1. #12221
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    If he is a politician, how do you invade two contries to give him the ammunition to claim you are a war mongering? If he is a politician, the obvious battle ground should be polotics, also known as diplomacy. Starting wars only reinforces his rhetoric, because he is a politician.

    This also does not change the fact of what you're responding to. It took a complete republican federal government, for terrorist to launch the largest successful attack on US soul. How do you justify that with your reasoning that democrats encourage terrorist because they are not scared? They did it with republicans in office and got the exact response they wanted. Let's also remember that it was Reagan who armed Hussain, with the exact same policy of arming our friend that Romney promoted during the debates.
    Again, we're not talking about terrorists. Terrorists give 0 fucks about who is in office. We're talking about enemy countries. I'm really not sure what you want me to say here.

  2. #12222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    But we're not talking about terrorists here. We're talking about Iran.
    What role is Rissia playing in that? How scared were they when Putin called Bush a warmonger, while Bush said he liked Putin's eyes? It is absurd to say that Iran would be in any different place under a Republican president. The last time a republican made a move at Iran, was the very time that Hussain built his millitary force on our dime, the same policy Romney is promoting.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-04 at 05:57 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Again, we're not talking about terrorists. Terrorists give 0 fucks about who is in office. We're talking about enemy countries. I'm really not sure what you want me to say here.
    I am also comparing Reagan financing Hussain in the Iran v Iraq war, with similar policy of arming our friends echoed by Romney. Us fighting in Iraq is the direct result of a Republican, using the same policy of arming our friends that Romney is promoting, against the same country of Iran.
    Last edited by Felya420; 2012-11-04 at 06:00 AM.

  3. #12223
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    What role is Rissia playing in that? How scared were they when Putin called Bush a warmonger, while Bush said he liked Putin's eyes? It is absurd to say that Iran would be in any different place under a Republican president. The last time a republican made a move at Iran, was the very time that Hussain built his millitary force on our dime, the same policy Romney is promoting.
    Don't get me started on Obama and Putin. The primary reason I won't be voting for Obama on Tuesday is because of his hot-mic accident with Dmitry Medvedev. I'm not kidding. Other than that, I can't say I don't like Obama. But the safety of our European allies is not something you should be allowed to put on the negotiating table.

  4. #12224
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    9,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Don't get me started on Obama and Putin. The primary reason I won't be voting for Obama on Tuesday is because of his hot-mic accident with Dmitry Medvedev. I'm not kidding. Other than that, I can't say I don't like Obama. But the safety of our European allies is not something you should be allowed to put on the negotiating table.
    What was wrong or erroneous about his statement? Its essentially undeniable that politicians find it easier to perform their duty when they are not detracted by the task of preparing for the next election. Its the same reason why there are a number of politicians pushing for term limits in Congress.

    As for being sure, you don't express doubt in international politics. Ultimately, you're only as good as how the other person views you, especially in a situation where America's military and monetary power don't give it an advantage.

    We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

  5. #12225
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Don't get me started on Obama and Putin. The primary reason I won't be voting for Obama on Tuesday is because of his hot-mic accident with Dmitry Medvedev. I'm not kidding. Other than that, I can't say I don't like Obama. But the safety of our European allies is not something you should be allowed to put on the negotiating table.
    Before I start assuming, what was the issue?

    Any comments on what I said about Iran, Iraq, Reagan and Romey policy?

  6. #12226
    The Insane Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    19,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Before I start assuming, what was the issue?
    the whole "more flexibility after the election" mumbo-jumbo.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.

  7. #12227
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    9,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Before I start assuming, what was the issue?
    Obama telling Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate on certain international issues after he was reelected.

    We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

  8. #12228
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    the whole "more flexibility after the election" mumbo-jumbo.
    Well yah, I don't see it as an issue and don't want to assume what is so horrible about it that it would hinge the election. Something that supersedes being a registered republican as the primary reason to not vote for Obama.

  9. #12229
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    We conquered Iraq in about a month. The mighty Iraqi Republican Guard was reduced to a mass of quivering jelly in about 2 weeks. Iran's military is a joke by comparison. A war with us would be the guaranteed end of the Ayatollah's reign. Surely they must be aware of this.
    There's a big difference: the US still has a major troop deployment in Afghanistan after a decade of major troop deployments. There is no political or public willingness to do it again so soon. There's no way the US will have a giant ground invasion of Iran. They'd limit it to air strikes and while that would do a lot of damage, it would not cause the Iranian gov't to fall.

  10. #12230
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Before I start assuming, what was the issue?
    They were discussing our missile shield in Europe. Russia wants it removed, because it gives us an unfair advantage in the event of a nuclear war. Basically Russia is saying "since we can't hit you, we should be allowed to nuke the shit out of Europe". Obama told them that the shield would stay, but whispered to Medvedev afterward "After the election I'll have more flexibility." What Obama didn't realize was that his microphone was still on.

    So my fear is that he considers Europe's safety to be negotiable.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-04 at 06:14 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    There's a big difference: the US still has a major troop deployment in Afghanistan after a decade of major troop deployments. There is no political or public willingness to do it again so soon. There's no way the US will have a giant ground invasion of Iran. They'd limit it to air strikes and while that would do a lot of damage, it would not cause the Iranian gov't to fall.
    Now I'll concede that you are probably correct on that.

    just for the record though, it is only because of public and political opinion. Our military is ready to drop those bastards like a rock at any moment.

  11. #12231
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    9,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    They were discussing our missile shield in Europe. Russia wants it removed, because it gives us an unfair advantage in the event of a nuclear war. Basically Russia is saying "since we can't hit you, we should be allowed to nuke the shit out of Europe". Obama told them that the shield would stay, but whispered to Medvedev afterward "After the election I'll have more flexibility." What Obama didn't realize was that his microphone was still on.

    So my fear is that he considers Europe's safety to be negotiable.
    And the positioning of the shield in the first place was like saying "alright, so we're going to hit you whenever we feel like it... but feel free to grind your teeth when we stop you from doing anything." Considering that its not like Russia was planning on storming across Europe, what exactly was the point of the missile shield? If Russia wanted a nuclear war, we would have probably done it back when our country was actually stable. Its like bringing a shotgun to your friends house and acting offended when he's wondering what you're doing with it and want you to leave it outside, because ultimately it tips the scale of MAD. That and the fact that it's being done while the US is in massive financial debt makes having the shield placed very unpalatable.

    We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

  12. #12232
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Don't get me started on Obama and Putin. The primary reason I won't be voting for Obama on Tuesday is because of his hot-mic accident with Dmitry Medvedev. I'm not kidding. Other than that, I can't say I don't like Obama. But the safety of our European allies is not something you should be allowed to put on the negotiating table.
    You can't be serious. Whether he gets caught saying it or not, I think it's pretty obvious that Obama would indeed have more flexibility after an election since he can make proper decisions without having to worry about flag-waving jingoism and hyper-partisanship as much. And I don't know if you've noticed but the Soviet Union is gone. There is a much weaker Russian state left in it's place and they are not the same ideological enemy of the West. Europe doesn't really need as much help in defense from the US as it did decades ago.

  13. #12233
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    And the positioning of the shield in the first place was like saying "alright, so we're going to hit you whenever we feel like it... but feel free to grind your teeth when we stop you from doing anything." Considering that its not like Russia was planning on storming across Europe, what exactly was the point of the missile shield? If Russia wanted a nuclear war, we would have probably done it back when our country was actually stable. Its like bringing a shotgun to your friends house and acting offended when he's wondering what you're doing with it and want you to leave it outside, because ultimately it tips the scale of MAD. That and the fact that it's being done while the US is in massive financial debt makes having the shield placed very unpalatable.
    I'm not saying it's fair. If you guys can get Obama to remove the shield then I'd highly recommend you do so. But I don't want a president who's going to level the playing field for Russia. I want a president who makes sure that American power is unquestionable.

  14. #12234
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    They were discussing our missile shield in Europe. Russia wants it removed, because it gives us an unfair advantage in the event of a nuclear war. Basically Russia is saying "since we can't hit you, we should be allowed to nuke the shit out of Europe". Obama told them that the shield would stay, but whispered to Medvedev afterward "After the election I'll have more flexibility." What Obama didn't realize was that his microphone was still on.

    So my fear is that he considers Europe's safety to be negotiable.
    But, everything in polotics is a negotiation. What leads you to believe that Obama being more flexible, to a former president of Russia, would put Europe in danger? Being more flexible in nogatiations, does not mean puting Europe in danger.

    Obama being more flexible, by not waiting for Pakistan approval, resulted in a dead Bin Ladin.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-04 at 06:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    I'm not saying it's fair. If you guys can get Obama to remove the shield then I'd highly recommend you do so. But I don't want a president who's going to level the playing field for Russia. I want a president who makes sure that American power is unquestionable.
    Removing the shield is not being more flexible, it's giving them what they want. If Obama's intent was to let Russia know that they will get what they want, while not knowing he was recorded, it would sound more like 'you get what you want'. As is, flexible means more nagotiation and perhaps a different approach. It does not mean they get what they want.

  15. #12235
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    I'm not saying it's fair. If you guys can get Obama to remove the shield then I'd highly recommend you do so. But I don't want a president who's going to level the playing field for Russia. I want a president who makes sure that American power is unquestionable.
    You are reasoning like a war is lurking around the corner, it's not.

    War between the US and Russia is not viable and there is no country that has any interest in "opposing" the US.


    I really thought, that we all as a species had by now realized that war isn't an acceptable solution to disputes.
    In Europe we have, but I suppose it's hard to understand when you never really have had a war at home base in the last 150 years.


    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Obama being more flexible, by not waiting for Pakistan approval, resulted in a dead Bin Ladin.
    That is not Obama being flexible, that is the US being the US and not giving a crap because Pakistan can't do anything.
    Last edited by Hibbe; 2012-11-04 at 06:30 AM.

  16. #12236
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    9,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    I'm not saying it's fair. If you guys can get Obama to remove the shield then I'd highly recommend you do so. But I don't want a president who's going to level the playing field for Russia. I want a president who makes sure that American power is unquestionable.
    Negotiations are important. History has shown that, even if nothing comes from it, nations benefit from engaging in negotiations rather than staring at each other. Obama being willing to enter negotiations is not "giving in to Russia," but instead coming to the middle ground. There is a reason why so many people outside of the US like Obama. Even if you can argue that its not so in some areas, there really is this feeling that he is a man who will come and talk with you on even terms and treat you and your nation with dignity and respect, even if his nation is more powerful.

    On the other hand, Romney's view on foreign policy, especially his specific views towards my people, is one reason why I so strongly dislike him.

    We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

  17. #12237
    So tired of this stupid ass saber rattling. Was really hoping people would have gotten over this after 8 years of Bush.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Anti-racism protests are racist against whites.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    I am The Riddler. I never 'make stuff up'.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  18. #12238
    Any chance obama or any democrat comes out and criticizes the unions? Probably after they vote on the 6th, but turning away help when your state needs it is baffling. Why is the governor and the mayor of New York ignoring the fact unions would not let people help unless they joined a union? This board is so liberal/democrat leaning it is ridiculous, where is the outrage? Why are none of you asking why unions can turn away help when states are in disasters? Why is obama doing nothing about it? Oh wait, he needs to jet off to Vegas.

  19. #12239
    Pandaren Monk Willeonge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Greyt Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobdoletoo View Post
    Any chance obama or any democrat comes out and criticizes the unions? Probably after they vote on the 6th, but turning away help when your state needs it is baffling. Why is the governor and the mayor of New York ignoring the fact unions would not let people help unless they joined a union? This board is so liberal/democrat leaning it is ridiculous, where is the outrage? Why are none of you asking why unions can turn away help when states are in disasters? Why is obama doing nothing about it? Oh wait, he needs to jet off to Vegas.
    *Citation needed*
    "Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding."

    “A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.”

    - King Stannis Baratheon

  20. #12240
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobdoletoo View Post
    Any chance obama or any democrat comes out and criticizes the unions? Probably after they vote on the 6th, but turning away help when your state needs it is baffling. Why is the governor and the mayor of New York ignoring the fact unions would not let people help unless they joined a union? This board is so liberal/democrat leaning it is ridiculous, where is the outrage? Why are none of you asking why unions can turn away help when states are in disasters? Why is obama doing nothing about it? Oh wait, he needs to jet off to Vegas.
    Yeah.

    This "story" is a load of shit.

    Bill Yell, spokesman for Huntsville Utilities, said nine of his employees are currently helping with recovery from Hurricane Sandy and had no union-related issues.
    Here's the thing. Modern utility systems are complicated. Workers who aren't familiar with them just make things worse. So in a few cases workers were turned away because they weren't useful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Anti-racism protests are racist against whites.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    I am The Riddler. I never 'make stuff up'.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •