U.S. Presidential Election 2008 - Page 40

Sean · #**391** 06-25-2008, 10:21 AM

Well, Nader will likely be less of a vote-sucker for Obama than he may have been previously:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...to-talk-white/

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee, of downplaying poverty issues, trying to "talk white" and appealing to "white guilt" during his run for the White House.

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."

"We are obviously disappointed with these very backward-looking remarks," Obama campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said.

So presumably because black people all live in the ghetto, Nader believes that all black politicians should focus their legislating power on the issues of the ghetto. Well done, Nader. Well done.

Strangelet · #**392** 06-29-2008, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cacophony

so if that's the conclusion, then wouldn't it make it LESS likely that they'd strike against iran? meaning, if they were making plans with america's future leadership in mind, and it seems like that future leadership won't support them, why would that make a strike against iran MORE likely?

Quote:

A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election.

They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than military action.

That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: "If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House."

He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone.
"When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement," he said

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2212934/Israel-has-a-year-to-stop-Iran-bomb%2C-warns-ex-spy.html

Deckard · #**393** 06-29-2008, 07:40 AM

Mmm, glad to see that my mind thinks in the same way as the former head of Mossad.

Seriously though, all things considered, it seems entirely prudent for Israel to be considering this. Not that I'm saying I personally agree with it, but strategically, in terms of the immediate threat they see posed by Iran, it seems to me entirely pragmatic to take action before the election. At this point, the choice and risks are clear to them - do they want to risk waiting, then find that they may be at even greater threat but unable to act - or do they not take that risk, and instead, act now?

Strangelet · #**394** 06-29-2008, 12:04 PM

well I had the same thoughts. but more and more I think cacophony may be proven right with respect to Obama's intentions. He may find himself in lock step with the existing foreign policy trend.

And agreed about Iran. I don't want them to have nuclear weapons any more than the israelis. Its just not the world I want to live in, sorry. I know that steps on the toes of people who find it hypocritical, but just because Darth Vader has a death star doesn't mean the ewoks get one either.

Deckard · #**395** 06-29-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangelet

well I had the same thoughts. but more and more I think cacophony may be proven right with respect to Obama's intentions. He may find himself in lock step with the existing foreign policy trend.

True. I'm not convinced Obama will be as different as many are proposing he will. But clearly some important political heavyweights do appear to think that, or at least feel very uneasy about the possibility, enough to express that unease. And that's the only real point of substance I'm making here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangelet

And agreed about Iran. I don't want them to have nuclear weapons any more than the israelis. Its just not the world I want to live in, sorry. I know that steps on the toes of people who find it hypocritical, but just because Darth Vader has a death star doesn't mean the ewoks get one either.

Well this pretty much deserves a thread of its own, and yup, I completely agree - argument of fairness and entitlement be damned, unfortunately.