The Political Discussion Thread

[The Mist]

Sorry but can i just add.Its a DISGRACE that the situation in Syria is being allowed to happen when you consider WE(USA and UK,etc) went to war with Iraq on a false premise and yet theres genocide almost being committed here and what do the UN and the free world do?Sanctions? That only hurt the poorest of the nation while the dictators fill their pockets with our foreign aid.I really shouldnt frequent politics forum as i only get myself abuse usually,lol.Cheers

[Rudy Pena]

Good posts Mist.

[The Mist]

LOL...thanks.I dont usually get a reply like that when i try enter into a political discussion! Cheers

[Rudy Pena]

I understand, Cheers mate!!

[Womble]

Sorry but can i just add.Its a DISGRACE that the situation in Syria is being allowed to happen when you consider WE(USA and UK,etc) went to war with Iraq on a false premise and yet theres genocide almost being committed here and what do the UN and the free world do?Sanctions? That only hurt the poorest of the nation while the dictators fill their pockets with our foreign aid.I really shouldnt frequent politics forum as i only get myself abuse usually,lol.Cheers

Had the US gone to war with Assad to end the Syrian situation instead of going to war with Saddam, the same people would still be complaining, in the same exact way, about the exact same stuff.

[The Mist]

Possibly. But we went to war with Iraq on the premise he had WMD's that could hit the UK in 45minutes.He diidnt even have ballistic missiles that could hit Israel in 45minutes without being shot down,it was a lie sold to us Brits by our own intelligence agency. Whereas the Syria situation,we can all SEE vivid images of whats going on there,cities being shelled all due to not supporting the regime. The atrocities being commited there are to me being given a kind of "ohhh we cant afford another war even if this one is for genuine reasons" attitude.That or the fact the abuse the UK and USA took last time round means they are hesitant to intervene when its REALLY needed. To me the Syria situation poses the biggest threat to middle east stability in years and our reluctance to enter and rescue these people either stems from fear of Iran or saving our finances for a war with Iran.Either way if Syria falls,we SHOULD be there otherwise like Libya and Egypt theres gonna be Muslim brotherhoods,etc who are only to happy to step in and take over.

Just look at Afghanistan and the Taliban....WE PUT THEM IN POWER,now they are our greatest enemy.I dont know the answers but seeing the footage from Syria and how its being tolerated globally makes me sick.The UN is a waste of space if all it can do is set financial restrictions and useless trade sanctions that only hurt the worse affected.I dunno,it just seems if theres money to be made then lets go to war,if theres face to be saved then lets go to war.Theirs genocide going on???Let the UN deal with it.Its hogwash. But again,strictly my own view through my own eyes.Cheers

[Womble]

Possibly. But we went to war with Iraq on the premise he had WMD's that could hit the UK in 45minutes.He diidnt even have ballistic missiles that could hit Israel in 45minutes without being shot down,it was a lie sold to us Brits by our own intelligence agency.

That's an interesting theory, but if WMDs was an excuse, then what was the real reason? "Oil" never did cut it.

Whereas the Syria situation,we can all SEE vivid images of whats going on there,cities being shelled all due to not supporting the regime. The atrocities being commited there are to me being given a kind of "ohhh we cant afford another war even if this one is for genuine reasons" attitude.

What's going on in Syria is no worse than what was going on in Iraq. If the situation in Syria justifies a war, then so did the situation in Iraq, with or without WMDs.

To me the Syria situation poses the biggest threat to middle east stability in years and our reluctance to enter and rescue these people either stems from fear of Iran or saving our finances for a war with Iran.

Syria is small change, actually. Egypt and Iran are the ones to watch.

Just look at Afghanistan and the Taliban....WE PUT THEM IN POWER,now they are our greatest enemy.

You're new on this board, so I'll explain this AGAIN. "We" didn't put the Talibain in power. "We" backed the Northern Alliance, the enemies of the Taliban, currently reincarnated as the US-supported Afghan government. The Taliban were a Pakistani product. After the Russian pullout, the Taliban defeated NA and took control over most of Afghanistan.

[Seastallion]

I come from a forum which is mainly Americans and iv learned it can be a dangerous thing to offer my 2cents of opinion on politics from a region im not from.

I can agree with that. It is why I don't generally criticize what goes on in other countries outside of my own. Precisely because I don't know much about what goes on there. It's hard to be honestly critical if you don't know what is going on.

Its just like gun control,never try tell an American gun control is an answer to massacres like the recent batman one in Colarado cos my American cousins get a bit touchy about that topic.

This is also true. Just imagine though, if some people in that theater had had guns themselves, they might have been able to prevent the massacre. Gun Control only serves to keep the law abiding people as potential victims, because criminals won't respect the law anyway. Guns are no more dangerous than cars are, but you don't generally see people purposely trying to run each other over. Guns are tools. I do promote safety classes and such for gun owners though. That is just common sense.

TBF im from UK where we dont need guns but America being so big then its not feasible for a nebraska farmer to expect the police to be there for him in times of peril when hes out in the sticks.Anyways i digress....

This is more true than you know. The VAST majority of our country is suburban or in the woods. The Police cannot possibly hope to cover that territory. Americans have a long tradition of self determination, and guns have been a huge part of that. Guns have long been used for protection and preservation.

Frontier families used them to put food on the table, and to keep hostile invaders at bay. This is still true today, to some degree. It was SO important that the founders made the Right to Bear Arms, the SECOND Amendment, with ONLY Free Speech being in front of it. That is some serious gravitas on the subject, showing just how much the Founders considered it a priority.

The Founders and their entire generation had an intense distrust of government, and the Minute Man was the symbol of the ever-watchful champion of Liberty, with his rifle at the ready. The writer of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, felt that revolution was necessary from time to time, just to keep the government in its place. Franklin warned of the dangers of politicians being in office for monetary reasons, declaring that it would be the end of Freedom. George Washington warned the people that political parties were NOT to be trusted, that people should think for themselves, and not follow like sheep.

Critical to all of that was the Right to Bear Arms. So that if ever the time came, and it became necessary, the Citizens would be able to rise up and seize control of their own nation again. I do NOT believe we are there as yet, but we are dangerously treading in that direction. Civil Liberties have been under attack ever so slowly, and it has been coming from BOTH parties.

The election.I think it is a shame that a man ,a moderate like Ron Paul got treated so shabbily.Maybe its just me but this guy just radiates honesty and integrity and yet his own party shun his bid for presidency time after time.Im a liberal leaning Scottish Nationalist so its neither here nor there what i think but Ron Paul to me was the man i would have loved to have seen on the ballot or whitehouse. The Libertarians seem fresh and voteable to me.

I TOTALLY Agree. I'm a bit 'iffy' on Ron Paul's foreign policy, but otherwise, I like him very much. I'm very angry with the Republican party over the treatment he got. They've been talking about it on the news, that if Ron Paul's supporters had participated (looking at sheer numbers), the Republicans (even if it was Romney) might very well have won the election. A great number of Ron Paul supporters simply withdrew from the election altogether. Good god... talk about contrast.

Obama aint that bad but what i find funny is that Romeny or Obama supporters dont realise its the same puppet master who pulls both their strings. FDR warned way back that the time when PRIVATE institution have more money,more influence and more military might than the Govt then thats the time to worry about transparent politics,or words to that effect.

Here is where I have to disagree. I do agree that Obama and Romney DO have similarities, but there ARE differences. Essentially, they both have the support of their respective Establishment elements of their own parties, but they also share much of the divide between the parties as well. The difference being that Obama panders to the Far Left elements of the Democrats, whereas Romney mainly stood with the Moderates of the Republicans. (He is NOT a hardcore Rel. Right guy...) However, both parties have been contributing to the ever growing size and power of Government. Almost the only difference has been at the rate of governmental growth. Democrats would have the government grow even faster, with Republicans generally dragging their feet in comparison.

FDR was himself a Left Leaning guy, who ALSO trampled on Civil Rights. Remember all those internment camps that the Japanese were thrown into? FDR is generally seen in a positive light (primarily over WWII), but there WERE dark elements to the man. It was under FDR (before WWII) that the Federal Reserve was created, ending the economic liberties that the U.S. was founded on. The same is true of Woodrow Wilson, under which the Federal Income Tax was established, the Senatorial Selection process was altered, and Prohibition came into existence. Woodrow Wilson ALSO trampled on Civil Rights.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0512g.asp

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0891a.asp

(If you looked at the above articles, it is clear that Government has often used War as an excuse to curtail the freedoms of the public, and too often, once those powers were gained, were NEVER lost.)

The Power of Government, and the Power of the People is the ULTIMATE divide in philosophies here. FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Liberals, and Democrats in general all believe in the Power of Government. Conservatives, Libertarians, and the average Republican believe in the Power of the People. Unfortunately, too many of the Establishment Republicans are in favor of giving the Government more power. Senator John McCain is guilty of this, for example. Creating a Bill along with Joe Lieberman that would allow the government to hold people 'indefinitely' on 'suspicion' of terror related activities. In other words, if we don't like you, we can arrest you and keep you in jail forever. For the life of me, I can't understand why a former prisoner of war would EVER create something like that. I just don't get it at all.

Its a shame the GOP of 'Goldwater' has been hijacked by an over zealous neo right wing brigade.Like the conservatives here in the UK they are influenced by money and not a moral compass.

Make NO mistake. BOTH Parties are being BOUGHT with money. The over zealous LEFT wing extremists are EVERY bit as guilty of being 'sullied' by money. Those giving the money have different and often competing ideals, but there is a LOT of money is at stake in both cases. The sources of that money is often quite suspect, and in some cases coming from foreign groups with an interest in altering the politics in America. This is nothing new. It has been happening to some degree or another for quite a long time now. The Soviets have donated money to sympathetic groups in the U.S., as did the Nazi's. There is no question that Socialist zealots in Europe are continuing that trend today. There is no doubt that various groups from all over the WORLD are quietly trying to influence political groups in the U.S. by giving them money to push political ideas that they feel will be to the advantage of THEIR goals. There have been allegations that the Obama campaign was accepting donations from International sources which is Illegal. No specific proof has been found yet, however, the websites of the campaign accepting donations were setup in such a way that International donations COULD happen, and very likely did. There is a specific way to have it setup that would prevent such things, and those websites weren't setup that way.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...1RvbhyDCRyyrEL

Sound far fetched? Yeah, sure it is.

Ron Paul seemed a throwback to the REAL republican party and not what they have become.

He is certainly refreshing. We need more like him, and he (and his ideas) DOES have a significant amount of support.

In the same token,im not a socialist either but definitely liberal leaning. The fact legal recreational or /and medicinal useage of marijuana and gay marriage rights were on the agenda in several states to me shows where the republicans are losing votes. They need to steer more towards the centre or they are not gonna be back in power for some time. We need less people telling us legitimate rape victims cant get pregnant and that gay people are bad and the 'herb' is evil.It seems the republicans are alienating themselves from a huge swathe of supporters,even their own core supporters.I know of many republicans living in colarado who voted for making hemp fully legal rather than voting with their party.I feel its these constraints the republicans have put on themselves that will stop them being re-elected. Im not FOR Obama or against. I just love the way the American political system works and even the much derided college electoral system makes great sense to me.American politics is exciting which is more than the UK can say. Hope this post doesnt offend any republicans or democrats alike ,as im only offering an outsiders viewpoint of the election.Which is ,i woulda voted for Ron Paul.Cheers

The social issues you mention aren't particularly issues I'm overly concerned with. I don't care if Homosexuals enter into socially binding contracts (Civil Unions), similar to marriage, although I do think that 'Marriage' should be reserved as a Union between a Man and a Woman. To me, a marriage suggests the potential of child procreation, which NO homosexual couple would be able to accomplish by natural means. I'm not particularly opposed to homosexual couples having children, but it IS impossible for them to produce children naturally. Perhaps that is an archaic point of view, but I do think their is value in the traditional ideal of the family. I believe that both a Father and a Mother are PREFERABLE, for the well being of any kid. I say this as a kid who grew up without a Father figure to look up to.

As to marijuana, so long as someone is NOT driving a car or something while they are doing it, I don't really care. Just leave me out of it.

I disagree that Republicans must necessarily "move to the center", but they DO need to make some changes in their messaging. Primarily, they need to make a FAR greater effort to appeal to minorities, and Latinos in particular. Whatever you think about G.W. Bush, he WAS fairly popular with Latinos because he made an effort on their behalf. The Republican party made a MAJOR mistake of not continuing that trend. In reality Latino culture is VERY compatible with the core Conservative and Republican ideals.

I wasn't offended at all by your post. It is nice to have some open mindedness in the house... I'm a firm believer that people can disagree without being disagreeable. I think you've done well in that regard. Kudos..!

[SoulReaver]

Had the US gone to war with Assad to end the Syrian situation instead of going to war with Saddam, the same people would still be complaining, in the same exact way, about the exact same stuff.

depends - is Syria rife with any valuable natural resources? :|

[The Mist]

That's an interesting theory, but if WMDs was an excuse, then what was the real reason? "Oil" never did cut it.

Oil was a definite benefit or "spoil of war" for certain parties but i wouldnt say it was the reason.I couldnt possibly guess,maybe strategic importance against Iran?Personally i just think George Bush was overly eager to do what his Daddy didnt finish and Tony Blair was equally as eager to do what Thatcher also didnt finish. I really dont want to debate the merits of that war as its been done to death but at the time i admittedly agreed with it,however after watching some carefully selected documentaries,reading much and watching the UK enquiry where the PM was grilled,etc then i do feel informed enough to say it was wrong. Wrong to go to war with NO plan at all for what happens when you take the country.Dsibanding the Iraq army was thee biggest disaster ever. Even the US military were against it but guys like Cheney and Rumsfield were running that puppet show. There was no planning or thought put into the aftermath.Priceless museum relics were plundered,anything of any worth was looted.We invaded that country and left them victims to sectarian violence worse than Saddams random torture or chemical assaults on the kurds. I simply,with the benefit of hindsight cannot believe i was happy to go to war on the basis they had WMD's and a threat to the world.We found no WMD's,instead we found Saddam cowering like a dog in a hole,as he should be.But to see so many armed forces killed and all due to a war we took to them and now they are self destructing in sectarian violence...well it dont exactly make me feel good.

What's going on in Syria is no worse than what was going on in Iraq. If the situation in Syria justifies a war, then so did the situation in Iraq, with or without WMDs.

Maybe so if you are referring to the chemical bombing of the kurds in northern Iraq,etc and the torture of his own people.But WMD's aside this is civil war but only one side have the weaponary. This is bosnia all over again.Genocide being ignored on the international stage due to economics or popularity polls. You may be correct saying Iraq done just as bad to its own citizens but the point i make now that im disgusted with whats going on is PURELY because iv just witnessed us go to war for IMHO less and now we stand idly by.Iv not got world police syndrome,im Scottish we dont do world police but we helped Libya recently,he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq but we cant help Syria?Womble,for me,i think Syria is the beechhead. Iran is a huge issue and Syria is Irans lapdog.I just have a horrible feeling if we stand by and do nothing this situation will come back to haunt us in later years.

Syria is small change, actually. Egypt and Iran are the ones to watch.

Couldnt agree more,but Syria is going to be the spark that ignites the fire.Iran is just standing back observing how much we let Syria away with so they know our tolerance levels if they ever try to pull this stuff.Egypt IS an issue, i know people just back from there who say they will never return.For me,Iran has ALWAYS been the issue.Back in the "lets invade Iraq" days i was always banging on about "how about we invade Iran instead".Im no hawk,nor a dove obviously but if ever there was a time for UN or NATO to intervene somehwere it is now in Syria IMHO.

You're new on this board, so I'll explain this AGAIN. "We" didn't put the Talibain in power. "We" backed the Northern Alliance, the enemies of the Taliban, currently reincarnated as the US-supported Afghan government. The Taliban were a Pakistani product. After the Russian pullout, the Taliban defeated NA and took control over most of Afghanistan.

Ok yeah i will totally concede all of that to you after a quick check,lol. We still put a lot of military hardware in both camps and hoped for the best.The NA werent the only horse backed in that race. Im not disputing what you are saying to me.My whole point is just it saddens me what we are letting happen in Syria. You see Iran as the threat,i agree. Syria is the beechhead though,again these are just my own ramblings and i mean no disprespect .It gets heated too quickly in politics sections from my experience.Cheers

[The Mist]

SEASTALLION-I dont want to multi quote all you have said as i will take up pages upon ages but suffice to say we are on the same page on many aspects.I try to be open minded instead of pinning my colours to any one specific mast.I have my own beliefs and opinions and sometimes each left or right party can represent some of them and therein lies the issue.Why has it become polar opposites on ultra left or neo right wing?Id settle for a Ron Paul type dude leading the free world. I liked Tony Blair,Iraq was his only mark against his tenure as PM,sadly.I voted for him so im not dising the guy.

As far as guns go.Yup iv been well versed from my American friends elsewhere and yeah sure if the whole cinema was armed maybe someone coulda took the guy out.But on the other hand there coulda been a lot of panic trigger happy people. Guns are a constitutional right so they will never go away but IMHO there needs to be some more sensible way of how they are circulated.They have been around to long to try register them all but surely more stringent checks need done,not just criminal checks but Psych tests or some kind of restrictions on how people can be armed to the teeth.This guy was armed like a SWAT dude.I dont know the answers but theres gotta be some kind of common sense.But no im not one of these people who says ban the guns cos it will not ever happen over there.The minute you concede one constitutionally protected right then you set a dangerous precedent so i do get that aspect of it all.I also respect the fact Americans are armed cos of a mistrust of Govt aswell and if the Govt ever tried to supress the citizens then the bearing of arms is required to "replenish the tree of liberty from enemies both foeign and domestic".I have military mates,liberal mates and right wing mates all over the states and they verse me well in all this as you can imagine,lol.Sometimes not so friendly either hehe.

As for gay marriage,it has no bearing on me or mine but i just used it as an example of how normal republican voters or undecided went for Obama in some states instead of Romney. All the abortion issues,the gay marriage,the medical marijuana,etc.It all contributed to Romney being alienated from a huge portion of the nation and also as you touched on the huge Latino vote in particular. I find American politics interesting.All stems from an unatural obssession when i was younger about JFK's assasination lol.

Its nice to be able to express some political comments without the usual "line in the sand" views.You can agree with one party on this and another on that surely without having to be stuck on one side of the line?This,i feel is the problem the republicans have created for themselves,well not them but their "owners". They have become too associated with right wing christian white values that they are marginalizing themselves from the electorate.Again,im just an observer from afar and dont pretend to know everything but i DO pay attention to most things American purely as i hang out on a forum thats 98% American with a few Brits,Euros and Asians thrown in.I enjoyed your reply though and dont dispute much if any.Cheers

[Seastallion]

I agree that the situation in Syria is a SERIOUS issue. It is threatening to bring the entire region into conflict, of that there is no doubt. Lebanon and Turkey have already begun to be sucked into it, and so far it is only seeming to get worse. Syria is basically the only ally of Iran, so there is most definitely a connection there.

Egypt, having the largest Arab population in the Mideast can't help but be a factor, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood now being in control, and very much wanting to spread their influence as they have been trying to do in their next-door neighbor, Libya. It wasn't so long ago that the Brotherhood was listed as a terrorist group, and now they are all 'legitimate' and 'moderate'. Yeah, right. I think the only thing holding them back is the Military of Egypt, which is mainly secular in nature, and has its own amount of autonomous power.

I also think that doing something about Iran during the Iraq war would've been a good idea, but that didn't happen. I think there is going to be some regret at some point, that Obama and Biden didn't manage to get a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with Iraq. Having forces stationed in the region might have been useful.

I strongly feel that another war in the Mideast is nearly inevitable. There are just too many tensions, with no way to ease them, that just keep getting worse. The UN has practically washed its hands of the Syrian situation. (I agree they are useless) I really hope war doesn't break out again, but I think it is only a matter of time. The closer Iran gets to gaining a nuclear weapon, the more likely it will become.

[The Mist]

Yeah and the closer they get the increasing liklehood of Israel taking matters into their own hands and bombing Iran.Its already been discussed and in fact the UK sent our head of MI6 to Israel weeks ago to plead with them to stand down. If Israel attacks Iran,its ON! America gets immediately sucked in and hence the UK and possibly NATO/EU,etc. Its delicate and war isnt always the answer but Syria should be a line in the sand.I totally agree that its just weird we didnt insist on permanent Air force and army bases in Iraq,some kind of foothold more than the few kuwait and saudi bases we have in the region. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and if we dont intervene in these war torn places like Syria(we can be the UN,NATO or whoever for all i care) then we will reap what we sow when Iranian maniacs salavage the remains of the Assad regime when it enevitably gets toppled.We helped from afar in Libya and look where thats got us.They kill American people on Amemrican soil,they refuse to hand over suspects to the UK for lockerbie bombing or the killing of PC Yvonne Fletcher,etc. We need boots on the ground to stop the slaughter of innocents....but also for our own self preservation or some kind of intelligence.Cheers

[Seastallion]

I understand why everyone wants Israel to stand down, but really, can anyone blame them for being nervous? The leadership of Iran has openly stated their intention of destroying Israel, and Iran getting a nuke goes a LONG way towards that end. They DO have the missile delivery capability needed to do it.

From Israel's point of view, attacking Iran sooner would be preferable to just waiting until Iran is even more capable. Israel is a fairly small country, and even a single nuke on a major city would have absolutely devastating effects on Israel and its ability to defend itself. Of course, that would probably cause a counterattack from the alleged submarine that Israel supposedly possesses with nuclear missiles.

That prospect is, frankly, very scary.

[mad_gater]

I understand why everyone wants Israel to stand down, but really, can anyone blame them for being nervous? The leadership of Iran has openly stated their intention of destroying Israel, and Iran getting a nuke goes a LONG way towards that end. They DO have the missile delivery capability needed to do it.

From Israel's point of view, attacking Iran sooner would be preferable to just waiting until Iran is even more capable. Israel is a fairly small country, and even a single nuke on a major city would have absolutely devastating effects on Israel and its ability to defend itself. Of course, that would probably cause a counterattack from the alleged submarine that Israel supposedly possesses with nuclear missiles.

That prospect is, frankly, very scary.

and Israel is so small that a nuke could potentially not just wipe out Israel but cause plenty of collateral damage in other nations surrounding Israel...heck some could blow back into the nation that fired the nuke to begin with

would be like using a cannonball to kill a gnat