You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 02:20:05 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #200 on: February 13, 2008, 10:53:37 AM »
...to suggest that the way things have been done all along is all of a sudden wrong simply because their is such a close race is a cop-out considering the Dems have basically forced themselves into this corner.

The amazing thing about all this is that it didn't happen earlier.  To understand the Democrat's "proportional representation system, you have to understand what happened in 1988.  Representatives of Michael Dukakis, the party's nominee, and Jesse Jackson, his unsuccessful challenger, hashed out a new set of delegate selection rules.

Jackson felt aggrieved that he had not amassed as many delegates as his popular vote total would have suggested. In the 1984 primary campaign, for instance, Jackson won 19 percent of the popular vote but received just 10 percent of the delegates. So Jackson's rules guru, Harold M. Ickes, insisted on adopting proportional representation rules that would award insurgent candidates a bigger share of delegates in future contests.

But here's the thing:  ecause the system tends to produce a stalemate between two strong candidates, it ends up supersizing the role of superdelegates.  In short, the Democratic Party has come up with a muddled method of choosing presidential nominees, with rules that are overly and inadequately democratic.

The overly democratic part involves ultimately giving too much weight to the losing candidate's vote. Under the rules, three-fourths of the pledged delegates are allocated by congressional district, the remaining one-quarter according to the vote statewide.  Consider a four-delegate district. For a candidate in a two-person contest to get three of the four, he would have to win a daunting 62.5 percent of the vote. The more likely outcome is that the winner and loser get two delegates each.  To obtain more than a one-delegate edge in a five-delegate district, the winning candidate would have to take 70 percent of the vote. The upshot: In a close race, it's extraordinarily difficult for one candidate to get very far ahead of the other.

Had Democrats used the Republicans' formula in California -- with delegates awarded on a winner-takes-all basis by congressional district and statewide -- Clinton would have received 316 delegates, Obama just 54.

It's not that one system is demonstrably right and the other obviously wrong. The preponderant Republican method arguably gives too much of an advantage to the dominant candidate, the Democratic approach too little.

With thanks to Ruth Marcus.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #201 on: February 13, 2008, 03:54:23 PM »
We should go back to the original system the state legislatures (or governors) appointed the electors and they chose the president, the people voted for their state governments so in that way were democratically being represented. This would take the months of campaigning and the massive corruption of funds these people suck up out of the system.

And what is wrong with Obama he is gaining the mementum and the weight of states are in his favor, and he is a moderate and sensible man who will delegate authority to people he deems qualified. He doesn't have to be an expert just a good manager and leader he has that. I think a tempered candidate that will use his best judgement and commit himself to the good of the people of this nation is exactly what we need right now. Although I do favor a Libertarian you could do far much worse than Obama. If he chooses his cabinet and advisors well I see no concern with his lack of significant experience.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #202 on: February 13, 2008, 04:15:47 PM »
And as he's so fond of pointing out, both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had a tremendous amount of experience, and look how well that worked out.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #203 on: February 13, 2008, 04:57:06 PM »
Thats a great point a man of honor and a statesman is what we lack- a leader. Obama being reasoned and thoughtful to his duty to the nation may be the best choice.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #204 on: February 14, 2008, 03:38:55 AM »
I'm waiting for Obama to actually SAY something. This campaign for "change" is the same crap we've heard for decades from both parties. It all sounds great and he is gaining momentum... but he has yet to say anything that is earth-shattering. I hate to agree with Hillary, but his campaign at this point is nothing but promises. If he gets elected he might very well change my mind, but at this point I see nothing but pretty smiles and flashing lights.

McCain is a candidate I'm backing right now... he's literally smack dab in the middle of the political world, someone who has strong beliefs that lean to both sides of the aisle, really the only candidate that can stake a claim to bipartisanship. He will fight for your environment. He will fight for your security. Really the only thing that bugs me about his politics are his views on our border situation and my inadequate understanding of his economic views.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #205 on: February 14, 2008, 09:40:44 AM »
Ask, and ye shall receive.  Check out highlights from this article, taken from today's (February 14, 2008) Washington Post:

Quote
Obama's Economic Plan Is A Pitch to the Working Class

By Peter Slevin and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A01


JANESVILLE, Wis., Feb. 13 -- Sen. Barack Obama offered a detailed prescription for the ailing U.S. economy Wednesday, answering skeptics who contend he has not matched his inspirational talk with a mastery of policy and targeting voters in crucial primaries in Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas.

...[cut content]

Obama laid out in one 38-minute speech several strands of a policy -- much of it more detailed versions of familiar themes -- that emphasizes the protection and promotion of working-class Americans. He chose for the site of the speech an SUV factory operated by General Motors, which on Tuesday announced record losses.

The series of proposals were on issues from tax reform and private savings to bankruptcy, trade and investment in the nation's infrastructure. He said he could pay for "every single element of this economic agenda" -- primarily by ending the Iraq war and by increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

...[cut content]

The newest element of his proposal was the establishment of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank, which would spend $60 billion over a decade to rebuild deteriorating roads, bridges and waterways. Obama said the spending would generate 2 million new jobs, many of them in a construction industry that has been hard hit by the housing market downturn.

Some state and local governments have established separate infrastructure accounts that are not subject to balanced-budget rules as a way to finance long-range building projects. Lawmakers in Congress from both parties have flirted with the idea of a federal infrastructure account, but have backed off for fear of being accused of budgetary gimmickry designed to mask an expansion of government -- and of the federal budget deficit.

Obama took a page from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), promising to fund his spending by ending tax breaks that he says encourage companies to invest overseas.

Many economists and some business officials agree that companies are reaping tax benefits from overseas expansion. Before Kerry offered his proposal in 2004, Citigroup executives told industry analysts the banking firm had lowered its effective tax rate from 31.3 percent to 30.6 percent, boosting quarterly income by $52 million, by putting more money into overseas operations.

The shift could provide more money for job creation at home, as Obama suggests, but few would say that taxes are a primary -- or even a significant -- factor in the movement of certain kinds of outsourcing. For instance, even sweet tax incentives cannot stop some companies from seeking vast savings abroad.

Obama's suggestion that he would finance long-term federal spending programs by ending the war in Iraq pushed the war debate into the realm of fiscal policy, a popular notion on the campaign trail but debatable from a budgeting point of view, since war funding is relatively temporary.

It also opened up Obama to traditional criticism from Republicans who called him a "Big Government" Democrat. The Republican National Committee unveiled a "Barack Obama spend-o-meter" on its Web site yesterday, tallying his total proposals at $850.35 billion.

Murray reported from Washington. Staff writer Jonathan Weisman and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

2008 The Washington Post Company

Whether or not you think these policies are sensible, a person can no longer claim that Senator Obama has not offered a substanitive policy, at least on economic issues.

Offline VandalSavage

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #206 on: February 14, 2008, 12:51:34 PM »
I'm waiting for Obama to actually SAY something. This campaign for "change" is the same crap we've heard for decades from both parties. It all sounds great and he is gaining momentum... but he has yet to say anything that is earth-shattering. I hate to agree with Hillary, but his campaign at this point is nothing but promises. If he gets elected he might very well change my mind, but at this point I see nothing but pretty smiles and flashing lights.

It is amusing to me to hear you say this, in that I was lamenting the same about Hillary's campaign for much of last year, while I praised Obama for putting his ideas out there in a specific, straightforward and resolute manner so soon.  As it so happens, I think that Hillary's method was far wiser - she began expressing substantial plans only after testing the waters and letting the political scene develop to where it would be when primaries became pressing matters for the body politic.  It was not until December that we heard concrete foreign policy and domestic economic plans from her - waiting allowed her the luxury of not only being timely, but seeming it as well.

Now she often comes off as the substantial one, and Obama the insubstantial.  Given that he has not shrank from presenting his ideas, I would imagine he will rectify this in the coming weeks.  In the meantime, here is his essay on his Foreign Policy, written last July.  He and Governor Romney were the first pair to submit acceptable essays to Foreign Affairs, a boldness that I admired as much as their ideas:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

As for his views on Civil Rights, as contrasting those of Hillary, I would recommend you consult the Logo TV LGBT Debate.  That was where I was further convinced of Obama's socially liberal credentials and disbused of Hillary's.  Therein, he commits to removing all spiritual terminology - such as "marriage" - from the realm of government, conferring the same state benefits on all partnerships.  Hillary, by contrast, declares her defense of the power of states to decide, which would, in my opinion, lead to a sexual/gender "Jim Crow" period of divided states.

Salon's coverage of it is here, though I find it lacks the proper comprehension of the details of the candidate's arguments.  A better review was by the Iowa Independent, found here.

Quote
Obama's positioning on the matter of gay coupling is the most astute of the Democratic candidates. It's something of a libertarian view: disentangle the religious elements of the relationship (marriage) from the legal rights (civil unions). The state should ensure that same-sex couples have the health care and job and discrimination and legal status and protection that heterosexuals do.

The question of marriage, says Obama, should be left to the churches. The Baptists and Catholics can say no to gay weddings, whereas the Unitarian Universalists will arrange the flowers. And so on.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #207 on: February 14, 2008, 02:09:48 PM »
I'm glad to see he actually has a plan, but the end of the Iraq war, just like that? As bad as it looked for the nation to go in and get ourselves into this mess, it would be just as bad for us to pull out of Iraq now. Huge mistake. He better have a plan for that, or any chance at peace in the Middle East is gone, if there was ever a chance at all...

And Vandal... I have the same fears about Hillary as I do of Obama. But they are more defined because we do know her so much better than Obama. There is nothing I like about her... not one thing.

Now if she were to happen to win the nomination, be elected into the White House, and then DUMP Bill...

Now THAT'D be funny.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #208 on: February 14, 2008, 02:31:19 PM »
Well, that's the main reason it would be so funny...

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #209 on: February 14, 2008, 02:53:31 PM »
I'm waiting for Obama to actually SAY something. This campaign for "change" is the same crap we've heard for decades from both parties. It all sounds great and he is gaining momentum... but he has yet to say anything that is earth-shattering. I hate to agree with Hillary, but his campaign at this point is nothing but promises. If he gets elected he might very well change my mind, but at this point I see nothing but pretty smiles and flashing lights.

McCain is a candidate I'm backing right now... he's literally smack dab in the middle of the political world, someone who has strong beliefs that lean to both sides of the aisle, really the only candidate that can stake a claim to bipartisanship. He will fight for your environment. He will fight for your security. Really the only thing that bugs me about his politics are his views on our border situation and my inadequate understanding of his economic views.

Obama opposed the granting of authority to Bush to invade Iraq. He has supported our troops afterwards. And he has policies mostly bringing the best minds to bear on these major concerns to delegate authority and work together to deal with Health Care, Economic Development and the like. I for one don't want Earth shattering I was careful, reasoned, work with the interests involved systematic leader that will pull the country together. Hillary and McCain are not likely to do that.

McCain is JUST LIKE BUSH. Its another eight years likely of neo-conservative destruction of this country. If I have to vote for Obama to keep him out then so be it. I may be a Libertarian but I hate neo-cons with a vengence they are everything I hate, and Hillary lets be blunt might as well be a Republican she has been a yes woman for Bush policies with the rest of them in power.

Offline VandalSavage

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #210 on: February 14, 2008, 04:53:20 PM »
For the sake of posterity, here is what the three major candidates say on the matter of what they will do in Iraq. 

Judge, given all the factors - the Surge, the Sunni uprising, the al-Sadr militias turning away from Iran, Maliki's government turning towards Iran, the $11 billion+ gone missing from internal corruption in Baghdad's government alone, the sweeping efforts to integrate all National police units to conform to Iraq's demographics on a unit-by-unit basis, the widespread failure of Bush-backed contractors to rebuild, and the total failure of any and all reconciliation legislation to be passed - which is most prudent.

I list them in the order they were published.

Obama, June/July 2007:

Quote
Our servicemen and servicewomen have performed admirably while sacrificing immeasurably. But it is time for our civilian leaders to acknowledge a painful truth: we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.

At the same time, we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people. To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.

The morass in Iraq has made it immeasurably harder to confront and work through the many other problems in the region -- and it has made many of those problems considerably more dangerous. Changing the dynamic in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- a task that the Bush administration neglected for years.

For more than three decades, Israelis, Palestinians, Arab leaders, and the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace. In recent years, they have all too often looked in vain. Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region -- a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient effort and the personal commitment of the president of the United States. That is a commitment I will make.

Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel.


Clinton, Nov/December 2007:

Quote
We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. To that end, as president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.

While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government. Financial resources will go only where they will be used properly, rather than to government ministries or ministers that hoard, steal, or waste them.

As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq. Working with the newly appointed UN special representative for Iraq, the group will be charged with developing and implementing a strategy for achieving a stable Iraq that provides incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to stay out of the civil war.

Finally, we need to engage the world in a global humanitarian effort to confront the human costs of this war. We must address the plight of the two million Iraqis who have fled their country and the two million more who have been displaced internally. This will require a multibillion-dollar international effort under the direction of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Meanwhile, the United States, along with governments in Europe and the Middle East, must agree to accept asylum seekers and help them return to Iraq when it is safe for them to do so.

As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region. These units will also provide security for U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq and train and equip Iraqi security services to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent that such training is actually working. I will also consider leaving some forces in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq in order to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that have developed there, but with the clear understanding that the terrorist organization the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) must be dealt with and the Turkish border must be respected.

McCain, Nov/December 2007:

Quote
Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war's central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including al Qaeda's leadership.

The recent years of mismanagement and failure in Iraq demonstrate that America should go to war only with sufficient troop levels and with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success. We did not do so in Iraq, and our country and the people of Iraq have paid a dear price. Only after four years of conflict did the United States adopt a counterinsurgency strategy, backed by increased force levels, that gives us a realistic chance of success. We cannot get those years back, and now the only responsible action for any presidential candidate is to look forward and outline the strategic posture in Iraq that is most likely to protect U.S. national interests.

So long as we can succeed in Iraq -- and I believe that we can -- we must succeed. The consequences of failure would be horrific: a historic loss at the hands of Islamist extremists who, after having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq, will believe that the world is going their way and that anything is possible; a failed state in the heart of the Middle East providing sanctuary for terrorists; a civil war that could quickly develop into a regional conflict and even genocide; a decisive end to the prospect of a modern democracy in Iraq, for which large Iraqi majorities have repeatedly voted; and an invitation for Iran to dominate Iraq and the region even more.

Whether success grows closer or more distant over the coming months, it is clear that Iraq will be a central issue for the next U.S. president. Democratic candidates have promised to withdraw U.S. troops and "end the war" by fiat, regardless of the consequences. To make such decisions based on the political winds at home, rather than on the realities in the theater, is to court disaster. The war in Iraq cannot be wished away, and it is a miscalculation of historic magnitude to believe that the consequences of failure will be limited to one administration or one party. This is an American war, and its outcome will touch every one of our citizens for years to come.

That is why I support our continuing efforts to win in Iraq. It is also why I oppose a preemptive withdrawal strategy that has no Plan B for the aftermath of its inevitable failure and the greater problems that would ensue.

I let the passages speak for themselves, but will note that I see definite differences in the approaches suggested by each candidate.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #211 on: February 14, 2008, 10:02:07 PM »
Here's an interesting political site... www.procon.org

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #212 on: February 14, 2008, 10:57:17 PM »
Here's how I feel about the war, and my position, and this honestly is I guess why I feel like Clinton is my choice on this topic at least.

George Bush I was smart enough to listen to advisers who told him Iraq would be a morass. Removing Saddam would totally destabilize the nation and we'd be entagled there for god knows how long. So during Gulf War One, he stopped after driving Iraq out of Kuwait and basically giving the norther sections of the country virtual independence free from interference by Iraq's military (thanks to the no fly zones).

Then George Jr waltzes in and basically decides he wants to do dad one better and get control of all that delicious oil for his Neo-Con oil buddies. Boom, were stuck in this goddamn civil war between ethnic groups, terrorists, and religions. Now we've got a huge problem WE caused and we're morally obligated to lend a hand in fixing that problem. We cant just completely withdraw and expect the world to fix our mistake for us. We've got to do something to get a handle on things. We need to engage diplomatically and use the stick/carrot approach to get the people in charge in Iraq working with us and for the betterment of their country in general. I thought invading was stupid a bad idea, and a distraction from the real target, Al-queda, but we've made a mess of the playroom and we've got to tidy up before we can leave.

And listening to bush and the other Neo-cons all they say is, look they voted! And they'll be voting again! Democracy isn't some amazing cure-all for all social ills. Responsible stable democracy is a great thing, but anyone who has studied world history can see what unstable democracy will eventually lead too. If you need a clear example, try reading about the Weimar republic in Germany and how it led to Hitler's seizure of power.

I don't want to stay there forever, but I do agree that we SHOULD probably leave troops in northern Iraq's kurdish areas to help protect the populace there as they have been, in general, working with us from day one. We also need to leave some sort of force in place to help the government stabilize the country and to work with Iraq in hunting down and eliminating terrorists and other anti-government forces. Of course this means that we need a stable, non-corrupt goverment in place, and right now, I don't see that. The best bet for the country may be to divide it into ethnic areas, Sunni, Shia, Kurd and to have a more limited federal government responsible for foreign affairs while leaving major power in the hands of the states. I don't know, but I think Clinton's approach (using the UN and regional powers) is probably the best way at this point to ensure Iraq has a real chance to become a viable state.

Anyway, I've had enough of serious discussion for one night. :)

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #213 on: February 15, 2008, 02:59:00 AM »
Quote
Then George Jr waltzes in and basically decides he wants to do dad one better and get control of all that delicious oil for his Neo-Con oil buddies.
Clinton used the Saddam card when his butt was getting impeached. I don't know if Bush's primary concern was the oil or not (I'm pretty sure that it did indeed play a role), but the oil has always been and will remain an Iraqi resource. Whether or not the war on terrorism was a copout for saving the oil supply by an stretch of the imagination... well, Iraq would be NOTHING without their oil.

My big beef with Iraq is that we knowingly went into an situation that isn't winnable. You just can't win this kind of war. If insurgents want to wreak havoc and terrorize the innocent... guess what? It's gonna happen. At the same time I feel we were morally obligated to go in. It has been always been a safe-haven for terrorists. Saddam was an evil man and had to be done away with.

The war on terror was something that we should have been fighting for decades, but at the same time it continues to and will always be a neverending war. Keep in mind Iraq isn't the only country on our "hit list"... we went into and remain in Afghanistan to this day (and the last I knew, U.S. citizens actually looked at that situation relatively favorably). There's potential for this to go into Iran, Pakistan, North Korea (however unlikely at this point), and a whole slew of other countries.

People get so uptight about Iraq. I wish people would remember that this isn't just about Iraq. In the end, we're going to be pretty thin across the globe and the potential for a draft is not out of the question.

I seem to be arguing against the war. I absolutely hate it, moreso than you might believe... but I also hate thousands of my fellow Americans being buried alive beneath a mountain of rubble. As impossible as the war may be to win, I've always felt that it was a moral obligation to stand our ground, and go on the offensive if need be. That's the frustrating thing about it: I feel we are doing the right thing in an impossible situation. One thing I'm certain of: if we were noticeably winning this war, I can think of a ton of politicians who would at this point in time not be calling for a troop withdrawal (Hillary would be using it in her campaign).

Offline Humble Scribe

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #214 on: February 15, 2008, 05:55:31 AM »
I think it's unfair to say that the US went into Iraq knowing it was unwinnable. From the Neocons point of view it looked eminently winnable. You install a stable, pro-western democratic government which will (a) be a useful backup oil supplier if things get really ugly with Saudi Arabia, (b) be a useful ally against Iran, (c) be far less likely to try and invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or nuke Israel than the Saddam regime. The fact that this was mostly wishful thinking and fantasy, that the government was told that it was wishful thinking by the CIA and State Department but decided to ignore them, and that very little detailed planning went into how to make it all happen is the most lamentable thing about the whole business.

Selling it as all part of the 'war on terror' may be how Bush persuaded the US public to back it, but Hussein's regime had nothing to do with al-Qaeda - they hated each other. But then the 'War on Terror' is one of those "don't get me started" topics. It is such a vacuous idea in the first place. As though you can fight a war against a tactic. It invites people to switch their minds off and not look at things like: who are these terrorists, what do they want, and does killing them actually achieve anything beyond creating ten more where there used to be one? Are they all the same or in fact a loose coalition of people with wildly different aims and beliefs who we might be able to separate one from another and deal with piecemeal if we weren't so keen on putting them all in one big box marked 'TERROR'?

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #215 on: February 15, 2008, 09:46:31 AM »
Obama's statement says he will increase pressure by withdrawing troops.  That is incredibly stupid.  An over the horizon force will accomplish  nothing because it has to get there before it can do anything, and when it gets there it won't know shit.  He can't broker a peace deal if there are no US forces on the street to enforce it.  No Iraqi faction is strong enough, and if they were they wouldn't make peace, they would make a bloodbath far worse than there is now.  If the US leaves before Iraq is solidly peaceful, there will be a much larger and bloodier civil war than what has happened already.  Iran will intervene on behalf of the Shia and end up owning Iraq like Syria owned Lebanon much to the detriment of the US, Europe and the rest of the world.  Diplomacy is worthless if it's not backed by force. 

Clinton's statement says she's going to withdraw troops from Iraq while leaving troops in Iraq.  That sure as hell isn't ending the war.  It's not even withdrawing troops from Iraq.

They're both just telling their anti-war constituents what they want to hear while plainly stating they will continue conducting military operations in Iraq.

McCain's statement doesn't say anything at all:
The war and reconstruction were mismanaged.  No shit.
The disastrous consequences of quitting.  No shit.
The war will be a big issue for the next president.  NO SHIT!
Making decisions based on politics at home instead of what's happening at the front will fuck it up for everybody.  No shit.
This war is going to drag on forever.  NO SHIT.
Finally he says something, that he opposes a politically inspired withdrawal.  No shit.

Excuse me what does Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks or any terrorist threat we faced before we went in for no good reason I can tell save Bushes ego. Lets look at some points.

1. We cannot WIN this war on terror the Republicrats finally got exactly what they wanted a no win war they can scare us with forever. Terrorism is a threat more law enforcement and global requiring all nations devoted to peace to work together with Interpol and other law enforcement efforts globally to minimize dramatic threats. At least in Afghanistan where we hugely had our interests here we dropped the ball and now Al Queda and their Taliban Allies with the warlords we are alienating are coming back stronger than before.

2. The Iraqis had YEARS to get their government organized I say if we have to divide the nation into three and let our Kurdish allies have a free state where we can safely base our troops then fine- do it. I must point out its OUR army there no coalition like we had in the FIRST Gulf War. So we not the UN pretty much can set policy and divide these nations and deal with the fallout later. And in the Kurdistan area we will have get this a safe place to place bases where the people like us, I find that preferable if we are to stay there.

3. BUSH lied to get us in there, the Republicans and many Democrats gave him that power not in a formal declaration of war but foisting on him de facto Police Powers just like Vietnam, and now we are in a worse spot than in Vietnam. We left Vietnam under massive pressure I see no reason we can't do the same here.

4. And I don't get the overall problem Bush under executive power sent them in Obama could just as easily order them out with a stroke of a pen, we are not formally at war. So war time peace via Congress is not required. Maybe if we put the torch under the feet of the Iraqi government they will get it they have to take over in lets say a year and we are GOING to leave. So get your nation ready.

5. These insurgents have legitimate support or they would not be so successful we cannot win this as long as a good portion of the Iraqi people support them not us. Its basic math the IRA against the British had it and so did many other successful gueriilla campaigns you need a base of support and you can keep up the fight.

6. Saddam was frankly GOOD for us he kept Iraq under control with these various groups, I think frankly since we put him into power we should have worked with him not have gone into his nation and take him out! That was the most stupid thing we could have done. I'm a Libertarian not one to let us decide who rules or controls other nations if they wanted him out they should have risen up against him en mass, we did against the British against equally grim odds when we had our Reveolutionary War. The people must have in the main liked him and his reign and with that as the case where did we get the right to invade him for no good reason. For all his ego and arrogance he was contained. Where was he going to attack Syria? Iran? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? I mean come on he did that it owuld be suicide. If he wanted WMD's for self-defense we have them so does China, Russia, France, England, India, Pakistan etc. if he wanted them fine. If he started arming terrorists (unlikely in my opinion) then it becomes a UN issue and it could be dealt with by a UN decision.

So I think Obama is going to do the right thing and get us out of there, I say do it and see what happens.

Offline Schwarzepard

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #216 on: February 15, 2008, 10:07:49 AM »
Excuse you,

My post had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Bush.  It was my criticism of the statements of the three candidates.  I know that you know  that.  The next time you want to change the subject, don't quote me.

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #217 on: February 15, 2008, 11:07:06 AM »
<snip>

1. We cannot WIN this war on terror the Republicrats finally got exactly what they wanted a no win war they can scare us with forever. Terrorism is a threat more law enforcement and global requiring all nations devoted to peace to work together with Interpol and other law enforcement efforts globally to minimize dramatic threats. At least in Afghanistan where we hugely had our interests here we dropped the ball and now Al Queda and their Taliban Allies with the warlords we are alienating are coming back stronger than before.

2. The Iraqis had YEARS to get their government organized I say if we have to divide the nation into three and let our Kurdish allies have a free state where we can safely base our troops then fine- do it. I must point out its OUR army there no coalition like we had in the FIRST Gulf War. So we not the UN pretty much can set policy and divide these nations and deal with the fallout later. And in the Kurdistan area we will have get this a safe place to place bases where the people like us, I find that preferable if we are to stay there.

<snip>


As usual Ruby, you conveniently forget the rest of the world

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/10/list-of-countri.html

Incase you aren't able to read that, here is a list of other countries that are still in Iraq.

ALBANIA:
ARMENIA:
AUSTRALIA:
AZERBAIJAN:
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA:
BRITAIN:
BULGARIA:
CZECH REPUBLIC:
EL SALVADOR:
ESTONIA:
GEORGIA:
KAZAKHSTAN:
MACEDONIA:
MOLDOVA:
MONGOLIA:
NETHERLANDS:
POLAND:
ROMANIA:
SLOVENIA:
SOUTH KOREA:
UNITED STATES:

Yes, not as many troops as the US, but guess who's doing all the ground work to get that country back on it's feet?

It takes a damned sight longer to get a country back to any form of 'democracy' than just over four years.
As usual, it's force your way in, cause mayhem and chaos and then cut and run because it's not happening overnight.

When our country joined this 'war', we all knew we were in for the long haul, which is why British troops may decrease in numbers, but the expertease that is needed will be there for one hell of a long time.
(A little bit like Afghanistan really, but please don't get me going on that one)

 
Quote
<snip>
4. And I don't get the overall problem Bush under executive power sent them in Obama could just as easily order them out with a stroke of a pen, we are not formally at war. So war time peace via Congress is not required. Maybe if we put the torch under the feet of the Iraqi government they will get it they have to take over in lets say a year and we are GOING to leave. So get your nation ready.
<snip>

See above, you really think that after a dictatorship that lasted so many years, a country can just click it's fingers and resurect itself?
This will take a generation, or three, at least to be accomplished and that would be expecting it to be done 'quickly'.

Quote

<snip>
5. These insurgents have legitimate support or they would not be so successful we cannot win this as long as a good portion of the Iraqi people support them not us. Its basic math the IRA against the British had it and so did many other successful gueriilla campaigns you need a base of support and you can keep up the fight.
<snip>

Shame that your country doesn't see fit to learn from others. This is exactly why none of us, on this side of the pond, believe that this situation is going to go away any time soon...how long did it take us.....hmmmmm.....and you are expecting it all done and dusted in less than three years....

Quote
6. Saddam was frankly GOOD for us he kept Iraq under control with these various groups, I think frankly since we put him into power we should have worked with him not have gone into his nation and take him out! That was the most stupid thing we could have done. I'm a Libertarian not one to let us decide who rules or controls other nations if they wanted him out they should have risen up against him en mass, we did against the British against equally grim odds when we had our Reveolutionary War. The people must have in the main liked him and his reign and with that as the case where did we get the right to invade him for no good reason. For all his ego and arrogance he was contained. Where was he going to attack Syria? Iran? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? I mean come on he did that it owuld be suicide. If he wanted WMD's for self-defense we have them so does China, Russia, France, England, India, Pakistan etc. if he wanted them fine. If he started arming terrorists (unlikely in my opinion) then it becomes a UN issue and it could be dealt with by a UN decision.

Two little points, one that is relavent to this conversation, the other one that rankles every time, those like yourself mention it...

The first:

I'm a Libertarian not one to let us decide who rules or controls other nations if they wanted him out they should have risen up against him en mass,

and yet in point 2, you state this?

I say if we have to divide the nation into three and let our Kurdish allies have a free state where we can safely base our troops then fine- do it.

You should try less rant and more re-read, perhaps then you will start actaully getting your thoughts straight and stop contradicting yourself?

The second point:
we did against the British against equally grim odds when we had our Reveolutionary War.

Ruby, it was the British and other Europeans fighting the British and other Europeans for the right to rule themselves.
Today's Americans should remember that, before they start using that as an example of their bravery and courage.

*sighs*

I could go on breaking practically every paragraph down and attempt to show you that most of what you have said is completely rediculous.
Unfortunately, I have not only run out of time, but totally run out of civility....


EDIT:
Having thought, although this is an answer to a post made here on this thread, it really is off topic. So if Vek or Lilac believe it is, then I apologise and please move it to another thread.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 11:16:18 AM by Elvi »

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #218 on: February 15, 2008, 11:12:17 AM »
Quote
I think it's unfair to say that the US went into Iraq knowing it was unwinnable.
I'm sorry, I don't buy that. You can't win a war against an idea. It's impossible.

Quote
BUSH lied to get us in there, the Republicans and many Democrats gave him that power not in a formal declaration of war but foisting on him de facto Police Powers just like Vietnam, and now we are in a worse spot than in Vietnam. We left Vietnam under massive pressure I see no reason we can't do the same here.
I don't think Bush lied. I think he recieved faulty information. It's not as if the WMDs were never there... Saddam specifically admitted it himself before his execution. There was recently a report by one of the major news programs (I think it was 60 Min) that went into very intriguing details as to how it all went down. Essentially, we learned during interrogations that Saddam actually DID comply with the order to destroy his WMDs... but he was so obsessed with power that he refused to reveal what he did. The man was brilliant, whether or not you choose to believe that. He wanted the world to think he had power. By shutting out weapons inspectors he led our intelligence to believe that he still had the weapons, and that was his power. The man was playing mind games with the US and the UN, and it worked like a charm until it blew up in his face. FYI, we also learned during those interrogations that the moment we turned our back he was going to rebuild his nuclear program. There's no reason to believe Saddam was BSing... he was a very arrogant man, and he had no reason to lie.

Quote
Saddam was frankly GOOD for us
Yeah... right.  ::)

Frankly, Saddam was a mistake we made that we should have corrected during the first war.

Quote
Where was he going to attack Syria? Iran? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? I mean come on he did that it would be suicide.
He shot his scuds into plenty of populated areas. Just because he had no ties to al Qaeda doesn't mean he's not himself a terrorist. How many of his own people did he gas? Like I said in my above post... he had an agenda to rebuild his weapons program once we turned our focus elsewhere. It's a good thing we took him out... unfortunately he was just a head to this hydra.

Quote
So I think Obama is going to do the right thing and get us out of there, I say do it and see what happens.
I don't think it is the right thing to just pack up and leave. I fear what will happen when we pull out... but, at the same time, I'm leaning more and more toward getting our people out of here and going Switzerland on the world. We'll never make everyone happy, and we'll piss off most... so I wouldn't be completely against pumping our money into our own country and to hell with everyone else. I'm just as eager for the end of the war as everyone else, and I'll celebrate with everyone else when our troops do come home... but I fear the "see what happens" bit of your comment will come back and bite us... hard.

Excuse you,

My post had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Bush.  It was my criticism of the statements of the three candidates.  I know that you know  that.  The next time you want to change the subject, don't quote me.
I think she meant to quote me... most of those comments seem to rebutt my post.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 11:19:33 AM by rainshadow »

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #219 on: February 15, 2008, 04:39:00 PM »
I don't think Bush lied. I think he recieved faulty information.
[/snip]

The Center for Public Integrity has assembled a report and database documenting 935 false statements made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other top administration officials regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the two years after September 11, 2001.

The Center for Public Integrity reports that its "exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The database also documents how Bush and others had reason to know, or at least suspect, what they were saying was not supported by the facts.

Lewis and Reading-Smith write: "President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. . . .

"On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war. . . .

"President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

"The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews. . . .

"The cumulative effect of these false statements -- amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts -- was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists -- indeed, even some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."

Here are some key false statements. For example: "On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: 'Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, 'Our reaction was, "Where is he getting this stuff from?"'"

Online MagicalPen

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #220 on: February 15, 2008, 04:48:29 PM »
Do a search for ROBOT CHICKEN STAR WARS. It'll bring you to the Adult Swim website I think where you can watch the 4 or 5 episodes. One of them involves BUSH and is absolutely hilarious!

Offline VandalSavage

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #221 on: February 15, 2008, 04:53:21 PM »
The Center for Public Integrity has assembled a report and database documenting 935 false statements made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other top administration officials regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the two years after September 11, 2001.

The Center for Public Integrity reports that its "exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The database also documents how Bush and others had reason to know, or at least suspect, what they were saying was not supported by the facts...

That truly is a phenomenal resource.  I am glad you posted on it.

That having been said, to bring the discussion back to the titular topic of the thread, what are some of your thoughts on what bearing, if any, Hillary's initial pro-war vote, and her support of the casus belli of the war up until 2005, have on a potential Presidency?

By "potential Presidency," I mean both her policies in office and her candidacy.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #222 on: February 15, 2008, 04:59:49 PM »
Well, given Senator Clinton's voting record in the Senate, I don't think it's a stretch to say that she will continue her track record of giving the military-industrial complex everything they want, billions and billions of dollars to fund weapons systems research that our own Defense Department doesn't want and can't use.

I think her policies will shift hard to the right if and when she receives the Democratic nomination as she attempts to out-center McCain, who by the way, is one of the few politicians who has pushed for actual accountability from Defense contractors and has NOT voted to issue them blank checks and hold them accountable.

I think Senator Clinton will push for a financial relief plan in response to the credit and housing crisis that chiefly benefits the mortgage brokers and credit agencies, just like President Clinton did when he signed the Credit Reform Act of 1996 or 1997, I disremember which. 

In short, Senator Clinton as a President is NOT what I'm looking for after 8 years of President Bush.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #223 on: February 15, 2008, 05:05:02 PM »
Do a search for ROBOT CHICKEN STAR WARS. It'll bring you to the Adult Swim website I think where you can watch the 4 or 5 episodes. One of them involves BUSH and is absolutely hilarious!

OMG, that whole episode is hilarious! *giggle*

/hijack over/

Offline Schwarzepard

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #224 on: February 15, 2008, 11:15:37 PM »
Not so phenomenal, but it has giant bunnies!

Politicians' comments on Iraq's WMD:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Saddam and Terrorism, a dissenting view.  Checking the links at the bottom on the sources was quite interesting.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/