2008 US Presidential Election - Page 78

On September 28 2008 12:33 Servolisk wrote:


And this makes him look stronger?

On September 26 2008 07:06 BalliSLife wrote:


How is it fake? you have to at least back up what you're saying.

On September 28 2008 12:04 BlackJack wrote:
McCain doesn't agree with it because he believes the President of the United States meeting with another head of state legitimizes their regime

On September 29 2008 01:40 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


He was elected, the "regime" is already legitimate.

Sen. John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's stance on Pakistan Sunday morning, after the Alaska governor appeared to back Sen. Barack Obama's support for unilateral strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists

"She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest," McCain told ABC's George Stephanopoulos of Palin. "In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position… This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin."

Saturday night, while on a stop for cheesesteaks in South Philadelphia, Palin was questioned by a Temple graduate student about whether the U.S. should cross the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

During Friday night's presidential debate in Mississippi, Obama took a similar stance and condemned the Bush administration for failing to act on the possibility terrorists are in Pakistan.

"Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan," Obama said after McCain accused the Illinois senator of wanting to announce an invasion. "If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out."

McCain emphasized Sunday, Palin "shares" his view on the matter.

Kissinger has never been for that, has never been for "high level talks (aka the fucking president)" and has said that if you don't have preconditions, you shouldn't be talking with them.

On September 29 2008 03:52 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
On Russia, most people are under the idea that they are our "friends," that is entirely false. From the former rezident (leading intelligence officer for the KVR in America), Russia's three top enemies are 1.) America 2.) NATO 3.) China. So, whoever said that we should ally ourselves with China is correct. Now, the reason Russia invaded Georgia, is because they were seeking membership into NATO. Russia thinks that we are their number one enemy. Now you have some background on why Russia is a fuckhead.

Some people try to claim that the US is wrong in being in Iraq because most of the UN didn't support that move. I'm going to take you allllll the way back to the 1930's and build this scenario up. This was when the League of Nations was first proposed. They wanted the most prominent countries to set up sanctions on other countries to maintain all that world order etc. Why didn't this work? One, all the prominent countries didn't agree on a goddamned thing, and two, sanctions won't do shit to prevent someone from doing something (take a look at the current UN's 17 slaps on the wrist to Saddam). The League of Nations was disbanded after failing to stop WW2. America was never a part of the League of Nations (probably part of why it failed so badly). Based on the Declaration of independence, America will never be bound to do what any other country tells it to do (this is written into the declaration, to maintain America's sovereignty from Britain). So first we have the US should act independently from whatever any country says.

Now let's move to the Oil for Food scandal. Iraq made world appeals for their "starving children" because of the trade embargo's on the country (Note, there were no starving children). The UN set up the oil for food program, so Saddam could feed his poor starving children. Saddam agreed under one circumstance, He choose who the oil is sold to. The UN agreed, and set up four people from four countries to head the transactions (the US, Russia, and two others I forget at the moment). To sell the oil, it had to be priced competetively. What Saddam would do was, sell the oil to whoever of his choosing, at a competetive price of $-.01 per barrel, and that person would then sell it on the market for its value, and pocket $500,000. Saddam was paying people off with the Oil for Food program. After the first year, the US person quit. Slowly, the competetive price dropped per barrel, until only Russia was left on the program. At the end, barrels were being priced $.16 below the market, and Saddam was selling these to big countries (Britain, France, Germany, A shit ton to Russia, China, Canada, Iran, and other countries. Sales were made to two muslim americans). At the end, Saddam paid people off with over 200 million dollars from the oil for food program. Over 30 million went into top Russian coffers. When Putin found out about this, what happened? He gave the guy a medal. Oh, Saddam and started getting kickbacks from the people he sold to.

Can you figure out why the UN doesn't mean shit? One, the UN has failed to prevent anything 9so why should we do what they say?). Two, the US is fully independent from any group and has the authority to move unilaterally in whatever the fuck we want. And three, most of the major countries who apposed up going into Iraq, *gasp*, were being paid off by Saddam.

During the debate, Senator Obama said that Kissinger was for "high level talks without preconditions," in this case with Iran. When Senator McCain challenged this, he changed preconditions, to preparations, and said that they basically meant the same thing, and so Kissinger still agreed with him. Senator Obamas position is that the President would meet without preconditions with Iran (which he has stated multiple times before being challenged in the debate). Kissinger has never been for that, has never been for "high level talks (aka the fucking president)" and has said that if you don't have preconditions, you shouldn't be talking with them.

To whoever said you lose nothing by going to the table and talking, is full of it. Let me give you another history lesson (this one is short). Britain's Prime Minister went to the table with Hitler when he was marching across Europe. History books label his action of diplomacy instead of military action as stupid, wrong, prolonged the war (and allowed it to

On September 29 2008 04:56 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Let's stop speculating about what Kissinger is for, and allow him to speak for himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXrQQ44kP0


EDIT: video doesn't seem to be working embed, you can search the longer video where Kissinger answers further questions in the same interview, the length is only around 5m.

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

On September 29 2008 05:03 Boblion wrote:


You are so wrong. Bush lied about WmD, and all the American believed him period.
Then he started the war because " Saddam is linked to Ben Laden " ( haha ).
Now don't do some bs revisionism.
You were wrong and you still are.

Don't start to say that Germany, France and Russia didnt want the war because of oil. Russia don't even need more oil and France is producing like 70% of its electricity with nuclear power plants. Anyway you can always find oil elsewhere.

On the other hand the only real American motive was oil. So give me a favor don't write such a long post to say stupid things.

On September 29 2008 05:22 NovaTheFeared wrote:
That's correct Jibba. Obama got Kissinger's position wrong at the debate, he would not approve a meeting between the President and Ahmadinejad without preconditions. What he does support is talks at the working level, up to and including the Secretary of State, but thinks it's unwise for the President to be involved until we are already close to an agreement. The reasons are that if you start at the Presidential level and talks break down there's no higher level to go to, therefore no recourse. Also it would legitimize Ahmadinejad in the face of the world, a criticism Obama came under from Clinton in the primaries.

On September 29 2008 05:22 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The reasons are that if you start at the Presidential level and talks break down there's no higher level to go to, therefore no recourse.

On September 29 2008 05:33 Jibba wrote:

It's also because the real details occur at the Sec. of State level. I'd argue that it's in fact the most important level of negotiations, even if the President is on the highest ceremonial/public level.

On September 29 2008 05:22 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Also it would legitimize Ahmadinejad in the face of the world, a criticism Obama came under from Clinton in the primaries.