What WW3 might look like

[Ryoki]

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11666

scared?.. etc

[Massive Quasars]

By the middle of that article, things get somewhat implausible. Though to think that this is even conceivable speaks volumes about the entrenched ideologues in Washington.

It's a matter of running down the clock now, with the hope Hillary wins and plays the cynical game of realist diplomacy while saving face in public as most presidents before her have.

[Nightshade]

Or we could hope for an actual president.

[Massive Quasars]

There's hope, and then there's delusion.

Make do with the iron cunt that the troglodytes may actually support.

[Nightshade]

Nope. Ron Paul or bust. It's time for an actual brain in the White House.

[Massive Quasars]

If bust = regional war? Support Paul in the primary, and if he doesn't run as an independent you vote for the banshee.

[Ryoki]

By the middle of that article, things get somewhat implausible. Though to think that this is even conceivable speaks volumes about the entrenched ideologues in Washington.

It's a matter of running down the clock now, with the hope Hillary wins and plays the cynical game of realist diplomacy while saving face in public as most presidents before her have.

I’m a bit surprised you think Hillary would do that. I’ve not followed her public statements closely lately, but from what did read about her i get the distinct impression she’s every bit as hawkish as the avarage republican.

[Massive Quasars]

I think she's a bit less hawkish than the republicunts insofar as she will avoid war if her minions can make do through low-level negotiations.

[Nightshade]

If bust = regional war? Support Paul in the primary, and if he doesn't run as an independent you vote for the banshee.

This kind of thinking is what got us where we are.

[scared?]

there's no mention of the alien invasion which would obviously happen in the middle of this war...

[Ryoki]

If bust = regional war? Support Paul in the primary, and if he doesn't run as an independent you vote for the banshee.

This kind of thinking is what got us where we are.

Indeed.

And i still don't really see why you think she'd solve the (non existing) problem with Iran though quiet diplomacy? She's stated on more than one occasion that she'll not allow Iran to go nuclear, and that all the options are on the table, including a nuclear strike...

What gives?

[Massive Quasars]

If bust = regional war? Support Paul in the primary, and if he doesn't run as an independent you vote for the banshee.

This kind of thinking is what got us where we are.

Read my statement again, if he doesn't win the primary and he doesn't run for president as an independent. It's not quite that kind of thinking.

[GONNAFISTYA]

It's called "posturing".

[Massive Quasars]

Indeed.

And i still don't really see why you think she'd solve the (non existing) problem with Iran though quiet diplomacy? She's stated on more than one occasion that she'll not allow Iran to go nuclear, and that all the options are on the table, including a nuclear strike...

What gives?

I regard it as mostly rhetoric, a recipe of 1 part genuine with 3 parts exaggerated bullshit. She won't win without the knuckle draggers.

[Ryoki]

That's a dangerous gamble to make, she could well be entirely serious about it.

I have yet to see any evidence of the contrary, actually.

[Massive Quasars]

I think the last two terms have unduly warped your expectations. Most presidents before Bush averted wars through back room deals and all sorts of diplomatic tools short of force.

That being said, some sort of limited, targeted bombing of targets inside Iran isn't out of the question under her lead. I don't expect she would depose the government though, at least she's not inclined in that direction as Bush seems to be (appearing to just require a sufficient excuse at this point).

[R00k]

This kind of talk scares the hell out of me:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/24/bush-dems-strategy/

Bush Offering ‘Back-Channel’ Political Advice To Democratic Candidates: Stay In Iraq

imgIn an interview with GQ correspondent Robert Draper for his book Dead Certain, President Bush described his Iraq strategy as “playing for October-November.” He explained that his hope was to “get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence,” and, he said, “stay longer.”

In an interview with the The Examiner’s Bill Sammon for his book The Evangelical President, Bush goes even further, explaining that he is actively “providing back-channel advice” to the Democratic presidential candidates on Iraq. According to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, Bush is urging the candidates to remain flexible enough in their rhetoric so that they can maintain a long-term occupation of Iraq:

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has “been urging candidates: ‘Don’t get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.’”

Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that “even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.”

“Especially if it’s a Democrat,” the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”

“It’s different being a candidate and being the president,” Bush said in an Oval Office interview. “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office…they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”

Sammon reports Bush “has been sending advice, mostly through aides,” aimed at convincing candidates not to speak too forcefully about a complete withdrawal from Iraq. “Asked by The Examiner whether the Democrats were reluctant to have private contacts with the administration, the White House official replied: ‘No, I think they sort of welcome conversation.’”

Everything's all been decided for us and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

By the middle of that article, things get somewhat implausible. Though to think that this is even conceivable speaks volumes about the entrenched ideologues in Washington.

It's a matter of running down the clock now, with the hope Hillary wins and plays the cynical game of realist diplomacy while saving face in public as most presidents before her have.

I’m a bit surprised you think Hillary would do that. I’ve not followed her public statements closely lately, but from what did read about her i get the distinct impression she’s every bit as hawkish as the avarage republican.

You are correct.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I think the last two terms have unduly warped your expectations. Most presidents before Bush averted wars through back room deals and all sorts of diplomatic tools short of force.

lol no

[R00k]

Also, speaking of independent/3rd party/"non-mainstream" candidates:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/2 ... the-polls/

[R00k]

And MSNBC's little quip about Ron Paul and supporters is ridiculous.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16711064/?msnbc=thesuck

Sometimes I think it really isn't worth participating in anymore.

[Nightshade]

DING DING DING!

FFS, Giuliani's such a smarmy douchebag.

[scared?]

i love that word...

[hate]

which candidate is the f.mason?(scared to type it in full)

[Massive Quasars]

I think the last two terms have unduly warped your expectations. Most presidents before Bush averted wars through back room deals and all sorts of diplomatic tools short of force.

lol no

Yes, to a greater or lesser extent.