-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
worldrunover
Member
Oh come on, that was funny. Maybe a bit racist, but still funny!
i'm pleased to know the ire of McCain's hatred are ordinary Iranian citizens. besides, i think their Iran has a more pressing addiction on their plate..
ViperVisor
Member
With the Iran missile test news.
OOH! A HELPFUL CHART ON IRAN-US RELATIONS!
Lame but expected development, Obama has to live in the Land of Chocolate so during his interviews this morning he has to ratchet up the hype saying Iran is a serious threat. Can't have any qualifications or the retards jump on it and it spreads to the retards with college degrees.
I guessed before I saw this that we could destroy Iran with whatever carriers we got in the area.
I was watching a show on History about the aircraft dogfights in Desert Storm. We either blow them out of the sky before they even see us or one dude got outmaneuvered and ate sand with his MIG when he try to hang.
OOH! A HELPFUL CHART ON IRAN-US RELATIONS!
Lame but expected development, Obama has to live in the Land of Chocolate so during his interviews this morning he has to ratchet up the hype saying Iran is a serious threat. Can't have any qualifications or the retards jump on it and it spreads to the retards with college degrees.
I guessed before I saw this that we could destroy Iran with whatever carriers we got in the area.
I was watching a show on History about the aircraft dogfights in Desert Storm. We either blow them out of the sky before they even see us or one dude got outmaneuvered and ate sand with his MIG when he try to hang.
none of the political rhetoric on Iran matches reality - none of it. war hawks and ideologues on the right are happy to pray on a clueless American public that actually believes Iran to have a formidable military (not), economy (not), a suicidal will to destroy Israel (not) and a Hitler-esque leader who controls everything (not).
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said Iran is a "great threat" and called for tighter sanctions after it test-fired nine missiles.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0935786320080709
That just went over the wire this morning, but of course Sen. Obama also said Iran is "not a threat" a few months ago during the primaries. After Iran's revolutionary government destroyed the Carter presidency and branded the Democrats as weak and ineffective executives who lost a lot of national elections, I would think the Democrats in the foreign policy establishment would be especially sensitive to looking weak against Iran if they take power in Jan.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0935786320080709
That just went over the wire this morning, but of course Sen. Obama also said Iran is "not a threat" a few months ago during the primaries. After Iran's revolutionary government destroyed the Carter presidency and branded the Democrats as weak and ineffective executives who lost a lot of national elections, I would think the Democrats in the foreign policy establishment would be especially sensitive to looking weak against Iran if they take power in Jan.
maximum360
Member
Zogby drinking the Obama kool-aid?
It's their internet polling group, not really reliable.
And Obama said that Iran wasn't a threat compared to the Soviet Union in the cold war days, and we handled that one without overt violence. He has constantly talked about the Iran threat, just that he's open to diplomacy unlike some people.
And Obama said that Iran wasn't a threat compared to the Soviet Union in the cold war days, and we handled that one without overt violence. He has constantly talked about the Iran threat, just that he's open to diplomacy unlike some people.
The Chosen One
Member
Now Obama says he publicly regrets doing the Access Hollywood interview? Why???
I didn't see anything wrong with it. The major news organizations are just jealous they didn't get the scoop. Now Obama is making a much bigger issue than it needed to be.
*sigh*
I didn't see anything wrong with it. The major news organizations are just jealous they didn't get the scoop. Now Obama is making a much bigger issue than it needed to be.
*sigh*
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
The Chosen One said:
I think people are scuttlebutting that he's using his kids to skirt the recent dustups in the campaign. I don't think that was his motivation, but that's the chatter.
maximum360
Member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25600445/
Good job there. Can we not call out McCain who claimed he won't use his military service to advance his candidacy but in every ad seems to do so?
I think it was a good thing to dispel some of the claims that the Obamas' are "un-american". It's shameless that the media is going after him about this.
Good job there. Can we not call out McCain who claimed he won't use his military service to advance his candidacy but in every ad seems to do so?
I think it was a good thing to dispel some of the claims that the Obamas' are "un-american". It's shameless that the media is going after him about this.
Learn2read
Member
Or they could just illegally sell them weapons like any good Republican!Guileless said:
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Guileless said:
Obama during Primaries said:
So what does he do today, Mr. Flip Flopper? Call them a "great threat", totally not contradicting his previous statement, and ask for more diplomacy, or exactly what he said all along:
But I can see your confusion on the use of the word "threat", Guileless. Obama should have added at "But Iran is still a threat, make no mistake." at the end of that quote I posted though this is more or less acknowledged by what he's actually saying.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So how many people think this Iran shooting missiles thing will help McCain this week?
Kitschkraft
Member
mckmas8808 said:
The fact that the Iraq government called for a pull-out should counter this.
Me personally, I'm so sick of this imperialist, sensationalist, bullshit from the west. The people of that nation have a right to test their fucking weapons. I don't give a fuck what the second-in-command says about Israel. People act like only certain nations should be allowed to have a military!
Kitschkraft
Member
ViperVisor said:It's like they enjoy the taste of bullshit and when they don't get enough from McCain they shove a colonic in any hole they can in anything Obama says or does and suck as hard and long as it takes to get more shit in their stomach.
It's not like Maria is worse than the lame brains that populate cable news.
What's your most memorable Channel One moment so far?
I would have to say the opportunity to interview the President of the United States is something that I will cherish for the rest of my life.
Let's make it 2 for 2.
She's awesome, fuck the MSM, the MSM is doing everything they can to keep this election close.
I really wonder what the media wants from these kids. My guess? They probably want to paint them as "Angry Black Children"......
Kitschkraft
Member
Hitokage said:
I wouldn't be against this at all.
scorcho said:
Don't forget a monolithic ideology that puts them complete, harmonious agreement with all the Bad Muslims (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Sadr) and none of the Good Muslims (the Supreme Council, the Gulf states).
soul creator
Member
Liara T'Soni said:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Semantics aside, I don't see how comparisons to the Soviet Union are a good way to think about this. Nothing is as threatening as a superpower with the world's largest military and nuclear arsenal organized around fighting the United States and its allies. Doesn't that just go without saying? What does that have to do with trying to prevent proliferation to non-nuclear states in 2008?
Guileless said:
You're being pretty obtuse here. He was comparing them to the Soviet Union because for some reason the current policy has ruled out diplomacy as a method of neutralizing the "threat". And yet, the Soviet Union posed a MUCH greater threat and we still went through with diplomacy and it worked. Don't be a moron.
Precisely. With all the bluster about how Iran might obtain nuclear weapons, remember that the Soviet Union had the capacity to nuke the entire planet severe times over. And we still sat down with them. This does not mean Iran is not a threat, it means we should use all of the tools available in dealing with them, including direct diplomacy. Which is what Obama has been saying all along. It's not complex.Tamanon said:
Unrelated - Obama just tripled his paid staff in Missouri.
http://www.kansascity.com/775/story/697394.html
His ground game in that state is going to be huuuuuge.
speculawyer
Member
Desperate would be if this was Massachusetts. This is Missouri, a very red state . . . this is optimistic.
The Lamonster
Member
awesomeGhaleonEB said:
<3 Missouri
oh and can we turn it blue? yes, we can
PhoenixDark
Banned
Cheebs said:
Seems like an irrelevant point. The people McCain attracts actually vote on a consistent basis, which is all that matters
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Obama Campaign said:
McCain's camp has an official response as well.
Instigator
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
I think the neocon argument, the one Guileless keeps repeating topics after topics, is that Iran is still not a nuclear power and can be bullied into submission, just like weak 2003 Iraq was. Why negotiate and lose something in the process when you can win it all? Neocons figure they can take that gamble and probably believe they can make other countries fall into line rather than encourage them to force America to the negotiation table for concessions.
The Soviet Union presented a scenario where it could not be bullied so there was no choice but negotiation and/or a long cold war of attrition.
it's stupid. considering the military games Israel played before, i don't buy the argument of Iran's missile test as any more threatening. Israel and the US are allowed to saber rattle, but god forbid the country we're threatening decides to assert its right to defend itself. if we really, truly want to ratchet down tensions then end the speculative chatter on pre-emptive strikes and start/continue back-channel dialog with the Supreme Leader and his subordinates.
that won't happen though. the only thing we're interested in is in maintaining Israel's nuclear hegemony in the Middle East at all cost.
that won't happen though. the only thing we're interested in is in maintaining Israel's nuclear hegemony in the Middle East at all cost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eejYoz3Nl0
I really wish they'd run these on TV, not just on the web, even if they are snarky as hell.
I really wish they'd run these on TV, not just on the web, even if they are snarky as hell.
I don't. Young people can go to rallies and scream their lungs out for Obama, but if they forget to vote in November, or lose interest (as so many usually do), it doesn't matter how loud they were at that rally. And it doesn't matter if McCain's supporters are sleepy old people, as long as they show up and vote for him, that's all that matters.ralexand said:
soul creator
Member
scorcho said:
why do you hate america and jewish people, and why do you sympathize with terrorists?
American policy towards Iran boils down to picking a strategic goal. Does the US want
1) to change the behavior of Iran, so it stops pursuing nuclear weapons and sponsoring groups like Hezbollah?
or
2) to change the regime in Iran?
You can't have both. If Iran thinks the US is out to install a new Iranian government, the current regime will pursue as many possible deterrents as it can, including nuclear weapons and proxy forces that could cause pain to Israel or to US forces in Iraq.
A sane diplomatic approach towards goal 1 would mean giving Iran security guarantees, withdrawing US support and tolerance for groups like the MEK, Pejak, and Jundallah, and allowing Iran to join the multilateral institutions that would integrate it further into the world economy.
You can't really expect a country to disarm while you work to topple it.
1) to change the behavior of Iran, so it stops pursuing nuclear weapons and sponsoring groups like Hezbollah?
or
2) to change the regime in Iran?
You can't have both. If Iran thinks the US is out to install a new Iranian government, the current regime will pursue as many possible deterrents as it can, including nuclear weapons and proxy forces that could cause pain to Israel or to US forces in Iraq.
A sane diplomatic approach towards goal 1 would mean giving Iran security guarantees, withdrawing US support and tolerance for groups like the MEK, Pejak, and Jundallah, and allowing Iran to join the multilateral institutions that would integrate it further into the world economy.
You can't really expect a country to disarm while you work to topple it.
- Status