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

[Rhodie]

Politico, how do you suggest Romney will "resolve" the situation in Iran. I pretty much agree with everything you said other than this one.

Nuke them to hell!!!!!

[Rhodie]

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

- Falling unemployment, especially for young adults (whose well-educated are not immune).
- A continuation of the tense situation in Iran until the Iranian thug leadership begs for mercy at terms largely at American choosing.
- Not falling behind the rest of the world in living standards and social justice.
- Shrinking deficits that are left for Obama's successor to finish off.
- Allowing oil in Alberta to flow to China rather than into the Oglalla aquifer.
- More people off welfare because of an economy growing sustainably.


Fixed.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Obamadness

Because a return to supply-side isn't mindless repitition, right? Keynesian economics worked in 1933 and it's working, albeit more slowly, today.

Keynesian economics is not a cure, its a palliative. It has never caused the total recovery of any major economy, only numbed the pain. The only public spending that can actually seriously regenerate the economy is public spending on the scale of re-armament in World War II, and I don't think anyone is pushing for a solution quite like that.

Rhodie. By nuking Iran, we'd double the rate at which Pakistan and India create bombs. Is that smart?

Nuclear deterrence relies on a nuclear weapon never being used again. If we were to nuke Iran without instigation, we'd be doing exactly what we're afraid of them doing to us. It would upset the world order tremendously and spiral everything out of control.

Military intervention without nuclear weapons would be the "most effective" option, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it the "best" option.

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

[Rhodie]

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

- Falling unemployment, especially for young adults (whose well-educated are not immune).
- A continuation of the tense situation in Iran until the Iranian thug leadership begs for mercy at terms largely at American choosing.
- Not falling behind the rest of the world in living standards and social justice.
- Shrinking deficits that are left for Obama's successor to finish off.
- Allowing oil in Alberta to flow to China rather than into the Oglalla aquifer.
- More people off welfare because of an economy growing sustainably.


Fixed.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Obamadness

Because a return to supply-side isn't mindless repitition, right? Keynesian economics worked in 1933 and it's working, albeit more slowly, today.

Keynesian economics is not a cure, its a palliative. It has never caused the total recovery of any major economy, only numbed the pain. The only public spending that can actually seriously regenerate the economy is public spending on the scale of re-armament in World War II, and I don't think anyone is pushing for a solution quite like that.

Rhodie. By nuking Iran, we'd double the rate at which Pakistan and India create bombs. Is that smart?

Nuclear deterrence relies on a nuclear weapon never being used again. If we were to nuke Iran without instigation, we'd be doing exactly what we're afraid of them doing to us. It would upset the world order tremendously and spiral everything out of control.

Military intervention without nuclear weapons would be the "most effective" option, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it the "best" option.

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

Sorry lol. I saw your post count and assumed you were just being like many other new posters here. My apologies. I've read some of your posts--they're good. Welcome.

Thanks

[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.

[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.

[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?