New Election 2008 thread

[MrRain422]

It wouldn't make any sense for Iran to make a first strike attack on Israel. To do so would guarantee obliteration by nearly every other nuclear power in the world (but mainly the U.S, Israel and Great Britain). The leaders in Iran know this. The only way that they would nuke Israel is if they were pretty certain that they are attacked, or perhaps if they think that an attack is imminent.

[uncle wilco]

I don't give Ahmadinejad more sway than McCain or anything. I just prefer peaceful solutions and attempts to understand the other side's our enemy's position over bombing the hell out of another country that isn't really a threat to us. I think it's worth a shot.

 

all other points aside, the whole thing with iran is quite a bit different than a country like north korea. i would think it would be harder to negotiate with a country that is fueled by hatred of the mere existence of israel and of the nations who support them. it's a deep-seated hatred that doesn't exist with a communist country like north korea. it is much, much deeper than that.

 

kind of like having a "war on terror". it's a war vs. a religious ideology that is not easily diffused with negotiations. certainly worth the effort, but so far it's not been met with any success as iran continues to refuse to cooperate. how much longer can we wait until they reach their nuclear objective?

[MrRain422]

But part the reason that Iran hates Israel is because Israel and the United States are constantly threatening them and seem credible in that threat. Regardless, it's batshit insane to propose attacking a country that does not have nuclear weapons and is no actual threat to our security. A policy of attacking any country that defies our orders, no matter how big of a threat they actually are, is inexcusable warmongering. And we've given them every reason to defy our orders by presenting situations in which defying us looks to them to be to their direct benefit.

[uncle wilco]

But part the reason that Iran hates Israel is because Israel and the United States are constantly threatening them and seem credible in that threat. Regardless, it's batshit insane to propose attacking a country that does not have nuclear weapons and is no actual threat to our security. A policy of attacking any country that defies our orders, no matter how big of a threat they actually are, is inexcusable warmongering. And we've given them every reason to defy our orders by presenting situations in which defying us looks to them to be to their direct benefit.

i would think that washington would support israel's right to strike the iran nuke sites if they deemed it necessary. then we would back them up however necessary. but i wouldn't expect a full out invasion of iraq. i don't see why that would even be necessary.

[MrRain422]

Okay, but bombing supposed nuclear sites is still an unnecessary, unprevoked military attack. It's an immoral and corrupt policy.

[uncle wilco]

Okay, but bombing supposed nuclear sites is still an unnecessary, unprevoked military attack. It's an immoral and corrupt policy.

i'm sure that they wouldn't make the mistake of bombing any aspirin or baby formula factories.

[sweetheart-mine]

all other points aside, the whole thing with iran is quite a bit different than a country like north korea. i would think it would be harder to negotiate with a country that is fueled by hatred of the mere existence of israel and of the nations who support them. it's a deep-seated hatred that doesn't exist with a communist country like north korea. it is much, much deeper than that.

 

kind of like having a "war on terror". it's a war vs. a religious ideology that is not easily diffused with negotiations. certainly worth the effort, but so far it's not been met with any success as iran continues to refuse to cooperate. how much longer can we wait until they reach their nuclear objective?

gone all day and evening and look what's happened. more pages. but really, i'm getting a lot out of these discussions and am thankful for this forum.

 

need to reread today's posts here but have two things to say at the moment:

 

u.w., although i've discovered that i agree with you at times, i am mighty glad you're not in d.c. with your finger on that button.

 

also: of course it's hard to negotiate. it's very hard. it takes a lot of strength, vision, time, diplomacy, honest listening, honest goals, psychological perceptiveness, and more. and i think you're mistaken to assume that our current administration has negotiated or tried true diplomacy with iran. we have invaded and occupied their neighbor at huge cost -- the country is devastated. we've done nothing but threaten iran. we arm israel (hell, we used to arm iraq). the u.s.'s word, not to mention the constitution that is supposed to be our foundation, is no good in the eyes of most of the world now.

 

we need a new and intelligent negotiator (and not simply a "decider"). then diplomacy will at least have a shot.

[MrRain422]

i'm sure that they wouldn't make the mistake of bombing any aspirin or baby formula factories.

 

Am I to assume from this statement that you don't have any points to make regarding what I actually said?

 

Do you think that it is okay to attack a nation without first attempting diplomacy?:

[John Smith]

i'm sure that they wouldn't make the mistake of bombing any aspirin or baby formula factories.

 

Ah, that oldie but goodie, the classic chestnut...but CLinton did it. When all else fails blame wild bill, its so much easier than thinking.

[MrRain422]

UW's assumption in bringing that up, of course, is that I found it acceptable when Clinton did it, which is false. Regardless, it's completely irrelevent here.

[uncool2pillow]

Sore Loser?

[sweetheart-mine]

Sore Loser?

ugh. you know, he wasn't bad as a president, but he's really bad as a sore loser -- actually was as a campaigner for his wife too, so one can only imagine what kind of campaigner he'd be for obama. bill has become a bit fried, and i really think they should send him off to tahiti for a long vacation, long as in until after november 4.

[jenbobblehead]

ugh. you know, he wasn't bad as a president, but he's really bad as a sore loser -- actually was as a campaigner for his wife too, so one can only imagine what kind of campaigner he'd be for obama. bill has become a bit fried, and i really think they should send him off to tahiti for a long vacation, long as in until after november 4.

 

you know, it sounds like old bill has a touch of the syphilis.

[sweetheart-mine]

you know, it sounds like old bill has a touch of the syphilis.

i'd say second stage: Nervous system symptoms of secondary syphilis, which can cause headaches, stiff neck, vision or hearing problems, irritability, paralysis, unequal reflexes, and irregular (different-sized) pupils.

 

signed,

dr. sweetheart

[Mr. Kinsley]

Check out the :26 second mark in

- he's shaking hands with an Obama supporter! You can see the 'O' logo clear as day on her shirt. What should we make of this? Is he trying to say "See, I can go after this block of voters!" Is someone (probably a younger, low-end tech person who might be an Obama supporter) in his campaign trying to be funny? Did it just slip through the cracks?

 

Not only is there that, HERE is possibly the single funniest thing to come out of this election. McCain gave a speech the other day (for some totally insane reason) in front of a green screen, making it waaaaaay too easy for anyone with an iota of tech/video savvy to mess with the footage. Strike a pose Johnny!

 

EDIT: If you search around a little bit on the link, you'll see that one of the videos they altered is that one of the dancing Indian midget! El F, where are you!

[Winston Legthigh]

Check out the :26 second mark in

- he's shaking hands with an Obama supporter! You can see the 'O' logo clear as day on her shirt.

 

Clear as day? I couldn't even make it out when pausing it.

[uncle wilco]

Do you think that it is okay to attack a nation without first attempting diplomacy?:

no, i don't. there has been ongoing negotiations with iran over the last few years and nothing has come of it. meanwhile, their nuclear program continues to advance.

[uncle wilco]

u.w., although i've discovered that i agree with you at times, i am mighty glad you're not in d.c. with your finger on that button.

 

what button?, the nuclear button? i never called for that and i wouldn't. that's a bit extreme, dont you think?

 

we need a new and intelligent negotiator (and not simply a "decider"). then diplomacy will at least have a shot.

 

if you say barack is the guy to do this i'm going to scream...with laughter....

[uncle wilco]

Ah, that oldie but goodie, the classic chestnut...but CLinton did it. When all else fails blame wild bill, its so much easier than thinking.

ah, hell...i just threw that out there. after 8 years of dubya, i kind of miss that guy.

[sweetheart-mine]

u.w., although i've discovered that i agree with you at times, i am mighty glad you're not in d.c. with your finger on that button. ohmy.gif

 

what button?, the nuclear button? i never called for that and i wouldn't. that's a bit extreme, dont you think?

 

________

 

 

yah, sorry, it sounds extreme, but i meant it figuratively and not literally. it's a throwback phrase (i'm old, i guess), and i shouldn't have used it.

 

also, i was half kidding. but the part of me that wasn't kidding was reacting to your post above a ways, talking about iran as if all attempts at diplomacy

have been tried and asking something like "how much longer do we wait?". you sounded a bit like you were ready for the u.s. to attack iran. very soon.

 

of the choices we have to pick from in november, you bet i think obama is the guy to do a better a job at diplomacy -- way better than what we have

now, and way better than we'd have with mcbush. laugh all you want and have a great time . . .

[uncle wilco]

you sounded a bit like you were ready for the u.s. to attack iran. very soon.

 

i think that an airstrike of the nuclear sites by israel is justified but i don't agree with a ground invasion of iran. i don't understand the reasoning behind that one at all.

 

of the choices we have to pick from in november, you bet i think obama is the guy to do a better a job at diplomacy -- way better than what we have

now, and way better than we'd have with mcbush.

 

based on what?...hope?...change? obama has shown himself to be a bumbling goof at times. his speeches are vacuous exercises in nothingness, his convictions change depending on his audience and his lack of experience shows like his fly is perpetually open. sorry, i have absolutely no confidence in this man whatsoever and i'm certainly not alone in feeling that way. i'm sure world leaders everywhere are salivating at the prospect of a u.s. president ripe to be pushed around.

[sweetheart-mine]

uw: "based on what?...hope?...change? obama has shown himself to be a bumbling goof at times. his speeches are vacuous exercises in nothingness, his convictions change depending on his audience and his lack of experience shows like his fly is perpetually open. sorry, i have absolutely no confidence in this man whatsoever and i'm certainly not alone in feeling that way. i'm sure world leaders everywhere are salivating at the prospect of a u.s. president ripe to be pushed around."

 

 

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. i think your view of obama is one i can turn on fox news and hear every day, and we all know how "balanced" their viewpoint is. it's very distorted and leaves out a great deal of substance, which you have convinced me you don't want to even consider, let alone see. but also, based on many of your posts, i know you're no fan of bush nor of the semi-clone running to take his place either. if you find the prospect of a mccain presidency extremely alarming, which i do, i hope you think long and hard before entering the voting booth. yes, i'll take obama any day. i'd take elmer fudd over mccain, but obama is a major cut above fudd, so despite a few not-unexpected disappointments because he's a politician, he's the guy.

[uncle wilco]

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

nothing wrong with that.

 

i think your view of obama is one i can turn on fox news and hear every day, and we all know how "balanced" their viewpoint is. it's very distorted and leaves out a great deal of substance, which you have convinced me you don't want to even consider, let alone see.

 

thanks for putting me in the "fox news" box. i don't care for obama, therefore i must watch that channel exclusively. never mind those conservatives who are capable of forming their own opinions, because they can't really exist. i mean, if you don't subscribe to the liberal point of view, what other point of view is there?

 

and i'm still waiting for the answer as to the substance you are basing your faith in his "obamaness." or is just the knowledge that he's not bush or a republican all you need for assurance that he will grant all your wishes for a better government. because we all know that democrats make all our dreams come true. it's a wonder that they haven't had a continuous hold on the white house since FDR. oh, what could have been...(i don't know why i bother with sarcasm because democrats feel that way anyway).

 

but also, based on many of your posts, i know you're no fan of bush nor of the semi-clone running to take his place either. if you find the prospect of a mccain presidency extremely alarming, which i do, i hope you think long and hard before entering the voting booth.

 

i have thought long and hard and am still considering a vote for a 3rd party candidate (not named nader).

 

yes, i'll take obama any day.

 

why?

 

i'd take elmer fudd over mccain,

 

really?

 

but obama is a major cut above fudd,

 

based on what?

 

so despite a few not-unexpected disappointments because he's a politician, he's the guy.

 

yes, he's A guy, but what makes him your guy? what has he actually done to give you such confidence? because myself and half the country believe he's just a guy in an empty suit ready to tickle our ears with sweet nothingness.

 

and we didn't have to watch fox news to figure that out.

[sweetheart-mine]

there's no quote setup on reply when your whole post was inside a quote, so i'll just wing it. quickly.

 

you're right that there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, and i then went on and tried to change your mind, which i'm sorry for. (plus it's exhausting!)

 

uw, please read my fox news mention again. i didn't say that you watch fox news, never mind assumed that you watch it exclusively. i have no idea what you watch. what you wrote simply reminded me of the stuff on fox news. it was a comparison.

 

why i intend to vote for obama is in posts all over these recent political threads. if you're truly interested, they're fairly easy to find. but to sum up: intelligence; patience; strength but not through dirty fighting; belief in true diplomacy; vision; courage to even run at all considering the giant risk it means because of who/what he is; ability to get thousands or millions of new voters to participate; and yes, the fact that he's not the neocon bush nor a bush-like republican (please note: i said bush-like republican). i know what they'd do. i mostly know obama's vision and values, but have little idea what he'll actually get done as president. and after these last 7.5 years, i consider that a major plus. i see possibility.

 

now i'm down to the bottom of your post. and there's the "empty suit" myth again. to me that has become an empty cliche.

 

i'm tired, so bye for now.

[uncle wilco]

you're right that there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, and i then went on and tried to change your mind, which i'm sorry for. (plus it's exhausting!)

sorry for the prolonged back and forth. there will always be opposing view points no matter the issue(s), we all have our reasons for believeing what we do and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. sometimes i fall back into debate for debate's sake, while knowing that nothing is going to come of it.

 

hope you have a good day.