j44

I'm starting to think that you are so anti-American that you will take any side and make any argument to side against the US. I have to say that asking if the US public would agree to fight South American is foolish. I can't even imagine Americans taking that question seriously. They would probably even question to use of the word 'fight.' Do you know anything about the economies of these Latin American countries you think would fight and beat the US? You must have an incredibly distorted view of the US position if you think they would be walked over by some Latin American countries. Point to some military number to back up your argument.

Pakistan's economy would collapse when the US pulled its aid from them which would obviously happen if they sided with Iran in a war. With regard to Afghanistan Karzai says those things for political purposes. He is very weak and at home need to shore up support to appearing to be anti-American. And what kind of military would Karzai have to back Iran? His counrty has 100,000 US troops in it. 'His' security forces are all paid and trained by the US. It is one thing to say US ties with Af/Pak are weak but you don't really think they would side with Iran against the US do you? God, the US and Iran cooperate on some issues that doesn't mean they would back each other in a war against a third party. South and Central America "A perect time to strike back?" They pale in comparison militarily to the US. Even if they combined all of their forces they would be outnumbered and the US 'decline' is overhyped. They are still the military superpower. And of course this is all assuming that these countries have more to gain than to lose. And the US has just as many allies in that region as they do 'enemies.' So Brazil. By far the regions superpower. Does it side with the 'anti-American bloc?'

I didnt say it had no allies I am questioning your assumption that these countries would back Iran in a war. Most of the countries you listed are allies with the US but have ties with Iran. Why would they side with Iran (whose strongest ally is practically in the midst of a civil war) against the US? Iran's domestic politics is a mess, as is there economy, they are isolated. Do you think Central and South American countries will back Iran militarily? Seriously? You shouldn't resort to name calling with that kind of argument. Nowhere did I say it would be a simply bombing campaign.

Are you saying all these countries would side with IRan in a war???

Yeah you said that. I would also like to see the spike in the sale of sweater vests if he wins the nomination.

You are right I don't know what will happen. My point is that it is a mistake to just assume they are going to war. se if they will just stumble into it without calculating carefully or by disregarding the consequences. The talk here seemed to not only assume that but to jump to boots on the ground, occupation and World War 3. And again to my point I don't see a punch in the face yet or on the horizon.

I think he is doing great considering that his campaign is dwarfed by Romney's in money and establishment support. He is also showing that he is a more skilled politician than Romney...at least in some ways....although that isn't that difficult at times.

Nope. Video? lol It still freaks me out when I see him behind Rae when he is speaking in the house. It doesn't seem right that he is still there. They are learning that it is very hard to run a country when the opposition can just lay into them at every turn and not have to pull their punches so they don't cause an election.

That. Is. Great.

Wha?

Black Nazi KENYAN Muslim. Who wants to jump in with thoughts on what it will mean if Sweater Vest wins Ohio?

But they advocated going into Iraq in the first place. They aren't doing that now. I think you are just assuming they will make the same mistakes and blindly gambling when it seems clear to me they have a policy that doesn't lead to war and will avoid it if at all possible. I'd bet my life that Canada doesn't get involved with any war with Iran unless Iran attacks the US directly.

I think even the most hawkish hawks aren't advocating a ground war and US policy isn't regime change. The US is clearly not in the position to launch a ground war. Could there be mission creep? Yes but I think they will do everything to avoid that. I just don't see how it gets to a ground war when both parties know they will bleed from such a situation. And I think that the US could be ok with just setting the clock back on the nuclear program for now.

I think I just heard Santorum compare the fight for freedom against the Nazis to the fight for 'freedom' against Obama.

I know it is only 7% but that is frickin close.

Wouldn't higher oil prices (as in skyrocketing prices) be a big drag on the global economy? War with Iran would be an economic clusterf___. What is with all this World War 3 and occupation talk? Any Israeli or American strike would hit air defenses and nuclear sites to slow down the nuclear program. While things would get out of hand when Iran retaliates via Hezbollah and other militants etc in Iraq and Afghanistan (maybe) and it would be VERY destabilizing to the region I don't see how any troops get sent to Iran. Especially since I don't see troops going to Syria and there is already somewhat of an insurgency there. God they aren't even willing to provide air support to set up humanitarian corridors in Syria. What makes people think anyone would send troops to Iran? And what country would side with Iran in a WW3 scenario? Isn't Syria there only really ally? and Assad has his own problems. I don't even see Hamas siding with Iran and Iran provides them with weapons and cash.

I'll admit it. We really have no idea what we are doing here in NS.

I didn't know any of that. I hear Cleary and Nfld. and I think hockey.

Judas! Georgia has like 70 plus delegates?

I have no doubt they want to hold them accountable but it's not like they don't have an axe to grind.

Oh come on now. This was a good topic to discuss and it took less than a page to get off the rails.

Because they were saying it wasn't left-wing and didn't have an agenda. IMO this is what is wrong with politics. People on the edges telling at people for being too partisan.

I don't think he is saying it is illegal just that it is obviously a left-wing operation with an agenda. Do you mean that are the bogeyman in the sense that they are scary or only appear to be scary?

I don't think I remember this one.

I’m not Harper’s biggest fan but even I don’t doubt that he is there to govern. He obviously has a hardball style but I think his attacks on institutions (if you want to call it that) is to further his agenda. That agenda is to change Canada into something that he wants. What he wants Canada to look like is up for debate but I have little doubt that his dream would be to govern a Conservative Canada that fits with his values and policies. He is moving the country in that direction. He sees these institutions criticise his policies, put up a fight against him, investigate the Conservatives when they (depending on your opinion) bend or break the rules and so forth. He doesn’t want these obstacles to stand in his way of governing the Canada he wants so he attacks them. His attacks are a means to an end. Not the ends themselves (Is that proper grammar???). Nixon was paranoid and thought everyone was out to get him. He even spied in Kissinger. I don’t see Harper in the same light at all. He isn’t paranoid. He seems buildings in Ottawa filled with Liberal appointees and doesn’t like it. Are his tactics harsh? Yes. Are they very, very harsh sometimes? Also yes. While I don’t think Harper is as far right as his critics see him I do think he is further right than any other PM I can think of off the top of my head. But he is pragmatic. Fairly recently (and I can’t remember the exact details of the case) but a judge disagreed with a federal law because she thought the law would give a man a sentence that was too harsh. Now I tend to agree with her but didn’t she overrule a law? A law passed by an elected government? I’m not a Conservative but I would be livid if I was. This is what Harper sees standing in his way. Call the judge an activist or something else but I can see Harper and other Conservatives being very, very upset about this sort of stuff. This is getting long so I’ll stop before I get into Nixon too much but until Harper carpet bombs South East Asia I’ll disagree with the comparison. 