[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

I would rather see my beloved country cast into the fires of revolution and secession than to see it turned into the abomination it would become under your presidency. Think about that.

That's a little harsh, don't you think?
Most of his policies aren't bad at all compared to what we're getting now, except for the foreign policy, and granted, it's a doozie.


CH- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for the time being. I guess we've been speaking to some different Iraqis because the ones I knew generally liked the U.S., or at least they seemed to.
In any case, I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind on the matter for now if it isn't already apparent that a key element of one's foreign policy cannot include the annihilation of cities that belong to a nation we are not at war with.
And as good as some of your other policies are, I couldn't vote for you just on the basis of that alone.

That being said, I can hardly criticize too much, because my idea is pretty heartless too. It's just a lot less overtly heartless.
I think you underestimate its' potential to turn the focus of Jihad elsewhere as well.
I'm a not so naive as to believe that it will make Islam "play nice" and I didn't imply that at all. In fact it will probably result in the destruction of the Kurdish and Israeli peoples if Europe doesn't intervene. Possibly some genocide of the Armenians, too.

Perhaps things will get so bad that people will demand invasion. I'd be against it, but it could happen in that instance. As long as America remains neutral, the Jihadists can hate us all they want because they are going to have bigger problems. And incidentally, U.S. alliance with Israel is petty high on their s*** list, as well as some other interventionist foreign policy we've had in the past.

The goal is not appeasement at all, but to ruin the Middle East with war. Right now, everyone is pissed at us for being there. So let's leave, and let the Jihadists piss everyone else off for a while. Once we do that, the inevitable war that has been festering for decades there will come much more quickly, and then maybe the world will decide that they want American intervention. Or maybe they'll do it themselves, which would be even better.

For the record, I'd be glad to be the Neville Chamberlain to you Winston Churchill in this case. I think Chamberlain had the right idea, as absurd as that may sound to the "common knowledge". Hitler stated quite clearly in Mein Kampf that his ambitions lay to the east and that he wanted to avoid war with France and England at all costs. His hope was for alliance with Poland(which was a dictatorship at the time) and several others in a war against the Soviet Union.
The world was plunged into war because Hitler wanted Danzig, which was a German city anyways, that wanted to be part of the Reich and Churchill said no.
What would have happened had Chamberlain been there and bowed to his wishes is mostly speculation, but it couldn't have been much worse than the bloodiest conflict in human history, the destruction of the British Empire, and leaving a dozen Eastern European states behind the Iron Curtain for half a century, including Poland, ironically. Not to mention the numerous wars spawned from the rise of the Soviet superpower.
Most likely, if Hitler had been given Danzig, what followed would have been a war between Fascist and Communist dictatorships where they bludgeoned themselves to death, leaving everyone else relatively intact, and that doesn't seem so bad to me.

That's a lot of speculation, of course, but what is not speculation is the fact that the U.S. would reap a lot of bad consequences from blowing up Mecca and Medina. That would definitely make us enemy number one, not only for Islam, but for a lot of other peoples as well.
You've got a lot of potential in your platforms but that one has got to go.

Sorry I don't have anything nicer to say about it.