U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Felya]

Terrorists are religious zealots. They do not fear death.

Amedhinejahd does. I promise you he does. He's not a fanatic, he's a politician.

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.

[Rukentuts]

Al Qaida didn't succeed because the government was Republican, they succeeded because the dumbass President at the time fired the adviser that previous administrations had to locate them.

[Felya]

Because terrorists (the Taliban, for instance) also know their guerrilla warfare is damn good.

They don't have to be good, if they fail they go to heaven.

[Kalyyn]

Because terrorists (the Taliban, for instance) also know their guerrilla warfare is damn good.

What counts as bad guerrilla warfare then? Because when a firebase in Kandahar is reporting upwards of 100+ confirmed kills every single day, and reports maybe one fatality a month, I have to believe that they're basically handing these guys rifles and saying "All you have to do is run stright at the Americans and fire as many shots as you can before they kill you. Good luck!"

Oh wait, did you mean our guerrilla warfare is damn good? Because that would make more sense.

[Felya]

Al Qaida didn't succeed because the government was Republican, they succeeded because the dumbass President at the time fired the adviser that previous administrations had to locate them.

They succeeded because the cards fell that way. If Gore was in office, I do not believe anything would be different. The reaction to the attacks, would be different, but not it happening.

[Rukentuts]

What counts as bad guerrilla warfare then? Because when a firebase in Kandahar is reporting upwards of 100+ confirmed kills every single day, and reports maybe one fatality a month, I have to believe that they're basically handing these guys rifles and saying "All you have to do is run stright at the Americans and fire as many shots as you can before they kill you. Good luck!"

Oh wait, did you mean our guerrilla warfare is damn good? Because that would make more sense.

I mean the fact that it has been 11 years and they still exist and resist. The moment we leave they will just regain power. We've even had to resort to negotiation.

---------- Post added 2012-11-04 at 12:54 AM ----------

They succeeded because the cards fell that way. If Gore was in office, I do not believe anything would be different. The reaction to the attacks, would be different, but not it happening.

We never will know. It's done. Clinton said on 60 Minutes that he was close to finding him around 2000, but then Bush effectively gave up looking when he didn't keep that adviser guy (I forget his name) on.

[Kalyyn]

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.

[Felya]

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 ----------

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.

[Kalyyn]

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.

[Kasierith]

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.

[Felya]

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?

[Rukentuts]

Before I start assuming, what was the issue?

the whole "more flexibility after the election" mumbo-jumbo.

[Kasierith]

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.

[Felya]

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.

[ptwonline]

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.

[Kalyyn]

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 ----------

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.

[Kasierith]

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.

[ptwonline]

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.

[Kalyyn]

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.

[Felya]

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 ----------

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.