By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The Super Tuesday Thread

Kasz216 on 06 February 2008
That Guy said:

the US needs to be on friendly terms with North Korea before they withdraw troops from South Korea. I'm not sure if that's gonna happen soon, considering how crazy Kim Jong Il is.

 

Also, do you think if Hillary gets the nomination, she would nominate Bill Clinton as her vice pres? that would be pretty novel. A Clinton/Clinton ticket


 If the US pulls out of Iraq, Iran and Turkey are likely to invade after the Civil War.  If not them Syria... really there are any number of countries just waiting for the US to get out of Iraq... so they can get in.

There are plenty of countries who can't wait for us to get out so they can get in. 



Around the Network
Desroko on 06 February 2008
Kasz216 said:
That Guy said:

the US needs to be on friendly terms with North Korea before they withdraw troops from South Korea. I'm not sure if that's gonna happen soon, considering how crazy Kim Jong Il is.

 

Also, do you think if Hillary gets the nomination, she would nominate Bill Clinton as her vice pres? that would be pretty novel. A Clinton/Clinton ticket


 If the US pulls out of Iraq, Iran and Turkey are likely to invade after the Civil War.  If not them Syria... really there are any number of countries just waiting for the US to get out of Iraq... so they can get in.

There are plenty of countries who can't wait for us to get out so they can get in. 


Turkey gets kicked out of NATO and loses US aid, so it's unlikely for them to invade, no matter how much they'll want to.

If Syria or Iran do invade, that's a legitimate casus belli. And unlike occupation, the US military does force projection very, very well. You don't have to put troops on the ground to wallop the hell out of somebody else.



Kasz216 on 06 February 2008
Phendrana said:

We're not fighting a tangible enemy like we did in past wars. It's just like the war on drugs. Or for an even better example, Anonymous vs. Scientology. There can't be a time when we can declare victory over "terrorists." It's designed to be perpetual, and will go on as long as the "terrorists" still "hate our freedom" (which they WILL if we keep putting troops in their countries and keep installing governments). Our economy is tanking and our military is spread way too thin. We can't afford this continued war effort any further. In case anyone forgot, btw, this is exactly what Bin Laden was trying to do to begin with: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

And McCain has already been quoted as saying "there's going to be more wars" (an article with the quote: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=54294 ). He's also talked about military options against Iran. I just don't understand why the American people, after being so fed up with our current war, would actively vote for ANOTHER man who's firmly pro-war. He's standing right in front of everyone saying this, but nobody's listening.

 


Pretty much any president will go to war with Iran in the next few years.  Mccain is the only one being honest about it.  Iran with nuclear weapons is about the last thing the world needs... they're leadership is crazy, and losing control of their country slowley as those younger people who want change are becoming the majority.  They're just the kind of nation to consider a double nuclear suicide with a country like Israel, let alone giving nuclear weapons to people to hit europe and the US.

Democrat or Republican... we'll probably be in Iraq.  Of course a lot of people knew that before the Iraq was and were against the war because of that.  We knew we'd have to invade Iran beforehand.

I think that was Bush's real master plan.  He thought he could invade Iraq set up a democracy and have US military bases set up in Iraq to inavde Iran with.  However he both underestimated the situation on the ground and Iran's progress in developing nuclear weapons. 



Desroko on 06 February 2008

Last year's National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the Iranian nuclear program was halted in 2003.



fkusumot on 06 February 2008
*~Onna76~* said:
As long as a Democratic Candidate becomes president I'm happy, as being a full Democratic / Left Dutch person. Both are unique. Never in the Western history a woman became a president and neither became a colored candidate ever president. Both will help the US off the cliff as its kind of balancing right now. Good for the import a disaster for every middle / low income in the US itself and in the end for the entire economics in the rest of the world.

 I really wish you were an American so you could vote here!



I Blame Wii Fit!

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 February 2008
Desroko said:
Kasz216 said:
That Guy said:

the US needs to be on friendly terms with North Korea before they withdraw troops from South Korea. I'm not sure if that's gonna happen soon, considering how crazy Kim Jong Il is.

 

Also, do you think if Hillary gets the nomination, she would nominate Bill Clinton as her vice pres? that would be pretty novel. A Clinton/Clinton ticket


If the US pulls out of Iraq, Iran and Turkey are likely to invade after the Civil War. If not them Syria... really there are any number of countries just waiting for the US to get out of Iraq... so they can get in.

There are plenty of countries who can't wait for us to get out so they can get in.


Turkey gets kicked out of NATO and loses US aid, so it's unlikely for them to invade, no matter how much they'll want to.

If Syria or Iran do invade, that's a legitimate casus belli. And unlike occupation, the US military does force projection very, very well. You don't have to put troops on the ground to wallop the hell out of somebody else.

 

They've already threatened to invade Iraq to get rid of the Kurds.  You can only do force projection when other nations let you however.  We were having trouble with that because the best nation we had to go through was Turkey.  Hence why I think the whole Iraq thing really happened, we really have no reliable portal into the middle east should we actually need to attack.

Other then Turkey the only really way we had in to some of those trouble countries was Israel... and there is no way the US is going to use Israel as a staging point against a middleastern nation.



Entroper on 06 February 2008
StarcraftManiac said:

So, Obama won in more states but Hilary got the bigger once (NY, California)... So she has more delegates. So actually, she's leading! Although it's a close call!


The NBC estimate for last night is 841 delegates for Obama, 837 delegates for Clinton.  Prior to last night, Obama had 63, Clinton had 48.  So right now, the estimate for pledged delegates is Obama 904, Clinton 885.  Additionally, there are "superdelegates" who do not have to vote with their state; they can vote however they want.  Out of 848 superdelegates, 110 are currently for Obama, 201 are for Clinton, but these are not pledged and can change at any time.  Including superdelegates, the estimated total is Obama 1014, Clinton 1095.



http://entroper.no-ip.org

Kasz216 on 06 February 2008
Desroko said:
Last year's National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the Iranian nuclear program was halted in 2003.

Yeah, and since then they've been threatening to restart it unless the UN bribes them not to. Then they did.

They themselves say they are enrhiching Uranium. Or atleast that's what they say. Directly to us.

The IAEA seems to agree. They don't see a need for military action yet, but they aren't ruling it out as they don't have Iran down in the "peaceful" category for developing nuclear technology, and have infact called for Iran to suspend all Uranium Enrichment. 

Which they arn't doing.

It's basically a "we know they are doing it, yet can't prove it yet" situation.  Should there be a need to stop them, i'd feel better if we were in the area while the IAEA and a number of other groups keep looking for proof.  Rather then to miss a short window because of people being indeciesive.

Phendrana on 06 February 2008
Kasz216 said:
Phendrana said:

We're not fighting a tangible enemy like we did in past wars. It's just like the war on drugs. Or for an even better example, Anonymous vs. Scientology. There can't be a time when we can declare victory over "terrorists." It's designed to be perpetual, and will go on as long as the "terrorists" still "hate our freedom" (which they WILL if we keep putting troops in their countries and keep installing governments). Our economy is tanking and our military is spread way too thin. We can't afford this continued war effort any further. In case anyone forgot, btw, this is exactly what Bin Laden was trying to do to begin with: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

And McCain has already been quoted as saying "there's going to be more wars" (an article with the quote: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=54294 ). He's also talked about military options against Iran. I just don't understand why the American people, after being so fed up with our current war, would actively vote for ANOTHER man who's firmly pro-war. He's standing right in front of everyone saying this, but nobody's listening.

 


Pretty much any president will go to war with Iran in the next few years. Mccain is the only one being honest about it. Iran with nuclear weapons is about the last thing the world needs... they're leadership is crazy, and losing control of their country slowley as those younger people who want change are becoming the majority. They're just the kind of nation to consider a double nuclear suicide with a country like Israel, let alone giving nuclear weapons to people to hit europe and the US.

Democrat or Republican... we'll probably be in Iraq. Of course a lot of people knew that before the Iraq was and were against the war because of that. We knew we'd have to invade Iran beforehand.

I think that was Bush's real master plan. He thought he could invade Iraq set up a democracy and have US military bases set up in Iraq to inavde Iran with. However he both underestimated the situation on the ground and Iran's progress in developing nuclear weapons.


I agree with you. Iran shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. However, going to war should not be the only option already. The latest intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 and hasn't restarted it since. It also says they won't even be technically capable of creating a single weapon until 2013, possibly not even until 2015+. The attitude that Iran must be stopped now using military force is nothing more than the same war mongering and kneejerk reactions that got us into Iraq. There may very well come a time when it's absolutely necessary, but that time is far from now.

The intelligence report: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

 EDIT: Damn, you guys are fast lol



Kasz216 on 06 February 2008
PDF said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
PDF said:
Reason for troops in Iraq for a 100 years.

If we "win the war" and Iraq becomes a succesful democracy and a ally then we would want to protect them. A US force in a counry means to the world not to mess with that country and to stop any uprising that may rise up. So we would keep troops there to protect them.

You know the way you worded it. If you meant that you could easily say McCain wants to keep tropps in South Korea but you couldnt because then it would send that same mix up message.

We shouldn't have toops in Iraq or Korea or anywhere else at this point, ally or not, its far too expensive, unless the other countries wish to pay us to have a military prescense in their country I see no reason to waste our money, when we are running a massive debt, partially due to huge military expenses, cutting military spending should be a goal of the next administration


Then why did you not say, Obama wants to keep troops in South Korea for a 100 years???


Well to be fair Obama wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

In a debate he admitted that he would keep a small task force in Iraq to be deployed to take out terrorists in Iraq and surrounding areas.

Hillary Clinton chided him for even keeping that many troops in Iraq.

He responed that it wasn't reasonable to not keep some troops in the area... and Hillary argued that it's fine to have troops in the area but not Iraq. (showing to me that Hillary is just saying whatever to get elected. Quibbling and trying to stick him over a small task force.) 

It was one of those MSNBC debates. I want to say the one where they were all sitting at the table.