Obama – Iran…No Big Deal

By 5 Comments 401 views

Obama preached to his flock yesterday and what he said would surprise many people with a little knowledge of history (a class Obama clearly flunked). He said that the Soviet Union collapsed because we negotiated with them…..stop laughing, let me finish…..and that Iran really isn’t that big of a threat:

Ok, history lesson. The USSR collapsed because their economy collapsed. That collapsed because they tried to keep up with Reagan and the defense build up along with the “star wars” program.

Then he goes on to say Iran and the US have common interests? Is he freakin insane? We neither wish to see Israel wiped off the map nor funding of terror groups like Hamas nor the supplying of our enemy in Iraq. He then goes on to say that Iran doesn’t spend as much money on its military infrastructure as we do so why worry?

Well, because a dozen AQ members on a shoestring budget did more to hurt this country then the USSR ever did Obama.

McCain answers this lunacy today:

Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is “tiny” compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny”.

Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.

This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.

The USSR never attacked us because they were somewhat rational and understood that we would destroy them also. The Iranian government is NOT rational. The danger a nuclear armed Iran poses is 100 times greater then the USSR ever posed.

Andy McCarthy:

Ahmadinejad and his cohort are apocalyptic jihadi revolutionaries. Shouldn’t what they believe be analyzed and factored in as we try to assess the threat that they pose? Or would that offend moderates too much? It seems awfully silly to compare them to the Soviet Union when, with the latter, we had a deterrence policy — Mutually Assured Destruction — that was explicitly based not only on the size of the enemy arsenal but on whether, given his motivations, he was likely to act. Obama appears content to calculate based on the size of the arsenal, period. That’s not MAD, but it’s madness.

Its incredible to think this naive man even made it this far in the race for the Presidency.

But then again, look at Jimmy Carter.

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

5 Responses to “Obama – Iran…No Big Deal”

  1. Obama talks about “strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries” yet he is already proprosing to GUT the U.S. military might that makes us strong and keeps us safe:

    Here’s a 51 second video of how Obama would keep us strong:

    He will cut the very same missile defense system that would protect us and our allies from Iran. The very same missile defense system that proved so effective in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Democrats in Congress have already taken his lead and cut over 200 million from next years missile defense program to fund the European portion of missile defense that our NATO allies so recently agreed to. Is it any wonder our allies think we often cannot be counted on?

    We are going to have to keep reminding people over and over and over again these next five months. Too many voters gloss over these points and just go with the flow of Obama’s fine sounding words. Reality and the consequences of dangerously naive ideas are harder to explain, but absolutely VITAL.

    We succeeded in negotions with the Soviets from Regan’s policy of PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH. Obama and most Democrats NEVER supported that approach.

    Diplomacy without Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick” (which can be non military) is more than meaningless, it is DANGEROUS.

  2. 3

    David Adams

    The fact that Obama has no personal knowledge of the policies of Iran nor the history of the ‘Cold War’ and the collapse of the USSR shows that he is only a reader of someone else’s writing. The amazing thing is that the man is so ignorant that he just goes right on reading the stuff without questioning it.

  3. 4


    Iran? No problem. But, you better lay off his wife.

    “The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.”

    The Messiah whines again

    Since the GOP can say what they want, how about, You are married to an unpatriotic, hateful b*tch?

    It is amazing how he knows little about geography, foreign policy or history and he tries to change everything into a personal, racial or religious issue to avoid the facts. If he can’t stand up to attacks by the GOP (why doesn’t he have talks with them), how in the hell is he going to deal with the Iranians?

  4. 5

    Dave Noble

    If you are all over with your ODS seizure – Lets analyze what the man actually said. He said we can negotiate with Cuba and Iran because we are stronger than they are. You should always negotiate from a position of strength. He did not say that negotiation alone led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. He said that a history of negotiation ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, or more specifically the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is accurate because if President Kennedy had hunkered down in a bunker mentality during the Cuban missile crisis someone on either side would have pushed the button and the ensuing history of the world would have been very different.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *