US Presidential Elections

[Walsingham]

Clinton was much more aware of the threat posed by Bin Laden than Bush. Trying to put it all on him is surely selective amnesia.

 

I really can't agree, based on my knowledge. There were several attacks on Bill's watch, but no increase in counter-activity was ordered despite calls for it. Clinton's response on Somalia, Colombia, and Iraq were equally desultory.

[Colrom]

Clinton was much more aware of the threat posed by Bin Laden than Bush. Trying to put it all on him is surely selective amnesia.

 

I really can't agree, based on my knowledge. There were several attacks on Bill's watch, but no increase in counter-activity was ordered despite calls for it. Clinton's response on Somalia, Colombia, and Iraq were equally desultory.

 

Desultary is good. It is so tiring endlessly killing other people all over the world in anticipation of what they might do if they were allowed to live. We Americans should let the Brits do that kind of thing.

[Yuusha]

I sincerely hope Obama wins the presidential election. If he's elected, there's a real possibility of averting war with Iran.

 

Here's a quote from McCain regarding Iran:

 

Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is "tiny" compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn't a superpower and doesn't possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.

 

On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," has repeatedly made clear his government's commitment to Israel's destruction.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but McCain seems intent on going to war with Iran.

[Guard Dog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but McCain seems intent on going to war with Iran.

 

The first rule of American politics, take everything a candidate says with a grain of salt. Campaigns are rife with grandstanding and saber rattling. Now if a sitting President threatens military action it should be taken seriously. As far as Iran goes, so long as they do not do anything stupid like lob a nuclear weapon at Israel or give one to Al Qaeda I seriously doubt we will see a war with Iran. However if they do either of those or there is another terrorist attack on the US or UK they are complicit in you will see an all out war.

[Yuusha]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but McCain seems intent on going to war with Iran.

 

The first rule of American politics, take everything a candidate says with a grain of salt. Campaigns are rife with grandstanding and saber rattling. Now if a sitting President threatens military action it should be taken seriously. As far as Iran goes, so long as they do not do anything stupid like lob a nuclear weapon at Israel or give one to Al Qaeda I seriously doubt we will see a war with Iran. However if they do either of those or there is another terrorist attack on the US or UK they are complicit in you will see an all out war.

You have got to be kidding me...

 

The guy suggests that the United States should never talk to governments that are providing weapons or equipment to countries that are "used to kill US soldiers" or threaten the state of Israel. He's basically saying shoot first talk later and you're actually making excuses for him. Jeez.....

 

I've never seen a US President, I don't care who he is, stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on your government, you would rise up in arms!!

 

Obama will win the election. He has to...

[Xard]

Money --> everything, even political agendas.

 

Rich jews of USA have lots of money --> huge lobbying power

 

Not to mention weapons industry etc. that get profits from selling technology into Israel

 

No matter who is president of USA their support for Israel won't stop unless Israel starts war against them or something

 

Hate it, but money rules the world

[Morgoth]

[walkerguy]

 

Whatever is in your post, it is appearing blank.

 

Oh wait, nevermind, looking below the reply window I see... "it".

[SteveThaiBinh]

Very photogenic. Is there one that mixes in McCain as well?

[Sand]

Dear gods, no. We don't need an incompetent version of Serpentor running our country.

[Tigranes]

The guy suggests that the United States should never talk to governments that are providing weapons or equipment to countries that are "used to kill US soldiers" or threaten the state of Israel. He's basically saying shoot first talk later and you're actually making excuses for him. Jeez.....

 

I've never seen a US President, I don't care who he is, stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on your government, you would rise up in arms!!

 

Obama will win the election. He has to...

 

If considered in terms of partisanship - i.e. who's side are you on - then GD's comment sounds like 'making excuses'. But regardless of whether the opinion McCain expressed is 'right' or 'wrong' or 'moral', GD's point very much stands - Clinton and McCain's sabre-rattling about Iran shouldn't ever be taken so seriously as to believe it translates to actual policy immediately.

 

I agree with you that the US government has a chronic inability to oppose Israel for various reasons, but by now, the webs are tangled so tight, I doubt it's possible for it to be untangled anytime soon.

 

I really don't know why you think Obama is any better though. Do enlighten me if I've got something wrong, but even though Obama's talk is a lot more conciliatory than the other candidates right now, if Iran did something silly like invade Israel, I have no doubt at all that Clinton, Obama and McCain would all take exactly the same action: declare war on Iran.

[Yuusha]

@Tigranes:

 

If considered in terms of partisanship - i.e. who's side are you on - then GD's comment sounds like 'making excuses'. But regardless of whether the opinion McCain expressed is 'right' or 'wrong' or 'moral', GD's point very much stands - Clinton and McCain's sabre-rattling about Iran shouldn't ever be taken so seriously as to believe it translates to actual policy immediately.

Yeah well after Iraq, you'll understand if I'm a 'bit' paranoid. To me, his opinion reveals part of his character and that's why McCain is the last person I wanna see serving as president of the US. And I am certain that there are those (americans) who agree with me.

 

Don't you and GD remember history? Diplomacy always comes first! Look at the summit meetings between President Lyndon Johnson and Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin in New Jersey in June of 1967 in the wake of the Six Day War. And the three meetings between Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev between 1972 and 1974 (two of which were in Moscow), the first of which led to the signing of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty.

 

Vietnam? Well let's just say the Soviets weren't shy in showing their 'partisanship.' And if you use McCain

[Hildegard]

That comment by Clinton regarding comparison of Obama with Bobby Kennedy when it comes to California and the assassination only makes it clear once more that Hillary is a sick ambitious ****

Edited May 24, 2008 by Tigranes
Circumventing language filter

[Tigranes]

I didn't see anything wrong in the Kennedy comment, she basically said "nothing wrong with this still going in June, remember, Kennedy was still campaigning in June". Of course it was imprudent to say and a social faux pas, but it doesn't say anything about her 'ambition' or 'ruthlessness'. It's just a bad comparison and a bad way to say whati s actually a innocuous point.

 

if the US attacks Iran, it will do so because it can!

 

It's not that easy. The truth is neither that US is simply sitting there going "God, I want to go and destroy Iran, when can we get a half-way reasonable excuse?" nor that US is the great superman police come to save us from the evil Iranians, etc. It is rather that the US government has certain fundamental beliefs about what its role is, and that they have a certain inalienable right to declare war and judgement against anyone in extraordinary conditions - and these beliefs and rights they have given themselves are difficult to either approve or attack, because on one hand, it is arrogant and dangerous, and polarising; on the other, it is in some ways necessary for them now, after 9/11. Of course you can argue that it was US that really started the whole thing off, and I'd say you're probably right, but sort of like two teenage girls with vendettas, after a while, nobody remembers nor cares who actually started it: the vendetta, the polarisation, is already there, and neither side can easily lay down their paranoia, hatred, whatever.

 

My other point actually arises from your comment: Diplomacy always comes first. In other words, Obama, for all his talk about diplomacy and conciliation, will go to war with Iran if he thinks he needs to. And how do they judge if they should go to war or not? I don't think that standard is going to be very different between Obama, Clinton and McCain.

 

The Zionist government of Israel is the very definition of evil in my opinion, and I honestly cannot fathom why most american people are unable to comprehend this.

 

Heh. They could say the same to you though. i.e. "The Iranian government is...." Again, I have to bring up that comparison of two teenage girls: there's mud on everyone and for any one side to claim that the other is the 'definition of evil' is rather pointless, and ultimately just as polarising as George Bush. The solution, as you say, 'untangling', does lie in realising that the unequivocal American support of Israel is not helping the situation and that Israel's "holy right" is not quite as absolute as they believe: but to then go and say their quest is absolutely evil and so forth would be to commit the same exact error.

[Yuusha]

@Tigranes: Wow you're a mod now huh? Congrats man.

 

I think I'll start a new thread regarding Iran. Wouldn't wanna go OOT here.

[Laozi]

No no, continue telling us what Dead Squash and other bands think about US politics, I mean they wouldn't be in bands if they didn't know what they were talking about.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Laozi

[Xard]

aww Laozi you're being way too mean. Roger Waters and Bob Dylan ftw!

[Yuusha]

@Lei o zee: Uhh it's Dead SQUAD not SQUASH.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It looks more like Dead Squast to me...

[Colrom]

The idea that Jews somehow control US policy is insane. They are a tiny voting block - nothing more.

 

It would be accurate though to suggest that US and UK policy involves using Israel to advance US and UK "interests" in the Middle East and Persia/Iran.

 

As well, there are some fundamentalist Christians in the US who have an interest in seeing Israel created and thriving and in conflict with its neighbors and ultimately destroyed and most Jews killed so that the fundamentalist Christians can ride into heaven in a boat kept afloat by a river of Jewish blood - or something like that.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Colrom

[Yuusha]

"Don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America.",

 

-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon 10/3/2001-

[Xard]

Now that is rich

 

SAUCE PLZ

[Moatilliatta]

Just google it is everywhere. It is hard to find the quote in anything that I would call trustworthy sources though.

[Xard]

just googled it.

 

lol Yuusha took it way too literally

[Walsingham]

just googled it.

 

lol Yuusha took it way too literally

 

If memory serves it's an old Israeli joke. They have it on T-shirts. "Don't worry America, Israel's behind you."