NationStates Jolt Archive

I am betting that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. We already know from this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321 that Hillary is just as bellicose (more, actually). But will she be as bad over-all? Will she alter the "rules-of-engagement"? Will she see to it that we are "compensated" for our wars? Will she do anything about lost POW's?

Your opinions, please.












From the link above:

While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton's support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there's every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.

If her current rhetoric is any indication, she'll be worse.

She won't be 'as bad' but certainly not 'better enough.' And I don't think her nomination is a forgone conclusion.

I am betting that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. We already know from this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321 that Hillary is just as bellicose (more, actually). But will she be as bad over-all? Will she alter the "rules-of-engagement"? Will she see to it that we are "compensated" for our wars? Will she do anything about lost POW's?

Your opinions, please.

I hope Ron Paul will be next... Hillary Clinton will be very bad for the U.S, for everyone.

She won't be 'as bad' but certainly not 'better enough.' And I don't think her nomination is a forgone conclusion.

Ron Paul '08!

Hillary Clinton is far too polarizing a figure to win a national election. Any candidate is going to face the "American thirds"-no matter what, one third of the people are for you, one third against, and the last third have to be cajoled or fooled somehow. Her husband had a certain charm that won over people, but it really didn't carry past himself-he had no political coattails to ride on, and even he couldn't make her palatable to the voters-the 1994 House takeover by the Republicans was largely done by tying the health care issue to her, and she's really done nothing her entire political career to reverse the by and large distaste she leaves by her presence. However, should enough third-party candidates arise to split the vote enough to make her President, it would be disastrous for the country, as we'd see the incompetence of Bush coupled with the corruption of Clinton and a media refusing to be watchdogs.

Hillary will be much worse because she is a front for the Dems to get Bill in for a third term. The only experience she has in the White house is she knows the lay-out, First Lady is a figurehead postion people.
Mock W all you want but could you have done better if faced with something like September, 11th ( I refuse to call it 9/11 or 9-1-1). The refusal to do something about the threat during the 8 years of the previous administation lead to the attacks and we were all caught with our pants down.
Iraq. Did they have WMD? maybe. Were they a threat? Probably not. Can we establish a democracy in a region that is accustomed to being ruled with an iron-fist? Doubtful. Should we pack up and come home right now? Never, We must restore some kind of order there before we leave. If we must put in another Saddam-type leader (one we control) to acheive this, so be it. To leave before we have established some stability to that country is foolhearty and all the bleeding-heart peace-freaks who think otherwise should be rounded up and sent over there sans weapons to work out their solution. I`m confident that they could do no better.

Yay, someone remembered my thread. I feel so loved. :p

Yes, Hillary will be worse.

She's an elephant in donkey's clothing.

Hillary will be much worse because she is a front for the Dems to get Bill in for a third term. The only experience she has in the White house is she knows the lay-out, First Lady is a figurehead postion people.
Mock W all you want but could you have done better if faced with something like September, 11th ( I refuse to call it 9/11 or 9-1-1). The refusal to do something about the threat during the 8 years of the previous administation lead to the attacks and we were all caught with our pants down.
Iraq. Did they have WMD? maybe. Were they a threat? Probably not. Can we establish a democracy in a region that is accustomed to being ruled with an iron-fist? Doubtful. Should we pack up and come home right now? Never, We must restore some kind of order there before we leave. If we must put in another Saddam-type leader (one we control) to acheive this, so be it. To leave before we have established some stability to that country is foolhearty and all the bleeding-heart peace-freaks who think otherwise should be rounded up and sent over there sans weapons to work out their solution. I`m confident that they could do no better.

Well, he could have stayed in Afghanistan rather than making up the Iraqi threat. That's probably where he went wrong, and where someone without a personal vendetta against Hussein wouldn't have.

And it's Katrina that made alot of people completely lose faith in old Dubya.

She won't be 'as bad' but certainly not 'better enough.' And I don't think her nomination is a forgone conclusion.

^ That.

Did they have WMD? maybe.
No.
Were they a threat? Probably not.
No, they weren't.
Can we establish a democracy in a region that is accustomed to being ruled with an iron-fist? Doubtful.
It doesn't matter, it was none of your buisiness to try.
Should we pack up and come home right now? Never, We must restore some kind of order there before we leave.
It can be argued that the USA are a huge part of the strife over there. When British troops withdrew from a region civilian deaths went down by 90%. Granted, this situation was unique, however this shows you that your presence is causing a lot of trouble, if you left.... well..... Although, personally, I think that what should happen in Iraq is allow Iraq to come up with whatever leader and then do what you can to support it. America has caused enough trouble interferring with other countries in the South. They should know when not to interfer. Bush did this and created a real treat.
The only way Hilary could be worse is if she uses Iran as the new "enemy" (which is possible considering her support of the Kyl-Lieberman ammendement). Although, I would personally not want her running my country (too right winged for me) she probably would not be bad as Bush.

After the last eight years, I'll settle for competence. :p

I'm not supporting her, but for a different reason.

I pretty much agree with her issue stances. And I'd have a lot less trouble voting for her than, say, McCain, Huckabee or the other Republican with two first names.

My reason for not supporting her is that her Presidency would be a continuation of the Clinton-Bush headlock that's been going on for the past twenty years. Assuming Hillary gets in and has at least a four-year run, that would be an *entire* American generation where the White House was held by two families.

This is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy.

For those who are preparing to ask the question, "So if she'd waited a couple election cycles, you'd vote for her?" — Yes, I would. But I'm not now.

Ron Paul '08!

You know, you Paulbots are getting really annoying.

She won't be president, but she would be worse if she was elected.

You know, you Paulbots are getting really annoying.

RON PAUL!

I'm not supporting her, but for a different reason.

I pretty much agree with her issue stances. And I'd have a lot less trouble voting for her than, say, McCain, Huckabee or the other Republican with two first names.

My reason for not supporting her is that her Presidency would be a continuation of the Clinton-Bush headlock that's been going on for the past twenty years. Assuming Hillary gets in and has at least a four-year run, that would be an *entire* American generation where the White House was held by two families.

This is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy.

For those who are preparing to ask the question, "So if she'd waited a couple election cycles, you'd vote for her?" — Yes, I would. But I'm not now.

Your only reason for not voting for her is who she is fucking? Wow.

Most of the things Bush is criticized for are things he has now overcome.
As it turns out, we don't need to kill babies to make stem cell research work. The media focuses less and less on the Iraq situation because things are looking up (we don't lose as many, and the insurgents lose more.) Furthermore, the Dems failed to stop the war in Iraq (probably because they didn't try) and have lost all credibility they had before. They voted to fund the "surge," banking that U.S. soldiers would get killed and Bush would look worse.
Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act has actually had the desired effect: test scores are higher now. Just about everything Bush was villified for has ended up vindicating him.
We had no more cause to attack Germany in WWII than we did to invade Iraq, but I'm glad we attacked Germany. And as for the "war" in Iraq, it was over a long time ago. We took Saddam down about thirty seconds after we showed up. No sweat. Everything since then has just been us trying to help them out after we got the dictator out. Some people say that our inability to restore Iraq has made us look weak, and invited terrorists to attack us. If anything, I think it's the opposite: screw with America, and we'll mess your country up beyond all repair.
What do I predict in Hillary's reign? More taxes, even though she'll promise less. The ressurection of "Echelon" (despite the fact that Bush is defamed and hissed at for his Patriot Act). For those of you who don't know, Echelon is the huge Clinton intelligence network that spied on everyone in the country, and a lot of people outside the country. Almost every communication in the world was intercepted by Echelon.
I predict a healthcare system that will slam us with almost as much tax as Canada's. Or, no change at all. Hillary Clinton is one of those classic candidates who promises to change everything. But when the time is right, she won't do shit, and whatever changes ARE made, they will make things worse.
Finally, I predict that everyone who has ever whispered a single negative comment about Hillary (and that includes me) will be murdered just like Vince Foster was.

screw with America, and we'll mess your country up beyond all repair.

How did Iraq screw with America?
Oh, and Iraq is very different from WWII, see Germany actually started attacking other countries, Iraq did absolutely nothing to deserve to have their country torn by war again.

It can be argued that the USA are a huge part of the strife over there. America has caused enough trouble interferring with other countries in the South. They should know when not to interfer. Bush did this and created a real treat.

true none of us like the USA, except the leaders who need the USA to maintain the economy and their base of power. oh and business leaders thats it, maybe 600,000 out of how many?;)

RON PAUL!

MATT DAMON

I am betting that Hillary Clinton will be the next president

Whereas I am betting on/hoping for the current leader in Iowa and New Hampshire. (woo, go Obama)

You know, you Paulbots are getting really annoying.

Agreed. I mean, I'll vote for him in the caucus, cause I can, but I don't honestly believe the guy has a shot at winning the nomination.

Hilary can only be as bad as Bush if she gets elected and I doubt she'll even be nominated. Of course, I've been wrong before...

Worse than Bush... hardly. It'll be difficult to be as bad in foreign policy, and pretty much impossible on the domestic front.

I've been wrong before...

This is said so rarely it must be repeated.

Well, he could have stayed in Afghanistan rather than making up the Iraqi threat. That's probably where he went wrong, and where someone without a personal vendetta against Hussein wouldn't have.

And it's Katrina that made alot of people completely lose faith in old Dubya.

We`re still in Afganistan, it just doesn`t recieve as much press as Iraq and we`ll stay in Afganistan for as long as it takes.
Katrina........I`m sorry but if you live below sea level during a hurricane, you`re going to get flooded. As for losing faith in people, What about Mayor Ray Nagin ordering the confiscation of weapons from law-abiding citizens during a breakdown of law and order. That man gets the Douche-bag of the universe award for that bone-head move.

Worse than Bush... hardly. It'll be difficult to be as bad in foreign policy,

Lol. Wow, I have not used one of those for a long time. Read the link.

and pretty much impossible on the domestic front.

True.

NONE of the candidates will be as bad as Dubya...

...unless Fred Phelps decides to run for office.

NONE of the candidates will be as bad as Dubya...

...unless Fred Phelps decides to run for office.

Shush! Don't you go giving anyone any ideas!

Shush! Don't you go giving anyone any ideas!

Like he has a shot!

no one on the list of major party candidates would be as bad as bush (except maybe ron paul).

the only real worry i have about mrs clinton (aside from the dread at how the general campaign will be a bloodfest if she is the nominee) is that i have grave doubts that she will get us out of iraq.

i dont see the first woman president as being eager to be the one who "loses" the war in iraq.

Personally I think that Hillary may not be worse, but she won't prove to be better. I think to many people base their opinions on what party that the person runs for instead of what the person may focus on. I do think that the parties may pertain some sort of relevance, but unfortunately it is more a label for the sake of votes than a representation of what the candidate may believe.

I think that we shouldn't focus on who is better than Bush, but who, overall, is going to be the best candidate.

I am betting that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. We already know from this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321 that Hillary is just as bellicose (more, actually). But will she be as bad over-all? Will she alter the "rules-of-engagement"? Will she see to it that we are "compensated" for our wars? Will she do anything about lost POW's?

Your opinions, please.

Yeah, if she is indeed elected (which I'm hoping she won't). She'll just be bad in different ways. The problem with both Dubya & Hillary is that they are extremists with a sense of entitlement.

no one on the list of major party candidates would be as bad as bush (except maybe ron paul).

the only real worry i have about mrs clinton (aside from the dread at how the general campaign will be a bloodfest if she is the nominee) is that i have grave doubts that she will get us out of iraq.

i dont see the first woman president as being eager to be the one who "loses" the war in iraq.

She won't be -- Bush already lost the war.

She won't be -- Bush already lost the war.

:eek: You mean ... Bush is the first woman president to lose a war?

She won't be -- Bush already lost the war.Wait a decade and the revisionist historians will claim that we would have won the Iraq Occupation if it hadn't been for the Democrat/Compromise Republican in office after Bush.

NONE of the candidates will be as bad as Dubya...

...unless Fred Phelps decides to run for office.

That's actually a great idea! And he has the slogan already: "God hates America."

Do it, USA, do it. Give the launch codes to a certifiable nutter who thinks he's one of God's elect and wants everyone else dead. :D

How did Iraq screw with America?
Oh, and Iraq is very different from WWII, see Germany actually started attacking other countries, Iraq did absolutely nothing to deserve to have their country torn by war again.

They didn't screw with America. That's what makes it so terrifying. You don't even really have to provoke us. Sends a strong message. Like the big bully who walks around the playground punching anyone in the face who looks at him wrong. America used to be real good at that. Saddam talked bad about us, though. And he had oil that we wanted. And he was a prick to his own people.
Germany did start attacking other countries. You could be a history professor with knowledge like yours. You may remember another Gulf War before this one when Iraq tried to add the branch of Kuwait back to their tree. Maybe Saddam needed more "living space." Now granted, we dealt with that with an operation called Desert Storm, but Germany expanded slowly and sneakily, and it wasn't until after they had assimilated numerous other countries that the U.S. even got involved.
The fact is, we're not supposed to declare war unless attacked, and Germany never attacked us. Hitler was an ass. He was a terrible man. He had to be stopped. He committed atrocities. But he never threatened US. Same goes for Saddam. He was a terrible man who attacked his own people. And we ruined his sh**.
I agree, though, that the war was unnecessary. I also think that we would have found bin Laden a long time ago were it not for the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, the fact is that we are now winning in Iraq and most of the reasons that liberals give against the war are full of holes.

And it's not like everyone in Iraq wants America to leave. That's why we call our enemies "insurgents." They're not going with the flow. They're going against it. See?
As for having their country torn by war, well, I would think that if my country's leader was gassing my friends and trying to kill off a huge chunk of the population, I would be more than happy to see him removed from office, even if it did mean my country was torn by war.
And for all the people who like comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I wonder if anyone remembers what happened to the South Vietnamese after we left? That's right. They got murdered. We have millions of deaths on our hands for abandoning those people.

And it's not like everyone in Iraq wants America to leave. That's why we call our enemies "insurgents." They're not going with the flow. They're going against it. See?Whose flow?
As for having their country torn by war, well, I would think that if my country's leader was gassing my friends and trying to kill off a huge chunk of the population, I would be more than happy to see him removed from office, even if it did mean my country was torn by war. Hope you never have to eat those words. I can imagine that the reason why Iraqis are climbing higher in the global refugee statistics is primarily because they preferred a stable Iraq where Saddam killed those that pissed him off to an unstable Iraq where their neighbors kill people that pissed them off.
And for all the people who like comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I wonder if anyone remembers what happened to the South Vietnamese after we left? That's right. They got murdered. We have millions of deaths on our hands for abandoning those people.Doesn't sound like much of a change, considering that people were getting murdered during American involvement as well.

And it's not like everyone in Iraq wants America to leave. That's why we call our enemies "insurgents." They're not going with the flow. They're going against it. See?
As for having their country torn by war, well, I would think that if my country's leader was gassing my friends and trying to kill off a huge chunk of the population, I would be more than happy to see him removed from office, even if it did mean my country was torn by war.
And for all the people who like comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I wonder if anyone remembers what happened to the South Vietnamese after we left? That's right. They got murdered. We have millions of deaths on our hands for abandoning those people.

That you start talking about Vietnam, not even in specific reply to any other poster, shows just how out of the touch with the thread subject you are.

Most of the anti-Hillary posters here find her too militarist. So it's kind of hard to see which side you are taking on the thread subject.

As bad as Bush?

*Does a spit take*

Hell no. There's no indication whatsoever of that.

After the last eight years, I'll settle for competence. :p

I agree with this wisdom.

They didn't screw with America. That's what makes it so terrifying. You don't even really have to provoke us. Sends a strong message. Like the big bully who walks around the playground punching anyone in the face who looks at him wrong. America used to be real good at that.

If I were an US citizen, I'd tell you to STFU. As a disrespectful citizen of your reluctant ally Australia, I'm laughing my arse off.

No other country has to screw with America. You're fucking yourselves just fine! :D

They didn't screw with America. That's what makes it so terrifying. You don't even really have to provoke us. Sends a strong message. Like the big bully who walks around the playground punching anyone in the face who looks at him wrong.

0.o

So you're saying that America is like the drunk at the bar, who punches people for no reason, and doesn't know what the fuck he's doing or why he's doing it?

screw with America, and we'll mess your country up beyond all repair.
How did Iraq screw with America?
They didn't screw with America.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Seriously - are you drunk?

Most of the things Bush is criticized for are things he has now overcome.
As it turns out, we don't need to kill babies to make stem cell research work. The media focuses less and less on the Iraq situation because things are looking up (we don't lose as many, and the insurgents lose more.) Furthermore, the Dems failed to stop the war in Iraq (probably because they didn't try) and have lost all credibility they had before. They voted to fund the "surge," banking that U.S. soldiers would get killed and Bush would look worse.
Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act has actually had the desired effect: test scores are higher now. Just about everything Bush was villified for has ended up vindicating him.
We had no more cause to attack Germany in WWII than we did to invade Iraq, but I'm glad we attacked Germany. And as for the "war" in Iraq, it was over a long time ago. We took Saddam down about thirty seconds after we showed up. No sweat. Everything since then has just been us trying to help them out after we got the dictator out. Some people say that our inability to restore Iraq has made us look weak, and invited terrorists to attack us. If anything, I think it's the opposite: screw with America, and we'll mess your country up beyond all repair.
What do I predict in Hillary's reign? More taxes, even though she'll promise less. The ressurection of "Echelon" (despite the fact that Bush is defamed and hissed at for his Patriot Act). For those of you who don't know, Echelon is the huge Clinton intelligence network that spied on everyone in the country, and a lot of people outside the country. Almost every communication in the world was intercepted by Echelon.
I predict a healthcare system that will slam us with almost as much tax as Canada's. Or, no change at all. Hillary Clinton is one of those classic candidates who promises to change everything. But when the time is right, she won't do shit, and whatever changes ARE made, they will make things worse.
Finally, I predict that everyone who has ever whispered a single negative comment about Hillary (and that includes me) will be murdered just like Vince Foster was.

I criticize Bush for invading Iraq, that's not going away, ever. I criticize Bush for No Child Left Behind, test scores going up is irrelevant. We spend too much time in class now preparing for these shitty tests instead of learning. As well, if the guy on weed sitting two tables away doesn't want to do shit, I think the teacher should be allowed to ignore him and focus more on the rest of the class. I don't care if Bush got left behind as a child, he should have put in some real effort. You criticize the Democrats for not stopping the war, yet there's still a significant number of pro-war Republicans, especially in the Senate. There's no way they could end it, even if they wanted to. This is often ignore by people like you, that love to accuse them of cowardice and breaking campaign promises.

You then go on about Hillary raising taxes, while promising less. You conveniently ignore that all politicians do this. Republicans say they're going to kick out 11 million illegals (or whatever the number is), continue the wars, and keep taxes low. But how are they going to do this? They've got to track down illegals, check to make sure they actually are illegal, then pay for their deportation. They have to continually pay for very expensive wars. But they say they won't raise taxes, in reality, something is going to have to give.

I want a link on Echelon.

There's plenty of good reasons to have national health care. That's really for another debate, however, I'd rather have a national health care system than a pointless war in Iraq.

And really, even if Hillary doesn't do anything, she'll still be better than Bush. Bush fucks things up when he acts, so even if Hillary doesn't do anything, we'd be alright.

Executed? Someone clearly escaped the lunatic's asylum.

Personally I think that Hillary may not be worse, but she won't prove to be better. I think to many people base their opinions on what party that the person runs for instead of what the person may focus on. I do think that the parties may pertain some sort of relevance, but unfortunately it is more a label for the sake of votes than a representation of what the candidate may believe.

I think that we shouldn't focus on who is better than Bush, but who, overall, is going to be the best candidate.

I think she'll be better, but not good enough. I agree though, we don't just need someone who's better than Bush, we need the best.

They didn't screw with America. That's what makes it so terrifying. You don't even really have to provoke us. Sends a strong message. Like the big bully who walks around the playground punching anyone in the face who looks at him wrong. America used to be real good at that. Saddam talked bad about us, though. And he had oil that we wanted. And he was a prick to his own people.
Germany did start attacking other countries. You could be a history professor with knowledge like yours. You may remember another Gulf War before this one when Iraq tried to add the branch of Kuwait back to their tree. Maybe Saddam needed more "living space." Now granted, we dealt with that with an operation called Desert Storm, but Germany expanded slowly and sneakily, and it wasn't until after they had assimilated numerous other countries that the U.S. even got involved.
The fact is, we're not supposed to declare war unless attacked, and Germany never attacked us. Hitler was an ass. He was a terrible man. He had to be stopped. He committed atrocities. But he never threatened US. Same goes for Saddam. He was a terrible man who attacked his own people. And we ruined his sh**.
I agree, though, that the war was unnecessary. I also think that we would have found bin Laden a long time ago were it not for the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, the fact is that we are now winning in Iraq and most of the reasons that liberals give against the war are full of holes.

First of all, let me talk about your history. After Saddam attacked Kuwait, we attacked him. The second war cannot draw justification from the first.

As for Germany, they did attack ships and such, so there is actually something to declare war on. As well, there was the fact that he blitzing through Europe.

Secondly, you're saying that looking like a bully is good? You do realize the bullied kids always grow up and beat the shit out of the bully right?

As for liberals giving reasons full of holes, I'll give you a load of reasons.

1. The war had no justification.

2. The war is costing us much money and many lives.

3. Regular people are still dying everyday, this hasn't changed. Part of this has to do with the presence of American troops, who are a constant target and are commonly in civilian areas.

4. We are fighting a war of unjustified aggression, and this makes us look worse and worse everyday, particularly in the Muslim world. It's going to take a long time to reverse this negativity, and it's not going to happen while we're still occupying Iraq.



And it's not like everyone in Iraq wants America to leave. That's why we call our enemies "insurgents." They're not going with the flow. They're going against it. See?
As for having their country torn by war, well, I would think that if my country's leader was gassing my friends and trying to kill off a huge chunk of the population, I would be more than happy to see him removed from office, even if it did mean my country was torn by war.
And for all the people who like comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I wonder if anyone remembers what happened to the South Vietnamese after we left? That's right. They got murdered. We have millions of deaths on our hands for abandoning those people.

People don't want us to leave? I request you to take your head out of the sand. Nobody wants an foreign army occupying their country. While not everyone hates the US, it's bullshit to claim they want us there.

As for this genocide, you need a link. And you don't really provide a reason why this would happen in Iraq.



Anyways, my personal view is that Hillary would be a huge step up from Bush, but there's much better options out there (Obama).

As bad as Bush?

*Does a spit take*

Hell no. There's no indication whatsoever of that.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321

Watch as I slowly crush any trace of optimism left within you! HAHAHA!

I believe she will be worse if elected. Bush makes mistakes but does them like a naive kid would. Hillary will make mistakes as a know it all bitch. I would personally be more comfortable with the naive kid making decisions vs the know it all bitch.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321

Watch as I slowly crush any trace of optimism left within you! HAHAHA!

I'm thinking that is from counterpunch.com, certainly sounds like it. It's kind of like Fox except the opposite side of the spectrum, and better. They don't even pretend they're fair and balanced.

I'm thinking that is from counterpunch.com, certainly sounds like it. It's kind of like Fox except the opposite side of the spectrum, and better. They don't even pretend they're fair and balanced.

So you are saying that the facts they site do not exist because they are biased?

So you are saying that the fact they site do not exist because they are biased?

;)

I just found it really ironic coming from you.

But anyways, I too feel Hillary has been too aggressive. But I believe it comes in part because she is a woman, and if she didn't try and act tough, then people would be saying that she's too soft to be president.

It's the same way with Romney, he's temporarily changed much of his views for the sake of getting the crazy people vote. But I'm thinking if he gets nominated he'll go closer to normal (so he can get the sane people's vote).

;)

I just found it really ironic coming from you.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7cc08b3127cceb2e643930f7200000025100IYsmrNo2csf

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7cc08b3127cceb2e643930f7200000025100IYsmrNo2csf

Well I thought that you were leaning more towards the right, and so found it ironic that you would quote a very liberal site.

Of course I could be wrong.

I believe she will be worse if elected. Bush makes mistakes but does them like a naive kid would. Hillary will make mistakes as a know it all bitch. I would personally be more comfortable with the naive kid making decisions vs the know it all bitch.

Congrats, you are the first poster to use the word "bitch."

Perhaps you'd like to define the word, since your only other charge against her is that she's a "know it all."

And it seems that Bush is actually of above-average intelligence. That thing with his speech is probably drug-and-alcohol-induced brain damage.

Hillary will be much worse because she is a front for the Dems to get Bill in for a third term. The only experience she has in the White house is she knows the lay-out, First Lady is a figurehead postion people.
Mock W all you want but could you have done better if faced with something like September, 11th ( I refuse to call it 9/11 or 9-1-1).

Yes. I could have done way better. Among the things I could have done that would have been an enormous improvement over the length of Dubya's administration I could have:
Wet myself and cried.
Masturbated while eating Cheeto's
Made frantic calls to the first urologist I found in the phonebook complaining about my orange penis.
Sold out to the sinister Weather Channel lobby.
Hosted a public access variety show in which I do sketch comedy with puppets and scrimshaw tutorials.


The refusal to do something about the threat during the 8 years of the previous administation lead to the attacks and we were all caught with our pants down.

Um, do you know the guys who committed the first WTC bombing? If you do, do you know why? Because under Clinton we caught the bastards responsible. After the handover Clinton's team told the Bush team that Bin Laden would be their highest priority. They ignored his warning and placed their highest priority prostitution in New Orleans.

The only reason we were caught with our pants down under Bush was because he was prepping us to be sodomized by the Oil Lobby.

Iraq. Did they have WMD?

No.

maybe.

Um, no.

Were they a threat? Probably not. Can we establish a democracy in a region that is accustomed to being ruled with an iron-fist? Doubtful. Should we pack up and come home right now?

Should we have gone in in the first place" Hell no! Was this obvious to anyone with half a brain to think with? Yes. Was this the biggest act of executive treason by an American president lying his country into war for which it was ill prepared and stood no means by which to benefit? Well, there's some reasonable competition from LBJ lying us into Vietnam.

Never, We must restore some kind of order there before we leave. If we must put in another Saddam-type leader (one we control) to acheive this, so be it.

If you see a guy walking down the street who then points to another guy who just coughed, then that first guy starts screaming about how the second guy needs CPR, you might, with much justification, ignore him. If he then wrestles that second guy down to the ground trying to administer CPR you might try to stop him. When he whips out a pocket knife to give that second guy an emergency tracheotomy you might tackle him and call for the police. As the second guy lies there bleeding to death from his open neck wound administered by an idiot who had no idea how to handle the situation he was in you might explain to the police that the guy with the knife was the murderer.

But from everything you've said here, you'd probably tell the police that everyone else stood idly by while the second guy was dying from some unknown respiratory ailment. The first guy was the only one with the vision and compassion to do something. It turned out that he inadvertently stabbed the guy to death, but how many of us would do a better job with an emergency tracheotomy. You'd also explain that having already stabbed the guy in the throat, it was best to help him fix the damage that was done by applying a tourniquet.

To leave before we have established some stability to that country is foolhearty and all the bleeding-heart peace-freaks who think otherwise should be rounded up and sent over there sans weapons to work out their solution. I`m confident that they could do no better.

Anyone could do better. Anyone. Hillary Clinton. The guy who played Cory on Life Goes On. Paris Hilton. Her Dog. Anyone.

If she wins, wow, think todays problems are bad? Wait until tomorows.

You know, you Paulbots are getting really annoying.

I'm a Paulbot now?

If she wins, wow, think todays problems are bad? Wait until tomorows.

Somebodies been watching Fox.

Your only reason for not voting for her is who she is fucking? Wow.

Oh come on --



-- they're not fucking.

If she wins, wow, think todays problems are bad? Wait until tomorows.

Don'tcha just love unsubstantiated fearmongering?

Wait until tomorrow's what?

So the answer is nope.

I believe she will be worse if elected. Bush makes mistakes but does them like a naive kid would. Hillary will make mistakes as a know it all bitch. I would personally be more comfortable with the naive kid making decisions vs the know it all bitch.

Bush is not a naive kid. Sure he knows about as much as one, but he's an arrogant bully. That's why he looks so smug all the time.

Hillary might make mistakes as a know-it-all bitch, but I'd take someone who thinks they know it all because they know a lot than someone, like Bush, who thinks they know everything that matters because the only stuff they don't know is the stuff they never had the patience or intelligence to learn.

Naive kids don't institutionalize torture, start wars that kill thousands of people, and....

You know what? Forget it, if this is the sort of nonsense you're still telling yourself I'm not going to be the guy to tell you that there's no tooth fairy.

They didn't screw with America. That's what makes it so terrifying. You don't even really have to provoke us. Sends a strong message.
It may not be the message you want to send. It leads to global instability. This instability is what leads to terrorist attacks and wars.
Like the big bully who walks around the playground punching anyone in the face who looks at him wrong. America used to be real good at that. Saddam talked bad about us, though. And he had oil that we wanted. And he was a prick to his own people.
You are being even bigger pricks to the people than Saddam ever was, and might I remind you how he got into power?.
Germany did start attacking other countries. You could be a history professor with knowledge like yours.
:rolleyes: If you wheren't so obtuse I wouldn't have to state the obvious.
You may remember another Gulf War before this one when Iraq tried to add the branch of Kuwait back to their tree. Maybe Saddam needed more "living space." Now granted, we dealt with that with an operation called Desert Storm, but Germany expanded slowly and sneakily, and it wasn't until after they had assimilated numerous other countries that the U.S. even got involved.
Your point being?

The fact is, we're not supposed to declare war unless attacked, and Germany never attacked us. Hitler was an ass. He was a terrible man. He had to be stopped. He committed atrocities. But he never threatened US.
He treatened "friends" and Europe was asking for help.
[qupte]Same goes for Saddam. He was a terrible man who attacked his own people. And we ruined his sh**.[/quote]
How was Saddam a threat to you? And how does that give you the right to ruin a country?

I agree, though, that the war was unnecessary. I also think that we would have found bin Laden a long time ago were it not for the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, the fact is that we are now winning in Iraq

The point of fighting the war was to protect yourself. From this action you have created more potential terrorists, and have created a far greater threat than there was previously. That is winning.... how?
most of the reasons that liberals give against the war are full of holes.
What reasons and what holes?

I support Biden

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321

Watch as I slowly crush any trace of optimism left within you! HAHAHA!

I'm sorry, that didn't work. She can be right-wing, and she can be hawkish, but she'd be like an intelligent, reasoning Bush at worst. And I don't see her confusing leadership with stubbornness, making the same kind of blunders that Bush makes, refusing to listen to reason or the international community etc etc.


Bush is, in my mind, the worst president in modern history. She has got some way to go to become worse, and with an experienced ex-president by her side, I don't see that happening.

Hillary Clinton would be very bad for America. I believe she would use powers granted to the President by the Patriot Act to persecute religious people in violation of the First Amendment.

She would therefore be worse than Bush because Bush has not done so.

No.

Then if Iraq had no WMDs, why did Saddam kick UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for a while before he allowed them back in so they wouldn't find anything?

Although, I would personally not want her running my country (too right winged for me) she probably would not be bad as Bush.

RIGHT-winged? WTF? Are you kidding me? :confused:

She is LEFT-wing.

Hillary Clinton would be very bad for America. I believe she would use powers granted to the President by the Patriot Act to persecute religious people in violation of the First Amendment.

She would therefore be worse than Bush because Bush has not done so.



Then if Iraq had no WMDs, why did Saddam kick UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for a while before he allowed them back in so they wouldn't find anything?



RIGHT-winged? WTF? Are you kidding me? :confused:

She is LEFT-wing.

She really isn't. Your fear of religious persecution is completely laughable and utterly without merit. Your side hauled out that trope when Bill was running and *GASP!* nothing happened.

Hillary Clinton would be very bad for America. I believe she would use powers granted to the President by the Patriot Act to persecute religious people in violation of the First Amendment.
a) Any indications that suggest that she would do such a thing?
b) What faith does Hillary adhere to?


She would therefore be worse than Bush because Bush has not done so.
That must be about the only thing he hasn't done.
*Cough*RemovalofHabeasCorpus*cough*


Then if Iraq had no WMDs, why did Saddam kick UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for a while before he allowed them back in so they wouldn't find anything?
Ask Saddam... Oh wait, he's executed.

So it doesn't matter what motivations they had when the simple fact remains that they neither had the weapons nor the capability to produce them.



RIGHT-winged? WTF? Are you kidding me? :confused:

She is LEFT-wing.
Only in America...

Hillary Clinton would be very bad for America. I believe she would use powers granted to the President by the Patriot Act to persecute religious people in violation of the First Amendment.
What makes you think so?

Then if Iraq had no WMDs, why did Saddam kick UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for a while before he allowed them back in so they wouldn't find anything?
I have seen no evidence of actual weapons, only suspicous actions which could have been in order to hide other things/protect national soveriegnity/say "fuck you" to the USA/possible refusal on the grounds that the invasion wasn't supported by the UN and therefore he felt they had no buisiness there blah blah. In short, I don't know, but if sketchiness and secrecy is sufficient proof of guilt.... well the Unites States government would be screwed.

RIGHT-winged? WTF? Are you kidding me? :confused:

She is LEFT-wing.
I don't think that she is that left wing, despite the fact that she identifies herself as a democrat.

I support Biden

Oh, you were the one. I was wondering who that was. ;)

Well I thought that you were leaning more towards the right, and so found it ironic that you would quote a very liberal site.

Of course I could be wrong.

I used to lean towards the right. I no longer have enough cohesion in me to lean either way. I am of the "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" school of thought these days.

I used to lean towards the right. I no longer have enough cohesion in me to lean either way. I am of the "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" school of thought these days.

That's cool. I myself am in the "we need a revolution" school of thought.

That's cool. I myself am in the "we need a revolution" school of thought.

I'm personally for the "we need leaders with at least the intelligence of a 5 year old" belief. But, alas, they are hard to find no matter what school of though you follow.

I am betting that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. We already know from this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321 that Hillary is just as bellicose (more, actually). But will she be as bad over-all? Will she alter the "rules-of-engagement"? Will she see to it that we are "compensated" for our wars? Will she do anything about lost POW's?

Your opinions, please.

If one assumes she will win both the Democrat's nomination and the general election, then yes, the US will get the continuing horribleness that has marked the last 15 years of the presidency.

However, those are two major assumptions that I don't buy. The Democrats would have to be foolish enough to nominate the one major candidate who I consider the automatic looser in most of the likely matchups. Then The GOP would have to be foolish enough to nominate a candidate who would lose to her (Huckabee...)

Okay. I can see where I lost you when I said "Screw with America, and we mess up your country," then said, "they didn't screw with America."
Picture this scene: you and I are walking down a street. We spot someone who has been badly beaten by a gang. You speak first.

IDIOT: Who beat that guy up?
ME: A gang. Don't screw with them.
IDIOT: How did he screw with them?
ME: He didn't. But they've sent a message. People will be scared of them now.
IDIOT: Therefore if I screw with him, there will be no consequences?
ME: No. Why do you say that?
IDIOT: Well based on this one single incident, I conclude that they only beat people up who have never provoked them.
ME: No... they've shown that they're capable of beating someone up. He talked crap about them, he wasn't capable of fighting them, and he had money that they wanted. He was trying to make a fool out of them, and they straightened him out. You can be sure that someone who actually DID screw with this gang would receive the same treatment. Or worse.

Here's your Echelon link. Copy, paste, and enjoy.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

As for the question of which flow the insurgents are going against, I'd say the flow of most of the Iraqis, who support our presence in their country.
I'm sure that the Holocaust victims were bummed when their stable genocide was interrupted by U.S. soldiers.
"We were just fine being gassed. Then you guys showed up with your guns, and BOOM! We had a war-torn concentration camp. You animals."
Iraq was a hellhole when we arrived. It's a hellhole now, but don't go making it sound like it's any worse-off. We can still fix it. Leaving now would mean a loss of credibility and oil. It would mean giving the terrorists one more safe zone. And it would mean leaving millions of people to be slaughtered.
Democrats talk about implementing change, but when the spotlight's on them, they just go with what's been done before. They can't complain now- they're funding the war. No shit there are still pro-war Republicans. They're the ones pointing at laughing at the "anti-war" Democrats who are paying the bills for our little police action. It's a funny old world, isn't it?

Oh, and on the topic of the U.S. being a bully... no shit, Sherlock. Strong countries have to be bullies. It's necessary. Now sure, people who are bullies are never likeable. They grow up to be humiliated and bested by the people they victimized.
COUNTRIES who are bullies are countries that survive. Countries who are ready to be bullies are countries that will end up actually saving lives.
To gain independence, the colonists used terrorist tactics against the redcoats. The end result was a free country. To end WW2, we dropped an atom bomb on innocent civilians. The end result was that we saved millions of lives, despite having to take thousands in the process.
America became the strong country it is today by stealing from Native Americans, by causing collateral damage, and by doing whatever we had to in order to win. We were never a perfect country morally. But we had to do what we had to do in order to secure a free home.

[QUOTE=Zayun2;13329698]


1. The war had no justification.

2. The war is costing us much money and many lives.

3. Regular people are still dying everyday, this hasn't changed. Part of this has to do with the presence of American troops, who are a constant target and are commonly in civilian areas.

4. We are fighting a war of unjustified aggression, and this makes us look worse and worse everyday, particularly in the Muslim world. It's going to take a long time to reverse this negativity, and it's not going to happen while we're still occupying Iraq.

QUOTE]

1. Oh, please. We told them that we thought they had WMD's. We warned them what would happen if they didn't allow themselves to be inspected. Saddam had been spouting anti-American hate for years. They were egging us on.

2. Yes it is. There's no denying that. However, a good chunk of the money that is often attributed to the war in Iraq is money that we would have spent even in times of peace. Money to train, arm, and equip soldiers, for example, is money we spend whether we're at war or not. As for lives, I'd like to think that we have saved more lives than have been lost. I don't know what would be happening in Iraq if Saddam was still in power, but I doubt I would like it, and I doubt you would either.

3. Frankly, I think that we should be fighting the entire war from the air. But that's a debate for another time. Anyway, terrorists frequently go after American troops in these civilian-populated areas so that they can later talk about how Americans are responsible for innocent deaths. You are right in saying that Americans are targets. However, you are wrong if you believe nothing has changed (which I realize isn't exactly what you said, so don't get antsy). We are reducing civilian and soldier casualties. We've gotten a very bad man out of power. We've gotten rid of a certain Rumsfeld idiot who planned our strategies before. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and now things are getting better.

4. Middle Eastern Muslim extremists hated America before we invaded Iraq, and had we not invaded Iraq, they'd hate us anyway. If anything, we've given them one less place where they can be safe. I think that we've chosen the lesser of two evils, in order to do greater good.

a) Any indications that suggest that she would do such a thing?
b) What faith does Hillary adhere to?

A. The Patriot Act grants the President such powers, under color of "fighting terrorism"
B. I don't know that she adheres to ANY faith; she might be an atheist for all I know



Only in America...

Only in America what? :confused:

A. The Patriot Act grants the President such powers, under color of "fighting terrorism"

Not really, but when did the rules stop a President from doing as they wish?

B. I don't know that she adheres to ANY faith; she might be an atheist for all I know

The Wikipedia page on her says she's a United Methodist.

Only in America what? :confused:

Only in America would Hillary be considered a leftist. I find it telling that this old lady I was renting from in France was a Hillary supporter and she voted for this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_marie_le_pen).

1. Oh, please. We told them that we thought they had WMD's. We warned them what would happen if they didn't allow themselves to be inspected. Saddam had been spouting anti-American hate for years. They were egging us on.
You had no proof what so ever that they had WMD. They did not want to cater to you. That does not merit an invasion. And you know what a lot of foriegn politicians hate America, often it is not completely without reason. Although if other countries took speach seriously Iran would have good reason to invade the USA especially after the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

2. Yes it is. There's no denying that. However, a good chunk of the money that is often attributed to the war in Iraq is money that we would have spent even in times of peace. Money to train, arm, and equip soldiers, for example, is money we spend whether we're at war or not. Some money yes but not this much.
As for lives, I'd like to think that we have saved more lives than have been lost. I don't know what would be happening in Iraq if Saddam was still in power, but I doubt I would like it, and I doubt you would either.
You may like to think that, but it is not true. More people died after the American invasion than in the same amount of time before.
"Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

3. Frankly, I think that we should be fighting the entire war from the air. But that's a debate for another time. Anyway, terrorists frequently go after American troops in these civilian-populated areas so that they can later talk about how Americans are responsible for innocent deaths. You are right in saying that Americans are targets. However, you are wrong if you believe nothing has changed (which I realize isn't exactly what you said, so don't get antsy). We are reducing civilian and soldier casualties. We've gotten a very bad man out of power. We've gotten rid of a certain Rumsfeld idiot who planned our strategies before. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and now things are getting better.
They where better before you invaded, and who are you to decide when things are better? Because the Iraqis think:
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months.

Suggests that 'the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003'.
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55?bcsi_scan_67B5BE173D771E18=0

4. Middle Eastern Muslim extremists hated America before we invaded Iraq, and had we not invaded Iraq, they'd hate us anyway. If anything, we've given them one less place where they can be safe. I think that we've chosen the lesser of two evils, in order to do greater good.
Yes, there was some of that there but you are creating thousands more whos lives have been destroyed from an America lead invasion, this is not going to help. This is going to worsen the situation if anything.

Isle de Tortue, you just posted three long posts in a row, none of them remotely on topic. The word "President" did not appear in any of them, nor "Clinton" nor "Bush."

You will get replies, most likely. Partisan ranting like that tends to attract replies. But don't think for a moment that you are making a meaningful contribution to the thread. You are OFF-TOPIC, resolutely off-topic, and not making any attempt to bring your stuff back to the topic, say by referring to HRC's voting record or Bush's role in the war in Iraq.

Quite unimpressive start. Do try a bit harder to make sense, please.

EDIT: I suppose I should mention Unlucky_and_unbiddable, who is participating heartily in the same hijack. The difference is, U_a_a's posts are direct replies (made with the 'quote' button) and therefore much less likely to cause generalized chaos.

Oh, who cares anyway. It's only the presidency. :rolleyes:

You had no proof what so ever that they had WMD. They did not want to cater to you. That does not merit an invasion. And you know what a lot of foriegn politicians hate America, often it is not completely without reason. Although if other countries took speach seriously Iran would have good reason to invade the USA especially after the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction-they used them against the Kurds-what they didn't have was a decent delivery system-Iraqi possession of WMDs was a given-every nation was onboard with that one, so either Iraq managed to stymie every intelligence system operating at the time, or they managed to smuggle them into the hinterlands or out-of-country entirely.


You may like to think that, but it is not true. More people died after the American invasion than in the same amount of time before.
[i]"Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A war zone lead to only a 100,000 extra deaths, nation-wide?

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. Well, war is more detrimental than peace.
Compare the figures of modern Iraq with post-WWII Germany, and you'll see a similarity. The only real difference is we didn't have so much anti-American sentiment to distract us. The fact is, Iraq was allowed to violate every tenet of the truce that followed the UN-sanctioned war under the incompetence of the Clinton Administration, but Sept. 11th, 2001, made it an issue.
More nations signed on with the US war than the UN sanctioned war.
Saddam Hussein had to be removed, and his neighbors all agreed. Despite actions to preserve his regime by outside interference from Libya, he forced this on himself. Diplomatic channels were kept open until the last minute, and as disparaged as the Iraqi War has been, it is the most morally conducted war in recent history.

Given his shenanigans with observers to witness said destruction, I stand by my views.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction-they used them against the Kurds-what they didn't have was a decent delivery system-Iraqi possession of WMDs was a given-every nation was onboard with that one, so either Iraq managed to stymie every intelligence system operating at the time, or they managed to smuggle them into the hinterlands or out-of-country entirely.

A war zone lead to only a 100,000 extra deaths, nation-wide?
Well, war is more detrimental than peace.
Compare the figures of modern Iraq with post-WWII Germany, and you'll see a similarity. The only real difference is we didn't have so much anti-American sentiment to distract us. The fact is, Iraq was allowed to violate every tenet of the truce that followed the UN-sanctioned war under the incompetence of the Clinton Administration, but Sept. 11th, 2001, made it an issue.
More nations signed on with the US war than the UN sanctioned war.
Saddam Hussein had to be removed, and his neighbors all agreed. Despite actions to preserve his regime by outside interference from Libya, he forced this on himself. Diplomatic channels were kept open until the last minute, and as disparaged as the Iraqi War has been, it is the most morally conducted war in recent history.

Our initial demands was that Saddam disarm. Seeing as you claim he had them, how do you know that he didn't destroy his weapons? Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter, we always find new reasons to try and justify the war.

Hillary will be bad because now is a bad time for anyone to prove how tough a woman can be. I want a president to give a shit about the people, not one that try to act tough and use our tax money to do it. That being Iraq war, patriot act, war on drugs, war on video games, or whatever. Really I don't know how anyone can trust her to do something, when she can't even tell you what she's going to do as of this point.

Frankly, I think that we should be fighting the entire war from the air. But that's a debate for another time.

Probably one of the craziest thing I ever heard. You do realize that just dropping bombs at a place doesn't give you control over it right? And I thought the Bush administration advertise this whole thing as "Iraqi Freedom". Now tell me how exactly are we freeing civilians from terror through terrorism and chronic air strikes?

Hillary represents the worst of the Democratic Party combined with the worst of the Republican Party...she'd be as bad as Bush, if not worse thanks to the return of the one-party system in government. The last thing we need, aside from 8 more years of the Clinton-Bush dynasty, is the dark twin of W.

She's the distilled spirit of political failure.

Now tell me how exactly are we freeing civilians from terror through terrorism and chronic air strikes?

If they're dead they don't have to worry about it anymore, do they?

A. The Patriot Act grants the President such powers, under color of "fighting terrorism"
Putting a piece of bread between two heating elements creates toast, that doesn't say anything about what I'm going to do with my bread.
B. I don't know that she adheres to ANY faith; she might be an atheist for all I know

You have got to be kidding...

As if we have control on the ground?
If we fight from the air, we will never lose a man. Our Air Force does not just drop bombs. Our air force launches a missile at a single building and destroys that building. Low-flying helicopters can spray an area with bullets.
Now don't get me wrong, a low-flying helicopter can be taken down with an RPG, but it won't walk down the street calmly and then be blown up by some bomb hidden in a car trunk.
So no, I'm not saying carpet-bomb the goddamn country, I'm saying be precise, I'm saying don't take unnecessary risks, and leave the job to our vastly superior airborne forces.
As for the guy who talked about my hijacking the thread... yeah, good point.
My first post actually contained a number of things Bush was criticized for and has more or less gotten past. It spiraled into a debate about the Iraq war because that's one of the things that some people still don't think he's proven himself in.
So, down to the main question: should we stay in Iraq? The answer's yes. Maybe it was a debacle. Maybe the invasion was terrible. Maybe people over there hate us. But we've made positive steps. The guy who previously planned our Iraq strategy ("I doubt six months," he said... bastard...) is out. We're losing less Americans and taking down more terrorists.
Maybe we're provoking terrorists, but really I think we're making them afraid. Over here, the media likes to report every time there's another soldier's death in Iraq. They don't like to report on the hundreds of insurgents that get killed every day. We're not losing. We're not even close.

As if we have control on the ground?
If we fight from the air, we will never lose a man. Our Air Force does not just drop bombs. Our air force launches a missile at a single building and destroys that building. Low-flying helicopters can spray an area with bullets.Now don't get me wrong, a low-flying helicopter can be taken down with an RPG, but it won't walk down the street calmly and then be blown up by some bomb hidden in a car trunk.
So no, I'm not saying carpet-bomb the goddamn country, I'm saying be precise, I'm saying don't take unnecessary risks, and leave the job to our vastly superior airborne forces.
As for the guy who talked about my hijacking the thread... yeah, good point.
My first post actually contained a number of things Bush was criticized for and has more or less gotten past. It spiraled into a debate about the Iraq war because that's one of the things that some people still don't think he's proven himself in.
So, down to the main question: should we stay in Iraq? The answer's yes. Maybe it was a debacle. Maybe the invasion was terrible. Maybe people over there hate us. But we've made positive steps. The guy who previously planned our Iraq strategy ("I doubt six months," he said... bastard...) is out. We're losing less Americans and taking down more terrorists.
Maybe we're provoking terrorists, but really I think we're making them afraid. Over here, the media likes to report every time there's another soldier's death in Iraq. They don't like to report on the hundreds of insurgents that get killed every day. We're not losing. We're not even close.


1. In most cases, there are people inside and outside buildings. Even a "smart bomb" (as if bombing is smart, lol) is going to take down civilians. And what you don't seem to realize is that in a war like this, a civilian casualty is as bad if not worse than an American one.

2. Again, you talk about spraying areas with bullets, but most often the people that fight US troops are a) Hiding in a crowd b) Already dead. Flying helicopters won't do a damn thing.

3. Losing less Americans is good, but killing more people doesn't help us, we're not fighting a conventional army. We're fighting a war against the population of Iraq, whether or not some support us. These insurgents that you're so happy about killing all have relatives, who may or may not like the US. And when we kill people, their relatives are going to like us less. Every death in Iraq, whether it be an "insurgent" or civilian, is detrimental to the cause you claim to support, which is stability.

4. Hundreds of insurgents killled everyday? Check your numbers. The only people dying by the hundreds are civilians.

By the way, although I've been arguing what's bad about Bush, I must say that when it comes to Iraq, I think Hillary will be little better. I still think she would be better overall though.

Let's take this piece by piece.

Step 1) Terrorists set off car bomb/launch rocket/whatever.
Step 2) Terrorists hide in school/mosque/public place
Step 3) We either refuse to bomb them because of civilians, or we bomb them and are then publicly disgraced for having destroyed a school/mosque/public place
Step 4) Terrorists, seeing our weakness, continue to attack us. Citizens continue to harbor them and not report who's an insurgent and who isn't.

Okay. Look at this closely. Think. What needs to change? It's step 4 that's killing us. How do we change our strategy? The answer lies in Step 3. We need to destroy that goddamn building EVERY time they hide in it, no matter what building it is. This will end in one of two ways:

1) People realize that harboring and protecting insurgents leads to the destruction of buildings and innocents, and the U.S. shows no sign of letting up. People decide that U.S. is scarier than any terrorist, push terrorists out/report them to us.

2) People continue to harbor terrorists, and thus are accessories to terrorism. Eventually, we level every building. No more Iraq.

I strongly believe that the citizens would not let it come down to option 2.

I am betting that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. We already know from this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545321 that Hillary is just as bellicose (more, actually). But will she be as bad over-all? Will she alter the "rules-of-engagement"? Will she see to it that we are "compensated" for our wars? Will she do anything about lost POW's?

Your opinions, please.

Many times worse than Bush. Bungled and inept foriegn policy, combined with elite socialism and utter corruption the likes of which only Kofi Annan or Robert Mugabe could challenge.

Thankfully, she's not very electable. I can see the Republican strategists having a field day. I think America's ready for a woman, just not Hillary. In fact, not Hillary for anything.

No. I'm surprised that non-Republicans think otherwise.

Let's take this piece by piece.

Step 1) Terrorists set off car bomb/launch rocket/whatever.
Step 2) Terrorists hide in school/mosque/public place
Step 3) We either refuse to bomb them because of civilians, or we bomb them and are then publicly disgraced for having destroyed a school/mosque/public place
Step 4) Terrorists, seeing our weakness, continue to attack us. Citizens continue to harbor them and not report who's an insurgent and who isn't.

Okay. Look at this closely. Think. What needs to change? It's step 4 that's killing us. How do we change our strategy? The answer lies in Step 3. We need to destroy that goddamn building EVERY time they hide in it, no matter what building it is. This will end in one of two ways:

1) People realize that harboring and protecting insurgents leads to the destruction of buildings and innocents, and the U.S. shows no sign of letting up. People decide that U.S. is scarier than any terrorist, push terrorists out/report them to us.

2) People continue to harbor terrorists, and thus are accessories to terrorism. Eventually, we level every building. No more Iraq.

I strongly believe that the citizens would not let it come down to option 2.

You are not seeing this from an Iraqi's point of view. They are going to blame us for the attack, not the insurgents. In the end, they will dislike us even more, and we will have more foes on our hands. Using your strategy, we would end up leveling every building in Iraq, we would be engaging in genocide.

And the point I was trying to get across to you was that this problem must be attacked at its root. You can chop off a weed, but if you don't pull it out from its roots it will grow back. In the case of Iraq, the problem is violence. And if you add more violence, then you're adding fuel to a fire. Violence will only beget more violence, and give us a bigger problem on our hands.

As if we have control on the ground?
If we fight from the air, we will never lose a man. Our Air Force does not just drop bombs. Our air force launches a missile at a single building and destroys that building. Low-flying helicopters can spray an area with bullets.
Now don't get me wrong, a low-flying helicopter can be taken down with an RPG, but it won't walk down the street calmly and then be blown up by some bomb hidden in a car trunk.
So no, I'm not saying carpet-bomb the goddamn country, I'm saying be precise, I'm saying don't take unnecessary risks, and leave the job to our vastly superior airborne forces.
So, down to the main question: should we stay in Iraq? The answer's yes. Maybe it was a debacle. Maybe the invasion was terrible. Maybe people over there hate us. But we've made positive steps. The guy who previously planned our Iraq strategy ("I doubt six months," he said... bastard...) is out. We're losing less Americans and taking down more terrorists.
Maybe we're provoking terrorists, but really I think we're making them afraid. Over here, the media likes to report every time there's another soldier's death in Iraq. They don't like to report on the hundreds of insurgents that get killed every day. We're not losing. We're not even close.

So you support mindless destruction with no intention of supporting the establishment of democracy? We just shooting at buildings and killing people to make the country chaotic with no intention to actually get troops on the ground to help them?

You do realize that this whole Iraq War is about terrorist disguised as normal civilians right? They are not exactly waving a sign saying "I AM A TERRORIST" for helicopters to fly by and shoot at. No buildings for you to just spray. As proven in both Korean War and Vietnam War, air strike does not work against gorilla warfares.

And no we are not winning. For every 1 terrorist we kill, we create more hatred in the area to promote more terrorist to join. You killed 100 terrorist? 200 more joins them because we killed 100. Sure we won't "lose", in that the terrorist probably won't be able to seize control over Iraq, but neither would we win in any shape or form. No democracy is taking place in Iraq and Iraqis are not free. Unless the intention of the war was only to get oil. Then yeah to some degree we are winning because we are draining oil from them everyday.

And yes this discussion is important in "is Hillary going to be as bad as BUSH" Because we can't judge Hillary with Bush without making clear just want kind of shit Bush have gotten us into.

Let's take this piece by piece.

Step 1) Terrorists set off car bomb/launch rocket/whatever.
Step 2) Terrorists hide in school/mosque/public place
Step 3) We either refuse to bomb them because of civilians, or we bomb them and are then publicly disgraced for having destroyed a school/mosque/public place
Step 4) Terrorists, seeing our weakness, continue to attack us. Citizens continue to harbor them and not report who's an insurgent and who isn't.

Okay. Look at this closely. Think. What needs to change? It's step 4 that's killing us. How do we change our strategy? The answer lies in Step 3. We need to destroy that goddamn building EVERY time they hide in it, no matter what building it is. This will end in one of two ways:

1) People realize that harboring and protecting insurgents leads to the destruction of buildings and innocents, and the U.S. shows no sign of letting up. People decide that U.S. is scarier than any terrorist, push terrorists out/report them to us.

2) People continue to harbor terrorists, and thus are accessories to terrorism. Eventually, we level every building. No more Iraq.

I strongly believe that the citizens would not let it come down to option 2.

And that makes you somehow better than Sadam in what way? Right in our efficiency of killing random innocent people from other countries for no reasons.

I have a better idea. Why don't we just leave and let them die? Right there's the oil, but if you think about it it might still be more cost efficient than bombing every single building in Iraq. Plus we don't even get the blame for the Genocide.

Well I thought that you were leaning more towards the right, and so found it ironic that you would quote a very liberal site.

Of course I could be wrong.

antiwar.com = libertarian

A. The Patriot Act grants the President such powers, under color of "fighting terrorism"
Just because the current president seems inclined to do so, doesn't mean that the next president will abuse the tools that are to his or her disposal.


B. I don't know that she adheres to ANY faith; she might be an atheist for all I know
So the idea of her persecuting religious people is completely unfounded?


Only in America what? :confused:

Only in America would Hillary be called "left-wing". In Europe, if not in the rest of the world, she would be classified as right-wing. And rightly so, in my opinion. Neither her nor the Democratic party in general is particularly left-wing. Compared to the Republican party maybe, but not on any political scale that extends beyond those two.

Oh yes, she's not a socialist nor a communist, as some of the less gifted on this forum seems to believe either.

Before 9-11, Bush spent more than 25% of his time playing golf and claimed that anyone who asked whether he was working hard enough or not as president, "Doesn't know what hard work really is." I can't think of anything as PERSONALLY insulting to me in political history than this. If Hillary can manage to steer away from anything as insulting and egocentric as this, than, garshdarnit, she's at least giving a better effort.
Seeing that on the news is one thing I will never forget. I'm almost never angry, but that... proved that I can get angry. Some people work their tails off, but they apparently don't know pain in comparison to golf, the shmuck. I don't see how Hilary could do a worse job in rallying the American spirit than Bush the "Uniter" (ha, Uniter my tush).
The President's primary job is not legislation, but leadership, and its on that premise I make my case. What kind of leader has Bush been? Has he left you more cynical than you started? What about Hillary? Even if you do not agree with her political desires, do you think she will leave you as cynical about American democracy? I pray to God the next president doesn't. I don't know how much more cynical the American people can afford to get.

0.o

So you're saying that America is like the drunk at the bar, who punches people for no reason, and doesn't know what the fuck he's doing or why he's doing it?
That's how Bush has been acting, so yes.

Then if Iraq had no WMDs, why did Saddam kick UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for a while before he allowed them back in so they wouldn't find anything?

Because he felt they were threatening the sovereignty of his country.



Also, if he did have them, how come none have been found since the U.S. ousted him?

No. I'm surprised that non-Republicans think otherwise.

:confused:

Define "better" than Saddam. And define mindless destruction. How is taking out one building that we are certain harbors terrorists going to be "mindless destruction?" As for the guy who mentioned terrorists not waving signs saying I AM A TERRORIST... well, yes, that's our problem. If someone keeps going to the same road and trying to attack our convoys with an RPG, odds are his neighbors will find out who he is eventually. The problem is, many Iraqis keep their mouths shut and allow the terrorists to persist.
Now imagine they know that insurgents are hiding in a building down the street. They say nothing, but if somehow we find out that there are enemies in that building, we give them one hour's notice and demolish it. Doesn't matter if it's a school or a mosque or a hospital. As long as the terrorists inside live, Americans die.
The desired effect is not so much just to kill insurgents as it is to show the people who harbor them the consequences of their actions.
Naturally, we can't rebuild the country from the air. So yes, we should have armed people on the ground providing aid. But the real war-fighting should be done from the air.

antiwar.com = libertarian

I see, I didn't really check the site, I simply read the article and it sounded a like something from counterpunch.com

Define "better" than Saddam. And define mindless destruction. How is taking out one building that we are certain harbors terrorists going to be "mindless destruction?" As for the guy who mentioned terrorists not waving signs saying I AM A TERRORIST... well, yes, that's our problem. If someone keeps going to the same road and trying to attack our convoys with an RPG, odds are his neighbors will find out who he is eventually. The problem is, many Iraqis keep their mouths shut and allow the terrorists to persist.
Now imagine they know that insurgents are hiding in a building down the street. They say nothing, but if somehow we find out that there are enemies in that building, we give them one hour's notice and demolish it. Doesn't matter if it's a school or a mosque or a hospital. As long as the terrorists inside live, Americans die.
The desired effect is not so much just to kill insurgents as it is to show the people who harbor them the consequences of their actions.
Naturally, we can't rebuild the country from the air. So yes, we should have armed people on the ground providing aid. But the real war-fighting should be done from the air.

Again, razing buildings is only going to help them recruit more people to fight us. You will not solve anything in Iraq with violence. For every man you kill, another three will take his place. Ever heard of the hydra?

If her current rhetoric is any indication, she'll be worse.

qft

Again, razing buildings is only going to help them recruit more people to fight us. You will not solve anything in Iraq with violence. For every man you kill, another three will take his place. Ever heard of the hydra?

Why cut my fingernails, they'll only grow back.
How should we be fighting terrorism? I think making an example of our country's enemies does help to attack the problem at the root. Radical Muslims hated our country before the Iraq War and will hate it afterwards. Really, I don't think that there are more terrorists than there were before. I'm sure that now the already existing terrorists will be able to spout that they have a righteous cause (avenging the dead of Iraq).
But if terrorists aren't killing us for one thing, they'll kill us for another. I'm sure that later on there will be plenty of terrorist attacks or attempts, and when they occur, many people who were against the Iraq War will say: "See? We provoked them!"
But that part of the world hates us. They hated us before, they hate us now, and they'll probably hate us for the next hundred years. Or more.
I also think I should make one thing clear: I was not a big supporter of the invasion. I wasn't a big supporter of the war when it was going badly. But I acknowledge that, since the surge, violence has gone down dramatically, somewhere between 60-80%, depending on which statistics you read. I acknowledge that leaving now means that the current Iraqi government will probably be overthrown immediately and the country will be thrown back into American-hating chaos. No matter what we do now, they hate us. I think staying is the best thing that we can do. I think we can provide aid, create a stable government, and eventually rebuild the country.
We can't do that while we're getting blown up by car bombs, though. We can cut our casualties in half (actually, we can probably do better) if we do less fighting on the ground and more in the air.

Why cut my fingernails, they'll only grow back.
How should we be fighting terrorism? I think making an example of our country's enemies does help to attack the problem at the root. Radical Muslims hated our country before the Iraq War and will hate it afterwards. Really, I don't think that there are more terrorists than there were before. I'm sure that now the already existing terrorists will be able to spout that they have a righteous cause (avenging the dead of Iraq).
But if terrorists aren't killing us for one thing, they'll kill us for another. I'm sure that later on there will be plenty of terrorist attacks or attempts, and when they occur, many people who were against the Iraq War will say: "See? We provoked them!"
But that part of the world hates us. They hated us before, they hate us now, and they'll probably hate us for the next hundred years. Or more.
I also think I should make one thing clear: I was not a big supporter of the invasion. I wasn't a big supporter of the war when it was going badly. But I acknowledge that, since the surge, violence has gone down dramatically, somewhere between 60-80%, depending on which statistics you read. I acknowledge that leaving now means that the current Iraqi government will probably be overthrown immediately and the country will be thrown back into American-hating chaos. No matter what we do now, they hate us. I think staying is the best thing that we can do. I think we can provide aid, create a stable government, and eventually rebuild the country.
We can't do that while we're getting blown up by car bombs, though. We can cut our casualties in half (actually, we can probably do better) if we do less fighting on the ground and more in the air.

Basically, you acknowledge we're in a shit hole, and Bush got us into it. To compare Bush with Hillary, we have to see just how shitty Bush was, and my job is done.

Well that's fair enough. Bush is very responsible for our initial failure. I don't hold him as accountable as Rumsfeld, but then, he defended Rumsfeld. He's turning the tide, though.
I highly doubt that Hillary's fantastic idea (that is, leaving Iraq) will make the situation better. She'll undo all the good that has been done, and lose out on the good that might be done.
The point I made in my very first post is that Bush is redeeming himself for early mistakes (or in some cases, what looked like early mistakes). Have I already mentioned that Hillary will take a situation that's just starting to improve and make it totally suck again?
I agree that Bush is an idiot who's made huge, gigantic, ginormous mistakes.
Hillary's an idiot, too, but on top of that, the Clintons are evil, evil, sumbitches (Whitewater/Vince Foster's Murder, Echelon, Filegate, her dirty campaign money, etc)
Bush was an idiot, but he's accomplished lots of good things.
Hillary is an immoral idiot who will use her office for terrible ends.

Well that's fair enough. Bush is very responsible for our initial failure. I don't hold him as accountable as Rumsfeld, but then, he defended Rumsfeld. He's turning the tide, though.
I highly doubt that Hillary's fantastic idea (that is, leaving Iraq) will make the situation better. She'll undo all the good that has been done, and lose out on the good that might be done.
The point I made in my very first post is that Bush is redeeming himself for early mistakes (or in some cases, what looked like early mistakes). Have I already mentioned that Hillary will take a situation that's just starting to improve and make it totally suck again?
I agree that Bush is an idiot who's made huge, gigantic, ginormous mistakes.
Hillary's an idiot, too, but on top of that, the Clintons are evil, evil, sumbitches (Whitewater/Vince Foster's Murder, Echelon, Filegate, her dirty campaign money, etc)
Bush was an idiot, but he's accomplished lots of good things.
Hillary is an immoral idiot who will use her office for terrible ends.

a) From what I've seen she doesn't seem to be planning to leave Iraq, regardless of what Fox is telling you.

b) Bush isn't redeeming himself, Iraq was a mistake, and while it can be remedied to a certain point, but it will always be a bad decision.

c) You haven't given any sources on why the Clintons are so evil.

d) Finally, morality is worthless in poltics, and from what I've seen, it's also generally used by hypocrites.

a) From what I've seen she doesn't seem to be planning to leave Iraq, regardless of what Fox is telling you.

That is why I do not watch T.V.

b) Bush isn't redeeming himself, Iraq was a mistake, and while it can be remedied to a certain point, but it will always be a bad decision.


Indeed. Even if we win and make Iraq a damn paradise, we will still have spent too much money doing it.

c) You haven't given any sources on why the Clintons are so evil.

To say any president (Andrew Jackson possibly excepted :p) is evil is just obtuse.

d) Finally, morality is worthless in politics, and from what I've seen, it's also generally used by hypocrites.

Finally, a nation after my own heart. :') It is like saying one needs to be moral to be a good plumber. Have you read anything by Machiavelli?

Well that's fair enough. Bush is very responsible for our initial failure. I don't hold him as accountable as Rumsfeld, but then, he defended Rumsfeld. He's turning the tide, though.You can't give the man credit for turning the tide in Iraq if he was the one that initiated it in the first place.

a) http://www.nypost.com/seven/02032007/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_iraq_poll_icy_editorials_.htm

b) If we come out of the war with oil, with a stable democratic Iraqi government, and with a footprint in that dangerous part of the world (between Iran and Syria, where a U.S. presence could be vital later) then the Iraq war will have paid off. We'll be better than we would be without the war.


If you think we will be getting any free oil from Iraq, I am afraid you are deluding yourself.

a) http://www.nypost.com/seven/02032007/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_iraq_poll_icy_editorials_.htm

b) If we come out of the war with oil, with a stable democratic Iraqi government, and with a footprint in that dangerous part of the world (between Iran and Syria, where a U.S. presence could be vital later) then the Iraq war will have paid off. We'll be better than we would be without the war.

c) http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm

d) Call it what you want then. Both Bill and Hillary have broken the law. Hillary will use her power for selfish ends.

You can't give the man credit for turning the tide in Iraq if he was the one that initiated it in the first place.

Why not? He started a war where victory did not seem possible... and now victory seems possible.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Probably because I'm a Reagan-loving, Bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck who only knows what Rush Limbaugh tells him.

Ahem. Sarcasm.

Why not? He started a war where victory did not seem possible... and now victory seems possible.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Probably because I'm a Reagan-loving, Bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck who only knows what Rush Limbaugh tells him.

Ahem. Sarcasm.

From a purely conservative point of view, the war cost way too much. And we are not getting anything from it, not even oil.

Have you read anything by Machiavelli?Have you read anything by Frederick the Great?

Why not? He started a war where victory did not seem possible... and now victory seems possible. :rolleyes:
Victory didn't seem possible? He declared it (http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/m/C/mission_accomplished.jpg), lest you forget.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Indeed. Either you have a faulty memory or you've been out of touch with civilization for the first few years of the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Probably because I'm a Reagan-loving, Bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck who only knows what Rush Limbaugh tells him.

Ahem. Sarcasm.I'll kiss... a snake. Yes, I'll kiss a snake. That's sarcasm, Marge.

Are you saying his declaration of victory made it a victory? If so, then you have very little to bitch about.
If I had been out of touch with the world since Operation Iraqi Freedom, I would hardly be having this debate, would I?
You'll kiss a snake. Okay. Enjoy.

No, but seriously. WTF.

Are you saying his declaration of victory made it a victory? If so, then you have very little to bitch about.Hardly. You suggested that victory didn't seem possible. While this was a position I held at the beginning of the war and why I was against going to war in the first place, the supporters of the war kept on telling us that victory was imminent or that it had already occured. For someone that supports the war to claim that victory didn't seem possible in the beginning is flat out revisionism.
If I had been out of touch with the world since Operation Iraqi Freedom, I would hardly be having this debate, would I?I doubt that would make a difference.
You'll kiss a snake. Okay. Enjoy.Like Homer said, it was sarcasm. :D

If you read my posts, you'd know that I DIDN'T support the war in the beginning. However, it looks like we can break better than even now. I certainly don't support Hillary leaving now.

Hint: Your reading my posts greatly depends on your ability to read. Get that checked out.

If you read my posts, you'd know that I DIDN'T support the war in the beginning. However, it looks like we can break better than even now. I certainly don't support Hillary leaving now.You posted an incredibly optimistic outcome of the war earlier, so I assumed you supported it to begin with. My bad.

Hint: Your reading my posts greatly depends on your ability to read. Get that checked out.Hint: Outright ad hominem attacks are very poor debating styles.

Have you read anything by Frederick the Great?

Have you ever read anything by Voltaire?

That's cool. I myself am in the "we need a revolution" school of thought.

An optimist, eh?

Have you ever read anything by Voltaire?How exactly is that supposed to refute Frederick the Great? Him and Voltaire were buddies, while Frederick disagreed with Machiavelli enough to write "Anti-Machiavelli".

How exactly is that supposed to refute Frederick the Great? Him and Voltaire were buddies, while Frederick disagreed with Machiavelli enough to write "Anti-Machiavelli".

Voltaire (paraphrased):" If Machiavelli had a protégé, the first thing Machiavelli would tell him to do would be to write an 'Anti-Machiavel.'"

True, Voltaire helped write it. But from what I read about Freddy he was hardly anti-Machiavellian. And if you are anti-Machiavellian I suggest you read his Discourses.

True, Voltaire helped write it. But from what I read about Freddy he was hardly anti-Machiavellian. And if you are anti-Machiavellian I suggest you read his Discourses.Freddy is a pretty controversial figure, and much of his opinions changed after he experienced them first hand.

Hint: Outright ad hominem attacks are very poor debating styles.

Sorry.

Freddy is a pretty controversial figure,

Just so. He got involved in many wars and taxed his people obscenely. I would say the perfect Machiavellian leader would be Cesare Borgia. Freddy, on the other hand, was just Machiavellian in popular concept: immoral. The grounds he ironically attacked Machiavelli on.

and much of his opinions changed after he experienced them first hand.

Pardon?

I know for sure that Bush was a bad president because of his and his administrations war on Iraq. I know Bush was a bad president because of his "no child left behind" BS. I know Bush is a bad president because of his "lame duck" appearance during hurricane Katrina. I know this all because he was president for the last 8years and I along with millions of others saw this presidency performance for ourselves.

I dont know whether Hillary is a bad president because she hasnt been elected as president. I think it would be hypercritical for your average republican to act in such a bigotry manner when it comes to the truth about this Iraq war and Bushs perfornmance as president over the last eight years yet prepared to make assumptions over Hillarys performance as president despite her never beind elected.

Atleast with liberals we are prepared to look at both the positives and negatives of a presidential candidate whether right wing or left wing. When it comes to many conservatives its always the "oh he/shes a liberal so we will just look at the negatives". Its funny how liberals are always the ones to unite the country yet many conservatives always intend to seperate the nation. Its the "My way or the highway" attitude with alot of you.

So lets again compare Bushs presidential performance with Hillary.
Is Hillary a worse president than bush?

Bush
Negatives
Iraq war: 5years down the track and theres still no talk of a withdraw of troops because the war is still that bad. The war was illigal and a bad move in the first place.
Hurricane Katrina
No child left behind
Church and state as one

Hillary Clinton:
Oh wait, she hasnt been elected president yet has she? So how can I talk?

You know I would have understood if these comments were about her and her stances as a presidential candidate but the fact many of you are calling her a bad president? A little to soon dont you think? Maybe you should wait and actually see how she performs. Maybe many republicans can start posting such comments towards Bush, the real issue here, right now. Theres no need to protect him because his a republican, in my opinion his administration messed over some good republicans aswell, not just liberals.

I know for sure that Bush was a bad president because of his and his administrations war on Iraq. I know Bush was a bad president because of his "no child left behind" BS. I know Bush is a bad president because of his "lame duck" appearance during hurricane Katrina. I know this all because he was president for the last 8years and I along with millions of others saw this presidency performance for ourselves.

I dont know whether Hillary is a bad president because she hasnt been elected as president. I think it would be hypercritical for your average republican to act in such a bigotry manner when it comes to the truth about this Iraq war and Bushs perfornmance as president over the last eight years yet prepared to make assumptions over Hillarys performance as president despite her never beind elected.

Atleast with liberals we are prepared to look at both the positives and negatives of a presidential candidate whether right wing or left wing. When it comes to many conservatives its always the "oh he/shes a liberal so we will just look at the negatives". Its funny how liberals are always the ones to unite the country yet many conservatives always intend to seperate the nation. Its the "My way or the highway" attitude with alot of you.

So lets again compare Bushs presidential performance with Hillary.
Is Hillary a worse president than bush?

Bush
Negatives
Iraq war: 5years down the track and theres still no talk of a withdraw of troops because the war is still that bad. The war was illigal and a bad move in the first place.
Hurricane Katrina
No child left behind
Church and state as one

Hillary Clinton:
Oh wait, she hasnt been elected president yet has she? So how can I talk?

You know I would have understood if these comments were about her and her stances as a presidential candidate but the fact many of you are calling her a bad president? A little to soon dont you think? Maybe you should wait and actually see how she performs. Maybe many republicans can start posting such comments towards Bush, the real issue here, right now. Theres no need to protect him because his a republican, in my opinion his administration messed over some good republicans aswell, not just liberals.

I think you've misunderstood something. The point of this thread is predicting whether she will be as bad as Bush or not. If Hillary had already served as President, posing such a question would be pointless.

Furthermore, I hardly think that Church and state are now one, but perhaps you meant that comment in a different way than I interpreted it.
Your statements about liberals and conservatives seem like sweeping generalizations to me.
No Child Left Behind's success is debatable. Bush believed it's important to have nationwide standards for teaching. He also got the desired effect: test scores went up. However, he made the mistake of assuming that it's possible to make something good out of the public education system. He's kind of dumb that way.

I'm not sure, I hear she might leave a small force of troops in Iraq.......

That is why I do not watch T.V.



Indeed. Even if we win and make Iraq a damn paradise, we will still have spent too much money doing it.



To say any president (Andrew Jackson possibly excepted :p) is evil is just obtuse.



Finally, a nation after my own heart. :') It is like saying one needs to be moral to be a good plumber. Have you read anything by Machiavelli?

I thought Andrew Jackson was rather interesting, ever hear about his duel?

I agree about the cost of the war.

And yes, I have read Machiavelli, quite closely in fact (had to do it for AP Euro, and teacher is super demanding).

a) http://www.nypost.com/seven/02032007/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_iraq_poll_icy_editorials_.htm

b) If we come out of the war with oil, with a stable democratic Iraqi government, and with a footprint in that dangerous part of the world (between Iran and Syria, where a U.S. presence could be vital later) then the Iraq war will have paid off. We'll be better than we would be without the war.

c) http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm

d) Call it what you want then. Both Bill and Hillary have broken the law. Hillary will use her power for selfish ends.

We won't be getting oil.

They've broken the law? I want links.

Anyways, have you ever ...

jay-walked?
driven over a speed limit?
gotten music from file sharing?
made a digital copy of a disk you own?
smoked weed?
done other drugs?
smoked tobacco before you're 21?
drank alcohol before you're 21?
watched porn before you're 18?

If you've done any of these things, then you've broken the law, and you're being quite hypocritical.

An optimist, eh?

Actually, I tend to be pessimistic, when you expect the worst, you're usually pleasantly surprised.

I have only one thing to say:

Is it 2008 yet?

I have only one thing to say:

Is it 2008 yet?

Another 24 hours my friend.

Yeah. Then the rest of the nation...metropolitan, seaside, mountains, deserts, bayou, bay and blacktop ALL get to have a very important culling process handled by Iowa. Iowa, an almost monochromatic state. I don't understand my country sometimes.

no hillary won't be as bad as bush, or at least not in the same ways. and it is those ways that are most of the problem. so she will be at least some slight improvement.

now if anyone who was really worth a dam stood a snowflakes chance we wouldn't be discussing hillary, or even obama, but kusenich, gravel, and maaaaybe ron paul, or that leader of the black women's congressional anti-war caucus, maxine waters, or someone, anyone, outside of the circlejerk of the corporate mafia.

i don't know, i think maybe enough people really are enough pissed that they really would go for someone who wasn't predigested, bought and paid for by major corporate economic intrests. if and when we ever get a chance to.

but how likely is it that we ever will?

given the choices that we DO have, well i won't expect myracles from any of them, but as long as it isn't another white male republitard, they'd have to work at it to be as bad or worse then shrubbery the simple.

=^^=
.../\...

I thought Andrew Jackson was rather interesting, ever hear about his duel?

Yes. You must also remember he was behind the "Trail of Tears", and when other branches said he could not move the Indians, what did he do? He did anyway, resulting in thousands of deaths.

He also got a few strings pulled to get Davy Crockett thrown out of politics. Everyone hated it.

I agree about the cost of the war.

Everyone should remember it.

And yes, I have read Machiavelli, quite closely in fact (had to do it for AP Euro, and teacher is super demanding).

He was the greatest political theorist in my mind. Especially with his Discourses.

They've broken the law? I want links.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

Whoops. Oh, well.


Actually, I tend to be pessimistic, when you expect the worst, you're usually pleasantly surprised.

If you beleive a revolution will do anything, then you are optimistic by my standards. ;)

Meh. Bush has done stupid-spoiled-rich-kid-lawbreaking. He's an idiot. The closest thing to a defense that I'll give him is that he's not quite as bad as popular culture and media portrays him.
I've already provided links on terrible things the Clintons have done. If you keep asking for a link, I can keep providing new ones (there's no shortage of sites with Clinton information. If you've ever heard of a site called Google, give it a whirl ;) ) but I doubt that will satisfy you. I think that every time we come to a point where we're discussing the Clintons' wrongdoings, you'll once again act surprised and demand proof.
The Clintons have broken the law in ways that should put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Vince Foster's death was overwhelmingly suspicious, and the man in Arkansas who sent him his information died shortly after in an unsolved murder.
Furthermore, Hillary was in possession of stolen FBI files on 900 registered Republicans (that one's called "Filegate." Once you solve the mysteries of Google, type that in).
Any moron can drive drunk, but only a true Nixon would do what the Clintons have had the balls to do. Somehow, I think murder and theft of FBI files are deeds slightly less desirable in a president than "driving while tipsy."

We won't be getting oil.

They've broken the law? I want links.

Anyways, have you ever ...

jay-walked?
driven over a speed limit?
gotten music from file sharing?
made a digital copy of a disk you own?
smoked weed?
done other drugs?
smoked tobacco before you're 21?
drank alcohol before you're 21?
watched porn before you're 18?

If you've done any of these things, then you've broken the law, and you're being quite hypocritical.



Eeyah. I've never had anyone murdered.
If Bill watched porn when he was a youngeon (nah, he probably had plenty of available classmates to deflower), then I wouldn't criticize him for that. Same for smoking, drinking, anything like that. And I'd extend that understanding to Hillary as well (since she's the topic under discussion, after all). But both of them have done worse things than violate age limits.
Anyway, I would like to know where people get the idea that we aren't going to get any oil out of Iraq. Considering that liberals once spouted how Bush was only going to Iraq for oil, it seems that everyone should agree on this. I'd like a link that proves we aren't getting any oil from Iraq, cuz last I heard, it was the second most oil-rich country after Saudi Arabia.

Yes. You must also remember he was behind the "Trail of Tears", and when other branches said he could not move the Indians, what did he do? He did anyway, resulting in thousands of deaths.

He also got a few strings pulled to get Davy Crockett thrown out of politics. Everyone hated it.



Everyone should remember it.



He was the greatest political theorist in my mind. Especially with his Discourses.



http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

Whoops. Oh, well.




If you beleive a revolution will do anything, then you are optimistic by my standards. ;)

I know about the rest of AJ's story, just saying he was interesting.

Machiavelli was good on somethings, but I actually found myself criticizing some of his proposed policies a lot. I had to do like a 200 entry dialectical journal followed by a 2 page essay over The Prince, so I figured I might as well make him look bad.

Well, I was asking Isle for some stuff on Clinton, but I guess this helps put things in perspective.

I think a revolution would be entertaining, if nothing else, so why not?

Based on political pressures from inside her party, I can't really see Hillary launching a "pre-emptive" war that will result in the deaths of over 100,000 people and plunge an entire nation into chaos. Based on these same political pressures, I can't see her attempting to usurp the power of the judiciary or the legislature with signing statements and warrantless wiretapping (which she has opposed since Bush admitted he was doing so).

In addition, based on her long-term actions both as a private individual and a public figure, I can't see her giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while utterly ignoring the growing number of people in poverty. I also can't see her utterly ignoring the 10 million children without health insurance, especially when considering her role in starting up SCHIP. To expand on that, I can't see her ignoring the 50 million people without health insurance, and the millions more who have seen their lives destroyed when their insurance companies decided that paying for their customers' medical treatments would affect their bottom lines.

Hmmm...what else? I really can't see her vetoing legislation for medical research that has the potential to save millions of lives. I can't see her giving rise to homophobia by making a federal political issue out of denying martial benefits to homosexuals.

Really, anyone who thinks Hillary could even be close to being as bad as Bush has clearly grown numb to the anger he or she once felt towards that sick, sad son of a bitch. She might not be great, she may have some scandals of her own, but I can't see her committing any of the aforementioned sins.

Eeyah. I've never had anyone murdered.
If Bill watched porn when he was a youngeon (nah, he probably had plenty of available classmates to deflower), then I wouldn't criticize him for that. Same for smoking, drinking, anything like that. And I'd extend that understanding to Hillary as well (since she's the topic under discussion, after all). But both of them have done worse things than violate age limits.
Anyway, I would like to know where people get the idea that we aren't going to get any oil out of Iraq. Considering that liberals once spouted how Bush was only going to Iraq for oil, it seems that everyone should agree on this. I'd like a link that proves we aren't getting any oil from Iraq, cuz last I heard, it was the second most oil-rich country after Saudi Arabia.

Well, there are three main ways things are going down.

A) As we invaded, many of the oil wells were destroyed, burnt, etc.

B) The government is inefficient, and there's a lot of conflict, makes business less profitable.

C) Even if we got oil, that would mean that there's a greater monopoly by global corporations, and less competition. Prices won't be going down, only up.

Eeyah. I've never had anyone murdered.
If Bill watched porn when he was a youngeon (nah, he probably had plenty of available classmates to deflower), then I wouldn't criticize him for that. Same for smoking, drinking, anything like that. And I'd extend that understanding to Hillary as well (since she's the topic under discussion, after all). But both of them have done worse things than violate age limits.
Anyway, I would like to know where people get the idea that we aren't going to get any oil out of Iraq. Considering that liberals once spouted how Bush was only going to Iraq for oil, it seems that everyone should agree on this. I'd like a link that proves we aren't getting any oil from Iraq, cuz last I heard, it was the second most oil-rich country after Saudi Arabia.

I'll try and find a link, meanwhile I gave you some logic on why we won't be getting that much oil, and why it won't be cheap.

Still haven't proven they murdered anyone.

I know about the rest of AJ's story, just saying he was interesting.

Oh, he was. I also find Cardinal Richelieu interesting and there is a girl in my fencing class who thinks Robespierre is interesting as can be.

Machiavelli was good on somethings, but I actually found myself criticizing some of his proposed policies a lot. I had to do like a 200 entry dialectical journal followed by a 2 page essay over The Prince, so I figured I might as well make him look bad.


Mostly it had to do with his opinions on how things can be done, with how he thinks they should be done. He writes on how to overthrow democracy, but says that democracy is without a doubt the best government.

Well, I was asking Isle for some stuff on Clinton, but I guess this helps put things in perspective.

Just so.

I think a revolution would be entertaining, if nothing else, so why not?

It might be a chance for me to grab power...hm.

I'd like a link that proves we aren't getting any oil from Iraq, cuz last I heard, it was the second most oil-rich country after Saudi Arabia.

No, Russia is; but that is beside the point. We are not thieves. That is like asking for a link that proves Bush did not steal Osama's condoms and provoke 9/11.

I want a link that proves we are getting oil.

Hillary, along with Bush most of the other Demicans and Republocrats, is affiliated with the Counsel on Foreign Relations. As such, she will perhaps speak differently, but she will not make any major policy changes regarding foreign policy or act to return our rights that have been stolen over the past few generations. Ron Paul has my vote because he consults the Constitution prior to every vote, he stands opposed to the North American Union, and he will return us to a limited government with as much power as possible retstored to the states and the people as required by amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights.

Oh, he was. I also find Cardinal Richelieu interesting and there is a girl in my fencing class who thinks Robespierre is interesting as can be.


Mostly it had to do with his opinions on how things can be done, with how he thinks they should be done. He writes on how to overthrow democracy, but says that democracy is without a doubt the best government.


Just so.



It might be a chance for me to grab power...hm.

Robespierre was interesting, the crazy ones always are.

Well, he doesn't have a near millenium of extra history to go through, so some of his projections kind of fail. And from my translation, I think he used absolutes too much (never, always, etc.). I do like the end, though it's kind of saddening, he's basically pleading to someone to save Italy.

Not while I'm getting power.:)

http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/

Check that link out. It's actually got some interesting stuff on it.

As for the oil issue, Hillary Clinton herself seems to think we ARE getting oil in Iraq:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senators_Clinton_Ensign_ask_Bush_to_1218.html

As for my comment about Iraq being the second richest country in oil, apologies. They're actually third. My mistake.

Hillary Clinton will be end of the US Empire. I guarantee it. We're so many trillions of dollars in debt and instead of trying to fix it, SHE WANTS TO MAKE IT WORSE. She wants to put up so many new social programs none of us will ever have to work, the government will just pay for everything. So then we'll be socialist AND the government will be a bigillion dollars in debt. AND she doesn't even want to get us out of Iraq immediately, Iraq being what most of OUR income goes to. I promise you, if she is elected, within 6 years, America will fall. In the first year we will have another great depression. Then we will be invaded by terrorists or something since all of our military is in Iraq. And the U.S. as we know it will cease to exist. Many of us will aswell most likely.

RON PAUL 2008 - HOPE FOR AMERICA

Anyway, I would like to know where people get the idea that we aren't going to get any oil out of Iraq. Considering that liberals once spouted how Bush was only going to Iraq for oil, it seems that everyone should agree on this. I'd like a link that proves we aren't getting any oil from Iraq, cuz last I heard, it was the second most oil-rich country after Saudi Arabia.

It depends on what you mean by "we." US companies are getting contracts to exploit (in the normal business sense) Iraqi oil. At present, that isn't a very profitable business ... but Rumsfeld et al either hadn't forseen such a long civil war, or considered a longer-term strategy. "We" in the sense of "western oil consumers" are getting about the same amount of oil from Iraq than "we" did when Saddam was in power, even with oil sanctions in place.

One of the problems with analyzing the motives of the US in deposing Saddam is that they screwed it up so bad that the intentions are probably not coming to fruition, ever. But it wasn't WMD or self-defense, it wasn't democracy, and it wasn't creating stability and safety in the world. That leaves one motive: destabilizing the region so some oil-rich nations will be reliant on US arms to protect them, thus giving the US first option on their oil even in a future where China may be able to pay more for it.

Only the most rabid of anti-WTO protestors claimed the invasion of Iraq was a blatant attempt to steal oil. The history we're living in is more complicated than that ... so don't characterize the opposition to the war as "liberals spout such and such" ... strawman fallacy that.

This is my opinion on how the war in Iraq relates to the United States' economic interests. I think it is defensible, though not being an economics expert there may be some flaws.

The War in Iraq was a convenient way for the United States to defend its economic supremacy under the time-honoured guise of proliferating freedom and democracy. At the turn of the century, the United States was seeing the first real threat to said economic supremacy in the form of the euro. For decades, the dollar had served as a safeguard to the American economy; even though the United States possesses the largest national debt of any country in the world, no nation or even confederation of nations would dare collect on that debt, for fear that the dollar would collapse, and the wealth of investors around the world. But while no single European note had ever managed to supplant the dollar, the euro had (has) several characteristics that would be make it more attractive to the international investor: its slow inflation rate, its accessibility, and (projected from the start, official as of 2006) greater cumulative value.

Were OPEC, or a similar entity, to abandon the dollar in favour of the euro, nothing less would be at stake than the supremacy of the United States among world economic powers. The solution? Subvert one nation into total economic, militaristic, and infrastructural dependence, as an expedient to securing that nation's trade and serving as an example to other nations. The United States has never been afraid to exert military force to protect its economic assets (see: Mossadegh, Panama 1989, the attempted overthrow of Hugo Chavez in 2002), but it has preferred to operate subtly, under the reliable disguise of benevolence. Saddam Hussein's regime, while far from being the largest threat to human well-being when compared to the far greater atrocities occuring at the same time in Liberia and Darfur, was a convenient scapegoat due to his familiarity to Americans for his use of weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s and early 1990s. The lack of actual evidence for a WMD program in Iraq was a small obstacle for the administration, who orchestrated a massive misinformation campaign to convince the American public that Saddam was a threat to their very safety and well-being.

The invasion has been a roaring success in this regard. By giving American corporations ownership of Iraqi pipelines, Iraq no longer has any choice but to trade with the United States. The Iraqi infrastructure has fallen into permanent disarray, as has its political stability; as a result, the Iraqi government has become totally dependent on the United States in both regards. OPEC is broken.

Any moron can drive drunk, but only a true Nixon would do what the Clintons have had the balls to do. Somehow, I think murder and theft of FBI files are deeds slightly less desirable in a president than "driving while tipsy."

Do you think the only thing that bush did was drive drunk? He started a fucking war that
1) creates more danger in the future for your country.
2) Spend your money on it
3) Killed countless Iraqi civilians
4) Killed Your Soldiers

What we know that Bush has done is far worse then what you have not proved the Clintons did and only concluded that it was suspicious.

I'm not supporting her, but for a different reason.

I pretty much agree with her issue stances. And I'd have a lot less trouble voting for her than, say, McCain, Huckabee or the other Republican with two first names.

My reason for not supporting her is that her Presidency would be a continuation of the Clinton-Bush headlock that's been going on for the past twenty years. Assuming Hillary gets in and has at least a four-year run, that would be an *entire* American generation where the White House was held by two families.

This is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy.

For those who are preparing to ask the question, "So if she'd waited a couple election cycles, you'd vote for her?" — Yes, I would. But I'm not now.

Holy crap, if someone's last name influences who you vote for, I think you have some issues. I mean, you should vote for whatever candidate you believe stands most for your principles and beliefs, regardless of who they're married/related to. It sounds as though you support Hillary, so why not vote for her?

Probably worse but in different ways.

Do you think the only thing that bush did was drive drunk? He started a fucking war that
1) creates more danger in the future for your country.
2) Spend your money on it
3) Killed countless Iraqi civilians
4) Killed Your Soldiers

What we know that Bush has done is far worse then what you have not proved the Clintons did and only concluded that it was suspicious.

If you want to lead this discussion in circles, we can, but we've gone over this before. I've addressed those points and clearly you don't see things the way I do.
War kills people. Don't be shocked.
Use of the f word doesn't make your argument more potent.
If you agree that Vince Foster's death was suspicious, then at least we have a start. One of the points I'd like to make is that not only did Hillary have Foster murdered, but she's able to pull enough strings to get away with it, which is enough for me to think that she's been involved in some other nefarious activities.
She accepted campaign money from wanted fugitives and stole FBI files on her opponents. That is a fact I will prove with news links.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

These are two more sites that lead me to believe Iraq has plenty of oil that is of great use to the United States. If Iraq can be stabilized and rebuilt, we will have a significant presence in the area, enough that we can begin seriously tapping Iraq's largely untapped potential. In addition, we'll have a very useful position between Iran and Syria, which, seeing the way things are going now (and the way Hillary's steering them), may very well be useful in the future.
Whatever logical argument Zayun2 is preparing, it'll have to stack up to that.
The only argument posted against me so far that I've found even remotely worth addressing is Nobel Hobos'. You brought up some very interesting points, sir, and I'd like to be enlightened as to how you drew some of your conclusions.
I'd like to know how I used a strawman fallacy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-08-29-fundraiser_N.htm

There's a credible news source verifying my claim that Hillary accepted stolen campaign money. I know that the obvious rebuttal is: "She's giving the money away to charity!" but I hardly think that clears up the issue.
After accepting the amount of money that she did, it's difficult for me to believe that she didn't realize she was accepting it from a criminal.
If a man robs a bank and gives you the money, and you accept it, you will not be let off the hook. If you say: "I didn't know it was stolen!" that will hardly hold up in court. If you say: "I'll just give it away to charity," you'll probably still be facing jailtime. You're not giving it back to the people you stole it from.

As a New Yorker, I will say that Hillary would certainly be as bad as Bush in not representing the people. She has not done so as a Senator so I see absolutely no reason why she would do so as President.

If you want to lead this discussion in circles, we can, but we've gone over this before. I've addressed those points and clearly you don't see things the way I do.
War kills people. Don't be shocked.
Use of the f word doesn't make your argument more potent.
If you agree that Vince Foster's death was suspicious, then at least we have a start. One of the points I'd like to make is that not only did Hillary have Foster murdered, but she's able to pull enough strings to get away with it, which is enough for me to think that she's been involved in some other nefarious activities.
She accepted campaign money from wanted fugitives and stole FBI files on her opponents. That is a fact I will prove with news links.
Wow. If she could get away with all that she is fairly competent. She also has that ruthless edge I admire in a ruler. I was not planning on voting for her before, but now....

Wow. If she could get away with all that she is fairly competent. She also has that ruthless edge I admire in a ruler. I was not planning on voting for her before, but now....

Plenty of ruthless people have gotten away with all kinds of worse offenses than Hillary.
Stalin and Hitler (who were actually pretty clever politically) have gotten away with some really bad things. Kim Jong-Il, who I doubt is more competent a leader than you or me, has a similar ruthless edge.
OJ Simpson got off for murdering his wife. I would hardly elect him to office.
Being president takes more than JUST being a total bitch. Please keep that in mind before you vote ;)

On top of that, it's Bill's power and money that usually gets Hillary off the hook. She's not clever in any sense of the word, which is why he's had to step in and start running her campaign.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

These are two more sites that lead me to believe Iraq has plenty of oil that is of great use to the United States. If Iraq can be stabilized and rebuilt, we will have a significant presence in the area, enough that we can begin seriously tapping Iraq's largely untapped potential. In addition, we'll have a very useful position between Iran and Syria, which, seeing the way things are going now (and the way Hillary's steering them), may very well be useful in the future.
Whatever logical argument Zayun2 is preparing, it'll have to stack up to that.
The only argument posted against me so far that I've found even remotely worth addressing is Nobel Hobos'. You brought up some very interesting points, sir, and I'd like to be enlightened as to how you drew some of your conclusions.
I'd like to know how I used a strawman fallacy.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

We spend 275 million per day. When is the fucking oil going to be worth that much? Consider this, we are not having a large profit from the oil now, but we are incurring great costs constantly. You cannot even remotely justify this policy. This is billions of dollars we're talking about, and thousands, if not millions of lives. Oil isn't even going to be helping us directly, it will go to some corporation, and increase their profits. For this war to be even remotely justifiable (and it never will be), we're going to need a whole lot of fucking oil. And even then, you'll never be able to justify the lives that are lost. There's no way you can claim that this war has saved more lives than it has taken.

A position between Iran and Syria, hurray! What a bargain, 275 million a day, thousands of lives, and we get to keep a nice strategic position. Then we can spend even more money and take more lives, how useful!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-08-29-fundraiser_N.htm

There's a credible news source verifying my claim that Hillary accepted stolen campaign money. I know that the obvious rebuttal is: "She's giving the money away to charity!" but I hardly think that clears up the issue.
After accepting the amount of money that she did, it's difficult for me to believe that she didn't realize she was accepting it from a criminal.
If a man robs a bank and gives you the money, and you accept it, you will not be let off the hook. If you say: "I didn't know it was stolen!" that will hardly hold up in court. If you say: "I'll just give it away to charity," you'll probably still be facing jailtime. You're not giving it back to the people you stole it from.

If I'm on the campaign trail, am I going to have a background check on everyone that supports me?

On top of that, it's Bill's power and money that usually gets Hillary off the hook. She's not clever in any sense of the word, which is why he's had to step in and start running her campaign.

Ever heard of Karl Rove or George Bush (the senior)? I rest my case.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

We spend 275 million per day. When is the fucking oil going to be worth that much? Consider this, we are not having a large profit from the oil now, but we are incurring great costs constantly. You cannot even remotely justify this policy. This is billions of dollars we're talking about, and thousands, if not millions of lives. Oil isn't even going to be helping us directly, it will go to some corporation, and increase their profits. For this war to be even remotely justifiable (and it never will be), we're going to need a whole lot of fucking oil. And even then, you'll never be able to justify the lives that are lost. There's no way you can claim that this war has saved more lives than it has taken.

A position between Iran and Syria, hurray! What a bargain, 275 million a day, thousands of lives, and we get to keep a nice strategic position. Then we can spend even more money and take more lives, how useful!



If I'm on the campaign trail, am I going to have a background check on everyone that supports me?



Ever heard of Karl Rove or George Bush (the senior)? I rest my case.

Money is a number. The U.S. is already in deep debt as it is. Oil, however, is one thing that no one will ever make any more of, and is a vital, indispensable commodity. Someday, we will run out of oil. Oil is a necessity that is more valuable to the United States than money. And when calculating the cost of the war, you can't factor in the cost of weapons/training that we use even in times of peace. It costs millions of dollars a year to keep our troops overseas in places like Germany and France, but we do it anyway and no one complains. Don't inflate the numbers.

As for your campaign trail question... yeah, if you're smart, you'll keep damn good tabs on the people who give you large sums of money. Now, I admit, Hillary is NOT smart, but her ability to steal files on 900 Republicans shows that she's still not incapable of gathering information. All she had to do was Google the damn guy and she'd know all she needed to.

Hmm... maybe I want a link proving that Karl Rove and George Sr. are running the country for Dubya. No, I'm kidding. I won't play the game where you have to verify every unfounded attack with a link (just because I have to post a link to back up my every word).
If anything, saying that Rove/Bush Sr./Cheney/Whoever are the people responsible for making Bush's decisions, then that takes blame off Bush, and earns him points. Of course, you'd have to be vastly irresponsible to let other people run the presidency for you, but then, Hillary's looking like she's about to do the same thing (and she already is, with her campaign), so you can hardly criticize Bush for it, can you? No. That would be hypocritical.
In any case, I don't think that Karl Rove, who has resigned, is responsible for Bush's decisions. Nor do I think that George, Sr., whose old age seems to have made him incapable of speech and movement, is the mind behind George Bush. I also dismiss Dick Cheney, who I'm sure was next on your list. He's simply not around enough. He's off hunting. He doesn't have the time to spread PAIN and SUFFERING to Iraq, killing the innocent and burning buildings and trampling flowers, bwahahahahahahaha. I have my doubts as to whether or not he even thinks about his job.
Besides, Bill's had to officially step in and save Hillary's campaign himself. Bush hasn't fallen so far that either of the people you've mentioned have had to officially step in as President, has he? Didn't think so.
Rest your case all you want :p

Oh, and I don't think there's any need for me to remind any of you that Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq, or that it looks like she's about to make the same "mistake" with Iran.
But... well, I guess I just did.

Only the most rabid of anti-WTO protestors claimed the invasion of Iraq was a blatant attempt to steal oil. The history we're living in is more complicated than that ... so don't characterize the opposition to the war as "liberals spout such and such" ... strawman fallacy that.

Throw the BBC in with that rabid lot:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

I hope the rest of the English-speaking world is taking notes. The BBC is officially rabid. Let's not be trusting them.

Bush at least cares to pretend, once in a while, not to be a total asshole and to have non-negative reasons. Hillary doesn't even care to do that much.

We'll never find out, because the only way she (or Bubba, for that matter) will ever see the inside of the White House again is as a paying tourist. If the Donkocrats even nominate her, she'll crash and burn come November and that'll be the end of the would-be Clinton Dynasty.

Vote Rudy '08!

Oh, and I don't think there's any need for me to remind any of you that Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq, or that it looks like she's about to make the same "mistake" with Iran.
But... well, I guess I just did.

Which just shows that even a broken clock is right twice a day ;)

Which just shows that even a broken clock is right twice a day ;)

*chuckles* Funny. :D

[QUOTE=Zayun2;13335586]http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

We spend 275 million per day. When is the fucking oil going to be worth that much? Consider this, we are not having a large profit from the oil now, but we are incurring great costs constantly. You cannot even remotely justify this policy. This is billions of dollars we're talking about, and thousands, if not millions of lives. Oil isn't even going to be helping us directly, it will go to some corporation, and increase their profits. For this war to be even remotely justifiable (and it never will be), we're going to need a whole lot of fucking oil. And even then, you'll never be able to justify the lives that are lost. There's no way you can claim that this war has saved more lives than it has taken.

A position between Iran and Syria, hurray! What a bargain, 275 million a day, thousands of lives, and we get to keep a nice strategic position. Then we can spend even more money and take more lives, how useful!

[QUOTE]

I believe it was you who said that morality means nothing in politics and is usually used by hypocrites. If that's the case, then what do the lives of the Iraqis even matter? Each one is just another potential terrorist blocking our path to the oil.
Without morality, what do you mean by "justifiable"? Who cares if people die? The U.S. isn't underpopulated. We have plenty of people. We can afford to lose a few in the name of winning a war and gaining oil. They're soldiers, after all, we're paying them. If a wise leader is an amoral leader, then we should just start bombing indiscriminately.
See what happens when you throw morality out the door?
And when we go to war with Iran (and eventually we will) you have no idea how many lives our foothold in Iraq might save. Don't say I can't claim that this war will save more lives than have been lost. We don't have time for you to pretend to know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Zayun2;13335586]http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

We spend 275 million per day. When is the fucking oil going to be worth that much? Consider this, we are not having a large profit from the oil now, but we are incurring great costs constantly. You cannot even remotely justify this policy. This is billions of dollars we're talking about, and thousands, if not millions of lives. Oil isn't even going to be helping us directly, it will go to some corporation, and increase their profits. For this war to be even remotely justifiable (and it never will be), we're going to need a whole lot of fucking oil. And even then, you'll never be able to justify the lives that are lost. There's no way you can claim that this war has saved more lives than it has taken.

A position between Iran and Syria, hurray! What a bargain, 275 million a day, thousands of lives, and we get to keep a nice strategic position. Then we can spend even more money and take more lives, how useful!

[QUOTE]

I believe it was you who said that morality means nothing in politics and is usually used by hypocrites. If that's the case, then what do the lives of the Iraqis even matter? Each one is just another potential terrorist blocking our path to the oil.
Without morality, what do you mean by "justifiable"? Who cares if people die? The U.S. isn't underpopulated. We have plenty of people. We can afford to lose a few in the name of winning a war and gaining oil. They're soldiers, after all, we're paying them. If a wise leader is an amoral leader, then we should just start bombing indiscriminately.
See what happens when you throw morality out the door?
And when we go to war with Iran (and eventually we will) you have no idea how many lives our foothold in Iraq might save. Don't say I can't claim that this war will save more lives than have been lost. We don't have time for you to pretend to know what you're talking about.

The loss of lives is also bad objectively in this sort of war. It gives anyone who opposes us more firepower, more evidence. They have something to point to and say "This is why the US is bad". Deaths simply cannot help us in this sort of war, whether you look at it subjectively or objectively.

And no a wise leader is not necessarily an amoral leader, but one that is willing to go against their morals if necessary.

As for Iran, it would be a huge mistake to go to war. All the problems we have in Iraq, except much worse. Iraq is divided between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds (I think they're generally Sunnis). There's a lot of infighting, which is part of the reason why our casualties are so low. There's going to be much more unity if are to attack Iran. Honestly, how is this war going to save our 700000 lives?

Oh, and I don't think there's any need for me to remind any of you that Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq, or that it looks like she's about to make the same "mistake" with Iran.
But... well, I guess I just did.

One of the things I dislike about her, but I don't think she'd have been foolish enough to attack had she been in office, nor do I think she will attack Iran.

We'll never find out, because the only way she (or Bubba, for that matter) will ever see the inside of the White House again is as a paying tourist. If the Donkocrats even nominate her, she'll crash and burn come November and that'll be the end of the would-be Clinton Dynasty.

Vote Rudy '08!

Question, since Hillary is easily the most right of any of the Democratic candidates, why the hell do ya'll hate her so much?

I mean, I know why I don't like her, but the vitriol I see from the right side of the room seems unwarranted. Hell she mostly votes like you guys anyway.

Bush isn't the sharpest knife in the draw. Hillary is smarter than him, and she'll make decisions because, well just listen to her. She takes credit for stuff shes never even done. Off course she'll be worse than Bush.

Question, since Hillary is easily the most right of any of the Democratic candidates, why the hell do ya'll hate her so much?

I mean, I know why I don't like her, but the vitriol I see from the right side of the room seems unwarranted. Hell she mostly votes like you guys anyway.
The Clintons are both guilty of something the Republicans can never forgive them for: beating Republicans.

The Clintons are both guilty of something the Republicans can never forgive them for: beating Republicans.

That's worthy of a sig.

[QUOTE=Isle de Tortue;13336126][QUOTE=Zayun2;13335586]

The loss of lives is also bad objectively in this sort of war. It gives anyone who opposes us more firepower, more evidence. They have something to point to and say "This is why the US is bad". Deaths simply cannot help us in this sort of war, whether you look at it subjectively or objectively.

And no a wise leader is not necessarily an amoral leader, but one that is willing to go against their morals if necessary.

As for Iran, it would be a huge mistake to go to war. All the problems we have in Iraq, except much worse. Iraq is divided between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds (I think they're generally Sunnis). There's a lot of infighting, which is part of the reason why our casualties are so low. There's going to be much more unity if are to attack Iran. Honestly, how is this war going to save our 700000 lives?

Terrorists have and will continue to attack us for whatever reason seems best to them. 9-11 was motivated by our involvement with Saudi Arabia. We're not ending our friendship with them anytime soon. Terrorists hate Western civilization in general, and always will until some very major change occurs, or until one culture is effectively destroyed. I don't care why they SAY they attack us, I care why they attack us. People who turn to terrorism as a result of the Iraq War are people who would have become terrorists anyway. And besides, thinking about it without any ethical guidance, any number of the innocent civilians we kill could've been terrorists we just hadn't discovered yet. What are you worried about?

When you say that they will go against their morals when necessary, you should define "necessary." Both Bill and Hillary are willing to lie to save their own asses and further their own ends. Hillary's willing to accept stolen money and steal FBI property. In a way, it's necessary. Necessary to ensure she becomes president. But is it for the good of the country? We'll talk about that.

Are you citing the fact that Iran presents a more united front against us as a reason that we are going to sustain heavier losses? I think you'll find, if you look in history, that countries that are united against the U.S. are the ones that last the shortest against us. It's wars like Iraq and Vietnam, where the good guys and the bad guys are indistinguishable, that we have trouble.
Strategic positioning between Iran and Syria will be a monumental asset when the Iran war begins. And it will begin.

Hillary Clinton will be end of the US Empire. I guarantee it. We're so many trillions of dollars in debt and instead of trying to fix it, SHE WANTS TO MAKE IT WORSE. She wants to put up so many new social programs none of us will ever have to work, the government will just pay for everything. So then we'll be socialist AND the government will be a bigillion dollars in debt. AND she doesn't even want to get us out of Iraq immediately, Iraq being what most of OUR income goes to. I promise you, if she is elected, within 6 years, America will fall. In the first year we will have another great depression. Then we will be invaded by terrorists or something since all of our military is in Iraq. And the U.S. as we know it will cease to exist. Many of us will aswell most likely.

RON PAUL 2008 - HOPE FOR AMERICA

I give you...the average Ron Paul supporter.

She won't be as bad. She'll be worse. MUCH worse.

*snip*
And it will begin.

Why? If the Iraq war was seen as a huge success, there might be some mandate in the US for a considerably nastier campaign in Iran. It isn't, and there won't be.

Perhaps some bombing or assassinations. Not the overthrow of Iranian government and the establishment of a puppet regime. If you think that will happen, explain why because it would seem to be hugely self-destructive on the US's part to do that.

And perhaps you'd like to comment on North Korea. Iran is a lot more democratic than DPRK.

Why? If the Iraq war was seen as a huge success, there might be some mandate in the US for a considerably nastier campaign in Iran. It isn't, and there won't be.

Perhaps some bombing or assassinations. Not the overthrow of Iranian government and the establishment of a puppet regime. If you think that will happen, explain why because it would seem to be hugely self-destructive on the US's part to do that.

And perhaps you'd like to comment on North Korea. Iran is a lot more democratic than DPRK.

My reasons for believing we'll invade Iran is that it appears that Hillary is preparing to do so.
And I agree with Parkus Empire- Hillary will probably be the next president.
Before twenty people come to me demanding a link proving that Hillary is about to invade Iran, I'll get on it.
Keep your shirts on, everyone.
Don't worry, I agree with you. I don't think that a war in Iran would be any more justified than the one in Iraq. I don't think we should fight North Korea, either. All I'm saying is that we WILL fight Iran, not that we necessarily should.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/obama.clinton/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

Sound familiar? Granted, she may not be calling Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" yet, but hey, give it time.

My reasons for believing we'll invade Iran is that it appears that Hillary is preparing to do so.If Bill is any indication, there will be no invasion. Bombing runs, but not much of an invasion. Bill didn't send ground forces to Kosovo until after the fighting stopped, and Serbia isn't exactly as powerful as Iran is. Hillary will not be stupid enough to engage in an invasion of a country larger than Iraq, and if she is, Bill will talk her out of it.

If Bill is any indication, there will be no invasion. Bombing runs, but not much of an invasion. Bill didn't send ground forces to Kosovo until after the fighting stopped, and Serbia isn't exactly as powerful as Iran is. Hillary will not be stupid enough to engage in an invasion of a country larger than Iraq, and if she is, Bill will talk her out of it.

Bombing runs? Fighting from the air and not on the ground? Some people I know would call that "mindless destruction."
Shhh, keep your voice down or they'll hear us...

Plenty of ruthless people have gotten away with all kinds of worse offenses than Hillary.
Stalin and Hitler (who were actually pretty clever politically) have gotten away with some really bad things.

Dictatorships make it easy. And mass-killing of the population is so politically senseless they lose any brownie points.

Kim Jong-Il, who I doubt is more competent a leader than you or me, has a similar ruthless edge.

But aimless. See above.

OJ Simpson got off for murdering his wife. I would hardly elect him to office.
Luck. If he did it thrice more (without getting convicted) than I would consider him.

Being president takes more than JUST being a total bitch. Please keep that in mind before you vote ;)
It is still the most important quality.

If Bill is any indication, there will be no invasion. Bombing runs, but not much of an invasion. Bill didn't send ground forces to Kosovo until after the fighting stopped, and Serbia isn't exactly as powerful as Iran is. Hillary will not be stupid enough to engage in an invasion of a country larger than Iraq, and if she is, Bill will talk her out of it.

Please read the link provided on the first page.

Hillary Clinton gets more campaign contributions from military contractors that any other candidate running (Democrat or Republican).

She has fought Bush to put more money into the military.

Bill will talk her out of it.

Har-har-har.

Please read the link provided on the first page.

Hillary Clinton gets more campaign contributions from military contractors that any other candidate running (Democrat or Republican).

She has fought Bush to put more money into the military.
Funding the military means jackshit on how you're going to use it. That doesn't prove she'll make the jack-ass move of actually invading Iran.
Har-har-har.I heartily doubt she's too stupid to hear the advice of a former President of the US. If that were the case, she wouldn't deserve to be elected.

[QUOTE=The Parkus Empire;13338622]Dictatorships make it easy. And mass-killing of the population is so politically senseless they lose any brownie points.

You concede, then, that ruthlessness alone is not enough. Good.

But aimless. See above.

What, then, is Hillary Clinton's aim? Do you think she directs her ruthless bitchiness towards helping the country or helping herself? If what some people on this forum believe (that Bill is the brains behind Hillary) is true, then we might have some indication of how Hillary will use her power. Remember this little gem?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/23/clinton.china/
I can't completely judge Hillary by Bill's actions. But judging by Bill's level of involvement with Hillary's campaign, I think we should take this story into consideration.

Luck. If he did it thrice more (without getting convicted) than I would consider him.

Not luck. A good lawyer. People smarter than him defending him. The ability to play minority cards and call cops racist. Johnnie Cochran misdirected people who were trying to uphold the law, and drew attention from the actual murder case and onto issues like race.
Hillary gets away with murder by having shitloads of money and a husband who's a bullshit artist. Mostly, though, it's shitloads of money. The laws Hillary's broken exist to protect us, not to determine who's competent and who's not.
If Hillary was competent, then the murder of Vince Foster wouldn't have been so obvious.

It is still the most important quality.

I beg you... BEG you... not to vote.

[QUOTE]Funding the military means jackshit on how you're going to use it. That doesn't prove she'll make the jack-ass move of actually invading Iran.

Eh she seems to be setting up for it.

I heartily doubt she's too stupid to hear the advice of a former President of the US. If that were the case, she wouldn't deserve to be elected.

Don't underestimate how stupid she is. Plus, how do we know that Bill doesn't want to go to war with Iran just as much as Hillary?

Eh she seems to be setting up for it.



Don't underestimate how stupid she is. Plus, how do we know that Bill doesn't want to go to war with Iran just as much as Hillary?Bill's learned this lesson from Somalia: Americans hate seeing dead GIs come home. Kosovo saw no major ground operations, and I highly doubt that any military action Hillary approves of will either, unless its absolutely necessary. In that case, however, it's highly likely she'll do everything possible to avoid conflict.

Bill's learned this lesson from Somalia: Americans hate seeing dead GIs come home. Kosovo saw no major ground operations, and I highly doubt that any military action Hillary approves of will either, unless its absolutely necessary. In that case, however, it's highly likely she'll do everything possible to avoid conflict.

Well, we'll have to see if the situation escalates further. You could be right.

Well, we'll have to see if the situation escalates further. You could be right.I could be wrong, too. But I'll base my predictions on how people who will influence her (and whose advice she is likely to heed) have acted in the past.

I beg you... BEG you... not to vote.

Is it not my responsibility? Besides, I will probably be voting third-party.

Hillary certainly will not get my vote if she is unintelligent; but you will need to prove that. From what I have seen, Hillary is fairly smart, though I think her economic policies stink and I am not fond of plunging into another war.

Besides, I will probably be voting third-party.



Likewise. If I vote at all.

Likewise. If I vote at all.

I have to vote. Otherwise I never get a privilege from being an adult. :(

I have to vote. Otherwise I never get a privilege from being an adult. :(

Well I get the privilege of registering for the draft... yipee...:rolleyes: