Republican Candidates

[Krookie]

Well, his presidency was an utter failure, he has to make his mark on history somehow.

 

Considering the huge mess that Bush moron and his Republican cronies left Obama with, it's not terribly surprising.

 

Still, he certainly hasn't been anything more than mediocre even in light of the Republican party imploding in a mess of infighting, fanatic religious extremism and corruption.

 

blah blah blah let's keep blaming bush, no reason for accountability. Obama had a Democratic congress for 2 years and didn't do anything with it. If Obama had half a backbone the country would be in much better shape. The last two presidencies have been absolute jokes, and with Romney up for election and Obama as the incumbent I don't see the next term being much better regardless of who wins.

 

The only saving grace is that it is possible that Obama was just governing for re-election this term. He pissed off a lot of people with Obamacare but not to a point where he can't win the 2012 election - maybe he'll be the president we thought he was going to be during his 2nd term.

[Humodour]

blah blah blah let's keep blaming bush, no reason for accountability. Obama had a Democratic congress for 2 years and didn't do anything with it. If Obama had half a backbone the country would be in much better shape.

 

Obama has done a lot to diversify America away from fossil fuels, which is important for a huge number of reasons (take a look at the reasons behind the US military's huge push for solar and wind for example), not least of all climate change - though he is now selling it as energy independence (which it is) to avoid the negative connotations extremists have associated with climate science. Obama has also championed health care reforms which rather crudely approximate the universal health coverage every other developed nation enjoys. I know and you know he has also done a lot more than this (in so far as a president can being merely the embodiment of the executive arm), and yet these two things alone have been of great significance.

 

When you say things like "Obama didn't do anything" (to paraphrase), you're being highly disingenuous. Say what you mean: you wish Obama had of been bolder and done more. I agree with that. I called him mediocre. He's a corrupt entertainment industry stooge. I don't like him. However, I like the notion of a presidency worse than Bush's a lot less. A Romney win with these crazy neo-Republicans in control of either or both houses is a nightmare scenario.

 

And yes, I'll definitely keep blaming Bush and his ilk for the troubles they caused. One would be hard-pressed to exaggerate the damage they did to their party, their country and the world (thanks to globalisation). Would you have me wave it all away because 4 years have passed under a different US president? Do you really think fixing all the problems and turmoil which Bush's disaster of a presidency has caused around the world is a simple matter of replacing the president and giving him 4 years of clean-up duty?

Edited August 18, 2012 by Krezack

[Monte Carlo]

Srsly, someone has to attack Iran

 

Why?

 

I'm too bored of you to even attempt a justification. Were it that people like you were in charge, we'd let every whacko regime have weapons of mass destruction.

[Morgoth]

I'm too bored of you to even attempt a justification. Were it that people like you were in charge, we'd let every whacko regime have weapons of mass destruction.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

So, where are those WMDs? Have they found them yet? Will they make the same "little mistake" on Iran again?

 

Maybe you haven't realized this yet, but if Israel (whether with, or without US support) bombs those plants, Iran *will* retaliate on Israel, and that is gonna quickly turn into a full scale war. Hence, an invasion (and all the ugly things involved) of US troops (and her lakeys) will be inevitable. There's no such a thing is getting your bombers quickly in, bomb their targets, assasinate a bunch of scientists, and then out. And the pentagon knows that. Just ask Wesley Clark.

 

Hence, ITT we learn, that Monte is an open war monger. Cool, now we let those walk around too.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Morgoth

[Monte Carlo]

* Yaaawwwwnnnn *

 

You and Krezzie should form your own club.

[Morgoth]

Maybe next time I should surround my posts with animated gifs of huge explosions, maybe that will keep the old fool's attention span intact?

[Monte Carlo]

That wasn't even in the foothills Morgie. Please try harder.

[Malcador]

Funny for Clark to come up in a situation, thinking of Pristina. Waste of time to attack Iran though, they know they'll get glassed if they attack Israel - MAD basically - and while their leaders may be insane or just posturing as insane, I doubt their military leaders are that bonkers. There is a such a thing as bombing targets and leaving, but Iran learned from Iraq in that case, sites are dispersed and underground.

 

Screwing with their computers does seem profitable though.

[Humodour]

Srsly, someone has to attack Iran

 

Why?

 

I'm too bored of you to even attempt a justification. Were it that people like you were in charge, we'd let every whacko regime have weapons of mass destruction.

 

You've read and responded to my posts before on Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, the Taliban, and China. If you have any sort of long-term memory left intact, you should know that I have utter disdain for these regimes. You'd be well aware that I was one of the strongest voices for intervention in Libya on this forum. I support intervention where there is a real chance of success and that some good can actually come of it.

 

So don't lie. Tell the truth. Explain to us why you think it would be a wonderful idea to invade Iran. Don't do it for me. Do it for all the other people quietly reading your posts and wondering why you're so gleeful about starting yet another war.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Krezack

[Monte Carlo]

I'm sure you've already made your mind up, but here is the reasoned debate about Iran's stance towards Israel:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy

 

I know Generation Hipster are ambivalent at best towards Israel, mainly because of the paucity of history teaching in schools. As a Briton of Jewish heritage even I can find Israeli and it's political recalcitrance rather tiresome sometimes. Then again, you have to remember that the tribal memory of having your entire kin subjected to industrialised murder in living memory can do that to people. But you choose a side in these things, and I've chosen mine.

 

I have considered the issues carefully. Ahmadinejad is a religious, one-party state extremist. I believe that he might well choose to use nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic. In the interim he will use them as a bargaining chip to change the balance of power in a volatile region, in of itself a profound security risk. I have nothing against the Iranian people (and as a Londoner I suspect I've met more Persians than many folks on this board). As a people, Persians tend to value knowledge and learning. They have a tendency towards graciousness. They also, like all of us, have some less flattering traits within sections of their society (but now isn't the time to dwell on them). Sadly, since 1979, they are under the boot-heel of extremist Shia Islamism. The positives are more difficult to flower.

 

I am a Western Liberal (I use the term liberal in it's original, not modern Gramscian context). I believe in the values of the enlightenment and democracy. Agreed, they are filtered through the imperfections of modern post-industrial capitalism but again we play the hand we are dealt. I'd rather live in 21st Century Europe than the 21st Century Near-East.

 

Which brings me to my (admittedly trite) comment about military action. I do not, in any way, think invading Iran is desirable or even feasible (I'm a keen student of these matters - even the USA right now would be utterly unable, even if the politics allowed for it) to invade a country like Iran.

 

What I *do* think is achievable and desirable is immediate, focused air attacks on all Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Anything that buys more time before Ahmadinejad gets his nuclear weapons.

 

And there we have it: you either think it's acceptable for the Iranian regime to have nukes or you do not. You can sit around a campfire singing Kumbaya but it won't stop them. Bombing will.

 

Choose your side.

[Morgoth]

http://en.wikipedia.....22_controversy

 

 

Laughable. You know that his words have been twisted by the media, right?

 

Not saying that Ahmadinejad isn't a maniac, but invading Iran and risking a possible WW3 scenario because of some abritary statement just exhibits how scared and irrational the Pentagon and the American mindset really are.

 

Next, the boogeyman. He's gonna come and get ya too!

[Morgoth]

What I *do* think is achievable and desirable is immediate, focused air attacks on all Iranian nuclear infrastructure.

 

And releasing all the radiation. Brilliant!

[Nepenthe]

The amount of tea-bagging in this thread has left pg13 behind!

[HoonDing]