EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 388
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:40 naastyOne wrote: What is the big deal, exactly? Unless they have modern, ICBM, and in numbers, US is perfecly safe and sound. US has a lot of support in the region against Iran, Israel, Saudi, ex. They can just bomb the most importaint infrastructure, oil pipelines, power stations, sewage, R&D facilities, and selective plants. And Saudi did provide US the airports for invasion into Irak. Iran can retaliate and it is highly unlikely bombing Iran will actually end the nuclear program. They are building shit under a damn mountain for a reason. This is why we used computer viruses and not bombs to hit the centrifuges. There is this assumption that if we drop a few bombs the program goes away, but that is far from clear or likely. Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:43 Souma wrote: Eventually something must be done against Iran, but bombing them isn't as simple as it seems. Iran is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism (if not the biggest) in the world. Bomb them and don't be surprised if you start seeing suicide bombings in NYC. What you said about terrorism I heavily agree with. When there is terrorism, the victims fight the terror with more terror. | ||
|
naastyOne
491 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:43 Souma wrote: Eventually something must be done against Iran, but bombing them isn't as simple as it seems. Iran is one of the biggest sponsors (if not the biggest) of terrorism in the world. Bomb them and don't be surprised if you start seeing suicide bombings in NYC. It can be argued, those bombings would happen anyway, so no point prolonging the inevitable. On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote: Iran can retaliate and it is highly unlikely bombing Iran will actually end the nuclear program. They are building shit under a damn mountain for a reason. This is why we used computer viruses and not bombs to hit the centrifuges. There is this assumption that if we drop a few bombs the program goes away, but that is far from clear or likely. You didn`t get it? The point is not to destroy the program, but to cause so much economic damage, that the program becomes unsustainable. Also, to whom exactly would Iran retaliete, and with what? | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:45 naastyOne wrote: It can be argued, those bombings would happen anyway, so no point prolonging the inevitable. Well, they haven't happened yet, so let's not be rash until we're forced to play our hand. If/when we do eventually take action, let's make sure the entire weight of the world strikes down on Iran, and not just us and Israel. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote: The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"? The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
And there is a conspiracy of the United States of Islam...seriously, this is worse than the anti-communist conspiracy theories before the fall of the Berlin Wall. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On September 01 2012 06:38 Derez wrote: Bush (for example) didn't win because people on the left flipped, he won because of massive turnout on the right, mainly the evangelicals, part of the centre and low turnout among the left. Not really true, at all. Bush "won" because of a conservative SCOTUS, hanging chads, and his brother was the governor of Florida. Gore had won the popular vote. If you also take into account the good showing by Nader that year, the turnout for the left was one of the best. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote: Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. | ||
|
naastyOne
491 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote: It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote: Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote: What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. | ||
|
ContrailNZ
New Zealand306 Posts
He should be arguing that he doesn't have the charisma of Obama, but he has the policy. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
Ever consider the possibility that killing who-knows-how-many Iranians both directly and through crippling their economy and infrastructure is itself a big deal? | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:19 ContrailNZ wrote: Romney / supporters are wasting their time if they think they can make Romney into a people person. He isn't. He isn't evil, but he can not connect to the masses. He should be arguing that he doesn't have the charisma of Obama, but he has the policy. Well, their plan worked. The whole purpose of the RNC was to reassure America that no, Romney is not an asshole, and yes, it's okay to vote for him instead of Obama. The Obama ads painting Romney as a money-grubbing-flip-flopping-amoral-woman-hating-fancy-boy were really effective leading up to this convention. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote: I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. And don't forget, just because the EU is okay with sanctions does not mean they are behind bombing Iran yet. The U.S. has antagonized enough people this decade. We have to tread carefully before we lose our last remaining shred of credibility. | ||
|
naastyOne
491 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote: I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:25 frogrubdown wrote: Oh good, a conversation about what the "big deal" is with bombing Iran in which all the participants tacitly assume that an outcome is only a big deal if it harms the U.S. Ever consider the possibility that killing who-knows-how-many Iranians both directly and through crippling their economy and infrastructure is itself a big deal? Unfortunately the economic sanctions have already hit the average Iranian citizen pretty hard. Even so, we cannot stop. If you want to blame anyone, blame Iran for holding their citizens hostage. We're already doing the best we can. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:25 frogrubdown wrote: Oh good, a conversation about what the "big deal" is with bombing Iran in which all the participants tacitly assume that an outcome is only a big deal if it harms the U.S. Ever consider the possibility that killing who-knows-how-many Iranians both directly and through crippling their economy and infrastructure is itself a big deal? Yes. I'm sorry if I was not clear. By 'costly', I also meant to include the social and moral cost. The reality is that, just like in the US, there are a lot of young Iranians that despise and do not support their government. But civilian deaths and murder would be flat out unavoidable if a war in Iran was instigated. Both Syria and Iran are much tougher countries to invade and occupy than, say, Lybia. Edit: To put it in perspective, Iran (75 million people) is more than double the population of Canada, in a country about the size of Lybia (only 6 million). | ||
| ||
