US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Options: the deal, let Iran do whatever the fuck it wants, or bomb them back to the Stone Age. Which one is the best option?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

There are many military options short of bombing them into the stone age, or in a way going beyond that to invasion and regime removal. There are also economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions as well.

Despite all that, the deal is probably the best option, at this time, but there are other options.
 
There are many military options short of bombing them into the stone age, or in a way going beyond that to invasion and regime removal. There are also economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions as well.

Despite all that, the deal is probably the best option, at this time, but there are other options.


Yeah, because what the U.S. needs is another ground war in the Middle East. As for sanctions, as far as I know we've pretty much done as much we can in the past. Having no economic activity with them is pretty harsh.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Just let Israel do it. They are the ones most under threat. The Sunni Gulf States will give them a flyover corridor (They don't want Iran getting nukes either). Let them knockout the enrichment plants and set their program back years. The world community already dislikes Israel anyway. They're not trying to win a popularity contest.
 
They could try the "Homeland" method:

(don't click if you haven't seen season 3)

Send in one white guy to somehow kill the President of Iran with his bare hands, then despite the cover of the entire operation being blown within hours, the country will sprout immediately into full-fledged Jeffersonian democracy. Right after they hang the operative from a construction crane.
 
Just let Israel do it. They are the ones most under threat. The Sunni Gulf States will give them a flyover corridor (They don't want Iran getting nukes either). Let them knockout the enrichment plants and set their program back years. The world community already dislikes Israel anyway. They're not trying to win a popularity contest.


Literally all that does is make Iran even determined to defend itself as well as pissing the entire Arab world off, inspiring more terrorism and violence. We should be solving problems through diplomacy, not blowing up everything. If I recall, military action hasn't worked so well in the Middle East.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Literally all that does is make Iran even determined to defend itself as well as pissing the entire Arab world off, inspiring more terrorism and violence. We should be solving problems through diplomacy, not blowing up everything. If I recall, military action hasn't worked so well in the Middle East.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Not to knock Diplomacy down, but military action has actually been very effective in the Middle East compared to Diplomacy.

1948 - Israel saved its existence through military force after being invaded by five Arab countries.
1967 - Israel wins 6 Day war defeating Arab forces before their invasion.
1973 - Israel wins Yom Kipper war defeating Syria and Egyptian forces threatening Israel.
1991 - United States and Coalition Allies defeat Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War removing Iraqi military from Kuwait and liberating the country from its recent annexation and occupation by Iraq.
2001 - U.S. invades Afghanistan and removes the Taliban government there.
2003 - Saddam is removed from power by U.S. led coalition invasion.
2007 - U.S. military surge defeats many insurgents in Iraq and reduces violence throughout the country helping to bring about greater stability.
2011 - U.S. military action kills Bin Ladin in Pakistan

For Diplomacy the only big and decisive success has been the Camp David Accords started in 1978 and leading to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979.

The middle east is a rough neighborhood and there is not going to be a diplomatic solution to ISIS and what is left of Al Quada. But Diplomacy could play a key role in ending fighting between certain factions in Syria and getting the Assad regime to step down. Diplomacy could also help put Yemen back together and keep Iraq and Afghanistan from internally splitting apart.
 
Not to knock Diplomacy down, but military action has actually been very effective in the Middle East compared to Diplomacy.

1948 - Israel saved its existence through military force after being invaded by five Arab countries.
1967 - Israel wins 6 Day war defeating Arab forces before their invasion.
1973 - Israel wins Yom Kipper war defeating Syria and Egyptian forces threatening Israel.
1991 - United States and Coalition Allies defeat Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War removing Iraqi military from Kuwait and liberating the country from its recent annexation and occupation by Iraq.
2001 - U.S. invades Afghanistan and removes the Taliban government there.
2003 - Saddam is removed from power by U.S. led coalition invasion.
2007 - U.S. military surge defeats many insurgents in Iraq and reduces violence throughout the country helping to bring about greater stability.
2011 - U.S. military action kills Bin Ladin in Pakistan

For Diplomacy the only big and decisive success has been the Camp David Accords started in 1978 and leading to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979.

The middle east is a rough neighborhood and there is not going to be a diplomatic solution to ISIS and what is left of Al Quada. But Diplomacy could play a key role in ending fighting between certain factions in Syria and getting the Assad regime to step down. Diplomacy could also help put Yemen back together and keep Iraq and Afghanistan from internally splitting apart.

To be fair, the military action involving the USA in the middle east has been a mixed bag. You are 100% correct though when you say the middle east is a rough neighborhood...im not sure WE belong in that neighborhood unless directly attacked or as an absolute last resort.

The days of bombing entire cities off of the map are no longer an option. While we have the power to do so, we no longer have the will to do so. And im not sure we should be doing such a thing anyway.

For instance:

1991 - United States and Coalition Allies defeat Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War removing Iraqi military from Kuwait and liberating the country from its recent annexation and occupation by Iraq.

This was a success because the goal was achieved rather quickly and without massive human casualties predicted prior to the war.

2001 - U.S. invades Afghanistan and removes the Taliban government there.

This was a success based on how you present it, however, how long will this war/military operations go on and/or why do we still have troops there?

2003 - Saddam is removed from power by U.S. led coalition invasion.

indeed, however;

2007 - U.S. military surge defeats many insurgents in Iraq and reduces violence throughout the country helping to bring about greater stability.

Four years after the removal of Saddam, Iraq was still chaos, hence the surge. In fact Iraq is still a mess today. ISIS or ISIL or whatever would agree, along with hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded troops on either side.

2011 - U.S. military action kills Bin Ladin in Pakistan

success....until proven otherwise
 
Literally all that does is make Iran even determined to defend itself as well as pissing the entire Arab world off, inspiring more terrorism and violence. We should be solving problems through diplomacy, not blowing up everything. If I recall, military action hasn't worked so well in the Middle East.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Boom!

Well, not boom boom. But I agree. Useless to fight. You'll suppress them and force them into submission but the minute you leave, they'll want bloodthirsty revenge.

Make the quality of living better and people won't resort to "jihad." It's not as religious of a lifestyle as one might think. Definitely, they're brainwashed, but more often than not its out of hatred for our actions and money when it's offered for a better life.
 
Wait, what's the rush/obsession with bombing Iran?

It's always struck me as strange, this fixation with them as the enemy. Yes, there is history to it (not that they don't have a right to feel aggrieved by US actions over the years, anybody recall the Vincennes blowing some 70 children out of the sky and the US never apologizing?). But in any event, Iran is a vibrant, extremely educated country, one that is actually relatively well positioned to transition to a secular education system (again, historically they have had this), with a highly cultural and young population ready to embrace open relations with the west. I'd take my chances with them anyday over the Saudis.
 
CJRLOM9UcAAOtMl.png
 
It's not all that different from Obama's, if I recall correctly. Just makes all this "march to socialism" nonsense that much more laughable.
 
He said the best way to jumpstart the economy is to have people work more hours. The United States, he's talking about. The most overworked country on the planet.
 
He said the best way to jumpstart the economy is to have people work more hours. The United States, he's talking about. The most overworked country on the planet.

The average work week in the US I think is only 35 hours at the moment. I think he wants to see that increase as it will put more disposable income in peoples pockets that they can put back into the economy. More hours of work and a higher wage from a single job would be a good thing. There are many people swinging two or three part time jobs in order to make ends meet. To have a higher percentage of people working full time jobs as opposed to part time would be a good thing. The labor force participation rate is at its lowest since 1977 and is the primary reason the unemployment rate has been dropping the past 5 years. Plus, of those employed, many are working these part time jobs as oppose to a full time job. Wages for most jobs have been stagnant for years.
 
I'm sure that's how it will be explained away, but that's not what he said, and that's a very distorted portrait of our current economy you painted right there.
 
I'm sure Donald Trump could jump start the economy as president by employing millions to labour on his pharaonic pyramid (due for completion in term 6.5). It's no more disconnected from reality than most of what I hear actual supposed presidential aspirants, in America, in 2015, say.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that's how it will be explained away, but that's not what he said, and that's a very distorted portrait of our current economy you painted right there.

The labor force participation rate is down for several reasons. The babyboomers are retiring plus there are many people that were never able to get back into the workforce after losing their jobs during Obama's first term.
If the labor force participation rate were still as high as it was in 2008, the unemployment rate would be 10%. Its still more of an employers job market than an employees job market at the moment.

How in the bluest of blue hells are businesses supposed to afford to pay for all this extra labor?

When demand for a product or service the business provides increases, the business can afford to expand and add more workers. The real job creator is the consumer, not the business.
 
Employers need the money to pay their employees with before the employees can go spend that money on consumer goods.
 
Employers need the money to pay their employees with before the employees can go spend that money on consumer goods.

Where do you think Employers get the money? The consumer. The business would not exist without the consumer. The business was built to meet demand that already existed from the consumer. The consumer comes first, then the business to satisfy their demand and make a profit from it.
 
I guess Donald Trump's running for president is this year's equivalent of his reality TV show, he gets to be in the news, on TV, essentially all over media and social media. I hate to say it but im actually sort of looking forward to the GOP debates this time with him in it. Who knows what horrible things he will say on stage!

I don't think he could actually get the nomination, surely America is smarter than that, but it will be entertaining.
 
The 1% conspiracy theorist in me says he's in it to distract the GOP voting base into being into him and hating the other fellow, and then dropping out just in time for hatred to be internal from his supporters.

#DemConspiracy16
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom