A vote for Romney is a vote for war

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

I don't know, I actually think Obama is standing up to them, the video I linked may well be evidence of that. I have a feeling his efforts are futile, but give him credit IMO.

It is clear what the neocons and Israeli lobby want, yet Obama has stood firm in saying diplomacy can work and that a military option would have terrible consequences. I can't comment on Obama in other areas, but for this, I applaud him, it takes some balls for a US president to stand up to the Israeli lobby!

edit on 21-8-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)

Wow, you serious? Not only has Obama continued the existing wars but he started new ones!

Obama made Iraq worse and he has us reading prisoners their rights in Afghanistan.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Peace & Prosperity.

Originally posted by chrismarco
So much for you taking your own advice...ATS Member Link

One of your last posts and maybe not recent discussed you using a good deal of fear in some of your posts..seems like you are at it again...

haha well when you see the policy of Romney, and the fact that American's actually have a choice not to vote for him, one feels the need to spread the message!

Originally posted by Ace High
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

I agree with your posts in this thread. The belief that Obama would not get the United States involved in a war with Iran are misguided. They work for the same bosses as many have said in this thread.

I would point out that what Obama and Romney say vs. what they do is drastically different. Obama is assigned to speak to the electorate that does not want war. Romney is assigned to speak to the electorate that either want war or wouldn't mind another war.

Bottom Line - When TPTB are ready to kick off the war, they will do just that. Will they worry about Obama's credibility if he is stil in office? Possibly, only if it serves their purpose. A flase flag attack would put Obama's supporters on the war side if necessary.

It is a game to the elite. They have been moving their pieces into place for decades. I do not see any President stopping it now. Unfortunately.

Well that sums up my overall opinion, nice post

I do still believe that Obama has gone against his masters on this issue. It's happened before- Kennedy, Clinton etc.

If I had to vote, at least I'd go for the guy who could be trying to avoid this war- whereas with Romney, there is no question it will happen.

Overall however, I agree with you, when TPTB want this war started, it'll happen if Obama wants it or not. Sadly.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

We need leaders to stand up to the Israeli lobby, not parrot everything they demand like Romney.

Heard this tune before that is nothing but bigotry always about Isreal.

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

The Foreign influence that I "care the most about" is the pandering to the Hispanic population that has more influence thant all the Isreal bashers will ever admit.

Press 2 for english,Doj actively circumventing US law etc.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by Ace High
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

I agree with your posts in this thread. The belief that Obama would not get the United States involved in a war with Iran are misguided. They work for the same bosses as many have said in this thread.

I would point out that what Obama and Romney say vs. what they do is drastically different. Obama is assigned to speak to the electorate that does not want war. Romney is assigned to speak to the electorate that either want war or wouldn't mind another war.

Bottom Line - When TPTB are ready to kick off the war, they will do just that. Will they worry about Obama's credibility if he is stil in office? Possibly, only if it serves their purpose. A flase flag attack would put Obama's supporters on the war side if necessary.

It is a game to the elite. They have been moving their pieces into place for decades. I do not see any President stopping it now. Unfortunately.

Well that sums up my overall opinion, nice post

I do still believe that Obama has gone against his masters on this issue. It's happened before- Kennedy, Clinton etc.

If I had to vote, at least I'd go for the guy who could be trying to avoid this war- whereas with Romney, there is no question it will happen.

Overall however, I agree with you, when TPTB want this war started, it'll happen if Obama wants it or not. Sadly.

Obama has failed. It's time to go home. Pack your luggage.

The varsity team will be moving into the White House.

- President Mitt Romney -

January 20, 2012 - A New Beginning - The Restoration of America

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Are you kidding me...people are unaware of who their choices are...ATS in particular has probably some of the most informed readers out there...most folks on here require facts to back up their arguments...you can certainly make an argument for both sides in this debate up to and even including war...but in the long run nobody wants to start a war with a country where nukes are involved....that's the bottom line..a nuclear war with Iran and US would ruin the all the major countries including Russia and China so I wouldn't be so naive to think that Romney is going to rush into office and start a war with Iran...we may verbally back Israel but the nukes raise the stakes to a entirely new level...we were also in a cold war for many years with Russia in the early eighties and things were just as tense..the only difference we did not have the internet...

reply to post by Wonderer2012

So you think Obama is pretending to not want war with Iran?

As I said, I agree the mistakes Obama has made, but out of Romney and Obama, the former is calling for war and it stated to be the 'new sheriff in town', whereas Obama, which he says is off the record, warns of the Iran military option.

At no point am I justifying anything Obama has done, I'm well aware of what happened in Libya and now Syria, perhaps we can call Obama the lesser of two evils, for at least he is opposing the Iran war and opposing the Israeli lobby on the issue.

How do we know this isn't part of the well planned script to create division??? Seems to be working very well, if you ask me. Just look at the two so called candidates that we have been granted the priviledge to elect!

We have a current president who has been sliding under the radar as a warmonger by hiding under the coat tails of the U.N. and the other, a guy who has already come out and said he wants to go to war with Iran!

PICK YOUR POISON..........................

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Obama made Iraq worse and he has us reading prisoners their rights in Afghanistan.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Peace & Prosperity.

How you can believe that is just beyond me...........Romney is far from a man of peace! He isn't even president and he is beating the war drums to go into Iran....Maybe, he will get a Nobel Peace prize as well???

If ATS has a cheerleader GIF I would give you a few.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Obama made Iraq worse and he has us reading prisoners their rights in Afghanistan.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Peace & Prosperity.

How you can believe that is just beyond me...........Romney is far from a man of peace! He isn't even president and he is beating the war drums to go into Iran....Maybe, he will get a Nobel Peace prize as well???

If ATS has a cheerleader GIF I would give you a few.

Iran will be a sideshow. Iran will fall faster than Libya.

I can already see the mullahs running for the border.

Over half of the Iranians will be chasing after them ! -- You better run !!! --

Mitt standing in front of an Israeli flag tells me everything I need to know. I will not be voting for Mitt.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
A vote for Obama is a war in Syria

A vote for Romney is a war in Iran

lesser of two evils

inb4 HurrHurr why can't we have neither?
Well, you all should have gotten on the train with eliminating labor and currency at least twenty years before I was born, then we wouldn't be having to make these choices. It could have been done, but it wasn't. Now we're still fighting over resources and control of capital when there is literally enough for approximately 50billion (machine exclusive labour necessary).

For now, we have our choices. Syrian conflict or Iranian conflict. The Syrian conflict doesn't end the existence of the human race.

edit on 21-8-2012 by TheOneElectric because: (no reason given)

Seriously? The Russians and the Chinese are joining together to warn us about unilateral action against Syria after Obama threatened to send in US troops - so it would be a Syrian/Russian/Chinese conflict not just Syria. No problem, right?

And I really doubt congress would allow Romney to invade Iran. I also don't believe Romney would attack another country without the approval of congress. Obama on the other hand attacks without even notifying congress - let alone getting congressional approval.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


A vote for Obama is the same thing as a vote for Romney. Neither vote will accomplish anything for your average American Joe, in fact you could say it actually does harm.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Iran will be a sideshow. Iran will fall faster than Libya.

I can already see the mullahs running for the border.

Over half of the Iranians will be chasing after them ! -- You better run !!! --

While I understand your point. I watched the 2009 protests, Neda, etc. and certainly feel that the Iranian populace is eager to move towards a more modern lifestyle, I do not see any conflict ending quickly or easily.

Just a basic Wikipedia search shows a deep connection militarily, and economically between China and Iran.

China is believed to have helped Iran militarily in the following areas: conduct training of high-level officials on advanced systems, provide technical support, supply specialty steel for missile construction, provide control technology for missile development, build a missile factory and test range. It is rumored that China is responsible for aiding in the development of advanced conventional weapons including surface-to-air missiles, combat aircrafts, radar systems, and fast-attack missile vessels

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Republic_of_China%E2%80%93Iran_relations#Military

On average, it is estimated that China made $171 million per year in arms exports to Iran since 1982

What about Brazil, another military power, this time in the Western hemisphere.

www.presstv.ir...

Saying that Iran-Brazil ties are 110 years old, the Iranian envoy described bilateral trade relations between the two states as expanding and stated that the trade volume between the two allies stood at $2.4 billion in 2011 and is expected to reach an even greater volume during current Gregorian calendar year.

What about the big bear from the north, Russia.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com...]

"We are talking about restrictive measures not only against Iran but also affecting foreign companies and individuals working with it, including in the hydrocarbon extraction and transport, petrochemicals, finance and insurance industries," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

the article continues...

"We consider efforts to ... impose internal American legislation on the entire world completely unacceptable," it said. "We reject methods of overt blackmail that the United States resorts to in relation to the companies and banks of other countries."

Yes that is Russia accusing the US of blackmail. Overt blackmail at that.

So any idea that "Iran will be a sideshow" I feel is misguided and not accounting for the international ramifications of such an action.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm almost speechless.

This is what I actually said:

The man who is now saying Syria MUST have regime change and openly threatening U.S. Military intervention the moment certain 'red lines' are observed...as recently as yesterday.

The man who is all but saying the same to Iran and actively building up everything from top line fighters to a Naval force capable of handling all possible paths this will take.

And your reply??

So you think Obama is pretending to not want war with Iran?

How in the name of the English Language did you get THAT from what I just said?? I'm already pulling my hair out over how much work I put into a thread on Iran to have people reply in the vain that my whole point was somehow that we SHOULD attack Iran or something. (?????) ..but this too??

I'm not sure if that was accidental or a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said... I goota lean toward mistake given that your reply came so close to my own words, anyone could and would scroll up to see where I was suggesting something so out of character for my own positions?


For the record tho.... I am not suggesting Obama is pretending a single thing on his Middle East Policy. I think he's been very clear in deed and action...as well as his words at least HALF the time...that Israel is not his buddy, the Sunni Arabs ARE and Iran is going down right after Syria. I'm figuring he'd love to time it all for the election if people over there will just see his light and cooperate about dying on the proper timeline.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm almost speechless.

This is what I actually said:

The man who is now saying Syria MUST have regime change and openly threatening U.S. Military intervention the moment certain 'red lines' are observed...as recently as yesterday.

The man who is all but saying the same to Iran and actively building up everything from top line fighters to a Naval force capable of handling all possible paths this will take.

And your reply??

So you think Obama is pretending to not want war with Iran?

How in the name of the English Language did you get THAT from what I just said?? I'm already pulling my hair out over how much work I put into a thread on Iran to have people reply in the vain that my whole point was somehow that we SHOULD attack Iran or something. (?????) ..but this too??

I'm not sure if that was accidental or a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said... I goota lean toward mistake given that your reply came so close to my own words, anyone could and would scroll up to see where I was suggesting something so out of character for my own positions?


For the record tho.... I am not suggesting Obama is pretending a single thing on his Middle East Policy. I think he's been very clear in deed and action...as well as his words at least HALF the time...that Israel is not his buddy, the Sunni Arabs ARE and Iran is going down right after Syria. I'm figuring he'd love to time it all for the election if people over there will just see his light and cooperate about dying on the proper timeline.

I re read your original post and don't see the confusion?

You were stating that basically Obama is terrible- which is fair enough.

Yet my point, which you ignored, is that Obama, for whatever reason is hesitating over Iran, because as the video I linked explains, he sees the dangers and cost of the war.

AT LEAST OBAMA IS CONSIDERING THE DOWNSWIDE OF A MILITARY ACTION WITH IRAN. That is my point, which you chose to ignore hence I asked, do you think Obama is pretending when he says he does not want an Iran conflict?

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Are you kidding me...people are unaware of who their choices are...ATS in particular has probably some of the most informed readers out there...most folks on here require facts to back up their arguments...you can certainly make an argument for both sides in this debate up to and even including war...but in the long run nobody wants to start a war with a country where nukes are involved....that's the bottom line..a nuclear war with Iran and US would ruin the all the major countries including Russia and China so I wouldn't be so naive to think that Romney is going to rush into office and start a war with Iran...we may verbally back Israel but the nukes raise the stakes to a entirely new level...we were also in a cold war for many years with Russia in the early eighties and things were just as tense..the only difference we did not have the internet...

Well, I would argue only a small % of people on this forum understand how American politics really work, especially in terms of the intrigue and influence of foreign nations.

People on this forum deny the influence of the pro Israel lobby even though I linked you Romney's foreign policy advisor team- Chertoff, Zakheim, are Americans that dumbed down they can't see the truth or what?

You say nobody wants to start a war yet that is exactly what Romney will do if he becomes president.

Ironically, your point is in line with Obama- who does see the danger of attacking Iran.

So whilst Obama was willing to do the wrong thing in Libya, he knew he could get away with it. At least he has the intelligence to recognise the dangers of an Iran conflict, which is a lot more than can be said for Romney.

Originally posted by groingrinder
Mitt standing in front of an Israeli flag tells me everything I need to know. I will not be voting for Mitt.

So, Obama bows to Arab royalty. At least there is a huge number of Israelis that are American too...I don't know too many Saudis that are American...lol

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Obama is thinking for himself and telling the truth.

OMG .. that was funny!
Obama lies and lies. Waivergate. Lobbiestgate. The Obamacare TAX.
Mr. Peace Prize has bombed more countries than Bush43.

A vote for Romney is a vote for war

Obama's track record proves that a vote for Obama is a vote for war.
Romney .. well considering how close Obama and Romney are on the issues,
Romney may be a vote for war as well. We already know that a vote for
Obama is a vote for war. Romney/Obama = same/same

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Actually... I saw your point fine.. I've also read over your threads and seen the Obama position you're posting almost everything from, as a common line running through it all. So..I'm keeping that in mind....

I see what he is doing as well as you do. You see it as caution and Obama is a shrewd operator. Fine... We all have different opinions.

I see what he's doing as cheap political stunts to make sure the timing is what he needs it to be for the killing of another nation...or at least a % of it.

Syria for sure. Iran most likely and if he gets 4 more...absolute certainty. I don't know where this little War train goes after that but damn sure we won't be stopping with Iran. It's the world tour, it seems and Obama picked up right where Bush left off.

Under Obama, we've got combat forces and advisers across the whole of North Africa. That's new to him..... We're pushing 300 drone strikes where Bush had under a 100 his whole EIGHT years. One isn't necessarily better than the other...but that is the point. They're both evil and equally criminal. Obama just has better P.R. than Bush ever did.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Actually... I saw your point fine.. I've also read over your threads and seen the Obama position you're posting almost everything from, as a common line running through it all. So..I'm keeping that in mind....

I see what he is doing as well as you do. You see it as caution and Obama is a shrewd operator. Fine... We all have different opinions.

I see what he's doing as cheap political stunts to make sure the timing is what he needs it to be for the killing of another nation...or at least a % of it.

Syria for sure. Iran most likely and if he gets 4 more...absolute certainty. I don't know where this little War train goes after that but damn sure we won't be stopping with Iran. It's the world tour, it seems and Obama picked up right where Bush left off.

Under Obama, we've got combat forces and advisers across the whole of North Africa. That's new to him..... We're pushing 300 drone strikes where Bush had under a 100 his whole EIGHT years. One isn't necessarily better than the other...but that is the point. They're both evil and equally criminal. Obama just has better P.R. than Bush ever did.

Obama usually has the main stream media behind him.

Not anymore. Newsweek threw him over a cliff with this cover. The author is a

guy from Harvard ! -- credibility --