I think Obama is going to pull away over the next few months. He is outrageously good at fundraising, whereas McCain is certainly not, and at the end of the day, money buys success in American politics. And Obama is going to wipe the floor with McCain in debates. Just imagine it: Obama will be calmly debating the issues, and McCain will be sitting there attacking him, looking like some senile granddad who forgot to take his medication.

 

Wouldn't be so sure, the 2 things that will decide this election are tax and also homeland security and Obama and McCain are pretty even on tax/economy and McCain has a massive lead on homeland security

 

I think that this will be the dirtiest election ever in a non third world nation and Obama will be ripped apart

Churchill lost a general election after the war, anyone who was PM during the war would have been popular, Churchill while a good speechmaker was a short tempered womanising alcoholic, he was a great speechmaker but I dispute him ever being a great PM as if he was he would have won post war election by a landslide

Churchill is directly responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of British soldiers lives (Dunkirk, which was solely because of his oratory skills) and is probably the reason we won the Battle of Britain... we survived that literally by the skin of our teeth, we were literally down to a few fighter planes, and historians credit Churchills oratory skills with significantly boosting fighter production, meaning if it wasnt for him and British spirits were low, we would probably have been invaded. That shows how valuable a good orator is. The fact he was a short-tempered womanising alcoholic only proves my point: despite all that, his oratory skills have ensured he goes down as one of the greatest PMs in history, which shows how valuable they are.

 

 

I think it would look bad to see Obama and the Iranian president sitting in the oval office or in Teheran drinking tea and smiling sweetly for journalists, it would be great PR for the Iranian president but make the west and Obama look weak, economic sanctions, trade embargo and complete ban on flights would be more effective than drinking tea with the Iranian president

So your tactic to try to get the Iranians to do as we wish is to... anger them even more. Ingenious.

Churchill is directly responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of British soldiers lives (Dunkirk, which was solely because of his oratory skills) and is probably the reason we won the Battle of Britain... we survived that literally by the skin of our teeth, we were literally down to a few fighter planes, and historians credit Churchills oratory skills with significantly boosting fighter production, meaning if it wasnt for him and British spirits were low, we would probably have been invaded. That shows how valuable a good orator is. The fact he was a short-tempered womanising alcoholic only proves my point: despite all that, his oratory skills have ensured he goes down as one of the greatest PMs in history, which shows how valuable they are.

So your tactic to try to get the Iranians to do as we wish is to... anger them even more. Ingenious.

 

I deliberately bought in Churchill losing post war election to prove a point to those that claim Maggie only won an election because of the Falklands ;)

 

I just don't think we can give Iran any concessions, to do so when they are financing and training terrorist groups will make us look weak and would be a propaganda coup for Iran even if we give them any concessions, If they want to have concessions then let them first stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and then curtail its weapons programme, then and only then should any meaningful talks occur

 

Sanctions worked with Colonel Gadaffi, we did not give Gadaffi concessions to make us look weak we squeezed Libya's economy dry and Gadaffi played ball with us and now is very reasonable with the west and has stopped funding terrorist groups, he made several concessions and condemned terror and we lifted the embargos and gave Libya aid, same can happen with Iran

 

Just blindly offering them concessions without there being a stick too would be a disaster

Churchill is directly responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of British soldiers lives (Dunkirk, which was solely because of his oratory skills)

 

erm... wasnt he directly responsible for putting them there in the first place?... :)

I deliberately bought in Churchill losing post war election to prove a point to those that claim Maggie only won an election because of the Falklands ;)

 

all indications from the polls were that maggie was on her way out in , being hugely unpopular, the falklands were used by her to redeam herself in the public eye.

 

now stick on topic , all maggie referances on this thread will be deleted :)

erm... wasnt he directly responsible for putting them there in the first place?... :)

No actually, the soldiers were deployed to Europe by Neville Chamberlain before Churchill got in. :P

In any case, my point was that it shows how a good public speaking skills is enough to achieve results.

 

I just don't think we can give Iran any concessions, to do so when they are financing and training terrorist groups will make us look weak and would be a propaganda coup for Iran even if we give them any concessions, If they want to have concessions then let them first stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and then curtail its weapons programme, then and only then should any meaningful talks occur

Who cares about looking weak? The principal aim should be to avoid a nuclear war and human bloodshed, and therefore, we should do whatever it takes to avoid it.

 

Sanctions worked with Colonel Gadaffi, we did not give Gadaffi concessions to make us look weak we squeezed Libya's economy dry and Gadaffi played ball with us and now is very reasonable with the west and has stopped funding terrorist groups, he made several concessions and condemned terror and we lifted the embargos and gave Libya aid, same can happen with Iran

One exception doesnt prove the rule, I could point out to the fact sanctions have had no impact on Mugabes regime in Zimbabwe.

 

Just blindly offering them concessions without there being a stick too would be a disaster

I didnt say we should, all I said was that theres absolutely no hope without talks, something McCain refuses to hold.

No actually, the soldiers were deployed to Europe by Neville Chamberlain before Churchill got in. :P

 

oh yeah...lol.. we didnt do the war at school, (i believe its rather common nowdays) we just stuck to normal history, the crusades, the renaisance, henry the 8th, the armada etc ... lol

Boris Johnson made some jokes at a dinner a year ago, does that make him unfit to be mayor ? course not

 

Boris Johnson IS unfit to be Mayor.... -_-

 

The principal aim should be to avoid a nuclear war and human bloodshed, and therefore, we should do whatever it takes to avoid it.

 

Precisely.. And that bloodshed aint gonna be avoided by at least four more years of the same warmongering, aggressively posturing, neo-con bullsh!t that's been a feature of bloody American politics for the past 8 years..... What, exactly has invading Afghanistan and Iraq gotten us...? An ever escalating wave of terrorism, that's what.... The facts are there WERE NO SUICIDE BOMBINGS ON THESE SHORES UNTIL WE INVADED IRAQ...... This is something that the warmongers and armchair generals just cannot seem to get their tiny brains around.....

 

Here's another fact - the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland didn't end until the IRA chose to declare a ceasefire..... If it were not for the negotiations and the Downing St Declaration thrashed out by the main players, then the bombings and killings would almost certainly have continued to this day.... Perhaps the thought of negotiating with people like Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad IS distasteful, but surely no more distasteful than negotiating with the likes of Gerry Adams or Martin MacGuiness... WHICH WE DID, and it WORKED.......

 

Obama wants to take a different path because he's savvy enough to know that war and aggression simply HAS NOT WORKED - which is a cold, hard FACT.... Yeah, real naivete and inexperience he's showing innit to be able to recognise this simple fact.....?

One exception doesnt prove the rule, I could point out to the fact sanctions have had no impact on Mugabes regime in Zimbabwe.

 

Sanctions didn't have any real effect on Ba'athist rule in Iraq either...... -_-

 

Sanctions didn't have any real effect on Ba'athist rule in Iraq either...... -_-

 

You can't compare Iran with Iraq and Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe and Iraq are/were run by crazed dictarors who only wanted one thing and that is power and would murder anyone that got in their way, Iran is a democracy and the Iranian people have far more opportunity to change the course of power in Iran so the leaders are much more likely to sit up and take notice if its people start suffering whereas Hussein and Mugabe dead babies and starving kids to them through sanctions meant nothing

Iran is a democracy

 

Yeah, okay, a "democracy" where most of the prospective candidates were actually stopped from fighting for office :lol: :lol: :lol: .....

 

Getting a vote doesn't automatically equate to "Democracy" mate (look up what "Democracy" actually means sometime mate - it means "people power" in its purest form)...... People in Zimbabwe get a vote, then the vote gets ignored, people in Russia get a vote, then end up with a President who's basically the lap-dog of the bloke who just left office, people in the US got a vote in 2000, then had their wishes ignored and a brutal dictator was implanted into power through nefarious and completely dishonest means....

 

"Democracy" is the biggest joke out there, we all know that the Top 1% of beourgeois scum out there controls the world (and they're pretty much ALL the same really, wanting to grasp power at all costs..); nothing "democratic" about it........

This is all the evidence you need to know why McCann should be in a nursing home for senile dementia, let alone to be fit to be President of the "most powerful nation of the world":

 

McCann making a (beyond sick) joke

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise is one or a combination of a war mongering racist, fascist, bigot.

 

Spot on Rich.... This is the sort of bigoted sh!te that someone like Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson (or Nick Griffin...?) would come up with.... Any of them fit to hold Public office....? No fukkin' chance......

 

..And Craig, this is very obviously a POLITICAL RALLY and not an off-the-cuff remark made at a private dinner... Get some bloody perspective mate.....

Spot on Rich.... This is the sort of bigoted sh!te that someone like Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson (or Nick Griffin...?) would come up with.... Any of them fit to hold Public office....? No fukkin' chance......

 

..And Craig, this is very obviously a POLITICAL RALLY and not an off-the-cuff remark made at a private dinner... Get some bloody perspective mate.....

 

Even if he was not joking and actually meant it where does he differ from the others ?

 

Hillary Clinton said she would and to use her words "obliterate Iran", Hillary has made other statements about Iran that make McCain seem like a bleeding heart liberal, Obama said recently that he would not hesitate to bomb Iran if they threatened Israel, Obama said too early on in the campaign that he would authorise bombing raids in Pakistan if intelligence showed that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan

 

I don't understand why McCain is being made to be the bogeyman here when others have made similar statements

For the record I am opposed to any bombing of Iran or invasion of Iran, it would cause a lot more harm than good and would unite islam against the west, islamic world didn't care much for Saddam Hussein he was a secular sunni muslim and not an islamist so there was no tears there but Iran is a totally different level not to mention much tougher military opposition

 

Iran should be made international pariahs until such time as they cease funding Hezbollah and Hamas and end their nuclear program, bombing them is not the answer that would mobilise the middle east against us but bleeding Iran dry financially, banning Iranian airlines from flying, banning all trade with Iran etc etc would show that we are serious

Iran should be made international pariahs until such time as they cease funding Hezbollah and Hamas and end their nuclear program, bombing them is not the answer that would mobilise the middle east against us but bleeding Iran dry financially, banning Iranian airlines from flying, banning all trade with Iran etc etc would show that we are serious

Again, all that would create would be a situation where Iran would have nothing to lose, and an alienated state with nuclear weapons (if they do have them) with nothing to lose would be an incredibly dangerous prospect for the world. And thats even ignoring the fact what you are proposing would be punishing the average innocent Iranian, which is totally unacceptable.

Edited June 22, 200817 yr by Danny

And thats even ignoring the fact what you are proposing would be punishing the average innocent Iranian, which is totally unacceptable.

 

Well bombs would punish them even more, 20,000 innocent Iraqis were butchered in 2 nights by allied planes carpet bombing residential areas of Baghdad so sanctions that force open revolt among the people would be more effective than bombs or invasions

 

I would personally like to see Iran's nuclear facilities bombed, Israeli planes blew up Saddam Hussein's nuclear factories a few years back so attacking the nuclear factories but not attacking or invading the country is something I would be happy with

When did I say anything about bombing Iran? Like Ive said, I want negotiations between the West and the Iranian president (and preferably, Id like the outcome to be a genuine step towards global disarmament, though I realise that isnt going to happen).

Hillary Clinton said she would and to use her words "obliterate Iran", Hillary has made other statements about Iran that make McCain seem like a bleeding heart liberal, Obama said recently that he would not hesitate to bomb Iran if they threatened Israel, Obama said too early on in the campaign that he would authorise bombing raids in Pakistan if intelligence showed that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan

 

Well, I dont like Hillary either, she's a proven hypocrite and liar, and probably much, much worse..... And somehow, despite the tough-talking, I dont think Obama actually would do these things, he's clearly taken an anti-war stance on Iraq.... McCain's part of the Republican establishment, I don't trust him, I think he would drag us into an invasion of Iran....