OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[JackB1]

Bush and Clinton both did weed, coke, and other stuff. Nobody cared and they both got elected/reelected. I think the everyman thing is overrated.

I dont WANT an "everyman" in charge of our nation. I want a special, elite, intelligent person that I respect and revere. That is what our President should be. We all saw what happened the past 8 years, when we elect a guy we want to have a beer with.

[XXXIV]

Bush and Clinton both did weed, coke, and other stuff. Nobody cared and they both got elected/reelected. I think the everyman thing is overrated.

I dont WANT an "everyman" in charge of our nation. I want a special, elite, intelligent person that I respect and revere .

Be warned...that type of person probably has made and makes alot of money.

[MACTEPsporta]

You guys are just ignoring the important revelation that the Japanese Red Army organized 9-11. I'm going to start an online petition for the US to invade Japan, and another one for the US to apologize to Osama and his wrongly accused buddies.

As I said, I don't pretend to know the truth, I am just sharing my experience. I found it peculiar that the news that was on every major network never made it here. I know this is a painful subject, but I was hoping people who are really interested in things of this nature are mature enough to handle the conversation as adults. Few imbecils aside, of course. As far as bin Laden is concerned... apology may not be quite the answer, but I would, sure as hell, liked if US government hasn't provided him and his "buddies" with training, money and weapons for decades. Wouldn't that have been nice?

[pk500]

As far as bin Laden is concerned... apology may not be quite the answer, but I would, sure as hell, liked if US government hasn't provided him and his "buddies" with training, money and weapons for decades. Wouldn't that have been nice?

It's called the shifting sands of alliances when you're the world's superpower, as I'm sure you're well aware.

The U.S. supplied Afghan rebels, for which Osama fought, in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s. The U.S. also supplied Iraq in its war against Iran during the 80s.

Iran and the USSR were our largest enemies during the 80s, so we jumped into bed with their foes, even if they weren't good-looking chicks. Remember, that was back in the era when nations with large military forces and nuclear capabilities were seen as the major threats to the U.S., not well-equipped, well-organized ideological terror groups that are willing to fly planes filled with civilians into skyscrapers.

You can play Nostradamus all you want, but the idea that an ideological group could be the main threat to U.S. security was daffy in the 80s. You can make the argument about the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, but the NVA was a conventional army supplied by the Chinese and the Soviets.

Uneasy alliances between the U.S. and countries with possibly shady intentions or ideals never will end. Look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Do you really think the Saudis believe in American ideals of democracy, freedom and human rights? Hell, no. But we need their land for military bases, and we definitely need that black, sticky stuff that's under their sand.

Take care,
PK

[MACTEPsporta]

As far as bin Laden is concerned... apology may not be quite the answer, but I would, sure as hell, liked if US government hasn't provided him and his "buddies" with training, money and weapons for decades. Wouldn't that have been nice?

It's called the shifting sands of alliances when you're the world's superpower, as I'm sure you're well aware.

I know. But when you make that type of decision, history decides whether it was the correct one. I think we all know the answer now. Soviet foreign policy can be summed up by a slighty altered old saying "Keep your enemies weak, and your allies weaker". I think that when it comes to the Middle East - that's the way to go. I assure you, I am not reminiscing just for the sake of nostalgy, I am afraid that the history may repeat itself with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Kosovo.

[matthewk]

I want a special, elite, intelligent person that I respect and revere.

Those types of people don't run for president.

[RobVarak]

I know. But when you make that type of decision, history decides whether it was the correct one. I think we all know the answer now.

I don't know about that. Afghanistan was a sinkhole of money, materiale and manpower and was very much a factor in the dissolution of the USSR. It's hard to weigh whether subsidizing that event is outweighed by having to fight a war against AQ now. In any event I don't think it's an open and shut case one way or the other.

[MACTEPsporta]

I know. But when you make that type of decision, history decides whether it was the correct one. I think we all know the answer now.

I don't know about that. Afghanistan was a sinkhole of money, materiale and manpower and was very much a factor in the dissolution of the USSR. It's hard to weigh whether subsidizing that event is outweighed by having to fight a war against AQ now. In any event I don't think it's an open and shut case one way or the other.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Afghanistan, and for that matter US itself, had very little to no impact on dissolution of USSR. Claiming the victory for the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing more than typical propaganda. USSR has been fighting in multitude of wars for 70 years, and if WWI, Finland, WWII, and a bunch of civil wars didn't destroy it, Afghanistan most certainly couldn't make that much of an impact.

Collapse of USSR was a simple implosion. It was just time. The system outlived itself, people in power wanted to make more money, something that wasn't possible while "building communism", they picked Politbyuro that could be manipulated, and set course on capitalism. If you remember, exactly 17 years ago, almost to the day, the remaining Soviet faithful, tried to overthrow that government and return to communist ideals, but they failed. I also believe that high standards for education were reason, in part, for USSR falling to pieces. Smarter people are much harder to brainwash.

[Teal]

I want a special, elite, intelligent person that I respect and revere.

Those types of people don't run for president.

Nope-they seize power and become dictators...either that, or they come from the heavens and are the Son of God. You want a figment of idealistic imagination. No president has been what you describe...none ever will be.

[Teal]

I know. But when you make that type of decision, history decides whether it was the correct one. I think we all know the answer now.

I don't know about that. Afghanistan was a sinkhole of money, materiale and manpower and was very much a factor in the dissolution of the USSR. It's hard to weigh whether subsidizing that event is outweighed by having to fight a war against AQ now. In any event I don't think it's an open and shut case one way or the other.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Afghanistan, and for that matter US itself, had very little to no impact on dissolution of USSR. Claiming the victory for the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing more than typical propaganda. USSR has been fighting in multitude of wars for 70 years, and if WWI, Finland, WWII, and a bunch of civil wars didn't destroy it, Afghanistan most certainly couldn't make that much of an impact.

Collapse of USSR was a simple implosion. It was just time. The system outlived itself, people in power wanted to make more money, something that wasn't possible while "building communism", they picked Politbyuro that could be manipulated, and set course on capitalism. If you remember, exactly 17 years ago, almost to the day, the remaining Soviet faithful, tried to overthrow that government and return to communist ideals, but they failed. I also believe that high standards for education were reason, in part, for USSR falling to pieces. Smarter people are much harder to brainwash.

Boy, that's a rewrite of history if I've ever seen one. You really believe that?

[RobVarak]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Afghanistan, and for that matter US itself, had very little to no impact on dissolution of USSR. Claiming the victory for the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing more than typical propaganda.

Those are mutually exclusive concepts. I agree that "claiming victory" is an empty boast. Much of what you say is correct as far as the ineviability of the collapse. But it took actual events to topple the state, and Afghanistan was one of the critical factors. There was widespread popular discontent over the war, something which was never the case in any of the Soviet Union's previous adventures. This just exacerbated the social discontent with the economic situation.

There's no objective way to hash this out. You're entitled to your opinion and your background certainly gives you a different perspective on the matter. But the bulk of the accepted academic analysis, much of it by Russians, attributes great importance to the role of the Afghan war.

I'm reminded of something from my otherwise hazy college career. In 1990-91 I was in a graduate seminar with a visiting Prof. who was the Dean of the World Politics dept. at Moscow State University. It was obviously a fortuitous time to have access to an academic like that. He used to always say that the Soviet Union was failing because, as you said, it was essentially a shell by that point. When faced with a situation in the 90s like the US had in the 60's (social upheaval, economic contraction and an unpopular foreignwar) it failed because its political and social institutions were rotten to the core. Unlike ours, which are pretty much only rotten around the periphery, I suppose. LOL

[MACTEPsporta]

Soviet Union was failing because, as you said, it was essentially a shell by that point.

I most certainly agree that US contributed to the factors that made USSR "ready" for collapse. Economic situation and the war, as well as the new generation, are atop that list. But all that means is that it made the apple ripe, and ready to fall. People, who "shooked the tree", however, were not the US, but a number of high powered officials within SU. There were much more critical times in the history of Soviet Union, both politically and economically, as I am sure, you are aware, but, as no one pushed for the change of system, the country remained.

[Jackdog]

As I said, I don't pretend to know the truth, I am just sharing my experience. I found it peculiar that the news that was on every major network never made it here. I know this is a painful subject, but I was hoping people who are really interested in things of this nature are mature enough to handle the conversation as adults. Few imbecils aside, of course.

Pot calling kettel black. I ask you a question,you give me a bullshit rant. I lost a cousin and a leg because of 9/11. You have no idea how painful that is. This has nothing to do with the election,so take your bullshit to a Michael Moore forum.

[Jared]

Let's calm things down in the thread. Or else we'll have to temp lock it again.

[Jackdog]

Let's calm things down in the thread. Or else we'll have to temp lock it again.

Talking s*** about 9/11. f*** it!! Lock it up. I want to bullshit about this election,not rehash the agony of that day with some nutjob. He post that it's painful. Well f*** yeah it is! And his ideas don't f***in help.It's f***in bullshit man.

[RobVarak]

Take it easy, boys. MACTEP and Jack, you guys are two of my favorite nutjobs. Go to your respective corners and chill

[Jackdog]

Take it easy, boys. MACTEP and Jack, you guys are two of my favorite nutjobs. Go to your respective corners and chill

I am cool with everything except that 9/11 bullshit Rob. That day f***ed my family up. i lost so many friends since that day it's not funny. I don't want to hear my country pulled an inside job just to invade Iraq.

[MACTEPsporta]

RobVarak wrote:
Take it easy, boys. MACTEP and Jack, you guys are two of my favorite nutjobs. Go to your respective corners and chill

There is no need to separate us, I don't respond to accusations online, I don't see a point. After my initial reply, I withheld from the argument with Jack, and intend to keep it that way. Since he is an acqaintance of Rob's I willing to give him a benefit of the doubt, and assume he just didn't read what I wrote, so I am going to give him a chance to go back and read.

I don't want to hear my country pulled an inside job just to invade Iraq.

Here is the only time I mentioned something of the like

While I am prepared to dismiss the conspiracy theory in which the building was destroyed by the US government to justify invasion into Middle East...

I hope this clarified it.

[Feanor]

Not too start a way too painful subject here, but I am not so sure al-Quaida is the one to blame for 9/11 in the first place. While I am prepared to dismiss the conspiracy theory in which the building was destroyed by the US government to justify invasion into Middle East (although there are still a few gray areas I would like more info on), I am not completely swayed that this was al-Qaida's doing.

I was in Europe on 9/11 and watched the news the entire day. When I came back to US I was shocked to find out that some of the things I heard while in Europe never even surfaced in the states. For example: no one in the US seems to know that there was one terrorist organization that actually claimed to be responsible for 9/11 on that same day. It was the Japanese Red Army, a rather radical terrorist organization in Japan faulted for multiple subway bombings and some other ugly stuff. Apparently they were also tied to Aum Shenriko, the religious sect that spread anthrax in Japanese subway in 1995. I repeat, that was all first day news in Europe. Long before anthrax scare began. For some reason it never made it on US airwaves, and bin Laden was quickly assumed to be at fault, even though he denied it for months. Not something terrorists do, by the way. They take pride in their actions, and are quick to assume responsibilty for them. Another thing that didn't show up in American news was the fact that US bombed multiple targets in Afghanistan, hours after 9/11 (the war started a month later), accusation they officially denied. Anyone seriously thinks it was someone else?

You weren't in America when 9-11 happened so you don't know if the JRA's ridiculous claim was reported at the time, and then not mentioned again when it became obvious that they had nothing to do with it. I've participated in plenty of spirited 9-11 discussion on European forums and the subject of the JRA never comes up because evidently even the lunatic fringe don't want to be associated with it.

Your claim that terrorists always immediately take responsibility for their attacks is complete rubbish. Terrorists do what's in their best interests, and obviously bin Laden realized that he was better off buying any time he could before US military action started.

You claim that it's a fact the US bombed Afghanistan on September 11, 2001, but you don't provide any evidence. Given your ridiculous assertion about what "terrorists do" which hints at bin Laden & Al Qaeda being innocent despite his eventual admission, his involvement in previous attacks, and the mountain of evidence against him, I'm not inclined to take your word for it.

[MACTEPsporta]

My patience is starting to run thin, but I will still attempt to answer these, although, I am getting tired of repeating the same thing over and over again.

You weren't in America when 9-11 happened so you don't know if the JRA's ridiculous claim was reported at the time

Do you really have to ask? Umm... they have CNN in Europe, it's called satellite television. I spent hours on the phone with my friends and family in the states, as well, and they haven't heard anything about Red Army either. When I came back I continued asking, but no one saw it. Did you? I think not.

You claim that it's a fact the US bombed Afghanistan on September 11, 2001...

Yeah, morning of September 12, American time. It was everywhere, I think it even flashed on CNN, but there was a quick rebuttal, something in the lines of, what we assumed to be bombings were fireworks of celebration, or some crap like that. Never got mentioned again, at least not to my knowledge.

... hints at bin Laden & Al Qaeda being innocent...

bin Laden was facing death penalty long before 9/11 and to somehow assume that I am defending him is not only lunacy, it's insulting. He is responsible for lives of so many, that whether or not he is responsible for 9/11 doesn't change my opinion of him, or the punishment, I believe, he deserves. His admission came long after, and it was on one of those crap quality tapes that keep resurfacing. But that's a whole other subject.

One more time, I am listing events as they happened, and I am not making ANY assumptions. I do not have an opinion on the matter, as I believe I am missing the facts necessary to form one. I listed few things that caught my attention that day, and suggested that there may be more to this than you or I know. Those who think that I am somehow offending American people, disrespecting those who died or suffered, or attacking America altogether, need to have their head checked. Seriously

[Feanor]

Go on, keep trying to make out that some European news stations reporting a claim that has proved to have to no substance proves anything. Maybe the yank TV news shows remembered getting burnt with claims that Serbian terrorists were involved with Oklahoma City, and thought better of it.

Something flashed on CNN once, therefore it happened. Gotcha.

I didn't say you're defending bin Laden. What you are doing is making outrageous claims about the behavior of terrorists which don't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

[miget33]

Obama picks Biden as his VP.

[RobVarak]

Obama picks Biden as his VP.

I'm very, very surprised for all the reasons that I stated earlier. Joe Biden is about as far as you can get from any sort of "change" candidate, so I guess the Obamanistas are hoping that he helps undercut the ticket's inherent weakness on experience in general and foreign affairs in particular. But it's hard to maintain the illusion of being a transformative figure when your No. 2 was running for a shot against Bush I 20 years ago...


Biden's a safe pick from a skeletons in the closet perspective, but there's a record a mile long for the GOP to pick at...not to mention some pretty harsh things that Biden has already said about Obama.

I've always found Biden to be an interesting figure, alternating between critical thinking and from-the-hip commentary with alarming yet entertaining frequency. He's a gasseous SOB in the old-time political tradition. Even more than most pols, if you give him 5 minutes, he'll go on for at least an hour. That was never a problem for Clinton, but I don't know if Biden has the sense to know when to turn his wonkitude on and off.

He gives off the impression that he always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, so that's something he has in common with the candidate It'll be interesting to see him be deferential, because he's not accustomed to behaving that way in public.

[Teal]

...and the Titanic goes down...

[greggsand]

Biden is a good pick. I was fearing some military guy selected just to ease the "we can win this war" honks... Let's see what the old man has up his sleeve.