What Do You Think Will Happen if Romney Wins? If Obama Wins?

[Rhodie]

I was joking about the nukes, though I still think military intervention is necessary.

Wholeheartedly agree! Military intervention is entirely necessary in Iran. Wouldn't be difficult at all to attempt to hold down a country four times the size and with three times the populace as Iraq while continuing to occupy Afghanistan. I'm sure that the Iranian mullahs and the majority of Iranians who follow their teachings will welcome us as liberators of their people and will not react at all badly to foreign troops occupying their soil, establishing military bases on their land, and patrolling their streets in our military vehicles. I'm sure they'll greatly appreciate American troops being there to keep them safe and promote democracy (with full attention towards protecting our 'strategic interests' out near Abadan). Bet they'll love American troops killing and terrorizing their neighbors, setting up checkpoints on their soil, ransacking entire neighborhoods, all that stuff. That won't cause any hatred or resentment towards us, of course not. They'll love the nation that overthrew democracy in Iran coming back in with a stated aim of restoring it. Yep, yep, no American soldiers will die overseas, there won't be any casualties, no issues there. We'll be welcomed with open arms into Iran, which has absolutely no rugged terrain capable of hiding a guerrilla force of significant size.

I assume you'll be first into the recruitment offices to sign up to fight, right?

So you'd prefer it if we allowed Iran to gain nuclear weapons.

Would you like some more straw for that man you are building?

Oh yes.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I was joking about the nukes, though I still think military intervention is necessary.

Wholeheartedly agree! Military intervention is entirely necessary in Iran. Wouldn't be difficult at all to attempt to hold down a country four times the size and with three times the populace as Iraq while continuing to occupy Afghanistan. I'm sure that the Iranian mullahs and the majority of Iranians who follow their teachings will welcome us as liberators of their people and will not react at all badly to foreign troops occupying their soil, establishing military bases on their land, and patrolling their streets in our military vehicles. I'm sure they'll greatly appreciate American troops being there to keep them safe and promote democracy (with full attention towards protecting our 'strategic interests' out near Abadan). Bet they'll love American troops killing and terrorizing their neighbors, setting up checkpoints on their soil, ransacking entire neighborhoods, all that stuff. That won't cause any hatred or resentment towards us, of course not. They'll love the nation that overthrew democracy in Iran coming back in with a stated aim of restoring it. Yep, yep, no American soldiers will die overseas, there won't be any casualties, no issues there. We'll be welcomed with open arms into Iran, which has absolutely no rugged terrain capable of hiding a guerrilla force of significant size.

I assume you'll be first into the recruitment offices to sign up to fight, right?

So you'd prefer it if we allowed Iran to gain nuclear weapons.

Would you like some more straw for that man you are building?

Oh yes.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of that last sentence...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I was joking about the nukes, though I still think military intervention is necessary.

Wholeheartedly agree! Military intervention is entirely necessary in Iran. Wouldn't be difficult at all to attempt to hold down a country four times the size and with three times the populace as Iraq while continuing to occupy Afghanistan. I'm sure that the Iranian mullahs and the majority of Iranians who follow their teachings will welcome us as liberators of their people and will not react at all badly to foreign troops occupying their soil, establishing military bases on their land, and patrolling their streets in our military vehicles. I'm sure they'll greatly appreciate American troops being there to keep them safe and promote democracy (with full attention towards protecting our 'strategic interests' out near Abadan). Bet they'll love American troops killing and terrorizing their neighbors, setting up checkpoints on their soil, ransacking entire neighborhoods, all that stuff. That won't cause any hatred or resentment towards us, of course not. They'll love the nation that overthrew democracy in Iran coming back in with a stated aim of restoring it. Yep, yep, no American soldiers will die overseas, there won't be any casualties, no issues there. We'll be welcomed with open arms into Iran, which has absolutely no rugged terrain capable of hiding a guerrilla force of significant size.

I assume you'll be first into the recruitment offices to sign up to fight, right?

So you'd prefer it if we allowed Iran to gain nuclear weapons.

Would you like some more straw for that man you are building?

Oh yes.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of that last sentence...

No, he got it, he just thinks that calling Iran trying to obtain nuclear weapons a strawman is ridiculous.  And it is.  Iran has a nuclear weapons program.  What truly is a strawman is holding that the only military option for dealing with Iran is to invade and occupy it.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Drawing a connection between opposition to military intervention in Iran and a desire for Iran to actually have nuclear weapons is the strawman I was referring to, of course.  I thought that was obvious.

Actually, maybe some of you need to learn what a strawman is.

[Donerail]

I was joking about the nukes, though I still think military intervention is necessary.

Wholeheartedly agree! Military intervention is entirely necessary in Iran. Wouldn't be difficult at all to attempt to hold down a country four times the size and with three times the populace as Iraq while continuing to occupy Afghanistan. I'm sure that the Iranian mullahs and the majority of Iranians who follow their teachings will welcome us as liberators of their people and will not react at all badly to foreign troops occupying their soil, establishing military bases on their land, and patrolling their streets in our military vehicles. I'm sure they'll greatly appreciate American troops being there to keep them safe and promote democracy (with full attention towards protecting our 'strategic interests' out near Abadan). Bet they'll love American troops killing and terrorizing their neighbors, setting up checkpoints on their soil, ransacking entire neighborhoods, all that stuff. That won't cause any hatred or resentment towards us, of course not. They'll love the nation that overthrew democracy in Iran coming back in with a stated aim of restoring it. Yep, yep, no American soldiers will die overseas, there won't be any casualties, no issues there. We'll be welcomed with open arms into Iran, which has absolutely no rugged terrain capable of hiding a guerrilla force of significant size.

I assume you'll be first into the recruitment offices to sign up to fight, right?

So you'd prefer it if we allowed Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Also, your attitude towards the role of the American military, saying that they kill and terrorize ordinary people and ransack their neighbourhoods, I find that disgusting. How did America overthrow Democracy in Iran.

Finally, no to you last question since I'm not an American citizen.

Killing and terrorizing of ordinary people is inevitable anytime you attempt to invade a foreign state, it's just a fact of life, especially when you're fighting a broad-based popular resistance movement. See Iraq and Afghanistan if you don't believe me. As for how we overthrew democracy in Iran, pretty simple really. We had our royal puppet sign some decrees removing the secular and democratically elected ruler, then had the head of the Imperial Guard deliver the decrees, which were rejected by the democratically elected ruler and had the head arrested, which caused our puppet to flee to Italy and only return once the CIA had bribed enough people to oppose the democratically elected leader that he was arrested and put under house arrest for the rest of his life. Our control of Iran's oil went along quite well from then (53) till 79, when obvious events happened.

And good to know that you're arguing for a country that is not your own to commit its people to die to achieve some goal that you think necessary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Drawing a connection from an opposition to military intervention in Iran to a desire for Iran to actually have nuclear weapons is the strawman I was referring to, of course.  I thought that was obvious.

Actually, maybe some of you need to learn what a strawman is.

Iran wants and is taking steps to have nuclear weapons.  You'd need to be Russian or Chinese to miss something that obvious.

Not that Joyce's belief that an invasion of Iran would be the only possible military option to stop the Iranians is particularly rational either.  Especially since about the only way it would be politically possible for us to invade Iran would be after Iran had made a hostile use of a nuclear weapon.

[Rhodie]

I was joking about the nukes, though I still think military intervention is necessary.

Wholeheartedly agree! Military intervention is entirely necessary in Iran. Wouldn't be difficult at all to attempt to hold down a country four times the size and with three times the populace as Iraq while continuing to occupy Afghanistan. I'm sure that the Iranian mullahs and the majority of Iranians who follow their teachings will welcome us as liberators of their people and will not react at all badly to foreign troops occupying their soil, establishing military bases on their land, and patrolling their streets in our military vehicles. I'm sure they'll greatly appreciate American troops being there to keep them safe and promote democracy (with full attention towards protecting our 'strategic interests' out near Abadan). Bet they'll love American troops killing and terrorizing their neighbors, setting up checkpoints on their soil, ransacking entire neighborhoods, all that stuff. That won't cause any hatred or resentment towards us, of course not. They'll love the nation that overthrew democracy in Iran coming back in with a stated aim of restoring it. Yep, yep, no American soldiers will die overseas, there won't be any casualties, no issues there. We'll be welcomed with open arms into Iran, which has absolutely no rugged terrain capable of hiding a guerrilla force of significant size.

I assume you'll be first into the recruitment offices to sign up to fight, right?

So you'd prefer it if we allowed Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Also, your attitude towards the role of the American military, saying that they kill and terrorize ordinary people and ransack their neighbourhoods, I find that disgusting. How did America overthrow Democracy in Iran.

Finally, no to you last question since I'm not an American citizen.

Killing and terrorizing of ordinary people is inevitable anytime you attempt to invade a foreign state, it's just a fact of life, especially when you're fighting a broad-based popular resistance movement. See Iraq and Afghanistan if you don't believe me. As for how we overthrew democracy in Iran, pretty simple really. We had our royal puppet sign some decrees removing the secular and democratically elected ruler, then had the head of the Imperial Guard deliver the decrees, which were rejected by the democratically elected ruler and had the head arrested, which caused our puppet to flee to Italy and only return once the CIA had bribed enough people to oppose the democratically elected leader that he was arrested and put under house arrest for the rest of his life. Our control of Iran's oil went along quite well from then (53) till 79, when obvious events happened.

And good to know that you're arguing for a country that is not your own to commit its people to die to achieve some goal that you think necessary.

Put it this way, the people of the United States may die if they don't intervene, as somehow I don't think Iran will use nuclear weapons responsibly?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Drawing a connection from an opposition to military intervention in Iran to a desire for Iran to actually have nuclear weapons is the strawman I was referring to, of course.  I thought that was obvious.

Actually, maybe some of you need to learn what a strawman is.

Iran wants and is taking steps to have nuclear weapons.  You'd need to be Russian or Chinese to miss something that obvious.

Not that Joyce's belief that an invasion of Iran would be the only possible military option to stop the Iranians is particularly rational either.  Especially since about the only way it would be politically possible for us to invade Iran would be after Iran had made a hostile use of a nuclear weapon.

That... wasn't even the point I was trying to make, but okay.

[Donerail]

Put it this way, the people of the United States may die if they don't intervene, as somehow I don't think Iran will use nuclear weapons responsibly?

Iran does not possess ICBMs, so they cannot launch a missile and have it have the range to hit the United States. There is a large ocean in the way.

Not that Joyce's belief that an invasion of Iran would be the only possible military option to stop the Iranians is particularly rational either.  Especially since about the only way it would be politically possible for us to invade Iran would be after Iran had made a hostile use of a nuclear weapon.

Since he's made jokes about nuking them, I wouldn't think any military action he'd suggest would be any sort of covert or limited, but more Iraq-style.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Iran is using the nukes as leverage; much as the Soviet Union built nukes but had no plans to use them unless war broke out. They're smart enough to know that they'll be destroyed if they actually use a nuke on the US or Israel.

[Politico]

I think it is telling that only one pro-Obama supporter on here has voiced what they think will happen if Obama wins. Maybe it is because deep, down inside they know that this economic malaise is not going to end until Barack Obama leaves the White House?

Obama 2012: Four more years of economic decline, especially for America's youth.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

My take:

If Romney gets in:

- Economic confidence will be restored.
- Majority of ObamaCare will be repealed.
- Welfare will not become a way of life again.
- The Keystone Pipeline will get the green light on day one.
- We will not play second fiddle to China. This must be America's century.
- Tax reform will be the signature legislation of the Romney Administration.
- The situation in Iran will be resolved, sowing the seeds of peace in the Middle East.

----------------------------------------------------

If Obama gets back in we'll have a replay of the past four years, and more:

- High unemployment, especially for the nation's youth (whose well-educated are not immune).
- A continuation of the tense situation in Iran that is left for Obama's successor.
- Finishing second to China in more ways than just the Olympics.
- Unsustainable deficits that are left for Obama's successor.
- Allowing oil in Alberta to flow to China rather than Texas.
- A return to welfare as a way of life for millions.

[zorkpolitics]

My take:

If Romney gets in:

- Economic confidence will be restored.
- Majority of ObamaCare will be repealed.
- Welfare will not become a way of life again.
- The Keystone Pipeline will get the green light on day one.
- We will not play second fiddle to China. This must be America's century.
- Tax reform will be the signature legislation of the Romney Administration.
- The situation in Iran will be resolved, sowing the seeds of peace in the Middle East.

----------------------------------------------------

If Obama gets back in we'll have a replay of the past four years, and more:

- High unemployment, especially for the nation's youth (whose well-educated are not immune).
- A continuation of the tense situation in Iran that is left for Obama's successor.
- Finishing second to China in more ways than just the Olympics.
- Unsustainable deficits that are left for Obama's successor.
- Allowing oil in Alberta to flow to China rather than Texas.
- A return to welfare as a way of life for millions.

Basically I agree (except for Iran don;t see how that ends without an attack on their Nuke facilities by Israel with us (Romney) or not (Obama).

Plus if Romney wins:
- Major role back of EPA, ADA, HHS, Energy, and Labor regulations
- Reform of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security that puts them on a sustainable path
- Tight controls on spending that reduces growth of government to less than growth in GDP

Plus if Obama Wins
 - Continuation of Trillion dollar deficits
 - Continued rapid growth of Food Stamp recipients

[Averroës Nix]

I would expect higher deficits from a Romney administration.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Iran is using the nukes as leverage; much as the Soviet Union built nukes but had no plans to use them unless war broke out. They're smart enough to know that they'll be destroyed if they actually use a nuke on the US or Israel.

MAD only works as a deterrence if both sides agree that destruction is a bad idea.  A secular viewpoint would of course generally lead to agreeing to that.  But Iran is not a secular country and its leadership in particular rejects secularism.  While I'm not one of those alarmists who thinks Iran intends to use the bomb as soon as it gets it, neither am I polyyanna who thinks they'll only use it as a bluff.

The most likely situation in which an Iranian nuke gets used is if Iran ends up in a situation similar to Syria today.  I can easily see Khamenei or his successor authorizing the use of Iranian nukes in such a situation so as to find out if nuking Teł Aviv would be considered equivalent to the sun rising in the West that is one of the signs of the end times in Islamic eschatology.

The only way to prevent that from happening is to keep Iran from having nukes.

[7,052,770]

Obamacare will reduce the deficit, and repealing it will add to it, so I hope that fact is reflected in everyone's predictions.

[LastVoter]

I think it is telling that only one pro-Obama supporter on here has voiced what they think will happen if Obama wins. Maybe it is because deep, down inside they know that this economic malaise is not going to end until Barack Obama leaves the White House?

Obama 2012: Four more years of economic decline, especially for America's youth.

Hello, guillotene?