Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6872|The Land of Scott Walker
This is fun to watch.   He's doing the Reps campaigning for them.

WASHINGTON — 
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden officially launched his presidential campaign and has come out of the gate swinging — not at President Bush and the Republicans, but at fellow Democrats seeking their party's nomination.

In a story published in The New York Observer, Biden, who on Wednesday filed papers with the Federal Election Commission for an exploratory committee, said New York Sen.
“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’" Biden tells the Observer. "We’re not going to equip them? OK. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”

Biden, whose ideas include dividing Iraq into three autonomous republics divided by ethnic group -- Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite, reportedly said Clinton's policy on Iraq would result in “nothing but disaster,” and he goes on to question the former first lady's electability.Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq "baffles" him.


“Everyone in the world knows her,” Biden, 64, told the Observer. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats?"

Biden also had fighting words for Barack Obama, calling the Illinois senator "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.... I mean, that’s a storybook, man” — but then questioning his electability.

He called Obama "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate."

Biden added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”

He also called former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards — along with 2004 running mate Sen. John Kerry — "perfect blow-dried candidates," adding that on Iraq, "I don't think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about."

Biden described Edwards' position on Iraq as "like so much Fluffernutter out there."

"So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it — they are just smart enough not to enunciate it."

Biden conducted a less contentious interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer, saying he learned his lessons from his 1988 run at the White House — namely "words matter" and "to lose one's temper is not a good thing."

Biden appeared to have his sense of humor intact Wednesday while listening to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. In it, Kissinger, denied a quote attributed to him in Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial." In it, Kissinger supposedly told then-White House speechwriter Michael Gerson that the United States needed to "humiliate" radical Islam in Iraq.

Kissinger said he "never said anything like that" and expressed disdain for "a kind of journalism" that takes "an alleged quote" and "spins a theory around it." To that response, Biden, the panel's chairman, quipped: "Last time you help him write a speech."

In his announcement of a presidential bid, which appears on his campaign Web site, Biden took a serious tone: "The next president of the United States is going to have to be prepared to immediately step in and act without hesitation to end our involvement in Iraq without further destabilizing the Middle East and the rest of the world. Our safety is at stake."
---------
Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq "baffles" him. “From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’" Biden tells the Observer. "We’re not going to equip them? OK. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”

I kinda like this guy now.
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7073|Peoria
His plan is bullshit though. Your never going to be able to divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states and have them all be happy. He's just another person trying to cash in on Iraq, by using it in a gambit for power.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7111|United States of America

Elamdri wrote:

His plan is bullshit though. Your never going to be able to divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states and have them all be happy. He's just another person trying to cash in on Iraq, by using it in a gambit for power.
Well when it was organized by the British they tried to put the three major groups into one state and that hasn't always been good.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6872|The Land of Scott Walker
Agree, Biden's idea seems better than attempting to make the 3 get along in one state.
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7073|Peoria

Stingray24 wrote:

Agree, Biden's idea seems better than attempting to make the 3 get along in one state.
I guarantee you that if you split up Iraq, its not going to SOLVE anything. Someone is going to get the short end of the stick when it comes to the oil in the country, and its gonna most likely be the Sunnis. I'm not saying the current situation is working, but Biden's solution isn't any better.
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6748|South Carolina, US

Stingray24 wrote:

Agree, Biden's idea seems better than attempting to make the 3 get along in one state.
What does splitting these groups do? If we do, they'll just go from civil war to regular war. Not much of a change.
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7073|Peoria

UGADawgs wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Agree, Biden's idea seems better than attempting to make the 3 get along in one state.
What does splitting these groups do? If we do, they'll just go from civil war to regular war. Not much of a change.
Its the principle that forcing them to share the same living space is what is causing conflict, and if there was a degree of separation, then the conflict would lessen. But this is flawed because the land can never be equally divided in a way that will appease all the ethnicities, which will just end up sparking more conflict.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7117|Tampa Bay Florida
I used to think that splitting Iraq into 3 states was a good idea, but there are many, many people saying that it would be a disaster.  Even the Iraq Study Group said it wouldn't be good...

How would you divide Baghdad?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

He has apologized for his insensitive remarks towards Obama.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-31 18:04:24)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7199|PNW

UGADawgs wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Agree, Biden's idea seems better than attempting to make the 3 get along in one state.
What does splitting these groups do? If we do, they'll just go from civil war to regular war. Not much of a change.
Splitting up Diet Coke and Mentos won't stop them from exploding if they ever come in direct contact with one another, but then neither will forcing both to coexist peacefully within the same bottle.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

Elamdri wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Agree, Biden's idea seems better than attempting to make the 3 get along in one state.
I guarantee you that if you split up Iraq, its not going to SOLVE anything. Someone is going to get the short end of the stick when it comes to the oil in the country, and its gonna most likely be the Sunnis. I'm not saying the current situation is working, but Biden's solution isn't any better.
I disagree.  By dividing Iraq into 3 units, we can say we created 3 new nations, and in the short run, it will be easier to keep them from killing each other.  Once we leave, hostilities will resume, but by then, it will be easier to pin the chaos on the Iraqi people themselves.

In other words, Biden's plan gives us a short term solution that both lets us leave without looking as bad as immediate withdrawal would result in, but at the same time, it's acknowledging the obvious doom that the Iraqis are destined for regardless of what we do.

Fuck the Iraqis anyway.  If they want to kill each other, who are we to stop them?  Let Darwinism take its course.  America doesn't belong in their business, and we could be doing so many better things with our money and soldiers.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-01-31 18:12:10)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

Elamdri wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Agree, Biden's idea seems better than attempting to make the 3 get along in one state.
What does splitting these groups do? If we do, they'll just go from civil war to regular war. Not much of a change.
Its the principle that forcing them to share the same living space is what is causing conflict, and if there was a degree of separation, then the conflict would lessen. But this is flawed because the land can never be equally divided in a way that will appease all the ethnicities, which will just end up sparking more conflict.
Which is why these people are, for all practical purposes, expendable.  If they will end up killing each other no matter what we do, then forget about them.  Let them kill each other....  and if you can....  leave them as an obstacle for Iran to deal with.  I'd rather Iran waste hundreds of billions on these people than us.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7111|United States of America
Well, Biden is going to be on the Daily Show in about 30 minutes so we shall see how he fares.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

DesertFox423 wrote:

Well, Biden is going to be on the Daily Show in about 30 minutes so we shall see how he fares.
Watching it as I type this
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7073|Peoria

Turquoise wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Agree, Biden's idea seems better than attempting to make the 3 get along in one state.
I guarantee you that if you split up Iraq, its not going to SOLVE anything. Someone is going to get the short end of the stick when it comes to the oil in the country, and its gonna most likely be the Sunnis. I'm not saying the current situation is working, but Biden's solution isn't any better.
I disagree.  By dividing Iraq into 3 units, we can say we created 3 new nations, and in the short run, it will be easier to keep them from killing each other.  Once we leave, hostilities will resume, but by then, it will be easier to pin the chaos on the Iraqi people themselves.

In other words, Biden's plan gives us a short term solution that both lets us leave without looking as bad as immediate withdrawal would result in, but at the same time, it's acknowledging the obvious doom that the Iraqis are destined for regardless of what we do.

Fuck the Iraqis anyway.  If they want to kill each other, who are we to stop them?  Let Darwinism take its course.  America doesn't belong in their business, and we could be doing so many better things with our money and soldiers.
I think that your undercutting the powerful sway the control of the oil in Iraq has over the three groups. In all reality Iraq is crucial to US interests as its the strongest chess piece we have right now against Iran. Splitting it into 3 states would lessen our control over it and would weaken our position in the middle east to enforce supply lines and the ensuing chaos would make it even harder to stage operations against Iran.

Not to mention the long and involved process of splitting the country and the capital and the eventual argument over who gets the oil (not the Sunni). When countries split along ethnic lines, it never really solves anything.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

Elamdri wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Elamdri wrote:


I guarantee you that if you split up Iraq, its not going to SOLVE anything. Someone is going to get the short end of the stick when it comes to the oil in the country, and its gonna most likely be the Sunnis. I'm not saying the current situation is working, but Biden's solution isn't any better.
I disagree.  By dividing Iraq into 3 units, we can say we created 3 new nations, and in the short run, it will be easier to keep them from killing each other.  Once we leave, hostilities will resume, but by then, it will be easier to pin the chaos on the Iraqi people themselves.

In other words, Biden's plan gives us a short term solution that both lets us leave without looking as bad as immediate withdrawal would result in, but at the same time, it's acknowledging the obvious doom that the Iraqis are destined for regardless of what we do.

Fuck the Iraqis anyway.  If they want to kill each other, who are we to stop them?  Let Darwinism take its course.  America doesn't belong in their business, and we could be doing so many better things with our money and soldiers.
I think that your undercutting the powerful sway the control of the oil in Iraq has over the three groups. In all reality Iraq is crucial to US interests as its the strongest chess piece we have right now against Iran. Splitting it into 3 states would lessen our control over it and would weaken our position in the middle east to enforce supply lines and the ensuing chaos would make it even harder to stage operations against Iran.

Not to mention the long and involved process of splitting the country and the capital and the eventual argument over who gets the oil (not the Sunni). When countries split along ethnic lines, it never really solves anything.
I totally disagree.  If anything, we've been focusing too much on our dependency of oil and dollar hegemony in the oil trade and not spending enough time on moving away from oil.  There are more than enough OPEC nations out there to supply us, and instead of spending another $400 billion on Iraq, we should be spending it on alternative energy research.  That way, we can withdraw from Iraq (divided or not) and the death and destruction will be of no consequence to us when we stop depending on oil as much.  Iran and Iraq can then blow each other up for all I care.

Surely, $400 billion spent on alternative energy research will be more productive than spending it on Iraq.
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7073|Peoria

Turquoise wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I disagree.  By dividing Iraq into 3 units, we can say we created 3 new nations, and in the short run, it will be easier to keep them from killing each other.  Once we leave, hostilities will resume, but by then, it will be easier to pin the chaos on the Iraqi people themselves.

In other words, Biden's plan gives us a short term solution that both lets us leave without looking as bad as immediate withdrawal would result in, but at the same time, it's acknowledging the obvious doom that the Iraqis are destined for regardless of what we do.

Fuck the Iraqis anyway.  If they want to kill each other, who are we to stop them?  Let Darwinism take its course.  America doesn't belong in their business, and we could be doing so many better things with our money and soldiers.
I think that your undercutting the powerful sway the control of the oil in Iraq has over the three groups. In all reality Iraq is crucial to US interests as its the strongest chess piece we have right now against Iran. Splitting it into 3 states would lessen our control over it and would weaken our position in the middle east to enforce supply lines and the ensuing chaos would make it even harder to stage operations against Iran.

Not to mention the long and involved process of splitting the country and the capital and the eventual argument over who gets the oil (not the Sunni). When countries split along ethnic lines, it never really solves anything.
I totally disagree.  If anything, we've been focusing too much on our dependency of oil and dollar hegemony in the oil trade and not spending enough time on moving away from oil.  There are more than enough OPEC nations out there to supply us, and instead of spending another $400 billion on Iraq, we should be spending it on alternative energy research.  That way, we can withdraw from Iraq (divided or not) and the death and destruction will be of no consequence to us when we stop depending on oil as much.  Iran and Iraq can then blow each other up for all I care.

Surely, $400 billion spent on alternative energy research will be more productive than spending it on Iraq.
No, you misunderstood me, I didn't mean the sway that US control over the Oil has, it isn't about oil going to the US at all; I'm talking about IRAQI control over the oil. You have to realize that the Iraqi people (or at least the people in power) know how reliant their lives are on that oil. They are going to FIGHT to keep control over it. It doesn't even matter if they want to sell it to us or not. Its a large part of their economy and the state that doesn't get it is going to be in economic ruin. There is NO WAY that Sunni Muslims are going to accept a split that gives them little-to-no oil reserves.


That being said, and this is diverging from the topic, but I totally agree with you that the US itself is too dependent on oil and we need to move away. Hell, we should have had alternative fuel years ago, but its too profitable for the automotive industry to keep things as they are. Trust me, you won't see any true progress until we have another energy crisis, unless the government suddenly becomes socialist and nationalizes the automotive and fuel industries and does the reform themselves. But that will never happen.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

Elamdri wrote:

No, you misunderstood me, I didn't mean the sway that US control over the Oil has, it isn't about oil going to the US at all; I'm talking about IRAQI control over the oil. You have to realize that the Iraqi people (or at least the people in power) know how reliant their lives are on that oil. They are going to FIGHT to keep control over it. It doesn't even matter if they want to sell it to us or not. Its a large part of their economy and the state that doesn't get it is going to be in economic ruin. There is NO WAY that Sunni Muslims are going to accept a split that gives them little-to-no oil reserves.
Good point...  Well then, I concede.  Let's just get the fuck out then...  lol

Elamdri wrote:

That being said, and this is diverging from the topic, but I totally agree with you that the US itself is too dependent on oil and we need to move away. Hell, we should have had alternative fuel years ago, but its too profitable for the automotive industry to keep things as they are. Trust me, you won't see any true progress until we have another energy crisis, unless the government suddenly becomes socialist and nationalizes the automotive and fuel industries and does the reform themselves. But that will never happen.
Well, I think it's just going to take someone in the Oval Office that is a forward thinker and who has no ties to the military industrial complex or big oil.  In other words, someone other than Bush.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6872|The Land of Scott Walker
You think there's someone in politics with no ties to the military, big oil, big pharmaceutical, big auto, big food, big agriculture, big something? The last part of your post had to have been typed in jest from what I know of you so far, Turquoise.  I know you're well aware most of those who end up leading our country have inherited and/or built fortunes by the industries listed above.  I don’t criticize that, either.  Those industries are a vital part of our economy because of the goods they produce and the jobs they provide.  The reality remains that people will protect what is making them money, though some adapt to new technology and take their fortunes in new directions.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:

You think there's someone in politics with no ties to the military, big oil, big pharmaceutical, big auto, big food, big agriculture, big something? The last part of your post had to have been typed in jest from what I know of you so far, Turquoise.  I know you're well aware most of those who end up leading our country have inherited and/or built fortunes by the industries listed above.  I don’t criticize that, either.  Those industries are a vital part of our economy because of the goods they produce and the jobs they provide.  The reality remains that people will protect what is making them money, though some adapt to new technology and take their fortunes in new directions.
You're absolutely right....  Corporations are vital to our economy, but they aren't vital to government or representing the common man.  You're also right that people who are powerful enough to successfully run for president are usually tied to these same corporations.  This is why I believe we need a revolution to remove this wretched plutocracy we call a government.  It has to be done in small steps, however....

One of the first steps is minimizing government, which means less war, less spending, less taxes.

The second step is rigid enforcement of antitrust laws, which means less power in the hands of corporations.

These things look as if they will never happen, however, which is why I'm saving up to move to Canada in the long run.  Things are much less corporate there -- at least compared to America.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard