US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Mentar]

Funny bits from the last GOP debate. Once more, Romney was caught fibbing - first claiming that he hasn't seen the anti-Gingrich ads his own PAC was running, and then mere seconds later discussing the specifics of one spot.

I mean, what gives? I think Romney is fundamentally misunderstood: this guy is no flip-flopper, he doesn't have any convictions to begin with. He's merely a compulsory and habitual liar, who is optimized to gauge what his audience would like to hear from him, and then delivering it. And the GOP establishment has pretty much committed to this shell?

Gawd...

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That would be that the Americans in the past knew the Chinese couldn't make good on their claim, so there was no need to be anything but nuetral as aggrivating China served no purpose. Now that China has a Navy and can do something, the Americans are more obligated by alliances to say something because China now can do something.

I think that is very dangerous. Since the Chinese are getting stronger there should be less push. Through the current policy of United States, the Japanese and Philippines are being push into having a conflict with China. I think making these countries solve the issues diplomatic way would be better.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Actually having the base there was not the problem. That was expected. Having the nuclear weapons there... that was a problem. Of course the United States have nuclear weapons in Turkey to counter that, but both sides figured that was too close to be deturents. The base wasn't as much of an issue...we had and still have a naval base on Cuba.

Terrible example on my part. But I see the current US involvement as aggression. I mean the recent bases building, when United States already has multiple bases in the region, can not be seen as a positive thing for China.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

But here is the thing. The United States does not want a whole bunch of countries to be rearming back to the levels needed to actaully defend themselves, because that would put them back to the levels of rivals to American power...and could lead to wars rather than deturance. If Japan rearms and South Korea rearms....what is to stop them from attacking each other over North Korean resources? What is to stop them from posturing like they use to did a century ago? While some older third world counties don't have the funds to get massive advanced armies, navies, and air forces....developled countries like Japan and South Korea? They can. They already have access to some of the most advanced hardware on the planet and have some parts of the infrustructure to build more, and have the ability to build the rest of it. The thing they don't particularly have is the manpower for large armies...but...this is Japan we are talking about. Automation. (Or if they get creative...mecha. They already have civilians that are working on those things)

But I don't see what United States is doing currently is any different. There has been more push for militarization in the region more than ever. Korea already is very armed. And because of the economic ties between the countries I think there won't be a strong desire to go to war with each other. Also I think instead of having a war to control the resources in North Korea, both Japan and South Korea would do the smart things to invest in North Korea. So my overall view is that the war in the region is really unlikely.
What Japan is need to do is improve its relationship with China, because if they don't they could be isolated in the region. But their current actions are actually going further against China.
But if Japan were to develop a mecha... well maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The Nuclear Powers also in no shape or form want to allow other counties to have nuclear weapons. The theory being that if everyone has them, they are not deturrance anymore...they are standard weapons, and will be used by someone, eventually. Because someone can use it to make sure someone else dies...because a launch will spark another launch, and another, and another. Mutually assured is a good thing for someone that can't fight on the current playing field. It means your enemies will die when before you had no way to touch them.

You make a fair point. I suppose then actually having a nuclear weapon both Korea and Japan could use their potential to have nuclear weapon as a leverage tool. I will have to admit that both Korea and Japan developing nuclear weapons right away might be a bad idea.

Originally Posted by flying ^

US policy up to now has been not to acknowledge that China has made any claim, and Clinton’s comments do not contradict this... but she does declare the issue to be a multilateral one, of international interest. China's always demanded that discussions on the issue be bilateral so it can intimidate places like Vietnam and the Philippines one by one. For example, Chinese authorities have arrested Filipino and other fishermen in disputed waters, and Beijing threatens US and other foreign oil companies considering joint-venture exploration agreements with the region’s smaller powers.

This fact I did not know about the Spratly island, but I believe regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu I believe United States stayed neutral until recently But the United States is giving more arms to Philippines in order to respond to potential Chinese threat, the focusing on militarizing the region can create only more tension.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Funny bits from the last GOP debate. Once more, Romney was caught fibbing - first claiming that he hasn't seen the anti-Gingrich ads his own PAC was running, and then mere seconds later discussing the specifics of one spot.

I mean, what gives? I think Romney is fundamentally misunderstood: this guy is no flip-flopper, he doesn't have any convictions to begin with. He's merely a compulsory and habitual liar, who is optimized to gauge what his audience would like to hear from him, and then delivering it. And the GOP establishment has pretty much committed to this shell?

Gawd...

eyup ... ... it really is that bad.

[Ithekro]

China arming has made the locals nervous. When they get nervous they go to their "friend" that has bigger guns to counter the arming of China. That would be the United States. China, in its own way, is filling in the power void left when the Soviet Union and by extention Russia ceased to be a viable power in Asia. China has more historical claims to the region anyway, and that makes the locals nervous because they don't want to be under China's political thumb. They are "happy" with the older arrangement with the United States. Probably because the United States is far away, thus only defends them, and doesn't attempt to rule them (anymore).

The United States, to some degree, would like to pull out of those places. But it is not exactly viable due to histoical, political, and military committments. Also our allies economically like not having to pour as much money into their defense budgets. But some would say it is better to have one or to Super Powers than to have a dozen or two dozen Major Powers. Wars seem more likely when you have more Major Powers with different interests than fewer Super Powers that have intrests in deturrence.

I can't say about the South Korean base under construction (since people have indicated that it is for the Koreans, not the Americans) but the base in Australia is supposedly so the United States can pull at least some troops out of Japan and close some of those bases. Particularly the ones that annoy the Japanese the most. They will not, in all likelihood, close the major naval bases because of the needs to have a major forward deployment for the Seventh Fleet that can be a first responder while the rest of the fleet sails from Hawaii to get there a week or two later. If things are really bad, then the Third Fleet would set out from California and Washington to get there several weeks to a month later, or they pull ships from the Fifth Fleet in the Arabian Sea.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Funny bits from the last GOP debate. Once more, Romney was caught fibbing - first claiming that he hasn't seen the anti-Gingrich ads his own PAC was running, and then mere seconds later discussing the specifics of one spot.

I mean, what gives? I think Romney is fundamentally misunderstood: this guy is no flip-flopper, he doesn't have any convictions to begin with. He's merely a compulsory and habitual liar, who is optimized to gauge what his audience would like to hear from him, and then delivering it. And the GOP establishment has pretty much committed to this shell?Gawd...

Yep...pretty sad isn't it?

If Romney wins the GOP nomination it will be the cliche choice between corporatist party blue team member A, "verses" corporatist party red team member B.
It's like professional football, they're both playing the same game, using the same rules, and all sponsored by the same Wall Street crowd with the only difference being the tactics used to score the same goal.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Funny bits from the last GOP debate. Once more, Romney was caught fibbing - first claiming that he hasn't seen the anti-Gingrich ads his own PAC was running, and then mere seconds later discussing the specifics of one spot.

I mean, what gives? I think Romney is fundamentally misunderstood: this guy is no flip-flopper, he doesn't have any convictions to begin with. He's merely a compulsory and habitual liar, who is optimized to gauge what his audience would like to hear from him, and then delivering it. And the GOP establishment has pretty much committed to this shell?

Gawd...

Exactly. He's a completely plastic person. When does he ever reference anything of substance in any debate? Never, because that's his game. Spin the oration, look pretty and dignified, free votes from a huge swath of the population. Similar to Obama, actually.

[flying ^]

... this should come handy to foreign observers of American politics


A dictionary of American politics -- Part I (GOP Speak)
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/po...rt_i_gop_speak

Dictionary of American Politics, Part 2 -- Demspeak
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/po...t_two_demspeak

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by flying ^

... this should come handy to foreign observers of American politics


A dictionary of American politics -- Part I (GOP Speak)
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/po...rt_i_gop_speak

Dictionary of American Politics, Part 2 -- Demspeak
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/po...t_two_demspeak

This is actually pretty damned funny and astute ... normally, FP is pretty dry even when it goes for 'funny'. The magazine is pretty much required reading for debate students (along with the Economist).

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by flying ^

... this should come handy to foreign observers of American politics


A dictionary of American politics -- Part I (GOP Speak)
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/po...rt_i_gop_speak

Dictionary of American Politics, Part 2 -- Demspeak
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/po...t_two_demspeak

Thank you for that Flying.
Very funny.

Some of the comments were hilarious, and the Bipartisan one really got a good laugh out of me:

Alright, that one got a chuckle out of me.

How about these?

Insurgency: Bipartisan. What we say when we really mean civil war but don't want to admit that's what it is.

Civil war: Bipartisan. What definitely isn't happening in any nation we give a d*mn about because it might suggest that both sides have some legitimacy in different parts of the country. Civil wars only happen at least one hundred years ago.

Rebels: Bipartisan. Insurgents (who definitely aren't having a civil war) that we like.

Insurgents: Bipartisan. Rebels (who definitely aren't having a civil war) that we don't like.

U.N Peacekeeping mission: Bipartisan. Act of sending too few soldiers who probably don't have authority to return fire into a warzone*, giving them insufficient political backing, too few funds and no guarantee of vital things like helicopters or clear objectives and calling it a day.

Sovereignty: Bipartisan. Demanding no one interfere in one nation's affairs while seeking to interfere in another nation's affairs.

Genocide: Bipartisan. Definition 1: The horrible actions being committed in that nation over there that everyone needs to stop right now.
Definition 2: The actions which may or may not be occurring based on uncertain reports which in no way require us to commit money, political weight or soldiers to and we should not be expected to maintain any interest in the subject once the reporters go away.

Reset button: Bipartisan. Act of stating that relations with a nation that may or may not be hostile will start fresh and new while being utterly unable to actually do that and hoping that no one ever notices.

Maybe I should write a second Devil's Dictionary.

* I only wish I were making that one up.

[Ledgem]

Santorum bugs the heck out of me. It's not just his views or his catty way of dealing with challenge questions at local gatherings, but that he's receiving as much support as he is. My personal view is that I don't want the government coming in and telling me what to do or how to live my life, as long as I'm not doing anything that's harmful to others. I thought such views were the tenet of Republicans, but when it comes to religious issues, suddenly it's OK to use the government as a way to make the Bible into law? I know there are extremists with such views, but I didn't realize that there were so many of them. I don't think it'll be enough to make Santorum the prime GOP candidate (and it definitely won't be enough to get him into the presidency), but wow... if they're that prevalent and harbor such extreme views, how can the country get over some of its divides?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Santorum bugs the heck out of me. It's not just his views or his catty way of dealing with challenge questions at local gatherings, but that he's receiving as much support as he is. My personal view is that I don't want the government coming in and telling me what to do or how to live my life, as long as I'm not doing anything that's harmful to others. I thought such views were the tenet of Republicans, but when it comes to religious issues, suddenly it's OK to use the government as a way to make the Bible into law? I know there are extremists with such views, but I didn't realize that there were so many of them. I don't think it'll be enough to make Santorum the prime GOP candidate (and it definitely won't be enough to get him into the presidency), but wow... if they're that prevalent and harbor such extreme views, how can the country get over some of its divides?

When moderates start voting.
It's a Catch 22. Moderates feel neither of the candidates have anything to do with them so they don't vote. Candidates don't feel there is any need to cater to Moderates when only extremists vote.

The only way out is if a truly insane POTUS and equally insane Congress decided to pass laws that drive the moderates of both sides into the wall and they start burning cars on the streets.

[Ithekro]

Time or war (civil or with some other nation) are the usual methods. Time usually is what happens if things don't get extreme. War is what happens when things get extreme. Sometimes it is a civil war over whatever the issue is, and sometimes the issue comes up and is resolved because of reactions to the country fighting another war with someone else (Civil Right started to come to a head and things started to change after World War II as the military desegrigated. The ball was rolling. Though Korea, military units proved desegrigagted units worked...the ball at home came to a head following that war. By Vietnam the issue was on the table and resolved (before the end of the war...but there were other civil problems during that war as well).

[Zetsubo]

The day that Japan is forced to re-arm and rebuild a military is the day that China starts digging up memories of the hurt she experienced in WWII.

This would be what many war hawks in China want.

A build up to a showdown.

Many people in China, (and Korea) want a military-rematch with Japan.

Having Article 9 saves Japan from having to deal with this pressure.

Sins of the father I suppose.

Also, with its quickly aging population, Japan cannot defend itself without tremendous cost. It would literally run bone dry of youth. At least after WWII Japan had many young people to come home and rebuild... if Japan enters a conflict with China there will be virtually non young people to come home and rebuild, let alone any young people to staff its military manufacturing industry.

In effect young China and Korea wants a war with old man Japan... which would be seen as being a bully, but in the eyes of some it would be revenge.

See how many dim witss in the USA rejoiced at the earth quake that hit Japan last year ?

They were all harping about karma and Perl Harbour, yet MOST OF THESE people were never born during that time and were only told by their GRANDPARENTS or history books what Perl Harbour was about. The same with the Chinese and Koreans.

Hate cannot fix hate and hate is no form of justice. Especially if that hate is not a hate experienced yourself but only learned about from a third party.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

Also, with its quickly aging population, Japan cannot defend itself without tremendous cost. It would literally run bone dry of youth. At least after WWII Japan had many young people to come home and rebuild... if Japan enters a conflict with China there will be virtually non young people to come home and rebuild, let alone any young people to staff its military manufacturing industry.

You play up the population aging thing too much for Japan. Most of the Chinese born after 90s are single-child: their parents must be so eager to have them wasting their lives on the battle fields.

The Chinese military and their Japanese counterparts holds regular summits to exchange opinions. In a documentary(国境の海　日中知られざる攻防） produced by NHK last year (2011), a Chinese representative said that "we should not make East China Sea Dispute into a hot issue" during one of such summits( this is after the boat clash).

As for the sino-US relation, well, it is always good to keep this picture in mind:

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

You play up the population aging thing too much for Japan. Most of the Chinese born after 90s are single-child: their parents must be so eager to have them wasting their lives on the battle fields.

The Chinese military and their Japanese counterparts holds regular summits to exchange opinions. In a documentary(国境の海　日中知られざる攻防） produced by NHK last year (2011), a Chinese representative said that "we should not make East China Sea Dispute into a hot issue" during one of such summits( this is after the boat clash).

As for the sino-US relation, well, it is always good to keep this picture in mind:

Whats that picture of ?

[MrTerrorist]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

Whats that picture of ?

Henry Kissinger. Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the 1960's/1970's.

[Vexx]

This seemed somewhat relevant to the elections --
I'm surprised the legals have gotten this far on the robber barons and their ill-gotten loot.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80808X20120109

U.S. authorities are moving toward taking legal action against Wegelin & Co, which could lead to an indictment of one of Switzerland's last pure private banks, on charges that it enabled wealthy Americans to evade taxes, according to two persons with knowledge of the case.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Henry Kissinger. Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the 1960's/1970's.

And the guy who is holding the umbrella for him is none other than the current Chinese prime minister Wen Jiaobao.

[Haak]

And for the rest of us idiots that can't put two and two together, what exactly is it that we're supposed to keep in mind?

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Haak

And for the rest of us idiots that can't put two and two together, what exactly is it that we're supposed to keep in mind?

Well, how often do you see a national leader holding an umbrella for someone else?

For me the photo at least means two things: 1) there is great appreciation that the Chinese hold for Kissinger, who helped open China up to the rest of the world. 2) it in some way acknowledge the fact that the US is the sole superpower on earth which China (willingly or not), has to look up to (for the days to come).

That's why I found the idea that China going to confront the US directly pretty silly. China do not want to return back to the days where it is cut off from the rest of the world, and it knows the limits of its own strength.