0

Figured we ought to split this out of the VT shooting thread. Here's some posts that have already been made (and if a mod can move others, that'd be great). Hopefully I got them all in the right order... (and hopefully the thread isn't a dupe... but I couldn't remember one like it)

really? Wow...
Yea, Bush is a damned idiot.. I have no frikn clue how that man was elected twice by the American public! He's a complete dumbass! ...And this is coming from Republican. I dunno what yall think, but in '08 the dems are taking over

Unfortunately, Bush did mismanage quite a few things. On the one hand, I'll openly admit that. On the other, I worry what would happen if we'd had some pussyfooted democrat in office with a Republican congress. As we can already see with the Iraq legislation, things just aren't getting done like they used to. And I don't agree with lots of the typical Dem platform, so I'll be freaking when they have both the executive and legistlative branches again. And I'll be looking to move if the Clinton dynasty returns... (I would totally vote for Obama if it came to that)

I know, its typical that the dems have a woman and a black dude as candidates. I think I'll vote for Obama too... I've looked at his platform, and he tends to be rather neutral. He's very intelligent too... I doubt America is ready for a woman presidesnt yet.

Hopefully the dems will offer America a change for the better b/c the republicans sure didn't do very well

I envision the Dems taking two approaches, one for each of their candidates (sorry, anyone but the big 2 are out):

Obama: A platform based on moderation, probably with a spin on regaining stability. Obama doesn't seem to even want to play the race card, which I find to be very respectable in and of itself. I find this idea most agreeable, possibly more than the Republican platforms (which I've not heard much discussion about), and I'm typically fairly conservative.

Clinton: a more radical "turn everything around" platform, and she probably will use the gender issue at some point. I sincerely hope she doesn't get office because I think she's too extreme for where the country is at the moment. Too much whiplash would only lead to the country hurting more than it is. Also, it would make some 24 years of Clinton+Bush family dynasties, and some fresh blood would be good at this point.

I wish the Republicans had someone who could compete with either of these, but I doubt that'll happen. Pretty sad, having only a 1 party system for this election...

You know what, I don't even know who the Republican front-runners are. Yea, Clinton is way too radical and liberal for my tastes; Obama is definitely a more suitable candidate.
.. I'm too tired to talk politics lol.. I'll respond better tomorrow

12
Contributors
130
Replies
132
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Dave Sinkula
Featured Replies
  • 1

    [quote=Ancient Dragon;353148]:) :) I guess that means you have never voted.:-/[/quote] not in a presidential election:( yet.. I would probably vote for obama too if he won the dem nomination.. if not then I would definitely vote republican.. Didn't someone announce that he was running for the republican nomination yesterday? … Read More

0

Bush and Blair are both idiots. I hope labour dont get in at the next General Election (yay ill be 18 in time for it!)

0

what else would you expect from politicians :)

++ ;)

It's pretty obvious that the current powers-that-be will be replaced during the next cycle. I just worry about the backlash that'll follow and how their successors will clean up the mess.

0

in fact Bush is far smarter than people give him credit for...
He is smart enough to know he needs good people to work with and smart enough to appoint them.
That's a lot smarter than most politicians...

I just worry about the backlash that'll follow and how their successors will clean up the mess.

Obama or Clinton will give you a mess that's bigger than you ever imagined could exist.
But it won't ever be reported as such as they'll make darn sure there won't be free speech (and with the media their lapdogs even that won't get out until you discover after 8 years that it's past time for elections).

0

Bush and Blair are both idiots. I hope labour dont get in at the next General Election (yay ill be 18 in time for it!)

Heck ya, '08 will be the first presidential election that I will be able to participate in!:)

in fact Bush is far smarter than people give him credit for...
He is smart enough to know he needs good people to work with and smart enough to appoint them.
That's a lot smarter than most politicians...

Obama or Clinton will give you a mess that's bigger than you ever imagined could exist.
But it won't ever be reported as such as they'll make darn sure there won't be free speech (and with the media their lapdogs even that won't get out until you discover after 8 years that it's past time for elections).

Bush is a damn fool.. His dad got him into Yale.. He doesn't know S**t about running a country.. Just look at his approval rating! Bush isn't running the country, it's the Republican Party.

Oh come on now, Obama is a very moderate liberal. He won't do anything extreme if he is elected as president. Hillary is a different story... She's just a crazy extremist that would do more harm than good to this country.

I don't like Bush.
Let's just all vote for Hilary. =/ Lol.

booo :ooh:

0

I think obama is nice. If i were american id vote for him

whos going to replace blair? I don't think he was that bad of a leader.. he was just kinda forced into backing Bush. I love British politics.. your parliament really goes after the prime minister lol

0

JBennet>

Agreed. I'll be 18 when voting day comes along, so I'll actually have to follow elections this year. :)

Obama seems like a guy who hasn't been corrupted by politics yet (like Hillary & the rest of them). Who knows though, it may be all show.

0

I can vote for Obama but never for Hilarty Klinton. A new pole today says her approval rating went down the crapper and is now only a few points from Obama.

0

JBennet>

Agreed. I'll be 18 when voting day comes along, so I'll actually have to follow elections this year. :)

Count me in too. ;)

0

whos going to replace blair? I don't think he was that bad of a leader.. he was just kinda forced into backing Bush. I love British politics.. your parliament really goes after the prime minister lol

People hate bliar mainly for iraq and afghanistan but more for taxes and letting the NHS, schools and antisocial behaviour become bad. Gordon Brown (currently chancellor of the exchequer) is set to take over.

0

People hate bliar mainly for iraq and afghanistan but more for taxes and letting the NHS, schools and antisocial behaviour become bad. Gordon Brown (currently chancellor of the exchequer) is set to take over.

oic.. iraq and afghanistan were mainly our fault..

0

yeah but its our governments fault for following the americans like sheep. Dont believe the news, some of my family are there and Iraq and afghanistan are getting worse every day. Its civil war.

0

yeah but its our governments fault for following the americans like sheep. Dont believe the news, some of my family are there and Iraq and afghanistan are getting worse every day. Its civil war.

Well I'm glad the uk decided to help us.. Our alliance goes way back..

As for the war, I completely agree with you. It seems that every day the death toll rises significantly. Why the hell can't the world's best armies quickly take out these damn insurgents. At first, I think most Americans were very supportive of the war; however, where has it gone in the last 6 years? I truly think the only reason we are in Iraq today is b/c of oil.. If the decision was mine, I would recall all of our armed forces and just let the Iraqis kill each other in a civil war.. How is their war our problem?

0

Why the hell can't the world's best armies quickly take out these damn insurgents.

Because it's nigh impossible to defend against guerrila warfare. You can't tell who the enemy might be. You can't just take people in and interrogate them randomly. It's the absolute worst kind of war to be on the defensive side. Besides which, the insurgents are not specifically targeting military targets. They're going after the populace as well, which makes it even that much more difficult to guess where they'll come from.

0

Because it's nigh impossible to defend against guerrila warfare. You can't tell who the enemy might be. You can't just take people in and interrogate them randomly. It's the absolute worst kind of war to be on the defensive side. Besides which, the insurgents are not specifically targeting military targets. They're going after the populace as well, which makes it even that much more difficult to guess where they'll come from.

True, but It's not as bad as Vietnam.. You would think that after six years we would be much more efficient.. I still don't see a purpose to this war.. wtf are we trying to accomplish? Hussein is dead (let's get osama now).. And almost every middle eastern country hates the U.S. We are only angering the people who hate us, and rallying more support for THEM. We should leave right now.. If the government is afraid to admit to a failure, then why not use neutron bombs?:twisted:

0

True, but It's not as bad as Vietnam.. You would think that after six years we would be much more efficient.. I still don't see a purpose to this war.. wtf are we trying to accomplish? Hussein is dead (let's get osama now).. And almost every middle eastern country hates the U.S. We are only angering the people who hate us, and rallying more support for THEM. We should leave right now.. If the government is afraid to admit to a failure, then why not use neutron bombs?:twisted:

It's not as bad as Vietnam because we are that much more efficient. The purpose of this war is not about Saddam anymore. It's about getting the Iraqi government to be self-sufficient. If we backed out now and they all killed each other for a few years, what would happen? They'd probably have some emerging party come out on top with another totalitarian government and then everyone'd look at the US as a nation who would go, stir up trouble, and make everyone else pay for it. At least this way nobody can deny that we're trying to clean up our mess (even if we aren't being particuarly successful). Most of the middle east has hated the US for a long time anyways (since about when Israel was formed). As for Osama, how would you propose that we go after him? We don't know where he is, or even if he's still alive.

0

It's not winnable. It hardly fits the definition of a war. To say otherwise would be like claiming that the War on Drugs(TM) is a war. It's not, and you can't win it. You can only try to rectify it.

0

That "wins" the war by simply removing of the illegality. It still won't do anything for those who use it irresponsibly (if anything, it will enable them more). And with addictive substances, the probability of substance abuse is much greater.

0

yeah but it would lead to higher quality and would allow the government to manage supply therefore reducing levels of organised crime.

0

If we backed out now and they all killed each other for a few years, what would happen? They'd probably have some emerging party come out on top with another totalitarian government and then everyone'd look at the US as a nation who would go, stir up trouble, and make everyone else pay for it. At least this way nobody can deny that we're trying to clean up our mess (even if we aren't being particuarly successful). Most of the middle east has hated the US for a long time anyways (since about when Israel was formed). As for Osama, how would you propose that we go after him? We don't know where he is, or even if he's still alive.

If we backed out now, there would probably be a civil war.. and I suppose another totalitarian government would assume power (more than likely).. However, as blud blatantly put it:

Well, it's not 'winnable' if you want to remain humane about it. :)

We could always send in some discrete CIA task force or somethn to make things right.. we've done it before, why not do it again?
I'm all for the government's use of 'inhumane' tactics such as the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo bay.. It's war. If we don't step away from the 'norm' and do something drastic, who knows.. we may all be killed tomorrow. I'd rather they torture people and get vital information than an airplane fly into my house/work/..

0

We could always send in some discrete CIA task force or somethn to make things right.. we've done it before, why not do it again?
I'm all for the government's use of 'inhumane' tactics such as the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo bay.. It's war. If we don't step away from the 'norm' and do something drastic, who knows.. we may all be killed tomorrow. I'd rather they torture people and get vital information than an airplane fly into my house/work/..

Where do you propose that we send the CIA agents? There isn't a centralized target to go after. This is not conventional war. We can't just assassinate some individual who is easily located. We can't just randomly search people's homes. We can't just have people randomly reporting "suspicious" behavior and act on it without some verification; that would just create a huge witch hunt.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.