Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Says Nuclear Iran Poses "Grave Threat"; Would take "no options off the table"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:25 AM
Original message
Obama Says Nuclear Iran Poses "Grave Threat"; Would take "no options off the table"
Source: NYT/Reuters

SDEROT, Israel (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear Iran would pose a "grave threat" and that the world must stop Tehran from obtaining an atomic weapon.

Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.

"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama told reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

He said the international community should immediately offer "big sticks and big carrots" to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. The West suspects Iran wants to build atom bombs but the Islamic Republic says its aims are peaceful.

"Iranians need to understand that whether it's the Bush administration or the Obama administration, this is a paramount concern to the United States," he said in Sderot, which has been hit by cross-border rockets fired by Gaza-based militants....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-iran...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. And that's what he's been saying. It's barely even newsworthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baclava Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Of course it's newsworthy
He's saying this in Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Nukes in general are a threat
Deal with your own back yard Obama... for the US is the only country to have ever used them in conflict. It's pretty damn hypocritical for us to point at others and claim they are a threat when we have already proven to be a bigger threat.

Not only that, but he promotes the anti-Iranian rhetoric which is a bit irresponsible since we know the neo-cons want to pre-emptively attack that country. He may be impressing some, but he isn't impressing me with this statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dave From Canada Donating Member (932 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Yeah, the US used them to end a war in which they didn't start. That doesn't make America the bad
guys. You're rhetoric is just as bad as the anit-Iranian rhetoric. And being a "fascisthunter", you'd think Iran might be at the top of your list. LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. The Japanese were losing 100K people a day....
at the end of WWII and they weren't about to stop. I guess it would have been okay by your standards to let that continue though? That bombing stopped German operations as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Nah, they were going to give up that very day, don't you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. agreed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. He has it right however
he may have much problems getting the Russians and Chinese to go along on serious sanctions or otherwise.

China and Russia are obviously not in any mood to cooperate with a GOP administration, for me the interesting question is why would they want to work with Obama??

TWISI they are accumulating more power, economic and otherwise by playing to the world and antagonizing the US.

Any way Obama will obviously be better than shrub, but that will not automatically mean that these 2 will help the west and the Us in ways we would desire.

We shall see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. So everyone else's nukes are fine?
I'm pleased to hear this is neither new or newsworthy, but I'm left wondering if there are other nuclear powrs in the area who he would threaten with a nuclear strike, or is this threat just for Iran?

- B
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Ummmm, he didn't .....
....threaten anyone with a nuclear strike. Or do you know something the rest of us don't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithjx Donating Member (758 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. The key here is that
having Obama say "I have all options on the table" and having Bush or McCain say "I have all options on the table" have two totally different impacts. Obama is trustworthy with his finger on the button. Bush's and McCain's motivations are selfish, not aimed at what is best for us as a country or a world, coupled with the fact that they both seem to have an itchy trigger finger.

Like you say, not newsworthy simply because it is much more believable when Obama says he'll weigh that decision heavily and pursue all other options first.
KJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CubicleGuy Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. It doesn't matter who says it
having Obama say "I have all options on the table" and having Bush or McCain say "I have all options on the table" have two totally different impacts. Obama is trustworthy with his finger on the button.

Yes, and had Frodo only given Boromir the One Ring, Boromir would have used it wisely and would have subdued only Sauron with it, and the rest of the world he would have allowed to live in peace, forever. Boromir was a trustworthy guy, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spouting Horn Donating Member (310 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. What is the advantage of
taking *any* options "off the table?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Is Obama trustworthy? How do you know? Do you also trust Hillary Clinton?
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 02:44 PM by superconnected
I believe the war with Iran (inevitable) will be for profiteering. I believe Hillary would jump in as fast as Mccain only they wouldn't have to lie to Hillary and convince her of an Iranian threat - she'd sell out for the profiteering motive. She is a corrupt corportist. Obama is a corportist and is very likey a corrupt one too. How do we know he won't do it for the sake of defense companies getting contracts?

We don't and from how he constantly sticks his foot down his throat ala hillary, my best guess is he will - go to war to pay back all those people who funded his 200 million run for president(psst - WTO). It wasn't us.

I'll vote for him. I like him. At least I try to, but I'm not dumb enough to trust him. He's only in his postion - presidential candidate - because he's representing people who stand to gain a whole lot of money if he gets elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. keep your eye on the country that hasnt invaded another in 300 years!!
its always the quiet ones..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BB1 Donating Member (671 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. Obama is not the saint you think he is.
He will not fix healthcare, he will not cut down on military spending, he will drill in ANWR, he will support Israel whatever the cause, he will leave children behind and most of all, he will allow big oil and big pharma to continue to rob the country.

And this comes from an European Obama supporter. Don't even bother to consider what I think of McCain. Obama is like Clinton. Good for foereign public relations, but the same crook with both hands in the cookie jar, handing out taxpayers' money to his friends.

His comments about Israel were quite provoking, I thought. Israel is not a miracle, it's a pest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. Statements for public consumption ...
... and actual policy are often by necessity two different things. Announcing that certain options are "off the table" can strengthen your opponent's hand and lead to undesireable results.

However, it is imperative not to cross the line between playing your cards close to the vest and misleading the American people. For Bushco, that line never existed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. Great. The only real reason I chose Obama was because I felt he wouldn't take us to Iran.
Hope I don't live to regret that decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. The big plus was that he wanted to shut down Gitmo. Come to find out so does McCain.
The fact that he wanted to go to Pakistan and Afghanistan made me wonder what his policies would be towards Iran. Now I know. The only thing I see Obama as better for is that he'll stop a possible overturn of Roe and be less anti-labor and less anti-gay. This election has really left me with the sense that we're a one party state with a soft and hard line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. Exactly like we needed to stop Iraq from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
21. All options are off the table whenever dealing with any nation that is a nuclear power.
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 09:12 PM by gordianot
It is just never stated in those terms. Own a nuclear warhead you have the potential to be dealt with very harshly by other members of the club. Limited Nuclear war is not an option that leads to survival. It seems for a variety of reasons that the members of the Nuclear Weapon (Country) Club (including allies China and Russia) are not too keen on allowing Iran to join the club. Exactly what the specific objections are is not explained but the word "unacceptable" seems to crop up frequently in associating Iran and Nuclear weapons.

Iran does seem to have a carrot when they look at how North Korea brought Bush to his knees by developing an almost working dirty bomb. They may be thinking in similar terms regarding the next U.S. President.

By the way I do not advocate bombing anyone, I just understand why Barak Obama states "no option off the table".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
23. By "nuclear Iran" he means "Iran with Nuclear weapons" right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC