The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

In certain situations I would agree with you, but this is not one of them.

Bullies and terrorists only understand force. Ahmadinjad is interested in self preservation and certainly does not want Iran obliterated. What Iran and North Korea and Syria and the like are interested in are negotiations with other countries that will honor those agreements while they subvert and violate them.

Certain people only understand force and threats of force.

I regard it a lot like parenting. I tell my kids that if they make choice A, there will be consequence B. I let them know what my reaction will be to them doing something so they know upfront that they have a choice which will involve consequences. And yes, for my two younger ones, that choice can involve in extreme situations (gasp!) spanking. Haven't had to spank them (thankfully) in literally years, and no, they don't fear me. (not that I want this to become a discussion on spanking, but there is a certain parallel)

[Alex]

I'm curious as to why Clinton sees a 10 year window of Iran being willing to consider nuking Israel. When those 10 years are up is she saying that Iran will no longer be willing to consider that or that we'd no longer be able to obliterate them if they did? That 10 year part is just really weird.

What does, in the context of that question and answer, "obliterate" mean to you?

In the "Yes, we can" thread I did mention that I thought Obama slightly muffed that answer. The better answer would have been "Tim, of course we could obliterate Iran. We have military might to obliterate the entire world if that is what we chose to do. And if Iran were to attack Israel, whether with nuclear weapons or not, we'd act to protect and support a great ally. But if Iran uses nuclear weapons anywhere, it will not fall on us to "obliterate" them but the world will collectively turn its back on Iran and just as with the first Gulf War collectively retaliate as necessary and do whatever it takes to make sure Iran never again commits such an atrocity. And as president, rather than taking that burden entirely upon the United States I'd make sure it truly was a global response."

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm curious as to why Clinton sees a 10 year window of Iran being willing to consider nuking Israel. When those 10 years are up is she saying that Iran will no longer be willing to consider that or that we'd no longer be able to obliterate them if they did? That 10 year part is just really weird.

Perhaps it's because she knows that she or Obama will screw up the military so much we may not be able to after that 10 year period?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Perhaps it's because she knows that she or Obama will screw up the military so much we may not be able to after that 10 year period?

Yes, because the military is in such fine shape right now after 7+ years of Republican control.

[scaeagles]

I realize it isn't the greatest at present (and i have lots of reasons as to why I think that is, but won't go into it), which is why I posted my smilies, but I anticipate a Carter era type military decay with deep military budget cuts.

[wendybeth]

I think Iran is very much aware of what we would do should they attack Israel, not to mention what the very capable Israelies would do as well. I don't know why Hillary had to make such a strong statement based on a hypothetical situation, other than it's her usual posturing to show she has as big a set of cajones as the other boys.

There really is something to be said for 'speaking softly and carrying a big stick'. I find it ironic that we are in a very similar situation as the Soviets, and we know how well that worked out for them, right?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

There really is something to be said for 'speaking softly and carrying a big stick'. I find it ironic that we are in a very similar situation as the Soviets, and we know how well that worked out for them, right?

How so? I'm not sure what parallel you see, but I might just be being stupid.

Are you referring to the Soviets in Afghanistan?

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

How so? I'm not sure what parallel you see, but I might just be being stupid.

Are you referring to the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Spending tons of money to flex their international muscles, and bankrupting themselves in the process. The location of said flexing is only added irony. Reagan was very proud of himself for basically outlasting the Soviet martial spending spree, and here we are doing it to ourselves. Our economy is the worst it's been decades, and our military is overstretched and exhausted. If any new threats should arise, I wonder how we are to deal with them? Yet another irony is the state of our National Guard: the very entity that kept GW's chicken **** ass out of Nam is now a one-way ticket to the Middle East.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Reagan was very proud of himself for basically outlasting the Soviet martial spending spree, and here we are doing it to ourselves.

To which I might add ... there's still a trillion dollars left out there of default and dead investments heading the way of U.S. Banks. The two billion that hit them so far, and for which they received a bailout from the Federal Reserve, is a drop in the bucket. The Federal Reserve, as I understand it, has only 400 billion dollars left. Not enough to cover 1 trillion in pending bank losses.

Yet we spend a trillion a year on wars overseas. Either that stops or, yes, our own military spending puts us into complete financial ruin.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, this wins for most pointless nontroversy of the campaigns:

Clinton campaign flips an image of a rifle on a mailer!!! That ignorant bitch!!!!!