|
There was no sane reason for expanding the American Empire which is NATO during the period the Soviet Union had simply ceased to be.
If NATO is an American Empire, I am reminded of that comment on the Holy Roman Empire.
To paraphrase:
"Not Northern Atlantic, not a functioning treaty, not organized."
|
I'll do the point-by-point thing.
The point is that American Foreign Policy has in addition to it's successes it's equally dramatic and crippling failures.
Of course. Is anything less than perfection a total failure, on principle?
Our current President adopted the "Our Way or the Highway" modality and engaged in a foreign war with none of the justification that's used for it. Since then we have angered the majority of our allies on the planet, the terrorism level as raised significantly and we live in a state of perpetual fear in this country which has been used to shred many of our Constitutional pillars.
I will agree that the justification for the Iraq War was shaky, distracted from Afghanistan, was and carried out with utter incompetence (though the situation seems to be getting better) but on general principle I don't think taking down Saddam was entirely unjustifiable. We can argue about whether this was about WMD or oil (or maybe both - it might be worth pointing out that the reason Russia feels able to throw its weight around is because it is enjoying a windfall from oil revenues, and energy security for your country is a legitimate foreign policy concern to prevent countries gaining the leverage). I also think that Guantanamo Bay is pretty unjustifiable. However, the US is a democracy and as such can get rid of its politicians. It is also quite clear that the current adminisitration is somewhat chastened by the last few years and is cooperating more with its allies.
As for your perpetual fear - you have had no mainland terrorist incidents since 9/11, which I admit was obviously very bad, and the US has a pretty quiet muslim minority (mostly African American converts) compared with Europe (Arabs, Turks and Indians/Pakistanis). I'm British, and we lived with terrorism for years because of the IRA. Al Qaeda attacked the US without provocation and probably would continue to do so irrespective of the response. It is true that much muslim opinion is certainly unhappy about the wars in the Middle East and many youths have been radicalised. But, on balance, Muslim leaders (and Al Qaeda) have killed many more muslims than the Americans could ever do, but it doesn't suit the powers-that-be in most undemocratic muslim states to point this out.
The point is in the arena of foreign policy its not a simple of matter of "good guys" vs. "bad guys".
I'm well aware of that. In fact, I detect double standards at work here. Cynicism and aggression by US opponents seems to be OK (or par for the course) but not by the US. I'm not suggesting cynicism is OK, but much of what you decry is really the excercise of real politik and the need to find allies in order to achieve broader goals. In retrospect some of those allies are pretty unsavory - Pinochet, for example - and in some instance the alliances have proven to be deeply misguided - Osama bin Laden, the CIAs man in Afghanistan (for a while) - but you are enjoying 20:20 hindsight (would it have been an acceptable outcome to have the USSR influence and military might so close to India, Pakistan and Iran?).
Dramatic events like the conflict of Georgia are frequently the result of years of developing trends and in many cases can be traced to missteps which could have been avoided. There was no sane reason for expanding the American Empire which is NATO during the period the Soviet Union had simply ceased to be. Continuing to do so in the climate of Eastern Europe has served to fan the flames which feed the fire we have now.
Now that is crap, on so many levels. As pointed out, I'm British. NATO is no the Empire of the USA, it is an organisation allowing allies to enter in mutual military defence and cooperation. It was primarily set up to contain the USSR, and did a pretty good job, since it prevented the USSR invading Western Europe. However, no one in it is a US stooge.
While it is true that the USSR isn't there any longer, there is a government in place that clearly hankers back to the the days of the USSR and is clearly annoyed at its loss of territory. But if it is so provocative, why is it that so many former Eastern Bloc countries, even ex-Soviet states like Ukraine and Georgia want to join? The evidence is clear from the Russian invasion. Russia has displayed bad faith on a number of occasions (cutting off the gas supply to Ukraine and Western Europe when piqued, for example) and is now showing territorial ambitions. These countries want to cement their place within the sphere of the west, and who can blame them after being occupied by Russian forces after WWII (in the case of the Warsaw Pact countries) or earlier.
Has expanding NATO antagonised the USSR? However, it is a pact for mutual defence, and is no threat to Russia unless it does something stupid. And in the end, its actions are quite likely to hasten the other states to rush into the embrace of NATO - see Poland busily signing the treaty to have the anti-missile shield in its country a few days ago.
And our white hat has a bit of grey in it as well. Among our "allies of democracy" we can list these folks at various times, Pol Pot, Miguel Noriega, Joseph Stalin, The Shah of Iran, and the murderous prior regime of El Salvador as well as Saddam Hussein. We have topped democraticaly elected governments to replace them with compliant dictators, and sought to undermine others for corporate benefit. In short strip away the rhetoric and the smoke screens, and you'll find that the black and the white aren't that different from each other at all.
Again, you forget that most of that was about the Cold War. And you seem to want clean hands when the making of alliances always involves compromises. For example, is it acceptable to torture someone, if toerturing them would save another life? Ten lives? A hundred? A million? I don't know, and God forbid I ever have to make that decision, or you. But I bet George W had to. Maybe he got the answer worng, and maybe he didn't.
Has expanding NATO antagonised the USSR? However, it is a pact for mutual defence, and is no threat to Russia unless it does something stupid. And in the end, its actions are quite likely to hasten the other states to rush into the embrace of NATO - see Poland busily signing the treaty to have the anti-missile shield in its country a few days ago.
Again, you forget that most of that was about the Cold War. And you seem to want clean hands when the making of alliances always involves compromises. For example, is it acceptable to torture someone, if toerturing them would save another life? Ten lives? A hundred? A million? I don't know, and God forbid I ever have to make that decision, or you. But I bet George W had to. Maybe he got the answer worng, and maybe he didn't.
Has NATO expansion antagonized Russia in general and Putin specifically? I think that answer is pretty clearly yes. Exactly how would you feel if you were increasingly surrounded by countries joining an alliance that was, less than 20 years ago, hostile? Particularly given the history of invasion and destruction visited on your country by some of those members AND the fact that many of the sentiments grew out of antagonisms developed even before you were born?
And now we're putting missiles in Poland, permanent bases in former Soviet republics. At the risk of sounding a little like Pat Buchanan, have we been baiting the Russians? Can't anyone realize that these things might be viewed as disturbing to an old cold war rival? Where's Condi Rice's soviet/eastern european expertise? Is it ever going to show up? What happened to Bush's soulful gaze into Putin's eyes?
And you are right. With alliances, often certain compromises must be made. We compromised into an alliance with the Soviets against what was perceived to be a worse threat and, I believe, were right to do so. And then we compromised again by taking in Nazi intelligence assets because of worries about our erstwhile allies. I would say that was not the right compromise to make. There are right compromises and wrong ones in most of these situations, not all of which can be realized only by 20/20 hindsight. Pinochet was a bad apple right from the beginning, our involvement in Chilean politics never necessary for core American interests.
Barring incredibly bad relationships on the verge of war, there's almost always time for careful consideration, restructure, and relationship building. Adding eastern European states to NATO has not been necessary by any stretch of the imagination, since NATO could always find some justification to come to their defense if truly threatened. NATO could have been restructured to make it more palatable to the Russians before adding Eastern European states. But the truth is, we didn't want to take the time or effort to make things easier on the Russians and their concerns, build in trust, build in assurances, extend security cooperation to them in far-reaching ways.
No wonder they're a bit pissy these days.
|
|
You are right...what need Russia of disobedient Provincial States ruled by disloyal fundamentalist terrorists corrupted by the USA who have no problem with ethnic cleansing against a majority Russian Population...Oh thats right. The Majority are Russian Tourists so they can all bugger off home.
You never know: Maybe Russia can pay back the 2 cents a square mile and just buy Alaska back from the next US President.
|
Hey now! This is the "Cool, Considerate" thread. The "Witty, Sarcastic" thread is two threads down, on the right hand side. Just look for Sebastian and I standing around drinking beers and arguing over the existential nature of the universe. You can't miss it.There was no sane reason for expanding the American Empire which is NATO during the period the Soviet Union had simply ceased to be.Those europeans are some uppity serfs, I tell you what! Don't they know they should bow before their masters, the Great American Empire?
Witty and Sarcastic is allowed as long as it remains cool and considerate.
|
Witty and Sarcastic is allowed as long as it remains cool and considerate.Hey now! This is the "Cool, Considerate" thread. The "Witty, Sarcastic" thread is two threads down, on the right hand side. Just look for Sebastian and I standing around drinking beers and arguing over the existential nature of the universe. You can't miss it.There was no sane reason for expanding the American Empire which is NATO during the period the Soviet Union had simply ceased to be.Those europeans are some uppity serfs, I tell you what! Don't they know they should bow before their masters, the Great American Empire?
True. But did you like the attempt to divert the conversation into beer drinking?
|
|
You are right...what need Russia of disobedient Provincial States ruled by disloyal fundamentalist terrorists corrupted by the USA who have no problem with ethnic cleansing against a majority Russian Population...Oh thats right. The Majority are Russian Tourists so they can all bugger off home.
You never know: Maybe Russia can pay back the 2 cents a square mile and just buy Alaska back from the next US President.
Maybe they can give us back all them eurodollars for that railroad that Stalin nationalized too.
|
|
Has NATO expansion antagonized Russia in general and Putin specifically? I think that answer is pretty clearly yes. Exactly how would you feel if you were increasingly surrounded by countries joining an alliance that was, less than 20 years ago, hostile? Particularly given the history of invasion and destruction visited on your country by some of those members AND the fact that many of the sentiments grew out of antagonisms developed even before you were born?
And now we're putting missiles in Poland, permanent bases in former Soviet republics. At the risk of sounding a little like Pat Buchanan, have we been baiting the Russians? Can't anyone realize that these things might be viewed as disturbing to an old cold war rival? Where's Condi Rice's soviet/eastern european expertise? Is it ever going to show up? What happened to Bush's soulful gaze into Putin's eyes?
And you are right. With alliances, often certain compromises must be made. We compromised into an alliance with the Soviets against what was perceived to be a worse threat and, I believe, were right to do so. And then we compromised again by taking in Nazi intelligence assets because of worries about our erstwhile allies. I would say that was not the right compromise to make. There are right compromises and wrong ones in most of these situations, not all of which can be realized only by 20/20 hindsight. Pinochet was a bad apple right from the beginning, our involvement in Chilean politics never necessary for core American interests.
Barring incredibly bad relationships on the verge of war, there's almost always time for careful consideration, restructure, and relationship building. Adding eastern European states to NATO has not been necessary by any stretch of the imagination, since NATO could always find some justification to come to their defense if truly threatened. NATO could have been restructured to make it more palatable to the Russians before adding Eastern European states. But the truth is, we didn't want to take the time or effort to make things easier on the Russians and their concerns, build in trust, build in assurances, extend security cooperation to them in far-reaching ways.
No wonder they're a bit pissy these days.
On the specific point of the missiles in Poland, they are these interceptor missiles which are intended to hit ICBMs. They actually carry no explosives and work by kinetic energy (assuming they work at all, which is moot) so they are not useful for bombarding enemy cities. They might negate the Russian nuclear deterrant but, supposedly, the West isn't the enemy any more. Certainly, threatening to nuke Poland for installing a purely defensive missile system seems a little excessive.
And on Pinochet - well, he was a bastard, no doubt. But Allende was (arguably) in the pocket of the Cubans (and therefore, the Russians) and another communist state in South and Central America was probably likely not in the US interest. In some ways, Pinochet is a bad example - horribly repressive while around, sure, but he gave up power (fairly) voluntarily and Chile has a pretty dynamic economy due largely to economic reforms while he was in power. For the majority of Chileans, he was arguably and in the long term a good thing. But yeah, he was still a mudering bastard.
On the issue of the Eastern European states joining NATO (and, less importantly, the EU), it is worth pointing out that, having been occupied for decades they are very keen to cement themselves into the West and its political structures to try and make sure it never happens again. The USSR crushed democratic reforms in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and, also, Poland during the time it was in charge there, so they know what it is like to have Russian tanks roll over the border. And it is not in the interests of the US in any shape or form to allow fragile democracies to either fall back into the orbit of an increasingly repressive Russia or suffer military invasion, politically, economically of militarily. NATO is aso about mutual defence - Russia is only threatened if it actually attacks a NATO member.
That is not to say that Russia doesn't have some possible reasons to complain. NATO did attack Serbia, a Russian ally, over Kosovo, and this not only sends a mixed message to Russia (with Russian-speakers in the newly independent republics and a patchwork of ethnicities and races within) but it also emphasised, at the time, the weakness of Russia as it could do precisely nothing about it. But, on the other hand, Russia seems to prefer to make mischief rather than engage and try to resolve issues, and seems keen on fostering a terrific sense if disgruntlement about where it is at the moment in the new world order. This nationalism doubtless helps cement the current bunch in power, but it is of little help in actually dealing with issues equitably.
Certainly, threatening to nuke Poland for installing a purely defensive missile system seems a little excessive.
One important point is if the system is actually "purely defensive" (I have no idea one way or the other, with no access to technical system details). But if it could in any way be used to attack Russia, then I'd consider it an extreme provocation to place it next door to them -- rather analogous to the Cuban missile crisis, in fact.
|
|
Certainly, threatening to nuke Poland for installing a purely defensive missile system seems a little excessive.One important point is if the system is actually "purely defensive" (I have no idea one way or the other, with no access to technical system details). But if it could in any way be used to attack Russia, then I'd consider it an extreme provocation to place it next door to them -- rather analogous to the Cuban missile crisis, in fact.
Ah, but Czar Vlad has also said that it's time for them to consider militarizing Cuba again.
|
|
According to Edward McClelland of Salon.com the invention of air conditioning is responsible for the Republicans ruining the country.
|
|
Certainly, threatening to nuke Poland for installing a purely defensive missile system seems a little excessive.
One important point is if the system is actually "purely defensive" (I have no idea one way or the other, with no access to technical system details). But if it could in any way be used to attack Russia, then I'd consider it an extreme provocation to place it next door to them -- rather analogous to the Cuban missile crisis, in fact.
Well, arguably they could replace the missile launchers with kinetic warheads with nukes, and that is what the Russians have complained about. But then they have submarines and mobile cruise missile launchers and all sort of stuff than could do that, with much less fuss and much less detectably, over twenty years ago. And America has plenty of ICBMs that could rain death upon Russian from the US mainland too (and, of course, so do the Russians). So it seems to be more about loss of face and influence than about serious concern about NATO attacking Russia.
According to Edward McClelland of Salon.com the invention of air conditioning is responsible for the Republicans ruining the country.
If people are leaving the North to move to the South because businesses have moved there due to use of A/C and not having to deal with blizzards (I assume), then wouldn't that make the South more "Blue" not more "Red"?
Well, arguably they could replace the missile launchers with kinetic warheads with nukes, and that is what the Russians have complained about. But then they have submarines and mobile cruise missile launchers and all sort of stuff than could do that, with much less fuss and much less detectably, over twenty years ago. And America has plenty of ICBMs that could rain death upon Russian from the US mainland too (and, of course, so do the Russians). So it seems to be more about loss of face and influence than about serious concern about NATO attacking Russia.
Let's look at it this way:
For decades, the US and USSR held each other's populations hostage with the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Initial weapons were well-suited for it, being either impossible to shoot down but only moderately accurate (ICBMs and sub-fired missiles) or could be shot down (bombers). Not exactly moral, keeping people hostage, but fairly stable. Both sides had a real incentive to deal with each other since any move to "take out" the other could be detected and reliably retaliated against, even if if meant we both "lost" the game.Add Reagan-era flexible response ideas, SDI, and stealth-bombers. You had the US moving away from MAD and toward the ability to target Soviet weapon systems... meaning you had a deliberate move away from tossing the chessboard off the table and ending the game for both players and toward a real idea you were trying to "win" the game. You lost a lot of stability because the Soviets had to look on their forces as vulnerable if they weren't fired off early enough, if they weren't twitchy enough on the trigger.
Now, we have anti-missile defenses going in around Russia (or at least plans for it) and a unilateral repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Whether or not they can take down old ICBMs or now is immaterial. Once the facilities are in place, who knows what more advanced weapon (or defensive) systems will be put in down the road? Suddenly, the Russians have to look at the US trying to make their deterrent systems vulnerable again.
So whether or not we had things 20 years ago, I think, doesn't matter. Those things we were adding then were already making the situation more stressful. Now let's add in old ethnic and territorial conflicts from the 19th and 20th centuries to NATO's worries as well as trying to mesh political/military cultures that haven't had 50+ years go grow together like the rest of NATO/Western Europe.
|
|
If people are leaving the North to move to the South because businesses have moved there due to use of A/C and not having to deal with blizzards (I assume), then wouldn't that make the South more "Blue" not more "Red"?
It depends?
He has a number of rather gratuitously handwaved assumptions in that piece. I will try to account for them all.
He is right that more people staying in the south and more people moving from the north will change the number of representatives, and thus the number of electoral votes. The problem is as you ask, in that he seems to handwave away voter participation. Apparently all those people who voted solidly Democrat up north no longer bother to vote when they go down south.
That also ignores that some people in the north really are conservative; upstate NY is much more Republican, balancing out NYc being overwhelmingly Democrat. Conversely not everyone down south is conservative, and those groups not moving create larger and larger pockets of liberal voted. Cynthia McKinney was elected in Georgia, not California.
Overall he has a nice quick and dirty theory, with a cute soundbite basis, but the overall situation is a lot more complex.
|
|
According to Edward McClelland of Salon.com the invention of air conditioning is responsible for the Republicans ruining the country.If people are leaving the North to move to the South because businesses have moved there due to use of A/C and not having to deal with blizzards (I assume), then wouldn't that make the South more "Blue" not more "Red"?
considering that most of the people moving to the south do so to escape not only the higher unemployment up north, but the unions and the high taxes in the "rust belt" states (and, consequently, the higher costs of living), i'd have to say, um, no. just makes the southern states more "red" for the most part, and the northern states more "blue" by subtraction...
|
|
what do y'all think about the lawsuit filed by democrat phillip berg in philadelphia today?What lawsuit?Phil Berg, a Hillary supporter, is filing a suit claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible for the office of president due to birth/naturalization status.
Here's the link. I think this is a desperate play, but if it works out for Sen. Obama then it will be a landmark decision. I am certain that this will have to go to the Supreme Court before it's resolved.
|
|
Let's look at it this way:
For decades, the US and USSR held each other's populations hostage with the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Initial weapons were well-suited for it, being either impossible to shoot down but only moderately accurate (ICBMs and sub-fired missiles) or could be shot down (bombers). Not exactly moral, keeping people hostage, but fairly stable. Both sides had a real incentive to deal with each other since any move to "take out" the other could be detected and reliably retaliated against, even if if meant we both "lost" the game.
Add Reagan-era flexible response ideas, SDI, and stealth-bombers. You had the US moving away from MAD and toward the ability to target Soviet weapon systems... meaning you had a deliberate move away from tossing the chessboard off the table and ending the game for both players and toward a real idea you were trying to "win" the game. You lost a lot of stability because the Soviets had to look on their forces as vulnerable if they weren't fired off early enough, if they weren't twitchy enough on the trigger.
Now, we have anti-missile defenses going in around Russia (or at least plans for it) and a unilateral repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Whether or not they can take down old ICBMs or now is immaterial. Once the facilities are in place, who knows what more advanced weapon (or defensive) systems will be put in down the road? Suddenly, the Russians have to look at the US trying to make their deterrent systems vulnerable again.
So whether or not we had things 20 years ago, I think, doesn't matter. Those things we were adding then were already making the situation more stressful. Now let's add in old ethnic and territorial conflicts from the 19th and 20th centuries to NATO's worries as well as trying to mesh political/military cultures that haven't had 50+ years go grow together like the rest of NATO/Western Europe.
I think you somewhat misunderstand the situation. You speak of people being "held hostage" but the analogy is bogus. The US held no one hostage (any more than the current UK and French nuclear deterrents hold anyone hostage). They are intended to deter attack. What is immoral about that? Would a conventional war in Western Europe between the US and the Warsaw Pact have suited your sensibilities more?
It is certainly true that a missle defence system could make their nuclear deterrent kind of useless if they chose to attack the US and its NATO allies. However, it could do the same to the UK and the Frech nuclear deterrents too, yet we are totally unfazed by the thing because we have no real intention of attacking the US, NATO allies, or anyone else. Our nuclear deterrent is just that - for deterrence. It might also be worth pointing out that the move forward in technology, and the USSR's incapability to keep up without destroying their economy and their regime, was one of the great successes of the policy (even though plenty of nay-sayers suggested that it was "provocative" at the time).
The only really feasible problem that the Russians could have with the system is if they decide to nuke a NATO state. And their rhetoric towards Poland for having the temerity to, as a sovereign state, have an allied military facility on their soil, suggests that this might be a worry. So please set up more missile bases.
This thing with Russia, NATO, Poland and Georgia is about Russian nationalism. I see little that NATO or anyone else much could do about the mindset of the current Russian regime, and its desire to wrap itself in the Russian flag to stiffle opposition, seize productive assets to enrich the cozy oligarchy of robber barons and KGB on the make, and settle old scores.
To the extent that Russia feels threatened, as opposed to just wanting to grab back influence over states it once considered to be part of itself, it is fostered by a lack of will to develop a modern pluralistic society with a healthy economy (well, communicsts never wre much good at economics) and a hostility to the West due to the (largely self-inflicted) humiliations that Russia has suffered over the last twenty years.
And I see little wrong in provoking Russia, in the right way (i.e. not the Georgia way). The country if fundamentally weak, with the vast proportion of its strength derived from the price of oil (which is likely to decline in the long term as the consumers of the stuff learn to economise and Europe, a big consumer of Russian oil and gas, has a big incentive now to diversify from that source of energy). As I pointed out above, "provocation" ultimately brought down the evil Soviet regime - Russia is in no real state to go toe-to-toe with the US, and will ultimately lose any confrontation in the long term. Probably without a shot being fired.
|
|
Add Reagan-era flexible response ideas, SDI, and stealth-bombers. You had the US moving away from MAD and toward the ability to target Soviet weapon systems... meaning you had a deliberate move away from tossing the chessboard off the table and ending the game for both players and toward a real idea you were trying to "win" the game. You lost a lot of stability because the Soviets had to look on their forces as vulnerable if they weren't fired off early enough, if they weren't twitchy enough on the trigger.
I would argue that the Reagan plan was much more civilized because as you said, before we were essentially targeting civilians. With SDI and the other programs we moved away from MAD and towards declaring that a conflict between the USA and the USSR would be fought between armies and not between countries. I think that the much more civilized approach is to say that if you try and destroy us we will protect ourselves by removing your ability to make war than to say that if you attack us we will wipe your culture off the map. It was a gutsy move because moving from MAD to SDI meant that we were practically inviting a Soviet attack until the technology could be perfected.
|
|
Going back to the death penalty discussion, have you heard about this evil S.O.B?
Thoughts?
It brings to mind the saying that the man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. This guy is too evil to kill. Instead he should be thrown into the deepest hole we can find and trotted out any time someone say evil doesn't exist.
|
|
Going back to the death penalty discussion, have you heard about this evil S.O.B?
Thoughts?
With someone this despicable, I'd say the death-penalty is exactly what he deserved. However, even if they give it to him, he's likely to try appeal after appeal and sit in prison for years.
With such seemingly overwhelming evidence of his guilt, too bad they can't fast-track him for a bullet in the head.
Biden does have the unfortunate baggage of 'plagarist' which will be pounced on by McCain's people. Mike Dukakis' people did a scathing video of Biden reading a speech which was cut in with a British Labour politician making the same speech. It sank Biden's presidential hopes in '88 and cleared the path for Dukakis. Archived story on tape
|
|
I'm from Delaware so everything Biden does is heard around here so here is my opinion.....
I like Biden a lot. He seems to get a lot of stuff done and isn't afraid to stand up and fight for his opinion. I would rather him be going for President but I like him enough to vote for Obama with him as VP. I was probably going to vote Obama anyway but this is a clincher for me.
Biden is a good man (for a politician).
I quite like Biden. He more solid and sincere than most I've seen (than most, I said). I would have voted him over anyone on the right or left. Him getting tapped for VP? I wouldn't have seen that coming.
Obama has announced that Joe Biden will be his running mate. What are your thoughts on that?
Bad decision on Obama's part. Biden has an abrasive personality(like Cheney)and he won't help get Obama any more votes. Besides, some of those
ethnic jokes that Biden did a few years ago are going to become a drag onObama's campaign.
Besides, some of those ethnic jokes that Biden did a few years ago are going to become a drag on Obama's campaign.
I don't know if they were jokes so much as just "racially insensitive" comments.
Personally this has shifted Obama down in my preference and now I am giving McCain more of a lead in my personal view (I am not suggesting who will win, just who I will end up voting for). If McCain picks Lieberman, or heaven forbid Bobby Jindal, that would move McCain squarely in my favor and there would have to be a very serious flub for it to slip out of his hands.
Jeez, could you image a VP debate with Biden and Jindal, with Biden's American-Indian and 7-11/Dunken Donuts comments out there?
How does it work in US ? Who chooses the vice president ?
The candidate or his party ?
How does it work in US ? Who chooses the vice president ?
The candidate or his party ?
The canidate makes the decision.
|
|
Besides, some of those ethnic jokes that Biden did a few years ago are going to become a drag on Obama's campaign.I don't know if they were jokes so much as just "racially insensitive" comments.
Personally this has shifted Obama down in my preference and now I am giving McCain more of a lead in my personal view (I am not suggesting who will win, just who I will end up voting for). If McCain picks Lieberman, or heaven forbid Bobby Jindal, that would move McCain squarely in my favor and there would have to be a very serious flub for it to slip out of his hands.
Jeez, could you image a VP debate with Biden and Jindal, with Biden's American-Indian and 7-11/Dunken Donuts comments out there?
i hope he doesn't pick jindal. louisiana finally got a governor who doesn't play, it would be a shame to have him move on before he can put a dent in the corruption and silliness in that state...
|
|
i hope he doesn't pick jindal. louisiana finally got a governor who doesn't play, it would be a shame to have him move on before he can put a dent in the corruption and silliness in that state...
I'm hoping he picks Romney. He's a strong choice who brings a lot of real world experiance to the table, particularly in the economic sector. He also brings some states like Michigan into play for McCain when they would otherwise go to Obama. It might cost McCain a few evangelical votes because of his religion, but it seems that lately even they are warming up to him.
|
|
i hope he doesn't pick jindal. louisiana finally got a governor who doesn't play, it would be a shame to have him move on before he can put a dent in the corruption and silliness in that state...
As someone who was born and raised in the New Orleans area, I have to agree. I'd like to see Bobby Jindal stay right where he is and finally try to fix that state after decades of corrupt, good-old-boy politics has reduced it to a cess-pool. Hell, one of the reasons I moved away was that I didn't really see much future for myself in the state. Maybe if they fix things, I can go back one day.
Maybe in another 4 to 8 years, Jindal can run on a national ticket and try to help fix the federal government as well.
|
|
Obama has announced that Joe Biden will be his running mate. What are your thoughts on that?Bad decision on Obama's part. Biden has an abrasive personality(like Cheney)and he won't help get Obama any more votes. Besides, some of those
ethnic jokes that Biden did a few years ago are going to become a drag on
Obama's campaign.
Wasn't Biden the same guy that plagiarized some of JFK's speeches?
Wasn't Biden the same guy that plagiarized some of JFK's speeches?
No, he plagiarized some of Neil Kinnock's (a british politician) speeches.
|
|
Wasn't Biden the same guy that plagiarized some of JFK's speeches?No, he plagiarized some of Neil Kinnock's (a british politician) speeches.
And a paper while at Syrucuse. I also think that Biden knocks a few holes in Obama's argument that he represents change since Biden has been in the Senate for 36 years. He was actually elected before he was eligable to hold office, but his birthday fell between the election and the actual swearing in so it was allowed. Did you see that the Washington Post is calling Biden Obama's Dick Cheney?
Did you see that the Washington Post is calling Biden Obama's Dick Cheney?
I'm not sure I'd call that a particularly apt comparison. Maybe if you just look at the superficial comparisons - a senior legislator picked by a relative outsider. But the comparison largely ends there and doesn't really apply to what we know of their personal or expected working relationship.
I don't really see a Biden puppet-master stalking the White House as a very likely scenario.|
|
Did you see that the Washington Post is calling Biden Obama's Dick Cheney?I'm not sure I'd call that a particularly apt comparison.
Yeah, I wondered when being Dick Cheney became a good thing in the eyes of the washington Post.
Since the election is over, perhaps we can talk politics without being personally divisive. Things are getting interesting with the upcoming transfer of power. There is a lot of economic news as well.
What do you think of the car company bailout? Good idea to preserve American manufacturing or throwing money in a hole?
The breaking scandal with Bernard Madoff. Will his massive $50 billion-dollar Ponzi scheme drag the economy down more? Should he be stripped of all his money or just do time or both?
Will Obama be able to bring change to the table after he assumes power or will he have to compromise with the powers-that-be in the Washington Democratic circles? Will the Republicans be able to toss blame on him for the upcoming year if the economy worsens?
There are indications that Russia will attempt to 'test' the Obama administration during the transition period. What do you think Putin & co. will try?
Will the scandal involving Gov. Blagojevich and his efforts to sell Obama's senate seat expand? Will Obama be tainted by the scandal?
OPEC is cutting production of oil to shore up falling prices. Will this put another wrench in the economic recovery? Or will it spur the development of good alternatives or domestic drilling?
Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper is under threat from his rivals. He activated an obscure parlimentary move to delay an election. What will the fallout be for Canadian politics?
Just some fun topics. Have a festive Saturnalia everyone!
|
|
Since the election is over, perhaps we can talk politics without being personally divisive. Things are getting interesting with the upcoming transfer of power. There is a lot of economic news as well.
What do you think of the car company bailout? Good idea to preserve American manufacturing or throwing money in a hole?
It's a daft idea, it'll cost a fortune and won't change the economy. The Big Three are not even the car manufacturing economy, never mind the rest of it. Of course, they are American and to have the knock to national prestige and confidence that goes with a major domestic industry collapsing and only having 'foreign' alternatives, especially for as nationalistic a country as the USA.
The breaking scandal with Bernard Madoff. Will his massive $50 billion-dollar Ponzi scheme drag the economy down more? Should he be stripped of all his money or just do time or both?
He should be punished to the full extent of the law but no further. Even fraudsters are entitled to a fair trial and it's not as if he murdered anyone, so some of the calls for his head are over the top.
Will Obama be able to bring change to the table after he assumes power or will he have to compromise with the powers-that-be in the Washington Democratic circles? Will the Republicans be able to toss blame on him for the upcoming year if the economy worsens?
Obama will be an ok President. He will not change things as much as his supporters want and his opponents fear. He will have to compromise because he has no ability to make changes otherwise. That's how politics works and to be honest, how it should work. Dictatorships aren't a good thing even if they are elected. However, the Republicans will blame him for everything, even if it's not his fault. That's also part of politics.
There are indications that Russia will attempt to 'test' the Obama administration during the transition period. What do you think Putin & co. will try?
No idea, but I suspect it will be economic rather than military. Probably another gas dispute with its neighbours like Ukraine.
Will the scandal involving Gov. Blagojevich and his efforts to sell Obama's senate seat expand? Will Obama be tainted by the scandal?
That depends. If it involved more people, it will expand. If it was his idea, it probably won't. Did Obama know about it? But if there's any shred of a link, you can bet it will be found.
OPEC is cutting production of oil to shore up falling prices. Will this put another wrench in the economic recovery? Or will it spur the development of good alternatives or domestic drilling?
It won't matter. The recession is driving down prices faster than OPEC can keep them up unless they slash production so much that they'd wreck their own economies completely. Thus this is a speedbump rather than a road blockage. It still hurts when you go over it too fast, but you'll probably live.
Just some fun topics. Have a festive Saturnalia everyone!
And yourself. Have a [insert appropriate greeting based on whichever religious holiday you're celebrating].
|
|
Since the election is over, perhaps we can talk politics without being personally divisive. Things are getting interesting with the upcoming transfer of power. There is a lot of economic news as well.
What do you think of the car company bailout? Good idea to preserve American manufacturing or throwing money in a hole?
Giving money to the Big Three is a bad idea if it does not come with fundamental changes in the way that they do buisness. Mediocre sale due to a lack of excitement about their product is in part what has gotten them here. They need to find ways to get people excited about their product again, and asking for billions in tax payer dollars is not the way to do it.
There also needs to be a renegotiation of contracts with the UAW. The father of one of my students is an auto worker and he told me that one of the biggest expenses the automakers have is the so-called job bank. For those of you who don't know what it is, it's a pool that workers who have been layed off, due to no fault of there own, go into to be the first hired when jobs open up. The people in the job bank recieve 95% of their base pay and all of their benefits. The problem is that over the course of the program there have been some major changes. When it started you could be offered a job at any plant they had, and if you turned down the offer you were out. Now you can refuse to take a job and remain in the job bank indefinately. This means that you have large pools of people that the companies are paying that don't produce anything.
Notice that Toyota, Honda, and Mercades-Benz, which actually employ more workers in the U.S. then the "American" manufacturers do, are not asking for bailout money. Based on what I have been able to uncover the pay comparable wages and benefits, but without things like the job bank, they are able to stay econmically viable. Furthermore I have to wonder if the Big Three are as bad off as they claim to be. Ford has already changed it's tune, saying that it can stay afloat, it would just like the government to provide it with a life jacket in case things go bad. Meanwhile Chrysler had announced that it hd to shut down for a month as a money saving maneuver, but the father of my student also clued me in to the fact that they always shut down for two or three weeks at Christmas anyway. That means that they are doing something that they always do and claiming that it's proof of this apocolypse they say is coming.
Will Obama be able to bring change to the table after he assumes power or will he have to compromise with the powers-that-be in the Washington Democratic circles? Will the Republicans be able to toss blame on him for the upcoming year if the economy worsens?
There is every indication that for all of Obama's talk of change, it will be business as usual in the White House. The vast majority of his announced appointments so far have just been a giant game of mucsical chairs for the members of Bill Clinton's administration. We may disagree on whether that is a bad thing or not, but I hope that everyone can agree that it doesn't look very much like change. Especially when Obama was highly critical of Sen. Clinton when she ran on a platform of returning to the Clinton years during the primaries.
As for whether or not he will get the blame for things if they continue to go south, that depends on a number of factors. One is how much influnce the Republicans in the Senate exert. If they block a lot of legislation that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid asy is designed to get the economy going again then the Republicans will become easy scapegoats. If they don't and things keep going bad, it will be harder to make the case, but Obama could simply pull a Clinton and tell everyone that "things were worse then we were ever told by the wicked Bush."
Will the scandal involving Gov. Blagojevich and his efforts to sell Obama's senate seat expand? Will Obama be tainted by the scandal?
There are indications that the scandle could expand and at least tarnish Obama, although it's not likely that it will engulf him. When everything broke He said that no one from his camp had talked to Blago. The we found out that his Chief of Staff had. Then we were told that it was just to inform him of his resignation. Now the Chicago Sun-Times, a paper generally favorable to Obama, is reporting that they had at least 21 conversations caught on the wiretap. Meanwhile the results of Obama's own internal investigation are being suppressed, "at the request of the special prosecutor." If nothing also it casts a shadow over Obama's claim that his will be the most transparent administration ever.
OPEC is cutting production of oil to shore up falling prices. Will this put another wrench in the economic recovery? Or will it spur the development of good alternatives or domestic drilling?
The last round of OPEC cuts did not stop the freefall of oil prices, and it's not likely that these will eaither. Domestic drilling is going to happen, and the market demand for oil is not what it was just five monthes ago. One thing that most people don't know is that much of the demand that drove oil prices as high as they did was the fact that China was buying every drop of oil they could get there hands on in the run up to the Olympics. Now that they are over, China's demand has dropped, combined with a worldwide drop in demand due to people switching to more fuel efficent, and alternative fuel automobiles during the period of high gas prices, means that even with the cuts there will be more supply then demand. And the last round of production cuts they passed haven't taken effect yet, so there seems to be a degree of reluctance there to turn off the tap in any form.
Happy holidays to everyone, and have a carbon neutral Chaunarhanakwanzamas.
It's a daft idea, it'll cost a fortune and won't change the economy. The Big Three are not even the car manufacturing economy, never mind the rest of it. Of course, they are American and to have the knock to national prestige and confidence that goes with a major domestic industry collapsing and only having 'foreign' alternatives, especially for as nationalistic a country as the USA.
I agree it's a daft idea. I don't think bankrupcy would spell the end of the American auto industry though. Many companies go into, reorganize under and then come out of bankrupcy. If America ended up with two good car companies rather than three ailing ones I think we would be better off than propping up lost causes. Unfortunately the Big Three can't operate competitively as organized currently.
There also needs to be a renegotiation of contracts with the UAW. The father of one of my students is an auto worker and he told me that one of the biggest expenses the automakers have is the so-called job bank. For those of you who don't know what it is, it's a pool that workers who have been layed off, due to no fault of there own, go into to be the first hired when jobs open up. The people in the job bank recieve 95% of their base pay and all of their benefits. The problem is that over the course of the program there have been some major changes. When it started you could be offered a job at any plant they had, and if you turned down the offer you were out. Now you can refuse to take a job and remain in the job bank indefinately. This means that you have large pools of people that the companies are paying that don't produce anything.
Notice that Toyota, Honda, and Mercades-Benz, which actually employ more workers in the U.S. then the "American" manufacturers do, are not asking for bailout money. Based on what I have been able to uncover the pay comparable wages and benefits, but without things like the job bank, they are able to stay econmically viable. Furthermore I have to wonder if the Big Three are as bad off as they claim to be. Ford has already changed it's tune, saying that it can stay afloat, it would just like the government to provide it with a life jacket in case things go bad. Meanwhile Chrysler had announced that it hd to shut down for a month as a money saving maneuver, but the father of my student also clued me in to the fact that they always shut down for two or three weeks at Christmas anyway. That means that they are doing something that they always do and claiming that it's proof of this apocolypse they say is coming.
I agree David that the UAW is being somewhat unrealistic. I blame management for agreeing to such ridiculous terms to begin with. The jobs bank is a poster child for union profligacy, yet the UAW is trying to fight losing that perk. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has already ststed that he is unhappy with the terms in the bridge loan that Bush just offered the three, and will try to renegotiate the concessions when Obama takes office.
I think this is something we are going to see a lot of talk about as the economy worsens: Bailouts, 'bridge' loans and attempts for the government to prop up business that are 'too big to fail'. It begs the obvious question: Who is going to bail out the government when it's ready for bankrupcy?
|
|
Now Larry Flint and Joe Francis are asking for a $5 billion bailout for the adult entertainment industry. They told Congress that while it is unlikely that their industry would fail, free money is always good and why take chances. So is this just going to be added to everything else, or is it the straw that will actually convince the American people of the absurdity of bailouts?