US political nonsense

TheSuburbanLetdown · Post by **TheSuburbanLetdown** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:23 am

Sick.

Yeahduff · Post by **Yeahduff** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:19 pm

People keep saying that, but I think it's terrible strategy. It's just gonna alienate the base who aren't evangelicals, and force republicans to vote libertarian. Which is not to say we won't see McCain/Huckleberry. I just don't think it's gonna work out.

Paul Escobar · Post by **Paul Escobar** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:30 pm

"Better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in"?

I'm quite pleased you've got it down to Clinton, McCain and Obama as potential presidents. Being non-American, US interior politics are none of my business, but when it comes to foreign and security policy, all three candidates are infinitely better than Bush (and Huckabee and Romney, whose proposed foreign policies are basically extensions of the utter disaster that is Dubya's). So yeah. Whether you end up with Clinton, McCain or Obama, it should be a great improvement. Thumbs up, guys.

Jesusabdullah · Post by **Jesusabdullah** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:08 pm

McCain's pretty warmongerish these days, last I checked. Tru dat re: the democrats though.

Col · Post by **Col** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:22 pm

McCain's better than any of the others though.

Laemkral · Post by **Laemkral** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:24 pm

At least McCain gets that you don't torture the people you capture.

Paul Escobar · Post by **Paul Escobar** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:48 pm

jesusabdullah wrote:McCain's pretty warmongerish these days, last I checked. Tru dat re: the democrats though.

It's very possible I missed out on some nasty bits in McCain's foreign policy ideas. But at least he's on record as being vehemently opposed to the use of torture, detention without trial etc; that whole "raping human rights and fair trials up the butt" thing the Bush administration's got going.

Um, what Laemkral said.

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:20 pm

Remember when everyone said going into Kosovo was a bad idea? McCain said we weren't doing enough and ought to send ground troups in.

Jesusabdullah · Post by **Jesusabdullah** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:37 pm

Also quoted as saying, "there will be other wars," referring to more war in the Middle East unless I was seriously misinterpreting there.

Just out of curiosity, where are you from Mr. Escobar?

Paul Escobar · Post by **Paul Escobar** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:30 pm

jesusabdullah wrote:Also quoted as saying, "there will be other wars," referring to more war in the Middle East unless I was seriously misinterpreting there.

Well, he's probably sadly correct there. The question is, who will instigate those wars, and for which reasons?

jesusabdullah wrote:Just out of curiosity, where are you from Mr. Escobar?

Denmark. Though currently residing in Germany.

I'm sorry to say that my native country was one of the "coalition of the willing" that invaded Iraq.

Jesusabdullah · Post by **Jesusabdullah** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:50 pm

It's possible he just meant that the problem wouldn't just magically go away, but somehow I think he still supports pre-emptive action. :/

The "coalition of the willing" bit reminds me of Chapelle's 'Black Bush' skit. "I got forty nations ready to roll, son!" "Like who?" "Who the FUCK said that?"

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:50 pm

McCain's views on the Iraq war, from his on quotes:

# Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender. (Jan 2008)
# Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low. (Jan 2008)
# Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

Reeeeeally don't want it to be him.

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:04 pm

Exactly. Mind, if the other option is Huck-throw-the-constitution-out-the-window-in-favor-of-religion-bee....then even McCain starts to look better. But that said it's like choosing between cyanide and atropine.

Paul Escobar · Post by **Paul Escobar** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:42 pm

Komiyan wrote:http://ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

McCain: "I support the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war".

... damn.

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:46 pm

Update: Squeee! Obama took the DC, Maryland, and Virginia dem primaries!

Prettysenshi · Post by **Prettysenshi** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:50 pm

MixedMyth wrote:Update: Squeee! Obama took the DC, Maryland, and Virginia dem primaries!

I really think its gonna be between Obama and McCain at this point.

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:46 am

Komiyan wrote:McCain's views on the Iraq war, from his on quotes:

# Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender. (Jan 2008)
# Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low. (Jan 2008)
# Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

Reeeeeally don't want it to be him.

Unfortunately, that's where I partially agree with him. A timetable for withdrawal signals for whomever to stay low and then intensify their attacks. Iraq is broken, and we're squarely to blame, so if it takes 100 years to fix it, we're pretty much obliged to stick around that long. It's also one main reason why I was against the war in the first place: The Shrub started something that he wouldn't be paying the tab for.

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:59 am

I think the point of the time tables isn't so much to say "reality will fit this rigid abitrary schedule!" as to show that there's some kind of forethought going on, and thereby something to actually hold people accountable to...looking to the future and what direction we're going in. Of course things come up...there's always the need to adapt.

At least, that's how I've interpreted it?

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:34 am

MixedMyth wrote:I think the point of the time tables isn't so much to say "reality will fit this rigid abitrary schedule!" as to show that there's some kind of forethought going on, and thereby something to actually hold people accountable to...looking to the future and what direction we're going in. Of course things come up...there's always the need to adapt.

At least, that's how I've interpreted it?

You don't need a timetable for that, though. You can set objectives that need to be met, such as so-and-so much stability and so-and-so much percentage of security being handled by Iraqi forces. Setting a date for withdrawal is like saying "When have we cared long enough?"

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:53 am

Why would staying fix it?