McCain v. Obama: The GE Thread
  • scrubblescrubble June 2008
    Much like McCain's plan to totally power America by Nuclear energy in 8 years, his plans to cut pork barrel spending are completely impossible.

    QUOTE
    "I can eliminate $100 billion of wasteful and earmark spending immediately--35 billion in big spending bills in the last two years, and another 65 billion that has already been made a permanent part of the budget."
    --John McCain, NPR All Things Considered, April 23, 2008.


    QUOTE
    For fiscal 2008, the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense said there was $18.3 billion earmarked in spending bills. Citizens Against Government Waste came in at $17.2 billion. The Office of Management and Budget tallied earmarks at a mere $16.9 billion. In 2006, the Congressional Research Service, which used a different definition of "earmark" for each of the 11 spending bills it studied in that year, came up with over $67 billion.


    McCain would like to remind everyone that he still doesn't understand economics and is still a parody of himself.

    QUOTE
    Right at the top of his remarks before taking questions from the Nashville crowd -- where regular unleaded goes for about $3.85 -- McCain said he wanted to discuss "what's on everybody's mind, the price of oil."

    McCain said he was struck by the loud opposition by "the elites in this country."

    "The hysterical reaction was a little bit funny," he said.

    In Washington, McCain noted, "the wealthiest people live in Georgetown" and can walk downtown to work. By contrast, he said, the lowest-income workers live the furthest away.

    McCain explained that Barack Obama had called the plan "a gimmick"

    "Well, I'd like to have some more quote gimmicks to give-low income Americans some relief," he jabbed back.


    When has Obama ever said he was going to lower gas prices? they're not going to get lower, and the people who believe McCain can do anything about them are idiots.

    Oh yeah, just to illustrate the difference between these two candidates in regards to something we all care about, technology, these are two of Obama's many technology advisers.



    Lawrence Lessig

    QUOTE
    Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig founded Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.


    Tim Wu

    QUOTE
    Tim Wu (吳修銘) is a professor at Columbia Law School and a writer for Slate Magazine. He is best known for popularizing the concept of network neutrality, a term he is credited with coining during a dialog with Larry Lessig. Wu's specialty is copyright and telecommunications policy. For his work in this area, Professor Wu was named one of Scientific American's 50 people of the year in 2006. In 2007 Wu was named one of Harvard University's 100 most influential graduates by 02138 Magazine. He serves on the board of directors of Free Press Action Fund.


    John McCain's main guy is Chuck Fish, a former copyright lawyer for Time Warner cable. yeah.
  • scrubblescrubble June 2008
    McCain continues to be found keeping the worst company imaginable and hopefully his facade of being a washington outsider, maverick, and reformer will crumble.

    First, read this and learn about the IRI.

    Then, read this.

    QUOTE
    President Bush endorsed John McCain even before Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race. It was back in 2005 at an International Republican Institute (IRI) dinner. President Bush introduced John McCain as an “outstanding” IRI board chairman and as “a man of honor and integrity, and great personal courage.”

    McCain has served as board chairman since 1993. During the past fifteen years, under the cover of spreading democracy and a free market economic system, the IRI has helped install governments friendly to the United States and undermined others.

    Despite its reputation for destabilizing popularly elected governments, McCain touts his experience in the IRI as an example of what he would do if elected President. “Given my decades of involvement in promoting democratic values, it is safe to assume that I will remain a supporter of legitimate democracy-building groups,” McCain told The Arizona Republic.

    Formed in 1983 during the Reagan Administration, the IRI is funded almost entirely by U.S. tax dollars to the tune of $75 million a year, with the money being disbursed through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Big business, lobbying groups, and foundations gave more than $1 million to the IRI in 2006, while individuals donated a total of $200,000.

    The IRI calls itself a “nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to advancing freedom and democracy worldwide by developing political parties, civic institutions, open elections, good governance, and the rule of law.”

    But created at a time when CIA covert action in Central America was coming under increasing scrutiny, the IRI has undertaken some of the supplementary tasks the CIA traditionally performed.

    And while the IRI portrays itself as nonpartisan, a quick look at the IRI website establishes that while it is not legally under the Republican Party, in practice it is indistinguishable from it. The group is an amalgam of businesspeople, party stalwarts, and neocons.

    Corporate donors to the IRI include UPS, AT&T, Coca-Cola, Blackwater, Anheuser-Busch, Bell-South, Chevron, ExxonMobil Foundation, and BP. The Associated Press reports that many donor companies regularly lobby on the types of issues handled by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where McCain is the number two Republican.

    On the board of directors, you also find Paul Bremer III, the former viceroy of Iraq; Alison B. Fortier, the director of Lockheed Martin missile defense programs; and John F. W. Rogers, managing director of Goldman Sachs. Another board member, Frank Fahrenkopf, was the chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1983 to 1989. He is also the president and chief executive officer of the American Gaming Association. To date, McCain has received more than $100,000 from the gaming industry, as per opensecrets.org.

    But that’s not the only financial overlap between the IRI and McCain’s Presidential campaign. McCain’s political action committee raised at least $392,000 from IRI donor companies and their employees since January 2005. His presidential campaign has collected another $670,000 from institute donors.

    Key advisers to McCain have been on the IRI board, too. Randy Scheun<3<3<3emann, who drafted the Iraq Liberation Act (McCain was a co-sponsor of the bill), also was on the board of the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative outfit that argued for overthrowing Saddam in the 1990s. Scheunemann is a foreign policy adviser to McCain.

    According to its website, the IRI at first “focused on planting the seeds of democracy in Latin America [but] since the end of the Cold War, has broadened its reach to support democracy and freedom around the globe [and] has conducted programs in more than 100 countries and is currently active in 72 countries.” As McCain told The New Republic, “We were all intoxicated by the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of its empire.”

    The IRI engages in what it calls the “consolidation of democracy.” That is, it facilitates the coming together of splintered opposition parties, churches, human rights organizations, worker unions, women’s organizations, and student groups.

    Sometimes, as in some former Soviet republics, the IRI seems to support reformists, albeit those with a free market orientation. In the Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, the IRI-backed candidate, defeated Viktor Yanukovich, who was representing decrepit Soviet-style authoritarianism.

    But IRI activities in Latin American countries such as Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela are more controversial. In Haiti in 2002 and 2003, the IRI helped consolidate the opposition to the democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide. “Several of the people who had attended IRI trainings were influential in the toppling of Aristide,” reports Mother Jones. The U.S. ambassador to Haiti at the time even suggested that the IRI was instrumental in Aristide’s downfall.

    In 2002, then-IRI president George Folsom applauded the failed Venezuelan coup against President Hugo Chavez. “Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country,” he said in a statement released by the IRI while the coup was still under way.

    Not expecting the coup to fail, he went on to proudly claim that the IRI “has served as a bridge between the nation’s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic future.” He boasted: “We stand ready to continue our partnership with the courageous Venezuelan people.”

    Last November, the IRI gave its “Freedom Award” to Tony Saca, the president of El Salvador. In taped remarks, McCain said, “El Salvador’s politics and economy have been transformed. Today, former guerrillas are free to stand peacefully for public office, and economic growth is gradually eroding poverty.” But fifteen years after the civil war ended, economic and political problems linger. Corruption is rampant. San Salvador’s archbishop recently said the social conditions that gave way to the civil war remain. Activists who are organizing against Saca’s neoliberal economic policies face riot cops and charges of terrorism under new laws that criminalize public protest.

    IRI board member Richard S. Williamson presented the award to Saca and recalled President Ronald Reagan’s policies in Latin America.

    “Back then, the front line in the march to freedom was Central America,” said Williamson. “I remember those close vote counts, in the early ’80s, when Ronald Reagan was going against the majority in Congress who didn’t want to support the freedom fighters in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. Fortunately, he prevailed, and twenty-five years later El Salvador is a beacon of freedom.”

    The IRI also conducts polls in high-stakes situations that it can skew to create a public and political consensus around a desired outcome. A “secret poll” conducted in Cuba found that “77 percent of Cubans want a new system of elections,” “83 percent of Cubans believe changes to a more market-based economy would improve their daily lives,” and “79 percent of Cubans do not believe the current government can fix the problems facing the country.”

    The first thing, of course, is that a secret poll cannot be verified. And secondly, it sharply contradicts other polls. A January 2007 Gallup poll found that 40 percent of Cubans disapproved of the Cuban government while 47 percent approved. The Gallup poll also noted that 75 percent of Cubans approved of their health care system and 78 percent of their education system.

    In Iraq, the IRI has conducted polls, too. It asks such questions as: Do you prefer to change government through peaceful and fair elections, fair and public trials, and no arbitrary arrest or detention? Most people in any culture and under most circumstances would favor not being tortured or being arrested arbitrarily.

    What is missing in the IRI polls are hard questions such as: Has the American occupation been good? How long should U.S. troops stay? According to a Program on International Policy Attitudes poll in September 2006, 71 percent of Iraqis favored a U.S. troop withdrawal within a year, and 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S. forces.

    As board chairman, McCain says he has been a hands-on manager. “All board members are involved in determining where IRI will work and in overseeing those activities,” he told The Arizona Republic.

    McCain denies that the IRI has toppled any government. His critics say he bears a responsibility to investigate allegations of meddling in other countries.

    If the so-called maverick becomes President in 2009, McCain will have some trust issues in international gatherings from day one. As the IRI board chairman, he has already shown his hand.


    The IRI is essentially what the mid 60s CIA would have been with even less government oversight.



    QUOTE
    Jul 16, 2004 | On Feb. 8, 2001, the federally funded International Republican Institute's (IRI) senior program officer for Haiti, Stanley Lucas, appeared on the Haitian station Radio Tropicale to suggest three strategies for vanquishing Haiti's president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. First, Lucas proposed forcing Aristide to accept early elections and be voted out; second, he could be charged with corruption and arrested; and finally, Lucas raised dealing with Aristide the way the Congolese people had dealt with President Laurent Kabila the month before. "You did see what happened to Kabila?" Lucas asked his audience.

    Kabila had been assassinated.


    luckily for McCain no one gives a shit
  • PheylanPheylan June 2008
    I'm starting to get the sense that my "Vote for McCain" plans are in the minority on this forum.
  • MagicMagic June 2008
    I'm voting for McCain just to cancel out scrubble's vote.
  • scrubblescrubble June 2008
    It doesn't matter to me who you vote for just as long as you participate in the process.
  • QUOTE (Pheylan @ Jun 4 2008, 08:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I'm starting to get the sense that my "Vote for McCain" plans are in the minority on this forum.

    I'm voting for McCain
  • BlackLightBlackLight June 2008
    RACISTS
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    Pfff. Obama is just an empty suit. No substance at all, just "hope" and "change". Also he lies constantly. And has a racist wife. He went to that church with a crazy pastor for 20 years! I heard he wants to turn America into a radically fundamentalist Islamic communism. He's going to take all your money and give it to the terrorists. He doesn't respect you and there's no way he'll get anything done with that do nothing congress.*
    *Things I read that piss me off because people actually believe this crap

    I mostly don't like McCain because of the people he has chosen to surround himself as advisors during this campaign. I'm unimpressed by his rhetoric, and for somebody who is running a campaign on his experience, I find it disquieting that he can't even give a straight answer to a reporter who asks him whether he thinks condoms help prevent STD's.

    I also respect his war record and all. He's a braver man than I. But if you're willing to accept that a man who was held captive in a foreign country for years is going to be able to think clearly then YOU'RE a braver man than I.
    McCain 2000
    QUOTE
    On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

    I don't want that man representing my country to other world leaders. Sorry.

    edit: also what scrubble said for the most part. He's old both in literal age and in political approach. He's in failing health and I'm not convinced he's the same man he was at the turn of the millenium. I'd comment more on his policies, but they change every couple of weeks based on the polls.

    edit 2: This sounds pretty trolly I guess. W/E. Here:
    -Gas Tax Holiday = Stupid
    -His fiscal responsibility platform is complete fantasy. We aren't going to cut spending in any meaningful way without changing our military centric spending. Which he hasn't committed to, but has said he is willing to continue to engage in well beyond his own prospective presidency. It's like trying to empty a beach of sand with a teaspoon.
    -He's pro-life and against stem cell research (I'm pro-choice and think that between throwing away a fetus and using it to advance medical research the choice should be clear)
    -He's been an absentee in the house on fiscal and budgetary issues for the last year. Voting on 10 of 50 budgetary bills does not make me confident in his knowledge of the subject matter which he criticizes his opponents for not understanding.
    -He's voted in virtual lock-step for every single executive nomination in the past 8 years. Which doesn't demonstrate the "right change" he's advocating in his current campaign.

    idk, I just don't like the guy either. I don't feel like getting into Obama's stance on the issues that I agree with, blah blah. But I will say that he's said he will stop prosecuting growers medicinal marjiuana, and that endears him to me.
  • scrubblescrubble June 2008
    image
  • MagicMagic June 2008
    Do you guys think about Obama when you jerk-off?

    Because it sure sounds like it.

    I bet those who are eligible to vote already know who they're voting for. Despite preaching and listening about all this change and hope, Democrats will still vote down their party lines and Republicans will still vote down their party lines. I don't think there's anything you can say, quote, or reference that will convince people otherwise. Instead of trying to convince others to change their votes, these types of threads make it look like you're trying to convince yourselves that Obama is the right choice.
  • PheylanPheylan June 2008
    QUOTE (Magic @ Jun 5 2008, 10:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Do you guys think about Obama when you jerk-off?

    Because it sure sounds like it.

    I bet those who are eligible to vote already know who they're voting for. Despite preaching and listening about all this change and hope, Democrats will still vote down their party lines and Republicans will still vote down their party lines. I don't think there's anything you can say, quote, or reference that will convince people otherwise. Instead of trying to convince others to change their votes, these types of threads make it look like you're trying to convince yourselves that Obama is the right choice.



    Which is bad when Mccain is the best
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    QUOTE (Magic @ Jun 5 2008, 10:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Do you guys think about Obama when you jerk-off?

    Because it sure sounds like it.

    I bet those who are eligible to vote already know who they're voting for. Despite preaching and listening about all this change and hope, Democrats will still vote down their party lines and Republicans will still vote down their party lines. I don't think there's anything you can say, quote, or reference that will convince people otherwise. Instead of trying to convince others to change their votes, these types of threads make it look like you're trying to convince yourselves that Obama is the right choice.


    I talk about it because I still hear veterans saying they'll vote for McCain because he was a POW. Despite the fact that he has declined on the opportunity to help pass bills that give veterans better care when they get home. I talk about it because I still hear women saying they'll vote for McCain because Obama was so mean to Hillary, despite the fact that McCain has voted Pro-Life consistently for the last 8 years (when his body was inhabited by pod people).

    I'll continue spewing pieces of information as long as people continue spewing ignorance of said information.

    As an added note: you're a jackass. Let's cancel the debates too since everyone already knows who they are voting for. Based on policies. In fact, we can just count people's party affiliations every 10 years when we do the census and use that info to elect a king and parliament in line with the party in power. I know a pretty small group of people who talk openly about politics, and amongst them I know 4 self identified republicans and 7 self identified democrats. I'm related to one of each. Both are voting for Obama, and I'd like to think that it has something to do with discussions we've had. So you can shove your hopelessness right up your ass. This is the politics board and following politics is a hobby of mine. I picked my candidate based on a number of things and though my sig might make me look like an "Obamaton" or an "Obamaniac" I do know some stuff about some stuff.

    Now: Why does McCain deserve my vote? Seriously, if you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I'm willing to hear it out.

    PS: The empty-suit-hope-change talking point is played out. Find something new. He has policy positions and you're just displaying your ignorance of what they are.

    For people interested in political discourse:

    Barack Obama's Voting Record
    John McCain's Voting Record
    This site is also an excellent resource for seeing how various interest groups feel about the candidates and it's also really helpful for seeing how a candidates presidential platform stacks up against their voting record.
  • BlackLightBlackLight June 2008
    played
  • scrubblescrubble June 2008
    QUOTE (Magic @ Jun 5 2008, 10:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Do you guys think about Obama when you jerk-off?

    Because it sure sounds like it.

    I bet those who are eligible to vote already know who they're voting for. Despite preaching and listening about all this change and hope, Democrats will still vote down their party lines and Republicans will still vote down their party lines. I don't think there's anything you can say, quote, or reference that will convince people otherwise. Instead of trying to convince others to change their votes, these types of threads make it look like you're trying to convince yourselves that Obama is the right choice.


    wow.
  • Anyone else thinking of voting third party?
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    nope. IMO this country isn't stable enough to throw a vote to say, the green party, communist party, or basically anyone that won't win. The 3rd party votes mean something, but unless you really can't stand either mainline candidate I'd have to suggest sucking it up and throwing in with one of them.
  • MagicMagic June 2008
    QUOTE (ANunes @ Jun 6 2008, 09:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I talk about it because I still hear veterans saying they'll vote for McCain because he was a POW. Despite the fact that he has declined on the opportunity to help pass bills that give veterans better care when they get home. I talk about it because I still hear women saying they'll vote for McCain because Obama was so mean to Hillary, despite the fact that McCain has voted Pro-Life consistently for the last 8 years (when his body was inhabited by pod people).

    I'll continue spewing pieces of information as long as people continue spewing ignorance of said information.

    As an added note: you're a jackass. Let's cancel the debates too since everyone already knows who they are voting for. Based on policies. In fact, we can just count people's party affiliations every 10 years when we do the census and use that info to elect a king and parliament in line with the party in power. I know a pretty small group of people who talk openly about politics, and amongst them I know 4 self identified republicans and 7 self identified democrats. I'm related to one of each. Both are voting for Obama, and I'd like to think that it has something to do with discussions we've had. So you can shove your hopelessness right up your ass. This is the politics board and following politics is a hobby of mine. I picked my candidate based on a number of things and though my sig might make me look like an "Obamaton" or an "Obamaniac" I do know some stuff about some stuff.

    Now: Why does McCain deserve my vote? Seriously, if you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I'm willing to hear it out.

    PS: The empty-suit-hope-change talking point is played out. Find something new. He has policy positions and you're just displaying your ignorance of what they are.


    I don't recall there being many veterans on this board -- and there's what, maybe three women here as well? Maybe I am a jackass, I just feel like your wasting your breath when you guys share all this Obama information because this board is heavily Dem to begin with. Kinda like you're preaching to the choir.

    I thought the political discussions were interesting at the beginning of the primary season because there were so many candidates and nobody knew who was who -- but now that we're down to two and 99% of America already knows who they're voting for.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran
    QUOTE
    Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211931515...ss_opinion_main
    QUOTE
    As a nation, Iranians are among the few in the world that still like the U.S. As a revolution, however, Iran is the principal bastion of anti-Americanism. Last month, Tehran hosted an international conference titled "A World Without America." Indeed, since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has returned to a more acute state of revolutionary hysteria. Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to truly believe the "Hidden Imam" is coming to conquer the world for his brand of Islam. He does not appear to be interested in the kind of "carrots" that Secretary Rice was offering two years ago and Mr. Obama is hinting at today.

    Mr. Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of mankind, while Mr. Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organization. Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as "a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans."


    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Q2M...jkyYzZmZThkMWY=
    It was reported in 2006 that the Bush administration offered Iran WTO consideration and Iran rejected our proposal:
    QUOTE
    For example, the U.S. and its partners are reported to have called for:

    “Support for a new conference to promote dialogue and cooperation on regional security issues.”

    “Improving Iran’s access to the international economy, markets and capital, through practical support for full integration into international structures, including the WTO, and to create the framework for increased direct investment in Iran and trade with Iran....”


    http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?opti...iew&id=7946
    This has the text of the above mentioned proposal. And guess what!
    QUOTE
    The following are the elements of a proposal to Iran as approved on 1 June 2006 at the meeting in Vienna of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, the Unites States, and the European Union:

    I would sure call that multilateral diplomacy.
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    Bombs or words seems to be the question of the hour. I choose words because bombs kill people and haven't worked so far.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    Fine, but at what point would you be willing to use bombs?>
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    I'd use bombs to protect America. I wouldn't use bombs to protect:
    Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, Ireland, Britain, Sudan... see where I'm going with this?
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    QUOTE (Magic @ Jun 8 2008, 11:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I don't recall there being many veterans on this board -- and there's what, maybe three women here as well? Maybe I am a jackass, I just feel like your wasting your breath when you guys share all this Obama information because this board is heavily Dem to begin with. Kinda like you're preaching to the choir.

    I thought the political discussions were interesting at the beginning of the primary season because there were so many candidates and nobody knew who was who -- but now that we're down to two and 99% of America already knows who they're voting for.


    People in this thread for Obama: Scrubble. Me. Blacklight.
    People in this thread for McCain: Pheylan. Magic. Evestay.

    Just sayin'.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    Fine, at what point would it be necessary to bomb Iran to protect America?
    When a member of the Quds force kills an American soldier in Iraq?
    When Iran has a nuclear weapon that can hit Israel?
    When Iran has a nuclear weapon that can hit America?
    When Iran can sell biological/chemical/nuclear weapons to terrorists groups?
    etc etc
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    Your argument is unimpressive. Because we pose a threat to EVERYBODY on the globe, I don't feel like menacing other nations is a feasible foreign policy. If there is a bully at school and he's been shoving everybody around for a couple of years, taking their lunch money and whatnot, and you find out he has a knife, are you going to be more or less likely to buy a gun?

    Posing a real threat to people does NOT increase security, and in fact, makes one less safe.


    When a member of the Quds force kills an American soldier in Iraq?
    ---If American soldiers weren't in Iraq then this would be a non-issue.
    When Iran has a nuclear weapon that can hit Israel?
    ---I won't believe anybody who says Iran has nukes after the fiasco in Iraq.
    When Iran has a nuclear weapon that can hit America?
    ---We're friends with Russia image/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> Amazing what talking to people you were terrified of can do right?
    When Iran can sell biological/chemical/nuclear weapons to terrorists groups?
    ---Terrorists have a beef with us because of our history of over-aggressive foreign policy. If you feel threatened by terrorists, then you should denounce the policies that caused the threat.

    I'm tired of the politics of fear. I'm not going to be scared into any sort of policy position again. That's not to say that there is NO point at which we should take action, but if the rationale behind taking action is to make us safer here at home, then I'd want 2 things.
    1) confirmation (not speculation) that the country has the ability to devastate us here at home
    2) indication from the people with the power to carry out the attack that they intend to attack US.
    period.

    Your safety has never been guaranteed and will never ever be guaranteed in the future. Quit being so afraid.

    /Won't sacrifice his morals for safety that cannot be attained.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    edit b/c my example was stupid =\

    I guess I'll ask you to use your criteria to assess when the US should have addressed Hitler.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    QUOTE (ANunes @ Jun 9 2008, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    When Iran has a nuclear weapon that can hit Israel?
    ---I won't believe anybody who says Iran has nukes after the fiasco in Iraq.
    When Iran has a nuclear weapon that can hit America?
    ---We're friends with Russia image/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> Amazing what talking to people you were terrified of can do right?
    When Iran can sell biological/chemical/nuclear weapons to terrorists groups?
    ---Terrorists have a beef with us because of our history of over-aggressive foreign policy. If you feel threatened by terrorists, then you should denounce the policies that caused the threat.

    I'm tired of the politics of fear. I'm not going to be scared into any sort of policy position again. That's not to say that there is NO point at which we should take action, but if the rationale behind taking action is to make us safer here at home, then I'd want 2 things.
    1) confirmation (not speculation) that the country has the ability to devastate us here at home
    2) indication from the people with the power to carry out the attack that they intend to attack US.
    period.


    How do you reconcile those two things? If you will not believe what the intelligence community says, then how can you possibly be convinced that another country has the ability to attack us at home? In such a case the only convincing evidence would come too late- i.e. an actual attack.
  • GovernorGovernor June 2008
    QUOTE (Evestay @ Jun 9 2008, 02:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    edit b/c my example was stupid =\

    I guess I'll ask you to use your criteria to assess when the US should have addressed Hitler.


    When we did? When would you have had the US "address" Hitler?
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    yeah when we did was fine, but i dont think his standards would have allowed for it
  • GovernorGovernor June 2008
    QUOTE (Evestay @ Jun 9 2008, 05:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    yeah when we did was fine, but i dont think his standards would have allowed for it


    How so? We were bombed on our own soil and brought into a world war.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    by Japan, not Germany (yes, I realize they were allies)
  • GovernorGovernor June 2008
    ...
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    bahaha look what came out to prove my point:
    Iran's Supreme Leader Predicts Terrorists Will Get Nukes (dont know how to hyperlink sry)
    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus....R20080609b.html
    QUOTE
    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who as Iran's supreme leader is commander in chief of the Iranian military, predicted last week that terrorists would acquire nuclear weapons and "take away security from all the tyrants of the world."

    In his speech at the tomb of his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei made it clear that he understood America to be the leader among "the tyrants of the world."

    QUOTE
    "The Iranian nation is against such weapons based on its religious and Islamic beliefs as well as based on logic and wisdom. Nuclear weapons have no benefit but high costs to manufacture and keep them," he said, according to the BBC translation. "Nuclear weapons do not bring power to a nation because they are not applicable. Nuclear weapons cannot be used."

    A moment later he added, "Before long, the world's terrorists will have access to nuclear weapons and take away security from all the tyrants of the world and all the nations of the world."

    ...that is some major double talk, but there are only so many places terrorists could get nuclear weapons from- North Korea (but are in multiparty talks right now), the black market (only if there are unsecured/stolen Russian nukes), Pakistan (would have to be an inside job done by a jihadi sympathizer within the government), or Iran (if they develop the technology).
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    we could of fought Japan only. Hitler wasnt going to make a move on us until he got all of Europe under control and had enough time to build up his naval and air power.
  • GovernorGovernor June 2008
    It's easy to say that, but it's taking the situation entirely out of context.

    Japan was allied with Germany in a military quest to conquer the world. They had already invaded Asia and slaughtered hundreds of thousands, and Germany had already invaded and seized most of Europe. If Britain fell, the United States would have absolutely no choice but to resort to a barricade of North America (a daunting task) as the Axis powers mounted a 360 degree invasion from all around the globe. Unless, of course, the Axis decided to stop their world domination scheme short of some of the most prosperous and fertile land on the planet.

    It is absolutely ludicrous to equate that to Iran (or any middle eastern country) today. The only reasonable comparison would be as if an alliance the size of and as powerful as NATO began to wage war across the entire planet and one of those countries decided to invade the United States. That is miraculously different than one country who's government is pissed at us for shit we've done and can easily not do anymore speaking angrily at us.

    As for your Khamenei quotes, I don't really see how that is double-talk at all. He denounces nuclear weapons and mocks us for being so naive to assume we are invincible to our own monstrous creation. He says the exact same thing that even we, in the United States, have been saying for years. The only difference is, we say it in fear, and he hates us.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    Gov, I totally agree with you... I'm only trying to argue against ANunes' standards.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    btw ANunes, Obama's recent foreign policy speech in front of AIPAC had some pretty tough talk against Iran.
    "Obama: The danger from Iran is real and my goal is to eliminate this threat"
    http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=5321
    QUOTE
    Obama spelled out his position on talks with Iran. He said: “I will do everything in my power – everything, everything - to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Iran has grown stronger and increased its support for terror since this administration went to war in Iraq “and I refuse to support a policy that has made the US and Israel less secure.”

    Proposing getting US troops out of Iraq “carefully”, Obama urged broaching Iran first with “aggressive principles and diplomacy. We have no time to waste. I would keep the military option on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel,” he stressed.”
  • ebolaebola June 2008
    not that it applies to this topic, but debkafile is a horrible source. it's heavily pro-israeli military and often quotes Israeli intelligence community with outrageous claims. ie iraq bio weapon.
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    Hearing some beaurocrat in DC saying that Iran has nukes = Speculation
    Hearing the Ayatollah warning the "Tyrants of the world" that terrorists will probably have nukes soon = a little better.

    A lot better actually.

    Also the global political landscape of the 1930's does not equate to the global political landscape now. We couldn't have attacked Japan without declaring war on Germany and Russia too. We can be MUCH more specific about our targets now. We don't even need a damned war, or even to fight an entire nation. We can pick and choose like crazy. But this gives us WAY more responsibility to make those choices with EXTREME caution and with a clear head and the proper intelligence.

    QUOTE
    Proposing getting US troops out of Iraq “carefully”, Obama urged broaching Iran first with “aggressive principles and diplomacy. We have no time to waste. I would keep the military option on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel,” he stressed.”


    Of course you can't have a policy of diplomacy without the threat of military action. The big stick and all.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    Picking and choosing kills terrorists you want to kill. It doesn't change the root underlying causes of terrorism such as poverty, Islamic radicalism, American oppression (/sigh), etc. Nation-building in Iraq does change the root underlying causes of terrorism: quality of living will increase, secular democracy will mean using Islam for political rule will make no sense, and the US proving it is a partner for peace instead of an oppressor.

    And to prove that Iraqis are starting to see us as partners for peace:
    "Leader Of Sunni Awakening Offers To Send Forces To Afghanistan - To Fight Bin Laden"
    http://patdollard.com/2008/06/leader-of-su...ight-bin-laden/
    QUOTE
    In an interview, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi told The New York Sun that in April he prepared a 47-page study on Afghanistan and its tribes for the deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Kabul, Christopher Dell. When asked if he would send military advisers to Afghanistan to assist American troops fighting there, he said: “I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it.”

    QUOTE
    “We have to rebuild a national Iraqi army, not built on sects, but the same way they built up the Anbar police,” he said. “They must be well-armed, so they will be able to protect the country and all the American interests in the area. We also have to make a friendship treaty based on mutual respect between the two parties, and then the United States will be able to withdraw from Iraq, if they wish, and we will succeed in Iraq the same way America succeeded in Japan and Germany.”

    The Anbari sheik offered no comment on the details of the current negotiations on the American troop presence in Iraq between Prime Minister al-Maliki and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, saying he was not involved in the negotiations. But he also said he favored such a status-of-forces agreement. “With a diplomatic understanding we will be able to solve all the problems. We fully trust the Americans. We know the United States never in its history occupied a country. On the contrary, they were occupied and they were able to fight the occupier,” he said, referring to the American rebellion against the British in 1776.

    Its obvious we are better partners than al-Qaida, but proving that to a once hostile population takes a helluva lot of guts.
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    Nation building? Is that what we're doing over there? I thought we were standing between opposing forces in the country with a lollipop in each hand trying to get them to play nice.

    We're not there to make Iraq a better place, we're there so we can make it a friendlier place. And we could build schools and roads and plant trees and water their damn lawns for a decade and a half while we get shot at by the people that will still hate us for killing their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, moms and dads, but we're still the oppressors. If the Ayatollah came over here and built a thousand schools, repaired our bridges and laid fresh railways all over the country providing us with free travel anywhere we wanted, I think we'd hate his guts anyway.

    And then we're instating OUR style of government.

    It's the new imperialism and they damn well know it. And nobody wants to be subjugated to somebody else's ideals, even if those ideals agree with their own or are in their best interests.

    Also I get the feeling that anybody in a position of power over there would say and even do anything we wanted them to to get us the hell out of their face. And I don't think things will stay the way we leave them for long. Not if we're there 10 days OR 10 years.

    This just isn't how international politics, or even basic sociology works.
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    Hey, I just remembered what this thread was actually about.

    Evestay,
    Policy. Apart from their stances on the war-on-terror, how do you feel about each candidate. And saying you hate them both is a cop out. One of them is going to win, and I'm curious as to which one you want it to be and why (again apart from the issue of saying in or pulling out of Iraq).

    Seriously
    /curious.
  • EvestayEvestay June 2008
    I like McCain except for:
    -not willing to build a border fence (his path to citizenship stuff is okay..once the border is secure)
    -isnt willing to drill for oil in alaska or off the coasts

    I like Obama for:
    -being more articulate than McCain. It's important to keep Americans and the world informed of your intent so that you don't lose favor just for lack of pre-explanation. (Bush's biggest problem is his lack of communication skills.. he could still have a 50% approval rating if he was able to explain himself better)
    -wanting to keep tax cuts for the middle and lower classes
    -wanting to make college more affordable
    -wanting to balance the budget (although I don't believe him)

    sorry for my crappy lists
    -
  • Ok. So I read a few manga (Japanese Comics) every week. One is Air Gear. Well... to put this bluntly: Obama was in it.

    image
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    what the hell? How old is that?
  • Came out last week... Thursday-ish in Japan.
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    Shenanigans!
  • NunesNunes June 2008
    Pointless grandstanding!
    QUOTE
    Here is Barack Obama’s record on rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.

    * Sept. 2, 2005: Obama holds press conference urging Illinoisans to contribute to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
    * Sept. 5, 2005: Obama goes to Houston to visit evacuees with Presidents Clinton and Bush.
    * Sept. 7, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a national emergency family locator system
    * Sept. 8, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a National Emergency Volunteers Corps.
    * Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Harry Reid
    * Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Russ Feingold
    ...
    ...etc

    /edit: Seriously this list goes on for a while and is full of links and sources and goodies of the like.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership