Hillary Clinton

[SeVeR]

Here are two videos that tell an interesting story about the Clintons.

 

(23 seconds)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azVAkWfJPZ4 (31 seconds)

Edited April 25, 2008 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

I can't believe she's gotten the vote she's had with the blatant lies and contradictions she's been caught in already, not including the dozens more you could find on the internet.

 

The fact that she's made it this far shows that the American people, at least a large portion of, enjoy being lied to.

 

Almost makes me sad to be an American.

[Bak]

every election cycle there's negative ads that we complain about, and after the election's over we forget about it until the next election cycle. If we want to actually get rid of attack ads, the best way to to not let them affect our vote.

[»Ducky]

The only way to not let it affect your vote is to be knowledgeable about the actual facts with-in the ads. Something that the majority of Americans are incapable of.

When the majority of Americans can't pinpoint major countries on a map and dictate the 4 major gospel names of the bible, well... You can kind of assume that the former fact is impossible by any standards

Edited April 26, 2008 by Ducky

[Aileron]

Veg, I have Democratic relatives. Simply put, they hate Richard Nixon. Because they hate Richard Nixon, they vote Democratic. Doesn't matter who's running.

 

That I think sums up the two parties. The Republicans had Richard Nixon, and the Democrats had Jimmy Carter. One was corrupt, the other grossly incompetent. The difference is the Republicans had the class to axe Nixon, while the Democrats give Carter medals.

[Bak]

I don't think that sums up the two parties.

[webgoat]

boo hillary go obama

[ESCANDAL0SA]

i can't stand Hilary. every 2 weeks, she's challenging Obama to a pointless debate to discuss issues that they already have discussed in the 2937985 prior debates.

[Aceflyer]

I don't think that sums up the two parties.

 

I'm with BaK- on this one. Carter hardly sums up the Democratic Party. Nixon hardly sums up the Republican Party.

[Aileron]

I'm focusing on the reaction to Carter and Nixon. I mean, when Nixon got caught the Republicans felt betrayed and got rid of him.

 

 

When Carter was proven incompetent, rather than admit that one of their number might have had a flaw, the Democrats use his incompetent example as the centerpiece to their foreign policies.

 

I mean, the reason that Iraq wasn't taken care of after the first Gulf War is because the Democrats couldn't admit that Saddam Hussein was evil, and wanted to give him another chance. The reason the current was in Iraq was initially mismanaged is because the Democrats never gave any constructive criticism of the strategy, but rather whined about the whole campaign. They didn't offer alternative targets. They didn't offer alternative strategies. They didn't say that we needed more soldiers. They just came up with bland excuses criticizing the whole war.

 

Why? Because of the Carter foreign policy model which states that before any war you must give five-thousand separate proofs that its to the betterment of mankind, get 2/3rds of the UN to agree with you, and maintain the utmost cultural sensitivity political correctness bull!@#$%^&*. It also states that it is better to stand by while somebody kills ten innocent people than it is for you to accidentally kill one innocent person in the process of taking out the guy who's killing ten. According to the Carter model, if any segment of the population of the country you are at war with protests your actions, it isn't because that segment was benefiting from the dictator's policies, its something we should feel guilty about.

 

Overall, its so idealistic that it makes it impossible to be idealistic. For the sake of keeping this post short, I'll not prove the fact that it is actually impossible to fight any war like that, and that the whole model functions as one-sided pacifism. It just doesn't work - even the most evil of dictatorships will gather allies which will oppose you in the UN, will get domestic supporters necessary to keep the thing running, and its impossible to fight a war without casualties.

 

And guess what? Its okay for Carter to have a messed up foreign policy! Nobody is perfect. The reason you have sub-leaders, as well as Congress, is so that other people's strengths can overcome the leader's failings. He could only do so much damage in 4 years anyway. The problem is that the Democrats couldn't admit that his policy was a problem, and instead considered it innovative. Every democrat since then has blindly supported that policy.

 

What this causes is more bloodshed. Under a more 'hawkish' model, we could identify small problems quickly and deal with them before they grew to much larger problems. Had we finished Iraq in the 90s, the current President Bush would have been able to go into Darfur.

 

 

Overall, it is better to think about how to obtain peace than to follow the blind pacifist policy currently used by Democrats. Based on the actions of her husband, I'd suspect that Hillary Clinton would be a big champion of the idiot blind policy developed by Carter.

[ThunderJam]

Nixon saw a baby picture of me and said "future president no doubt about it." I swear lol

[»D1st0rt]

But Aileron, Hillary wants to "obliterate Iran"

[Aileron]

That's talk. In the mind of a Clinton, "obliterate" means 'bomb them for a week, but don't commit anything else'.

[Aceflyer]

I mean, the reason that Iraq wasn't taken care of after the first Gulf War is because the Democrats couldn't admit that Saddam Hussein was evil, and wanted to give him another chance.

 

The reason Iraq wasn't "taken care of" after the first Gulf War was because then-President Bush, a Republican, declared a cease-fire one hundred hours after the ground campaign started. The closest troops got to Baghdad was 150 miles away; the then-Bush Administration decided to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than overthrow his government, which would have had many political and human costs !@#$%^&*ociated with it.

 

The reason the current was in Iraq was initially mismanaged is because the Democrats never gave any constructive criticism of the strategy, but rather whined about the whole campaign. They didn't offer alternative targets. They didn't offer alternative strategies. They didn't say that we needed more soldiers. They just came up with bland excuses criticizing the whole war.

 

We never should have gone into Iraq this time around, especially as it was later shown that the intelligence that was used to justify this invasion was inaccurate.

 

Why? Because of the Carter foreign policy model which states that before any war you must give five-thousand separate proofs that its to the betterment of mankind, get 2/3rds of the UN to agree with you, and maintain the utmost cultural sensitivity political correctness bull!@#$%^&*. It also states that it is better to stand by while somebody kills ten innocent people than it is for you to accidentally kill one innocent person in the process of taking out the guy who's killing ten. According to the Carter model, if any segment of the population of the country you are at war with protests your actions, it isn't because that segment was benefiting from the dictator's policies, its something we should feel guilty about.

 

Carter's foreign policy model certainly worked better than that of the current Administration. At least it resulted in the Camp David Accords, among other things, and didn't result in most other nations in the world - many of which were former allies - turning away from us.

 

Overall, its so idealistic that it makes it impossible to be idealistic. For the sake of keeping this post short, I'll not prove the fact that it is actually impossible to fight any war like that, and that the whole model functions as one-sided pacifism. It just doesn't work - even the most evil of dictatorships will gather allies which will oppose you in the UN, will get domestic supporters necessary to keep the thing running, and its impossible to fight a war without casualties.

 

The Carter Administration's intervention in Afghanistan and authorization of Operation Eagle Claw shows that it wasn't opposed to the use of force when necessary.

 

What this causes is more bloodshed. Under a more 'hawkish' model, we could identify small problems quickly and deal with them before they grew to much larger problems. Had we finished Iraq in the 90s, the current President Bush would have been able to go into Darfur.

 

The current President Bush could still have gone into Darfur and ignored Iraq. Simply put, this time around there was no real reason to invade Iraq. I'd say Iran or North Korea were higher priorities than Iraq was.

 

Overall, it is better to think about how to obtain peace than to follow the blind pacifist policy currently used by Democrats. Based on the actions of her husband, I'd suspect that Hillary Clinton would be a big champion of the idiot blind policy developed by Carter.

 

President Clinton used force numerous times when necessary, so I'd hardly call him a "blind pacifist."

[Bak]

didn't carter get a nobel peace prize for his foreign policy?

 

asking for proof before going to war seems like a good thing... why are you against it?

 

 

and even so most republicans and democrats aren't so because they are bitter of presidents of old. I'd say most of them agree with the general policies of their !@#$%^&*ociated party.

[Aceflyer]

didn't carter get a nobel peace prize for his foreign policy?

 

Yes, he did. ^[1]

 

asking for proof before going to war seems like a good thing... why are you against it?

 

I agree with BaK-. Further, look at the current Iraq conflict, which is the kind of thing which may happen when you don't ask for enough proof before going to war.

[»D1st0rt]

So? Didn't !@#$%^&*anic win 11 Oscars?

[Aceflyer]

So? Didn't !@#$%^&*anic win 11 Oscars?

 

I also had IRL friends who loved !@#$%^&*anic, and it also made a ton of money. Plus I do not see why !@#$%^&*anic and how many Oscars it may have won are relevant to a thread about Hillary Clinton.

[Aileron]

The Nobel Peace Prize system became a liberal self love fest decades ago. Carter winning a Nobel Prize actually serves as an example of what I mean. Regardless of the consequences of his actions, they love him. They made his idiot policy the standard by which other liberals follow.

 

 

And hey, if you want to go back in time enough, the reason why we thought they had WMDs is because they used them in the Iran-Iraq war. The reason that war started is because Iraq tried to invade Iran, but the reason that the war continued after that invasion was repelled, causing escalation to the point of chemical weapons being used, was because Iran was run by imperialistic radicals. The reason they were in power was because Carter stopped supporting an allied regime. (Not a nice regime, but one that was less despotic than the one which replaced it.)

 

 

Asking for proof before a war is a good thing. However, after the proof is given, we shouldn't need to tag on other proofs. We could have simply not mentioned WMDs and taken Saddam Hussein out for being genocidal.

[Aceflyer]

And hey, if you want to go back in time enough, the reason why we thought they had WMDs is because they used them in the Iran-Iraq war. The reason that war started is because Iraq tried to invade Iran, but the reason that the war continued after that invasion was repelled, causing escalation to the point of chemical weapons being used, was because Iran was run by imperialistic radicals.

 

If that's true, that is some seriously out-of-date intelligence that was used. The Iran-Iraq war was in the ''s for crying out loud.

 

Asking for proof before a war is a good thing. However, after the proof is given, we shouldn't need to tag on other proofs. We could have simply not mentioned WMDs and taken Saddam Hussein out for being genocidal.

 

Except that no correct proof was ever given in the current Iraq conflict. The 'proof' that was used was flimsy at best even at the time and, as it turned out later, actually dead wrong.

 

I'm not arguing Saddam Hussein was a good leader; of course he wasn't. But while we're at it, let's invade China, Russia, and North Korea, and occupy large swathes of Africa, the Middle East, and South America for having leaders with bad human-rights records.

[Bak]

everyone who disagrees with you is liberal and therefore wrong. got it.

[»Ducky]

That's the internet for you. Can't blame anyone though, they're all a product of the liberal media.

[NBVegita]

The war in Iraq was a strategic political move, that backfired.

 

Put it into this perspective:

 

Right now Bush has an approval rating fluctuating around 30.

 

 

Now imagine that after 9/11 the USA captured Bin-Laden in Afghanistan. Now imagine that we uprooted Hussein and found a massive store of WMD's.

 

Now think about what that approval rating would be.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Bush administration was trying to save face after "failing" in Afghanistan.

 

Iraq happened to be the easiest target as a good majority of Americans could still vividly remember not only the gulf war, but also the atrocities that Hussein has committed/was committing.

 

I suspect, and there is no way to prove this hypothesis, that the American people wanted this war. Americans were still angry from 9/11, they were bitter that we did not capture the man responsible for the attacks and were looking for an easy outlet to pour that anger into. As stated about, it just so happened that Iraq was the easiest target, with the most existing hatred already present in the country. You can try to say that the American people were tricked into thinking that there were weapons involved, but in mid-late 03, once Hussein was captured and it was shown that there were no WMD's in Iraq, the President still had a 71% approval rating. His approval rating started dropping once people realized that the war was not going to end any time soon.

[Bak]

We shouldn't wage wars for political reasons or an approval rating.

[NBVegita]

Isn't that why the majority of wars have been fought?