on the country. They have continually stated their intention to bomb Iran. An idea that is becoming more and more accecptable to Americans thanks to their biased media. Obama infuriated me this week, by deflecting peoples attention away from Israel towards Iran. His intentions are clear, villify and isolate Iran before the much anticipated bombing campaign.

Americans learned from their mistakes in Afganistan and Iraq. They know an occupation of Iran is not feasible. A country with 60 million people. They will however sit back as Israel bomb it. I fear they'll use their nuclear weapons in order to achieve a quick and decisive victory. Obama will be an accomplice to mass murder.

Ikky Poo2

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oooh, techy, Aids - who pissed in your buttermilk..?

My point being: the president of the United States is always going to be high on the list of most likely to oversee the use of a neuclear weapon, regardless of who holds office. McCain likes his wars. The Republcans, generally speaking I know, like wars. In theory, he'd be more likley to fire first, ask questions later.

US-Palestinian/Isreali relations would probably be much the same under McCain becaue money talks? Do you think McCain is less likley to fire a nuke than Obama?

Or Palin for that matter?

That's not the issue in the slightest.. I'm not going to forgive his actions because his closest rival is just as bad. And you're in the wrong thread if you want to discuss Obama versus McCain.

MarkR

Deleted User wrote: »

You cant see how both countries having them is better than one?!
Nuclear weapons are the biggest safeguard against war the world has ever seen.. Since they were dropped in world war 2, they've guaranteed peace between the superpowers and any two countries that have them.
They should get a Nobel Peace Prize as far I'm concerned since it forces countries into a stalemate by merely existing.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't trust any country to retain them. I know they say that it is a deterrent, but that doesn't hold true unless they are actually going to use it at some stage.

Currently there is more leaning towards smaller, tactical nuclear weapons. These are intended as a more likely deterrent against "rogue states"

If more countries have these, then there is more chance of one being set off. Once one is set off, then it's a slippery slope.

You can't nuke someone a little. Iran shouldn't have them. Israel shouldn't have them. We'd all be better off without them tbh.

What scenario can you think when setting off a nuke would be a good thing to do today?

If there is no good scenario, then they are pointless threats to humanity.

who what when

SV wrote: »

I like Obama, I like Israel.


couldn't have worked out any better for me.

Me too, thought i was the only one

MarkR

MarkR wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't trust any country to retain them. I know they say that it is a deterrent, but that doesn't hold true unless they are actually going to use it at some stage.

Currently there is more leaning towards smaller, tactical nuclear weapons. These are intended as a more likely deterrent against "rogue states"

If more countries have these, then there is more chance of one being set off. Once one is set off, then it's a slippery slope.

You can't nuke someone a little. Iran shouldn't have them. Israel shouldn't have them. We'd all be better off without them tbh.

What scenario can you think when setting off a nuke would be a good thing to do today?

If there is no good scenario, then they are pointless threats to humanity.

I completely disagree.. The two World Wars killed about 80 million people. The two nuclear bombs killed about 140 thousand people.
You say they're a pointless threat to humanity while forgetting they're the sole reason the superpowers have not fought since.. I am not alone in thinking they have saved more lives than they have taken.
We could have easily had a third world war only for the fear of mutual destruction. Read up on Nash's Equilibrium and how it applies to nuclear weapons.

SV

who what when wrote: »

Me too, thought i was the only one

nah there's millions..never see em here though

dlofnep

I have to say - I was happy that Obama got elected. I too was deceived by his promises. His continued unyielding support for Israel is counter-productive to peace in the middle-east.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

anyone who thinks that the president of the USA has ANY say in the running of the USA must be seriously nieve

Selected

pickarooney wrote: »

Now, I don't want to insinuate that you're completely and utterly clueless, but are you aware that Hilary Clinton is not, in fact, the vice-president of the United States?

So what?

marcsignal wrote: »

The world would be a safer place without that menopausal wizened up old sow's finger on the button :eek:
She makes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look and sound like a gay hairdresser.

^
^
That was class.:D