The Soviet Union’s approach to dealing with the US was based on a mistaken fear that the US wanted to wipe them out. They never seriously attempted any preemptive action against the US – the Cuban Missile Crisis was in reaction to missiles placed in their back yard (Turkey) by the US. Yes, I know it was under NATO, but the US were the big dog.

The point is, Russians did not want to die trying to take the West out – Iran is a different ball-game altogether.

As a child of the 60’s and growing up with the threat of an attack by the Soviet Union, I can say that I never heard any of the leaders of the Soviet Union declare to wipe any country off the map as Iran has.does, over and over

moonsbreath on May 19, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Nikita Khrushchev did say “We will bury you!”

Maybe he will listen to Arnold and move left, closer to the middle.

abinitioadinfinitum on May 19, 2008 at 4:44 PM

I suspect you are delusional so I will not respond.

To go to the bargaining table now would be a show of weakness and would inevitably be taken that way.

To Leftist Ivy Leaguers like Obama, this is precisely the point. And the goal.

The candidate of Change changes what he says, depending on the audience in front of him. On this issue, he has sometimes sounded like Bush (as Ed noted recently) and sometimes like Carter.

He also likely believes he would be dealing from a position of weakness when sitting down with Iran, making said sitdown a manifestly bad idea.

When a candidate says something dumb, he’s going to get zinged. When he claims he really didn’t mean it because he has taken a different position before, he’ll get zinged for the flip-flop or asked to reconcile the two. Instead, O! lies about the position he has posted on his own campaign website.

Bad rap? To quote AP’s boss, “Boo.Frickin’.Hoo.”

Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program.

Remember this line when the dhimicrats are whining that Pres. McCain lied about Iran having nukes.

Can somebody please diagram for me what it is that is currently being done w/r/t Iran vs. what Obama thinks should be done?

If I read him right, the only difference is that he promises that he would meet directly at the presidential level, but only with careful planning.
The other difference is that he would not have gone to Iraq.

The big difference is that Obama intends to withdraw the bulk of our military presence in the ME, reduce our nuclear strike capability, and scale back military spending both on the ground and in space.

Essentially he’ll get rid of the only thing that will bring Iran to the negotiating table, our ability to project power in the region.

If I read him right, the only difference is that he promises that he would meet directly at the presidential level, but only with careful planning.
The other difference is that he would not have gone to Iraq.

But what I’ve said is that we should not just talk to our friends. We should be willing to engage our enemies as well. That’s what diplomacy is all about.”

DAMNIT!!!! HE`S ALL SUNSHINE-HAPPYFACE BUMPER STICKER SLOGAN! I CAN`T BELIEVE HE`S GOING TO BE OUR PRESIDENT!

abinitioadinfinitum on May 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM

Yes way. I’m from Obamaland and I’ve seen those Huaraches and you can still buy them, leather, tires and all… huaraches.com

EJDolbow on May 19, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Maybe he will listen to Arnold and move left, closer to the middle.

But does he wind surf?

Clinton and the Mrs. are master triangulators but I think Obama maybe so blinded by the left he can’t even see what he thinks is approaching the “center” is still damn far left.

Instead of fireside chats Obama is going to have daily retractions during the campaign.