Winter Solider: Jeremy Scahill discusses why no presidential candidate plans on fully leaving Iraq.
Obama and Clinton will not end Iraq War --wake up america
- Thread starter MASTERBAKER
- Start date
it's obvious that the only candidates (Ron Paul,Kucinich) got no airtime cuz they were THE ONLY ppl talkiin bout leavin Iraq. The corporate interests that back both Clinton and Obama want to make keep the war goin'. u r right. i like Obama for the obvious reason he's an intelligent blk guy i can show my kids that this is history in the making cuz this dude really has a chance. but i really dont know enuff bout him to want him as pres.i'm kinda wary bout a blk dude the main stream keeps shovin down my throat. but he might be the truth
This race has been going on now for a minute; how long will you continue to indulge your wariness before you attempt to discover the truth?
QueEx
You do realize that just pulling out of Iraq on day one is impossible for ANY president (even Paul or Kucinich besides their unrealistic rhetoric). Just like Rona Paul was not going to dissolve the IRS and Fed on day one (you think the economy is bad now, try dissolving the Fed and IRS overnight? I think some of you cats just have no concept at all of reality. You can change these things and they may need to be changed, but to have this instant gratification attitude towards the process is childish. The candidates you supported know this too, even if you don't realize it, they are talking about policies that would have to sustain WELL past their terms (even two terms). They talk about the distant future as if it's tomorrow and they know damn well it isn't. It really makes them dishonest in a way because they discuss policies that would take YEARS as if they would talk days and cats like you eat it up.
That's why informed voters didn't support them, because they talk about policies that would hurt the average American for damn near a generation before any positive result was seen. If Obama is all talk and dreams (and he talks of ideas that can be implemented in a single term or two), what is Ron Paul?
try dissolving the Fed and IRS overnight
the only hurt will be for the top 1% to collect less than they'r doing now, n some of them are not even complaining..abolish these 419 bureaus responsibly and we will be in a better position than we are now doc..8 doesn't have to take damn 2 terms neither..
listen to reknown economist jim rogers, plus others, have been calling for the dissolution of the feds (who create $ out of thin air n borrow same $ to everyone else) n the irs..last pres who wanted to ban it was jfk,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=airxvVmGnqc
how can u print $ in a recession? then use it to bail out investment banks n maserati owners? u bail out the thieves n leave the victims(average americans)?xplain dat sh8.
How about just voting for Ralph Nader then?
what is the truth????? Dick Cheney's cousin Obama?
try dissolving the Fed and IRS overnight
the only hurt will be for the top 1% to collect less than they'r doing now, n some of them are not even complaining..abolish these 419 bureaus responsibly and we will be in a better position than we are now doc..8 doesn't have to take damn 2 terms neither..
listen to reknown economist jim rogers, plus others, have been calling for the dissolution of the feds (who create $ out of thin air n borrow same $ to everyone else) n the irs..last pres who wanted to ban it was jfk,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=airxvVmGnqc
how can u print $ in a recession? then use it to bail out investment banks n maserati owners? u bail out the thieves n leave the victims(average americans)?xplain dat sh8.
I didn't say it couldn't be done, but YOU may have to be willing to sacrifice for a decade or two to possibly the remainder of YOUR life so that your kids can benefit from any new system put into place. Stability is important to an economy whether the current system is fair or not. The top 1% are NOT going to suffer first, any losses they face will not trickle down to average people, they will flow down in a TORRENT of stagnant and falling wages, hyperinflation, lost benefits and lost pensions LONG before they even feel a TINGLE. You have to overhaul the ENTIRE system and you will HAVE to implement a STRONG socialist system within the government for an extended period of time (regulating any-and-everything) to maintain even a semblance of stability until a new system can be put into place. Even with the current credit crisis, it hit consumers first, now it is about to hit small business hard, it will slowly trickle uphill and most likely run it's complete course before it even SEES the pockets of the top 1%.
You need a team of economists to develop a plan that can work if you really want these agencies abolished. They have to be replaced with something because as evil as the Fed may be, that's out bottom, without it, the bottom can and will drop out QUICKLY if nothing else is in place as an economic safety net. Libertarians claim they don't want a safety net at all, but most that say that would be the first ones crying if the bottom actually dropped out. In a dog-eat-dog world, Rottwielers and Chihuahua's don't all of a sudden become equals, the big dogs are still the big dogs. So in a dog-eat-dog economy, Wal-Mart is still Wal-Mart and you are still you (difference is, the Rotty isn't behind a fence anymore and he is hungry).
Candidates like Kucinich, Nader and Paul generally run to try and force certain issues into the conversation that would otherwise be avoided by mainstream candidates. They serve a valuable purpose in that many candidates like this have generated public discourse and forced changes in public institutions that needed change (for better or worse). Pat Buchanan's run in 2000 was a driving force in Bill Clinton's welfare and crime reform because Buchanan's talk of welfare mothers and (black) criminals caught public attention and forced Clinton to address those issues (as racist as Buchanan's motives may have been, he pushed his agenda by running and getting a decent amount of votes). Jesse Jackson' runs in 80 and 84 (or was it 84 and 88) showed the Democratic party that the black vote was a POWER in their party they could not win without. Ralph Nader's run forced BOTH parties to make the environment and out of control energy deregulation an issue.
Point is, candidates like them serve a purpose even if their platforms are not well rounded (or well defined) enough to actually be viable.
Talk of ending the war will assure the war ends sooner rather than later (even McCain with all his tough talk will get backed into a corner eventually, probably in his first term if he were to get elected), but NOBODY can just withdraw immediately, the logistics of that are IMPOSSIBLE to do without a major disaster. Expect to see the same setup we had after the first Iraq war with troops on the ready in Kuwait at the very least. But NO president wants to just pull out and let Iraq go to hell for the world to see KNOWING we created the problem in the first place. Best case, we give up our hold on the oil fields, share the wealth internationally (with companies BIDDING for oil rights and the proceeds going to the Iraqi government) and turn the whole thing into a NATO "peacekeeping" engagement (unilateralism WILL NOT WORK, it has already FAILED). Hoping Iraq will get rich and fat enough with oil money to become more like a UAE country or Kuwait and thus downplay fundamentalism in place of rampant capitalism is our best bet (even though that probably means NO Democracy).