2020 US Election (Part One)

[Takhisis]

I think many countries would still continue to blame us for everything even if we ditched Israel.

Israel is not your only screwup and possibly not even the biggest one.

Okay I'm really only kidding, I can't keep up this charade, I've only ever called for the military destruction of the US because I was angry. I do seriously think Iran should get nuclear weapons tho.

No. Not only because I disagree with any country or government or person having weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, not only because nuclear devices of any kind are always a huge intrinsecal risk of undoable contamination, but also because Iran's regime really is that type. You underestimate religion because you do not follow one yourself, but I do have one and I do know what our own extremists will do. Iran's regime really does think it's doing ‘God's work’, and just as they used children to clear out minefields by getting them to walk until they stepped on a landmine and got sent to heaven, Iran's really is one of the governments that would just nuke something and screw the consequences.

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has entered the Democratic fray.
I don't care.

We'll need a clown car thread for the DNC it seems.

 

[Berzerker]

We will bear this in mind when analysing your further posts.

You're just finding out I think Hillary's worse?

It's not equal, but both are extremely irresponsible actions. The “she was irresponsible first” is not really a dialogue that should be moved from the sand-box to the white house. But it is irrevocably so by baby Trump. The US should have never entered a “war on terror” and now that you did you need to own up because leaving is most likely a surrender to the Taliban as much as it was when the US in practice surrendered to the North Vietnamese. And I in no way equate the goals of the NVA with Talibans – that’s just a steady reminder of the irrational nature of goals and geopolitics of American foreign affairs.

Extricating us from the Middle East is not irresponsible. The Taliban aint going anywhere and we should have 'surrendered' in Vietnam when the French lost their war in the 50s. Hell, we should have told the French to get outta Dodge instead of replacing them as the Sheriff.

On the other hand, we did occupy Japan and Germany for generations and they turned out okay.

We weren't fighting religious fanatics intent on winning a civil war

No, she really wasn't.

I would agree that the Democrats were much too ready to support Bush's war. But this singling out of Hillary Clinton is just absurd.

A large majority of the Dems in the House voted against the war. She singled herself out, she voted for Bush's war so she could run for President later. And she was a Senator from NYC, so...yeah, she could have led the opposition to invading Iraq if she wasn't such a political coward willing to sacrifice a million people to get elected.

Didn't you say "we may need to send soldiers" to Venezuela or something? Would you oppose a Trump Administration invasion of Venezuela?

By 'we' I meant the USA and it's policy makers and the scenario I had in mind was to prevent the wholesale slaughter of people. I dont know if I'd oppose an invasion, depends on why. I'm generally opposed to foreign interventions but there are cases lives can be saved, Rwanda comes to mind.

 

[Zkribbler]

She singled herself out, she voted for Bush's war so she could run for President later. .

I'm not sure how a person can single herself out by joining with the stampede of lemmings.

 

[Berzerker]

she ran for President, thats how she singled herself out

 

[Timsup2nothin]

she ran for President, thats how she singled herself out

So, retroactively then?

 

[Ironsided]

Extricating us from the Middle East is not irresponsible. The Taliban aint going anywhere and we should have 'surrendered' in Vietnam when the French lost their war in the 50s. Hell, we should have told the French to get outta Dodge instead of replacing them as the Sheriff.

Fair enough. Not as irresponsible as the whole concept of war on terror in the first place maybe. rah made a point that the Taliban controlling a majority of the country was not exactly a rosy state of affairs to begin with - however ultimately quite easy to tie to earlier US foreign affairs in the region. More so the US and coalition have responsibilities to eachother, local communities, infrastructure and alliances built up or destroyed during the time there. Just packing up and leaving is just extremely cowardly and irresponsible imo.

 

[Zardnaar]

Read a history book. Or write your own I'm going to focus on military strategy.

1. Don't invade Afghanistan.
2. Don't invade Russia.

I think Alexanders diodochi had Bactria the longest- around 200 years.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Timsup2nothin one cannot vote for bush again; bush lost to trump and likely wont run again any time soon (if at all). Hill still hasnt ruled out running in 2020.
And hillary would fit just fine in w bush painter's warmongering gov of goons and freaks; remember how she admires warcriminal kissinger

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Timsup2nothin one cannot vote for bush again; bush lost to trump and likely wont run again any time soon (if at all). Hill still hasnt ruled out running in 2020.
And hillary would fit just fine in w bush painter's warmongering gov of goons and freaks; remember how she admires warcriminal kissinger

If you are going to intercede, catch up first.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you are going to intercede, catch up first.

I am on mobile :/

 

[cardgame]

We'll need a clown car thread for the DNC it seems.

Isn't that this thread?

 

[Takhisis]

No? This is a more general one.

 

[Berzerker]

So, retroactively then?

I dont understand your question

Fair enough. Not as irresponsible as the whole concept of war on terror in the first place maybe. rah made a point that the Taliban controlling a majority of the country was not exactly a rosy state of affairs to begin with - however ultimately quite easy to tie to earlier US foreign affairs in the region. More so the US and coalition have responsibilities to eachother, local communities, infrastructure and alliances built up or destroyed during the time there. Just packing up and leaving is just extremely cowardly and irresponsible imo.

I agree, I despise the Taliban... But its been close to 20 years, we wont be just packing up and leaving. There must be another reason why we're there, one popular theory is we want to be close to Pakistan in case their nukes fall into the wrong hands. That would at least make more sense than depriving terrorists of that terrain to operate on.

 

[onejayhawk]

No? This is a more general one.

Not really. This is about the large group of candidates for the Presidential election--the Clown Car.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

I dont understand your question

Because you said she singled herself out by voting for the war (which as has already been pointed out, she did as a junior Senator). Then when it was pointed out that your position was flawed, since nearly everyone voted for the war... you then moved the goalpost to "she singled herself out by running for POTUS" which happened way after the war vote... so you're attaching retroactive "singling out" for the war vote as a result of the POTUS run.

In other words, you're being contradictory, illogical and inconsistent as usual, in manifestation of your "libertarian" biases.

 

[Lexicus]

Iran's really is one of the governments that would just nuke something and screw the consequences.

Sorry, I just find this purely ridiculous. The US is the only country in the world that has ever nuked something and screw the consequences, and the US along with its allies e.g. Israel has demonstrated waaaaaay more aggression than the Islamic Republic over the entirety of the latter's existence.
From everything I can see an Iranian bomb would simply be a necessary deterrent to a US invasion of Iran. Just as the North Korean bomb appears to be a deterrent to our invading North Korea.

 

[onejayhawk]

Sorry, I just find this purely ridiculous. The US is the only country in the world that has ever nuked something and screw the consequences, and the US along with its allies e.g. Israel has demonstrated waaaaaay more aggression than the Islamic Republic over the entirety of the latter's existence.
From everything I can see an Iranian bomb would simply be a necessary deterrent to a US invasion of Iran. Just as the North Korean bomb appears to be a deterrent to our invading North Korea.

This whole statement is ridiculous. The US never nuked anything and, "screw the consequences." There is no reasonable argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were callous. There is a very good argument that the bombings saved hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of lives.

Iran has been the most aggressive nation on Earth over the last decade unless you count ISIS. That puts them ahead of Russia and Putin. When they are called the principal sponsor of terrorism it is not in jest. Yes, the mullahs in Iran might nuke Isreal and screw the consequences. So, the primary reason the US would have to invade Iran is to remove a bomb.

J

 

[Lexicus]

This whole statement is ridiculous. The US never nuked anything and, "screw the consequences." There is no reasonable argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were callous. There is a very good argument that the bombings saved hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of lives.

Iran has been the most aggressive nation on Earth over the last decade unless you count ISIS. That puts them ahead of Russia and Putin. When they are called the principal sponsor of terrorism it is not in jest. Yes, the mullahs in Iran might nuke Isreal and screw the consequences. So, the primary reason the US would have to invade Iran is to remove a bomb.

J

This response couldn't have proved my point more thoroughly had it been calculated to do so.

I will say that your mention of "Russia and Putin" as notably aggressive presents a rather delicious contrast with your dismissive attitude toward the fact that they helped your preferred Presidential candidate win office as part of that aggression.

 

[Gori the Grey]

We'll need a clown car thread for the DNC it seems.

Isn't that this thread?

Not really. This is about the large group of candidates for the Presidential election--the Clown Car.

J

Headed into 2016, we had a serious (maybe even RD) thread for discussing that election (originally the large crowd of Republicans) and an emphatically not serious one ("Clown Car") for making fun of the 2016 election (especially the large crowd of Republicans). On that model, we could probably use this to be our thread for serious discussion and a fresh thread for comedy.

If I can think of a limerick on the present set of Democratic candidates (and a new metaphor for a profusion of funny things), perhaps I'll make such a thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

No. Not only because I disagree with any country or government or person having weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, not only because nuclear devices of any kind are always a huge intrinsecal risk of undoable contamination, but also because Iran's regime really is that type. You underestimate religion because you do not follow one yourself, but I do have one and I do know what our own extremists will do. Iran's regime really does think it's doing ‘God's work’, and just as they used children to clear out minefields by getting them to walk until they stepped on a landmine and got sent to heaven, Iran's really is one of the governments that would just nuke something and screw the consequences.

The use of child soldiers seems to me an expression of brutal pragmatism, rather than religious zeal. Throwing children into a mind-grinder contributed to the preservation of the regime. Throwing nukes around would be the surest and quickest way to end it.