| Author |
Topic:
The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/15 6:04pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
Jabba-wocky
I've addressed all the points. What can we offer to Iran? They seem pretty set about the destruction of Israel and aquiring nuke tech. Can they explain their side to the point that we say,"Oh, you're right! How can we be so foolish? Israel! C'mere! We're gonna put you in Texas!"
Huh? Is that gonna happen?
Or how about this; They suddenly see our side and put an embassy in Haifa. They deliver an apology and give the Palistinians a suberb outside of Teran.
Look, Iran will give up nothing. And we've seen tima and again what happens when you give up something to a nation bent on war.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabba-wocky
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
5/15 6:40pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
J_Rod, you didn't address any points. You just posted a link to a CNN article saying some of the former hostages thought they recognized Ahmadinejad, and some of them did not.
As to what we can offer to Iran that they are eager to have, any number of things. As I mentioned earlier, Iranian's gave us quite a great deal of assistance and cooperation in the war in Afghanistan. You are assuming that negotiation means "agreeing with each other about everything." That's not the case. Both sides have known interests, some of which converge. Through compromise, we can create a solution that is mutually beneficial (or at least acceptable) to both sides.
On Israel, for instance, the Iranians aren't really "set" on destroying it. There's been no significant shift in actual policy on the country, nor have any serious policymakers (aside from Ahamdinejad, who is far from the most influential official in the country) suggested that war with Israel is in anyway preferable. Nor has such aggressiveness ever been the policy of Iran. As for the nuclear issue, there have been offers going back and forth continually. Fundamentally, why would it be wrong for Iran to have technology that would allow for the development of nuclear power?
We shared far more goals and interests in common with Iran than we do with North Korea. And if George Bush can negotiate a solution to that issue, we can certainly negotiate a settlement to the much smaller issues dividing the US and Iran. Or perhaps we can't. Even then, I fail to see what would be fundamentally wrong about making an attempt to do so. Care to explain? Why do you feel that even attempting negotiations would be wrong?
-----signature-----
ays Darius the king: 8 of my family (there were) who were formerly kings; I am the ninth (9); long aforetime we are kings.
All Hail His Excellency, Barack Obama
Roma vincit
Tearing Up a Lane (TERRIN UP A LAAAANE!!!)
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
5/15 6:56pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
J-Rod posted:
EDIT: Lord_Vivec posted:
J-Rod posted:
Yes Jabba-wocky, he most certainly is a terrorist and a radical.
Some could say that about our troops and presidential administration.
How do we meet the UN definition of terrorists?
Sorry, the UN is not Webster.
I would like to argue that our employ of Blackwater is employing terrorist and Abu Gharaib is terrorism as well, but I have a chem lab. I'll discuss this more in three hours.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
5/15 7:25pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
J-Rod posted:
And we've seen tima and again what happens when you give up something to a nation bent on war.
I am so tired of seeing this same oversimplified view of World War II overgeneralized to the point of stupidity. I love you, man, but your worldview has no relationship to history, politics, or reality as we know it.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Leto II
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
5/15 7:27pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
- Date Edited:
5/15 7:28pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Leto II
|
...I wonder how McCain plans on getting out of Iraq by 2013 without appeasing the Nazis. (Biden's response was great, though.)
And so, it was on this day that the race for the Presidency of the Unted States was officially "Godwin"-ned.
By the grandson of an honest-to-Satan Nazi collaborator, no less. I guess if anyone would know a Nazi-lover when he sees one...
Iran's president is a dangerous nutcase. But he's also an elected official, in a country with the most actively pro-democracy population in the Muslim Middle East (a relative measure, of course). Giving them the impression that America has no interest in Iran outside of eventually bombing them to Kingdom Come is what solidifies the power of these petty tyrants.
But it's not a stretch to say that Bush knew that his remarks would be reported back in the US, and that they would be viewed by some as a veiled attack on Obama. I think we'll see more of this.
Since Obama and Clinton (and even McCain, to some extent) have been targeting Bush non-stop on the campaign trail, it's not surprising he would shoot back a bit. National security will be a big issue this fall, and it's an issue where Obama may be vulnerable. This controversy gets the national security issue out there, which will generally benefit McCain.
-----signature-----
Tighter Than a 10-Year-Old.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
5/15 7:36pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
Leto II posted:
National security will be a big issue this fall
I doubt it. Public interest in the war and terrorism is at a very low ebb. The economy and health care will continue to be the dominant issues, along with race and immigration.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Leto II
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
5/15 7:42pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
- Date Edited:
5/15 8:14pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Leto II
|
I don't know...as a matter of fact, the other day, Howard Fineman brought up the old saw about how six months is an eternity in politics, and how national security might suddenly find itself back at the top of the menu between now and then. At any rate, it's still something the Republicans are gonna hit Obama hard on during the general election, regardless.
Also -- the Republican party's campaign slogan, "Change You Deserve," happens to be the slogan for an anti-anxiety/depressant drug. Hoo boy, that's ironic. Or totally on purpose.
-----signature-----
Tighter Than a 10-Year-Old.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
5/15 8:17pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
Well, today California's Supreme Court overturned the state ban on gay marriage. (Not linking it; it's on all the news sites.)
I'm surprised nobody's bothered to bring this up yet. Since California's often a barometer for how the rest of the country goes in terms of the "political issue du jour", I'm certain this will be an issue in the fall campaign.
My guess is that McCain will take the public stand of being against gay marriage, for the sake of trying to rein in more evangelical votes. (Though I'd wager that he'll waffle on the notion of a constitutional amendment formally banning gay marriage.)
Where do you folks think Obama will stand on this issue?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/15 8:44pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
diz, I'd ammend that to say illegal immigration will be an issue.
I still think the most foolish part of this whole story with Bush's statement is that Obama thinks this is all about him.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/15 8:45pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
- Date Edited:
5/15 8:48pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Gonk
|
I've addressed all the points. What can we offer to Iran? They seem pretty set about the destruction of Israel and aquiring nuke tech. Can they explain their side to the point that we say,"Oh, you're right! How can we be so foolish? Israel! C'mere! We're gonna put you in Texas!"
Huh? Is that gonna happen?
Or how about this; They suddenly see our side and put an embassy in Haifa. They deliver an apology and give the Palistinians a suberb outside of Teran.
Look, Iran will give up nothing. And we've seen tima and again what happens when you give up something to a nation bent on war.
J-Rod, you really don't seem to understand much, here.
Sitting down and talking with the other side isn't even necessarily about negotiating or expecting one side to give up one thing or anything else. Probably the most important part of sitting down and talking with them is to EXPLAIN what you are doing when threatening them.
If we do this, THIS is what it means. If we do that, THIS is what it means. This is when what we'll tolerate and expect you to do for us to not attack you, and this is when you've gone too far.
There's less of a chance of either side over-reacting and crashing and burning headlong into another war that will kill a whole lot of people that nobody wants. But you're too busy saying it has no value to bother with that fact. Simply put, the few examples you give -- which is the same one over and over again that doesn't even show that talking with your enemies is bad -- is proven wrong by many more episodes in human history both before and after Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
5/15 8:46pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
I still think the most foolish part of this whole story with Bush's statement is that Obama thinks this is all about him.
Well, it is all about him, since Obama is the loudest/most prominent voice in the U.S. right now pushing this issue.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/15 8:54pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
But didn't Obama say he'd never suggested talking with terrorists? His own statement indicated it didn't describe him, so WHY would he then assume it was?
This isn't like its new talk from Bush.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/15 8:59pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
I still think the most foolish part of this whole story with Bush's statement is that Obama thinks this is all about him.
I think that's a foolish statement in and of itself. Who else would he possibly be talking about? All the major people that resisted the war in its inception are now out of power; who else could it possibly have been about?
In fact, your statement annoys me: Obama gave a one paragraph written statement that didn't even say Bush was referring to him -- everyone who's been saying it was Obama have been the press and Democrats, most of whom are not prominent within the Obama campaign -- and yet you've instantly conflated this to Obama thinking this is all about him.
Even if he did... which as JF points out he'd be well within his druthers to think so... you've already jumped a point or two of logic here. Why? What's prompting this?
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
5/15 9:01pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
But didn't Obama say he'd never suggested talking with terrorists? His own statement indicated it didn't describe him, so WHY would he then assume it was?
This isn't like its new talk from Bush.
Bush said the following:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Since nobody has suggested negotiating with terrorist groups, Bush must have been talking about nation states. Indeed, his Nazi references pretty much makes that the only interpretation.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/15 9:07pm
Subject:
RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
- Date Edited:
5/15 9:11pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Gonk
|
Obama's written remarks, targeting Lowbacca here:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack.
No mention that it was about Obama.
"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.
AGAIN, no mention that it was about himself.
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally, Israel."
That's the end. No indication of OBama puffing up his chest and saying "Harrrumph! Why, this is a slander against my own personal DIGNITY!" So what's with your analysis?
Sorry, the remark was just patently false and really got up my nose.
EDIT: Wait, Lowbacca is correct. I noticed the last statement -- apparently Obama did use the phrase "I" in his statement. This makes me technically wrong. However, I will leave the post above as is since I did indeed write it.
At the same time though, I stand my my remark that it's hardly an indication of him having a large ego any more than it is for Bush to presume the pattern of world history.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
