>> ^Stormsinger:
As disgusted as I am with Obama's failure to follow through on any of his campaign promises that were important to me, I still have to believe we dodged a bullet when we avoided a McCain presidency.


My thoughts exactly. Obama may not be the savior some people were hoping for, but at least he hasn't dug us into Bush's hole any deeper. (i.e. "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran")

"Bomb bomb bomb.. bomb Iran" -McCain

Intelliguntly desined strategee devized by intellektualz

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Fuck the two party system.
They drive this country into the ground.
They work for themselves and subvert one another at every turn: under the guise of working for the people.


I don't see a way around it. Our political system is so much more complex now than it was for the founding fathers that it becomes impossible with more than two choices. We can barely choose 1 out of 2. There really is no other system that will "work" better than this.

@BRM: Obama seems to be trying hard to not use muck in his campaign. Trying to say McCain is worthless in DC would just create more argument and confusion for voters. He's doing a good job of picking battles that can be more clearly shown to the people. For instance, it's pretty well documented that McCain said, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran." So he can't argue much when you call him a warhawk. Also, the current game in politics is always to blame the enemy. Dem's blame GOP and vise versa when something goes wrong. If Obama is really trying to create change, he's gotta change that.

Obama needs to go "BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB, IRAN!" Do a touchdown dance.

You two!... it sounds like your on the same bloody side and still won't stop fighting...

And i agree Asynch... but he always looks like that to me... like he is trying REALLY hard to remember what it was he was supposed to say... he'd come off so much better if he losened up a little...

Of course... then we get... Ba Ba Ba Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran... so maybe not...

I'm not from the USA, UK, Iraq, Syria or Iran, quite glad i'm not. I know how bad the situation is in Iran, my brother is married to an Iranian woman.

However, Iran having nuclear weapons does not equal them actually using them. If Iran nuked Israel, Iran would effectively be wiped off the map, I can assure you that the Iranian goverment and clergy are fully aware of this. They 're crazy, but not that crazy.

Condemning Israel in my book is a good thing, their behavior towards Palestinians is horrible, I know quite a few people that have witnessed it first hand. Some of the stories almost made me sick to my stomach, 99% of the stuff that happens there doesn't get any media coverage. Also the South African intelligence minister recently said that the situation was far worse than apartheid was in S-Africa, he added that though Israel wasn't a fascist state, their actions against Palestine were.

It's this American attitude that they are always right, they have the right to boss everyone around, they are the ones with the right opinions, they have the right to have all kinds of bombs, they can sell someone WMD's and then invade the same country a few years later because "they might have WMD's", the insanity of them saying "he gassed his own people" when they themselves gassed a whole country a few decades back and have yet to apolagize for it.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I don't want any of the other nations to have them either. What's infuriating is the US attitude that they can dictate who has them. How do you think Iranians feel when they see McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb iran"?

Capische?

Technically, she did answer his question. He asked if she thought it was okay to cross Pakistan's borders to go after terrorists, and she said we should do whatever it takes. Not only is she not avoiding the question, she's answering with an emphatic yes. Which makes me shudder to think of her in a tactical situation where our intelligence is later found to be faulty. Sound familiar? Of course she's a fan of the Bush doctrine. She just said she'd shoot first and ask questions later, if at all.

Holy crap, the pessimist in me is scared for November 4th. I saw it once in 2004, when I was certain Bush would lose by a wide majority. I'm actually afraid for this country.

I don't care that she's inexperienced. I care that she's a maverick, like her psycho running mate. BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN!

"bomb iran, bomb bomb bomb iran"

John McCain is absolutely sadistic.

You wanna stop this illegal war, and all others? Who cares about november--you have all the power you need right now. Create a grassroots campaign which takes a hard look at the reality of this war--start viewing soldiers as you do murderers, rapists, and thieves...start looking down on people who sign up to invade other countries...start condemning not only the leadership but the men and women who enable their policies by following their atrocious orders. If you signed up for a particular reason (say to repel an invasion) then if at any point the reason you initially signed up for is no longer valid--you should be gone. For example, if Russia declared war on us and invaded alaska tomorrow--you might feel compelled, and rightly so, to enlist to defend this country. However, if 10 years down the road you find yourself in Russia occupying their country and trying to turn it into an American territory...you need to resign...the initial conditions of your enlistment are no longer valid, and there is no longer any moral sanction in your role as a solider.

There is no glory or honor in irrational, illegal, aggressive war, and there is no glory or honor in being a solider in such a war. There is nothing honorable about serving as a solider in war...unless...your country is under attack, and our country is not under attack. I would have nothing but contempt for anyone who enlisted in the past 4 years. If you do want to enlist...don't sign a four year contract...being a solider should be just like any other job, if you don't support the current policy you should be able to give your two weeks notice and be gone. If they don't allow this--don't sign up. Its naive and borderline irrational to sign four years of your life away on the premise that current or future leaders will be acting as they currently claim.

If you wanna defend this country, purchase a firearm right now. Keep it at your home, learn to use it smartly and safely, purchase training from local police officers (this is cheap--$50-100), and practice with it on a regular basis--educate yourself on the realities of our foreign policy, and stop pretending that there is anything praiseworthy about the murder and occupation of the citizens of a sovereign nation.

>> ^Irishman:
>> ^NetRunner:
Your definition of neocon is about as accurate as me calling Ron Paul an anarchist. They have a couple things they agree on, but they're definitely not one and the same. Pure flamebait, frankly.
Who do you think we should hand Iraq over to?

A couple of things they agree on. Like policy, and policy.
Obama is flying around the planet making speeches about fighting extremism, Iranian nukes, terrorists hiding in caves plotting to take over America, this is the same exact stuff we've had for 20 years now.
What is wrong with people's heads who can't see this. It's plain daylight stuff folks, the stuff Obama has been saying should really be scaring the shit out of people.
Wrong president America, wrong president. Europe and the rest of the world will NEVER forgive America for electing this man.


MrFisk actually preemptively gave much of my answer, which is that neocons and Democrats are in absolute opposition on domestic policy.

With foreign policy, Neocons are now in favor of a form of imperialism -- drum up casus belli, invade, substitute the old government with a new friendly one, and incidentally get some sort of contract to a material resource (like oil). That's why we invaded Iraq for WMDs that weren't there, while North Korea's nuclear test was met with mere diplomacy. It's why the same gambit is being run in Iran.

Obama just wants us to focus on just fighting to keep the Taliban from re-taking Afghanistan, and working with Pakistan to root out the Al Qaeda camps. Every other foreign policy issue out there, he wants to use diplomacy to solve, though he says he won't shy away from the use of military if necessary (to avoid appearing weak before the ravenous American populace).

As jwray said, all Obama does here is acknowledge that there is some threat, and in fact this is actually a clip of the very speech where he got attacked by McCain for downplaying Iran's threat, because he said it was less threatening than the Soviet Union.

McCain sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", makes a joke about killing Iranians with cigarettes, and clearly says there will be more wars.

As much as I wish third party candidates had a shot of being President, they simply do not. One of these two will be President.

Between the two, which worries Europe more, the candidate who occasionally talks about potential threats against a backdrop of talking about the need for diplomacy, or the one who cavalierly uses the language of fear every time a camera is stuck in his face, and attacks his opponent for wanting to talk to the leaders of other nations?

I think Europe will be able to forgive us for electing Obama over McCain.

If you're hoping for Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, or even Ron Paul, as much as I wish they had a fair chance of winning, they simply will not.

Sirex, there is at least one bad "X" come Nov. Give you a hint, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran."

Voters elected Ron Paul for 10 terms. He's a pediatrician.
Any doctor who can get elected 10 times has my respect, but you are right, anyone who opposes the war is asking to be labeled with the "wacko" stereotype.

McCain can sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran, boooomb iraaaan" To the tune of "barbara ann" But that's just normal psychotic behavior, and we can't at all condemn that kind of thing. Someone who watches TV might think Iran expects to be bombed, or that they are "asking for it."

Here's the song to sing: http://www.videosift.com/video/Adam-Kontras-Lets-Bomb-Iran-to-the-tune-of-The-Beach-Boys-Barbara-Ann
Here's a moron singing it:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran

"Okay, Giuliani is taken care of. Who do we go after next?"

I dunno, are there more hypocrite presidential candidates? Like say, ones that push gay marriage bans, but are really closeted. How about politicians that talk about family values every chance they get, but really are visiting prostitutes or young underage male interns. Or maybe there are some candidates that like to dressup in women's clothing.

How about anyone that says we need to use nukes on other countries? Or ones that want to double Gitmo? Who is next?

bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran (that was McCain, but Rove already torpedoed him)