Korean Job Discussion Forums

bucheon bum · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

On another thread Kuros wrote

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Ron Paul has been receiving disproportionate publicity, populist-style publicity. McCain also gets more publicity than he merits. But McCain has been a heavy-hitter for several years and is running on inertia -- like Dole did through 1996. Clinton and Obama get perhaps more publicity than they deserve because they are minorities, even if I agree that Clinton is well-qualified and deservedly the Democratic frontrunner.

One might ask why Richardson is not getting much publicity. But look at his performance in the debates, his fund-raising efforts, etc. He also comes from New Mexico and not New York, California, Texas, or a critical Southern state like, say, Edwards. How much weight, at the end of the day, do you think Richardson can pull...?

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

I, too, would like to see Richardson get more publicity. His candidacy is worthy of consideration. He seems a good man with considerable experience.

Maybe if JLo made a jiggle commercial for him...

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

Biden is better than Richardson in that Richardson has compeltely changed his view on Iraq . Read what he said in 1998. It is no different than what the Republicans were saying then. He has flip flopped . He ought to answer why.

Biden has be consistant on the subject. In fact he is the only one willing to have a debate on Iraq and Iraq only. The other candiates won't agree to it.

Also Biden voted to fund the solders in Iraq. A vote against the funding would have meant no funds for Mine Resistant vehicals. MRAPS. Clinton and Obama voted against it. Biden said he would rather lose the primaries than lose the war.

If Biden doesn't get it. Then I will vote for the Republican candidate. It is a clear choice.

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

He ought to explain why he thought the way he did in 1998. It would also leave Al Qaeda in Iraq and it would leave Iran free in Iraq.

And it would leave US allies like the Kurds unprotected.

In fact it would leave the US in the much the same situation as before 9-11.

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

the US can move its forces to Kurdistan.

If now the mideast now is calling Kurdistan the second Israel is shows how lost they are. Not like they said a word when Saddam gassed them.

Then again it might be accurate , Build up the Kurds into a second Israel.

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

The issue is, Joo, Iraq is pretty much screwed up by now. We could argue that a better job of it could have been done, but we had Katrina-indifferent-CINC delegating to Rumsfeld, and we got a disaster.

I don't believe we should give up on the Kurds, either. But I'm not sure that having troops on the ground helps the Kurds. We don't have any troops in Israel. American air power reaches ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE. The Kurds will be fine as long as they don't mess too much with Turkey, but I have a feeling that 10 years down the road we'll have mixed feelings about bailing out the Kurds.

Ever seen Blackhawk Down, Joo? Remember what the General said once the Blackhawk went down?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

anyway Biden has a plan I think it is worth looking at.

http://planforiraq.com/

It is more than that the US needs forces in the mid east to deal with AQ and to keep Iran honest.

In my opinion US forces in Kurdistan is a win/ win.

Guerrilla attacks need a loyal populace . They won't find that in Kurdistan.

IF AQ, / the insurgents / Iran want the US out of Kurdistan they will have to invade with massive and then the US can for the first time bring out the B-52s on them.Then the US for the first time in a while fight its preferred type of war. If they try then.

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

greedy_bones · Joined: 01 Jul 2007 Location: not quite sure anymore

There are two candidates for me. Obama and Kucinich.

Obama's good for a few reasons. One reason is that he was against the war from the outset.

Second is that he is anti Death Penalty. Most democrats support it, and it's a really stupid punishment.

The third reason is that he has one of the most serious plans for campaign finance reform and weakening lobbyist power in Washington.

I like Kuchinich a little more. He's down with all of the things I like about Obama, but he seems much more honest and less politcal. I also agree with his views on funding the war. His main point is that, if the war isn't funded, it will have to end. If we can't afford to keep soldiers there, we'll have to pull them out.

I'm doubtful that Kucinich will get the nomination, so if it's between Clinton and Obama, I'd rather have Obama.