Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


SGG's Pick the President Poll

Parking Lot


View Poll Results: Who Would You Vote For?
Hillary Clinton 6 14.29%
Rudy Giuliani 12 28.57%
John McCain 10 23.81%
Barack Obama 11 26.19%
Mitt Romney 3 7.14%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2007, 01:38 PM   #61
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Does he actually have a plan to get us out? Whether we want to be or not, I think we sort of have to be involved in other country's issues. The world is flat as they say.
His plan is to have us pack up our shit and just leave. Why do we have to be involved in other countries business? Humanitarian involvement I can understand but anything beyond that is just meddlesome.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-31-2007, 01:41 PM   #62
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
His plan is to have us pack up our shit and just leave. Why do we have to be involved in other countries business? Humanitarian involvement I can understand but anything beyond that is just meddlesome.
While I support an exit strategy...packing up and completely hauling ass is not the answer. I would imagine, even after a drawdown, there will be some military presence there for some time to come.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 02:15 PM   #63
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,148
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
His plan is to have us pack up our shit and just leave. Why do we have to be involved in other countries business? Humanitarian involvement I can understand but anything beyond that is just meddlesome.
How do you draw the line at huminatarian involvement? What happens when we are involved from a humanitarian standpoint with the people of an oppressed nation and then at some point it comes down to a military coup/intervention/what have you? We then just pack up and leave?

And what do we mean by "humanitarian" anyway?

What about when our own interests (mostly economic) are affected? Like in Guatemala (I think it was Guatemala) back in the 1950s. Where do we draw the line on involvement?
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 02:28 PM   #64
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 41
Posts: 5,303
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Does he actually have a plan to get us out? Whether we want to be or not, I think we sort of have to be involved in other country's issues. The world is flat as they say.
As commander-in-chief, he can pull troops out whenever he wants. Ron Paul would do so immediately. That's his plan.

The mentality which says "we have to be involved" is perhaps the biggest reason the middle east hates us to begin with. Open, honest and friendly trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

When we topple governments we don't like, install dictators like we did with the Shah of Iran in 1953, when we station troops in Mecca and involve ourselves in middle eastern territorial disputes like we did in the first Gulf War, when we bomb, strike, invade, and occupy foreign lands, what sort of reaction do you think we will continue to get in that part of the world?

As long as we feel the need to "get involved" with the affairs of the middle east, you can expect more irritated Arabs to "get involved" with more aircraft, office buildings, briefcase bombs over here.

Ron Paul believes that cycle has to come to an end.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 02:34 PM   #65
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 41
Posts: 5,303
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
How do you draw the line at huminatarian involvement? What happens when we are involved from a humanitarian standpoint with the people of an oppressed nation and then at some point it comes down to a military coup/intervention/what have you? We then just pack up and leave?

And what do we mean by "humanitarian" anyway?
That's exactly the reason the United States shouldn't be involved with humanitarian efforts either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
What about when our own interests (mostly economic) are affected? Like in Guatemala (I think it was Guatemala) back in the 1950s. Where do we draw the line on involvement?
Kinda like middle eastern oil? The problem is that "our interests" often get confused with what doesn't belong to us. I understand we have a big need for oil. But it's not ours.

Every year around the time of the Super Bowl, I find the "need" for a big screen, hi-def television set. Does that mean I should go over to my neighbor's house and 'act in my own best interests' ??
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 02:34 PM   #66
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 86,482
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
As commander-in-chief, he can pull troops out whenever he wants. Ron Paul would do so immediately. That's his plan.

The mentality which says "we have to be involved" is perhaps the biggest reason the middle east hates us to begin with. Open, honest and friendly trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

When we topple governments we don't like, install dictators like we did with the Shah of Iran in 1953, when we station troops in Mecca and involve ourselves in middle eastern territorial disputes like we did in the first Gulf War, when we bomb, strike, invade, and occupy foreign lands, what sort of reaction do you think we will continue to get in that part of the world?

As long as we feel the need to "get involved" with the affairs of the middle east, you can expect more irritated Arabs to "get involved" with more aircraft, office buildings, briefcase bombs over here.

Ron Paul believes that cycle has to come to an end.
A-F'in-men to that.

Otherwise it's an endless cycle of violence, strikes and counter-strikes.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 02:38 PM   #67
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,148
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

So if someone comes to us asking for help (and I'm just asking this hypothetically) what's our response supposed to be? "Sorry, not our problem?" Basically, is Ron Paul's answer to act like we're not part of the world?

I guess I need to learn more about Ron Paul. It just seems to me like he hasn't really thought through the whole "we'll let's just leave" philosophy. Or maybe I haven't, but I'm not the one trying to convince America to vote for me as their next President.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 02:43 PM   #68
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
How do you draw the line at huminatarian involvement? What happens when we are involved from a humanitarian standpoint with the people of an oppressed nation and then at some point it comes down to a military coup/intervention/what have you? We then just pack up and leave?

And what do we mean by "humanitarian" anyway?

What about when our own interests (mostly economic) are affected? Like in Guatemala (I think it was Guatemala) back in the 1950s. Where do we draw the line on involvement?
Humanitarian as in natural disasters (famine, earth quake, etc). If a country is in the midst of a revolution, what can we do? Every nation has to go through growing pains. The only thing we can do is to levy sanction against those who are oppressive and try to help the waring factions negotiate a peaceful settlement amongst themselves. You simply cannot fix something that isn't ready to be fixed by force.

As for looking out for our own interest, sometimes it might be best to step back look at things from another perspective. If you do everything in your own personal life out of self interest you would be a huge dick. Also, what's in your best interest in the short term is not often in your best interest in the long run.

If Saudi Arabia had a revolution tomorrow, what should the United States do?
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 03:02 PM   #69
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
So if someone comes to us asking for help (and I'm just asking this hypothetically) what's our response supposed to be? "Sorry, not our problem?" Basically, is Ron Paul's answer to act like we're not part of the world?

I guess I need to learn more about Ron Paul. It just seems to me like he hasn't really thought through the whole "we'll let's just leave" philosophy. Or maybe I haven't, but I'm not the one trying to convince America to vote for me as their next President.

Samer here. I'll be the first to admit I'm not up to snuff on what his policies are, but I'm not too sure about this one. Perhaps there's more to it that has been mentioned.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 03:06 PM   #70
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 8,317
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

So I guess we shouldn't have gone into Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, or Rwanda (I know we didn't go there). I guess we also shouldn't intervene in places like the Sudan. I actually believe we shouldn't have gone or go into the above-mentioned places. I just wanted to list those "humanitarian interventions" because I think a lot of people who say we shouldn't be involved in other people's affairs don't really mean it. Humanitarian interventions are almost always met with force (see Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, the Sudan, etc.).

As for Ron Paul's position on Iraq, what does he think will happen to Iraq once we leave? Does he think the sectarian strife will subside following our departure? If so, he's nuts. If, however, he doesn't care if the civil war will increase in intensity and perhaps bring other countries (e.g., Turkey and Iran) into the mix, then I guess that's his perogative. Finally, Iraq is a terrorist training ground already, but I can't see how our departure will help matters.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 03:15 PM   #71
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

If Saudi Arabia had a revolution tomorrow, what should the United States do?[/quote]

But this is why you need sound foreign policy and have sound advisors around you before hand. These types of decisions, to some extent, have to made before conflicts actually takes place.

We need economic allies and we need military allies, and vice versa.
There is an inherent responsibility that comes along with being the most powerful and wealthiest Nation in the world. Now that's not to say we should police the world, but we can't just stand pat while things are going awry globally.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 03:22 PM   #72
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 8,317
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
I guess I need to learn more about Ron Paul. It just seems to me like he hasn't really thought through the whole "we'll let's just leave" philosophy. Or maybe I haven't, but I'm not the one trying to convince America to vote for me as their next President.
It says a lot that virtually no one in the house and no one (that I know of) in the Senate is calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I personally think the "leave immediately" plan is no plan at all. If I were in surgery, and even if the surgery went terribly awry, I wouldn't want the doctors to say, "Oh we screwed up, let's leave the room, don't worry about closing the patient up."
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 03:22 PM   #73
Propane and propane accessories
 
JWsleep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 46
Posts: 4,633
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Here's my general impression:

A dem will win the WH due to anti-Bush backlash alone. People are VERY done with the administration, and it showed in the midterms. Plus, it's very hard to hold the WH for 12 years, and the Bushies have not groomed a candidate in the VP slot as is usual. So I disagree with SBF's claim about the dems, though I agree they have no real plan or anything.

So, who is going to win the dem primaries? Hillary. She's got the most cash, the best team, and she knows how to play hardball. And Bill is one of the best politicians of the last few decades (note: I did not say leader or human being!), and he's her top adviser.

My guess is Obama will trip up, and his lack of experience will be his downfall. Edwards has a rousing stump speech, but it won't carry him through the big primaries where the deal is done by labor unions, local party hacks, etc. (Iowa means less and less, IMO, especially with the crazy front-loaded primary schedule.)

The republicans will lose the general election due to the backlash factor. And as for the "people hate Hillary" thing, sure, but those are mostly republicans anyway. In this election, whoever is the democratic candidate gets NY and CA for free. Then it's just a matter of picking up a few more states--look, Kerry (who was LAME) almost won, given the electoral map. She just needs a few more states, and she and her team know how to get them, IMO.

So it's Hillary. I'm ok with that--she been a decent centerist/pragmatist in the Senate, she's a "liberal hawk" on defense/IR, and she's proven she can play well with others. Plus, she's part of the New Dem caucus that melds free trade to the usual democratic issues--see NAFTA, for what it's worth. And she'll most likely bring in some of the good people from Bill's administration. Finally, DC, especially in the executive branch, needs a good housecleaning. I doubt a republican could do that, but a dem will have a mandate to fix CIA, INS, EPA, FEMA, and all those other departments that the Bushies have gutted and filled with political hacks (to the great detriment of our nation's security). So I'm going with Hillary.

And I'm psyched to have Bill back in the WH chasing tail. I miss those days when that was the worst thing going on in the world.
__________________
Hail from Houston!
JWsleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 03:26 PM   #74
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 86,482
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Why is it our job to stick our noses into everyone else's problems??

I'll just never understand why people think the US needs to be the world police.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 03:27 PM   #75
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 86,482
Re: SGG's Pick the President Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWsleep View Post
Here's my general impression:

A dem will win the WH due to anti-Bush backlash alone. People are VERY done with the administration, and it showed in the midterms. Plus, it's very hard to hold the WH for 12 years, and the Bushies have not groomed a candidate in the VP slot as is usual. So I disagree with SBF's claim about the dems, though I agree they have no real plan or anything.

So, who is going to win the dem primaries? Hillary. She's got the most cash, the best team, and she knows how to play hardball. And Bill is one of the best politicians of the last few decades (note: I did not say leader or human being!), and he's her top adviser.

My guess is Obama will trip up, and his lack of experience will be his downfall. Edwards has a rousing stump speech, but it won't carry him through the big primaries where the deal is done by labor unions, local party hacks, etc. (Iowa means less and less, IMO, especially with the crazy front-loaded primary schedule.)

The republicans will lose the general election due to the backlash factor. And as for the "people hate Hillary" thing, sure, but those are mostly republicans anyway. In this election, whoever is the democratic candidate gets NY and CA for free. Then it's just a matter of picking up a few more states--look, Kerry (who was LAME) almost won, given the electoral map. She just needs a few more states, and she and her team know how to get them, IMO.

So it's Hillary. I'm ok with that--she been a decent centerist/pragmatist in the Senate, she's a "liberal hawk" on defense/IR, and she's proven she can play well with others. Plus, she's part of the New Dem caucus that melds free trade to the usual democratic issues--see NAFTA, for what it's worth. And she'll most likely bring in some of the good people from Bill's administration. Finally, DC, especially in the executive branch, needs a good housecleaning. I doubt a republican could do that, but a dem will have a mandate to fix CIA, INS, EPA, FEMA, and all those other departments that the Bushies have gutted and filled with political hacks (to the great detriment of our nation's security). So I'm going with Hillary.

And I'm psyched to have Bill back in the WH chasing tail. I miss those days when that was the worst thing going on in the world.
Good analysis
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.35715 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25