Political Thread 2012

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;326400 wrote:
It's hard to tell what people consider loonie left wing websites these days... I'm guessing anything that isn't Fox News or Drudge?

Basically I read sites like politifact.

Politifact was where I got the information to complete your quote and put it in context

Trafik Jamz;326400 wrote:
Perhaps crazy was the wrong word. I should have used full of shit.

Fair enough

Trafik Jamz;326400 wrote:
I agree with you about hate crimes. Punishment should be the same regardless. If I were to kill/maim someone intentionally, there is a pretty damn good chance I hate that person. Just saying.

[Rexwagon]

Its not always possible to agree with every view a candidate has. Santorum seems to want to bring values and virtues back to american society. Something that some of society has lost. You may not agree with how he wants to do it, but it might be better than letting the country go to hell.
You can say he wants to go to war with Iran. Whats the alternatives? You let them do what they want and next thing you know they have a nuke or some other weapon and their country is not stable. You vote Ron paul in and we get nuked, what will he do. Nothing. If you dont stop them before they gain these weapons then you have something like 9/11 happen again. Then what. On a larger scale.
He doesnt want women in direct combat roles. I am sure he has spoken with the military and thats what THEY want. Part of whats wrong with america is everyone trying to make everything FAIR in life. Life isnt always fair. Gays in the military gets complicated. But if you have never served in the military or in combat you probably wouldnt understand the issues that these two subjects impose. Civillians voting and making decsions for military doctrine is not the right way to do things. Next people will say let mentally handicapped people serve. Because that will be a great idea, but its FAIR.
The thing I support about paul is his wants for making federal government smaller. But I dont think its going to happen in my lifetime at this rate.
But at this point I think Santorum or Paul would be better presidents than Mitt Romney. When it comes down to the ballet for president and you have romney vs. obama it will be hard to support either for me.

[24valvenotak]

DaveH;326395 wrote:
Again, you guys are taking crap off the loonie left wing sites that try to make him look bad by taking small parts out of context. If you actually see the whole thing in context it usually makes a bit more sense. Like the "snob" comment. Here is the whole thing:

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."

Basically, he was sticking up for blue collar workers.

Check out the so called "quotes" above a little deeper and see what he really said and not what some left wing douche says that he said.

The president’s actual call, made in his first address to Congress in February 2009, was: “tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.”

Phew, thank goodness Rick came to the rescue. I am proud he had the gall to stand up for those disparaging remarks made by our current president.

Do some research dave instead of just listening to what some right wing douche has to say : D

[Trafik Jamz]

Rexwagon;326404 wrote:
Its not always possible to agree with every view a candidate has. Santorum seems to want to bring values and virtues back to american society. Something that some of society has lost. You may not agree with how he wants to do it, but it might be better than letting the country go to hell.

No, I don't want him imposing his version of Christianity on me.

You can say he wants to go to war with Iran. Whats the alternatives? You let them do what they want and next thing you know they have a nuke or some other weapon and their country is not stable.

N Korea has a nuke, got it under the former administration. Why aren't we worried about them? Where was the preemptive strike?

You vote Ron paul in and we get nuked, what will he do. Nothing. If you dont stop them before they gain these weapons then you have something like 9/11 happen again. Then what. On a larger scale.

See N Korea. The only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon on another country is the one that we live in. Fact. What if they already have a weapon (for all we know they might)? Do we take the chance that they will unload it on us if we go into Iran?

He doesnt want women in direct combat roles. I am sure he has spoken with the military and thats what THEY want. Part of whats wrong with america is everyone trying to make everything FAIR in life. Life isnt always fair. Gays in the military gets complicated. But if you have never served in the military or in combat you probably wouldnt understand the issues that these two subjects impose. Civillians voting and making decsions for military doctrine is not the right way to do things. Next people will say let mentally handicapped people serve. Because that will be a great idea, but its FAIR.

I didn't serve (had an injury that prevented me from fulfilling my delayed entry obligations). Had I gone, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if the person providing cover for me was gay/straight/woman/shemale as long as we were working together. When have we voted to make decisions for military doctrine? As for mentally handicapped people serving... depends on their role. If they are savant smart and can crack codes in seconds that computers take hours to do, then yes, let's bring them on board in a non-combat role. If someone can pass the mental and physical demands/tests of the military, who am I to tell them that they are not good enough to serve.

The thing I support about paul is his wants for making federal government smaller. But I dont think its going to happen in my lifetime at this rate.

Define smaller. Does smaller mean less people working for the Fed from one year to the next or does smaller mean a lower percentage of American's working for the government as a whole. If you mean less people (including US Postal Service workers) we have less now than in 1994 when Clinton took office, but slightly more in 2010 than in 2002 under GWB. Now, if you are looking at percentage of population working for the federal government we are at the lowest point in modern history @ 8.4%

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html
(sorry dave, I know the post is a left wing newspaper, I'm going to dig into it deeper and find a non-biased source as well)

But at this point I think Santorum or Paul would be better presidents than Mitt Romney. When it comes down to the ballet for president and you have romney vs. obama it will be hard to support either for me.

I couldn't support Obama/Romney/Newt/Santorum outright. Paul is the only one whose views most closely match mine (and his most radical stuff will never pass congress anyway... let's be honest, Presidents don't write laws, they sign them and at best influence them). However, I will vote for Newt/Romney over Obama if it comes down to it. And I will write in Paul (or maybe whoever the Libertarian candidate is) if it is between Obama and Santorum.

[DaveH]

I could really care less about the actual disagreement between Santorum and Obama. They are all politicians and they all twist what the other persons says to try to make their own points. My beef is with people posting part of someones quote, or taking it out of context, and trying to pass the quote off as the truth.

24valvenotak;326406 wrote:
The president’s actual call, made in his first address to Congress in February 2009, was: “tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.”

Phew, thank goodness Rick came to the rescue. I am proud he had the gall to stand up for those disparaging remarks made by our current president.

Do some research dave instead of just listening to what some right wing douche has to say : D

[Trafik Jamz]

24valvenotak;326406 wrote:
The president’s actual call, made in his first address to Congress in February 2009, was: “tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.”

Phew, thank goodness Rick came to the rescue. I am proud he had the gall to stand up for those disparaging remarks made by our current president.

Do some research dave instead of just listening to what some right wing douche has to say : D

Even funnier is this video of Santorum back tracking (on Fox News of all places):
[video]http://youtu.be/Anyhep7Ar5U[/video]

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;326407 wrote:
N Korea has a nuke, got it under the former administration. Why aren't we worried about them? Where was the preemptive strike?

We need to worry about both of them, but N Korea to a lesser extent IMO.

Trafik Jamz;326407 wrote:
I didn't serve (had an injury that prevented me from fulfilling my delayed entry obligations). Had I gone, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if the person providing cover for me was gay/straight/woman/shemale as long as we were working together. When have we voted to make decisions for military doctrine? As for mentally handicapped people serving... depends on their role. If they are savant smart and can crack codes in seconds that computers take hours to do, then yes, let's bring them on board in a non-combat role. If someone can pass the mental and physical demands/tests of the military, who am I to tell them that they are not good enough to serve.

It's not your job to tell them they are or aren't good enough, thats the military's decision to make.

Trafik Jamz;326407 wrote:
Define smaller. Does smaller mean less people working for the Fed from one year to the next or does smaller mean a lower percentage of American's working for the government as a whole. If you mean less people (including US Postal Service workers) we have less now than in 1994 when Clinton took office, but slightly more in 2010 than in 2002 under GWB. Now, if you are looking at percentage of population working for the federal government we are at the lowest point in modern history @ 8.4% .

The number of dollars the government spends is what I'm concerned with. If they drop the number of government employees to 1, and still spend $1.5 trillion more than they take in every year, they haven't reduced the size of government.

Trafik Jamz;326407 wrote:
I couldn't support Obama/Romney/Newt/Santorum outright. Paul is the only one whose views most closely match mine (and his most radical stuff will never pass congress anyway... let's be honest, Presidents don't write laws, they sign them and at best influence them). However, I will vote for Newt/Romney over Obama if it comes down to it. And I will write in Paul (or maybe whoever the Libertarian candidate is) if it is between Obama and Santorum.

You won't have to worry about that, it will be Romney and Obama.

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;326410 wrote:
We need to worry about both of them, but N Korea to a lesser extent IMO.

Possibly, but they are a potential direct threat to our economy if they invade S Korea (who is going to make our shit then?)

It's not your job to tell them they are or aren't good enough, thats the military's decision to make.

I can agree with that to some extent I guess. I just wouldn't want to see someone with one overwhelming ability overlooked because of several glaring weaknesses.

The number of dollars the government spends is what I'm concerned with. If they drop the number of government employees to 1, and still spend $1.5 trillion more than they take in every year, they haven't reduced the size of government. This I can agree with as well. I'm fairly sure we disagree on how to reduce the gap however (flat $ amount vs flat %)

You won't have to worry about that, it will be Romney and Obama

[thrash]

The idea that Paul isn't going to fight back if Iran nukes us is ridiculous.

Unlike every other douchebag in the race, Paul actually got drafted and served during Vietnam. And he had 2 kids at home.

When 9/11 happened, Paul had legislation ready immediately to go after Bin Laden directly -- via letters of marque and reprisal -- the constitutional remedy that was used for us to stop piracy against American interests back in the 1700s. It was something the president could unilaterally do, it didn't commit the entire us Military. But instead of going with Paul's constitutional means of going over there and getting OBL, we telegraphed to the whole world for months that we were about to invade Afghanistan. Plenty of time for OBL to setup his Chateau in Pakistan.

Instead, we're trillions down the drain, loads of our precious children are dead, and zillions of more terrorists created in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Let's say that Iran is working on a nuke. Let's say that they develop it. Do you think they plan on using it on US soil? They know that having 1 nuke and using if offensively is their death sentence. And despite what you think you know about Iran, it isn't full of dynamite vest wearing lunatics. The one thing about politicians is they love power. Amouasdfmasofkbad (president of Iran) loves power just as much as anyone else. Why would he possibly commit suicide and lose everything only to have his entire country glassed over? He's not one of the crazy mullahs.

Iran has a perfectly good reason for wanting a nuke-- the US leaves alone any country with nukes. Why do you think we haven't whacked north korea? Because they can park a nuke on South Korea in 5 minutes.

I honestly don't even think Iran wants to nuke Israel.

But suppose I'm wrong.

Suppose that Iran does get nukes, and gets crazy enough that they nuke Israel. 24 hours later, Iran doesn't exist. Problem solved. Suppose they set off a suitcase nuke in a sports stadium or something. President Paul isn't going to be like "shucks, they got us". He's going to figure out which bastards did it and ruin them.

But suppose I'm right about Iran not actually wanting to bomb us, and some jackball like Santorum gets elected. We're going to have a 5th war, and a shit ton of innocent people are going to die. For what? Would you pick up a rifle and head over to Iran right now and start shooting women and children?

How many Iranians do you guys who are so sprung for bombing Iran know? We had an Iranian guy on our team back during the crazy protests. Do you think he was supportive of the Iranian government? Do you think he wishes he was back there helping to crack down on the Iranians?

Iran came >< this close to having a political coup succeed. Everytime was antagonize Iran "the nation" and hurt "Iran, the people", we give power to their crazy Death To America mullahs and consolidate power under their president.

If we go with Pauls plan, yeah, there is a smalll chance that we could end up having 1 nuke go off somewhere. It would be bad. But we'd survive, we'd clean up the middle east, and come home fast.

But let's say we don't go with Pauls plan. Our economy is going to self destruct, and our world wide empire will crumble. Our soldiers all over hte world will increasingly become targets because they are in the enemy's back yards, and we will be powerless to respond beacuse we are going to be fucking broke. The world economy is precariously close to a total reset and not a single one of these guys except Paul has any fraction of the balls required to get things moving in the right direction, much less the brains to know what needs to change.

Basically, it comes down to this. If we elect Paul, there's a slight chance he's wrong about foreign policy -- even though he has a long history of being exactly right. But if we don't elect Paul, there's a MUCH bigger chance that he was right about domestic and monetary policy. At which point we are fucked deep in every hole, and what Iran is doing will be the least of our concerns.

[24valvenotak]

DaveH;326408 wrote:
I could really care less about the actual disagreement between Santorum and Obama. They are all politicians and they all twist what the other persons says to try to make their own points. My beef is with people posting part of someones quote, or taking it out of context, and trying to pass the quote off as the truth.

You posted a quote from Santorum in which he uses a partial Obama quote out of context and passed it off as the truth. You defended it by saying:

DaveH;326395 wrote:
Basically, he was sticking up for blue collar workers.

Check out the so called "quotes" above a little deeper and see what he really said and not what some left wing douche says that he said.

He wasn't sticking up for blue collar workers, though. He was taking something Obama said out of context and edited it to make him sound like a snob. You didn't realize this because you found what you wanted to find and deemed it the truth. That is basically what you are encouraging all of us not to do. Chalk it up to me being hyper critical of your criticism, I suppose.

As far as Santorum actually wanting to make sodomy illegal...

SANTORUM: [I]f you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions....

The fact that he associates consensual gay sex with polygamy, adultery, incest, and bigamy puts the nail in the coffin for me. Nine states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia) still ban heterosexual sodomy. Fun Fact: While most people understand the term “sodomy” to mean anal intercourse, most sodomy laws also include cunnilingus and fellatio in the description of prohibited acts. Yes oral sex, even within the sanctity of marriage, is a crime in Alabama. Go figure.

[24valvenotak]

thrash;326413 wrote:
Basically, it comes down to this. if we don't elect Paul, we are fucked deep in every hole,

Ive learned how to quote correctly in this thread, and approve this message.

[Rexwagon]

[QUOTE=thrash;326413]
1-Why would he possibly commit suicide and lose everything only to have his entire country glassed over? He's not one of the crazy mullahs

2-But suppose I'm right about Iran not actually wanting to bomb us, and some jackball like Santorum gets elected. We're going to have a 5th war, and a shit ton of innocent people are going to die. For what? Would you pick up a rifle and head over to Iran right now and start shooting women and children?

3-How many Iranians do you guys who are so sprung for bombing Iran know? We had an Iranian guy on our team back during the crazy protests. Do you think he was supportive of the Iranian government? Do you think he wishes he was back there helping to crack down on the Iranians?

4-If we go with Pauls plan, yeah, there is a smalll chance that we could end up having 1 nuke go off somewhere. It would be bad. But we'd survive, we'd clean up the middle east, and come home fast.

QUOTE]

1- he's muslim. Jihad
2- Ive been to the middle east before. And I would do it again if required.
3- I have met several Iranians. Do I care about them, No. They can go back to where they came from.
4- You must have a crystal ball next to your Bong

[thrash]

1. he's secular, like many people in Iran. Just like the government of Iraq was before we ruined that whole place.

2. I line up 100 women and kids from Iran right now and you'd go firing squad style on them? Why? What did they do to you?

3. The last Iranian I met was working in this country paying a fuckton more tax dollars than you do. His net contribution to USA >> yours. Why would I want to send him "home"?

I'd rather take all of the native-born "Americans" who live off the dole, make no legitimate attempt to become self-sufficient, and have an entitlement complex by virtue only of the zipcode of their birth, and who complain about how they are the "real" Americans, and send them to Iran.

4. I don't have a crystal ball or a bong. I only have rational arguments, which I expect people to poke and prod and challenge with reason and evidence. I see that you apparently have jingoism and ad hominem.

Before beating the war drums, you need to read/view this and think about it pretty hard:
video re-enactment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0
transcript: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

About the man (who is a fuckton MORE of a man than I am): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
short version: time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

Are you more of a bad ass than this guy? You know more about war and fighting than he does?

[Jim]

Just becuase Iranians use the facade of brinkmanship to thier advantage doesn't mean they are retarded.

Everybody knows this was Kim Jong Il's plan and he exploited it sucessfully, time and time again (ever since the Korean war) and now it looks like his son is doing the same.

Ahmadinejad isn' the real power in Iran, and it was made quite clear just this past year, when he wanted to let those hikers go, but was forced by the Clerics to wait it out or dealy. These clerics are immensely rich and powerful and spout off religious bullshit to maintain complete control over Iran.

Iran is radical today, becuase of us and the UK... Iranian revolution could largely be attributed to us.

So while both the N Koreans and Iranians love to play the game of brinkmanship, neither are stupid, and really what do they have to gain by ACTUALLY nuking somebody? It's much more benifical to both of them to just the threat of nukes to get what they want.

Who's to say that we should even be backing Isreal, they commit attrocities to Muslims on a regular basis, that if the tables were switched would be instant justification for US backed involvement.

Isreal is a loose cannon, and acts unilaterally and often without serious provocation.. and they seem to escalate situations rather then wait them out. For them to be the sole nuclear power in the region defies nuclear detterence theory (which assumes all parties are rational, so a case could be made they are all bat shit crazy I guess).

But anyway, what would the rich clerics stand to gain by nuking somebody? Absolutely nothing, and they could be pretty much assured of large scale war. Russia and China would be forced to drop support (economic ties with the world vs. iran)...

The only risk that I can see from Iran having nukes, are the possibilties of a Jihadist type faction getting ahold of them. Remeber the situation in India and Pakistan in the 90's? Nukes can def. be a stabalizing force in a region if one power doesn't have the upper hand.

[DaveH]

24valvenotak;326414 wrote:
You posted a quote from Santorum in which he uses a partial Obama quote out of context and passed it off as the truth. You defended it by saying:

I didn't defend Santorums statement, I pointed out that Chuck only posted part of it.

24valvenotak;326414 wrote:
The fact that he associates consensual gay sex with polygamy, adultery, incest, and bigamy puts the nail in the coffin for me.

As Patrick Swayze said, "opinions vary"

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;326412 wrote:
Possibly, but they are a potential direct threat to our economy if they invade S Korea (who is going to make our shit then?)

The shitstorm that would happen around the world if N Korea went crazy would be nothing compared to what would happen if Iran did.

Trafik Jamz;326412 wrote:
I can agree with that to some extent I guess. I just wouldn't want to see someone with one overwhelming ability overlooked because of several glaring weaknesses.

Again, it's not our job to weigh whether someone's positives overrule their negatives. I'll leave that to the people in charge of the military.

Trafik Jamz;326412 wrote:
This I can agree with as well. I'm fairly sure we disagree on how to reduce the gap however (flat $ amount vs flat %)

I don't think taxes are the problem, the problem is the incredibly insane spending.

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;326420 wrote:
The shitstorm that would happen around the world if N Korea went crazy would be nothing compared to what would happen if Iran did.

Again, it's not our job to weigh whether someone's positives overrule their negatives. I'll leave that to the people in charge of the military.

I don't think taxes are the problem, the problem is the incredibly insane spending.

I dunno, I have this crazy feeling Iran already has a nuke or is DAMN close and is close enough to be able to create a "dirty bomb" that they will lob at our allies in the region if/when they/we attack.

You are right, taxes are not the problem (well, when some companies pay $0 they are part of the problem, but not the majority). However, most charts I've seen from the fed state that while yes, spending did increase under Obama by ~600 billion in large part due to stimulus spending (I have attached a chart from the Fed going back to the 1940's so it doesn't look like I'm just making this up) the amount being spent at present is heading down from it's peak (mostly due to stimulus money being already spent). But wait, we talk about a spiraling deficit regularly, and justly so, however a tanking economy drove up the deficit exponentially because the income didn't meet the spending obligations that have been in place for years (and in some cases decades) so laying the ENTIRE blame of a bloated deficit on one presidency is hardly fair. Had the housing market not tanked in 2007-2008 and the economy had kept on the course it was on, the deficit would not be as crazy as it is today (all other things being equal). That is a fact.

So how do we cut spending? Well, to do that the congress has to pass a bill eliminating a program and THEN the President has to sign it into law (or have his veto over-ridden in congress). As far as I know, he can not just line item cut something w/ no congressional approval. The tricky part is that no one from either side legitimately wants to cut a program as it affects their popularity with their constituents. What I'd like to see is a blanket cut of funding of 1% to 2% over EVERY program in the government relative to the prior year (if your budget was $100 last year, you get $98 this year... not 2% less than you'd planned on spending). I don't believe that any business is running at 100% efficiency, so there has to be 2% waste out there MINIMUM. The best part is that it wouldn't even necessarily defund the benefits being paid out to SS, Welfare, etc.. if they could find ways to save in their offices. I think we should cut this 1 to 2% each year until we have a balanced budget... and then go 2 years after that for good measure.

Just for the hell of it, I included the newest graph showing the number of ALL government workers through Feb 1 of 2012 as well.

More info to back my crazy theory about it being both income and spending that are causing the current crisis: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/11/ES1120.pdf

Part of the problem (I think) is that spending bills are not passed with built in triggers that say "If deficit > X, then reduction in spending = Y%"

[GarageAlchemist]

Jim;326418 wrote:
Just becuase Iranians use the facade of brinkmanship to thier advantage doesn't mean they are retarded.

Everybody knows this was Kim Jong Il's plan and he exploited it sucessfully, time and time again (ever since the Korean war) and now it looks like his son is doing the same.

Ahmadinejad isn' the real power in Iran, and it was made quite clear just this past year, when he wanted to let those hikers go, but was forced by the Clerics to wait it out or dealy. These clerics are immensely rich and powerful and spout off religious bullshit to maintain complete control over Iran.

Iran is radical today, becuase of us and the UK... Iranian revolution could largely be attributed to us.

So while both the N Koreans and Iranians love to play the game of brinkmanship, neither are stupid, and really what do they have to gain by ACTUALLY nuking somebody? It's much more benifical to both of them to just the threat of nukes to get what they want.

Who's to say that we should even be backing Isreal, they commit attrocities to Muslims on a regular basis, that if the tables were switched would be instant justification for US backed involvement.

Isreal is a loose cannon, and acts unilaterally and often without serious provocation.. and they seem to escalate situations rather then wait them out. For them to be the sole nuclear power in the region defies nuclear detterence theory (which assumes all parties are rational, so a case could be made they are all bat shit crazy I guess).

But anyway, what would the rich clerics stand to gain by nuking somebody? Absolutely nothing, and they could be pretty much assured of large scale war. Russia and China would be forced to drop support (economic ties with the world vs. iran)...

The only risk that I can see from Iran having nukes, are the possibilties of a Jihadist type faction getting ahold of them. Remeber the situation in India and Pakistan in the 90's? Nukes can def. be a stabalizing force in a region if one power doesn't have the upper hand.

It is a bit difficult to say that a people (Israel, Jews) "overreact" or act unprovoked when their entire history (1000's of years) has been intertwined with with conflict and war with one specific group of people. The conflict between Jews and Muslims has been going on for so long, it is built into their culture and consciousness to be afraid of those people. It is an instinct. Like if you were living next door to a pack of tigers or lions or people that hated you and your family, and all your ancestors, and anything that has to do with you, and has attacked you repeatedly in the past, your instincts would tell you to be afraid at all times. I'm just saying, those would be pretty shitty circumstances to live under, and i'd be pretty edgy as well.

[Rexwagon]

I may have jingoism but i doubt i have ad hominem. I am just anti-liberal and I love being a patriot. I would rather be wrong and destroy an Enemy than be wrong and be destroyed.
No I am not more "badass" then smedley. But probably know more about Iran and the middle east and current affairs than he does. But I am sure that you know more than me and more than anyone else on this forum. Fuck probably more than everyone in america. I mean damn your friends with a Taxpaying Iranian that pays way more taxes than me. Thats gotta be worth infinity Points. lol

I am not fan either of people who are americans by birth or choice that live off the system and do not contribute to society and just leech. They are a cancer. ---We agree on something.

And No I am not going to watch your video. I am not saying that we need to have to go to war. But its a real possiblity and it should be on the table. I have lived war, I was wounded In iraq, have a purple heart and lost several friends in Iraq along with a cousin. But I dont regret it. I did what my country asked me to do and I would do it all over again. Right or wrong. But right and wrong is precieved differently amongst several people. Whose to say. In the end it doesnt matter

In a perfect world we could all just get along. But the world isnt perfect nor is it fair.

[thrash]

Rexwagon;326426 wrote:
In the end it doesnt matter

It matters a lot if you're one of the people that gets killed.

But the world isnt perfect nor is it fair.

That doesn't excuse intentionally being evil. Which is what I think our politicians do a lot of the time.

I can appreciate the role that the military has in being the "Executive branch" of national political willpower. But when you advocate for the same kinds of policies and people that get us IN to undeclared wars where zillions of people on all sides suffer, you can't really play the "I was doing my job" card.

You have two jobs. One is to execute the military ambitions of your country when you deploy. The second is to keep your country from deploying you for stupid reasons by voting for the right people.

The option of war with Iran IS on the table with hypothetical president Paul. If the congress declares it, that is.