Which presidential candidate was MORE insane?

[Ken Burch]

Poll question: Which presidential candidate was MORE insane?

[Ken Burch]

1. Remember, if the U.S. ever DID obliterate Iran, it goes without saying

That the Russians would nuke us in retaliation(being allied with Iran as we are)then we'd fire back at them, then we'd all be doomed.

[cboy4]

4. Which means Iran will never attack Israel, which means

we wouldn't be attacking Iran, which means Russian wouldn't be attacking us.

Therefore, your poll is nothing but flamebait.

Excellent job Ken.

[Ken Burch]

5. Not flamebait. A valid point about the insanity of threatening to obliterate anybody

And since the NIE already showed that Iran had abandoned its nuclear program, all hawkishness and threats towards Iran have been shown to be pointless and reckless.

[jackson_dem]

7. Then why the hysteria if her comment is a moot point since it will never happen?

Guess what Obama would do if he were president and Israel were nuked?

[Ken Burch]

14. We all know Iran was never actually going to attack Israel.

none of the saber-rattling was ever needed.

And if Obama would've done the same, he's wrong too.

Nothing could ever again justify the use of nuclear weapons, and every sane person knows it.

You know as well as I that HRC had no excuse for making that incendiary comment.

[shadowknows69]

38. Because it is the same irresponsible rhetoric that Bush uses

and it has no place on today's geopolitical stage.

[stevietheman]

41. Why is your candidate making moot points? Hmmmm...

Reminds us all about the gas tax holiday idea that all economists reject.

[cboy4]

8. It's not a valid point, since it will never happen.

Did the USSR ever attack us, or vice versa?

Now then. Obama does say he will attack Pakistan.

Would you not call that hawkish Ken?

And do you have a problem with that?

[sushi]

12. I don't think

Ken will reply.

[Ken Burch]

13. On several occasions in the Cold War, we almost did attack each other.

Most famously, during the totally pointless Cuban Missile Crisis, a crisis we resolved by accepting what the Soviets proposed in the first place(the removal of U.S. missiles in Turkey that were intended to slaughter innocent residents of Moscow in exchange for the removal of Soviet missiles in Cuba(and a guarantee that the U.S. would never again try to end the Cuban Revolution through invasion).

And on many occasions, we almost had World War III due to technical glitches in the early warning systems of both sides.

The message is clear:

Nothing can ever be worth that risk again.

Once the nukes are used again, we're all doomed.

[cboy4]

20. Hillary never said she would use nuclear weapons

against Iran, Ken.

I'm well aware of the Cold War incidents and the threat of nukes..

That's all irrelevant regarding the main point, which is that you accused Hillary of being "hawkish" in what she said about Iran, yet you don't have a problem with Obama's hawkish comments about Pakistan.

I want to know why you're being inconsistent.

[Ken Burch]

25. In another post in this thread, I said I do have a problem with Obama's threats against Pakistan

It still goes without saying, however, that Obama is going to be less militarist in office than your conservative candidate.

We need to at least start by electing someone who sounds rational.

And you know perfectly well that "obliterate" means "nuke 'em". Don't play coy, cboy.

[shadowknows69]

39. As do I

After the fiasco we've just experienced as a country, no leader should be waving the preemptive, unilateral war flag.

[jackson_dem]

6. Yup

:thumbsup:

[Ken Burch]

45. So you think it's ok to sound like a militarist wacko for short-term political gain?

And do you honestly think Iran thinks this is no big deal? Or Russia?

[sushi]

11. I agree

!

[Ken Burch]

15. Iran wasn't ever going to attack Israel anyway, and everyone knew it.

There was no good reason for HRC to even go there. It was enough that we had the weapons. Nothing needed to be said.

[sushi]

17. She answered

a question!

[cboy4]

21. Yea Ken.....as Sushi said, she didn't bring it up.

She answered a question during a political campaign.

[Zynx]

19. Russia won't lose Moscow for Tehran.

End of story.

[boppers]

2. I voted for UFO.

It may be the last time I get to cast a vote, any vote, for Kucinich. :(

[MrSlayer]

3. Well, Kooch was the only actual, true to the ideals Democrat running.

He was the most sane of all. So, obviously, the one who made the blustering statements that have zero basis in reality is less sane than he.

[NorthCarolina]

40. I agree and lament his departure from the race

America could have reclaimed greatness under a Kucinich administration.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Fun fact:

Jimmy Carter reported seeing a UFO in 1969 while running for President.

http://www.cohenufo.org/carter/carter_abvtopsec.htm

[JCMach1]

10. Perhaps we should inconveniently remember Obama's remarks on Pakistan

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm


Seems like uncooperative unilateral bombing of a sovereign country to me. How quickly we forget that hyperbole sometimes enters the political arena...

[Ken Burch]

16. That's not the same at threatening obliteration. Obama was talking surgical strikes.

There was no excuse for HRC even going there.

It's insane to talk about any more use of force in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven we can't do anything successful or positive with force in Islamic countries anyway.

The only part of JFK's political heritage we should ever try to rehabilitate is his domestic policies. On foreign policy, the man was a wackjob.

[sushi]

18. Do you really think

Pakistan would just allow surgical strikes, and do nothing?
Why do you think W hasn't ordered surgical strikes on Pakistan? Because if he did, Pakistan's pro-West government would most probably fall, and its enemies would most probably gain power, which isn't good for the West.

What is the matter with Obama supporters? Pick Obama and he will order surgical strikes here and there, and the victim countries would just let him? He would have meetings with leaders of this and that country and they will all fall for him, like his fans? Maybe even get goosebumps and faint and just agree with him? Wow, he must have a magic wand!
What have you all been drinking?

Whether you like it or not, the US defends Israel, defends the royal family of Saudi Arabia in exchange for the uninterrupted flow of oil, and is behind Taiwan against China.

[JCMach1]

22. Ask a Pakistani how they feel about his remarks...

He wouldn't win the primary there, that's for sure! Or, even a caucus! In fact, you would probably be shocked how many of them know about this. I am sure it is 5-10x the number of Americans who do...

My point was that National Security (and sometimes pro-Israeli) chest-beating is par for ANY Democratic nominating campaign.

And yes, hyperbole happens...

[AllentownJake]

23. Difference between

doing surgical strikes in a lawless province and obliterating a country. I swear your candidate says something incredibly stupid and you point out something minor Obama says as a defense.

[JCMach1]

28. I see no difference in their policies on Israel

Obama: "Israel is "the most important ally" the United States has in the Middle East, and that Washington would respond "forcefully and appropriately" to any attack"... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/04/dems.election/index.html

Honestly, is it fair that we tie Clinton to someone she has sat with in Washinton for the last eight years (i.e. W.) :sarcasm: Please read the CNN link above if confused...

For the record, I don't support either candidate on this...

[Ken Burch]

32. You're awfully trusting of the idea that hawkish rhetoric doesn't doom us to hawkish policy.

n/t.

[JCMach1]

33. And how is Obama NOT hawkish on Israel?

I have seen nothing to indicate the contrary...

I haven't exactly seen AIPAC airing 527 ads against him...

If anything, both candidates keep tacking to the right on this issue.

[Ken Burch]

34. Actually, Michael Lerner of TIKKUN has had to repeatedly defend Obama

from attacks by right-wing "pro-Israel" types.

Obama isn't dovish enough, but at least he knows saber-rattling is morally unacceptable in this day and age.

[Alexander]

24. What?

"The only part of JFK's political heritage we should ever try to rehabilitate is his domestic policies. On foreign policy, the man was a wackjob."

Are you serious? You say this about the person who ignored all of his advisers telling him to bomb Cuba and began to withdraw from Vietnam, getting his head blown off for the trouble?

:wtf:

[Ken Burch]

27. We aren't sure he would've withdrawn from Vietnam.

he went through with the Bay of Pigs even though he KNEW the Cuban people weren't going to join a right-wing exile army in a campaign to overthrow Fidel and restore the old order.

And the Missile Crisis brought the world to the edge of destruction for no good reason.

Bobby was running AGAINST JFK's foreign policy, as well as LBJ's when he ran. And that's what got Bobby shot in the head.

[JCMach1]

30. That deserves a National Security Squirrel

[Alexander]

35. Um, yes we are.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/1963_Vietnam_Withdrawal_Plans

Scroll down to "JCS Official File" below, it should have the date "6 May 1963".

It's a series of documents recently declassified by the Secretary of Defense planning withdrawal of forces in Vietnam from 1965-1969.

And Kennedy had these memorable quotes:

"to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences." (U.S. Department of Defense, U.S.-Vietnam Relations, vol. 3, pp 1-2.)

In a conversation with Nobel Peace Prize winner and Canadian prime minister Lester B. Pearson, Kennedy sought his advice. "Get out," Pearson replied. "That's a stupid answer," shot back Kennedy. "Everyone knows that. The question is: How do we get out?" (quoted in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Robert Kennedy and His Times. New York, NY. Ballantine, 1978, p. 767.)

[Perry Logan]

26. Foolish earthlings--too dumb to see that a threat is not possible in a hypothetical sitation!

Now listen up, fellow logicians. A guy says "What would you do if I kissed your wife?" His friend replies, "Why, I'd punch you out!"

In this scenario, the second man did not "make a threat"--because the situation being discussed was completely hypothetical.

Hy-po-thet-i-cal.

So nobody threatened anybody, see?

WARNING: One more screw-up like this and we zap your planet.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. So you're saying if Iran nuked Israel

that wouldn't be the start of WWIII?

[Ken Burch]

31. If you nuked Iran back, you'd just make everything worse and it wouldn't do Israel any good.

Really, the best thing to do to stop that is to stop the Israeli government from doing everything it can to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and to stop if making that state as small and doomed to failure as possible by building more settlements.

Once any nuclear exchange started in the future, we'd all be doomed. Nothing could be worth living for after that. Any nuclear exchange would have to lead to Armageddon.

Would YOU want to be alive once the Bomb started being used?

[MonkeyFunk]

36. The point of the threat

is to prevent the use of nukes.

It's been US policy for decades - Clinton said nothing new, and Obama's policy wouldn't be any different.

But back to my question - would you agree that Iran will have started WWIII if they nuke Israel?

[Ken Burch]

43. They'd have done a despicable thing.

But it wouldn't justify starting World War III, since nothing could ever justify that, since starting World War III would have to mean the end of the world.

And you don't stop the use of nukes by threatening to use nukes. You do it by finding another way to solve disputes.

JFK's threat to destroy the planet didn't get the Soviet missiles out of Cuba. JFK's agreement to the original Soviet proposal(pulling out U.S. missiles from Turkey and agreeing never again to invade Cuba)did that. The whole October psychodrama was never necessary, and you know it.

Would you actually argue that if Israel was nuked that we SHOULD vaporize innocent Iranians? Especially since that would have to guarantee that Putin would launch nukes at us?

Nobody in Israel would want that scenario. At least not the ones who don't vote Likud or Kadima.

And once again, Iran was never going to attack Israel, so there was no reason to go there. HRC should've said "it's not going to happen so it's pointlessly inflammatory to talk about that". That's what a leader who wants peace and the survival of the planet would say.

[LWolf]

37. What's insane

are a majority of Democrats passing up the opportunity for REAL universal health CARE, peace, civil liberties, and social and economic justice to nominate either of the two neoliberals now on my ballot.

[Ken Burch]

42. granted. I was a Kucinich supporter too.

The main difference is that Obama respects activists and will listen to them, while HRC despises them and only listens to CEO's.

Once she's elected, she'll stop pretending she ever gave a shit about workers.

[LWolf]

44. I don't have the same confidence you do.

I expect that Obama will listen to republicans, centrists, conservatives, and the religious demographic. I don't expect him to listen to any of us who are older or who were PART of those 60s and 70s excesses he was so glad to see Ronald Reagan address.

:(