From several exchanges, I learned why some people are voting for Romney. It is because Romney will launch a war against Iran. Generally, it is said that Muslims will attack the U.S. again. And that Iran will use nukes, maybe suitcase bombs. Muslim, socialist Obama won't stop it from happening.
Now, I must admit, I thought calling Obama a Muslim was just a polite way of saying n****er. But folks tell me no, there is a Mulim threat. Only Romney will take care of it. He'll blast the Axis of Evit back to the Stone Age.
Is this really the thinking that's going around with some of Romney's supporters? I'd like to know about how worried people are about another 911. The last one came from Saudi Arabians. Is there really going to be another one coming from Iran if we don't vote for Romney. I'm hoping someone will tell it like it is. Everyone's voice on this matters.
Right! Obama ought to resurrect the old Lyndon Johnson ad depicting Goldwater with a nuclear mushroom cloud in the background.
The last one came from Saudi Arabians, but we decided to go to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya.
And I think Obama will attack Iran as well as Romney. So I don't see a difference there.
I think we need to take Ron Paul's advice and just leave. We are creating more enemies by staying. For ever innocent civilian we kill another ten terrorists are born. They aren't terrorists because we are rich and free they are terrorists because we kill their people.
What an interesting, albeit whacky, idea. Given our Sec of State's comments, I think we're more likely to attack Iran if we reelect the incumbent. Add to that the fact that Obama violated War Powers when he attacked Libya and is now funding the very violent Syrian rebels. And let's not forget Obama's tripling of the forces in Afghanistan instead of pulling them out as he promised to do before the election.
We may be in for a war with Iran no matter what - but it's unlikely that Romney will pick up too many votes from folks who actually WANT war. That idea is a bit beyond the pale.
Obama didn't attack Libya....
America, as part of a NATO force, was assisting rebels who wanted to overthrow a dictator.
Yes, but which dictator will we install next?
American forces were used to secure the oil supply for Europe - Way to go Obama, I didn't know he worked for Haliburton.
Remember when it was about preventing a humanitarian disaster, until everyone found out the millions were dieing in the Congo and Obama did nothing?
Remember when Obama abandoned the niceties of the War Powers Act to attack Libya?
Libyan instability threatened the oil supply in Europe, sounds just like Kuwait 1992 and that was a war for oil. If Obama is re-elected, slim chance, he will need a way to show he isn't Michelle's submissiv,e so I would expect military action against someone.
I mean, I guess if you say something enough it becomes true...
as you wish - it is easy enough to verify or not as you choose. Eyes closed are closed. Eyes opened are opened. Things are simpler than one might think.
If they were then all of your statements wouldn't have been so misleading.
We couldn't go into Congo because the right would be completely up in arms about it.
And Obama didn't attack Libya....
Hope your willing to wait awhile for that war in Iran too while were at it.
American forces supplied the bulk of attacks against Libya. Obama committed American forces to a mission that did not result from a NATO ally being attacked - that is a Treaty obligation, but instead, supported the European oil market. The bulk of oil in Italy and France comes from Libya - one big reason Gaddafi was a major investor in Italy. Obama did not get a Congressional approval after the time allotted for Presidential action under the War Powers Act and did not even consult with Congress as to why.
Obama said the attacks on Libya were to prevent a human tragedy, a tragedy of greater proportion was happening in Congo. If preventing a human tragedy was the real motivation Congo would have been far more pressing since over 2 million have died there in the last 2 years.
Graphic of Sorties Against Libya by Country
The reason for not entering a conflict to prevent a further human tragedy in Congo - no oil. Americans involved in Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Uganda - Obama isn't shy about sending Americans to fight anywhere.
Obama attacked Libya BEFORE there was any NATO action. He only joined NATO when his time ran out on the War Powers Resolution.
So, NATO came later. But Obama forgot that NATO should come second and the USA should come first in his priority list. After all, he's our president, not NATO's.
I have an invitation for you. Become a state, and then you can get involved in American politics.
Have you heard that there is no such thing as a dumb question? The greater truth . . . there are no absolutes
.It doesn't matter who we vote for, Iran is going down
My firm hope is that when the government in Iran falls it doesn't cost too many lives. I have known lots of Iranians(Persians) and they have all be good people. One of the most beautiful women I have ever known was from Iran.
Los Angeles is the world center of Persian rock and roll. Persian is the third most common language. And politie--tell me about it. SoCal wouold flounder without Persiams.
Dr Billy Kid... You are seriously joking?
You can't possibly be hearing that, can you?
if you are, please can someone immediately pay my fare outside the US while this country starts WWIII. I can give you a 100% guarantee that when I was in England and Bush went into Iraq, England was NOT behind Tony Blair. It was an arbitrary decision and it eventually cost him the premiership.
It will not happen again. The world is sick and tired of the United States starting wars because they're paranoic over bs.
Tony was promised a section of the Iraqi oil fields for BP when the war was over. The Frech company Total wanted to go along with the Iraq war, but the government said no. This is why Cheney and Bush acted with such hatred toward the French
About Iran. I expect Israel to start the war around July 2013. The bombs were already send once before from the U.S. but they were used In Lebanon to fight Hezbollah when Bush decided the U.S. was physicallly unable to handle a 3 front war.
Obama is restocking the U.S. supplies in the Middle East so he doesn't look weak. Romney will be sending offensive weapons starting in January if he gets in. Watch the newspapers for big bombs being shipped to Israel and more U.S. airpower starting in February.
No, I'm ot kidding. The reason I ask questions like this is to get the feel of how others think on these issues. It horrifies you, apparently. Me, I see it as the final gambits of a dying empire.
Well, given the history if 9/11 and the war on terror, Americans and the Uk will probably bomb Iran, because we're really good at getting it completely wrong. Saudi Arabia commits a massive atrocity, so we invade Afghanistan and Iraq. There hasn't been another 9/11 (thankfully) but we'll attack Iran anyway. This will definitely lead to peace in the long run.
Good at getting it completely wrong....thank you, Hollie ... like when they over threw the elected Iranian government in 1953 in order to get the oil.
I miss the the pistachios from Iran. California does alright, but there is something about the ones from Persia. It would be sweet if we could take a trip to Persia and get some pistachios from the market. We should stop for a fine lunch. The food is incredible and the people are smart and kind.
Persians . . . I can see you! I just can't get there from here, something is in the way.
I'd love to go with you. All my Persian friends are wonderful people.
That's the rub . . . we can all get along.
The biggest reason to despise the Theocracy that keeps Persians from being free. The overwhelming majority would appreciate better relations with the West but he Mulahs and the Revolutionary Guard are in the way. It would be good to push Iran's government over like the old Soviet government.
It's a topsey-turvey world with a lot of miscreants running around.
I'm wondering if in Iran they say that it would be OK in the U.S. without the Tea Party crazies running around seeing Muslim conspiracies everywhere.
I find it interesting that the public would fall for the same propaganda twice so soon.
Iraq was supposed to do the same thing, that Iran is accused to be plotting right now, and of course it was all B.S.
The attempts to tie Iraq and Iran with Al Qaeda were ridiculous.
Iraq was ruled by a Socialist party, Iran is Shia and Al Qaeda is sunni.
Pure fear mongering in part of the Administration and the Zionist lobby.
Lastly it would be suicide for Iran to attack the U.S. or Israel, since the latter have more and better nukes.
Do you like propaganda that is subversive to the USA? I don't like that kind of shwag. Love it or leave it alone. We stand our ground.
No I don't like propaganda from either side, buying into that American nationalism my country right or wrong c*** is just as bad, I love this country but it has done truly horrible things, my entire family were killed by a US backed government and US operatives for calling for democracy for example.
We aren't always right and we do terrible things on occasion we need to accept it and prevent it from happening again not bury our heads in the sand and pretend we don't that is idiocy.
Rumours of a war with Iran have been buzzing around for quite a while now, and it kind of seems inevitable it will happen regardless of who the President is. It might even be beneficial to Obama's re-election hopes if "Iran attacks us" between now and October - no President has ever been outed in war time. The only difference between Obama and Romney will be the rhetoric that they use when it eventually happens - the military-industrial-complex is the most bi-partisan institution in the United States.
You may be right. Not long after Romney's comment on Iran Sec. Defense Panetta came out with a similarly hawkish pronouncement on Iran.
Thanks for the answers.
It seems like we are saying that these two guys are fighting to look the most hawkish because: AMERICANS EXPECT A WAR? Perhaps it's not just the Romney voters? Itt could be anyone saying Blow those Iranians away?
I do not think that Obama would win many votes if he came out for negotiations. He did that 4 years ago and now people won't buy it. That's my guess.
Anyway, I was still surprised by how many potential Romney voters have told me they want Iran taken out, the Iranians are planning another 911, and they're Muslims, apparently who hate America. (this is not what Anericans visiting Iran find but truth is not the issue. We vote on our impressions)
It's not just Americans (and I know not all Americans are thirsty for war) it's people from other nations, too. Including mine. Unfortunately, those who were hell bent on spreading Islamaphobia have done a very tidy job. I just hope we don't experience another blood bath, when the blood is on our hands.
How can you assert that Obama won't attack Iran? So far, nothing in his foreign policy showed wisdom! He will be as ruthless as Romney would! The military industrial complex is puppeting Obama!
September 11 set up the formula to be given the green light by the people (mostly idiots) to wage war on whatever country!
Yes,I"m thiniking about what you're saying. That Obama will eventuallly bomb Iran..
September 11 itself was a set up. Bush had Interpol and Mossad telling him there was going to be a hijacking. But all Bush did was tell military officers not to fly commercial. He never told the airlines or the gate check security people.
But the 9/11 fear factor. I just don't see Obama using it. I see he and Israel are blew up a missile factory and killed 3 nuclrear scientists in Iran.
Can't we just vote for them on the basis of their economic policies?
How 'bout those jobs!!???!!!
Thats just to logical, it will never happen
If I hear ya right MM, a vote for Romney is a vote for jobs because Obama just didn't cut it. Forget Iran, that's a seperatre issue.
Not exactly what I was trying to "deflect to." (more like mirroring the deflection going on in the campaign).
My point was that once again, rather than actually focusing on domestic issues that are crippling our economy, all of a sudden there's this "Iran crisis."
A bit too pat and convenient in terms of timing, right before electioon, don't you think?
Americans no sooner get a bit calmed down on the terrorist front -- troops brought home from Iraq, exit strategy in Afghanistan, even Bin Laden himself taken out -- thenwe are once again being duped into saber rattling mode.
Romney's trip to Israel. Michele Bachmann & Co. whipping up anti-Islamic sentiment.
Do we think the average American knows or cares the differences between any of these Muslim countries? I doubt it. Paint them ALL with the same evil brush!
RB's interpretation provides the "why." Scary, indeed. But makes sense.
But maneuvering the "how" with the American public will be interesting to watch.
Will we fall for another 9/11?
Will Romney (Bush III) to lead us into armed conflict with Iran?
The the recovery is slow because only two Republicans--Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voted for Obama's stimulus package, and the voted for it only after forcing it to be reduced by $200 million. Obama can be criticized for not asking for a bigger amount and bargaining back from there. The package that resulted was quite inadequate to do the job. Since the House has been under the control of the Tea Party Obama's hands have been virtually tied.
Bombing Iran would be a huge mistake. Romney would be much more likely to make that mistake. With patience and continued sanctions the issue will be resolved without risking another useless war in the Middle East.
Ralph, this sounds like the reasonable informaitiona and the reasonsable response. One film I saw taken recently in Iran featured people who like America but not it's leaders .
I'm afraid all to many Americans think of Muslims as a single block--Egyptians, Afghans, Iraquis, and Persians. But then again, Obama's highest polls are in foreign policy.
That's true. Another mistake Romney made in Israel is that he insulted the Palestinians, and some say the Israelis as well. With his strong tilt toward Israel vis a vis Palestine he has removed himself and the United States, if he's elected, from acting as a peace broker between Palestine and Israel. If he's elected we can forget about a peace deal preserving the security of Israel and recognizing Palestine as an independent state.
Insulting the Palestinians should be a regular American pass time. Arrafat turned down a deal that would have given the Palestinians everything but half of Jerusalem. They need a little chastising for being so stupid.
Israel under Bibi Netanyahoo, needs chastising equally if not more so.
So, the children of Palestine deserve ridicule because of the mistakes of their fathers? Such a humanitarian.
The opportunity for Palestinians to live in peace with Israel is always available, but the sound of rockets from the Palestinian territory and the demanding bomb vest construction schedule is in the way.
How about a little mind exercise that, if honestly considered, should clear a few things up.
1) Imagine if there were no weapons at all in the Palestinian Territory - bomb vests, pistols, ak 47s, rackets, any weapon of any kind - would Israel invade and replace all the Palestinians?
2) Imagine if the positions were reversed.
As for my humanitarianism - when Americans were slaughtered on 9/11, Palestinians danced in the streets. If the Palestinians are unwilling to fully accept the exists of Israel and put away the ways of war, than let them languish in the poverty they readily embrace.
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 228AAt6own
There was no dancing in the streets on 9-11. That was called out as distorted footage almost as soon as it happened.
Wrong, check your sources.
Democraticunderground is a clearing house for crazy liberal garbage. Multiple sources are better than just looking at the favorite nut site - One reason why I assiduously avoid prisonplanet.com In fact, the bigger the claim the more sources I seek.
If you say so....
Because the media would never distort a story for their own gain...
Fox News anybody?
If you believe that is what most Muslims honestly feel about us, then I think you should re-examine your position.
It's like the people in Britain assuming that all Americans are like Mitt Romney in their thoughts and views.
I'm not saying that there isn't a percentage of the Muslim world that hates us, but I would say that a minority is making the majority look bad.
Imagine this- Israel accepted that they, rightly, should have their own territory, it has borders and beyond those borders does not belong to them. They have streets which they can walk through, and so can Palestinians. They do not control the supply of water, or the finances of Palestine. They only have control over their own lands. That's a pretty good start.
I hate terrorism, I hate hearing that some old lady in Israel has been blown up whilst waiting for a bus. I hate hearing that some child in the Gaza strip has been shot to smithereens. Imagine a world where every occupant had to accept that they were not beyond the arm of international law, and also to accept that launching rockets into the towns of unsuspecting civilians was equally as disgusting.
Imagine a world where people did not embrace the idea of another human being languishing in poverty because "they readily embraced it" or
"because they are so stupid"
When the world begins to challenge people who so readily advocate "supremacy of culture" based on a none existent empirical notion, we will all be better off.
Hollie, I get it...it's easy to embrace the suppremacy of one's culture and then blame others for their mistakes. This is what American exceptionalisme is. The U.S. given a divine mission by God. I be Hitler thought the same thing.
Strangely enough there was dancing in the street in about half the world, might have something to do with the things we did to them... nah obviously they are just evil and hate our freedom
here are 3 most-holy shrines for the Moslims in the Middle East. One sits on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, just above the Wailing Wall. The last Intifada was started when the man running for prime minister took 500 soldiers there to prove it was still Jewish property. I'd been there before hand in the Old City and on the West Bank. Things were running fine.
The only eqivalent of Palestinians giving up half of Jerusalem would be Americans giving up half of Manhattan and making it, say, an international city run by the U.N.
But it's all religious baiting by whatever politician wants to stay in power on either side in Israel and in Palestine. And it's hard to forget a 60 blood bath. I still can't understand why Christians think they have such a big stake in the matter. There's dozens of different myths of where he walked where tourist traps are set up, one all the way down the mountian in Jericho.
Palestinians? There is no such people group. Ask any Roman centurion. The Palestinians are the Jewish people. When they were scattered, displaced Arabs wandered into the wasteland. The Arabs have plenty of land. Let them accommodate their displaced brothers and sisters.
Does it not pique your interest that the Jews have been gathering from exile as foretold? Get ready!
By his Bain capital role, a vote for Romney is a vote for jobs: in China, India, Mexico, South Korea anywhere but America.
When will Iran learn its lesson. They cannot maintain a banking industry that is not willing to succumb to the central bankers of the world. If a nation does not allow international financiers to control their currency, they must be destroyed!
There was two other nations that did not allow elitists to control their banks prior to 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan!
Libya just learned their lesson, they now have a central bank that is subservient to the global elitist moneychangers!
The list of nations without a global elitist controlled central bank:
Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran & Syria.
Of course the Libya problem has been satisfied! And the rest? Well history holds the answer!
Actually: "The BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—contain nearly three billion of the world’s seven billion people, or 40% of the global population. The BRICs all make heavy use of public sector banks, which compose about 75% of the banks in India, 69% or more in China, 45% in Brazil, and 60% in Russia.
The BRICs have been the main locus of world economic growth in the last decade. China Daily reports, “Between 2000 and 2010, BRIC's GDP grew by an incredible 92.7 percent, compared to a global GDP growth of just 32 percent, with industrialized economies having a very modest 15.5 percent.”
All the leading banks in the BRIC half of the globe are state-owned"
You know, Dr. Kidd, if we can stop the insanity of the current adminstration, I could really give a damn less who we bomb. The current infestation within the bowels of our country is doing a better job of more efficiently destroying it than every nuclear weapon that Iran might have hidden away. Don't come around here selling the possible threat of Iran to win an election in November using fear tactics. The problems of people in this country do not have a damn thing to do with whether or not Iran gets bombed or by who. How many ways can you elect to take the talking points away from the true issue of the election? WB
Some people care about the hundreds of thousands of innocents who will die, the thousands maybe tens of thousands of our sons who will come back in a coffin, it's not just talking point it's a massive issue that will change the world around us in big ways.
You can say what you want about the current administration, this is not the place to argue it but a war is no small issue, not to mention a single war with Iran will cost more than all of the Obama measures combined.
It;s blind ignorance not to consider it an important factor in the election.
Pray tell us what is the "true issue of the election." Abortion? Gun rights? Global Warming? Taxes? Social Security? Medicare? Welfare?
Romney's comments about invading Iran are just one of the many reasons why I will not be voting for him, and urging anyone else with a brain to do the same. This is the same BS that Bush used to get himself elected to a second term. America's fear. They also made out Iraq to be a huge threat, and it turned out to be a pack of lies, in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. This country does not need to get involved in another war. That kind of thinking will only cause more hatred towards us, and for what purpose? Don't they think if Iran wanted to attack us, they would have done it by now.
This is the same type of logic that Reagan had, strike them first before they can strike us. The people in Washington don't seem to think they need a reason to send our troops to war. Iran is just another link in the oil chain, and everyone knows it. There are plenty of other countries that have nuclear weapons that are just as dangerous as Iran. So, what's the big rush?
I don't see much difference in Reagan, Bush Sr. Bush Jr. Clinton or Obama's logic. All of them invaded other nations. Reagan's Granada war was quick as was Clinton's Kosovo war. The Iraq skirmishes went longer, but Obama's attack on Libya went past the time allotted by the War Powers Act, so he then bombed and maimed Libyans under NATO's umbrella. As far as I know - Obama and Hillary (especially Hillary) have made more aggressive talk toward Iran than has Romney.
And now, Obama is funding the rebels in Syria - so with his help - it's sure to become a much bloodier war with a much higher death toll. To top it off, intelligence is coming out that among those he is funding are Al Qaeda operatives. That's more than a little scary.
Can anyone tell me why our current President was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize again?
The rebels in Libya apologize for not concluding their war in a timely manner....
Oh, it's a timely rebellion all right. Any time religious extremists can wrest control away from a secular government and turn the clock on human rights back 300 years is a good time for them.
Not so good for women, homosexuals and other religions, however.
Because the Nobel Prize for Peace has nothing to do with peace. If it did Yassir Arrafat would have had to wash the Christian Lebanese blood of his hands before accepting his.
Don't you think that given Arrafat is dead and gone, that it's time to face up to the here and now? Or, should Israel and Palestine be forever locked in the past?
I would like to make it clear that both sides wiped out the Palestinian Christians so the point was considered mute.
Does it count of Israel starts the war with Iran?
Or are we counting Israel as merely a Mideast branch office of the US?
Romney bombed on his overseas trip:
Romney is above 50 percent positive in the Pew findings with only two groups: Republicans and white evangelical Protestants. He is at 32 percent favorable among women; 38 percent with college graduates; and just 40 percent among those with incomes above $75,000. Among independents, he is at 41 percent positive.
Romney bombed, bombed, bombed. Even with right wing media blackout, he's a disaster that makes Bush 11 look informed.
Romney's unlikely to win this go 'round, so the war with Iran will come solely from Obama.
I hope it comes from neither. But this post offers a little hope, I'm not saying it's spot on commentary, but it is food for thought.
http://972mag.com/its-over-there-will-b … ran/52230/
If it takes land to have a national identity, you have to take it from someone already there.
That's the name of the game. I think of the Native Americans. Their ancestors wandered into a land with no other people. They claim the Great Spirit led them to their places. They had no concept of ownership of the land. They believed that they belonged to the Earth. Europeans came to North America and declared their ownership before God. I wonder what the Great Spirit thought about that?
In the last 10 thousand years or so, everybody in Mesopotamia has been claiming ownership and struggling to maintain it. How many times has any square foot of the area changed hands? it is a murky history at best. There is no resolution. The hot blooded, hard headed people of the region insist on extreme violence as a solution for their "problems" (which are bogus in the first place).
I say that we consult with the First Nation Americans as to how to handle the controversy. They are the only people who did not take their land from someone else. Their wisdom has been neglected too long.
Beautiful, but inaccurate. Discoveries like Kennewick Man (and others) indicate Eurasian people were here before Native Americans. And, while some tribes were relatively benevolent, others were quite violent. The warring tribes would run other natives from hunting and fishing grounds and the more they killed, the greater their status within their tribe. They might not fought for a deed to a piece of land, but they fought for just about everything else, and they'd steal wives and children too.
Humans are warriors. That's sad but it's a fact. I'm starting to think that it's in our genetic makeup. Not all of us. Not everyone is cut out to be a warrior, but there are still enough warriors to make life tough on the rest of us.
Hello? You are not hearing the man or whatever he is supposed to be. He is not saying there weren't other people around before the Native Americans migrated to the virgin land. They were the only ones who did not displace another people group to occupy their home.
Warriors? A product of necessity in every age. It is a learned behavior an has nothing to do with genetics.
It is this brain dead mind set that plagues our progress, The bones you mentioned were supplanted eons ago.
Do you know what zippity do da means?
I did not think so!
by Susan Reid4 years ago
NJ Governor Chris Christie, who as recently as a week ago was a harsh critic of Obama's leadership has a new BFF: Barack Obama.He's been effusive (some believe TOO effusive) in his praise for the POTUS and his handling...
by Dave McClure7 years ago
------------------------------------------------------------KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said yesterday that he is in full agreement with President Obama's newly announced strategy for the...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Romney's Lie: Romney told a rally in Defiance, Ohio, that he'd "seen a story--that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by Italians, is thinking of MOVING ALL PRODUCTION TO CHINA."The...
by LiamBean4 years ago
Now that President Obama has won a second term I can breathe a bit better. But I've got to say I'm deeply disturbed by the rampant voter disenfranchisement that continues even as I write this.Pennsylvania, Ohio, and...
by American View4 years ago
Obama Campaing never learn, keep taking things out of context, spinning them and then present them in a false light.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 … political/
by Leslie McCowen4 years ago
"One of Mitt Romney's top advisers said Saturday that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea. "[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.