Obama rattling the saber against Iran,

[MadHound]

While Obama's speech yesterday was filled with the usual platitudes and pontifications, one thing definitely stuck out, a not so veiled threat against Iran.
"Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

So let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited.

We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace.

Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

That's why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that's why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-2012-address-to-un-general-assembly-full-text/2012/09/25/70bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story_4.html

Did you get that last part? "The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." No qualifiers, no hesitation, Obama is ready to take this country into war over the issue of Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

First of all, Iran is nowhere close to getting a nuclear weapon. They've enriched uranium to twenty percent, that's it, and uranium that is twenty percent enriched simply isn't good enough for a weapon. At best what Iran has is fuel that is perfectly suitable for manufacture of radiopharmaceuticals, something they have stated they want to do.

Second of all, who are we to say which countries can have nukes and which can't. Given the fact that Iran is surrounded on all sides by US bases, considering the madman in charge of Israel, yeah, I think if I were Iran, I'd want to have a nuke in my arsenal, just to make belligerent countries think twice.

Third, going to war with Iran is utterly insane. It won't be walk-over like Iraq, Iran has a real army that will cause extensive damage to our forces. It will cost lots of lives and lots of money, money that we simply don't have. A large part of the reason that we're in the economic shape we're in is because we've squandered our wealth on imperial adventures abroad rather than caring for our own at home. Do we really need to go further down that path.

Fourth, and probably the most discouraging. In this an election year, we have two candidates for office rattling their sabers at Iran. That's one hell of a choice to make, don't you think?

[teddy51]

1. And, did Israel sign a NPT that I somehow missed? I don't be thinking so!

[Vattel]

2. I certainly agree with some of what you say.

I am against any military action in Iran and we have two candidates who are apparently willing to go to war in Iran to ensure that Iran doesn't get any closer to getting a nuclear weapon. But are we really talking about the sort of war that would result in major combat? Unless we go for regime change, wouldn't war there mean mostly air attacks on specific locations related to uranium enrichment and such? And why would that "cause extensive damage to our forces?" These questions are genuine, because I really don't know what setting back Iran's enrichment program would require.

[teddy51]

5. Because Iran and it's friends are not likely to stand idly by well some country's bomb the shit

out of them. They have a very large standing army, with a large assortment of weapons.

[Vattel]

9. But do they have the anti-aircraft capability to inflict serious damage on our forces?

[teddy51]

10. That I don't know, but as we do know Iran is not opposed to using suicide bombers

in their arsenal which could be very devastating if unleashed in small boats against our fleet.

[Erose999]

84. Is there proof that IRAN is using suicide bombers? I mean we've seen them in Iraq and Afghanistan,

but is there concrete proof that there are suicide bombers are acting with sanction/aid of the Iranian government/military? Or are these set up by terrorist organizations that aren't connected to the Iranian gov't?

[Scootaloo]

90. Depends on what you mean by "suicide bomber."

if you mean "dude walks into a place and blows himself up," well, hezbollah started that fad, and htye do have acknowledged links with Iran.

If you mean "suicidal military attack," Iran was using human wave tactics and kamikaze-style flights against Iraq towards the close of the Iraq-Iran War.

Speaking of which... folks drumming for this war need to look back at that one. Any notion that Iran is just going to lay down and take it, is going to prove more mistaken than believing Iraq was going to do the same.

[loli phabay]

95. human waves would just be chewed up by a modern military

Any aircraft that even made it into the air after stealth attacks would be turkeys up against cap. One thing the us military and the israelis are good at is putting ordinance on stuff.

[Scootaloo]

96. They would be. And they were.

Still scared the living shit out of the Republican Guard at the time.

And if you want to commit a sneak attack - don't beat around the fucking bush, it'd be a sneak attack - you don't broadcast your intnet day after day.

And yes, the US and Israeli military are very good at putting ordinance on stuff. Just ask Afghan wedding-goers and Beirut Apartment-dwellers. The tricky part seems to be putting ordinance on things that are valid targets...

[loli phabay]

97. bit hard to do a sneak attack with human waves

A modern military would use stand off weapons on any concentrations of troops before there was any contact. Every mountain pass would become a chokepoint if the iraniannarmy tried to move. To compare the iraqui republican guard to a modern army is ludracious they were annihalated when they came up against the forces of the western militarys. In a straight up shooting match the iranian losses would be extreme to say the least. Now their irregular militias and sponsored terror groups would be a different kettle of fish unless you went total war or beheaded the regime before any serious shooting started.

[Scootaloo]

98. I really ought to be paid to tutor...

1) Sneak attack was referring to your "stealth attack."

2) History, goddamn it. During the Iraq-iran war, the Iraqi military was the most powerful and modern armed force in the region; Saint Reagan saw to that. In fact the size and power of this Arabist military is the major reason that Israel supported IRAN during that war. yeah, just like they funded and supported Hamas as a counter to the PLO, they shipped weapons and intelligence to Tehran during the 80's.

3) a large portion if Iraq's land forces were annihilated by Coalition forces in 1991, during their retreat from Kuwait along highway 80. It could legitimately be called a massacre, since even though they were the belligerent force, they were in retreat and were not returning fire. it was ten hours of US armed forces shooting a barrel of fish.

4) Twelve years later, iraqi forces did fold before the invading coalition, almost without a fight. Turns out twelve years of strict embargos and starvation sanctions don't improve military morale very much.

Now the thing with Iran is... They spent twelve years fighting against Iraq - pre-Kuwait Iraq. It was the longest war of the 20th century, and the third-deadliest after the World Wars. They were facing down a proxy military of the United States, that was heavily funded by Gulf kleptocracies, aided by European and Russian backers... And by the closing days of the war, it was Iran that was gaining ground, having taken Basra and Abadon. After most of their air and armor had been smashed by '85.

Point is... don't think that Iran is like the peasants that the nation you revere as god blows up and calls "War." We're not talking about ghetto kids with slingshots, we're talking a nation that will fight to the last scrap of flesh to keep foreign assholes away.

[loli phabay]

101. in 91 we saw what a modern military would do to a second world power

Thats exactly my point. Why do you think when we did the assault on the defence lines there was surrender en masse. It was due to the firepower that was used to soften the positions and the morale of conscripts. I have no idea why you think tbat the iranian army is any match for a modern multi faceted force. My point is that in the evnt of war tbe iranian regular forces would get chewed up and spat out if tbey even tried to move or form up from just the airpower alone. Yes many would fight to the death but you being massacred before you even make contact is not jow uou win wars. If anything recent events have sbown just how overwhelmingly more advanced and deadly western forces are when up against regular second or third world armys.

[Scootaloo]

102. I'm just saying don't underestimate them.

Being racist, stupid, knuckle-dragging, slavering, shit-for-brains, religiously fundamentalist fuckwads, the people who want war with Iran have trouble imagining that the Iranians might be able to put up a fight.

[Scootaloo]

77. They have the anti-ship capability...

To reduce the waters of the Straits of Hormuz to nothing but wreckage and a flaming oil slick. Do you like nine-dollar gas?

Such a strike will also mean either we have to sign on several mideast nations - committing them to a war they are not willing to fight... or we violate their airspace to launch an attack on a Muslim nation. I'm sure this will go well for everyone concerned. Either we suck them into a war... or we commit an act of war against them. neither Iraq nor Turkey - the main options for an overflight - are interested in attacking a major business partner. Saudi Arabia - option #2 might... But I would imagine that the King's head would be displayed on stakes by a jubilant crowd after he again gives free pass to infidels to use the land Mohammed tread to kill more of the ummah.

And yes, Iran has a pretty decent missile defense, and a competent air force. And it's not as if Israel or the US are being secretive, in all honesty.

And let's not ignore Iran's standing proxies in Syria and Lebanon. For that matter, we certainly can't ignore that both Russia and China have stated that they will not tolerate an attack on Iran.

So. Rather than asking yourself about Iran's air defense, maybe you should be wondering if this is worth a large regional conflict with potential to turn into the next fucking world war.

[spanone]

3. well if iran is nowhere close to getting a nuclear weapon, then we're not close to war.

unless romney wins.

that is one hell of an easy choice for me to make.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Support My President

.

[MadHound]

6. And that's the attitude that led directly to the escalation of the Vietnam War

Sorry, but I don't support any president who is taking an action that is foolish, or morally wrong.

[fujiyama]

66. There's no evidence he advocates military action

And all the saber rattling is done by Iran and Israel. Obama has also made it clear he's not BiBi's puppet either.

I'm not sure what more people on either side want or expect. Forceful speeches by the US is nothing new. The key is what goes on behind the scenes and Obama has built as good an international coalition as possible to press sanctions to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. That's diplomacy at work.

Hopefully Obama will show the cautious restraint he has shown and not get the US drawn into Israel's mess with Iran.

And guess what the alternative is? It's Mitt Romney and he will back Netanyahu 100%.

[MadHound]

78. Did you read the speech?

Here, I'll make it nice and concise for you, "And that's why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

That's not just a "forceful speech", that's a poorly veiled threat of violence and war.

Wake up and smell the gunpowder.

[Arkana]

86. No, actually, it's really not.

It's a platitude that elected officials use to indicate that they're going to do something. It's vague and nebulous for a reason.

Do you really think this administration WANTS war with Iran? Because if you do, you're just as thick as the rest of the "BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME!" crowd.

[sabrina 1]

74. Do you support a war with Iran and if so, why? Have they threatened the US? As far

as I know, that is the only reason for the US to go war, if it is threatened.

[cthulu2016]

7. Saber rattling is diplomacy.

[MadHound]

8. Saber rattling is what led us into Iraq.

Do you really want a repeat of that?

[loli phabay]

16. the current iranian regime having nukes would be a lot worse

Hoping for peace is admirable but if the other guy is a religious nut who believes that his dying will ensure eternal bliss that hope might not be enough.

[sabrina 1]

75. Why would Iran having nukes be any worse than Israel having them? I haven't heard

anyone threatening to use nukes on another country EXCEPT Israel. So to me, and to most of the world according to polls, it is Israel with its constant threats of attacking Iran who is the real threat to world peace.

Let the US and Israel and every other nuclear armed country pledge to get rid of their nukes, before they tell anyone else whether they can have them or not. Who made us king of the world?

And if the current nuclear armed nations refuse to get rid of their nukes, then everyone should have them. That would seriously prevent anyone from using them.

[loli phabay]

81. so you trust the nutjobs in iran

Why not take them at their word to wipe israel from the map or do you trust them with nukes but not their words.

[sabrina 1]

85. Why not take Israel at its word that it is going to use tactical nukes to

strike at Iran, and if you haven't seen the mock up of how many people that would kill then maybe you should. I consider Netanyahu to be as nuts as Ahmadinijad. I don't trust any of them with WMDS including our own government who has already used WMDs killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I see little difference between the whole lot of them and it's way past time to reign in all the war mongers in this world.

[Scootaloo]

91. Because that's not their word.

1) A statement of intent is different from a statement of belief.

2) The person making the statement - and it's the one motherfucker - has no military authority.

3) A promise of retaliation is not a threat to attack.

[cpwm17]

103. Quit that map wiping nonsense

Israel is the current world leader in map wiping. That isn't a fabricated accusation against Israel. They have been doing that to Palestine up through the present, and the Palestinians are essentially prisoners in an Apartheid state.

So you seem to support an aggressive, war-mongering, nuclear weapons possessing, Apartheid state's attack on a nation that is none of the above, for nuclear weapons that it doesn't have. Your support for this attack has to be based on your extreme bigotry, and your total ignorance of Iran, history, and the Iranian culture.

[loli phabay]

104. yep guilty as charged i am bigotted against the iranian regime

Especially after the recent crackdown and the hanging of people on the street from cranes. I wonder who your bigotry extends to as we all have them.

[cthulu2016]

19. a refusal to take yes for an answer led us into Iraq

Saber rattling was quite effective in getting the inspectors back into Iraq.

We got everything we could sensibly want and then invaded anyway... I don't see that as attributable to saber rattling. That was Bush invading Iraq no matter what.

Saber rattling leads to conflicts where one party responds to the saber rattling with his own saber rattling and the thing escalates into conflict.

Since Iraq never made the slightest aggressive move or plausible aggressive intimation I don't see that conflict as a runaway escalation of tensions. It was just a mugging. A unilateral baseless invasion... pretty much just Hitler in Poland in 1938.

[Summer Hathaway]

24. "That was Bush invading Iraq no matter what."

Exactly.

[Posteritatis]

42. Yep. (nt)

[Bucky]

25. Actually lies about WMDs and a lust for oil led us into Iraq.

The saber rattling was only for trying to rally the world for a "crusade"--something most of the world's leaders saw through easily.

[fujiyama]

67. No it is not

Saber rattling is sometimes just that and Obama's speeches don't even really amount to saber rattling. Besides that's half of what the Cold War was about (I know there were hot proxy wars in there too, but directly between the US and USSR it was mostly bluster).

Obama has three options here:

1) Diplomacy - He addresses the issue at the UN and multilaterally gets others to put pressure on Iran with the intent on avoiding a war...Meanwhile applying pressure on Israel to step back as well. All of which he has done.

2) He backs Israel 100% like Romney, almost definitely leading to war...

or

3) He sits back or refuses to address the issue forcefully (and not necessarily military force), thus giving the GOP an issue to bash him on possibly jeopardizing the election...All the while, losing credibility on this issue on the world's stage and of course Iran continues on with its program unabated.

I think he's taken the right path on this. It's not perfect, and personally I think Obama should call for direct talks with Iran, but this is still a better path than any GOPer will take. So far I see no evidence he's ready to jump into a war over this. And as others have stated, what got us into the Iraq war wasn't strong rhetoric. It was ultimately Bush and his myriad of personal, political, and financial reasons (daddy issues, being the neo-con puppet, and of course oil)...The inspectors were back in Iraq. But Bush was insistent on invading. It was the war that forced the inspectors out, not just strong rhetoric.

[MadHound]

79. Another poor student of history,

I suggest you go back and study some more.

[tama]

11. What is most worrying

is that Democratic administration has better chance of taking the nation into another war than Republican against antiwar public opinion.

[bluestate10]

32. Not really.

The country is coming out of the two longest wars in it's history. The taste for another war does not exists, regardless of the administration.

[tama]

37. MIC has always taste for more war

The question is does the public have enough will power to stop it, if administration is willing to do what MIC wants.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. I understand. Romney's poll numbers suck. Sorry.

[MadHound]

14. What does this discussion have to do with Romney's poll numbers? n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. He's got nothing substantive, just snark.

[Ikonoklast]

22. Romney supporters are getting desperate as he sinks even lower in the polls.

We see this daily in their web postings on political sites that support Democrats.

[leftstreet]

27. Criticizing Obama's foreign policy = Romney supporter?

lol

[Ikonoklast]

33. Do you dispute my observation?

Look at how many MIRT is killing off here every day, the stink of desperation is palpable coming off of the trolls that post here.

Funny that you made that into a connection with the OP.

[DemocratsForProgress]

39. I don't believe for a moment the OP is a troll.

I think he (she?) is someone incapable of grasping that:

- some boilerplate in a speech doesn't rise to the level of saber-rattling, especially when it's boilerplate that's been used umpteen times before

- saber-rattling doesn't rise to the level of the President being "ready to take this country into war over the issue of Iran getting a nuclear weapon"

Or maybe he (she?) is capable of grasping those concepts and doesn't care, since this OP will be sufficient to set a few folks' hair on fire, garner some recs, and pave the way for yet another heated discussion about holding feet to the fire, cults of personality, the drift to the right, the military-industrial complex, and so on. I haven't been here long, but the pattern seems pretty predictable to me.

[Scurrilous]

46. Good observations.

[Vattel]

53. Boilerplate or not, it's obviously saber-rattling.

The threats here are of course in part an attempt to twist Iran's arm so that they do not move closer to a nuclear weapon capability. They may also be an attempt to sway public opinion about military action against Iran. Furhtermore, I don't think Obama is bluffing. I think he is prepared to take military action against Iran if they move much closer to a nuclear capability. How much closer they would have to move before Obama would take military action is anyone's guess, but I am sure he has his limits.

[DemocratsForProgress]

73. Yours is a more insightful analysis than anything in the OP.

Even if I mostly disagree with it. Thanks.

[leftstreet]

43. Your observation that criticism of Obama policy = trolls? Yes

Have you been drinking or something, or are you just having a laugh?

It's still Democratic Underground, right? Not Obama Underground, yes?

[Summer Hathaway]

48. Despite the same name

it stopped being Democratic Underground a long time ago. It's now Free-for-All Underground.

You'll notice that since the rule change about allowing other than "constructive criticism" of the president/party was introduced, the "non-constructive criticism" has flourished.

And that's what it is - non-constructive criticism. In other words, it serves no valid purpose on what was once a Democratic-supporting site, other than giving trolls and malcontents free rein.

[MadHound]

50. So, are you trying to imply that I'm a Romney supporter?

It certainly sounds that way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. Some people can't stand to hear ANY criticism of Obama

and they're a lot like the Republicans who couldn't stand to hear any criticism of Bush.

If we can't criticize our own politicians, then we're a cult, not a political party.

[msanthrope]

82. You Better Believe It. nt

[Summer Hathaway]

29. That fact is really getting to some people, isn't it?

And I don't understand their dismay. Don't they want another four years to bash Obama? It seems that's what a lot of folks absolutely live for.

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. The worse it gets for Rmoney, expect the "Obama Sucks Too" crowd to try & divert!

[Summer Hathaway]

38. True that!

I always picture these people rocking back and forth in front of their computer screens, seething with rage when DU comes together behind the Prez or the Party, chanting to themselves: "This. Can't. Be. Happening. I. Must. Stop. This."

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. At least they're dependable. If the president has a good news day, you know what's coming next.

That's what makes DU suck, AFAIC. This particular post isn't even original. This is some old rehashed crap that has a certain "stench" about it. I don't think the president made any news with his address to the UN. I remember him stating MONTHS AGO that "containment of Iran is not an option", while emphatically stating that Iran must not be allowed to develop a weapon. Isn't that the same message he delivered yesterday?

[Summer Hathaway]

44. Ah, yes, but ...

The usual suspects run dry on material so often, they have no choice but to skew something said today into something different than what was said before.

Maybe that's why these kinds of posts get less and less traction - it's like hearing a bad stand-up comic whose act never really changes, lousy punchlines and all.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. ^^^ THIS ^^^!!!!

[fujiyama]

68. It seems that way

and in this case, it's not even on something Obama has done. It's based on conjecture and speculation. It's based on a few speeches. If the OP were being critical of the administration's policy on Libya, fine. I still don't think it was a great idea getting involved in their civil war and I think it's fair to state that.

But unless Obama actually decided to launch an attack on Iran or back an Israeli action, I think this accusation of "saber rattling" is just premature and shows a lack of understanding of how common this type of "tough talk" is on the world's stage. All the saber rattling I've read is being done by the Iranian and Israeli leaders.

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. Let's face it, we have our very own version of the teabaggers on the left. There I said it.

They're just as reactionary, and seemingly just as divorced from reality. I guess the goal is to repeat a manufactured lie enough times so that it, in essence, becomes the truth to some folks? Hell, I don't know.

[MadHound]

80. So, now you do show your true colors,

Basically one of the partisans who tolerates no criticism of Obama. Sad.

So according to you, we can't criticize Obama on this issue until he actually launches an attack? Don't you think that would be a bit too late?

[DevonRex]

49. I thought the Admins must be out of town again at first.

So it must be the polls plus they think we don't remember the threads during the convention when they were out of town.

Seriously, it wasn't that long ago. How could we forget?

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. How indeed? I realize that DU is now a business. Sometimes business conflicts with....

conscience? It certainly conflicts with the TOS, which seem to be applied quite sparingly. I don't know what other explanation there can be. I thought when the guys returned from our convention, the ship would tighten up a bit. But, alas......

[DevonRex]

70. ...

I bookmarked all the ones during the convention. Just for kicks. Maybe I'll do he same for this latest rash of Obama trashing and bashing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. Good on you.

[Whisp]

100. heh heh

lolz

[former-republican]

13. I don't think the President had a choice in what to say

I believe he will do everything humanly possible not to get the U.S in another war

[MadHound]

17. Of course he had a choice,

He could have mentioned Iran without rattling the saber. If not, then he has some pretty bad speech writers.

[ProSense]

15. Yes,

Did you get that last part? "The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

...I did. What's interesting is that the President has said this as many times as he's broached the subject. Why the surprise?

Fourth, and probably the most discouraging. In this an election year, we have two candidates for office rattling their sabers at Iran. That's one hell of a choice to make, don't you think?

Ah, now I get it. Pretend there is no difference between the band of necons advertising and advocating war and the President advocating diplomacy.

[MadHound]

20. One would think that after backing Bibi down over the issue of Iran,

Obama wouldn't come right back out rattling the saber.

And frankly, the only difference I see between the two on this issue is that Romney is being up front about rattling the saber, while Obama is trying to be a bit more subtle, trying to make it a more palatable threat. Hoping his anti-war base doesn't recognize what he is doing.

[ProSense]

26. Ah yes,

And frankly, the only difference I see between the two on this issue is that Romney is being up front about rattling the saber, while Obama is trying to be a bit more subtle, trying to make it a more palatable threat. Hoping his anti-war base doesn't recognize what he is doing.

...Mitt is just more candid!

Mitt is losing!

[leftstreet]

21. Iran is threatening us!

[Bucky]

28. Funny.

But the real provocation was putting their sand on top of our oil.

[bluestate10]

23. President Obama said nothing that he hasn't said before. nt

[Comrade_McKenzie]

30. He's just doing his job. nt

[Smilo]

34. Really who are we to tell another country

they can't have nuclear weapons - more than a little hypocritical isn't it?

[Nye Bevan]

62. So JFK shouldn't have worried about Cuba getting nukes? (nt)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. If I had been an adult at the time with a good knowledge of foreign affairs, no

I would not have been worried. Khrushchev was not crazy, and the missiles in Cuba were tit-for-tat for the installation of nuclear missiles in Turkey.

Except for the missiles temporarily in Cuba, ALL nuclear missiles that were not inside the Soviet Union were pointed at it.

Have you ever spoken to former Soviet and Chinese citizens who were alive during the Cold War? They believed that the Americans were out to kill them, and they couldn't understand why. Sort of the mirror image of what we were told.

In fact, Kennedy DID quietly remove the missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets removing theirs from Cuba.

[Waiting For Everyman]

93. I was alive and aware during the missle crisis and you don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a concern.

[Dedicated Mind]

35. airpower

we can handle them with major degradation by stealth bombers.

[teddy51]

36. And suppose that leads to a nuclear exchange between, say Russia and the US? Then what?

Or China and US or Pakistan and the US?

[raw raina]

41. Other countries should be telling US to get rid of nukes

since we're the only one who has detonated them!

This might be an October/November surprise. Obama is a hawk. Don't get it twisted...

[ohheckyeah]

45. Nice try....

he's such a "hawk" he ended the war in Iraq and is pulling troops out of Afghanistan.

[MadHound]

52. After inserting more troops into Afghanistan,

Remember, we are now back to the pre-surge levels, and the tentative, let me emphasize tentative, date for complete withdraw is a couple of years away.

Meanwhile, he has essentially opened up a brush war in Yemen, and has put troops in both Africa and the South Pacific.

[Cirque du So-What]

47. Tread lightly, Grasshopper

One must weave thousands of posts and show generosity in order to make such audacious posts with impunity.

[MadHound]

55. Masters, what masters?

Believe it or not, I do want Obama to win, despite the fact that I think many of his policies are misguided. It is those that address, as I've always addressed such policies, whether the resident of the WH has a D or R behind his name. You see, I don't delude myself with hypocrisy, or blind myself simply due to the party that is in power.

[teddy51]

57. MadHound: You and I are on the same page. My problem is, I am not prepared to bad mouth the

one that we need to win this election.

[MadHound]

58. If not now, when?

The frank, sad fact of the matter is that the only time those in power in our country, in our political system, truly deign to listen to ordinary folks like us is either in times of crisis or when they are up for reelection. Once they have our vote, that is all they want or need from us and they can go on to fulfilling the wishes of those who put the big money in their pockets. That may sound horribly cynical, but it is a truth that I've observed over decades of both watching and participating in the political process of this country at fairly high levels.

[teddy51]

59. So would you want to see a Romney Presidency?

[MadHound]

60. I'm always astonished when somebody draws that misguided, wrongheaded conclusion

When I state that simple truth. Really now, are you that ignorant of how politics is played in this country? Are you really that naive?

In my lifetime I've played the political game, regional director for Democratic presidential campaigns, delegate to the national convention, known some of the most powerful politicians in this country. I know what goes on, and how the game operates, and I can tell you with authority that unless it is a time of crisis, or a threat to reelection, the only time that the opinion of the ordinary person matters to those in high office is when they need your vote. Therefore, it is also the best time to make your voice heard and press for real change in this country. That is how it's worked for years and decades.

[sabrina 1]

76. Well said, and I am now convinced that the effort to silence people during election

season is because it is the most important time for the people to express their views on issues. I believe now that this effort is coming from Major Corporations who have their lobbyists in DC and who are definitely aware that this is the time to get the attention of elected officials and those running for office.

For them, not having any competition from the American People, makes THEIR job easier. And foreign leaders, like Netanyahu who appears to be so desperate to start a war but with US Troops doing the fighting for him, would benefit from the silence of the american people also.

Because Americans do not want another war. And I hope everyone will contact the WH and let them know that. Because as you say, this is the time to speak up. After the election is too late.

[amandabeech]

110. I'm with you and the other respondants to your post.

The President has made mistakes, a couple of them pretty big, including the surge in Afghanistan and picking crappy, tarnished economic advisers.

Nonetheless, Obama is preferable to the total corporate tool robot that is Rmoney.

[Kennah]

54. So Iran will be the tripwire for WWIII

[teddy51]

56. Perhaps they will, or will it be Israel? My money is on Israel!

[Kennah]

105. Minor semantics. I suspect Israel will attack Iran saying, "Iran did something."

[Nye Bevan]

61. I trust President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to handle this the right way.

I think they have earned this trust.

[MadHound]

63. Sorry, but I trust no politician in high office,

Very, very few have escaped being corrupted, and ultimately doing the bidding of the MIC.

[Arkana]

87. Then why bother participating in the political system?

If you think everything sucks, why not just stop voting? After all, everyone and everything sucks, so why does it matter who gets into office, right?

[JoePhilly]

83. I guess I need to get my own "Obama secret message" decoder ring.

[Waiting For Everyman]

92. Excuse me, "the usual platitudes and pontifications"?

Really? Sorry, I don't hear that in POTUS' speeches. And it's not too far from offensive frankly, and I don't offend too easily. And you're a Democrat?

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. "And you're a Democrat?"

You Better Believe It.

[lonestarnot]

99. And he ain't a kidder'in.

[woo me with science]

106. DU Rec.

[dionysus]

107. Madhound campaigning against Dems, based on bullshit, like usual.

[treestar]

108. I don't see any saber rattling in that

And we can't expect any President to say Iran getting nukes is OK.

[Fire Walk With Me]

109. An invasion of Iran is only about the oil. It's the last of the big five reserves

and Iraq has fallen into the hands of the other three. All of them know about "peak oil".

Iran is on the side of Russia and China. This is a potential WWIII event and it must be eliminated. Those driving it are insane and care nothing about The People of the world.

Know how we all suddenly got really and permanently sick of Rush Limbaugh, and he began falling off the scene entirely as a result? That same effect is again necessary.

[fascisthunter]

111. goofy