THE Election 2008 Megathread!

[Miros]

I'm hoping nobody takes offense to me stickyin' this thread. I have a feeling it will be a good one.

 

[Bustaballs]

Anyone see the debate last night?

 

[Dejavu]

thanks for the new wallpaper busta lol

 

[Celvantes]

Anyone see the debate last night?

Sore loser anyone?

Look, there's a reason Ron Paul isn't doing well... he's not a conservative and he's running as a Republican. He should have run as an independant and used all that money he supposedly made to try and pull a Perot. You're not going to win the right-wing vote, however, running with his platform against conservatives like the gentlemen seated above.

Though, why McCain is leading is puzzling me. The Gang of 13 debacle ALONE should make him unpopular with the conservative right. It's no surprise he won Florida because he easily carries the old people demographic, but still...

I *really* hope Romney finally pulls ahead on Super Tuesday. If McCain remains ahead, I will re-register as a Democrat and vote for Obama in the Washington primary. Not because I agree with a single piece of his platform, but because I don't want to see Hillary in the White House (*shudder*) and I would much rather the country suffer under a liberal Democrat than a liberal "Republican." That way, when socialized medicine and higher taxes screw up healthcare and our economy respectively, the blame will fall on the people that deserve it, and not on the conservatives who have no control over a liberal who wears an (R) by his name.

Better to get a good candidate in 2012 than McCain in 2008.

Oh, and lolRomney:

 

[Bustaballs]

Ron Paul is more conservative than any of the other fuckers running. He's been a REPUBLICAN congressman for 10 terms. I've been to my meet up groups and all of those people are lifelong conservatives and are voting for Dr. Paul.

National Taxpayers Union: Only Ron Paul Would Cut Spending

NTU Report: Other Republicans would increase spending by billions

According to a report released Tuesday by the National Taxpayers Union, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is the only remaining presidential candidate who proposes net spending cuts.

According to the report, Congressman Paul’s proposals would cut government spending by over $150 billion, a conservative estimate of the spending reductions Dr. Paul has proposed. The report concludes that the other remaining Republican candidates, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee, have proposed spending increases of $19.5 billion, $6.9 billion and $54 billion respectively.

“It should come as no surprise that when you crunch the numbers Ron Paul is the only Republican who would actually shrink the size and cost of the federal government,” said Ron Paul campaign economic advisor Don Luskin. “Romney, McCain and Huckabee don’t hold a candle to Ron Paul – the only true fiscal conservative running for President.”

In ten terms in Congress, Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget.

 

[Celvantes]

Economically, yes (to the point where I almost considered voting for him). But he's weak on national defense - isolationism is not what conservatives are about. Peace through strength (and power projection) has been the hallmark of the modern conservative Republican since Reagan.

Reagan might have endorsed Ron Paul back in his day, but he would disagree with him on his Iraq policy now.

In the same manner that Reagan fought Communism in every way that he could (through political, economic, military, AND clandestine means), so too would he oppose *radical* Islam (not Islam as a whole) and states sponsoring terror at every turn.

 

[Halifirien]

I don't know why Republicans dislike McCain so much. He's as conservative as they are, cut from the same cloth. The biggest gripes I hear about him is that he's "soft on illegal immigration" (one of the most overblown and xenophobic bouts of national hysteria I've ever seen). Campaign finance reform and the Bush tax cuts seem to be the other big gripes. Looking at him on the other core conservative issues, he's indistinguishable from the rest of the elephant herd.

I'm not voting for him either way, but he has a better track record as a conservative than Mitt "I was Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay Before I Was Against It" Romney.

I respect him for constantly pointing out that torturing prisoners in our custody is beneath us as a nation and that we shouldn't do it. Of course, that puts him at odds with the Jack Bauer wing of Republicans who'd waterboard their own mothers if it'd make them feel like real men again. One of the scariest things I've ever heard from a public official was Justice Scalia defending the use of torture and ranting about "Are you going to throw Jack Bauer in jail?"

 

[Dejavu]

A strong national defense is not isolationism it is non-interventionism and those things do have a major difference. What you are proposing and most of the Neo-conservatives IE those in the mainstream since Reagan is a strong national offense. "Peace through strength (and power projection)" as you put it yourself. What happened to the ideals that this country was built on that we should only go to war if attacked.

All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war--what is a preventive war?

I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.

A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.

I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-policy_10-12.html
here this is the platform as far as foreign policy that bush ran on in 2000 and quite honestly one of the reasons that i voted for him.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.

The direction of the party is all just follow the leader we got butthurt arrogance. We were attacked... thats fine... who did it... 19 rogue people mostly Saudi lead by a person believed to be in Afghanistan. Did we have the right to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan... absolutely. Did we have a right to overthrow the government of Afghanistan... absolutely not. We had more of a right to go into Saudi than we did to overthrow Afghanistan. Oh wait they are our friends... good ones that are responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq now.

Now phase two... Shock and Awe shit we fucked up. We had no right or reason for that matter to go into Iraq. OMG WMD!!! Like they could get one off the ground even if they did have one. Not only did we go in there for WMD tho but we decided that it was important to overthrow their government as well... yay!!! /sigh. And it would all be paid for with the oil neglecting the fact that there has never been a war in the history of the US without rampant inflation and deficits.

I have said it before and i will say it again... Conservatives are becoming Fascists
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
And Democrats are becoming Socialists... if not Communists.

Ron Paul holds most of the views of a classical republican before America got butthurt.

Also Reagan was good for a lot of reasons but he was no means god... He started the War on drugs which can be considered nothing but a failure. In fact the only thing that he did really do is bring the country together but that was mostly due to the whole soviet thing. The only reason IMO that everyone sees Reagan as the awesome president like he is, is because no one can remember that much before him and what came after him was complete crap. Hence Clinton getting elected in 1992 and Clinton getting elected in 2008. Oh wait that one hasn't happened yet.

It doesnt matter who gets elected in the up coming election unless something major happens were going down the shitter neways...

If McCain gets elected... hello selective service and hello Iran, even though he stated he wouldn't he also stated that we needed to get more full time troops no matter how that was done so that we could take the strain off of the National Guard. Also his record in the past should show us that he fully intends on going into Iran despite the NIE report if elected.

If Romney is elected... Hello Mormon values for everybody. Just what we need... double the size of Guantanamo and other secret prisons and make even more enemies around the world. On top of that he really is a flip flopper who will say anything and spend as much as necessary to get eleceted. So no one really knows what hes gonna do once hes there.

If Clinton gets elected... I'm moving... i dont know where yet but i got 6 months still at least.

Obama... Fiscally irresponsible but i doubt he could fuck things up that bad because if he made a mistake people would tell him and he would maybe even do the right thing and admit it and fix his mistake... Can't vote for him tho because he still believes in Socialized... "Universal Healthcare".

 

[Halifirien]

Also Reagan was good for a lot of reasons but he was no means god... The only reason IMO that everyone sees Reagan as the awesome president like he is, is because no one can remember that much before him and what came after him was complete crap.

Heh. Not "everyone," chief. I didn't worship at the altar of Saint Reagan by any means.

 

[Sharpe]

That way, when socialized medicine and higher taxes screw up healthcare and our economy respectively

Hai2u Scandinavia.

 

[Dejavu]

sorry that everyone was referring to the republican party.

 

[Master Honcho]

romney scares me cel.. he seems too wishy washy with what he says. i've heard him contradict himself several times already. i mean he seems like he would be ok because obviously every politician is gonna lie every now and then and contradit himself... but i dunno bout this romney fella..


i still don't see why so many of you dislike hillary.. like i said. i was like hell no at first. now after seeing everyone else.. im like... hmm yea ok hillary seems pretty good. and hey personally id love to have the first man back in office too lawl.. seriously though. bill maybe let his weiner out at the wrong time but he was a bad ass president

 

[Bustaballs]

People have forgotten what an isolationist really is.

"It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe and who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy...

... A counterproductive approach that actually leads the U.S. to be more resented and more isolated in the world." - Ron Paul

Ron Paul is very strong on national defense. We don't have any national defense. We have international offense. Our troops are everywhere doing everything. We can maintain it for much longer and it weakens our defenses at home.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

~ George Washington

I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

 

[Celvantes]

There is a a HUGE difference between the environment in which George Washington's policies were written and the current socio-political world we live in. Our biggest problem back then was... Tripoli's pirates and the British pressing our sailors into the service of their navy.

It would be nice if we could simply protect our own borders in order to ensure that the US continued a prosperous and happy existence... but that is impossible in today's world. It ceased being possible after the Monroe Doctrine and certainly after both World Wars.

We are the world's superpower, and like it or not, our prosperity rests on not only our own safety and security, but also the safety and security of each and every one of our major trading partners.

Example 1: while we could survive a major cutback in oil production from the Middle East (we get the majority of our oil from Mexico and South America), out biggest trading partners (Japan, China, and the nations of the EU) could not. The blow to *their* economy would soon be felt in *ours* in such a way that we would enter either a major recession or possibly even a second depression. Without the flow of money, our economy does not work (as proven in the 20s) and the main reason for the flow of money is consumer confidence. Take out a large portion of that house of cards, and the whole thing comes down upon our heads.

For this reason, ensuring stability in the Middle East is just as important to our national interests as domestic issues such as controlling inflation and inproving education. Neglecting it would be as damaging to our well-being as would completely ignoring any domestic issue.

Leaving Saddam in power was a ticking time bomb. He had already used WMDs in the Iran-Iraq war, and he had used them on the Kurds in the northern part of his own country. *Any* kind of WMD usage on the oil fields of Saudi would have created the major economic issues I described above. Our best intel indicated that he was at the very least pursuing those weapons or that he had them. The *Russians* (who were getting rich off of Saddam) were even convinced enough of this to send us their own intel which said pretty much the same thing. With what we knew, a policy of "non-intervention" would have been downright negligence on our part.


Example 2: The "tiger" economies of Asia have been a major force in the world since the end of WWII. They have their own massive contribution to our own economy, Wal-Mart being an obvious example. However, their success also rests on a house of cards that is being supported by the United States. Our garrisons in Korea and Japan are stabilizing factors in the region, and are a direct counterbalance to North Korea's desire to invade South Korea as well as China's desire to invade Taiwan.

If either of those two things were to happen, the economic blow to both that region and our own trade flow would be beyond staggering.

A policy of "non-intervention" would have meant that not only would we withdraw our troops now, but we would have let North Korea have its way with the South back in the 50s. Furthermore, China, without our deterring presence, would have probably just continued expanding its sphere of influence in the region. Considering that tiny Hong Kong had a higher GDP than ALL of China when it was absorbed, a larger area of Communist rule over that region would have been a bad thing.

Suffice to say, I believe that "non-intervention" is a pipe dream. It was a high ideal set by our forefathers, but it was an ideal that was only good for the world of the late 18th century. Like slavery, it's something from the original blueprint of this country that should not be followed today.

Personally, if life had a reset button, I would LOVE to pull back every single US troop and every US dollar from outside of our borders. I would LOVE to watch all of the anti-American protesters of the world turn in fear as the stability and prosperity we provide vanishes in a blink of an eye.

There would be blood - lots of it:

Warlords barely held in check by the UN (of which we are the primary sponsor) would seize power and start killing their enemies. (Africa)

Weak but democratic leaders propped up by our support would be deposed in bloody coups by tyrants. (South America)

Most of the Middle East would finally see a great opportunity to attack Israel... and Israel would probably answer with nukes and with the years of grinding at the bit of our requests for restraint.

China would definitely expand its powerbase through indirect means or possibly through direct invasion.

North Korea would finish its invasion of the South, and the war would be bloody and fast. South Korea has an well trained military with great technology, but the North has numbers and they are hungry. With us, it would be a hard fight... without us, it would be a slaughter.

3rd World economies barely kept afloat by the International Monetary Fund (of which we are the main sponsor) would collapse, panic would set in, and bloodshed would probably follow (Africa)

The billions in foreign aid we provide that suddenly dropped out of the coffers of dozens of countries would have adverse economic effects worldwide.


This is why I'd want to have that "reset" button I described above. While extremely sad and tragic, it would bring perverse satisfaction to show people this hellish world, than be able to take it all back and say:

"Now do you want to protest US involvement, or call us ugly Americans?"



Sorry for the bit of venom there, but it's things like this I think about when I see South Koreans protesting our presence while thousands of US troops spend a year-long tour in their country (and away from their families) to act as a speed bump in case the North invades. The ones who were alive during the war and remember what it was like only stand back and shake their heads.

Some considerations for "non-intervention:"

 

[Lukas]

Clinton is clearly the superior candidate in the Democratic race. I think people are just being swept up by the whole Clinton fatigue thing the media keeps pandering and distracted by Obama's promise of "Change" - only focusing on the concept, rather than the candidate's ability to materialise it. I mean if he somehow wins the general, he'll only be assured office for one term, and someone with his meagre political experience cannot seriously expect to initiate much change in such a short period of time. "Change" and "hope" are pretty words, but Obama has no policies or solid agenda to substantiate his promises. He's a great motivational speaker I'm sure, but a very inexperienced candidate who offers nothing tangible - rather relying on the naivete of his supporters.

The media in regards to the democrats has been a joke too. I strongly agree that Obama has emerged relatively unscathed from most media coverage whereas Hillary's every minute miss-step (fabricated or not) has been documented, criticised and over-imposed with a picture of satan or a witch. I don't know whether it is due to a boy's club mentality or what, but it is most certainly not acceptable considering that many of Obama's glaring faults and political faux pas have barely garnered a mention. But of course when the rare offensive does make its way towards his camp, he acts shocked and appalled. If Obama does earn a spot on the presidential ballot, I foresee him folding quite quickly when the Republicans decide to go after him... You know they won't be nearly as gentle.

McCain is unpopular amongst Republicans for some of his so called "moderate" policies. Basically he's not angry or white or obsinate or possibly southern enough or something for his party. Unless he can pull some strong conservative support before Tuesday, it will remain a tight race - and I'm not talking about endorsement from Giuliani or Schwarzenegger or the New York Times. I'm talking archetypal crazy-ass, god fearing, closet-case Republicans.

Oh and Ron who?

 

[Sharpe]

Example 1: while we could survive a major cutback in oil production from the Middle East (we get the majority of our oil from Mexico and South America), out biggest trading partners (Japan, China, and the nations of the EU) could not. The blow to *their* economy would soon be felt in *ours* in such a way that we would enter either a major recession or possibly even a second depression. Without the flow of money, our economy does not work (as proven in the 20s) and the main reason for the flow of money is consumer confidence. Take out a large portion of that house of cards, and the whole thing comes down upon our heads.

In 2004 (can't find any data more recent) Britain produced more Oil than it consumed. So if something major happened in the Middle East we could just stop exporting our own oil and be self sufficient.

 

[Lukas]

Weak but democratic leaders propped up by our support would be deposed in bloody coups by tyrants. (South America)

I didn't read the rest of your propaganda swill, but I'm sure it was lovely. I will however, point out that you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to U.S intervention in South America.

In the 60s, the OPS systematically trained police officers in methods of torture and provided equipment to facilitate such means (they operated in Brazil, Vietnam, Taiwan but most notably in Uruguay).
The CIA organised the assassination of Chilean Army Commander in Chief, Schneider in the 70s (with white house approval).
The US government and the CIA sought to undermine democratically elected President of Chile Salvadore Allende during the Cold War. They supported and were involved in the coup of '73, in which (democratically elected) President Allende died and was succeeded by the Dictator Pinochet (who died with hundreds of war crimes to his name and who naturally had US support).
Operation Condor, anyone?

I'm missing a lot of things because I'm at work, but the point is that US history in South America is disgusting from a humanitarian standpoint. So yeah, you know nothing and your use of this quote as hypothetical evidence is laughable. Pardon me for not reading the rest, I assumed it was equally as ill-informed.

 

[Bustaballs]

Celvantes seems to forget many things about our history. He seems to forget that it's the result of the U.S. collaboration with the Baath Party to murder Qasim that led to the rise of Saddam in the first place and that we were complete allies with him through the 80s. The only weapons he ever managed to have is what we gave him in assistance with his invasion of Iran.

Many of Celvantes magical predictions are nothing less than the same thing the war supporters uttered through Vietnam if we left. The truth is, you can't predict exactly what will happen anywhere. However, through proper diplomacy and trade negotiations, anything can be achieved. There is no need to protect oil with military enforcement. There is no need to subsidize any country. All of these things only come back to haunt us and it's only then that we realize that it would have been better if we would have just stayed out of other people's business. But Americans don't seem to have much of a long term memory and eventually they'll forget and move onto the next thing (*cough* Iran).

No matter what time it is in history, the effects of enforcement of various forms political philosophy will never change. No matter what kinds of transportation we have or what kinds or weaponry or other technology we have. Socialism on a massive scale always fails. The result of constant imperialistic interventionism ends in the downfall of the empire.

We need to go back to our constitution and we need it now.

 

[Celvantes]

In 2004 (can't find any data more recent) Britain produced more Oil than it consumed. So if something major happened in the Middle East we could just stop exporting our own oil and be self sufficient.

2004 consumption: 20.73 million barrels/day
2005 production: 7.61 million barrels/day.

Source: CIA world factbook online.

No, we can't be self-sufficient.

The reason the UK could do that is because their daily oil consumption is only 1.8 million barrels/day (same source).

In the 60s, the OPS systematically trained police officers in methods of torture and provided equipment to facilitate such means (they operated in Brazil, Vietnam, Taiwan but most notably in Uruguay).
The CIA organised the assassination of Chilean Army Commander in Chief, Schneider in the 70s (with white house approval).
The US government and the CIA sought to undermine democratically elected President of Chile Salvadore Allende during the Cold War. They supported and were involved in the coup of '73, in which (democratically elected) President Allende died and was succeeded by the Dictator Pinochet (who died with hundreds of war crimes to his name and who naturally had US support).
Operation Condor, anyone?

We made the choice at the end of WWII to stop the spread of Communism at all costs, even when it meant supporting tyrants. Was it squeaky-clean? Hell no, but it was the lesser of two evils. A single dictator is easier to overthrow (later on) than a ruling socialist party. The former is generally hated but feared by the populace while the latter tends to generate fierce loyalty among even those that it most harshly oppresses.

I didn't read the rest of your propaganda swill, but I'm sure it was lovely. I will however, point out that you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to U.S intervention in South America.

Only four years of military history, nothing major. :roll:

While our actions may seem startling to those who simply look at them on the surface, they make a lot more sense when you understand *why* we were doing what we were doing. South America was just another part of the very large chess game that we were playing against the Soviet Union.

Celvantes seems to forget many things about our history. He seems to forget that it's the result of the U.S. collaboration with the Baath Party to murder Qasim that led to the rise of Saddam in the first place and that we were complete allies with him through the 80s. The only weapons he ever managed to have is what we gave him in assistance with his invasion of Iran.

Again, an analysis of the *why* yields better understanding to our actions. Hindsight is nearly always 20/20. At the time, our (admittedly poor) attempt to gain Iran as an ally against the Soviet Union, had completely backfired. Now, instead of having one country that wanted to wipe us off the map, we had two. Even worse, we had sold valuable military technology to Iran which was now in hostile hands. The US needed some kind of counterbalance.

Bottom line, it was a chain of bad Cold War decisions, a number of which I lay directly at the feet of Jimmy Carter. Would Saddam have risen to power without us? I think he would have, but it would have taken him much longer, depending on how the Iran-Iraq war played out. That we helped create the monster doesn't change the fact that he's still dangerous, and I say my previous argument still holds weight.

Many of Celvantes magical predictions are nothing less than the same thing the war supporters uttered through Vietnam if we left. The truth is, you can't predict exactly what will happen anywhere. However, through proper diplomacy and trade negotiations, anything can be achieved. There is no need to protect oil with military enforcement. There is no need to subsidize any country.

You can't make exact predictions, but you can look at a nation's rhetoric, their military disposition, past history and recent actions to get a pretty good idea of what they will do.

And while diplomacy is good and fine for the civilized nations of the world, you can see exactly how far it has gotten us when dealing with dictators who want nothing but power. Sanctions and UN Resolutions meant nothing to Saddam, even after we handed him his ass during the first Gulf War. Oil for Food was a debacle and he eventually got all UN oversight (in the form of weapons inspectors) thrown out of his country when Clinton proved that all he would do was talk.

The *only* reason why diplomacy sometimes works with North Korea is because we have a massive presence waiting to kick their door in. Furthermore, they would literally starve to death without our aid. Kim Jong Il has a working nuclear program... yet he can't manage to feed his own people. That goes to show how effective 50 years of negotiating and imposing economic sanctions for disarmament has been.

Sometimes, Busta, the only thing these people understand is power. It's a sad but true fact of the world.

And because all it would take is one dirty bomb on a major oil field to scare the shit out of the collective world economy, you do need to protect those resources with military assets. If Saudi and its neighbors were stable enough to not be a concern, we wouldn't even look twice at the Middle East. And while it's a horrible thing to say, if Central Africa had any oil reserves, we would have tried to step in and stop their tribal warfare decades ago.

All of these things only come back to haunt us and it's only then that we realize that it would have been better if we would have just stayed out of other people's business. But Americans don't seem to have much of a long term memory and eventually they'll forget and move onto the next thing (*cough* Iran).

No matter what time it is in history, the effects of enforcement of various forms political philosophy will never change. No matter what kinds of transportation we have or what kinds or weaponry or other technology we have. Socialism on a massive scale always fails. The result of constant imperialistic interventionism ends in the downfall of the empire.

We need to go back to our constitution and we need it now.

You're right on the regard that we don't have a long term memory. It's one of the downfalls of limiting our executive branch to a maximum eight years of service.

Had we never opened up relations with Iran at all (going all the way back to the 70s)... I don't think the current situation would be that much different. The goal of Radical Islam is to create a Caliphate. In order to unify the many different groups of Muslims spread out from Africa to Indonesia, they need some kind of common enemy. Without one, history has shown that the various Islamic factions will simply fight each other. The obvious choice is the big bad West, of which we are the most prominent and powerful country.

President Imanutjob of Iran would still be spouting Anti-American and Anti-Israeli rhetoric for the same reasons - it's a slam-dunk for getting his people riled up and unified. Simply staying out of the Middle East as you suggest could easily have allowed a much bigger monster to develop. Imagine a sweeping victory for Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and a Baghdad that answers to Tehran. It could have easily gone the other way too, depending on how you look at it. Imagine an Iraqi war-machine stalling out in the mountainous regions of Persia during the 80s, creating a long drawn-out conflict that eventually would ignite Sunni-Shiia hatred in Saudi and Iraq. A war of that magnitude would be a giant mess to undo.

I don't like the fact that we had a hand in creating Saddam, but at the very least, we knew what we were dealing with rather than allowing a Middle Eastern power struggle to develop with none of the limiting factors that our support in the conflict provided.

I would argue that our intervention is not imperialistic. If it was, we'd just say fuck it and make all the countries we support States 51, 52, 53, etc. But, we don't. We're there to make sure everyone plays nice - not because we really care about them playing nice, but because it hurts us or our trading partners when they don't.


Tell you what, Busta - give me cold fusion for unlimited energy and a solid border system that allows for no possible terrorist infiltration and I'll support your idea of non-intervention. That's of course right after I go serve in the Israeli Air Force for however long it takes them to "convince" their Arab neighbors that attacking is a bad idea now that America won't be helping anymore.

 

[Sharpe]

2004 consumption: 20.73 million barrels/day
2005 production: 7.61 million barrels/day.

Source: CIA world factbook online.

No, we can't be self-sufficient.

The reason the UK could do that is because their daily oil consumption is only 1.8 million barrels/day (same source).

Your point was originally that it wouldn't effect the US as much as Europe. Are you changing your mind or what?

I also like how it's ok for America to overthrow democratically elected governments because they are left wing in nature.