world

Iran: Obama seems more rational than McCain

97 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

97 Comments
Login to comment

Yeah, complain because this statement came from Iran.

Most other countries have expressed the very same sentiment. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True adaydream.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran supporting Obama? Who'da thunk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone can see that Obama is more rational than McCain. Even Iran's leaders. They just joined an alread very long list of people who can clearly see that fact.

What they didn't say is that McCain looks more senile and Palin, well... no one can really bring themselves to look at her anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most other countries have expressed the very same sentiment

True, however, Al-Qaeda linked website is suppoting McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another endorsement Obama probably did not want. Well, we cannot pick and choose who supports us. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran supports Obama. The PLO supports Obama. Al Qaeda supports Obama. Socialist Eupopean leaders support Obama. Therefore, I oppose Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, Wolfpack. Better to just make enemies with everyone and show them the true power of America!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Better to just make enemies with everyone and show them the true power of America!!

Yeah, heaven forbid we should make enemies of Hamas and Al Quaeda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I expected some of the drivel I have read when I saw the headline to this story.

You all want to know something else that Ali Larijani in all liklihood believes:

The earth is round.

I sure the neo-cons here could find fault with that too.

I just hope you all are ready to be on the wrong side of reality...again, come Nov.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mccain needs some anger management training before he goes anywhere near the White House, which he won't :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's good that our "enemies" are supporting our upcoming leader. This will lead to talks and reconcilation. This tough stance that Bush has taken has only made international relationships sour.

No matter the country, no matter the culture, people are people.

When you read a shocking statement in the news, remember the reporter decided to include that statement in his/her article. We have no way of knowing if that represents how everyone thinks.

Imagine if someone you disagreed with on this site represented your country to the other side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why on earth would the Iranian say that....at a time like this...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: When foreigners express support for an American candidate it makes it more difficult for him to get elected. Please stop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hey wolfy, helter

I hear a few americans as support obama & think he is the more rational of the 2, that make them enemies as well, if so then the majority of americans are your enemies, best watch yr backs!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Al Qaeda supports Obama."

Wolfpack, you got this one completely wrong. The Washington Post and a number of other papers have reported that a key website used by Al Qaeda states that Al Qaeda supports McCain, not Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think the Iranians and the Ubited States will ever be bosom buddies, but there's no reason to write them off. They have made advances in trying to get conversations before and george bush brushed them off like sweat.

Remember they do have a whole lot of oil, they are talking to Russia and Qatar about an oil cartel. We need to remember that. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How did I know that when I came on here and saw the headline that the righties would come no here in droves, drooling and writing, "Oh, well, guffaw Iran supports Obama, therefore Obama is a terrorist and/or will lead our country to disaster!" or something tantamount to such rubbish.

Saying 'Obama is more rational than McCain' does not, first and foremost, make Iran a friend or supporter of Obama. Secondly, even if they DO 'support' Obama, why on earth is this a bad thing?? Being someone's enemy is FAR worse than being neutral or even possibly liking them. When Obama is elected he'll open up the dialogue he promised instead of the war McCain wants, which could lead to more transparency with regards to Iran's nuclear program, and averting further crises started up by GWB in the ME.

Finally, this is not rocket science; anyone who CAN'T see that Obama is more rational than McCain probably also can't distinguish between human being and a street pole.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's the old adage ..."Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"? The opposite approach, heralded by Bush and Cheney, sure has not worked. Or are those thousands of cetrifuges Iran is operating and the missles NK keeps lobbing into the ocean simply signs of friendship?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack. I love your reasoning. See I think Fidel Castro likes life and food and water. Putin likes life, food, water. Even a liberal like me likes life, food and water. So are you going to say you don't like life, food and water now?

Just because some people you don't agree with dislike Obama does not mean he is bad choice. On the contrary. It means even people with distorted views and see the global benefit of a president in the US who is not a complete moron.

The world is saying "We are ready to work with an intelligent, proactive American president.' We should be terribly happy about that. Imagine the progress we can make with the economy with diplomatic doors wide open. Or conflicts we can avoid or resolve with people trusting in our leadership again.

Hope is here my friend. Being contrary won't prevent it. You may as well join in the winning side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taikan, Here's the rub. If the terrorists say they support Obama, it's because (according to our neo-cons) they know candidate mccain will hunt them down and kill them (the terrorists) if elected. If the terrorists say they support candidate mccain (again, in neo-con world), it's not because the global war on terror has been a great recruitment tool for them and given a voice to their cause. No, it's because they know that if the terrorists say they support candidate mccain, the "liberal media," "liberal academics" and your "liberal goldfish" will support candidate mccain because liberals secretly love terrorists.

Neo-con "logic." Ain't it grand! ;-)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ishihara makes his first intelligent remarks. The mullahs in Iran make their first intelligent remarks. Wow, maybe George W Bush will be next. I'm going to hold my breath though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

now that's a ringing endorsement!

not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the end all we know is that that the Iranian gov't hates George Bush and his party. "All they have is their hatred."

Why, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the mullahs and the jihadis running imperialist Iran even refuse to capitalize the names of their American and Israeli enemies :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wolfpak: Actually, Al-Qaeda suppports McCain. http://tinyurl.com/6gfcfd

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's see. Obama says he's willing to have talks with Iran, and McCain says he wants to bomb,baby,bomb Iran and supports sending cigarrettes to Iran as another way to kill them. If I was Iranian, I would say Obama seems more rational.

Meanwhile as Taikan said, according to the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and the CIA, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda support McCain because they see him continuing Bush's failed policies of attacking Iraq where Al Qaeda isn't; to the demise of the American military and the economic ruin of the country. They propose aiding him by making an attack against U.S. interests just before the election in order to help McCain get elected.

If Bin Laden likes McCain, It would seem that it would be better to vote for Obama unless you want to support terrorists like Al Qaeda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Rational' to an Islamic supremacist means that the infidel in question is someone they believe agrees with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Rational' to an Islamic supremacist means that the infidel in question is someone they believe agrees with them.

Tell me, where is this door to your fear factory?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who really cares what Iran thinks? Only Americans are voting in these elections. So it really only matters what Americans think.

So far the polls are indicating that Barack Obama will be beating the pants off John McCain.

Maybe the Iranians are backing the side that they feel is going to win because they want to be in good light with the winner. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulraphobic. How dull your black and white view world must be.

Come on. There are very few all black comic book evil people in the world. How much propaganda have you swallowed?

It is reasonable to think that people around the world have judged our current poor leadership for what they have been... dangerous, unreasonable and a threat to global peace. After all we have started two of the worlds worst ongoing wars.

Sure the leadership of some countries are a bit crazy. But it is arguable that GWB is no less a fanatic than the president of Iran.

Don't paint a colorful world in black and white. Some people are saying they want Obama because they are ready to start negotiating and putting an end to some of this conflict.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its difficult to imagine a presidential candidate that would be less sane than the one (McCain) who was singing "bomb bomb Iran". Obama is not much better, but having an unstable man like McCain as president is scary, especially with a clueless vice-president like Palin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure Obama will be honored and humbled by tis endorsment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure Obama will be honored and humbled by tis endorsment.

Ah the scared version toned down. Let's go to war with Iran as well, and then bitch about possible higher taxes on the very small percentage of businesses making more than 250k a year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm quite sure when President Obama goes to Iran and sits down to talk with the Iranian mis-leaders, peace will break out all over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm quite sure when President Obama goes to Iran and sits down to talk with the Iranian mis-leaders, peace will break out all over.

Well that's a rather simple view of things, but it would be nice yes. Good to see you being a bit more positive though, and dwelling less in fear and hate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Well that's a rather simple view of things"

Unfortunately, that's the view of Democrats/liberals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Well that's a rather simple view of things"

Unfortunately, that's the view of Democrats/liberals.

Well that's a rather simple view of things...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unfortunately, that's the view of Democrats/liberals.

Unfortunately, that's the view of Republicans.

You think America can afford another war? Job losses for 2008 are now over 750,000. Please continue to run the US into the ground with your fearmongering.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Unfortunately, that's the view of Republicans."

Republicans don't approve of, without pre-conditions, sitting down across the table with a terrorist-supporter who has called Israel a 'stinking corpse' and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, legitimizing those comments. That's dangerous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans don't approve of, without pre-conditions, sitting down across the table with a terrorist-supporter who has called Israel a 'stinking corpse' and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, legitimizing those comments. That's dangerous.

Sarge, are you saying that, with certain pre-conditions, Republicans would approve of sitting down across the table with a terrorist-supporter who has called Israel a 'stinking corpse' and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. But Obama would do it without pre-conditions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 11:26 AM JST - 23rd October "Well that's a rather simple view of things" Unfortunately, that's the view of Democrats/liberals.

Says the guy with the complexity of a popsicle stick.

Sarge, you have utterly failed to notice how miserably your posts fail to persuade even the simple minded on these forums. Yet, somehow, you seem to believe you possess an ability to see the truth the rest of us lack.

Everyone thinks their opinions are "right," that's why they have them. The difference is how they play out in the real world. Explaining your position in an adult manner, as well as being able to persuade those you engage in to your viewpoint, are ways of showing validity.

How's that working for ya?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. But Obama would do it without pre-conditions.

What are those pre-conditions Sarge?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We need to change our tactics in the ME, as the current ones aren't working. Osama Bin Laden has NOT been found. With the diplomatic support of the ME, it would definitely be easier to find him and bring him to justice. Talks with these leaders may in fact prevent more lost lives. Making enemies of them and keeping our troops engaged in a 100 year war that McCain once suggested WILL without a doubt lead to more of our boys and girls dying. Don't you think that we owe it to our troops to at least see if this can be resolved without more bloodshed? Or are thier lives not important enough?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: If you like war so much why are you here and not in Iraq or Afghanistan standing by your belief system?

Look your average American is hurting now. Prices are up, jobs are dropping off and people are worried. We can't pay to send our kids to college because the prices are out of this world. Their kids are off dying in nations we didn't need to go to war with. And they are worried about the future.

And your short sighted notion is to keep up tension and go to war with Iran. Brilliant!!! Who will pay for that. Who will die for such thinking?

Sitting down and talking with Iran is a hell of a lot cheaper than going to war with them. And it is thousands of times more likely to result in something positive.

Talking shows that we are a nation of peace and diplomacy. It does not take force off the table. Nor does it suggest weakness. On the contrary it shows confidence, power and foresight.

It is time for a change from the primative rock banging ideologies of the Republicans. We cannot afford your dim visions and leadership any more. It is time for inspired and intelligent leadership. And that means we take things over and sort our your messes for you until you learn from your mistakes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran supporting Obama? Who'da thunk.

That seems to me to be an example of the kind of irrationality that Larijani was talking about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Iranians have been in talks with the our most important allies for over 6 or so years now trying to broker some sort of diplomatic solution to their nuclear ambitions.

Everyone here knows that. To say diplomancy hasn't been tried is a false statement. Our allies with consultations with the U.S have tried just about everything you can think of to resolve and modify Iranian international behavior. Both the carrot and the stick. The Iranians are now under their third set of U.N sanctions. Their third! They have not modified their position or shown any inclination that they are responsive to any sort of compromise in their extreme position. They do see Obama as a better chance to get what they really want. To be the dominate power in the Middle East and to be able to control the oil wealth flowing from the gulf to further their goals. They already have their pre-conditions, it's we aren't going to compromise on anything until we get what we want. Third set of U.N sanctions pretty much shows how entrenched they are with that position.

That is reality is no amount of "Kumbaya" diplomancy is going to change Iranian behavior. Our policy is and should be containment of Iranian ambitions though carrots and sticks and working closely with our allies in Europe, Asia and in the Middle east so as not to even further de-stabilize the region. The pre-conditions for any further diplomancy is when Iran shows a real modification to it's international behavior. A good place to start would be get rid of the Death to America chant after Friday prayers they've been doing for the thirty years. The region is pretty messed up as it is now, last thing it needs is an Iranian free hand to add to the mix.

I think left or right could all agree on my last sentence here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look we got ourselves all worked up thinking Sadam had WMDs. Why can't we look at Iran's program with and eye upon interaction to help them achieve and pay for their energy needs while assuring that they do not develop weapons? That is the right approach.

I work with Iran quite a bit and the average Joe there just wants to get on with business and life. We have made mistakes that alienated Iran before and that just empowered the regime. What we need to do to change things there is to start making business people more money. They will demand change to make even more money. And that is the ONLY way to bring down their poor leaders without another Vietnam like war.

No one is talking about Kumbaya Sailwind. We are talking about viable diplomatic strategy. One that will work. As opposed to the right's naive notions of war with Iran.

Enough with war already.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tknoid, TJOP, Lieutenant: Excellent, excellent posts. You bash sarge's arguments to shreds not at all by insulting his character, but by pointing out the lack of logic in his thinking and poor arguments. What's more, you turn your comments from that into positive and insightful methods of potentially making progress with Iran -- which is the essence of any good argument. You don't simply say, "That's the logic of democrats/liberals or republicans" (although you did in mockery earlier), you back up WHY you think what you said is true/good, using excellent and well thought out statements. Kudos. Methinks sarge will quietly 'disappear' from this thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "I think left or right could all agree on my last sentence here."

Not at all! What we need is less ignorance like in your last statement, which is more of the same bombast that has led to things getting 'all messed up' and is very much like the thinking of what you pretend to condemn itself (I'm sure Iran could just as easily be saying, "The last thing we need is a free US hand in here...").

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Leftists crave Dhimmitude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran endorsing Obama? Not a huge surprise. A fascist state supporting a fascist dictator-like candidate who will overwhelmingly socialize the U.S.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind - I agree with this much, The region is pretty messed up as it is now

What harm does it do to talk? It's a lot cheaper than one of those guided missiles with their movie cameras and now with sound and scratch and sniff. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OOOOOOOO somebody sounds really scared that Barack Obama will be our next president. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MPNiea: "A fascist state supporting a fascist dictator-like..."

Explain to us, please, how Obama is a fascist. I don't think you even know what the word means -- you just shout it out because you don't like Obama and have bought into the rhetoric that BECAUSE you don't like Obama he somehow represents socialism... or in your case something even more bombastic.

Again, you have no idea what fascism means, and haven't the slightest clue that George Bush fits the bill of 'fascist' more than any other president in history before him, and that of Obama and McCain, the latter is the one who would carry on the torch and strip you Americans of more of your liberties while seeking power, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: No one is talking about Kumbaya Sailwind. We are talking about viable diplomatic strategy. One that will work. As opposed to the right's naive notions of war with Iran. Enough with war already.

I think you missed sailwind's point, tokind. He very intelligently spelled out the US's position and the world's position regarding Iran. The US and our allies have been working with Iran to find a diplomatic solution using both sticks and carrots for the last 6 years. Iran hasn't budged.

You sum up the current situation as "Enough with war already." How on earth could that statement possibly apply to what's happened with Iran? It's the complete and utter opposite of reality. It would be like me saying that diplomacy in Iraq has failed since 2003 so we really need to change things up and introduce military action.

The fact is that diplomacy is failing with Iran so you just pretend it hasn't started yet. You don't want to soil the reputation of diplomacy while the other side has been slapping you in the face with it for years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

daydream: What harm does it do to talk?

It doesn't. And that's why I support Obama talking to Iran.

But what most people hear the word "talk" and think things end there. They don't. Obama has said numerous times (including once in the debates) that he supports talking to Iran as a way to bolster international credibility, and if Iran doesn't budge then that credibility can be used to enforce even stricter measures than those already in place.

So let me ask you this....if direct dialogue with Iran fails, are you prepared for even tougher sanctions? Because that's one very possible result with Obama's platform. If you don't accept that then you don't in fact support Obama's position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet another terror-supporting regime endorses Barack Obama! Should we be surprised?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - The US and our allies have been working with Iran to find a diplomatic solution using both sticks and carrots for the last 6 years. Iran hasn't budged.

What do you want?

What won't they do for the US? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

I'm not sure that it is correct to say that we (or our European friends) tried everything possible in negotiations with Iran.

If we ever tried to negotiate with Iran without the pre-condition that it stop enrichment during negotiations, I don't remember it offhand. I do remember that Iran voluntarily suspended nuclear activity and we didn't get anywhere because we insisted that it permanently give up this activity. Then Iran resumed.

And we certainly have never tried to negotiate with Iran with any consideration that we would allow it to exploit its own nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. I can understand the concern that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon. But under an agreement subject to a rigorous program of verification I question the inevitability of that development and I have even greater question about the danger of it.

Our policy of carrots and sticks has really not worked. This is possibly because the carrots are past their expiry date and the sticks are rotten. We don't need the carrots and Iran doesn't want them. But up to this point, the sticks and the carrots are in balance. Offering the same carrots with more sturdy sticks might seem to be an answer, but to me it only seems to guarantee that someone is going to be hurt with the stick.

To be a successful negotiator you have to be prepared to give up what you want but don't need in order reach agreement with someone who may genuinely need it. Of course the same is true of Iran. That is what we point to when we say, "But look! Iran doesn't need to process the fuel. We'll give it to them." But that overlooks that what Iran may need is not the fuel, but the independence from others--an independence that it can achieve if it is only left alone to do so.

We need to rethink the way to prevent other countries from developing or having nuclear weapons. And one thing that we have not been open to is drawing down our own nuclear weapons or abandoning attempts to make them more reliable and more lethal. So, no, I don't think we've tried everything. We've only tried to get what we want while giving up nothing of value.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And one thing that we have not been open to is drawing down our own nuclear weapons

Yes. If we abandon our nuclear weapons program and set an example, I'm sure Iran will follow. Good call.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The diplomatic approach so far has been highly adversarial. Especially on the part of the US. If a different tact is taken, the chances of improvement are certainly there.

Again, I am not saying take force entirely off the table. And I am not ruling our stronger measures. But I AM defending Obama's idea that more effort can be made on the diplomatic front and that it may be very possible to resolve things.

Think about this. Had we been unwilling to talk things through during the Cuban missile crisis would any of us be here today? The intelligence of that administration to learn about and arrive at the right conclusions about Soviet motivation and thinking in that crisis saved the world from nuclear destruction.

The same capacity for thinking is needed with Iran. Their motivations make a lot of sense if you look at where they were pre-Iraq war and where they are today. It also makes sense to simply buy time. Pre-Iraq war the democracy movement in Iran was gaining momentum. But our war put the nation on alert and has reversed most of that progress.

If we want long term positive change in Iran, we need to see the regime change towards greater global interation and the empowering strength that will bring to the democracy movement.

It will take patience and confidence in the outcome. Iran is not N.Korea, it is a far more rational state publicly. So if progress can be made with N.Korea, it can certainly be made with Iran. But it will not happen over night and it will not be 100% on our terms. This is where diplomacy will work.

War will give you another Iraq/Afghanistan to deal with. And the US military CAN NOT HANDLE this. Nor can our economy. Like it or not. Talking is all you have!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter Skelter,

Good call.

Bad read.

Iran doesn't have any known nuclear weapons program. We do. If they have none at all and continue to have none, we would be following if we abandoned. If Iran does have a program, the mere fact that we abandoned further development might not persuade them to do likewise as we would still have a rather formidable nuclear arsenal. However, if we were willing to accelerate the stalled reduction of nuclear arms in an open manner, there is no reason to think that Iran's position would remain intractable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like it or not. Talking is all you have!" true, very true, but how do you talk to a government like that of Iran? It should be known, perhaps you are still too young, but Iran has declared war on the US a long time ago. If I was to say that a precondition to talk to them was that the talk would be one of peace, many here on JT would call for my head to be cut.

I don't think it was right for the US media to even let this info out. It does not help Obama, even though he is going to win, it just makes matter worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

daydream: What won't they do for the US? < :-)

How about full disclosure of their 30-year old clandestine nuclear program for starters, plus cooperation with the IAEA regarding inspections?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The diplomatic approach so far has been highly adversarial. Especially on the part of the US.

Can you tell me what requirements, if any, you have for Iran?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Scenario 1:

Obama: Greetings, Mr. President, it's a pleasure to...

Ahmadinejad: Death to America!

Obama: Mr. President, with your permission, I'd like to talk about that...

Scenario 2:

McCain: Stop your nuclear weapons program and stop inciting unrest in Iraq, and I'll consider letting you live.

Ahmadinejad: Done!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

Your Scenario 2 is the part that Bush has been acting out ever since the Axis of Evil. Why would the Iranians be more afraid of McCain except for his temperamental instability?

Talking is good. Bombing is bad. Winston Churchill--better to jaw-jaw than war-war. Of course you have to be British to get that right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

The requirements you suggest seem reasonable--disclosure and inspections. They seem reasonable because that's what we want. But I think we should also look at what we are prepared to give up. And I think the answer to that is: very little.

I don't think many people want any country to have more nuclear weapons, Iran included. And I am one of them. However, nuclear technology is a different thing altogether.

I think, from Iran's point of view, the question is whether the US will agree to stop contesting Iran's right to nuclear technology if Iran makes full disclosure and allows unfettered inspections. I think that question has really already been answered by this administration. And I think the answer was, "No."

Given that, I think that Iran is would have to ask whether there are any conditions under which the United States will stop contesting Iran's right to this technology. That answer also appears to have been, "No." Given that, what is the benefit of Iran's cooperation? avoiding the sticks that will supposedly beat down on them for not following a chain of compliances which lead to a result it does not want?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It has come to the point I just read all the comments and laugh... First of all none of you know what will happen when the new president gets into office.. Either one of them is able to go to war, and both have said they will use force..

My god you would think half of you sleep with the candidates and hear them whispering in your ear all their plans at night... Talk is talk and I doubt either one can or will do any thing they promised, just like the rest of them that we have elected...

Thank you all for making me laugh today on such a horrid day as today is...

Funny as hell.....

Obama will blah blah blah.... McCain will blah blah blah..

Like any of you know what the hell they will or wont do......

LMAO

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sad, but not surprising to see the mccain campaign isn't about the issues any more - it is only about attacks on Obama's character - what a joke!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said Nippon 5

0 ( +0 / -0 )

8 questions follow.

Cast about the inner recesses of your mind and list the two (note 2) constitutional roles of the US vice president.

If you get them correct, award yourself 10 points. (Unless you are John McCain. Then award yourself say a couple hundred electoral votes cause you're soon going to be needing them.) If you don't get them correct, do not ask Sarah Palin because she only wants the job.

Moderator: Back on topic please. Posts that do not refer to Iran will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

Well, it's not exactly like they know what they will or won't do, either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well there's an endorsement. I'm going to run right out and vote for Obama because IRAN says he's rational? NOT!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm going to run right out and vote for Obama because IRAN says he's rational? NOT!

Take the car and vote drive-thru. You'll burn less calories that way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho2

Thats true... but it seems everyone else does know what they will do..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I were Iran I would certainly support a weakling who listened to anti-Jewish rhetoric for 20+ years from the pew in his church, especially when said weakling stated he would negotiate with our enemies with no preconditions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I were Iran I would certainly support the Next Coming of Jimmy Carter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - How about full disclosure of their 30-year old clandestine nuclear program for starters, plus cooperation with the IAEA regarding inspections?

I don't know whether any country, the US included, will open up their doors and books to any outside country to scrutinize their nuclear programs.

What we have to be concerned about is what are they doing right now. What are they capable of. What nuclear material to they have and what are they doing currently and the recent past.

I understand that the US won't allow any inspections of our nuclear arsenal and weapontry by any outside country or even the IAEA. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can someone explain to me why sitting down to talks with another country's leaders without preconditions is dangerous?

What, are we afraid they'll dine and dash?

Preconditions aren't the issue. It's POSTconditions that facilitate the need for the meetings in the first place.

To say, you have to achieve A) B) and C) for us to meet with you forgoes the need for a meeting in the first place other than to say, "Thanks for doing what we wanted. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out."

Yeah, it's great if it works but thanks to bush's cowboy diplomacy, it just won't work anymore, in my opinion.

It's applying 20th century thinking to a 21st century world. I thought conservatives were against that in regards to national defense.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

I don't know about you, but I haven't a clue as to what either Obama or McCain will do about Iran. Regardless of what they want to do, they will be constrained by what they can do.

For example, I'm not sure that Obama can sit immediately sit down to dinner with Ahmadinejad or urge a relaxing of sanctions. I'm not sure McCain can bomb Iran (at least I hope he can't) or get additional sanctions imposed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We need to get out of the middle east - NOW. We're broke. Flat-busted. McSame and Failin' are war mongers. If they get into office, I'm afraid more war will be what's for supper.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can someone explain to me why sitting down to talks with another country's leaders without preconditions is dangerous?

It lends credibility to leaders who might not deserve it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie,

Is it the lack of preconditions that lends credibility to a potentially undeserving leader or the meeting itself that may somewhat establish someone as a legitimate head of state?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: Why would the Iranians be more afraid of McCain except for his temperamental instability?

Because the Iranian people aren't happy with the way their government has been handling the nuclear situation. They don't like the confrontational approach that their own government has been supporting, and they surely don't like the sanctions that some feel Ahmadinejad has unnecessarily brought on themselves. They've backed themselves into a corner and McCain won't make that any easier.

Talking is good. Bombing is bad.

Last I checked Iran has been bombing Lebanon and Iraq, and giving support to those who bomb Israel, whereas Iran hasn't endured any bombings themselves. How about giving Iran the same lecture? Is it because you're afraid to use such language with them? Are you afraid of doing anything but kissing their rear?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Given that, I think that Iran is would have to ask whether there are any conditions under which the United States will stop contesting Iran's right to this technology. That answer also appears to have been, "No."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the West offered to go in and help build the technology for them. Iran declined. Then Russia offered to build the same technology for them. Iran again declined. The fact is that Iran could have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and could even have some of that paid for by the West. So to tell us that Iran just wants the technology and the West (or as you say, the US) wont' allow them to have it isn't giving a full picture of the situation, in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe firmly that Obama and his wife, deep in their hearts, hate this country. He's Muslim and a quarter Arab. Probably both suffered some discrimination in their younger years. I believe he wants to turn us over the the Arabian nations.

McCain is an extention of G. Bush. I wouldn't vote for either of these two. I'll never vote for anyone who appears on SNL. Buncha cavalier clowns; no dignity; no right to sit in the Oval office.

I was born under Herbert Hoove and have seen only about 5 dignified presidents in my time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Addendum: Forgot to mention Iran. I think that toad and Barack are brothers under the skin. He's the last leader in the ME that I would want to talk logic with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It lends credibility to leaders who might not deserve it.

Exactly. I see no value in having talks with a fundamentalist Islamic regime that sponsors holocaust-denial meetings and invites neo-Nazi David Duke as a keynote speaker. What a sorry site it would be to see Obama and Ahmadinejad embracing each other on the White House lawn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

In regard to why the Iranians would be more afraid of McCain, you are conflating the Iranian government and the Iranian people. For example, the Americans (people) do not like the war in Iraq but the Americans (the members of the government) blithely continue it. I was talking about the Iranian government and I actually think that it was pretty clear that I was talking about governments reacting to governments. If you wish to invoke the sentiments of the Iranian people or some subset of them, then I think you need to explain how the feelings of the people will engender more fear of McCain on the part of the government.

Last I checked Iran was bombing neither Lebanon nor Iraq. It (or some portion of it) is giving support to those who attack Israel. I don't think I have any trouble telling Iran that talking is good and bombing is bad. However, it is not my fundamental concern here what Iran should do. My fundamental concern is what the US should do given that Iran is what it is. You call my attitude arse-kissing. I call yours one of argumentation by denigration.

You've missed the point about technology. Yes, the West and the Russians offered to go in and build the technology for them. I think that if you look back you will see that I covered that in my earlier post when I talked about what we thought we were willing to give and what they thought they needed. If what they need is independence from the West and from Russia and if they have the means to achieve it, then our offer of "giving" them the technology and making them dependent upon us is meaningless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because the leaders of Iran are taking a position that's unpopular with their people. With McCain I think we'll see more calls for isolation, sanctions, etc, and I think that in turn will increase the Iranian people's discomfort with their government, and at some point the Iranian government is going to have to account for that.

However, it is not my fundamental concern here what Iran should do.

Then when I speak with you it will no longer be my concern what the West (or, in your eyes, just the US) should do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is it the lack of preconditions that lends credibility to a potentially undeserving leader or the meeting itself that may somewhat establish someone as a legitimate head of state?

There's no general principle you can apply. In some cases, meeting without preconditions can be productive. In other cases, a country can use meetings as a bad-faith opportunity to make unreasonable demands and then claim the higher moral ground: "Look, we bent over backwards, but our counterpart is being unreasonable." This is particularly true for countries with strong control over the media.

Much of politics is theater. Sometimes you want to give another country some stage time. Other times you don't. Meetings with countries that have legitimate governments legitimate the governments of countries with less legtimate governments.

For example, do you think it would be good idea for Japan to agree to unconditional high-level meetings with the SLORC junta in Myanmar at a time that the junta felt unstable?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahmedineja joins Hollywood, Hamas, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chaves in endorsing the Obamessiah. No surprise there, really.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

I think you are correct that the leaders of Iran are taking a position that is unpopular with their people. However, I'm not sure that either one of us know exactly how that position is unpopular. At least I do not.

The Iranian people seem to be concerned that the government's stance is making their lives more difficult. However, do the people actually want to be beholden to the West or to Russian for nuclear technology? Do the people actually want the West or Russia to dictate the terms under which the Iranian people can exploit their own scientific and technical abilities? Would the people actually want their government to comply with a McCain tough-guy act?

I won't say that you are guilty of the following because I can't remember, but I sometimes think that people want to have things both ways in regard to Iran. Quantum theory aside, either the Iranian people wish death to America, wish to remove Israel and Jews from the face of the earth and wish for an opportunity to attack or they don't really want the ability to develop their own technology even for peaceful purposes if it's going to cause hardship. I find these two characterizations of the Iranian people difficult to reconcile but I know there is a lot about Iran that I don't know.

I know a lot more about my own country. And I have certain opinions about what my country should be doing vis-a-vis Iran as it exists today. There are things that I think we should be doing without regard to what Iran is doing. One of these is talk. So when I say that it is better to talk than to make war and you ask me why I am not calling for an end to Iran's support of Hezbollah, that really strikes me as irrelevant.

It actually would be a great relief to me if you would no longer concern yourself with what the West (or with your attempts to mind-read what "the West" is in my eyes) should do or with my opinion of what the West should do. Most of all, however, it would be a great relief if you would no longer concern yourself with your opinion of me on account of my opinion of what the West should do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama more rational? His religiosity is freakin me out. This guy is delusional.

"I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

Barrack Obama Oct 8 2008

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic,

Is that religiosity? Or is that a case of using someone else's language to make a point about the need to do things now instead of waiting for The Great Hereafter?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites