Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: NGTM-1R on June 03, 2008, 08:51:39 pm
-
So CNN's saying Obama's clinched the Democratic nomination for US President, and Hillary just gave a rather backhanded concession speech of which I watched as much as I could stomache before coming here to post.
And now Mrs. Clinton wants the VP spot. Personally, I think that's a disaster waiting to happen, because the VP's job in life is to make thing easier on the President, and I don't see her doing that at all.
And what about the rest of you? Thoughts?
-
he still lost, everyones so pissed at the dems theyre all gonna vote mccain
-
No more Bush??? :eek2:............................. ;) :yes:
Lets see how this guy does, when does he get sworn in. Tomorrow? :confused:
-
No more Bush??? :eek2:............................. ;) :yes:
Lets see how this guy does, when does he get sworn in. Tomorrow? :confused:
He won the Democratic Primary, not the presidential election. :p
-
It means that he has to do a bunch of ceremonial stuff. (I think) Either that or Clinton keeps asking for a recount again and again until Obama steps down.
-
So what does this mean? I'm from a different political system. Is he the next in line or just one of the next candidates :v-confused:
-
It means that he has to do a bunch of ceremonial stuff. (I think) Either that or Clinton keeps asking for a recount again and again until Obama steps down.
Clinton's speech was very defiant. You'd think she was still trying to get nominated. This campaign has proved very...enlightening, concern her personality. There's no doubt Hillary is smart, but for a political animal she has also been extraordinarily unpolitic. Those half-amused predictions she was going to try and take the Democratic campaign down with her are considerably less amusing now. She looks like she might just try. Her concession speech suggested as much.
-
So what does this mean? I'm from a different political system. Is he the next in line or just one of the next candidates :v-confused:
It means that Obama is the one the Democatic political party is nominating for president, i.e. he's one of two people who have a chance in hell of getting elected president.
-
I'm glad Obama won the Democratic nominee, and I plan on voting for him in November. Unfortunately, he's doomed.
As Obama tends to present himself as a shining beacon of change, his most minute gaffes will be fixated upon and he will be buried. McCain can be tripped up by a dozen Lobbyist scandals, embezzle his election money, be tied to fifty controversial Preachers, and flip-flop his way down seventy flights of stairs and barely cause the public to shrug. Because, disturbingly, its almost expected.
If a friend of one of Obama's aquaintances says something dodgy it causes the entire Obama campaign to grind to a halt.
-
Ahh. . .much clearer, so he and the republican, senator Palpatine will run for presidency soon, weeks or months?
*i'm watching BBC News 24 and Obama is talking now. I have to say i'd vote for him. He sounds like he want's to leave iraq to it.:yes:
-
Elections are in November.
Congratulations, you are now more informed than 99% of my countrymen.
-
I like to think most Americans are smart enough not to vote for a man who openly said he wants to stay in Iraq.
I have a running bet with Karajorma about that, I might even put money behind it.
-
British politics is too "shades of grey." political correctness good mad i tell you. Gordon Brown wasn't voted in. . At least Obama came across as concise and genuine.:yes:
-
So what does this mean? I'm from a different political system. Is he the next in line or just one of the next candidates :v-confused:
The US system is totally unlike the UK/Canada/etc. system. In a year like this where Bush's 2nd term is up (Presidents are allowed only two terms) both parties go around the country with candidates running for president. So all of the registered democrats and republicans in each state vote for the candidate of choice. As the process goes along (its one state at a time rather than all at once) the field narrows as candidates pick up momentum and others drop out. Eventually someone gets enough votes to win and they go on to run for the November elections. The senators and other local leaders are all elected separately.
So Obama has...seemingly...officially won the chance to run in November.
Instead of in a typical parliamentary system where you vote for the local member of parliament (MP) and whichever party has the most number of MPs in parliament gets to form the government and whoever is the leader of that party gets to run the country. The US system is allot more complicated in my view. I still don't understand half of it but I like watching some of the political commentary...gives me a picture of US society...and I have to say that I hate the whole process. The election of a president is a popularity contest and it seems like the media spend most of their time on that....nobody has talked in detail about policy or platforms or anything for the whole process...its crazy and totally foreign to me.
-
It's gonna take a huge move by Obama to beat McCain. He's gonna have to work hard to repair the rift between his supporters and the shemale's. Otherwise they will vote against him out of spite.
-
It's gonna take a huge move by Obama to beat McCain. He's gonna have to work hard to repair the rift between his supporters and the shemale's. Otherwise they will vote against him out of spite.
Thats the problem...there's a whole bunch of spiteful people out there and combined with some racists and weird people ...its going to be a tough battle for Obama. Trouble is that the country probably needs someone like him.
-
I like to think most Americans are smart enough not to vote for a man who openly said he wants to stay in Iraq.
I have a running bet with Karajorma about that, I might even put money behind it.
I'm not sure what's stupid about it personally. We made the damn mess, and leaving isn't going to make it any better, we might as well stay and clean it up. I'll agree we should never have gone in, but leaving it like it is would be even more monumentally stupid.
-
Obama is my generation's Kennedy, haters and all. I like the hell out of him, and this is damned good news. Also Hillary better not get the ****ing VP spot. I hate that *****.
-
:wtf:
You people do realize that they're all horrible choices, don't you?
-
Jeff: What do you think about Bush?
Achmed: Oh, I love bushes, they're ... OH, you mean the man!
-
That guy sucks.
-
I'm not sure what's stupid about it personally. We made the damn mess, and leaving isn't going to make it any better, we might as well stay and clean it up. I'll agree we should never have gone in, but leaving it like it is would be even more monumentally stupid.
To be honest I tend to agree with you on that. Pull out quickly, leave the country as stable as possible but don't cut and run. That won't help anyone.
-
:wtf:
You people do realize that they're all horrible choices, don't you?
It's politics. The people who want to gain power, influence, and popularity, and all those other things we deem as shallow, have the advantage because they're doing what they want to do (and are presumably good at) in order to get ahead. The people who want to make a practical difference end up getting sidelined, because they spend their time researching the facts rather than trying to be a shining beacon of attention.
That may seem like a relatively cynical view of politics, but someone who is that way doesn't necessarily act in an immoral or amoral fashion. Put the right pressures on them and they will tend towards the right thing to do. Or, if they have some depth to them beyond all of the intensive networking, they'll be able to listen to the smart people who do know about the decisions that they have to make.
Obama strikes me as an idealist, but that's a commitment he'll have to hold to in office. He can't just reverse that and start giving corruption the all-clear or else there's no way he'll get elected next term. He's also in a position where he will be a name for the history books just because he'll be the first black president of the United States. He's going to have all eyes watching him, and the last black idealist who was in that particular kind of situation is not remembered for his politics but for his words. If Obama is in this just for personal power, he's doing a damn good job of pulling the wool over people's eyes. But I think there's enough of an idealistic statement at stake here to believe that some of that will affect him, and that the decisions he makes if he gets into office will have some moral, socially conscious aspect to them.
The most interesting thing about Obama comes from when I heard him speak. (I was standing about one row of people back from the round area that was cleared for him to speak). There were a couple of things, actually, that stood out about it to me, both centering around someone in the cloud who collapsed due to the heat.
The first was a comment by the man on the other side of Obama from the person. As the paramedics were on their way to deal with the situation, the man yelled, "Homeland security wouldn't have been that fast!" (paraphrased; it was definitely a negative comment about Homeland Security with that general phrasing)
Obama paraphrased that as, "He said he would hope that Homeland Security would've been that fast." Right, so Obama paraphrased it to make the comment positive, so he didn't look like he was passing on a politically barbed statement.
The second was watching Obama try to deal with this person. He'd been making some rather definite comments about the Bush administration, IIRC, when the person had collapsed, and he was put in the position of having to compete with that for attention. On the one hand, he couldn't appear inconsiderate by just ignoring the fact that they were in trouble (even though the paramedics were there) and he didn't know exactly what the problem was at that point. On the other hand, he was on something of a roll and would lose the momentum of his speech by stopping it clear out. So he stopped for awhile, asked how serious it was, got told it was just heat stroke, etc. Then he kind of made some half starts. Eventually, the person was carried away and he went right back into it.
It was interesting to see a politician have to react to something unplanned like that. (Disregarding some conspiracy to make Obama appear more genuine, which seems a little off the deep end to me, considering how he reacted.)
The other thing that I noticed about Obama was that he had confidence, not charisma. He seemed like the kind of person you would follow because you had made a choice to, not because you just felt some kind of attachment to him. I'm not sure if most other people there would mirror that opinion, though, I did not think to ask it at the time.
-
It's gonna take a huge move by Obama to beat McCain. He's gonna have to work hard to repair the rift between his supporters and the shemale's. Otherwise they will vote against him out of spite.
Thats the problem...there's a whole bunch of spiteful people out there and combined with some racists and weird people ...its going to be a tough battle for Obama. Trouble is that the country probably needs someone like him.
I think you're forgetting the support Obama has gotten from young people. His campaign has sucked out young voters in droves. A politician has finally managed to connect with the newest generation of voters. That, I think, could actually turn the tide (especially when you consider that fewer than 30% of voters in the first five year bracket usually bother).
-
And what about the rest of you? Thoughts?
Obama definately won? A dark day for america indeed.... :(
-
You preferred Clinton?
-
You preferred Clinton?
No, he probably just doesn't like darkies.
-
:rolleyes: who's McCain by the way. That tv spot i saw last night threw me off.
-
You preferred Clinton?
No, he probably just doesn't like darkies.
I thought that too. :lol:
-
And what about the rest of you? Thoughts?
Obama definately won? A dark day for america indeed.... :(
Trash, are you aware that this was the Democratic primary, not the overall election?
-
Mccain was called Mcnasty in high school. He called his wife a "****" in the middle of a public dinner (look around and you'll find an audio clip).
Basically he's aggressive, tough, and has a continuous hard on, kinda like Bush. Although I see the use for such a leader, I don't think it's the kind we need right now.
-
If McCain is the same as the incumbent President, then what prevents him from becoming the next? You voted such a man into office 4 and 8 years previously.
About the general elections: I would prefer Obama to win it, and try to alleviate racism. I say alleviate, cause it's obvious racism won't disappear under his 4 or 8-year presidency. However, I think McCain will win, just because those who voted for Hillary in the partwide elections will vote for McCain to take revenge. Perhaps taking Hillary as a Vice President would help a bit in the elections, but not in the long run. The only head-up for Obama is that the Republicans had the least popular President ever in the Oval Office in the past eight years. (I don't know if that counts in the US at all, considering that Bush is not involved.
-
You preferred Clinton?
No, he probably just doesn't like darkies.
Nah, I don't like puppets.
-
Trash, you are aware these are the primaries, right?
Just to make sure?
-
You preferred Clinton?
No, he probably just doesn't like darkies.
Nah, I don't like puppets.
Then don't think about US politics.
-
You preferred Clinton?
No, he probably just doesn't like darkies.
Nah, I don't like puppets.
How on earth is Obama a "puppet"?
Also, fun fact: Obama's speech last night was held in the same venue that will eventually hold the Republican National Convention later this year.
-
A practicely unheard of politician suddenly getting huge funds and support?
Yup, he's got somebody on the backstage pulling the stings. You don't get that amount of $$$ without making some really serious promises to some very questionable buisnismen.
-
Dude... they're all puppets, welcome to the US. The systems in place demand that the president is puppet.
Democrats and Republicans, and no chance of anyone else.
-
It's gonna take a huge move by Obama to beat McCain. He's gonna have to work hard to repair the rift between his supporters and the shemale's. Otherwise they will vote against him out of spite.
Thats the problem...there's a whole bunch of spiteful people out there and combined with some racists and weird people ...its going to be a tough battle for Obama. Trouble is that the country probably needs someone like him.
I think you're forgetting the support Obama has gotten from young people. His campaign has sucked out young voters in droves. A politician has finally managed to connect with the newest generation of voters. That, I think, could actually turn the tide (especially when you consider that fewer than 30% of voters in the first five year bracket usually bother).
A fair point...that could be a bit of a wildcard situation. Depends on if my generation of people down in the US decide to get into the fight and vote or sit on the sidelines.
-
A practicely unheard of politician suddenly getting huge funds and support?
Yup, he's got somebody on the backstage pulling the stings. You don't get that amount of $$$ without making some really serious promises to some very questionable buisnismen.
Appearently you don't understand the US political system.
-
A practicely unheard of politician suddenly getting huge funds and support?
Yup, he's got somebody on the backstage pulling the stings. You don't get that amount of $$$ without making some really serious promises to some very questionable buisnismen.
Appearently you don't understand the US political system.
Yes. He's been a Senator for some time, and for a lot of that time he's made it clear he'll be making a presidential bid. His charisma and political acumen have attracted all that money and support.
-
I don't think it was a case of Obama being so much an 'unknown' as the fact that Hilary did a lot of spotlight grabbing before the elections started, after all no-one had really heard of half the presidents before they made a bid to become president, I had certainly never heard of Ronnie Reagan (outside of the movies, I never even knew the guy was a politician) or George Bush senior before then.
-
I must admit...though im not american...i was rooting for obama...America need a non-white president.
---
I think this somes up alot of what is wrong in american politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUdfsYToqLo
explains how the George Snr and George W got elected
please dont hate me :shaking:
So far IMHO the only good president was Abraham Lincoln, (who was born on the same day of the month as me).
-
(http://i27.tinypic.com/24pb1wp.jpg)
angry old white man for president!
-
That guy looks like he came from a sci-fi series...
Its just a shame that Johnathan "Jack" O'neill in stargate isnt real...Hed be briliant and have my vote event though im not American
-
@ TE, QFT. O'Neill FTW.
And that's Colonel Tigh (Dekker when he's drinking) from Battlestar Galactica.
-
And that's Colonel Tigh (Dekker when he's drinking)....
:lol:
Thought he was from New BattleStar Galactica. I've seen the old version properly (I dont have sky or cable) where Tigh was played by a black actor. Very good performance he gave as well.
-
He is from the new BSG.
-
Dude... they're all puppets, welcome to the US. The systems in place demand that the president is puppet.
Democrats and Republicans, and no chance of anyone else.
The question is then, who is a bigger puppet?
Someone known, who already has political influence (Hillary) can gather money more efficiently (making less promises, kissing less asses) then a newcomer on the block. The fact that Obama raised so much money so fast...yup, it worries me.
-
That guy looks like he came from a sci-fi series...
Its just a shame that Johnathan "Jack" O'neill in stargate isnt real...Hed be briliant and have my vote event though im not American
I'd vote for Arnie..the Governator!
-
Obama is already threatening Iran. Good start.
-
Obama is already threatening Iran. Good start.
AIPAC brings out the worst in everyone
-
A practicely unheard of politician suddenly getting huge funds and support?
Yup, he's got somebody on the backstage pulling the stings. You don't get that amount of $$$ without making some really serious promises to some very questionable buisnismen.
Individuals are only allowed to donate $4600 dollars to a candidate; half for the primaries and half for the general.
Obama got half of that money from smaller donors donating far less than the maximum on his website, whom he can call upon to donate more as the primaries progressed. Something like 90% of his donors have given $100 or less. It's the reason he managed to raise such incredible amounts of cash, and has been able to consistently out-raise and outspend everyone else.
-
Obama is my generation's Kennedy, haters and all. I like the hell out of him, and this is damned good news. Also Hillary better not get the ****ing VP spot. I hate that *****.
Funny, that same thought occurred to me as I watching the speech he gave for winning the primaries. Say what you want about the man, but we haven't had a presidental canidate who was this good at oratory in a long time.
-
Obama is my generation's Kennedy, haters and all. I like the hell out of him, and this is damned good news. Also Hillary better not get the ****ing VP spot. I hate that *****.
Funny, that same thought occurred to me as I watching the speech he gave for winning the primaries. Say what you want about the man, but we haven't had a presidental canidate who was this good at oratory in a long time.
What will Letterman do for Great Moments in Presidential Speeches if Obama gets elected? :D
-
I can't wait for his State of the Union addresses.
-
Clinton's supporters are defecting to McCain (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html)
-
Best example I've ever seen of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
-
Best example I've ever seen of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Clinton's supporters are defecting to McCain (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html)
It didn't take a genius to predict. I'm wondering if this will change by November.
-
To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the defections are from people who always were Republicans all along. Since John McCain won so long ago I'd be very suspicious if these defectors turned out to be newly registered voters rather than long term Democrats.
-
My thoughts:
1. Obama is a charismatic character. That charisma is what scares me s***less, because he has nothing more than just that (I'll include a video which explains more/less why).
2. Voting for someone named Barack Hussein in a time when the US is hostile with the Middle East is like voting for a Sergiey Ivanovich during the Cold War for me.
3. McCain is old, he's been a POW in Vietnam, and when he talks about war, he knows what he's saying, because he's been there personally. As a former soldier, he'll have leadership skills, but he's too old to show everyone what he can do.
4. Having a warrior in office during a violent peace keeping mission means that it'll be done when Iraq and Afghanistan are democracies, no matter how long it takes or how much it'll cost.
I'd personally vote for McCain, but I'll be across the ocean when the elections take place, and I'm posting from across the ocean right now, so I'll leave the voting to those who know the candidates better.
And now:
1 for Obama:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036
and 1 for McCain (2 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
(I think the vids show the dark side of both candidates, watch them if you want to, and if you do watch both. Also, if you have a dilemma of either beginning a flame war or keeping the comment to yourself, don't post)
-
Hmm.. Whilst the video raises a lot of points, it should be remembered that Bush Jr was bought up in an elitist, fundamental Christian society with the likes of Cheney around him for most of it, Clinton spent a lot of her life with Bill and others around her in a privileged life etc.
I don't think there is any politician that hasn't been bought up in an environment that has taught them that their own 'class' comes before anyone else.
-
2. Voting for someone named Barack Hussein in a time when the US is hostile with the Middle East is like voting for a Sergiey Ivanovich during the Cold War for me.
Seriously? You're having a go at him cause of his name? :D
Let me give you the opposite side of the argument then. Voting in a man called Barack Hussein at a time when the Middle East are hostile with you because they think you hate Arabs and want them all dead might actually give them a slight reason to trust you. Same as the Russians might have trusted Sergiey Ivanovich a bit more during the cold war.
-
I must admit, of all the reasons in the world not to vote for a politician, I think 'they've got a weird name' has got to be up there near the top.
Although, in all fairness, hair played a role in my mayoral vote... I hate Boris' hair, it's like someone hit him over the head with a mop in school and no-one bothered to remove it...
-
Clinton's supporters are defecting to McCain (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html)
Which is stupid, considering Clinton has now given up and officially endorsed Obama/requested her supporters help him out. (Finally. I suspect Ted Kennedy and the other party fathers had to yell at her for a few days.)
-
60% of Clinton supporters supported Clinton just because she was a woman, I'd stake my life on it.
-
Whereas McCain looked like a constipated Cheshire Cat at his last speech...
I know oratory skills aren't everything, but damn, you don't need that, not after Bush...
-
So what have we learned:
Obama cons:
- Funny name
- Speaks too well
Mccain cons:
- Continuation of Bush
- Continuation of war
-
So what have we learned:
Obama cons:
Mccain cons:
- Continuation of Bush
- Continuation of war
How is speaking too well a con?
-
I think speaking is the key here. Like Bill Clinton who, for all his personal flaws, was a very good diplomat, I think that is what the US needs.
There is a grain of knowledge that Clinton had and Bush did not. Never, ever, turn something into a battle of wills. A Good diplomat understands that the other guys view is just as important to him as yours is to you, I always felt that was something Bush never understood. You cannot out-will another country, it'll never happen, the harder you try to force people to act as you wish, the more they will refuse to, hence the number of deadlocks around the world at this time.
America needs a diplomat, I'd say it desperately needs one, someone who can communicate not only with the US, but with the countries outside it as well. Right now, everyone is sabre rattling at everyone else, and their needs to be some common sense injected into the situation, it's already inflated itself far beyond it needed, simply because no-one would blink.
McCain, is probably the worst bet, in my opinion, because, after 8 years of Bush, voting in McCain would give a terrible message to the rest of the world, that America is happy with Presidents who are expansionist, centralist and confrontational, and, certainly in the more removed areas of the world, this will send a very loud message to the people there. They don't always understand how the voting system works, and will judge purely by the outcome, not the procedure.
On a side note, expect this election to be utterly rife with accusations of vote rigging...
-
There is a grain of knowledge that Clinton had and Bush did not. Never, ever, turn something into a battle of wills. A Good diplomat understands that the other guys view is just as important to him as yours is to you, I always felt that was something Bush never understood. You cannot out-will another country, it'll never happen, the harder you try to force people to act as you wish, the more they will refuse to, hence the number of deadlocks around the world at this time.
Considering Kosovo and Clinton's willingness to order Tomahawk strikes on several countries in lieu of negotations, I have to differ. Bill Clinton's actions spawned the phrase "cruise missile diplomacy" you know.
Now, frankly, Clinton had a vastly better concept of how to use American military technology, but don't tell me he was a great peacemaker, because an honest reading of his presidency shows he wasn't.
-
It's not so much a question of peacemaking, it's dealing with the results of your own actions. Clinton managed to execute his form of diplomacy without starting the problems that Bush got America into, because he knew how to do it, Bush doesn't. That's where the problem lay.
I'm not saying Clinton was great by a long shot, but he understood that invading another country would be nothing more than a long-term drain on the economy and the trust of the American people. Clinton wasn't nice, but he was smart. I'm under no illusions about Obama, I don't think he's a nice person, but then, I don't think there's ever been a stage in the history of mankind where rulers have been 'nice', as such. Nor would his alleviation to President suddenly end all the worlds problems.
But he does know how to communicate with people, and that, right now, is what is needed.
-
My thoughts:
1. Obama is a charismatic character. That charisma is what scares me s***less, because he has nothing more than just that (I'll include a video which explains more/less why).
2. Voting for someone named Barack Hussein in a time when the US is hostile with the Middle East is like voting for a Sergiey Ivanovich during the Cold War for me.
3. McCain is old, he's been a POW in Vietnam, and when he talks about war, he knows what he's saying, because he's been there personally. As a former soldier, he'll have leadership skills, but he's too old to show everyone what he can do.
4. Having a warrior in office during a violent peace keeping mission means that it'll be done when Iraq and Afghanistan are democracies, no matter how long it takes or how much it'll cost.
I'd personally vote for McCain, but I'll be across the ocean when the elections take place, and I'm posting from across the ocean right now, so I'll leave the voting to those who know the candidates better.
And now:
1 for Obama:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036
and 1 for McCain (2 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
(I think the vids show the dark side of both candidates, watch them if you want to, and if you do watch both. Also, if you have a dilemma of either beginning a flame war or keeping the comment to yourself, don't post)
I'm skeptical of both videos. The first video seems to make the core of its case based on the views of Obama's pastor. At some point Obama would have to make a judgment call of whether he ought to distance himself from his pastor - thereby hurting his previous statements that Wright was a mentor - or stick with it and take whatever fringe damage he gets. Since Wright has become such a controversial icon, I wouldn't consider what he says to be reliable. What he said in church, what he said to Obama, may have been a far scaled-back version of what he's saying on the tube now. It wouldn't be the first time that somebody has made intentionally controversial statements because they had the attention of the media.
The video on McCain relies a lot on contradiction, and I'm willing to give McCain some leeway in terms of not knowing the context of his statements. I think if you took a microphone to anybody and started following them around all the time, you'd be able to piece together a video of them making contradictory statements by cutting around what was asked, the flow of the conversation at that point, etc. Given how often and how intensively politicians' comments are scrutinized, I'm not surprised at all that there are inconsistencies found in their statements. I can see the Confederate flag being a symbol of heritage and a symbol of racism. Not a history major, but the civil war era South does have its own identity apart from the North. Not all of that is tied up in racism, even if the institution was heavily dependent on it.
Still, it's good to see somebody grilling both candidates.
-
I'm staying out of a detailed discussion for a moment but I'd like to debunk a popular myth: that experience as a grunt soldier in war makes a candidate a better potential leader of the military.
This view is popularized by war films that take the (as my military analyst of a modern warfare history teacher put it) "worm's eye view." Films like Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, the miniseries Band of Brothers (just to name three recent ones) along with literally hundreds of others focus on the individual units, never larger than battalion-sized, from their perspective. The numbers of war movies that actually look at grand wartime strategy number in the single digits, and every single one of them is a documentary or non-fiction.
The problem is that strategy in conflict operates on an entirely different intellectual level than strategy at the theatre, operational, or even diplomatic levels. Someone who was experience as a military general can legitimately use that as a qualification for foreign relations and military knowledge. Anyone ranking lower than that does not have a grasp of the big picture.
This is largely the problem with political leadership and military operations. Presidents and Prime Ministers have wonderful knowledge of what individual units can do and what military materiel they have available. They are atrocious at actual strategic thinking at the operational level (nevermind that most of them constantly get strategic, operational, and theatre levels confused, much like the Americans in Iraq who have named several strategies as operations and vice versa. Military history should be a mandatory course for any candidate for office). This is one of the most enormous deficits in the waging of modern war - political leaders, even those with military background, just don't have a clue. Bush Jr has exemplified this better than I could ever describe.
The only qualification that military service in the lower ranks does provide is a knowledge of what individuals go through during wartime - and while that can be an important factor in a decision to not conduct a campaign, it can also hinder otherwise sound strategic judgement through emotional consideration. Ultimately, if a war needs to be fought on strategic and diplomatic grounds, you don't want your leader waffling about because of concern over individual soldiers' welfare.
To summarize: military service doesn't matter a damn to how well a political candidate will perform in office. The best example of this is one of the finest civilian political leaders of a military campaign in the past century: an American, Franklin Roosevelt. While Churchill (who did have military experience as an officer) held out with Britain, Roosevelt had to convince and prepare an entire nation previously committed to isolationism for the largest conversion and maintenance of a wartime economy ever undertaken in history. And he did it in less than two years.
So yeah, McCain's military service is quite possibly the least important factor in his bid for President.
-
America needs a diplomat, I'd say it desperately needs one, someone who can communicate not only with the US, but with the countries outside it as well. Right now, everyone is sabre rattling at everyone else, and their needs to be some common sense injected into the situation, it's already inflated itself far beyond it needed, simply because no-one would blink.
Yeah, but America also needs a reformer just as badly.
I'm staying out of a detailed discussion for a moment but I'd like to debunk a popular myth: that experience as a grunt soldier in war makes a candidate a better potential leader of the military.
Hitler was a grunt soldier in WW1, and made a terrible military leader, making several major strategic mistakes that effectively cost Germany the war.
Considering Kosovo and Clinton's willingness to order Tomahawk strikes on several countries in lieu of negotations, I have to differ. Bill Clinton's actions spawned the phrase "cruise missile diplomacy" you know.
Now, frankly, Clinton had a vastly better concept of how to use American military technology, but don't tell me he was a great peacemaker, because an honest reading of his presidency shows he wasn't.
And yet he was often criticized for it, even though it was vastly more effective (both in terms of cost and effect) than actual invasions were.
-
America needs a diplomat, I'd say it desperately needs one, someone who can communicate not only with the US, but with the countries outside it as well. Right now, everyone is sabre rattling at everyone else, and their needs to be some common sense injected into the situation, it's already inflated itself far beyond it needed, simply because no-one would blink.
Yeah, but America also needs a reformer just as badly.
Agreed, but in order to reform, it needs to drop the walls it has built between itself and other nations, Obamas idea of actually meeting with what they describe as 'Terrorist Leaders', such as Gadaffi and talking to them is, in itself, a pretty radical standpoint for a lot of voters, I wonder about the state of any political situation where a film is made criticising a politician for wanting to actually talk to someone, rather than send off members of the military to fight them.
Basically, the Political ethos of wanting to lead the world whilst remaining somewhat aloof from it is not going to work, and it's in that respect that Obama is a better bet. Time will tell whether he's up to the job, but I'm pretty certain that he is a better bet than McCain for the idea of stabilising America both internally and externally.
-
If you demand an experienced candidate- McCain was in the Navy for 22 years, an Arizona Senator 1982-1987 and is a US Senator since Jan 1987.
Obama's career starts much later.
Also- Hitler was a good speaker with tons of charisma, but not much else, so we could use him against Obama just as well as against McCain.
-
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/exitjmouse/GodwinsLaw_CatPoster.jpg)
-
Clinton's supporters are defecting to McCain (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html)
Which goes to show how ****ed not only the American political landscape is, but how ****ed her people are. I love how these people aren't at all loyal to ideals or their beliefs, but to a ****ing person. This is a major event that will affect the entire world, and these people seem to be content to think of it as a ****ing popularity contest!?
Those people make me sick.
-
Also- Hitler was a good speaker with tons of charisma, but not much else, so we could use him against Obama just as well as against McCain.
Hitler also didn't understand his own limitations and genuinely believed his WW1 experience allowed him to understand how to wage war, which combined with a bit of paranoia led to him taking complete control of the german army which allowed him to make all of those mistakes.
-
we've got some McCain ads up in our banner asking if it's OK to unconditionally meet with Anti-American foreign leaders
i think we know who the better choice is just from that.
(i tried to click yes but it just took me to the donation page :( )
-
That's one of the reasons I'm voting for Obama, it was pretty strange when both Mccain and Hilary were ranting about how naive it was to talk to the leader of Iran.
-
If you talk to them, they become real!
If you ignore them, they exist only in imagination land!
-
If you demand an experienced candidate- McCain was in the Navy for 22 years, an Arizona Senator 1982-1987 and is a US Senator since Jan 1987.
Obama's career starts much later.
Also- Hitler was a good speaker with tons of charisma, but not much else, so we could use him against Obama just as well as against McCain.
Well, experience isn't all that important, America spent 8 years with Ronnie Reagan as President, and, despite being bought up as an actor, he did a considerably better job than many who were raised as politicians. (Oddly enough, another talker with gun, rather than a shooter with a voice).
As for Hitler, he was a great orator but, and this should be remembered, he was also preaching largely to the choir. He was in a country that was ripe for fascism to take control, people wanted a scapegoat, and a promise that things would get better, they were still recovering from the damage of WW1 and were in the middle of a depression caused by it.
Whilst America's situation echoes that in some respects, I'd hardly consider it 'ripe for fascism', if it was, Obamas name and face would meant he'd never even have made it to the position he was in in the first place.
Obama ain't perfect, I'll gladly accept that, but McCain, in my opinion, he's downright dangerous.
-
Well, experience isn't all that important, America spent 8 years with Ronnie Reagan as President, and, despite being bought up as an actor, he did a considerably better job than many who were raised as politicians. (Oddly enough, another talker with gun, rather than a shooter with a voice).
Yeah, Reagan could come back from the dead and have another presidency. I wonder if the Constitution allows zombie presidents?
Also- Reagan was in the Army Reserves during WW II. His political career began in the '40's with Roosevelt still in office, and before being POTUS, he was Governor of California, 1967–1975, so he had political experience when becoming the President; tons of it.
That means he's a bad example of an inexperienced good president, actually quite opposite from one.
As for Hitler Obama, he was is a great orator but, and this should be remembered, he was is also preaching largely to the choir. He was in a country that was ripe for fascism to take control, people wanted a scapegoat (Bush Administration), and a promise that things would get better, they were are still recovering from the damage of WW1 9/11 and the subsequent 2 invasions and were are in the middle of a depression caused by it.
Whilst America's situation echoes that in some respects, I'd hardly consider it 'ripe for fascism', if it was, Obamas name and face would meant he'd never even have made it to the position he was in in the first place.
You'd be surprized how many similarities there can be found by very simple text manipulations. Most of them seem to be true, to make it more scary.
Obama ain't perfect, I'll gladly accept that, but McCain, in my opinion, he's downright dangerous.
Could you back that up?
-
Could you back that up?
How about staying in Iraq for "100 years?"
:p
And to a lesser degree, more tax cut gimmicks designed solely to piss off the surviving members of the intelligencia.
-
Er... By crossing out the part about the country being ripe for fascism, you take away the entire reason Hitler got in. America is not 1930's Germany, that's my entire point.
As for McCain being dangerous, it's his policies that make him dangerous, the last thing the world needs is another 4 years of an America that thinks that posturing, threatening and ignoring any attempts at communication is a good foreign policy.
-
Obama is definitely less experienced. However, considering Obama doesn't preach hate, acknowledges his shortcomings, and avoids absolutely forcing agendas upon people, I'd say he's a far less dangerous person that John McCain.
-
Comparing Obama to Hitler is...
Well let me put it this way. It could only be more utterly hilarous if Obama were Jewish. Either you are ignorant, or you are willfully ignorant, regarding the senator, the megalomaniac, or both.
But I find this commentary on foriegn policy ignorant itself in another way. Put simply, it takes two to communicate, and those people we don't talk to don't really want to talk to us either. North Korea wasn't any more rational during Clinton's time in office then it was during G.W.B.'s (or for that matter his father's, or even Reagan's). Iran wasn't any more tractable. Their leaders regard us as bearers of a plague of democracy that could well get them killed, and their people have been told it's all our fault so often that most of them actually believe it. Communication, unfortunately, hasn't actually solved any major ideological conflicts. It took a world war for democracy to trump facism; it took Reagan's defense buildup in '80s to force the USSR to try to follow suit, and collapse under the weight of its own armor.
Talking to the president of Iran is not going to solve anything. And unless the current situation in Iraq is brought to a conclusion ending in a stable, prosperous democracy for that country forty years from now (there is a famous quote from Eisenhower about the occupation of Germany post-WW2 that comes to mind), then the tactic that brought the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics down won't avail us much either. Which is one of the reasons we need to stay there regardless of whether or not it was right to go in the first place.
McCain's policies are not dangerous; arguably withdrawing from Iraq is more dangerous as it represents increased isolationism, which it can be convincingly argued got us a couple of world wars. What McCain advocates after all worked on the USSR. It's got a successful track record. G.W.B was a failed brinksman and didn't recognize the line between applying them and overapplying them. This is extremely unlikely to happen again in the near future.
-
Thing is, I suspect America had far more control in the Middle East before it invaded Iraq. Yes, a lot of those leaders were pretty intractable, which is why Clinton, Reagan etc came up with the idea of ballistic diplomacy, that got their attention and prompted action without dragging both countries into a self destructive wars. It wasn't perfect by a long shot, but it was, at the very least, a step up from the current situation.
I think part of the problem is not that leaders don't want to talk to the US, it's that they don't want to talk to the Bush administration, they delivered a whole pile of statements and ultimatums regarding these leaders, and the East is not the West, their politics doesn't work like Western politics, when Bush made those threats, I think in many areas, they weren't seen as an option to open diplomatic communication and find a solution, and were seen more as a statement of Bush's intended solution whether they liked it or not.
I suppose it's one thing having the enemy right there, in front of you in uniform, and another when they can quite happily pop your balloons from several hundred miles outside your controlled area, that sort of promotes the urge to talk.
-
Comparing Obama to Hitler is...
I wrote loud and clear I was manipulating text, and even left the original so everyone could know where it was manipulated. It was part of the response I made to people who compared Hitler to McCain.
Also- thanks for the support, I now see there's at least 3 people here who think globaly enough to understand why "100 more years in Iraq" is the right thing to do now (Hell, McCain's son is serving there now).
Being Polish I know very well... too well, what happens when you try to appease a psycho.
The problem with Hitler was he built tanks, airplanes and U-Boats. He had a ban on those weapons, by resolution of the League of Nations, to prevent WW II.
If there was invasion and occupation once the West found out about Germany's expansion plans, most of us here would be b****ing about Germany's rights, and about how wrong occupying a country is, and how wrong it is that a few thousand people got killed because of it.
There was no reaction however, and Hitler understood he could do what he wants. So we had over 6 million people burned to ashes in places like Auschwitz II, Stutthof, Bergen-Belsen. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims)
Now today we have a president in Iran, who has a right given by the Iranian Constitution to erase Israel with all means available (not 100% sure here, but I've read/heard about it from more than 1 source), and who wants to research nuclear energy, claiming he can do what he wants, and that he'll use the atom only in a peacefull way.
Also, we have Osama bin Laden living under a small rock, in the middle of a desert, who's powers are limited to a threat on Al Jazira every now and then. We also have a dead Saddam Hussein, who killed countless people, and tortured many more.
But everyone is b***ing about how wrong it is not to talk to people who use airliners as guided missiles, or use chemical weapons against whole towns, because only 95% of the vilagers support their dictatorship. :rolleyes:
-
I sincerely hope you are joking.
-
I sincerely hope you are joking.
I was trying to come up with a throrough response to that mess and I gave up - it seemed better to let it stand on its own ridiculousness than try to argue it. But your method works too =)
-
The general rule of thumb when dealing with an enemy many many times weaker than you is to trump up their abilities so going to war with them seems like a good idea.
Iran is not Germany. They aren't.
Comparisons to Nazi Germany and death camps and the like will get you ridiculed, not taken seriously.
Second major point: The world is not recovering from a major world war. Quite the opposite, we have plenty of nations with tons of soldiers and defense budgets and nothing to do with them.
Do you what will make us too weak to stop a serious threat to our (the US/the world/whatever) security and safety?
Going to war with every nation who wants to talk big and kick dirt at us.
I can list nations in the Middle East, southeast Asia, the former soviet nations, and Africa who are in dire need of an ass kicking. You can't invade them all and try to completely redo their nations while you have a standing army sit there for x years and keep the peace.
Iraq and Afghanistan aren't rousing successes, no matter what the news media/government says.
Do you keep the troops there for decades to keep the peace? What happens if there is a real conflict? The US armed forces are stretched enough as it is.
Do you really think the American people are going to accept a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran with the possibility of war in North Korea AND keep US soil safe AND hold troops in reserve for disasters/unforseen wars?
The people and money costs would be enormous. People would start to hate wars, all wars. THAT'S when you'll get your Hitler, when we're too tired to fight back.
-
What is it with orange text and staggering idiocy?
Do you keep the troops there for decades to keep the peace? What happens if there is a real conflict? The US armed forces are stretched enough as it is.
To be fair, McCain and the like have a point in wanting to stay in Iraq for the time being. Regardless of the shady legality of the initial invasion, the botched execution, and the incredible amount of corruption and ineptitude in the occupation to this point; the US must stay there. It's a downer, but the US has a very good chance of achieving its goals within Iraq if it remains in there until it can get the nation under control, whereas pulling out would completely destroy the country and turn a brushfire in the region into an out-and-out inferno.
Staying there is a bad idea, nobody has any illusions to the contrary, but up and leaving would be far, far worse.
-
To be fair, McCain and the like have a point in wanting to stay in Iraq for the time being. Regardless of the shady legality of the initial invasion, the botched execution, and the incredible amount of corruption and ineptitude in the occupation to this point; the US must stay there. It's a downer, but the US has a very good chance of achieving its goals within Iraq if it remains in there until it can get the nation under control, whereas pulling out would completely destroy the country and turn a brushfire in the region into an out-and-out inferno.
A few major points on that.
We don't have to stay there. Clamping down on the nation is great for pushing numbers down, but it's not the same as fixing the country. When we leave, they will do what they want, period. If it's violence, it's violence, and years of US occupation won't fix that.
If we leave, what's the worst case scenario? Really? Ethnic clensing? Maybe. Do you think a few Iowa National Guardsman stationed at checkpoints for the next few years is gonna solve that? Doubt it.
Sunni vs Shia isn't gonna vanish cause we got them to write a constitution.
What I'm basically saying is they've been killing each other for the last 5-6 years with and without our help. When we leave, they're gonna go back. We cannot support a lengthy occupation of a nation that size in our current state, not alone anyways.
Do I understand that if we leave they're going to start fighting more than likely? Yea, they probably are. It's costing a crapload of money to do what essentially Iran, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Turkey should be doing themselves.
There is enough crap going on in the Caribbean, South America, Asia, the Pacific Islands, Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe to avoid putting almost everything we have in babysitting people who hate each other because we hope if we stay there long enough, it'll stop.
It's huge, it's expensive and I didn't want to do it in the first place.
-
I think the thing is, it's not a question of the US Soldiers dealing with Terrorism there, they could be there for another 100 years doing that, they might as well walk around carrying boards saying 'scapegoat', every little problem that arises, whether linked to the occupation or not will be the fault of 'them'. It's a gift horse from a political point of view.
Many confrontational leaders see themselves in a win-win position here, they can either do whatever they like or force a country that is already over-stretched and massively in debt to further push its human and financial resources, and create a swathe of world sympathy for themselves at the same time.
As Mefustae says, to pull out now would leave the country a raw turkey waiting to be plucked, and isn't going to happen anyway, because Corporate interests are about as willing to let go of those oil reserves as the average limpet is willing to let go of a rock. But I'll leave that alone before I start with my opinion on legal bribe... I mean Lobbying.
So, if they stay, they will be used as scapegoats for every tiny problem, but may achieve stability in the area, if they go, then there will be anarchy, and it will still be blamed on the US, and if they want to maintain stability in the area, I think it's going to take a talker, not a shooter, in my opinion.
-
I say this from the comforts of my room, so take this for what it is worth, but spending billions and billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of US lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives is a big price to pay for "maybe bringing order at some point later"
-
I say this from the comforts of my room, so take this for what it is worth, but spending billions and billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of US lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives is a big price to pay for "maybe bringing order at some point later"
I agree, but I've got a scary feeling it is going to cost that either way, either from keeping Iraq stable, or from the warcry of a 'victory' (and you can bet they will be calling a withdrawal that) in Iraq becoming a rallying point for fundamentalism :(
That said, I also think that whilst the US is there, it is an easy target, Sunni and Shia can carry on fighting quite happily, and everyone blames the Americans purely for being there.
It's a big, unpleasant mess, and I don't think there is a way out that isn't going to cost everyone.
-
The general rule of thumb when dealing with an enemy many many times weaker than you is to trump up their abilities so going to war with them seems like a good idea.
Iran is not Germany. They aren't.
There are a few things Nazi Germany and Iran today have in common. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech)
Comparisons to Nazi Germany and death camps and the like will get you ridiculed, not taken seriously.
My point was that talking doesn't always work, and I used Camberlain's appeasement policy, which lead to war and death camps as an example.
Second major point: The world is not recovering from a major world war. Quite the opposite, we have plenty of nations with tons of soldiers and defense budgets and nothing to do with them.
I never wrote the world is recovering from a major world war, but an economical depression (2001-2003, and 2008-...).
Do you really think the American people are going to accept a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran with the possibility of war in North Korea AND keep US soil safe AND hold troops in reserve for disasters/unforseen wars?
There are a few SSBN's out there that guarantee peace in terms of conventional invasions, but are useless against acts of terrorism (unless someone thinks nuking Afghanistan as a response to 9/11 is a good idea). There also are US soldiers in South Korea and Japan already, so I don't think there would be a serious need for more if North Korea declares war.
-
My point was that talking doesn't always work, and I used Camberlain's appeasement policy, which lead to war and death camps as an example.
It's a poor example then cause Chamberlain didn't talk. He just stuck his fingers in his ears and hummed loudly.
While we're sticking to British examples take a look at how The Troubles in Northern Ireland ended instead.
-
While we're sticking to British examples take a look at how The Troubles in Northern Ireland ended instead.
You might want to elaborate on that because most Americans know precisely squat about Ireland in general.
What karajorma is driving at is that the IRA/Loyalists continued their mutual campaigns of wanton destruction all the while Thatcher was trying to clamp down and refused to talk to them. Meaningful progress on the mess in Ulster only came after a PM was willing to talk to all sides in the conflict to try to reduce the violence. The situation is by no means resolved, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of where it was after the last iron-fisted PM had it.
Point being - most acceptable solutions are arrived at through compromise, which requires communication. Believe it or not, even the Second World War ended with a compromise - the surrender (both in Germany and Japan) wasn't quite as unconditional as survey history books would have you believe.
-
We don't have to stay there. Clamping down on the nation is great for pushing numbers down, but it's not the same as fixing the country. When we leave, they will do what they want, period. If it's violence, it's violence, and years of US occupation won't fix that.
Beg differ. If we were talking about Vietnam, there would be truth to that...although then again, there wouldn't.
Eventually, somebody's gotta wear out. Given the will to remain in the fight by both sides, the simple truth is that the US has greater staying power. Kara has something of a point, but on the other hand you can argue that Thatcher's clampdown demonstrated there was a reason to sit down and talk because the IRA and the loonies from Ulster realized that they weren't going to win the way they were fighting. They could go on for probably a few more decades but the exercise would have been pointless.
The same situation prevails in Iraq. As it stands they can keep fighting on and on for maybe another forty years if they want, but as long as the US is there, it's a pointless exercise. And they're pissing off more and more of their own people in the process. The US has already been willing to sit down and talk to some of them, but they apparently haven't yet seen the point in the bargining table; they aren't yet willing to recognize that this struggle has failed, because people here keep holding out the possiblity of withdrawal.
-
Of course the real irony is that the troops would have been out of Iraq a couple of years ago had the insurgents been smart enough to simply sit on their enormous cache of stolen weapons for a couple of years.
They actually gave the Americans a reason to stay.
-
...that's an excellent point, and I'm surprised I never thought of it myself.
-
There are a few things Nazi Germany and Iran today have in common. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech)
Hating Jews doesn't make you Hitler. If that were true, Steve down the street would be on the news every day as the next Hitler. He's not cause he works at Walmart and is an idiot.
Subscribing to the same political belief does not make you the same. It can't. If Obama and I agree on a topic, that doesn't make us the same.
My point was that talking doesn't always work, and I used Camberlain's appeasement policy, which lead to war and death camps as an example.
And I can show you war doesn't always work. You're trying to say if you talk you can end up with death camps, if you go to war you can end up with death camps. Talking doesn't automatically lead to death camps, this was a heart strings argument.
There are a few SSBN's out there that guarantee peace in terms of conventional invasions, but are useless against acts of terrorism (unless someone thinks nuking Afghanistan as a response to 9/11 is a good idea). There also are US soldiers in South Korea and Japan already, so I don't think there would be a serious need for more if North Korea declares war.
There are 33,453 US troops in Japan right now, and there are about 30,000 troops in South Korea. There are about 150,000 US troops alone in Iraq and they aren't able to keep the peace well. Imagine them against North Korea's huge army and potential Chinese backing.
You seriously underestimate their forces or overestimate the US troop numbers. If war breaks out there, we WILL need to send troops. A lot of them.
-
Eventually, somebody's gotta wear out. Given the will to remain in the fight by both sides, the simple truth is that the US has greater staying power. Kara has something of a point, but on the other hand you can argue that Thatcher's clampdown demonstrated there was a reason to sit down and talk because the IRA and the loonies from Ulster realized that they weren't going to win the way they were fighting. They could go on for probably a few more decades but the exercise would have been pointless.
So you're going to spend billions of dollars, more US lives, increased agitation in the Middle East AND decreasing our chances of engaging in a real conflict should it come along because maybe we might outlast the insurgents, and if we do, maybe the country will come together? There is no reason to believe that it will ever stop anytime soon.
The same situation prevails in Iraq. As it stands they can keep fighting on and on for maybe another forty years if they want, but as long as the US is there, it's a pointless exercise. And they're pissing off more and more of their own people in the process. The US has already been willing to sit down and talk to some of them, but they apparently haven't yet seen the point in the bargaining table; they aren't yet willing to recognize that this struggle has failed, because people here keep holding out the possibility of withdrawal.
If we stay, we agitate them and cause trouble, if we leave, we let them do whatever they want. So get them out, let the Middle East decide what it wants to do with this mess in their backyard and stop the drain on our budget and such. We may really need it at some point.
-
If we stay, we agitate them and cause trouble, if we leave, we let them do whatever they want. So get them out, let the Middle East decide what it wants to do with this mess in their backyard and stop the drain on our budget and such. We may really need it at some point.
Not entirely true. The reason they are pissed of, and continuing to do so, is because more fuel is being added to the fire. Iraq being all too similar to a war zone will do nothing but prolong this effect. Likewise, pulling out of Iraq will have the same result because we left without cleaning up a mess.
Really, if we want to quell the sectarian violence, the occupation must cease to be a military one. Nobody is going to adopt a revised culture if everyone has a gun to his head. Stockholm syndrome doesn't work if people are in great fear for their lives. The only way to get around the situation is to disarm (for the most part) and get the people to work with each other, rather than against each other. So long as you always see a heavily armed soldier on every street corner, the populace will not be at peace.
-
If we stay, we agitate them and cause trouble, if we leave, we let them do whatever they want. So get them out, let the Middle East decide what it wants to do with this mess in their backyard and stop the drain on our budget and such. We may really need it at some point.
Not entirely true. The reason they are pissed of, and continuing to do so, is because more fuel is being added to the fire. Iraq being all too similar to a war zone will do nothing but prolong this effect. Likewise, pulling out of Iraq will have the same result because we left without cleaning up a mess.
Really, if we want to quell the sectarian violence, the occupation must cease to be a military one. Nobody is going to adopt a revised culture if everyone has a gun to his head. Stockholm syndrome doesn't work if people are in great fear for their lives. The only way to get around the situation is to disarm (for the most part) and get the people to work with each other, rather than against each other. So long as you always see a heavily armed soldier on every street corner, the populace will not be at peace.
Exactly. And it had better be done fast, before the situation reaches such critical mass that the only way to bring the region under control would be to do something rather drastic, like decimate the population.
-
(http://i29.tinypic.com/2rqdrx5.jpg)
-
Of course the real irony is that the troops would have been out of Iraq a couple of years ago had the insurgents been smart enough to simply sit on their enormous cache of stolen weapons for a couple of years.
They actually gave the Americans a reason to stay.
The insurgents want the Americans to stay. Mr. Osama (not Obama) himself said that he wanted to start a war of attrition that would bring down the US from the inside out.
-
The insurgents want the Americans to stay. Mr. Osama (not Obama) himself said that he wanted to start a war of attrition that would bring down the US from the inside out.
oh wow. mission accomplished.
-
The insurgents want the Americans to stay. Mr. Osama (not Obama) himself said that he wanted to start a war of attrition that would bring down the US from the inside out.
Which is pretty stupid really. The actual goal of the Muslim fundamentalists has always been to install fundamentalist regimes in charge of their own countries. They only started to even care about the West when the Western governments (especially the US) helped prevent that happening. Fighting a war of attrition in Iraq did little to achieve their goals. Doing nothing until after a US pull out would have been a big help.
Which only goes to show that the leaders on both side of this conflict haven't got a ****ing clue. :D
-
Yeah, destroying the World Trade Center buildings actually did them a lot more harm than it was worth. The American counterattack on Afghanistan destroyed most of their military force... I guess Osama is like the Bush of the insurgency.
-
Maybe not. It's not that expensive to organize another 9/11-scale attack. It takes thorough planning and a very reliable group of people to make sure nothing gets leaked.
-
There are 33,453 US troops in Japan right now, and there are about 30,000 troops in South Korea. There are about 150,000 US troops alone in Iraq and they aren't able to keep the peace well. Imagine them against North Korea's huge army and potential Chinese backing.
You seriously underestimate their forces or overestimate the US troop numbers. If war breaks out there, we WILL need to send troops. A lot of them.
Well in conventional warfare the front line is a line- you know where the enemy is, and who's friendly. You can be much more trigger happy, use much deadlier weapons and worry less about roadside bombs or shooting civilians.
That means the 60+k US soldiers would do much more damage to N K, than the 150k do to terrorists in Iraq.
I also admit that such an open war could cost millions per day, but less manpower is needed when you have a thin line to hold than when you need to police a whole county.
-
Why would you want to go to war with North Korea, anyway? Just because they're an isolated thing? Want more liberation? Their missiles can't even hit the west coast of the US. Let alone the UK. :nervous:
-
Chances are, a War with North Korea would be a bigger waste of manpower, money and resources than Iraq. Not only that, but China are not going to react well to it, the last thing they want is the US setting up an occupation in a country on their border. And when it comes to throwing resources into a conflict, the US is not going to match China, whose standing army is, iirc, several times the population of the US.
-
I never wrote that I want war with NK, someone just wrote that they could be the aggressor.
Although Kim could use a little spanking for all the starving people in North Korea.
Also- China's army ain't really that much bigger than the US's armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops). And I'll bet someone else's life that the US are far more technologically advanced, enough to even out the odds. Also- South Korea has a big military with good equiptment.
-
I never wrote that I want war with NK, someone just wrote that they could be the aggressor.
Although Kim could use a little spanking for all the starving people in North Korea.
Also- China's army ain't really that much bigger than the US's armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops). And I'll bet someone else's life that the US are far more technologically advanced, enough to even out the odds. Also- South Korea has a big military with good equiptment.
That's active troops, China has a reserve that is something like 1/4 Billion men. Poorly trained, mostly guerilla warfare, and not as well armed as the US, but still overwhelming unless you are prepared to go Nuclear, and I doubt anyone wants that.
America is not as far ahead technically as they'd like people to believe with regards to China. China may not have quite the digital advantage, but they have perfectly serviceable and effective weapons, and a hell of a lot of them. Remember, China was the first country to, at least officially, take out a satellite in orbit from the ground.
America is ahead still, but without using Nukes, China can put vast numbers of troops with small arms and Portable Anti-Air and Armour Piercing weapons in the field. At the very least, if they were assisting a guerilla war in another country, they could certainly make life pretty unpleasant for the occupiers. They have used exactly this technique before.
-
Today you win conventional battles in the air, and untill China has radars that detect airplanes more stealth than the 20+ year old F-117, the US have the upper hand.
Also the Americans have quite a fleet of armed UAV's, don't know about China (other than the fact they most probably have the tech needed to produce rather advanced UAV's).
There is also a question of how other countries (EU, India) would react if the world found out that Chinese 'volunteers' are assisting North Korea in the war against the US and SK.
And regarding the satellite killing- these weapons are much older than one might expect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon
-
I never wrote that I want war with NK, someone just wrote that they could be the aggressor.
Although Kim could use a little spanking for all the starving people in North Korea.
Also- China's army ain't really that much bigger than the US's armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops). And I'll bet someone else's life that the US are far more technologically advanced, enough to even out the odds. Also- South Korea has a big military with good equiptment.
Let me correct that for you: China's standing army isn't much bigger than the US's. However, the Chinese can field massive numbers of B and C reserve units. Poorly trained, not well equipped, but they're bodies with weapons. The US military is over-extended as it is. And if it hasn't become completely obvious in the last 50 years, large-scale combat waged by technological means is becoming less and less popular. Insurgent and guerilla-style warfare is sustainable by a very small group for a very long time against the best militaries in the world (just ask the SAS about Burma sometime). In fact, it was the numbers and not the technology that landed Korea in the mess it's in today. UN forces had the North pushed back almost into China - and then the Chinese and North Korea's came flooding over the river in numbers so large that the UN forces were forced to beat it back to the parallel and try to come to a deal, which resulted in a 50+ year cease-fire.
The air war doesn't gain ground. Planes don't control territory. NATO learned that the hard way in Kosovo.
Furthermore, the fact that poorly trained insurgents using old weaponry and improvised homemade explosives could drive the entire armed forces of the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and are wagely a very deadly campaign against the coalition forces currently in Afghanistan and Iraq should be ample evidence that in modern warfare technology gives you very little in the way of an edge.
Conventional wisdom dictates that an attacking/occupying force must out-number the defenders by a ratio of 3:1 to claim victory if they are in all other ways matched. Conventional wisdom doesn't consider the staggering numbers required to stamp out an insurgency.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
America was technically the most advanced force in that confrontation as well, my own feeling is that, if it was tried again today, the result would be pretty much identical, if not worse.
-
Well in conventional warfare the front line is a line- you know where the enemy is, and who's friendly. You can be much more trigger happy, use much deadlier weapons and worry less about roadside bombs or shooting civilians.
That means the 60+k US soldiers would do much more damage to N K, than the 150k do to terrorists in Iraq.
I also admit that such an open war could cost millions per day, but less manpower is needed when you have a thin line to hold than when you need to police a whole county.
You obviously don't know anything about North Korea's conventional weapons and manpower then.
-
Yeah.
And the immense destruction caused by even a 'conventional' war would devastate the civilian population. War always has done most of its damage to civilians -- actual clashes between armed forces on opposing sides make up the minority of any struggle's effects
-
On a side note, war is a very complex thing. In most cases there is something you didnt even think off that will have a huge influence on the war, like climate, storms, morale, overall economy, stability of government, new strategies or newly developed technologies.
Compared to WW2, the last really big war, todays standing armies are very small on every side.
But thats not that important, especially with countries of the size of the USA or China, seperated by an ocean.
A surprise attack will take out many (remote) defenses, but it needs a lot of time to invade the land of each nation itself, enough time to properly prepare.
So, no real need to worry about a real war :>
-
It's not us I'm worried about them attacking.
-
China isn't going to invade us...
They're going to help dig the grave for our economy.
-
China doesn't need war, really.
-
(this is more directed at the arguments a couple of pages ago)
I believe this onion video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viVAAy_qkx0) says it all.
(Edit: I tried linking to the one on the onion site but it would move to the wrong video)
Its funny, but it portrays a serious problem in the American political system. I don't care hows Obama's name sounds like Iraq Hussein Ossama or McCain is 70 or other such BS that is thrown at me, and neither should you. Really scrutinize what you hear from the news and what people tell you because this election is really important. This country, quite frankly, is in a dire situation around the globe and at home. Our economy is in recession, It's difficult to get a job, the national Debt is 9 Trillion+ !, Social Security is a joke because our government cant tell the difference between and FICA tax and an Income. Our energy policy is completely defunct for the crises (Oil and Global Warming) we now face, College tuition has risen way past inflation, mortgage rates are through the roof and speaking as a young person, this country has never been in a worse state for someone just starting out. People work more then ever and yet are barely getting by as credit debts are disastrous. Generally, our quality of life is down the tubes. Never mind the fact that our creditability around the globe is non existent. And its a fact, thanks to our international policy, terrorism is worse now then it ever was after 9/11.
That is the world we live in. Really, seriously think about who you vote into office (And don't stand on the sidelines!) Because, by god, they are the ones who will take this burden, and despite their rhetoric, will somehow make it better or make it worse.
-
China was just an example, someone iirc said before that splitting the troops to many countries like Irak, Afghanistan, South Korea etc.. will make it easy to be attacked (and overwhelmed). I wanted to answer that you dont really have to worry about that, but maybe I just misunderstood.
-
I think you meant me, and I didn't mean so much as the US being attacked, but when we DO need to send troops to a real conflict (not one we trumped up) we won't have the manpower.
-
Ah ok, i really misunderstood :>
-
Also- China's army ain't really that much bigger than the US's armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops). And I'll bet someone else's life that the US are far more technologically advanced, enough to even out the odds. Also- South Korea has a big military with good equiptment.
Because, you know, all of our technological advancements really helped the USA win in Vietnam.
Oh... wait... we lost?
-
In a war with China technology might actually help.
-
In a war with China technology might actually help.
Only if war were confined to naval and aerial units.
-
It goes beyond that though. Body armor comes to mind, tank armor, longer range artillery, more reliable weapons (I wish), it goes on and on.
Body armor has even helped the US in the Iraq conflict, imagine what our casualties would be without it.
-
Body armor has even helped the US in the Iraq conflict, imagine what our casualties would be without it.
Fixed.
-
I fully agree, all I'm saying is that body armor alone is a huge advantage over a conventional force.
Of course the Chinese are very close to the US in technology, and their weapons are potentially better (they have higher KE)
-
i say we shoulda nuked the bastards
-
Along with everyone else.
-
I fully agree, all I'm saying is that body armor alone is a huge advantage over a conventional force.
Of course the Chinese are very close to the US in technology, and their weapons are potentially better (they have higher KE)
Why do Chinese weapons have better KE? The Chinese have some potent aircraft in their airforce like the Su-30 but their own fighter programs have been floundering for years. Only recently has China been building a serious surface naval fleet to try and rival the US. At the moment the US and Allies still have the technological advantage with largely better aircraft, missile technology, UAV technology, and outright naval power. But the gap is narrowing...
It'd still be totally disastrous for China and the West to go at arms with each other. Both sides economies would be in ruins. Plus there is little to fight over except Taiwan. China doesn't seem to have any territorial ambitions and North Korea seems to be regarded mostly as an annoyance for them.
-
china's power is economic and industrial power, not military. i don't view china as an evil power. sure they have done some bad things in the past but i think they have outgrown alot of that in recent years. most of the bad rep the chinese get from cold war era anto communist propaganda. china is becoming less and less communist each day.
anyway with the current state of american industry i doubt we could win a war with china. china's industry is now about where we were when we got involved in ww2. fact of the matter is they can build factories faster than we can build bombs. if they had to go into war time production of even mediocre weapons systems they would still have the numbers advantage.
-
Why do Chinese weapons have better KE?
The 5.8x42mm round used in their weapons is heavier with similar muzzle velocity than the 5.56
It'd still be totally disastrous for China and the West to go at arms with each other. Both sides economies would be in ruins. Plus there is little to fight over except Taiwan. China doesn't seem to have any territorial ambitions and North Korea seems to be regarded mostly as an annoyance for them.
I agree.
china's power is economic and industrial power, not military. i don't view china as an evil power. sure they have done some bad things in the past but i think they have outgrown alot of that in recent years. most of the bad rep the chinese get from cold war era anto communist propaganda. china is becoming less and less communist each day.
anyway with the current state of american industry i doubt we could win a war with china. china's industry is now about where we were when we got involved in ww2. fact of the matter is they can build factories faster than we can build bombs. if they had to go into war time production of even mediocre weapons systems they would still have the numbers advantage.
China isn't any more evil than any other large government. However, I think that a war between China and the West is the most likely WWIII scenario at the moment.
-
i say we shoulda nuked the bastards
Along with everyone else.
Wow it's good to know there are still plenty of idiots in the world to dilute the gene pool.
-
Scuddie was being sarcastic. Nuke isn't called Nuke for no reason.
-
1,215 posts and you don't know about Nuke? :confused:
-
There are 33,453 US troops in Japan right now, and there are about 30,000 troops in South Korea. There are about 150,000 US troops alone in Iraq and they aren't able to keep the peace well. Imagine them against North Korea's huge army and potential Chinese backing.
You seriously underestimate their forces or overestimate the US troop numbers. If war breaks out there, we WILL need to send troops. A lot of them.
North Korea's army is large, but it's almost all infantry and what armor and aircraft they have are all hopelessly obsolete (even more obsolete than China's). At first they can do some damage, but they have no staying power. Plus South Korea has a large, advanced military which would be enough to counter North Korea.
China isn't going to invade us...
They're going to help dig the grave for our economy.
Exactly. Something people don't get in the midst of this fear mongering about China is that it has far too much to lose. What made the Soviet Union dangerous was its isolation. It had nothing to gain from the current system, and so had every reason to destroy it.
The real problem is that China and the US aren't really talking WITH eachother as much as they should, they are talking TO eachother far more than they should. That's something I hope will change in the next 10 years, for the good of everyone.
-
1,215 posts and you don't know about Nuke? :confused:
Doesn't matter what his username is, if anyone says something like that with any sincerity, I have no tolerance for that sort of attitude which seems to be somewhat common south of the border. Anyone who says "nuke 'em all or kill 'em all" and actually believes it, is a complete moron and may God help any children they may have.
If on the other hand, he's just joking or is being sarcastic, well it's not overly funny. In part because people who don't get the joke might adopt the same mentality but without the humourous undertones.
-
I don't find it funny either, because the joke's stale. But, hey, he's nuke. He likes being misanthropic because it sets him apart.
No harm in that, I guess,
-
Doesn't matter what his username is, if anyone says something like that with any sincerity, I have no tolerance for that sort of attitude which seems to be somewhat common south of the border. Anyone who says "nuke 'em all or kill 'em all" and actually believes it, is a complete moron and may God help any children they may have.
If on the other hand, he's just joking or is being sarcastic, well it's not overly funny. In part because people who don't get the joke might adopt the same mentality but without the humourous undertones.
Methinks thou misunderstand. The sentiment to which I believe you are referring is a desire to inflict violence that is predicated on "othering," as in violence towards others as distinct from one's own community or self. Nuke is a self-proclaimed nihilist and endorses the destruction of everything and everyone-- including himself, if I understand correctly. When he says "nuke 'em," he doesn't mean "nuke them specifically," he means "include them when we nuke the rest of the world." Now how can you hate a guy like that?