Iowa Update Thread Here

[ravenguy2000]

Originally posted by sppunk


Next stop: Urban New Hampshire.

Oh man, I just chuckled. Heartily, I might add.

I still think that if Kerry gets the nomination, we're fucked. There's no way to get anywhere if we don't win some Southern States, and right now that's only going to happen with Edwards, who was really the first canidate to really appeal to me when the public first got word of who exactly was running.

I guess right now what's most important to me is who really could beat Bush.

[BeautifulLoser]

Originally posted by ravenguy2000


Oh man, I just chuckled. Heartily, I might add.

I still think that if Kerry gets the nomination, we're fucked. There's no way to get anywhere if we don't win some Southern States, and right now that's only going to happen with Edwards, who was really the first canidate to really appeal to me when the public first got word of who exactly was running.

I guess right now what's most important to me is who really could beat Bush.

Indeed. That's all I'm worried about. Although if Dean gets the nomination, I may not vote, because I really don't like either one of them. It'll be the 2000 election all over again.

[mpp]

Originally posted by ravenguy2000




I still think that if Kerry gets the nomination, we're fucked. There's no way to get anywhere if we don't win some Southern States, and right now that's only going to happen with Edwards, who was really the first canidate to really appeal to me when the public first got word of who exactly was running.

that is the bottom line

[mpp]

maybe kerry will choose edwards as his running mate...

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by mpp


that is the bottom line

http://mundowwf.iespana.es/mundowwf/...ena%20onda.jpg

[Toast]

I was hoping for better results from Kucinich, lol. It would be exciting to have a real madman be president, I just know he would invade Canada.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Toast
I was hoping for better results from Kucinich, lol. It would be exciting to have a real madman be president, I just know he would invade Canada.

You don't appear to know much about him then. The problem with Kucinich (ok, one of the problems) is that if a foreign country - oh let's say China - invaded the US, he would simply try to negotiate until the entire country was captured. The guy wants to kill the millitary budget and create a federeal cabinet position for the "Department of Peace."

[severin]

Originally posted by Nimrod
You don't appear to know much about him then. The problem with Kucinich (ok, one of the problems) is that if a foreign country - oh let's say China - invaded the US, he would simply try to negotiate until the entire country was captured. The guy wants to kill the millitary budget and create a federeal cabinet position for the "Department of Peace."

cool, you know i really think there should be more people thinking like that

[Jaggie]

Originally posted by severin
cool, you know i really think there should be more people thinking like that

That's why I'm glad you're not an American voter.

[severin]

Originally posted by Jaggie


That's why I'm glad you're not an American voter.

that's real democracy you're showing here ....ah well, i just don't get it, why should anyone prefer war over peace? what can be lost if you try to bringing peace to other countries, not by attacking them and killing their people and infrastructure, but by seeking compromises and peaceful solutions?

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by severin
that's real democracy you're showing here ....ah well, i just don't get it, why should anyone prefer war over peace? what can be lost if you try to bringing peace to other countries, not by attacking them and killing their people and infrastructure, but by seeking compromises and peaceful solutions?

I think you miss the point. He wants peace at all costs even if it means sitting still and doing nothing while his country is conquered.

I think you'd know a little something about countries being conquered, or has your country forgotten what it feels like already?

[severin]

Originally posted by Nimrod
I think you miss the point. He wants peace at all costs even if it means sitting still and doing nothing while his country is conquered.

I think you'd know a little something about countries being conquered, or has your country forgotten what it feels like already?

actually i personally don't think austria was really conquered. when you see the images of when hitler came to linz or to vienna and how he was celebrated. i think that the common people didn't really care and a lot of people higher up where all for it (of course there was resistance in parts, and that went on all through the 3rd reich). and yes, i grant you a country should defend itself, but i really think that this should only happen when there is an army which actually wants to invade and conquer. say, if mexico decided to go north and conquer the us i'd understand military action. but there is always time to handle such stuff diplomatically before the actual war starts. and i don't see invading a country in the middle east as defending the home soil.

[Jaggie]

Originally posted by severin
actually i personally don't think austria was really conquered. when you see the images of when hitler came to linz or to vienna and how he was celebrated. i think that the common people didn't really care and a lot of people higher up where all for it (of course there was resistance in parts, and that went on all through the 3rd reich). and yes, i grant you a country should defend itself, but i really think that this should only happen when there is an army which actually wants to invade and conquer. say, if mexico decided to go north and conquer the us i'd understand military action. but there is always time to handle such stuff diplomatically before the actual war starts. and i don't see invading a country in the middle east as defending the home soil.

The problem with such appeasement is that it doesn't work. Looking at the example already brought up, WWII, Chamberlain tried to work with Hitler diplomatically and it failed horrendously. Now, while there isn't a Hitler out there now, the face of warfare has changed. There probably will never be another conventional war again. When the US is cowardly attacked, unprovoked, we are left with no other choice than to seek out and destroy these attackers pre-emptively. Although it is not Mexico attacking us (traditional warfare) terrorism is just as valid and immediate of a threat. While I agreed and continue to agree with our actions in Iraq, I think Bush sold it all wrong. He should have placed more emphasis on the fact that Iraq was a terrorist state and threatened not only the security in the region, but abroad.

Now, although I am almost at the complete opposite end of the spectrum with you on virtually every political discussion, I understand your opinion. No one wants to see people die, not Iraqis, Afghanis, and certainly not our own service(wo)men. But, unlike you, my house stands 20 minutes from where the towers stood. Everyone in my neighborhood knew someone killed in the attacks. I believe that I, and my country, have the right to defend myself by all possible means. The time of being reactionary, non-interventional, and simply cautious ended on 9/11. If we fail to be proactive in our war on terror, if we accept such a reactionary policy again, we will be attacked again. Bin Laden isn't stopping if we leave Iraq. Al Qaeda won't take a break if we stopped supporting Israel. Iran won't end harboring terrorists if we approach them diplomatically. All these people know is how to terrorize. All they know is that they hate anything that isn't Muslim, especially the West. The best, the only defense to these people is offense.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by severin
say, if mexico decided to go north and conquer the us i'd understand military action.

They are doing that already.

[Jaggie]

Originally posted by Nimrod
They are doing that already.

Are you a fan of Reagan? Although I'm too young to remember, apparently he did something similar.

[Mayfuck]

Originally posted by Jaggie


The problem with such appeasement is that it doesn't work. Looking at the example already brought up, WWII, Chamberlain tried to work with Hitler diplomatically and it failed horrendously. Now, while there isn't a Hitler out there now, the face of warfare has changed. There probably will never be another conventional war again. When the US is cowardly attacked, unprovoked, we are left with no other choice than to seek out and destroy these attackers pre-emptively. Although it is not Mexico attacking us (traditional warfare) terrorism is just as valid and immediate of a threat. While I agreed and continue to agree with our actions in Iraq, I think Bush sold it all wrong. He should have placed more emphasis on the fact that Iraq was a terrorist state and threatened not only the security in the region, but abroad.

Now, although I am almost at the complete opposite end of the spectrum with you on virtually every political discussion, I understand your opinion. No one wants to see people die, not Iraqis, Afghanis, and certainly not our own service(wo)men. But, unlike you, my house stands 20 minutes from where the towers stood. Everyone in my neighborhood knew someone killed in the attacks. I believe that I, and my country, have the right to defend myself by all possible means. The time of being reactionary, non-interventional, and simply cautious ended on 9/11. If we fail to be proactive in our war on terror, if we accept such a reactionary policy again, we will be attacked again. Bin Laden isn't stopping if we leave Iraq. Al Qaeda won't take a break if we stopped supporting Israel. Iran won't end harboring terrorists if we approach them diplomatically. All these people know is how to terrorize. All they know is that they hate anything that isn't Muslim, especially the West. The best, the only defense to these people is offense.

Very well put.

[severin]

Originally posted by Nimrod
They are doing that already.

hehe


well, i sure understand the emotional pressure one has when something like the wtc attacks happen. especially when you a pretty direectly involved. where you go wron in my opinion is, that there is no thing like a terrorist country. there are terrorist organisations (and al quaida has pretty much converted to a philosophical entity, rather than being a real organisation). those may have it easier in some countries. and i don't see how you can handle such an unconventional situation with conventional warfare like it happened in iraq or afghanistan (esp. afghanistan. the taliban is still there, getting stronger by the minute and bin laden is still sending tapes and viedos to remind everyone that he's out there). if hussein really was actively supporting terrorists i'm sure the us would have had the possibilites to get a special force inside iraq and have him killed. or even better, provide help to the iraqi opposition and help making a change from the inside (instead of letting hussein use his air-force to smash down the oppositional riots iniraq in the 2nd gulf war). the us has done similar things before. the war was not justified and by no measure the best solution to the situation. plus linking the wtc attacks to iraq just doesn't work. that was one of the best moves in bush's war propaganda, projecting the hate and fear of the people from bin laden and al quaida on saddam hussein...

[Jaggie]

Originally posted by severin
hehe


well, i sure understand the emotional pressure one has when something like the wtc attacks happen. especially when you a pretty direectly involved. where you go wron in my opinion is, that there is no thing like a terrorist country. there are terrorist organisations (and al quaida has pretty much converted to a philosophical entity, rather than being a real organisation). those may have it easier in some countries. and i don't see how you can handle such an unconventional situation with conventional warfare like it happened in iraq or afghanistan (esp. afghanistan. the taliban is still there, getting stronger by the minute and bin laden is still sending tapes and viedos to remind everyone that he's out there). if hussein really was actively supporting terrorists i'm sure the us would have had the possibilites to get a special force inside iraq and have him killed. or even better, provide help to the iraqi opposition and help making a change from the inside (instead of letting hussein use his air-force to smash down the oppositional riots iniraq in the 2nd gulf war). the us has done similar things before. the war was not justified and by no measure the best solution to the situation. plus linking the wtc attacks to iraq just doesn't work. that was one of the best moves in bush's war propaganda, projecting the hate and fear of the people from bin laden and al quaida on saddam hussein...

You might not be aware, but the US has an Executive Order (effectively a law) stating that we cannot sponsor the assasination of a foriegn leader. This, of course, can be bypassed, like it has been in the past, by pawning the assasination off to the Israelis, where Scud missles are still fresh on their minds. But, this would be even more devious and questioned in the international community, not to mention it would have created a bigger power vacuum than we currently see. I disagree that there are no terrorist states. Iran, Sudan, and even the apparently willing Libya all actively support terror. Iraq did so as well, with the biggest terrorist of them all heading the nation. What framing the attack on Iraq as a traditional war did was to give it validity and justification for not only the dismantling of Hussein's government and terror organization, but also the establishment of a freely state amid a plethora of terrorist theocracies. Again, I reiterate that I think Bush had the right idea, just presented it wrong. Iraq is connected to 9/11, but not directly. It falls under the greater umbrella of terrorism at large. The fact that he had WMDs (and I won't argue this, because no one, not the UN, the Dems or anyone else questioned whether they were there...where Hussein buried them is anyone's guess) served only as justification for those short-sighted enough to not see the connection to the greater picture. For most of the left and even some of the moderates, they share a similar opinion to yours, why should we risk our boys' lives in a country a few thousand miles away? The answer is, like I said earlier, this war on terror is not fought on a single front. Thus, the removal of a terrorist from leadership (Hussein) and the establishment, albeit eventually, of a free nation in the Middle East is a step in this ongoing war. The world has never seen a war quite like this. It is a bigger jump than when man started using gunpowder. Everything we know about warfare has changed. In such, Bush had the forsight to know what had to be done, but had trouble conveying this to the country and the international community.

[Jaggie]

Hmm, too bad this thread turned into another stupid war shootout. American politics (original thread topic) is so cool. Do any other nations have anything like our caucusses?

[BeautifulLoser]

Originally posted by Jaggie
Hmm, too bad this thread turned into another stupid war shootout. American politics (original thread topic) is so cool.

Yes. The war discussion is overdone. Everyone's just restating what they said in previous threads.

Do any other nations have anything like our caucusses?

I don't know, but I'd be mighty interested to find out.

[professional wannabe]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
Saddam Hussein's capture gave Dean a major hit, for reasons that should be obvious.

as much as in some ways i do respect Dean, that stupid comment he said about Saddam Hussein still really irks me to this day(keep in mind that i opposed the Iraq war, and still do to this very day). to me, he's a stupid dummy if he thinks that capturing Saddam didn't better the entire world.

my predictions for the next few elections/caucuses(every prediction WILL BE ASIDE from the fact i'm supporting Wesley Clark):

-i'm predicting that it'll be a 3-way tossup between Clark, Dean, and Kerry as to who win's New Hampshire.

-Edwards or Clark will win South Carolina.

-Dean will win California.

-Clark will win Georgia(keeping in mind the fact that there's a huge military presence in that state).

-Edwards will win North Carolina.

-either Dean or Kerry will win Michigan.

i think it's extremely sad that the Illinois primary(and traditionally, for both Democrats + Republicans) is so late in the year. i really wish ours was moved up to the first super tuesday, so we'd actually have a darned voice as to what Democrat gets the nomination.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Jaggie
Hmm, too bad this thread turned into another stupid war shootout. American politics (original thread topic) is so cool. Do any other nations have anything like our caucusses?

I'll make one next Tuesday with the NH results as they come into the newsroom.

[professional wannabe]

Originally posted by sppunk


Next stop: Urban New Hampshire.

go to the ghettos of Manchester or Nashua for votes. NOW.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by professional wannabe


go to the ghettos of Manchester or Nashua for votes. NOW.

Ha. What I meant, is, Iowa is a rural area. NH, while not highly populated, is far from the rural, farming area Iowa has. The two states are different in many ways.

[mpp]

my criminal procedure professor said today that edwards would win the nomination; he was a dean supporter till last night

he also said he's the only won who can beat bush in november


a girl in my class (who i know well) raised her hand and said she talked to her friend last night after the causes who works for bush in washington...there was an order to dig up dirt on edwards to use against him later if necessary...they found nothing; he's "squeaky clean"


just FYI

[Jaggie]

Yea I saw that tirade Dean went on the other night, somone mentioned it. That guy is nuts, he looked possesed, in a frightening way.