Obama in 2004: Missile Strikes on Iran a Viable Option

[BPSCG]

Is it my job to clean up such a factual mess of faulty assertions?

I did not make a single assertion in that post. If you go back and read it, you will observe that I asked a series of questions that posited several different possibilities regarding Obama's position on military action against a possible terrorist threat. If you think question = assertion, you need to go back to your dictionary.

Fine, let me address your primary wrong assumption, that similarities in some policies equal agreement in all policies.

I made no such assertion, especially that one. I was asking if Obama had come over to Bush's way of thinking on the viability of military action against countries that pose a terrorist threat, before that threat has become imminent; that's what Obama's 2004 suggestion that he'd take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities amounted to.

Does Obama still believe military action against Iran's nuclear facilities is a viable option? Yes or no? His web site doesn't address it.

 

[joobz]

I did not make a single assertion in that post. If you go back and read it, you will observe that I asked a series of questions that posited several different possibilities regarding Obama's position on military action against a possible terrorist threat. If you think question = assertion, you need to go back to your dictionary.

I made no such assertion, especially that one. I was asking if Obama had come over to Bush's way of thinking on the viability of military action against countries that pose a terrorist threat, before that threat has become imminent; that's what Obama's 2004 suggestion that he'd take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities amounted to.

Yawn. Feel free to hide behind the guise of "Merely asking questions", but your intentional equivocation is foolishly obvious.

Does Obama still believe military action against Iran's nuclear facilities is a viable option? Yes or no? His web site doesn't address it.

???

 

[BPSCG]

Yawn. Feel free to hide behind the guise of "Merely asking questions", but your intentional equivocation is foolishly obvious.


???

Okay, I understand now - you have nothing to say.

But thanks for playing, anyway, I guess...

 

[joobz]

Okay, I understand now - you have nothing to say.

But thanks for playing, anyway, I guess...

And your posts are loaded with information.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how Obama is like Bush. I mean something more substantial than merely implying that his anti-iranian nuclear policy is similar to Bush's or that they both like puppies.

 

[BPSCG]

Perhaps you'd like to explain how Obama is like Bush.

No I wouldn't. If you'll bother to go back and look at the first page of this thread, you'll see I was trying to keep this topic from getting derailed into a discussion of Bush, and trying to focus the discussion on whether or not Obama's foreign policy views vis a vis Iran today are consistent with his views in 2004.

I mean something more substantial than merely implying that his anti-iranian nuclear policy is similar to Bush's or that they both like puppies.

You can discuss that all you like if you wish. Even better, you can start your own thread. This thread is about whether or not Obama's views on dealing with Iran have changed since 2004. Would you like to discuss that, or not?

 

[joobz]

So I'm confused now.

Has Bush come over to Obama's way of thinking? When did Obama get included in Bush's Bush's circle of senior advisers?

Or has Obama come over to Bush's?

Or have the two been seeing pretty much eye-to-eye since at least 2004 when Obama said he'd consider taking out Iranian nuclear facilities?

Would Obama be Bush's third term?

Someone know the answer to these questions? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

No I wouldn't. If you'll bother to go back and look at the first page of this thread, you'll see I was trying to keep this topic from getting derailed into a discussion of Bush, and trying to focus the discussion on whether or not Obama's foreign policy views vis a vis Iran today are consistent with his views in 2004.

You're right, a discussion of Bush would be a derail in this thread


ETA: It's hard to answer your questions without a discussion of Bush and his policies. You'd have to compare the motivations behind policy decisions and not just the decisions themselves to truly see if Obama and Bush are ideologically in sync.

It's my view that Obama has been clearly against the Iraq invasion since the begining for quite sound reasons (see Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech^WP) and History proved him right. Now compare this view with Bush's policies when Bush has started a war in a country that was not a threat to us. How can you possibly pretend that these two foreign policies are the same?

 

[BPSCG]

You're right, a discussion of Bush would be a derail in this thread


ETA: It's hard to answer your questions without a discussion of Bush and his policies. You'd have to compare the motivations behind policy decisions and not just the decisions themselves to truly see if Obama and Bush are ideologically in sync.

Yeah, except that where I tried to keep this discussion on-topic (and obviously even let myself get dragged off-topic), you seem perfectly content to leave it off-topic.

I am not. Can we leave Bush out of this until we've answered the initial question? Is Obama's current position regarding dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations a change from his 2004 position?

Once we've answered that question, we can move on to how much Obama's past, current, or future positions may or may not resemble Bush's.

It's my view that Obama has been clearly against the Iraq invasion since the begining for quite sound reasons...

What, a derail into a discussion of Bush isn't enough? Now an Iraq one, too? This thread is about Obama's policy towards Iran and you want to make it a thread about Bush and Iraq?

Sorry, can't oblige.

 

[joobz]

Yeah, except that where I tried to keep this discussion on-topic (and obviously even let myself get dragged off-topic), you seem perfectly content to leave it off-topic.

I am not. Can we leave Bush out of this until we've answered the initial question? Is Obama's current position regarding dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations a change from his 2004 position?

Once we've answered that question, we can move on to how much Obama's past, current, or future positions may or may not resemble Bush's.

What, a derail into a discussion of Bush isn't enough? Now an Iraq one, too? This thread is about Obama's policy towards Iran and you want to make it a thread about Bush and Iraq?

Sorry, can't oblige.

You're allowed to ask question regarding Bush and Obama, I give explanations why thier policies are different and you claim it's off topic.

Iraq was merely an example of difference in policy approach. I do not know Obama's current Iranian policy.

 

[BPSCG]

You're allowed to ask question regarding Bush and Obama, I give explanations why thier policies are different and you claim it's off topic.

Iraq was merely an example of difference in policy approach. I do not know Obama's current Iranian policy.

Thanks.

 

[joobz]

Thanks.

no problem.
Any time you'd care to actually explain
this nonsense

So I'm confused now.

Has Bush come over to Obama's way of thinking? When did Obama get included in Bush's Bush's circle of senior advisers?

Or has Obama come over to Bush's?

Or have the two been seeing pretty much eye-to-eye since at least 2004 when Obama said he'd consider taking out Iranian nuclear facilities?

Would Obama be Bush's third term?

Someone know the answer to these questions? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I'd be happy to read it. Until then....

 

[SezMe]

Is Obama's current position regarding dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations a change from his 2004 position?

OK, directly on-topic, I don't know. First of all, did Obama have a "policy" in 2004. Surely he had an opinion. The cite you used stated it was a gut-level opinion. That, in my opinion, does not rise to the level of a "policy".

Secondly, let's assume he did have some sort of policy in 2004. But a policy on an issue as Iran is not a single, monolithic thing but rather should have multiple facets and options. So it would be misleading to simple ask if his whole policy has changed or not. A more useful question would be to ask in what ways his policy has changed, if any. IOW, you're asking a yes-or-no question which cannot be answered in a meaningful way with just one of those choices.

Thirdly, why does it matter if his policy has changed? Let's say the simplistic answer is yes. So what? One would HOPE that it has since 1) the Iranian situation has changed since 2004 and b) he's now a candidate for prez which was not the case in 2004.

Does this move us forward on your OP topic, Beeps?

 

[BPSCG]

OK, directly on-topic, I don't know. First of all, did Obama have a "policy" in 2004. Surely he had an opinion. The cite you used stated it was a gut-level opinion. That, in my opinion, does not rise to the level of a "policy".

Well, gee, I'd hope that on a matter involving war and peace, life and death, he'd have more than a "gut level" opinion or policy. We can use your word; I don't think it affects the heart of the issue.

Secondly, let's assume he did have some sort of policy in 2004. But a policy on an issue as Iran is not a single, monolithic thing but rather should have multiple facets and options. So it would be misleading to simple ask if his whole policy has changed or not.

I don't believe I asked that.

Please look at Obama's web site, click on "Issues" and then on "Foreign Policy." See what he says about Iran. There is nothing there about possible military intervention in Iran if they don't stop their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Is it because even though he still believes it's a viable option, he doesn't want to put it in print, at least not for now, while the Democratic nomination is still undecided? Or is it because he has changed his mind and thinks military action against Iran should be off the table?

A more useful question would be to ask in what ways his policy has changed, if any.

Well, yeah. I think I asked that somewhere. If not, I should have, and you're right to articulate it again.

Thirdly, why does it matter if his policy has changed?

(Opinion, not policy...) Because if it hasn't changed, he's not being forthright with the voters. He has said many times, and his website says, that he favors diplomacy and economic pressure against Iran, and he wouldn't engage in the kind of saber-rattling that Bush and Cheney have. Saying (in 2004) he would bomb Iran if other pressures didn't stop their nuclear development is exactly that kind of saber-rattling. So he needs to let the voters know if he still holds that opinion or not, because someone who was unaware of what he was saying in 2004 might vote for him in 2008 because they erroneously believed he would not take military action against Iran to keep it from getting nuclear weapons.

Let's say the simplistic answer is yes. So what? One would HOPE that it has since 1) the Iranian situation has changed since 2004 and b) he's now a candidate for prez which was not the case in 2004.

Wait a minute. Why should his opinion about what should be done about Iran change just because he's running for a different office? His opinion about what should be done about Iran should change only because Iran's behavior has changed. He presents himself today as being someone who would use peaceful methods to try to get them to behave. Has Iran's behavior improved since 2004? If not (and it's gotten worse, IMHO), then why doesn't he talk today about bombing its nuclear facilities?

Does this move us forward on your OP topic, Beeps?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Does [Obama] still think military strikes against Iran are a viable option, yes or no?

Yes.

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

 

[BPSCG]

Thanks, IP!

Now, why doesn't he say that on his web site?

 

[UserGoogol]

Thanks, IP!

Now, why doesn't he say that on his web site?

Because it's not relevant to state every contingency plan and the problem with saying that military action remains on the table as a last resort somewhat dampens the idea that it's a last resort, since, after all, if it's a last resort why would you bother to mention it?

This bit does seem to hint at the idea though:

The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

By phrasing things in terms of "Iran is bad, but we have not yet exhausted our non-military options" suggests (although sort of in a coy fashion so as to avoid sounding militaristic) that it is entirely plausible that we could exhaust our non-military options in the future.

I'll admit some of the reason for his coyness is that he wants to avoid talking about bombing Iran for electoral reasons, but it doesn't seem particularly egregious to do so to this degree.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Thanks, IP!

Now, why doesn't he say that on his web site?

I dunno, I asked something similar to that here but didn't get much help from another poster who cut&pasted his page stance on NAFTA to answer me. His official web pages are too full of easy positions and glittering generalities for my taste; I suppose you could make a similar case for any candidate's official site.

OTOH, I don't think it's any coincidence his web page makes no mention of this, as he is selling himself as an anti-war candidate, and possible nuclear strikes can be a politically risky position to take in the middle of an election. And it's no surprise that the article I was quoting from was taken at an address by Obama to a pro-Israel crowd.

 

[SezMe]

Now, why doesn't he say that on his web site?

That's it!? A lefty politician declines to make a clear-cut statement regarding foreign policy and a righty doesn't like it? Wow! In other breaking news, there are reported to be bleeding-heart libruls living in The Democratic People's Republic of Alexandria. Film at 11.