Printable View
You're quite right -- Hillary Clinton will never be President. Ain't gonna happen. The U.S. will likely have a female in the oval office one day, but it's not going to be her. Those who see her as a real contender tend to be left-wing extremists and right-wing extremists, for some reason. Nice to see those two wings united in fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Yeah, more than likely the next Democratic GOP is going to be Barack Obama.
Ronin, Major, I don't disagree that the US invasion certainly made it more fertile. I wouldn't argue that prior to 2003 that there was a significant presence of AQ in Iraq. Truly. I've even seen it argued that creating an engagement zone they wouldn't be able to resist, as opposed to sneaking over here, was the real reason for the Iraq war in the first place.
My point is that they are there now. Withdrawing in front of them now, with no objectives accomplished, just 'getting out before it gets any worse' would be a disastrous play. The one part of that scenario that I DO agree with is that any sort of withdrawal, prior to establishing a secure government and society in Iraq, will be interpreted as cowardice and failure by not only Al Queda, but the Islamic world in general. I don't care what anybody says about peace with honor, "US runs in fear from Al Queda, nothing to stop Bin Laden now" will be the headline on Al Jazeera and on every Arabic language newspaper around the globe. It will embolden the extremists and drive their recruiting numbers through the roof.
As for the rest of that hogwash, whoever wrote it clearly has no idea where the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on nuclear attack submarines, sonar buoys, AWACS aircraft and, for that matter, the Coast Guard goes. The US is overly protective of it's ocean bound approaches, to the point of paranoia. As for the lack of a response in the face of hundreds of military advisers being summarily executed, sorry, Rush Limbaugh could have done a better job remaining unbiased. It was the worst sort of jingoism (against Democrats) that I've seen in a long time.
I seriously suspect it was a self-inflicted attack by a Democrat, to make Republicans look like rabid, slathering mongoloids.
A man with absolutely no experience whatsoever in global politics, terrorism, defense or even large scale budgets. Yeah, but he's got charisma, and he prays (so Democrats can take fundamentalists away from Republicans). Yeah, this is the problem with the Democratic party. They're looking for a rock-star, not a fit person for the job (and the Democrats DO have some).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
I suppose it could be Obama, assuming all of this speculation that it will be him doesn't kill his candidacy early. And assuming he doesn't come out of the closet as a nut job, you know, pulling a Ross Perot. I'll admit he has an aura of dignity and gravitas (and Lord knows we could use some dignity), but I'm unclear on his policies and politics.
Two years out is, to my mind, a dangerously long distance to be predicting who will represent either party.
He would be a better pick than Zell Miller :laugh4:
Of course, having a president that wanted to get into fisticuffs with other world leaders would be entertaining.
I can think of 3 Democratic leaders that while I may not always agree with them, I can see from their public reasoning that they at least understand what they'd be up for (something think Barrack Obama doesn't have a clue on)....
-Joe Biden (yes, I know, he gives Republicans fits, but at the end of the day, what popular Democrat doesn't).
-Evan Byah (his biggest opponent is anonymity)
-Bill Richardson (bright guy, capable guy, but credibility/ethics issues from his Clinton days could back to haunt him).
Any of these three would make a much better pick than Obama or Hillary.
What about Wesley Clark?
I have serious issues with his ethics - from his military days. Some might see him has a viable candidate from his more recent exposure, and he does have alot of charsima that might just carry him. He is by far an intelligent individual, with experience in foreign areas - but limited political or governmental experience outside of the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
What I fear is that the Democrats would fight to hard amongst themselves to get a solid candidate up in 2008. What I fear more is that a Democratic candidate born of political compromise, lacking in actual leadership capability will win the Oval Office. It would be almost as bad as a Corporate Lackey Republican in the same vein as GDub taking office again in 2008.
Just curious, who does have that?Quote:
A man with absolutely no experience whatsoever in global politics, terrorism, defense
Don't forget, if the Dems take control of the house and senate, a Republican president may be the optimal choice. We really, really don't want one-party control. Trust the lemur on this one. Single-party control of all three branches of government = badness.
Slow down the typing!Let your fingers catch up with your thoughts. GOP = Republican....you know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
I disagree by the way. Obama will put his hat in the ring, but espite a lot of charm and appeal he will lack the money/developed party connections to pull off the nomination. His active role and Midwest background will help him land the VEEP role (I'd guess it's down to him or Warner for this). If you're an Obama fan, don't worry, he's young enough to be perfectly positioned and groomed in 2016 (or possibly 2012).
Early strong contenders for the Dems = Clinton (massive war chest, many of husband's electoral team available; high negatives with some groups), Gore (Southerner, party connections, good fundraiser, many dems nostalgic since they view him as having been cheated; still a bit wooden in style), & Kerry (has worked to solidify image with party activists, experienced campaigner; possible only Dem more wooden than Gore).
@Don Corleone: sorry for the late reply.
Yes, as MRD and Ronin pointed out, I had meant no AQ in Iraq prior to the invasion, the reason why they are there now is because the US is there now. Like DA said, Iraq is now a roach motel, especially for a particular kind of roaches (ones that hate the US).
Also, with respect to the fact that pulling back would encourage AQ, I dunno. The very reason they are there IS because the US are there. If the US wasn't there, what would they do there, that they couldn't do in Iran, Syria or Pakistan ? Now they're there because they can directly fight the Great Satan, etc. Retreating would leave them without a target, and without an objective, in Iraq, because, again, there is absolutely nothing for them to gain in Iraq, other than "killing the infidels". Yeah, of course they would remain there (maybe), but then so what ? They can already stay in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and maybe other places, so what do you care whether they're in Iraq or not more than you do about Iran/Syria/Pakistan?
OBL?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
:laugh4:
And from what I hear from conservatives in here, his views are quite closely aligned with those of the Dems (or vice versa), so maybe it's not such a long shot...
First, Syria and Iran are hostile to the United States and actively encourage terrorism against us and Israel. They're not going to let Hezbollah or Al Queda sit around getting fat dumb and stupid. They'll send them out on the road to go perform some more terrorism against us or Israel or Western Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Second, what would Al Queda do if we pulled out, you ask. Sit around Iraq, Iran, Syria and Pakistan? Well, if their goal was to gain a foothold in Iraq, yes, they probably would. But as you correctly point out, their goal is to strike us as hard as they can, every chance they can. If we pull out of Iraq, where do you think they're going to go? Here! Or, to Mexico (easier entry) and then come across in a caravan of illegals.
I don't think you understand what's on the line here. The only thing keeping Al Queda from increasingly worse acts of terrorism is two things: 1) they're occupied in Iraq as much as we are so they can't mount other terror campaigns and 2) they themselves don't have the greatest confidence as to what they can pull off. I think how fast we knocked in their playhouse in Afghanistan surprised them. I think that we had the political will to do it, even in light of 9/11, shocked the hell out of them. I think they expected some more hand wringing, maybe a few more cruise missiles. A full out invasion and flattening of their camps wasn't in their worst nightmares. We had the upper hand, then two things went wrong:
-Musharraf, to ease domestic pressures at home, gave the green light to his intelligence agency and military to surreptitiously allow Al Queda to escape and set up within Pakistan.
-We allowed ourselves to take our eyes off the ball, and rather then holding Musharaff's feet to the fire and going into Pakistan after them, allowed them sit around and recoup their losses.
Well, when we pull out of Iraq period, any time, limitation #1 is gone. If we pull out right now, with things headed South, limitation #2 will be gone as well. My prediction: If we leave Iraq prior to a clear cessation of hostilities over there, we will have at least one, possibly several 9/11 type attacks or larger within the USA, in less than a year. Al Queda's ranks will swell to the point that they'll be turning people away as disenfrancished youth from Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Arab world will all want to join in the hunt.
Threats of violence and death, check. Scaring people with war to advance a political agenda, check. Nuclear scaremongering, check. Are you sure this isn't terrorism? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
As I said before, that's over the top for all but the most rapidly extreme Republicans. I'm talking G. Gordon Liddy type, Rush wouldn't even publish something that far out. I think it's a Democratic trick. Put it out there just to say "You see! You see how crazy they are and how they'll say anything to get reelected!"
I agree with them being hostile to the US. So how does staying in Iraq change that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Again, it will make no difference to their attitude towards the US whether Iraq is still occupied or not.
Eh... I disagree with this, for several reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
First, 9/11 happened before the US invaded Iraq. So the fact that they hit you at home had nothing to do with Iraq.
Now, you're saying they haven't done that since, because they've been busy in Iraq.
I disagree with that - I believe they haven't done that since because (one of the main reasons) after 9/11 the US has significantly increased its security measures at various levels.
Another reason is that, as you say, and I agree, they want to hit the US as hard as they can. But, my friend, "as hard as they can" will *always* translate into "US territory". It will always be "harder" if they hit home, rather than kill a few soldiers. I'm not trying to disparage the deaths of the soldiers, I hope you understand what I'm saying: killing a few civilians on US territory will always have more impact than killing a few soldiers in a military operation. So if they really want to hit as hard as they can (as you yourself said), they'll hit US territory, so,staying in Iraq or not is not going to change that.
Another reason I disagree with this is because you make it sound like the US has to actively occupy some other country, just to keep AQ busy there, and not on US territory.
Even if that were correct (which I don't believe it is), it's very... selfish. Are you trying to say like Gelatinous Cube said, that you think you should be occupying other countries (with all the obvious consequences, plunging those countries into civil war, causing loss of civilian lives, etc), for as long as that keeps the terrorists away from US soil ?
I disagree with 1. Why do you think they would be so hell-bent on Iraq ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Why not the actual US territory ? It seems to be the best strategy: while your enemy is focused on some front, hit him on another front. Why would they need to make any efforts to maintain the chaos in Iraq, when that hurts the US very little, when they could make efforts to hit the US in the US?
I'll agree that the latter is way more difficult to achieve, but, again, that's the whole point: the US being there is offering them an easy (if not as "juicy" as US territory) target. If you took off, that easy target would be gone, and yes, they would put more effort into getting to US territory. But that hasn't happened so far, so you must be doing something right.
Also, what makes you think that their goals or objectives will change, regardless of how long you stay in Iraq ?
Let's say you stabilize the country, and drive AQ away from Iraq. Will you destroy them, eradicate them completely ? Let's be serious, no. They will just retreat to other "friendly" countries. So you leave Iraq because it's peaceful now, and what do you think they'll do ? Start all over again, be it in Iraq, or towards the US, or both.
My point is that the situation - AQ fighting against the US - will be the same no matter when you retreat from Iraq. So from the perspective of the threat of AQ, what's the point in staying there, since the threat will always remain the same ? I see no benefit, but I do see several drawbacks.
Even if you "win" the war in Iraq, it won't make a difference to what AQ's goals or objectives are, unless, like I said, you manage to completely obliterate them. But that's more than unrealistic, when they can always escape across the border, and also get fresh recruits from all those terrorist-supporting countries. As long as there's craziness in all those countries, new recruits will always be available. Do you really believe it's feasible to stay in Iraq until those countries run out of religious fanatics ?
And I agree that Afghanistan was a good move, and should have been pursued further, with more effort, rather than switch focus on to Iraq.
Times Magazine ran a feature on Obama just a little while ago (like, this week "Why Barack Obama could be the next President"); they seem to like him well enough, but they criticize him for not really taking any positions on the hard issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
While I think 2 years is more than enough to build up publicity and name-recognition, along with establishing a clear position on most issues in US politics, Obama doesn't seem to be in any way ready for Presidency challenge in 2008 -- not with Hillary and her massive war chest and connections dominating the scene. In fact, if I were him, I'd wait anyway. Everyone knows the Iraqi mess is going to be the next President's job: would you take that kind of responsibility on a humongous job with the risk of a political death at the first sign of failure?
He seems to want to run, though. The guy has charisma and he prays, as has been said, so he might be trying to play the "compassionate" card Bush played in 2000.
Moreover, I never understood why Left-wing extremists find Hillary so likable. Her almost Bushistas hawkish mongering had me quite miffed. Remember the Port buyouts issue?
By the way, what's this I hear about the New York City Mayor wanting to throw his hat into the ring as a GOP candidate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
haha. "hold Pristina airport at all costs......"
"no, sir, I'm not starting world war three."
I'd like to hear his explanation of that incident, and I might give him a shot. Was he bluffing? Was he a fool? Did he see his countries actions in the screwed up war as so important that to him it was an issue of being a patriot? Obeying the commander n chief? Did he just want to stick it to the Soviets?
In light of what we know about the exaggerations on the numbers the Clinton administration gave us, that was a terrible, terrible order.
Interesting enough that particlur instance wasn't what made me question his ethics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Hmmmm, then what was it, because thats what made me question his ethics, and has all along. But I must admit, the last presidential primary I saw him as the better choice of the Democrats (oklahoma was the only state clark carried btw) but I didn't do a lot of research into him beforehand, simply because I absolutey hated all the other choices
Seems like a loose cannon, but judging from our executive branch for the last few years it appars he'd fit right in
I remember working in a certain facility while he was ordering the cluster bombing of civilians. Man, luckily it was a democrat in office during the time or people and the media would have been pissed.:thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
That instance was the tip of the iceberg. There are other instances in his career that makes me question his ethics, most from second hand information from officers that were not to favaorable of him from the beginning. Then their was the officers I served under that considered Clark one of their mentors, they were very questionable in the ethics department - often throwing others under the bus when their actions were questioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Now I wouldn't go attempting the "Swiftboat" tactic to discredit General Clark, but from the information I have - he would have to explain several of his actions to remove my questioning of his ethics. Because most of my information is second hand - I would give him he benefit of explaining some of the more questionable ethics that he has demonstrated in the past.
The article probably quite correct.
Terrorists know this.
That is why Iraq insurgents now at high activity.
As Cheney and others say, they want to make US vote democrat, so aiding the terrorist cause:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20061...5437-2462r.htm
Bartix, the article you linked does not support your claim that terrorists are hoping for a Democratic win. Just a sample:
Also, doesn't Cheney haul out his "vote for us or the terrorists win" argument every election?Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Which party did the President of America belong to in WWII?
Since US won then, surely it would be best to select from the same stable based on winning form. :laugh4:
I dont care what party they are...so long as they can run this country better than the other idiots who will sign up. If Hilary Clinton runs, shes got my vote.