Anyone watching?
Printable View
Anyone watching?
I missed it which I dont think is tragic at this point, I am intrested in what others thought, particularly if there were any moments of note, and how Mr Paul did.
I watched parts of it. The tone has certainly shifted since the first one. In the first one, the candidates were careful to avoid speaking ill of the president. Clearly, their pollsters told them that strategy wasn't working, as each and every one of them found something negative to say, topped by Tancredo who said if elected, he would tell Bush not to darken the doorstep of the White House ever again (something he claims Karl Rove said to him for not being 100% supportive of the president).
I missed the whole immigration portion, but apparently McCain managed to beat the odds and remain fairly low key during the discussion.
You know, I may not agree with him 100%, but I'm starting to like Rudy more and more. Making jokes about the lightning strike when he was trying to explain his position on abortion, which actually mirrors my own (morally wrong but should be legally allowable, at least in the first trimester) was hysterical. Unfortunately, while he talked a good game on limiting spending and small government, his track record doesn't back his words.
Romney seemed completely unprepared for a question about why he has his website available in Spanish, which seems stupid to me (being unprepared, not being bilingual). We're the only country in the world that isn't bilingual, and it hurts us badly. Linguists, nuerologists and human devleopment specialists all agree that our kids would learn at a faster rate if they were raised bilingually. Why couldn't Romney simply have said "what's wrong with making Spanish available?" Creo que todo de nosotos en los Estados Unidos debemos hablar en Ingles, Espanol y possiblimente una linqua tercer, Frances o Chino o Japonesa...
I thought McCain was strong, Romney looked fake as usual, Guiliani , meh... and the others were largley ignored except for Tancredo who made some paticularly insane comments about immigration that I think everyone was like "what did he just say?" Ron Paul had some very good lines and alot of applause but was ignored by the moderator in favor of the big three as usual.
Ron Paul made the news here, i believe with his comment on bilingual countries :laugh4:
Didn't see the debate, but what's the deal with the preemptive nuke strike against Iran?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/early...ge_1.html#more
Is this guy just spinning it, or did most of them (not Paul, he's looking better and better) say they would not rule out glassing Iran to prevent them from getting nukes. !?
yeah, its totally crazy, all of the big three were like "absolutely" in regards to nuking Iran..!? they're all nuts.
Okay, i seriously have to find time to write an essay: Why Democrats should just give up on their party and support Ron Paul instead.
I'd vote for Ron Paul if he comes out tomorrow and confess that he's actually gay.
...illegally, of course ;)
As an outsider, I have picked up from US posters that the primary race is always about appealing to the base. It may even go over well with some other sectors of the electorate, but not I think, with most Amercians (other than a kind of conceptual acknowledgment of strength and power).Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
One assumes this kind of language appeals since most candidates adopted the stance, but should one of them actually become president they will find the real world less accomodating.
Even more so than that, BG. Frequently, many of them will actually 'explain themselves better' once they get the nomination. Translation: No, I'm wouldn't really nuke Iran to celebrate my inauguration, but they do really torque me off sometimes.
Especially in light of the past 8 years, I don't think anybody advocating an agressive, interventionist foreign policy has any hope of even 25% in the general election, and they're all intimately aware of that. Primary speeches are all about 'red meat'... giving the extremists of the party what they want to hear and act like they might actually be taken seriously. Once the nomination is in, Democrats always shift right and Republicans shift left. About 1/3 of the US electorate votes staunchly Democrat and similarly about 1/3 vote Republican no matter what. It's that last 1/3 that both candidates seek, for it is in that disputed territory where elections are won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
From the article:Plays better for the left when we dont place emphasis on key phrases. (not you persay, but the "knuckleheads" in the media). Any presidential candidate thatrules out the nuclear option eliminates what is and was a massive expense to the american people, and the backbone of the projected strength of the U.S.Quote:
At the Republican debate last night, almost all the candidates said that they would not rule out a nuclear attack on Iran as a means to prevent it from getting its own nuclear weapons. Only one of these knuckleheads would say that attacking Iran -- indeed even threatening to nuke Iran -- is not the right strategy.
Now saying "I will use nukes preemptively against Iran" is different, but thats not what was asked or said now was it?
Dont tell the the post that though, that might hurt thier chances of getting the party they want in. :thumbsdown:
From the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
pre-emptive enough ?Quote:
as a means to prevent
Uh, but they did say that. At least one of them did. It was Romney and Guiliani that said they "wouldnt rule out" which still...gah! the use of nuclear weapons should never be an option.
The article said that Doc, not the candidates. Perhaps the article is attempting to paint a picture that dosent exsist?Quote:
Originally Posted by article
I concede the one little phrase i am harping on might be a stretch, but I have long arms and the difference between "will" and "would" can be quite a stretch.
[QUOTE=Zaknafien]I dont have time to reread the article now, but which one said they would use nukes preemptively against Iran?Quote:
Uh, but they did say that. At least one of them did.
Wouldnt rule it out, isnt an endorsement of an action, its a recogonition that the action exsists.
Disagree, because the minute you "rule it out" as an option you remove a strength. Now we can agree that its a scary strength and one that in the hands of nuts could kill us all, but dismissing it now at this stage of the game isnt going to happen.Quote:
the use of nuclear weapons should never be an option.
The U.S. has offensive nuke capability, we spent many years building it up to be able to use the "I wouldnt rule it out" language as a means of having a diplomatic lever. Take that away as an option and you eliminate one of your strengths, in an ideal world perhaps it would be nice we were all on a level field.
But we arent in an ideal world Zak, and by my theories of politics, when dealing with others who are not friendly (and vice versa) you leave it on the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
All of these are direct quotes, so unless the article seriously twisted their words (I'll aceept that if you can back it up, it happens) they're all in favor of an attack if iran even starts developping nuclear technology, which at this stage of their development can only be used for civilian purposes. Thus: pre-emptive strike (at least ten years before an actual threat could form too, hardly even pre-emptive any more.)Quote:
Originally Posted by the article
Ron Paul was the only one who spoke truth when he said Iran wasnt a threat to us.
I dont think the article twisted the quotes I think you a few things.Quote:
Originally Posted by the article
"I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges," he said. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he believed that the job "could be done with conventional weapons," but he added that "you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table." Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore also left "all options are on the table" with regard to Iranian nuclear weapons. Said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "I wouldn't take any options off the table."
1.Key term "if there was no other way"Quote:
"I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges,"
2.dosent advocate a nuke strike, he says "you cant rule out anything"Quote:
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he believed that the job "could be done with conventional weapons," but he added that "you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table."
3.See 2.Quote:
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore also left "all options are on the table"
4.see 3.Quote:
Said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "I wouldn't take any options off the table.
In truth the article dosent claim they said anything else (I reread it afterall), it merely supposes this is the wrong course for a candidate to take. Okay, he's entitled to his views, Ill make the concession there.
So my point is thats its an option and it should be, it just shouldnt be the first option. Nukes exsist, we have over 5000 of them, and to not acknowledge them as an option is poor presidential form.
Well no Doc, there all in favor of the option, thats where I think Zak, the article, you and I are all getting entangled. Acknowleding you have an option and that its a viable one in your opinion dosent make it a given (in terms of the nuke option). In terms of striking Iran period should they continue towards weapons grade production (I concede they arent there yet).Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I think these candidates accurately portray what a lot of americans think, myself included. Sure Iran is a threat to us mainly due to our policies, but they are a threat, at least those whose hands are on the levers of government are at this time and I for one would rather deal with it now diplomatically, but I dont want options taken off the table in the process, no matter how weighty they may be.
He was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
I think we disagree on two important things:
1. That developing centrifuges means they pose a threat. I say it doesn't, how many countries have centrifuges ? As long as they keep their nuclear development to non-military applications i don't see the problem.
2. That using Nukes is okay. It isn't, the people who developed them never intended them to be used. They are meant as a means to scare off attackers, a doomsday device of sorts, with MAD and all. I'd also disagree that you feel the American taxpayer has payed for the right to those nukes, they served their purpose when the cold war ended.
How is Iran a threat to the U.S.? Am I missing something? besides, they're 10 years away at BEST.
Doesnt anyone else think it silly that all of the candidates advocated use of nuclear power as clean and efficient for the enviroment yet Allah-forbid those filthy Iranians getting their hands on it.
Weapons to militants in Iraq, threatening Israel (yes they are our allies presently) Support of terrorists, "death to america" chants in the mosque's thats how they are a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
On top of that, they are developing nuclear technology Zak, like it or not progress just dosent stop once you get the civilian needs filled.
In addition to that, they arefor what? becoming a threat? So dosent your own statement answer your own question?Quote:
10 years away at BEST.
10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon.
Why shouldnt they give weapons to their shiite relatives in Iraq? why shouldnt they support Hezbollah which is a Shiite group to protect Shiites from israeli occupation? "death to america" is free speech. That's not a threat thats called liberty.
If we werent threatening them, they wouldnt be threatening us. its simple.
Do you really actually believe this? Do you really? I may not agree with you, I frequently don't in fact, but I always thought you were at least a rational person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
If you were making the argument that the threat Iran poses is being deliberately exaggerated, you'd actually have me on your team for once. If you said "they have every right to respond to us in a confrontational manner, given the way they've treated us over the years" I could respectfully discuss this with you. But to claim they pose no threat at all? When AJ has said that he will distribute nuclear weapons to his 'allies' (code for Hizbollah and other terrorist groups) once he has them?
Come on man. As a former addict to the hyperbolic statement myself, please, take my advice and take a step back....
We agree on this. I think the disagreement is more along the lines of intent. I dont think Iran intends to stop at non military applications, do you? Suppose they dont for a minute, does that make them a threat? I say it does, with full acknowledgement and concession that our own past policies have induced the threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Yes we have a disgreement on this issue. Let me state though Im not proposing a willy nilly application of thier use. Tactical nukes are not exclusive to MAD (Japan still exsists). Do I advocate killing innocents? No, but do I adovocate hitting an area with a weapon that incapcitates the area (IE a weapons site), well I like to have that option on the table Doc, because it runs along your theories of why they were developed in the first place.Quote:
2. That using Nukes is okay. It isn't, the people who developed them never intended them to be used. They are meant as a means to scare off attackers, a doomsday device of sorts, with MAD and all. I'd also disagree that you feel the American taxpayer has payed for the right to those nukes, they served their purpose when the cold war ended.
Okay Zak so by stating they are threatening us you acknowledge a threat exsists (unless you think they are bluffing?) in that case the same logic applies to the other side, the use of nukes shouldnt be off the table. Should one side be able to threaten the other unconditionally and the other have conditions to respond?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
I say no.
the thing is it wouldnt be a threat if we didnt make it one. Iran has nothing to do with the U.S. They're no threat to us. You can rationalize it all you want but watch out for that slippery slope around the corner. People used to believe that nuking Japan was rational too.
Let's be realistic about this, they aren't exactly the poorest country in the world, if they wanted nukes to give to terrorists they'd just buy some from Russia or one of the former Soviet states. Last I heard (late 90s) about 10 million USD could get you a few kilotons, Iran could certainly afford that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
The fact is that no country is really all that interested in blowing up the US, if they were they would have done so. Even Bin Laden spoke out against a nuclear attack once (yeah, can't recall the source, it was about flying a plane into a nuclear power plant on 9/11, he was more about symbolism than about killing lots of people, that was more a side effect). Only the US seems willing to actually use nukes, and then you're surprised you're so unpopular in the world :no:
Ron Paul is right, imagine you're Iran for just a second, imagine there's this big country an ocean (and then some) away where candidates for the highest mandate are telling their electorate they'd be willing to turn your country into a parking lot. You'd like that ? Wouldn't you think that perhaps, something should be done about it ?
After all, now that you're the US (or a voting citizen at least) you seem to think that the threat of Iran, which is infinitely smaller than the threat the US poses to Iran, judging both rethoric and reality, si enough to warrant action.
Well yes, but the delivery system costs another 2-3 billion, not only that but you have to fit it all into a warhead etc, so you need the technology to be able to do that unless you want dirty bombs only.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Seems they opted for the technology route.
Maybe your right, but they are intrested in blowing up Israel, hence a large part of the problem.Quote:
The fact is that no country is really all that interested in blowing up the US, if they were they would have done so.
Im not suprised, I frankly dont spend a lot of time worrying about what the rest of the world thinks. There is a social elite here that does i suppose, but at this stage of the game most of the cards are on the table, if we are unpopular for one thing and its corrected, something else will come up.Quote:
Only the US seems willing to actually use nukes, and then you're surprised you're so unpopular in the world :no:
I dont dispute thier rational for attempting to attain them, on the contrary I understand it completely. In the same vein, imagine your a U.S. voter and a country committed to the destruction of Israel, and considers you the "great satan" (we will exclude the 35-45% of americans who actually believe in Satan") wouldnt you want a candidate who is prepared to have all options on the table when dealing with them? The logic goes both ways.Quote:
Ron Paul is right, imagine you're Iran for just a second, imagine there's this big country an ocean (and then some) away where candidates for the highest mandate are telling their electorate they'd be willing to turn your country into a parking lot. You'd like that ? Wouldn't you think that perhaps, something should be done about it ?
I absolutely do, because the measure of the threat goes back to what I said previously intent. While I am able to seperate rhetoric from action I do believe Iran is heading for weapon grade nuclear capability. I do believe they want Israel gone, and I do believe there is a will to use what ever means necessary to do so.Quote:
After all, now that you're the US (or a voting citizen at least) you seem to think that the threat of Iran, which is infinitely smaller than the threat the US poses to Iran, judging both rethoric and reality, si enough to warrant action.
I'm sure they could buy actual warheads if they wanted to, the only challenge would be getting them into the country, which shouldn't be that hard, if they really wanted too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
But hey, dirty bombs would do the trick too.
Besides the point, but why do you care about what happens to Israel ?Quote:
I absolutely do, because the measure of the threat goes back to what I said previously intent. While I am able to seperate rhetoric from action I do believe Iran is heading for weapon grade nuclear capability. I do believe they want Israel gone, and I do believe there is a will to use what ever means necessary to do so.
Perhaps its this attitude that explains why Belgium has no strategic allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Oh come on, if you're willing to nuke one country to help out another you'd better have a damn good reason. Odin claimed he doesn't care much for (the opinion of) the rest of the world, and that he's mostly concerned about US security, so why is he willing to make the exception for Israel ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
For the record: I don't support turning Israel into a parking lot either.
I care what happens to israel mainly because when left to thier own devices, they will make a mess of it. I rather not let Israel handle Iran exclusively, because it would virtually ensure more arab states united against Israels exsistence, and more willing to strike U.S. intrests.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Mainly though engrained in a lot of the american psychy is what happened to the jews during WWII, mine included, and while I dont desire to save the world or particpate in every nations course, I am willing to fight for israels right to exsist.
Maybe i havent managed to kill off all of the idealism i once had.
Hippy ! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Thanks for the response though.
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Here's the transcript of the debate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us...ll&oref=slogin
This is the Iranian nuke part:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So what I read from that is that these candidates are saying nuclear weapons are an option to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability. Not to prevent an attack, but to prevent the development. If anybody is going to nuke Iran to prevent this, it should be Israel. Let them do their own dirty work.