US Elections 2008

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Well, as I see it, with Iraq's state, withdrawing little by little would be fine as long as we're sure that it won't "bite us in the ass" at the end. After all, we got into the mess and suddenly pulling a cold turkey may cause Iraq to be aggressive towards us more so than some of them are already feeling. I don't mean we should ignore Afghanistan, but the one thing I'd agree with McCain about on this is we can't propose to have our hands on two fights at the same time and still say that our forces are stretched too thin. So, our forces are stretched too thin, so why stretch it some more? Why not finish what we started in Iraq, then move on to Afghanistan as we're obviously proposing to do? This isn't as easy as we think.

The immediate problem I see with this argument is that it's pretty much impossible to define what "finishing" in Iraq will entail, or how the heck it's supposed to be accomplished.

• If it's to create a government that will permanently be friendly towards the US, that's not going to happen; not even for a handful of years longer.
• If it's to build a strong Iraqi central government, it's not going to happen.
• If it's to eliminate the violence in Iraq, the surge itself was only about the fourth most important factor in reducing the violence in 2007/2008.
• On the other hand, if it's to create an Iraq where Iran has greater influence than ever, then there's a decent chance of that happening.

Originally Posted by Mitsuomi

i have a question... why do we kiss Israel's ass?

That's a good question. I get the feeling that this is due to the inertia of the U.S.' foreign policy of the last few decades. Americans have gotten so used to supporting Israel in all ways that they're somehow less prone to criticize Israeli actions than the Israeli themselves. What's really puzzling is that the U.S. gains very little except for vague platitudes from this relationship. (There's the laundering of American taxpayer money to military contractors as well, but I don't think that that should really count.)

The two other factors are the importance of the Jewish vote in American elections (overblown as it is) and that there's a lot of support from some religious quarters.

Originally Posted by james0246

That being said, the United States, Turkey, Germany, the United Kingdom (the "parent" of Israel) and India all have extremely close ties and alliances with Israel. And since we are in an alliance with Israel, we support them, and they in turn support us when they can.

None of these countries are anywhere near as close as the U.S. is. Heck, back when Israel sold American missile technology to the Chinese, they received nowhere near the kind of criticism that you'd expect if a different country was involved.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

That's a vulgar way of putting it. Its more like that the United States is giving Israel special priviledges because it benefits them in a way associated with both the oil industry and the military. In order for the United States to maintain stability in their national interests, they decided to treat Israel with utmost respect.

You've got it backwards. Support for Israel weakens the American position in the rest of the Middle East. Since Israel itself has no oil, this is a strategic disadvantage rather than an advantage. Heck, it's been speculated that this relationship is unpopular enough that if all the Middle East were to become democratic overnight, the U.S. would find itself admist a host of enemies there.

Originally Posted by mg1942

Pelosi (D-CA),"I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired"

Barney Frank said in 2006 that there was no problem with fanny and freddie.

As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank "sits at the center of power". Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was quoted as saying, "He is one of the giants of Congress, a real legislator," in his new role.

If you want to pick and choose stupid predictions, it'd be even more effective to quote those who said silly things about the soundness of the American economy this year. I wonder what those shortsighted troublemakers are up to now... I hear that they're moonlighting as some sort of Secretary or President or something like that.

[solomon]

All though it's softer than that, That ambigiousness is a great summary of the anaylisis I got of listening to reporting about the War.

Minnesota Public Radio's Midday program highlighted all the various ambigouities about Iraq very clearly while staying Neutral in it's anaylisis pointing out good and bad points about US policy there.

At the end of the day, US soldiers are doing a hell of a job fighting so I don't like to say anything that sounds demeaning to them but it seems like we are playing a sort of "police" there more than anything else. Iraq is gonna be fairly sucky no matter what cause of the fractitious and divisive nature of the various factions and ethnicities that live there. I'm all for helping people, but really a lot of this has to come from the Iraqi's political manuvers really, that will be KEY. That is something that the US only has so much control over.

Military wise, same thing although US participation plays a larger positive net effect here.

This is where I have trouble with McCain, what the hell does "Victory in Iraq" look like?

Does he expect to create a state with as much stabiilty and infrastructre and US support like Isreal? If that's anywhere near the case, I have trouble sympathysing with that idea. The rebuilding of Japan and germany after the big war is one thing, this is going to take MUUUUUUUCHHHH longer unfortunetly. There's no forseeable end game here. And I'm sorry but I just CAN'T get behind nation building overthere by US tax dollars. The violence will go down as much as the Iraqi's want it, sooner or later (for better or for worse) we will have to scale down cause we won't have the money, I think.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...09/16/midday1/

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by solomon

All though it's softer than that, That ambigiousness is a great summary of the anaylisis I got of listening to reporting about the War.

Minnesota Public Radio's Midday program highlighted all the various ambigouities about Iraq very clearly while staying Neutral in it's anaylisis pointing out good and bad points about US policy there.

At the end of the day, US soldiers are doing a hell of a job fighting so I don't like to say anything that sounds demeaning to them but it seems like we are playing a sort of "police" there more than anything else. Iraq is gonna be fairly sucky no matter what cause of the fractitious and divisive nature of the various factions and ethnicities that live there. I'm all for helping people, but really a lot of this has to come from the Iraqi's political manuvers really, that will be KEY. That is something that the US only has so much control over.

Military wise, same thing although US participation plays a larger positive net effect here.

This is where I have trouble with McCain, what the hell does "Victory in Iraq" look like?

Does he expect to create a state with as much stabiilty and infrastructre and US support like Isreal? If that's anywhere near the case, I have trouble sympathysing with that idea. The rebuilding of Japan and germany after the big war is one thing, this is going to take MUUUUUUUCHHHH longer unfortunetly. There's no forseeable end game here. And I'm sorry but I just CAN'T get behind nation building overthere by US tax dollars. The violence will go down as much as the Iraqi's want it, sooner or later (for better or for worse) we will have to scale down cause we won't have the money, I think.

I don't think they will ever achieve "Victory in Iraq' because of the Iraqi citizen resentment. A think a fully victory would be getting spoils and other items it can get. Other than that, the victory he defined seems extremely superficial.

[Vexx]

It infuriates me when not a single reporter pegs McCain on that one: what the hell are the metrics for "victory in Iraq"?

It is just flag waving BS .... and a total disservice to our military.

And no, I don't like the Dem waffling either because it just tells me that there's a considerable amount of mythic fantasy rolling around in parts of America that don't like hearing they've stepped on a nettle bush.

[solomon]

Why do you think that is, Vexx. I mean if the media is so "liberally biased" how come they don't press home that idea?

Maybe I answered my own question, but I think there is this general idea shared amongst broad swathes of Americans that, "We cannot LOSE a war, in no matter what way", like holding on to the granduer of the WWII and Cold War victories, and pressing home anything that kind of seems to taint that idea seems "Un -American" even to liberals.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It infuriates me when not a single reporter pegs McCain on that one: what the hell are the metrics for "victory in Iraq"?

It is just flag waving BS .... and a total disservice to our military.

And no, I don't like the Dem waffling either because it just tells me that there's a considerable amount of mythic fantasy rolling around in parts of America that don't like hearing they've stepped on a nettle bush.

Well its the military, it was always hard to "define' their role for America now. McCain should not focus on being greedy with the military. Those democrat really need to change for this is the only way to deal with such matters.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It infuriates me when not a single reporter pegs McCain on that one: what the hell are the metrics for "victory in Iraq"?

It is just flag waving BS .... and a total disservice to our military.

I don't think that is the case. I think he means as leaving Iraq with honor, and that means setting up everything correctly that was broken down (that part is not important anymore, who broke which part). It includes more than the military duties.

Still, McCain needs to use the correct terms. It was US who brought El Kaeda to Iraq, and now, those terrorists can only leave after US leave. And, even if US leaves there is still no guarantee that they will definitely leave (now that they came closer to Israel, and found the chaos to grow stronger roots).

Anyways, Iraq is still in disarray, if you leave it like that there is no doubt worse things will happen. I am sure many of those people want US to leave, not because they think US did what they were supposed to do, but instead there are things they want to do and can only do after US leaves there for good (for Sunnis there are Kurdish to clean, for Siis, there is a country to control, and there may be connections to make, for the Kurdish there is oil to protect and savor). It was a mistake to open that Pandora's box, and now it will be bad regardless of what you do. But to not let the effort go waste, you can only move forward.

[Sassarai]

Oh the spin! Grandpa McCain comes out and helps out Palin. So that's what Palin meant when she said "I'll try to find ya some, and bring'em"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RywhPtebuM


I'm suspending my posting like how McCain suspended his campaign till the bail out bill passes.

[mg1942]

gotcha journalism

[bayoab]

And there is a topic which even the conservatives will not really defend Palin on...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_130395.html

The weird part of this is, I'm decently sure most people would run into the same problem if they were approached by the street and asked. (As soon as you read the headline, try and name one in your head within 30 seconds.) It is at the same time rather scary though.

[Neki Ecko]

More Spin Citytm antics

It seem like McCain is blaming Obama and Demo for the bill not passing but..........

He is the one who so called "suspend" his campaign until this is over(still campaigning right now, btw) and blaming Obama for not doing the same thing but now he is going to blame Obama and the Demo even know that His own party voted against that bill, Great Job there, McCain and you wonder why you are losing to the polls right now by almost 10 points

BTW, I am Military and there is alot of folks wont be voting for McCain this election.

[solomon]

Say Neki Echo, you in Navy, Army, Marines, what? Why are some of you guys not for McCain again?

I haven't payed much attentino to Palin's remarks. Personally, I'm waiting merely for the debates of VP candidates and see where it goes from there. I honestly don't see any real big wieght behind Palin, she doesn't seem like a bad lady/governer. She's hardly teflon politician though. I maintain that a two term governor of alaska will have a lot of work to do to gain clout in the National Gov't, and that she will have very little impact in the White House if McCain is elected, I saw so many other great candidates that McCain could have chosen for VP but this just screams "gimmick".

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

He is the one who so called "suspend" his campaign until this is over(still campaigning right now, btw) and blaming Obama for not doing the same thing but now he is going to blame Obama and the Demo even know that His own party voted against that bill, Great Job there, McCain and you wonder why you are losing to the polls right now by almost 10 points

If you look at the results from the Republicans, you can actually understand the urgency in McCain's words (even though they haven't met the reality). There is a huge opposing force at the Republican party (that says something about them, but not my point). The results show that it was much more difficult for McCain to persuade the people in his party (or simply he didn't or couldn't do much).

Also, McCain is more probably losing because of Bush not because of his mistakes. Similarly, Obama is not winning because of his achievements, but because of the many other factors that degrade the images of the Republicans, with every downward development, thanks to Bush.

Originally Posted by solomon

Say Neki Echo, you in Navy, Army, Marines, what? Why are some of you guys not for McCain again?

I am guessing the Army personnel in peaceful locations have the luxury to choose without any kind of prejudice or conditioning.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

If you look at the results from the Republicans, you can actually understand the urgency in McCain's words (even though they haven't met the reality). There is a huge opposing force at the Republican party (that says something about them, but not my point). The results show that it was much more difficult for McCain to persuade the people in his party (or simply he didn't or couldn't do much).

Also, McCain is more probably losing because of Bush not because of his mistakes. Similarly, Obama is not winning because of his achievements, but because of the many other factors that degrade the images of the Republicans, with every downward development, thanks to Bush.

There's been a long fracture building up between what I'll call "old school Republicans" of their various stripes and the neocon crowd. It may be about to turn into a complete "Reformation" or maybe even a purge of sorts. Unclear is whether the religious right will climb back in with the old guard fiscal conservatives... or stick with the neocons.

[solomon]

Well, I technically come from a military family. Dad former Navy, his dad Navy, My Mom's dad the Air Force but I wouldn't say it's a "DIED IN THE WOOL" military family as if it's a part of our collective conciousness which drastically affects the way we vote. My family is all over the place politically, but don't seem dogmatic in any sense to any one policy and ideology.

As fer Palin some more, has she said anything really about domestic policy? (Social issues don't count here for me, cause I don't give a rats bum about them, sorry). I mean i could be more magnanimous about that, I've already said how I feel about her foriegn policy "credentials".

Vexx, do paleoconservatives even still exist in any high number?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by solomon

...do paleoconservatives even still exist in any high number?

Yeah, their sometimes called Libertarians or Goldwater Republicans...

[Vexx]

A lot of them voted for Bob Dole in the mid 90s
... but they've been put under a cone of silence for the last eight years unless they parroted the talking points and played nice.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Vexx

There's been a long fracture building up between what I'll call "old school Republicans" of their various stripes and the neocon crowd. It may be about to turn into a complete "Reformation" or maybe even a purge of sorts. Unclear is whether the religious right will climb back in with the old guard fiscal conservatives... or stick with the neocons.

Republicans had a very good opportunity to do the purge after many failed decisions at Iraq, but I guess it is not that easy to achieve that kind of reformation, especially when you are still in power, and when the President from your party does not have the intelligence and courage to trigger such process.

[Aquillion]

This article explains a great deal about why the parties are they way they are right now. Ack.

[solomon]

My Grandfather (Independent) made an interesting comment similar to this;

He maintains that the Dems and Repubs aren't terribly all that different. I am starting to agree with him if only on certain occasions.

Like how people paint repubs as monolithically old white stick in the muds who feverishly oppose anyone who is not Judeo-Christian (mainly christian) White or Heterosexual.
(Afro-Americans who are sterotypically seen as very liberal, are over all prolly somewhat MORE wary of homosexual marriage/issues than whites are ON AVERAGE, we can be VERY religious too ya know.)

Then people paint Dems as high spending free wheeling, dogmatic socialist communist sympathysers. (The whole Democrats are Socialist idea is plain STUPID to me, seeing the evolution of US gov't scince the 60s vs. Major Western European governments which ACTUALLY DO HAVE SOCIALIST/SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTIES).

I just don't get it, I think people just like to stay within their own black-white boundaries, and a loud lazy media doesn't do much to help inform the populace.