BF2S Forums DAST Chat

we actually publicly supported the UK

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

ron paul fans get angry when ron paul is slighted in the least.  reminds me of fans of the wire

Nah, I just know that you're a troll, and MacBeth is still in his rebellious I hate everything popular in my age group phase.

Like I said on the page before the last- I don't agree with his economic, social, or foreign policy positions. At least Obama meets me on two of those. Though I do indeed find Paul bots annoying.

Which two does Obama meet you on? Surely not economy, because he's done more harm than good since he took office. Surely not social, since he's spent much of his administration cracking down on pot suppliers in California, keeping Bush era Guantanimo Bay open while increasing the erosion of civil liberties since the PATRIOT ACT took place. So that leaves offensive war as the thing you must really dig about Obama. Expansion in Afghanistan and intervention in Libya. Awesome.

Everyone bitches about how Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same coin, and then when, they truly get a different choice, they try to destroy it. Par for the course I guess.

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Nah, I just know that you're a troll, and MacBeth is still in his rebellious I hate everything popular in my age group phase.

Like I said on the page before the last- I don't agree with his economic, social, or foreign policy positions. At least Obama meets me on two of those. Though I do indeed find Paul bots annoying.

Which two does Obama meet you on? Surely not economy, because he's done more harm than good since he took office. Surely not social, since he's spent much of his administration cracking down on pot suppliers in California, keeping Bush era Guantanimo Bay open while increasing the erosion of civil liberties since the PATRIOT ACT took place. So that leaves offensive war as the thing you must really dig about Obama. Expansion in Afghanistan and intervention in Libya. Awesome.

Everyone bitches about how Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same coin, and then when, they truly get a different choice, they try to destroy it. Par for the course I guess.

I am not the sort of person who goes on about how both parties suck. That's ATG thing.

I never cared about Gitmo which falls under foreign policy anyway. I am also not paranoid about the Patriot act. The AG of Calif are cracking down on pot. They were appointed by Bush. But whatever, I liked Bush too. Sure Obama could have intervened but that it wasn't a fight worth the effort. On the social end he hasn't done too much which is good. Not doing anything is almost as good maybe even better. Watch a bit of television and some of the box.office top ten. Societal norms are bending in my direction slowly. Unless conservatives get the government to go the other way they end up losing. So Obama is fine. Paul on the other hand is a social conservative and his voting record shows it. Paul's economic positions are extreme. Borderline retarded really. I am not part of OWS but I also don't want burn the whole thing down for some shitty libertarian ideals.

Jay wrote:

Paul is personally a social conservative, but his ideology precludes him from pushing them on others. Why is this so hard to understand? The last thing he would ever do is sign a law like the Defense Of Marriage Act. He may believe that gay marriage is wrong on a personal level, but he'd be the one advocating the repeal of DADT.

I really don't think you understand that which you claim to despise.

Lol at highlighted. Funny coming from you. I will respond once I am not on my phone and am in front of a computer.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Yeah. But how long til a Republican is? And the rhetoric always follows the same line about your closest ally Israel.

Our closest ally is actually the UK. And we did the square root of fuckall when they had that dust up with Argentina.

Because the hispanic vote was apparently more important than siding with your closest ally.

The jewish/fruitcake christian vote > all when it comes to Republicans, they'll bomb Iran without thinking for a second.

Because you know what the planning consists of, don't you?

The President isn't going to go in and say, "Bomb Iran" on day one. Simply doesn't work that way. What they say on the campaign trail and what they decide to do once they have the complete picture while in office are usually two different things. "Not letting Iran have a nuclear weapon" does not equate to "bomb Iran." It does equate to taking a more active role in controlling Iran's nuclear program, and not taking military options off the table.

And why would Gingrich be any more of a screw than Bachmann? He can at least speak intelligently on foreign policy issues.

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

"Not letting Iran have a nuclear weapon" does not equate to "bomb Iran." It does equate to taking a more active role in controlling Iran's nuclear program, and not taking military options off the table.

Not bombing Iran while at the same time not taking military options off the table... Invade? That worked real well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not taking military options off the table does not mean you are going to do something--it means you will be prepared to do something if all other efforts fail. Or that you will have a very visible military "stick" to go with a diplomatic "carrot" when negotiating.

FFS, are you people really that dense?

Bush did not attack Iraq at the first opportunity (that would've been Jan 21, 2001). And he did talk quite openly about attacking Iraq--after the geopolitical and security situation changed post-9/11 (not saying Iraq was connected to 9/11).

Jesus. There are literally hundreds of military plans, covering the entire spectrum of conflict, all over the world. So saying that "military options are on the table" simply means that you are not removing one of the national instruments of power (diplomatic, informational, military, economic) from the equation when dealing with the problem set. It does not mean that you have any intention of attacking a given country. The military option for Iran (as stated before) is most likely containment and force protection in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities--which would involve defensive actions against Iran, should they move against our forces in the region. Not an attack. Is that clear enough?

As for the candidates, all I can say is: it's cute that they have an opinion. That opinion will likely change once one of them takes office. All of this rhetoric is just that...rhetoric for the masses. They don't have to back it up or deal with the consequences yet. Just like Obama learned when he took office.

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Not bombing Iran while at the same time not taking military options off the table... Invade? That worked real well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not taking military options off the table does not mean you are going to do something--it means you will be prepared to do something if all other efforts fail. Or that you will have a very visible military "stick" to go with a diplomatic "carrot" when negotiating.

FFS, are you people really that dense?

How is threats and the promise of war going to make Iran think it doesn't need to defend itself?

Sabre rattling gets you nothing. Label Iran a member of the axis of evil then wonder why they feel threatened. That's gotta be the dumbest move possible.

How is saying "not taking military options off the table" now the same thing as "threats and the promise of going to war"?

Oh, I know how: IT FUCKING ISN'T.

Considering we've been engaging Iran diplomatically for the past 2+ years on this, along with Europe and the GCC and they've been giving the world the finger...not a lot of options left.

FEOS wrote:

saying that "military options are on the table" simply means that you are not removing one of the national instruments of power.

Bullshit, are "military options on the table" to resolve the yuan valuation dispute with China?

Saying "military options are on the table" is an overt threat of military attack.

Bush did not attack Iraq at the first opportunity.

The first time he had a fraction of an excuse then, he had it in mind to do so well before being elected, as did his advisors.

And he did talk quite openly about attacking Iraq--after the geopolitical and security situation changed post-9/11

Just as Bush and Cheney did before and various politicians are doing now - including Obama and Clinton.

Iran is going the way of Iraq, ever tigthening sanctions ever failing to achieve anything except punish the civilian population, eventually they and the US will become desperate and it will blow up into another war over oil, Israel and the failing dominance of the US dollar.

Www.reason.com

I linked you to reason so you can find an argument from them to fight back with quicker.

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Paul is personally a social conservative, but his ideology precludes him from pushing them on others. Why is this so hard to understand? The last thing he would ever do is sign a law like the Defense Of Marriage Act. He may believe that gay marriage is wrong on a personal level, but he'd be the one advocating the repeal of DADT.

I really don't think you understand that which you claim to despise.

Mr. "Unshakable foe" of abortion voted several times in the house to cut off funding for abortion. As for DOMA

Ron Paul wrote:

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Not only did he support it, he also helped make it harder to remove.

By any chance do you know who Ayn Rand is? You must since you named yourself after a character from her one of her books, galt. Anyway she made two arguments against states rights. The first was the fact that the concept of states right just move arbitrary authority from the federal government to the states. It doesn't make it better or fix anything. The second argument is about how people who call themselves libertarian are really just social conservatives who hide behind things like states right. I have to agree with her. Ron Paul voting record, his rah rah about states right, and his personal beliefs seem a bit like the kind of people Rand hated.

It does push the arbitrary authority further down, and you do get more uneven results, but the basic premise is that the further power is pushed down, the more the individual possesses over his own life. Rand was an anarchist, of course she wouldn't get libertarianism, they weren't radical enough for her.

As for the second point, the truth is anything but. Do you know what is synonymous with calling yourself a libertarian? Calling yourself a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Before the word was twisted, liberalism meant the pursuit of liberty in both business and personal life. They are inseparable. Don't confuse modern liberalism with either social or fiscal liberty, it is the opposite on both counts: "individuals are stupid and corporations are evil". Modern conservatives just believe "individuals are stupid and morally misguided" so at least they get half of it right, if for the wrong reasons (campaign donations), which is why you see Libertarians in the Republican camp most often.