focus people....

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
225
63
"the bunker"
Focus, People
A life-or-death election.

By Anne Bayefsky

Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.

Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn?t it about time that we got to the point about the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch talking about the minutae ? a candidate?s look, an accent, a stumble, a slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it.




The question that must be put point-blank to both presidential and vice-presidential candidates is: ?Will you authorize the use of force in time to stop Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons ? yes or no??

Wouldn?t your beliefs for and against abortion fade if you thought nobody would be born into a world fit for living things? Wouldn?t your worries about health care pale if you thought the mutilation, cancer, and death of millions upon millions, sure to follow nuclear war, would occur in your lifetime? Wouldn?t your concerns about affording a college education fade if you thought your children will have the grim task of fighting a war of horrifying devastation instead of going to school?

Wake up. There is a genocidal maniac on the verge of reaching the point of no return in his ability to make a nuclear weapon. A fanatic with the stated ambition to murder five million Jews living in Israel ? to start. A villain who has already funded and armed a terrorist war against the Jewish state that in 2006 forced one-third of Israel?s population to live underground for almost a month. In other words, an individual who is ready, willing, and able to give the nuclear trigger to a terrorist group ? to terrorists who cannot be bargained with because they prefer their death to your freedom. As for the suggestion that the Mullahs are more powerful and nicer guys, the millions brutalized and subjugated in Iran tell a different story.

I don?t know why it is possible after the Holocaust, to have such widespread denial of man?s capacity for evil. Nor do I understand why Ahmadinejad?s virulent anti-semitism and call for the destruction of Israel are dismissed as irrelevant factoids when calculating the Iranian threat. Time has a story about ?experts? who believe that Iran seeks an atomic bomb not because they have any interest in using it or passing it to others who will, but to deter, to ensure its security. According to Thomas Fringar, chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council: ?Iran?s biggest strategic concern is obtaining security assurances and accords,? and it is the United States ?which the Iranians consider a mortal threat.? These ?experts? have it exactly backwards. If Iran were really driven by such security concerns, these concerns could be alleviated without spending a nickel ? by stopping its nuclear-weapons campaign and its funding of terrorists.

No amount of ignorance, stupidity, or wishful thinking will change the reality that there are people who are prepared to kill you and your family for no good reason at all. Not because of poverty, or envy, or discrimination or because of anything you?ve done. But because they hate you ? whether you live in Jerusalem, Washington, London, or Paris. They hate everything you stand for ? liberty, tolerance, equality. And their minds are made up. Closed ? period ? to the entreaties of na?ve foreign diplomats or would-be presidents and vice presidents.

During the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden denied the undeniable fact that Senator Obama said he would sit down with the Iranian President without preconditions: ?Barack Obama, he did not say ?sit down with Ahmadinejad.?? Perhaps he should read Barack?s website: ?The Obama-Biden Plan: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.?

pg1 of
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
225
63
"the bunker"
So let?s look at the differences between the presidential tickets on what to do about the nuclear weapons ambitions of a would-be mass murderer.


On the one side:



Vice-Presidential Debate

DEBATE MODERATOR: ?Let?s move to Iran and Pakistan?.Senator Biden. What?s the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan??

SENATOR BIDEN: ??I always am focused?I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack, on Pakistan?.Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing?[T]hey are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that?s able to be deployed.??

SENATOR BIDEN: [on Iran] ?Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, ?Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk.??And if we don?t?what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us??

Ask yourself: does preventing a nuclear holocaust involve winning a popularity contest?


First Presidential Debate

Senator Obama [on preventing a nuclear Iran]: ?Now here?s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree?that we?re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with?Russia and China?[W]e are also going to have to?engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain.?

News flash: Russia and China have told us to take a hike on tough sanctions, Barack. Any other ideas?


Obama Website:

If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.


?If? it continues? Anybody in Iran trembling?

And on the other side:


Vice-Presidential Debate


DEBATE MODERATOR: ?Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat??

GOVERNOR PALIN: ?A nuclear armed Iran is so extremely dangerous to
consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period.?


First Presidential Debate


Senator McCain: ?If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region?[W]e cannot [allow] a second Holocaust. ?Have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons?What Senator Obama doesn?t seem to understand that if without preconditions you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a ?stinking corpse,? and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments. This is dangerous. It isn?t just naive; it?s dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.?



Barack Obama isn?t just inexperienced. It isn?t naivet? that drives him. I take him at his word. He and his vice-presidential candidate believe in ?talk, talk, talk? regardless of the hourglass or the stakes or the intentions of the person across the table. No amount of learning on the job is going to change their way of thinking. Approving the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a Rubicon they will not cross ? before civilization as we know it comes to an end.

So when you cast your ballot this election, make no mistake: you are voting for or against a nuclear holocaust. Not because Barack Obama wants such a horror, but because he will not prevent it. He will still be talking when the point of no return in Iran?s nuclear program is reached. And the balance of power in the world will ? with terrible consequences ? have changed forever.

? Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Focus, People
A life-or-death election.

By Anne Bayefsky

Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.

Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn?t it about time that we got to the point about the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch talking about the minutae ? a candidate?s look, an accent, a stumble, a slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it.




The question that must be put point-blank to both presidential and vice-presidential candidates is: ?Will you authorize the use of force in time to stop Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons ? yes or no??

Wouldn?t your beliefs for and against abortion fade if you thought nobody would be born into a world fit for living things? Wouldn?t your worries about health care pale if you thought the mutilation, cancer, and death of millions upon millions, sure to follow nuclear war, would occur in your lifetime? Wouldn?t your concerns about affording a college education fade if you thought your children will have the grim task of fighting a war of horrifying devastation instead of going to school?

Wake up. There is a genocidal maniac on the verge of reaching the point of no return in his ability to make a nuclear weapon. A fanatic with the stated ambition to murder five million Jews living in Israel ? to start. A villain who has already funded and armed a terrorist war against the Jewish state that in 2006 forced one-third of Israel?s population to live underground for almost a month. In other words, an individual who is ready, willing, and able to give the nuclear trigger to a terrorist group ? to terrorists who cannot be bargained with because they prefer their death to your freedom. As for the suggestion that the Mullahs are more powerful and nicer guys, the millions brutalized and subjugated in Iran tell a different story.

I don?t know why it is possible after the Holocaust, to have such widespread denial of man?s capacity for evil. Nor do I understand why Ahmadinejad?s virulent anti-semitism and call for the destruction of Israel are dismissed as irrelevant factoids when calculating the Iranian threat. Time has a story about ?experts? who believe that Iran seeks an atomic bomb not because they have any interest in using it or passing it to others who will, but to deter, to ensure its security. According to Thomas Fringar, chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council: ?Iran?s biggest strategic concern is obtaining security assurances and accords,? and it is the United States ?which the Iranians consider a mortal threat.? These ?experts? have it exactly backwards. If Iran were really driven by such security concerns, these concerns could be alleviated without spending a nickel ? by stopping its nuclear-weapons campaign and its funding of terrorists.

No amount of ignorance, stupidity, or wishful thinking will change the reality that there are people who are prepared to kill you and your family for no good reason at all. Not because of poverty, or envy, or discrimination or because of anything you?ve done. But because they hate you ? whether you live in Jerusalem, Washington, London, or Paris. They hate everything you stand for ? liberty, tolerance, equality. And their minds are made up. Closed ? period ? to the entreaties of na?ve foreign diplomats or would-be presidents and vice presidents.

During the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden denied the undeniable fact that Senator Obama said he would sit down with the Iranian President without preconditions: ?Barack Obama, he did not say ?sit down with Ahmadinejad.?? Perhaps he should read Barack?s website: ?The Obama-Biden Plan: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.?

pg1 of

:rolleyes:
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
GOVERNOR PALIN: ?A nuclear armed Iran is so extremely dangerous to
consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period.?

You betcha it is. It is so dangerous to consider it I don't even consider considering it. Folks, guys and gals, if you want a straight talking maverick who loves this country and loves all that is good and hates all that is bad, you need to vote for that old maverick John McCain, the only one who has ever truly fought for you.

She is an idiotic lunatic, I can see why you like her. I am sure that you are right gw, if OBama wins Iran will get nukes and the world will end.

When is that sleeper cell of terrorist school bus drivers ever going to wake up and kill all of our children?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.


Wease, seriously. If you need someone to talk you down, gimme a shout. I'm a little worried about you.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Surprised McCain won't engage with certain so called terrorist nation leaders but he will share a stage tonight with a guy him and his liar are now painting a terrorist :shrug:
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
GOVERNOR PALIN: ?A nuclear armed Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period.?

You betcha it is.

I think Sarah's actually more concerned about "nukular" weapons, which are much worse.

You betcha they are. That's why we gotta get all Mavericky on them Iranians and show 'em they can't push Joe Sixpack around, no sir'ee!
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
I think Sarah's actually more concerned about "nukular" weapons, which are much worse.

You betcha they are. That's why we gotta get all Mavericky on them Iranians and show 'em they can't push Joe Sixpack around, no sir'ee!

X'tra credit for you Trench ;)
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
good grief weaze....

good grief weaze....

Get some St John's Wort...I humbly suggest a product named "Happy Camper"



I really worry about you and your tenuous grasp
on perceived reality...

Humanity will plod along somehow....even with Obama in the Whitehouse...and Repubs scurrying back under the slime covered rocks they once called home....

sleep well
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
225
63
"the bunker"
i think the point is that it`s not just little satan`s survival(israel) thats at stake...we absolutely do not want a nuclear arms race in the middle east, involving syria, jordan, egypt, et al....

that.....THAT!...will be the flashpoint of wwIII....if ahmadinnerjacket gets a nuclear weapon...everything changes...

your life will change...bet on it...

i will give bock credit for saying he,""would do everything in his power to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons."

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


i only wish he meant it...thats called empty rhetoric....or in gambler`s parlance,a bluff,to gain favor with jewish voters........or bullshit...

of course,the catch is once he get's in office, the announcment will be that there is nothing he can do since the failure of the "bush administration" to engage iran directly(last time i checked the rest of the western world and the u.n. were having no success) gave iran the time to build their bomb..

as a result, he is going to have to resort to direct talks to use diplomacy to contain it.....just as chamberlain used diplomacy to contain hitler.....with equal effect..

hell,who wants to focus on nuclear iran, or a china that wants to take taiwan or pakistan's instability even as the islamists are surging there as its nuclear arsenal hangs in the balance when you can talk of ayers and ties to unrepentant terrorists or racists (wright) or criminals (rezko)?

or the keating 5 or a bunch of assholes that took out mortgages that they couldn`t afford...or bailing out the fatcats...

well, for one thing,you`d have to be a person with a stiff,strong back ..somebody that doesn`t stick their finger in the wind to see which way the political wind is blowing at the time...... - in other words,not be afraid to be a leader and take a stand on issues..

it goes to character and fitness to be president. it goes to judgment ...both casually and for snap decisions....

presidents have to do those things even when they aren`t popular....

mccain's judgment is off at times (and that's being charitable)...he`s not my choice...far from it....

but,as i`ve said before,i`ll crawl over broken glass to vote against a person that`s surrounded himself his entire adult life with with terrorists, racists, and anti-american leftists......

who is better capable of dealing with a nuclear iran?...imo mccain... by default,unfortunately...
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,909
133
63
16
L.A.
99% of us don't give a fu*k about the middle east. We don't care about Iran, Israel, Iraq, SA or any of those ****s. We don't wont their oil and sure as f*ck don't want them to suck us into another war.
 

TontoKowalski

BoomOuttaHere
Forum Member
Apr 26, 2008
1,927
0
0
U.S. American
Hey weasel, say the USA smoked Iran, do you got "another hitler" lined up ready to fire off the same scare tactics?

Seriously, can some people live for a day without raising fears about the existence of another hitler, bringing up the holocaust, and the threat to Israel? Is it like a hobby for some people or a medical condition?

"I was diagnosed with holocaustitis, I can't go a minute without thinking Israel is gonna end... unless we start another war"
 

TontoKowalski

BoomOuttaHere
Forum Member
Apr 26, 2008
1,927
0
0
U.S. American
ANd another thing wease, a lot of your jewish buddies are voting obama, hate to break it to you. but don't worry, all of our pols are firmly pro-israel.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
225
63
"the bunker"
Hey weasel, say the USA smoked Iran, do you got "another hitler" lined up ready to fire off the same scare tactics?

Seriously, can some people live for a day without raising fears about the existence of another hitler, bringing up the holocaust, and the threat to Israel? Is it like a hobby for some people or a medical condition?

"I was diagnosed with holocaustitis, I can't go a minute without thinking Israel is gonna end... unless we start another war"

i understand that nobody gets it...i understand that you guys think that the tough decisions do go away if we all assume the fetal position.....



so i`ll try and make it simple...

1)al baradei(peace be upon this asswipe).said on june 20th iran is six months from a nuke and he can do nothing about it....but,he said he hopes that iran is not attacked and he`ll quit if they are(after all,covering up for every islamic dictatorship in the brotherhood is hard work)......

..

what was the job of the iaea again?....:rolleyes:


2)iran is run by the cult of the 12th imam....and the cult of the 12th imam believes they can actuate the apocalypse and bring about the return of the madhi....death is a cool idea for them..

3)ahmadinnerjacket has been pretty direct about "wiping out israel",one of our closest allies and one of the few democratic states in the middle east....

4) once they get a nuclear weapon they can blackmail any country in the middleeast...unless other countries decide to obtain their own deterrent(in other words,a middle eastern arms race...great idea in the most volatile, backwards region in the world rife with wacky terrorist oragnizations just chomping at the bit to become iran`s nuclear surrogate)...

5)as john bolton put it: "when you have a regime that would be happier in the afterlife than in this life, this is not a regime that is subject to classic theories of deterrence.... retaliation for them, which would obliterate their society, doesn?t have the same negative connotations for their leadership.

you wanna roll the dice?....fine...you`re gonna get your wish with an obama presidency....

and when they get the weapon,and something horrific happens,i`m gonna come back in this forum and let you guys explain how it was bush`s fault...

go back to sleep...
 

Tapir Caper

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 14, 2008
583
0
0
Pure Jew blather.

You must be a jew yourself, weasel. I've never seen anyone with such a hard on for repeating Israeli lies.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top