Now that Obama is going to be the next US president - who should he liberate first?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Darius871


Hey, he's the one who flat-out said Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would be an "unacceptable" "game-changer" in his administration, and that military action would never be off the table in that scenario, so you put two and two together and tell me what that means. Really it's up to Iran whether Obama attacks, not Obama.

Wanna bet?

[Darius871]

Why are you so damned confident anyway? Why does the fact that he guessed right in 2003 about Iraq (at a time when he didn't hold national office and didn't have access to the same intelligence that had convinced so many of his own party, including his VP) necessarily prove he'd be a prudent dove in all circumstances when in the Oval Office, and not the relative hawk Gore was? So far all you have in his record to accurately predict how he will behave in that capacity during an international crisis is... well... nothing come to think of it. Just words.

Anyway, if you are serious, I'd gladly wager $50 that IF 1) Iran A) obtains a nuclear weapon or B) is demonstrably on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon with intent to do so, 2) sanctions of an economic nature do not change 1A or 1B, and 3) Israel doesn't get around to it first, Obama would order "some" airstrikes within Iran. The extent of the airstrikes, whether ground troops would be involved, and the consequences for Iraq, Afghanististan, and the region at large aren't within the scope.

I assume an escrow arrangement wouldn't make sense since the conditions take place too far into the future and one of us might not be around here by then, but it can be honor system if/when conditions make the bet come due. You in or you out?

[DaShi]

Too far in the future? "first year" You don't plan to live that long?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey none of us ever thought that people like Lordshiva were going to leave us.

[Maniac]

Somalia. You know you want to!