Ibtisam Posted June 4, 2008 ^^^Sorry dear, American Politicians are speaking on behalf of Israel and few powerful Zionist in key positions backed by well financed and targeted lobby group, which just happens to be more active. The average American cares about America not Israel. what happens when the two interest conflict?? Guess what, it is Israel interest which will be on top. Israel is a liability, the sooner y'll realise this, the better for your sorry a*ss country. Don’t get me wrong, I realise Obama would not be here if he did not endorse AIPAC. It is and always was much bigger than him, it does not make it any less pleasant or disappointing to watch him grovel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted June 4, 2008 ^Goodness, and i thought i was as liberal as it got. L0L, You folks in the UK are too liberal,sometimes,you've got to say things and do things for the larger things in life. Godwilling,He will be a better prez,support the man,when he comes to campaign in London,because that is where the next primary is gonna be @,since Ms Clinton didnt concede Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LANDER Posted June 4, 2008 "He said real security came from lasting peace and he would work from the start of his administration to achieve a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one - but with Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7435883.stm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ibtisam Posted June 4, 2008 Jerusalem has never been and will never be the capital, it is not even included as whole in the 1945 borders. FB: Yeah yeah what ever. My blackness only can support Obama to an extent, my Muslimness and morality must overrule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fabregas Posted June 4, 2008 Originally posted by Faarax-Brawn: quote:Originally posted by Ibtisam: Mr. Obama speech to AIPAC is everywhere. What an as*S kissing idoi*t, What a loser American politicians :rolleyes: are all the same and no back bone, always so terrified of the unseen lobby. When will America policy be about its own interest rather than Israel? So what Obama is @ Aipac? Matter of fact,i am glad he is with the AIPAC folks. Let him actually say ALL that they want to hear. It is what Americans want to hear. Like it or hate it. Anyway,lets say he went on TV & blasted off AIPAC? Like,say,he went on TV and said: "Screw you AIPAC,we will support Palestine" Would we be talking about Obama? Naga daaya ciyaarta American politicians are speaking on behalf of AMericans,and wether people like it or not,this country is pro israel. People should embrace that. Fair enough, that could all well be true! American is pro Israel, but the Muslim World isn't, and some where going on like Obamas gonna( if he ever gets elected) change the Muslim, which is a complete fantasy! I would love to see his policy with the Ethiopian Regime! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LANDER Posted June 4, 2008 Well, no one country recognizes Jerusalem as the 'undivided' capital of Israel (not even the U.S.) Mind you he isn't the first politician to speak such rhetoric in front of an Israeli lobby, but this doesn't reinforce his promise for 'change' and not bending to the demands of lobby groups. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ibtisam Posted June 4, 2008 He is not^, but I think the reason most people are shocked as you said is because of his emphasis on "change" I guess he meant limited change some areas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Libaax-Sankataabte Posted June 4, 2008 Play the game nomads. Don't act as if you don't know what the game is and how it is being played. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Libaax-Sankataabte Posted June 4, 2008 What do you guys think of the "Michelle Obama tape" rumor running around the internet? Fear-mongers are saying Republicans are sitting on a video tape on which Michelle Obama is attacking "white people". http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTE2ODlmYmEyNmE1NDQ0YTViMGY1ZTMxY2U0YmM3ZTM= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baashi Posted June 5, 2008 Libaax, regardless of the validity of this particular rumor, Michele has proven to be a laibility to her husband's candidacy. The sister is another Hillary in the making Just-in Plot thickens -- Clinton's email says she will "support" Obama. She's playing hardball and rightly so. Obama is on the hot seat. What to do with ambitious Hillary who has 18 million voters and 48% of pledged delegates under her belt? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abdulladiif Al-Fiqih Posted June 5, 2008 ^Awoow, whatever you do, don't suggest that he puts her on the ticket. That will turned out to be a disastrous ticket. Lets hope that the majority of the 18m and the 48% will come around once the compaign moves to the next level. They have to do that or endure another 4-8 yrs of McBush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baashi Posted June 5, 2008 My suggestion matters little bro. He is in a fix. He can't embrace her and the sametimes he can't ignore her. She knows that and she is not in the mood of getting him off the hook. Hence the strange kabuki dance. He is practical enough to know the calculus is on her side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emperor Posted June 5, 2008 ^There was a news reporter for the BBC who suggested that the white house would be too small to accomdate both the Clinton dynasty and the rising popularity of reer Obama's... They will be far too big names to share or have enough space for both, the white Guri will simply get a bit over-crouded Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Koora-Tuunshe Posted June 5, 2008 Despite the rhetoric of Jerusalem, Obama has rejected to support a Senate Resolution bill that called for the designation of the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. According to NY Times, he called the bill as "unnecessarily belligerent and overboard". I think Mr. Obama understands the nature of Israeli-American historic and political relations and he has to reassure the Jews state, which enjoys 71% of public support in the U.S. that their government should militarily and financially aid the state of Israel overcome existential threats in a very volatile region. Yet, he is still willing to sit down and negotiate with America's adversaries without jeopardizing the country's interest. Many eminent foreign policy experts hail this as a bold step to restoring America's global leadership and calming the region’s tension. The Democratic presumptive nominee knows what is at stake and important goals that he has accomplish if he were to win the next White/Black House. There is an enormous public support for three items for the upcoming presidential election: ending the war in Iraq, reversing the worst economic slump America has faced since the Bush Sr. administration, and restoring the loss of civil liberties. The odds are heavily against him especially if keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is secretly high on the agenda. Obama understands this as he explicitly said in his St. Paul speech that "we should carefully withdraw from Iraq as we carelessly entered". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xiinfaniin Posted June 6, 2008 This man is very smart. Look how he maneuvers in his VP search. Talk to the top Dems in congress and collect their consensus, to make his ultimate choice credible . From NBC's Andrea Mitchell Congressional sources tell NBC News that Obama's vice presidential vetting team of Jim Johnson, Caroline Kennedy, and Eric Holder will be on Capitol Hill Monday and Tuesday interviewing senators and members of Congress about their recommendations. Those being visited are NOT potential choices. The point, according to Senate offices, is to collect information about a potential field. source Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites