USA Politics

Certainly businesses invested in Germany pre-WWII ... is the US perfect certainly .. but Iran is clearly the danger here. Their history post 1979 is all the proof needed.
 
Well that's true, a nuclear Iran is something the rest of the world obviously doesnt want, yet I feel there is too much tension in both sides and too much to win if the US get to invade or help Israel invade Iran.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
Here's a reason why Obama looked bad in the debate: he is genuinely a gaping asshole who doesn't give a shit about business or the economy in general. For about the tenth time since he has been elected, he has completely disrupted the business community in LA by setting up a motorcade through (1) the busiest business districts in town, either downtown or Century City, (2) at the busiest time of day.
Click to expand...

Oh fuck me, here we go again: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/obama-la-visit-jay-leno.html
 
bearfan said:
The West was not aligned with Nazi Germany against the USSR... France and GB made efforts to re-establish the WWI alliance with Russia, but Germany was able to conclude a pact first, as they were able to gve the USSR territory the West could not.

As for Iraq v Iran ... they went to war for their own reasons, on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory, the US did send arms to Iraq ... of course this was not long after Iran stormed our embassy, killed the Ambassador,made a series of threats to Israel, etc. The people running Iran are quite dangerous and I am not sure of the logic behind blaming the US for this.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you must mention that the US did supply Iran with arms in that war as well.
 
In the US there were a lot of people that were even pro-Nazi before the WWII, even the father of George Bush father was part of them. They helped the nazis with economic and diplomatic influences, and letting them arm themselves even if they were breaking the Versailles treaty. But then the nazis went anti-west and they saw them as a menace.
 
From my observation, Texas us very democratic ... tons of people (rich, poor, etc) vote every election. The laws have been on the books for some time about who is allowed within 100 ft of a polling place for the specific reason of keeping people from influencing in any way anyone's right to vote. They take this 100 ft thing very seriously, people (GOP and Dems) have been prosecuted in the past 15 years for illegal campaigning, including those claiming to be "observers"

I also wonder why they are not sending anyone to PA, when we had video of the Black Panthers standing outside polling placing harassing people in 2008?
 
lol they shouldn't be mad because they have observers. Here in Mexico in every poll place every party MUST have a pair of observers to keep an eye on the other parties. But well, in rural areas it doesn't matter since the PRI puts people that have guns and even hires drug dealers to ensure people vote for them.
 
Yeah, there are observers from each party allowed at any polling site, but these are American observers, not UN. Each party hires tons of lawyers to perform these duties every year.
 
Let me play devil's advocate here. Does anybody remember the term "mutually assured destruction." That was term used to explain why the U. S. and the U.S.S.R. never went to nuclear war against each other because both knew that their countries would be destroyed, nobody could/would win. Along with these two countries England, France, Israel, India, China, and Pakistan also possess nuclear capacity so what would it matter if one more country gained this capacity? Iran surely knows that if they ever launched a nuclear weapon or provided one to a terrorist group to be used against another country that they as a country/people would be wiped off the face of the earth. Fuck sanctions. all that sand would be turned into glass. So what would be their benefit, unless they all want to go see Allah the bad which I seriously doubt. Now I personally don't want Iran to possess nuclear weapons, but seeing that the U. S. is still the only country to use nuclear weapons against another country( yes I know the reasoning behind that decision) do we really have the right to tell another country that they can't have nuclear weapons.
 
I think there are a fair amount of countries besides the US saying Iran should not get the nukes. mutually assured destruction only works if you have at least semi reasonable people in charge of the weapons. I do not think the current Iranian administration would launch them if they had them, but who knows what a future government or terrorist cell would do?
 
Noone knows what a future government would do. Obviously the odds are that future governments will be more stable in the industrialized countries. But look at India and Pakistan. How many tmes have those two countries gone to war over the Kashmir province, nevermind the untold skirmishes. I personally believe that the odds are greater that one them two would lob a nuke or two at the other before Iran would nuke say Israel. But then again it probably doesn't matter because I also believe that Israel will bomb Iran {with or without U. S. support/cooperation) before they become nuclear compatible.
 
maidenn.c.indiana said:
Let me play devil's advocate here. Does anybody remember the term "mutually assured destruction."
Click to expand...

There is no "mutually assured destruction" if there is "plausible deniability." Plus, even if Iran openly nuked Israel, do they really think the U.S. would turn Iran to glass. Fairly certain the Obama administration would not do that -- which is why tensions with Israel have been high in recent years. No idea what Romney would do -- indeed, I'm pretty sure Romney himself has no idea what he would do.
 
I'm absolutely certain that if Iran nuked Israel that the U. S. would respond. Nobody ever heard of so-called tensions with Israel until Romney used it as a political ploy trying to win the elderly, jewish vote in Florida. And as I stated earlier, I believe that Israel will attack Iran before they get nuclear capabilities.
 
maidenn.c.indiana said:
Nobody ever heard of so-called tensions with Israel until Romney used it as a political ploy trying to win the elderly, jewish vote in Florida.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just flat wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8591461.stm

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/obama-netanyahu-meet-amid-heightened-tension-239317/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/19/obama-meet-netanyahu-week/

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/15/1011095/aipac-to-obama-defuse-tension-with-israel

Checkmate.

Do you just pull "facts" out of your ass when trying to make arguments? Bye-bye, credibility.
 
No I don't just pull facts out of my ass. Oh too bad, Obama wouldn't meet with Netanyahu. I'm sure the tensions over that are far greater than the tensions were when the U.S. wouldn't support England, France, and Israel in their attacks on Egypt during the Suez Canal Crisis. Then in 1973 when the U.S. forced Isreal to retreat back across the Suez Canal in order to keep the Russians from entering the war on the Arab nation's side, well of course those tensions were nothing compared to the outrage of Obama not meeting with Netanyahu. I'm sure the tensions are much higher over that little snub than when Carter forced Begin to negotiate with Sadat on the Camp David accords. No I don't just pull facts out of my ass. I've seen shit be a hell of a lot worse between these two countries. Oh and by the way, since Netanyahu had already been quoted as saying that the election of Romney might be a good thing, why the fuck would Obama want to meet with him. Maybe you need to pay a bit more attention to history rather than political campaign rhetoric.
 
maidenn.c.indiana said:
No I don't just pull facts out of my ass. Oh too bad, Obama wouldn't meet with Netanyahu. I'm sure the tensions over that are far greater than the tensions were when the U.S. wouldn't support England, France, and Israel in their attacks on Egypt during the Suez Canal Crisis. Then in 1973 when the U.S. forced Isreal to retreat back across the Suez Canal in order to keep the Russians from entering the war on the Arab nation's side, well of course those tensions were nothing compared to the outrage of Obama not meeting with Netanyahu. I'm sure the tensions are much higher over that little snub than when Carter forced Begin to negotiate with Sadat on the Camp David accords. No I don't just pull facts out of my ass. I've seen shit be a hell of a lot worse between these two countries. Oh and by the way, since Netanyahu had already been quoted as saying that the election of Romney might be a good thing, why the fuck would Obama want to meet with him. Maybe you need to pay a bit more attention to history rather than political campaign rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Nice try at misdirection, but as the articles I linked show, the tensions with Israel were in 2010, long before Romney's "rhetoric" began in (late) 2011. I'm officially done with maidenn.c.indiana and his bullshit.
 
Cornfed, aren't you exaggerating a bit, when you say you're officially done with maiden indiana? This...
maidenn.c.indiana said:
Nobody ever heard of so-called tensions with Israel until Romney used it as a political ploy trying to win the elderly, jewish vote in Florida.
Click to expand...
...is indeed not true, but for the rest he played the devil's advocate pretty well on the Israel/Iran/nuke subject, I thought. Naturally correct me if I'm wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top