Your post did not directly address the election and is filler/spam. Please don’t argue for the sake of seeing yourself post. 
So the way I see it.
Democrates is Hillary or Obama.
Republicans is Ron or McCain.
Does anyone else have a chance?
Huckabee really LOVES Jesus. Only someone who REALLY loves Jesus will be able to continue the fight against muslim terror.
I’m sure if you pressed this issue to them, none of them would cop to not loving Jesus. It’s not the stylish thing for a politician to do.
Owen Hart.
/deja vu
ron paul doesn’t have a chance. no way will the reps EVER nom an anti-war, anti-big business, ant-drug war liberatrian for president. very simple us politics will tell anyone that…
I never said that I only read about what the PA contains from the press - anyone can take a good look at it and see what it is for themselves.
Our own CIA, has done and said things many times in the past and continues to do things that are even worse than what the Iranian revolutionary guard has done. You already know that the US accepts any group that it considers a terrorist organization a legitimate target, so why are you ok with it designating a part of Iran’s military a terrorist organization?
Why are we even getting involved in what Iran’s military does or doesn’t do as if they don’t have a legimiate interest on what happens on their border? There is no reason to continue to treat instrusive and dangerous US policy with such veneration and Iran has every right to be extremely defensive against the US given their history.
What you need to understand is that many Iraqis do not and will not accept any constitution or any government as long as the United States remains an occupying force. Why do you keep insisting that the solution to the Iraqi problem is to continue the problem(the US military in Iraq). The Iraq issue IS as simple as leaving immediately, many Iraqis will tell you that themselves. Obviously their infrastructure is in shambles thanks to US sanctions and constant bombardment, and you admit yourself that the military industrial companies such as Halliburton continue to rob the US taxpayers money, and the Iraqi people’s money but continuing this policy is not the right way forward.
Anyone who continues to believe that US government actually wants to secure Iraq for the IRAQI’s is delusional. Such actions such as the recent dropping of over 40,000 pounds of bombs onto the south of Baghdad isn’t making anything more secure.
Historical precedent leads me to disagree. Cutting and running on Iraq not a good idea.
Do you people only pay attention to three second snippets on E! and MTV about the presidential candidates?? Sure Obama and Hilary represent a huge leap forward in terms of the social political status quo, but WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH JOHN EDWARDS??? Hilary and Edwards have the most compelling campaign themes (universal health care and crippling the SIGs), but Hilary has been called out and has been retortless about her accepting donations from large corporations. Obama’s a sharp guy, but I don’t think he’s had nearly enough political experience to prepare himself to solve this country’s most major problems. He’s also somewhat clumsy at public speaking and can be rather unpleasant to listen to/watch at times. Also, governor richardson needs to have a stroke or a cholesterol attack and die. He wastes time, space and air being on the same stage as the remaining Dem candidates.
As for the republicans, I’ve only watched one debate really and I thought the most highly of Huckabee and his campaign issues. Guiliani is a raging idiot. and almost as if to add insult to the injury of his clearly medicore intellect, he has a speech impediment. ggnore; please die and don’t respawn. romney is articulate, but seems like just more of the same status quo. as for RP, angryliberal is 100% right about ron paul. just look at the republican voter base: servicemen, business owners, well to do middle class, social conservatives. the issues on which he’s campaigning simply DO NOT speak to his party’s base. it seems as if he’d fit in more as a conservative/moderate democratic candidate than on the republican side.
What makes you say that? Iraq is no threat to the United States, and won’t be a threat us no matter who’s in charge. The US being involved in propping up governments and throwing money at whatever militia groups it feels might be useful only ensures that warlords stay in power. I have plenty of family that has been in Iraq(and Iran as well), for decades, and whenever I get in touch with them they let me know the situation loud and clear - the removal of US troops is what the people want and no one there gives a damn if United States political scientists disagree.
It doesn’t matter what they want and it doesn’t matter what we want. What matters is what will happen. Iraq doesn’t have a stable power structure without the U.S. forcibly holding it together. We already know what happens to a country when its only power structure–however much or little merit it has–is removed. And we already know what happens when an already fragile country, dependent on our aid, when that aid is abruptly withdrawn. There will be a lot of bad repercussions in the future. Not tomorrow, but 10 or 15 years from tomorrow.
You don’t read well…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662.html
What you NEED to understand is I NEVER said they would. Thats pretty easy to see looking at the resistance towards the U.S. forces. If you actually sat down and really read what I’ve been saying post after post you’d realize your how stupid your rebuttal’s are seeing how I haven’t said anything contrary to them. Your making all these straw man arguments as if I’am disagreeing with you.
Bad repurcussions in the future? The current situation is already horrible, you didn’t have to wait 10 or 15 years for chaos, and its only speculation that US withdrawal would lead to worse conditions. Speculuation that only people in places like the US military industrial complex have anything to gain from repeating. The one and only thing that matters is what the Iraqis want for their country - and again the US staying in Iraq does not and will not ever be accepted or considered to be making the country better off.
Well my point is your argument makes absolutely no sense because you are against the Iraqi occupation but at the same time you are for it by remaining there. The hysteria that Iraq would be worse off after withdrawal was also around during the possible US withdrawal from Vietnam. But you’re going to keep repeating that lie.
And whats with the link to that article? I already know at length what the US says are the purposes for designating the Iranian revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But arguements such as them providing arms to Hezbollah as reason to fear them(not all think of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization outside of US/Israel) when the US provides arms to Israel are ridiculous.
And now we get to the question of the decade.
What is a terrorist?
Taliban. Afghanistan. I have alluded to this so many times and you haven’t figured it out yet. It doesn’t matter how bad it is now. It WILL–not might, WILL–get worse if we just cut all ties and leave Iraq the way it is now.
The problem with people who like to fancy themselves as radical thinkers is that their solutions can often be boiled down to “shitcan the whole thing and start over.” In the real world, such things cannot be done without producing negative consequences. Problems in Iraq? Just leave! The FDA isn’t perfect? Abolish it! The value of the dollar is dropping? Back to the gold standard, and never mind the fact that it is no longer 1914. I guess the problem with discussing politics on the video game website is that a lot of people want to hit the reset button when things aren’t going like they want them to.
I knew what you were alluding to but the arguement isn’t valid because Iraq is not Afghanistan, and the people who live there(even the militias) are the type that always disliked the Taliban and their ways. Powerhouses like Muqtada Al-Sadr are more popular with the Iraqi people than the puppets that were placed in power. If the Iraqis decide they want his style of government that is their choice. The real problem is people who continue to think they know whats the best solution for another country. I don’t know how many times I have to stress, the problems in Iraq stem from US involvement, so how is MORE involvement a solution? This continued policy is the radical way of thinking and is producing the negative consequences!
The gold standard was not dropped in 1914 by the way.
Yeah, Iraq was doing just fine until America came along and unleashed a shitload of problems. Nothing is wrong with Iraq that doesn’t stem from the U.S. being there, right?
You know what? Maybe you’re right. If we pack all of our shit and leave tonight, maybe Iraq will go from a volatile war zone to a peaceful, friendly state with total self-government. Maybe nothing will go wrong and no further anti-westernism will be nurtured as the result of our sudden policy change to total inaction. Yes, I think this will definitely happen.
No shit, but 1914 is arguably the last year that conditions for the gold standard were ideal in America.
Pretty much, we obviously kept Saddam in power, then we put harsh economic sanctions after the first Gulf war and continued to drop bombs and depleted uranium that only ensured that the people of Iraq suffered and Saddam’s control grew stronger. How can you disagree with that after reading up on history for a bit?
The source of anti-westernism is the US involvement in the middle east for decades. Did Vietnam not turn into a friendly state with us after we left? Iraq is never going to be a friendly state with US troops there, and you know that. Of course its going to be difficult for them to rebuild and have the kind of government we would like them to have, but that is the only solution.
Again, the United States has absolutely no right to interefere in Iraq’s internal affairs, for any reason, ever. Its not a threat to our national security and never was.
Whats your arguement for fiat currency and why it and the continuing lower value of the dollar is a great thing?
Like I said YOU DON’T READ. On top of that the Iraq Study group disagrees
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070710-3.html
And for the nay sayers the ISG is a BI - PARTISAN group researching and briefing on the affairs in Iraq. This isn’t some far left or right wing garbage. You should read the book they put out.
As far as comparing Iraq and Vietnam, LMAO. I’ve heard it before. But I guess you forgot the fact that there has been terrorist acts on America before. So its pretty valid to say it could happen again. Is alot of it blowback… yeah. Is some of it false flag operations, very plausible. But those are entirely different issues.
LEARN TO READ
I know the ISG disagrees with immediate withdrawal, but timetables and benchmarks are only seen by the Iraqis and will be used by people like the Neocons as a stalling tactic. Immediate withdrawal is the only acceptable solution to the Iraqis and again, they don’t care what American thinkers have decided may or may not happen. If thats not your solution then its worthless because believing we shouldn’t leave recklessly WILL be used as an excuse to stay there for an indefinite amount of time, especially as permanant US bases are being drawn up in Iraq.
Yes there was a terrorist attack on the US but it wasn’t launched by any government if thats what you fear of from an immediate withdrawal. The chances of a terrorist attack only goes up the longer we stay, not the quicker we leave. I also don’t see how comparing Iraq and Vietnam is something to laugh about, the parallels are plainly obvious to everyone.