44th President and 111th Congress (US Gov't 2009-2011)

[Sazelyt]

I was referring to military power and technology. By giving Iran what it needs, Russia has some power over Iran. And since their objectives do not really conflict, they can continue to support each other. Not in the usual sense, but more like Russia having some control over Iran's direction. AS you said, it can use Iran's threat in the region to its favor.

At the end, if Russia stops giving such support to Iran (be it weapons/technology support, or support/block in UN), Iran will have to accept the demands of the international community (US mostly). That is why I think, Russia to be a major player to control Iran's actions.

About the effect of the arm's dealers' actions, I think, regardless of what they do, the conflicts will continue to appear. If they don't sell the weapon to the small countries to support themselves, a big one may appear to conquer those. If for instance, Iran would be a weaker country, the conflicts would have appeared to control its, either by US or Russia, or another. I don't know which is worse, living in a more democratic country under pressure, but still be controlled by your own people, or living in a more open country still under pressure but controlled by the needs of people from other countries.

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Well, technically there are certain weapons that are considered primarily defensive and therefore might actually decrease the chance of war by giving the defender the advantage, but given that these weapons don't make up all sales, I would tend to agree.

I don't know which weapons are those. In my opinion, in the current world conditions, the only real defensive weapon is a nuclear one. You are almost guaranteed to never use it, and it gives you a big advantage to avoid major offfensive conflicts directed at your country.

[yezhanquan]

Iran is considered a formidable power in the Middle East. It's different, because of it being Shiite, compared to the many Sunni regimes in the area. (I THINK Syria is also Shiite. Not too sure on that, though.)

I think one point of debate would be whether Iran and Russia should have a sphere of influence in their respective regions. The US obviously doesn't think that spheres of influence are legitimate concerns for the two countries.

[Whiteshirt]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I don't know which weapons are those. In my opinion, in the current world conditions, the only real defensive weapon is a nuclear one. You are almost guaranteed to never use it, and it gives you a big advantage to avoid major offfensive conflicts directed at your country.

Those weapons are mainly Russian Anti-Air defence. Its completely understandable why they'd buy that stuff off the Russians considering all things that have been said.

[james0246]

Looks like Obama may be replacing a Supreme Court Justice sooner than expected: US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized for surgery for pancreatic cancer.

(Justice Ginsberg will probably be fine, but her retirement, which was execpted to occur sometime in the next 4 years, will probably occur sooner, rather than later.)

[Vexx]

bleh... well, "fine" is a relative assessment. Panceatic cancer is one of the nastier ones. Everyone dies of *something* but that one isn't in the 'top ten preferred' list of a kind of cancer to get.

[james0246]

^You are correct. I apologies to anyone that might have been offended for my use of the word "fine" in regards to Panceatic cancer. I meant to say that Justice Ginsberg has a high chance of surviving the cancer, if for not other reason than the cancer was caught during it's early stages. My best wishes go out to Justice Ginsberg, and I hope she can overcome this illness and return to her life.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by james0246

Looks like Obama may be replacing a Supreme Court Justice sooner than expected: US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized for surgery for pancreatic cancer.

Seems cancer is nothing new to her, she had fought colon cancer before, and had the surgery 10 years ago. I doubt, based on her early experience, she will want to relinquish her seat, unless it becomes a necessity to do so. (but if the survival rate is much lower with pancreatic cancer, it may become too difficult to continue later on)

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I don't know which weapons are those. In my opinion, in the current world conditions, the only real defensive weapon is a nuclear one. You are almost guaranteed to never use it, and it gives you a big advantage to avoid major offfensive conflicts directed at your country.

Nuclear weapons are consider a deterrent , not a defensive weapon in the classic sense.

Fortifications are the most obvious example of a "defensive" weapon, since they give the defender an advantage without any increase to the country's offensive capablity (although they will get factored into the risk calculation somehow because of the risk of a counteract).

In modern terms, most weapons are mixed use. A long range bomber is an offensive weapon, since it's attack the enemy whereever they may be. A surface to air missle is defensive because it defends a target, but is difficult to use for offense - the aircraft have to come to it. A short range fighter falls between the two: it an be used for offense or defense, but it's defensive uses are limted.

It is generally thought that defensive weapons make conflict less likely because they give the defender an advantage over the attacker, however, there are many factors involved in this, including whether the threat posed to the attacker by defenses is significant.

[Sazelyt]

The simple way I see this is as long as one side has greater offensive power, your defensive strength (in the classic sense) may only put a delay, if there is a significant conflict with a high likelihood of triggering an action. Your defensive strength may only buy you time, but, it won't be enough to prevent the action.

[Whiteshirt]

Originally Posted by Vexx

More importantly, he's considered a moderate in the GOP. The chairman directs allocation of funds toward local elections for one but in general sets the tenor for the party.

That's a good first sign that the wingnuts may be on their way back to the dark rocks they crawled out of... but I suspect there's going to have to be a metaphorical bloodbath to really extricate the sort of people we've seen over the last ten years (DeLay, Frist, Rove, Myers, et al). Boehner (House Minority Leader) has certainly got to go but it'd be better if his own district voted him out in 2010.

Time has pasted and I've figured out that he's still as unethical as the vast majority of them. I knew about his hilariously bad run for senate but it seems he has more skeletons in his closet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020604151.html

Not to mention when he ran for senate, he ran as a Democrat. Its not unheard of as occasionally you get one of them running as a member of the 'GOP' and not the 'Republican' party; some people don't know the Grand Old Party is the same as the Republican Party.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Whiteshirt

Time has pasted and I've figured out that he's still as unethical as the vast majority of them. I knew about his hilariously bad run for senate but it seems he has more skeletons in his closet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020604151.html

Not to mention when he ran for senate, he ran as a Democrat. Its not unheard of as occasionally you get one of them running as a member of the 'GOP' and not the 'Republican' party; some people don't know the Grand Old Party is the same as the Republican Party.

heh... At the moment, as a former Republican ..... it is pretty clear that they need to lose another round of elections before it starts to sink in. I'm pretty disgusted with them. Of course, I also keep in mind that quite a lot of these congress-idiots don't remember or weren't around the last time the GOP was a minority party. Despite the massive assist from the corporate news media, they're pretty much marginalizing themselves as obstructionists and unable to eat their sacred cows.

[sikvod00]

IMHO, bipartisanship is seriously overrated and just a real world example of the golden mean fallacy. It's politically appealing to label yourself a "centrist" or "moderate" because many people wrongly assume that because your positions are somewhere in the middle spectrum of the right and left, you must be right.

What's the point of passing a bipartisan bill if it's weaker than the partisan version?

The first question at tonight's White House press conference should be: Mr. President, what is your priority -- bipartisanship or what is best for America? And when the two are in conflict, which are you going to choose?

Although the answer should be obvious, the president's actions over the last couple of weeks have left many wondering.

And when I say "bipartisanship," I am referring to the Washington definition: going to the other party, splitting any differences you have, patting each other on the back about how nice and civil you are being, and moving on.

If this is what is meant by "bipartisanship," the events of the last two weeks have shown beyond any doubt that the goal of bipartisanship and the goal of what is best for America are incompatible.

Real leadership is putting forth a bold vision and relentlessly building a consensus around it -- not splitting the difference with a party whose leaders believe, among other things, that government jobs are not real jobs, and that Obama's stimulus plan is "the socialist way."

Bipartisanship Fetishism vs. What's Best for America: Obama Needs to Choose

Yeah, yeah. The HuffPost is a left-leaning sight, but I love how Ariana tramples on the notion of bipartisanship being the thing that saves America.

[Shadow Kira01]

It would be awesome would Obama can make the concept of "smart power" to a more realistic approach. The idea of hard power should be right wing stance, while the idea of soft power would be diplomatic approach and dialogue-seeking.

Generally, when dealing with allies, the United States should be very diplomatic and cooperation-seeking, yet when dealing with nations like North Korea, the United States should take a firm hawkish stance. This would be the true meaning of "smart power"!

[Vexx]

Bipartisanship only works if both parties are reasonable and adjust their viewpoints based on new information. Currently, the Republicans main thrust is ideological and especially painful to watch since they're advocating the very hyper-laissez-faire nonsense and insane wartime tax cuts that drove us into this mess. They have absolutely ZERO credibility and should be treated as such -- this isn't a two-side discussion anymore.
The FDA situation is *directly* attributable to underfunding and 'hands-off' , the SEC debacle with Madoff is similar. I could go on for pages with each government agency. The Inspector General reports basically detail that almost every government agency has been crippled and expertise driven off over the last eight years.

Its going to take an entire four years just to repair proper functionality to oversight/regulatory agencies.

Oh, if you live in the Kentucky power outage area and got government emergency food kits -- toss the peanut butter. Turns out it was made by our tainted little peanut plant.

[Shadow Kira01]

Why I Support the Stimulus

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

Considering how bad the look is of the economy, the United States should take shift action immediately. The stocks just plummeted again.. Hopefully, the recession crisis will not last forever.

[Vexx]

The institutional investors are a whiny pack of shrieking sissies at the moment. They want some magic instant fix --- ain't gonna happen. I don't think they even know what they'd like to see. Problem is the market has actually been this irrational for a long time now -- its just usually been upward bound with no sound financial analysis.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually renters DO pay property taxes --- its just buried in their base monthly rent and they don't get to report it as tax already paid to the feds. You don't think the apartment owner actually pays that tax out of their own savings, do you?

depends on the area Vexx,

the area i am in there is a thing call rent control. Just because there is a new property tax doesn't mean it automatically get pass on to the tenants. What is needed is a residency tax to equalize things. As it stands people who don't own homes/properties would vote yes on increasing property taxes to for schools and parks when they know they don't have to pay.

[Vexx]

Ah... I was unaware that "rent control" meant that taxes could not be passed on. I thought it was simply a limit on the profit margin a landowner could make via rent so that lesser income folk could afford to live in area (for whatever reason but usually to live near work).

Aye, I'd support a residency tax to equalize things if that was the case.

[Xellos-_^]

it is the SF Bay Area, every city in this area has some form of rent control. it is just SF and Berkeley that has it more extreme then the other cities. There are apts in berkeley that still has rent rates form 70s/80s as people who move away would sublet their old units to other people and continue thier lease.

i was also renting for the last 5 yrs and i am pretty sure there were a some park fees that was increase on property owners in san leandro that did not get pass on to tenants.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

it is the SF Bay Area, every city in this area has some form of rent control. it is just SF and Berkeley that has it more extreme then the other cities. There are apts in berkeley that still has rent rates form 70s/80s as people who move away would sublet their old units to other people and continue thier lease.

i was also renting for the last 5 yrs and i am pretty sure there were a some park fees that was increase on property owners in san leandro that did not get pass on to tenants.

That's fascinating... I don't believe I've ever lived anywhere that allowed "subletting" as a term of the lease.