Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-23 09:08:50

Frankly, I would rather circle aimlessly for a while rather than charge headlong in the wrong direction.

I suppose there's something to be said for this. But what if we're going in the right direction?

What if the circling is really a series of blind moves based on what's polling well on a particular day? I'm extremely uneasy with the possibility.

clark · 2004-04-23 09:10:49

The article Shaun alludes to spins the situation, IMO.

Kerry is for strong national security, well, gee, I'm for being safe too.

He supports the war in Iraq, well, because we have to now.

Even the Europeans agree the world is safer with Saddam behind bars, and his sons dead.

"Those who oppose the war" was a refrence to Dean, which is realted tot he democratic primaries (how the parties over here choose their canadite).

Apparently, in February, Kerry criticised Bush's plan to hand back power to the Iraqis as being too quick - a 'cut and run' strategy, even though 110,000 American troops are to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

Yeah, as he should. Commanders are asking for more troops, and the military is looking for another division to send over, while 20,000 troops extend there stay in Iraq. There is now more and more talk about starting the draft again.

Kerry supports the US policy of being able to do what we need to do, when we need to do it. We need a strong military for that, most people agree.

Bush, through Rumsfeld, has been 'transforming' the military, which has reduced some of the size of the total military (part of next generation weapons development).

Bush's family has a long history with the Saudi's, Bush has kept classified all of his fathers papers from the time when Bush Sr. was in office. This stuff is usually released by this time. Bush has lied to the American people. This administraton has taken facts and twisted them to meet their agenda.

I'm not about to say Kerry willbe any better, but damn it, I don't want to find out how much worse Bush can get.

Bill White · 2004-04-23 09:20:48

Frankly, I would rather circle aimlessly for a while rather than charge headlong in the wrong direction.
I suppose there's something to be said for this. But what if we're going in the right direction?
What if the circling is really a series of blind moves based on what's polling well on a particular day? I'm extremely uneasy with the possibility.

Even if we are going in the right direction (for sake of argument I will acknowledge this as an open question);

Bush is writing checks America cannot cash; and

policy decisions are increasingly being amde by one man and his closest circle of advisors rather than by consensus among a broad swath of government.

Case in point. Generals who said we needed hundreds of thousands of troops to pacify Iraq after regime change were not listened to, they were fired.

Analysts who said it would cost the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq were not heeded, they were attacked with vigor.

Even if we are going in the right direction, Bush isn't putting the necessary muscle behind the trip. If your operation requires capturing one bridge too far to win, you'd be better off not starting the journey.

= = =

Now Kerry (if elected) will inherit a FUBAR in Iraq.

Calling for immediate withdrawl would be politically EASY but its wrong for America. Remember the "Pottery Barn" metaphor. We broke Iraq, we own Iraq.

Kerry is willing to forego political points to do what is right for America which is to pay the political, military and economic costs of extricating ourselves from Iraq with a minimum of long term damage.

Sounds like character to me, not opportunism.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-23 09:31:40

Kerry is willing to forego political points to do what is right for America which is to pay the political, military and economic costs of extricating ourselves from Iraq with a minimum of long term damage.
Sounds like character to me, not opportunism.

Except that many of the much-invoked polls show that most Americans don't believe we should pull out. He's agreeing with the percieved majority view.

But the problem is that we have the most liberal Senator in Congress veering further left to out-looney Dean in the primaries and now to appeal to the average American (as opposed to the Democrat base) he has to haul ass to the right.

Is it too much to ask that we have candidates that say "this is what we have to do, I'm sorry if it pisses you off but that's the reality of the situation?" Instead we have Bush and his credibilty issues (real or manufactured) and apparently three or four friggin' replicant John Kerry's, all saying different things. it's enough to make me have a fascist relapse!

There are days I'd emigrate if there was somewhere better to go...

dickbill · 2004-04-23 09:35:32

Bush's family has a long history with the Saudi's, Bush has kept classified all of his fathers papers from the time when Bush Sr. was in office. This stuff is usually released by this time.

I've heard that a lot, that "Bush has accointance in the Saoudis and also the Bin Laden"
What is true exactly in that, and what are the details ?
It might be true, but the fact that people always refer to generality without never mentioning details make me thinking that it's 50% true.

Palomar · 2004-04-23 09:36:33

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … dc]Tillman confirmed dead

*I don't follow sports (zero interest), and never heard of this guy until now. But I'm really impressed by his story. Thought I'd post this here.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-04-23 09:38:30

Kerry is willing to forego political points to do what is right for America which is to pay the political, military and economic costs of extricating ourselves from Iraq with a minimum of long term damage.
Sounds like character to me, not opportunism.
Except that many of the much-invoked polls show that most Americans don't believe we should pull out. He's agreeing with the percieved majority view.
But the problem is that we have the most liberal Senator in Congress veering further left to out-looney Dean in the primaries and now to appeal to the average American (as opposed to the Democrat base) he has to haul ass to the right.
Is it too much to ask that we have candidates that say "this is what we have to do, I'm sorry if it pisses you off but that's the reality of the situation?" Instead we have Bush and his credibilty issues (real or manufactured) and apparently three or four friggin' replicant John Kerry's, all saying different things. it's enough to make me have a fascist relapse!
There are days I'd emigrate if there was somewhere better to go...

The perceived majority view doesn't play to his potential political base.

Pandering? That is an equal opportunity activity! After all the GOP controls both chambers of Congress.

= = =

In other news, NASA did accomplish http://www1.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/a … .html]this.

clark · 2004-04-23 09:50:17

And http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c … 4.xml]this

Bill White · 2004-04-23 09:54:39

And http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c … 4.xml]this

Not making this determination before announcing the cancellation of SM4 was political incompetence, unless it was political brilliance to smooth the road for the orbiter to never fly again.

Part of my problem with the Bush Presidency is that it is damn hard to tell which way to look at it. A substantial lack of transparency.

clark · 2004-04-23 09:59:04

Is it chaos, or is it planned? We may never know. :laugh:

DonPanic · 2004-04-23 10:01:32

LO

Even the Europeans agree the world is safer with Saddam behind bars, and his sons dead.

You're daydreaming, boy, NOT THE SPANISHES ! :angry:
Nor the Brits nor the Poles which expect for terrorist attacks at anytime.
Sorry to say that, but Europeans deal with too low employment rate, extension of Europe and economic help to newcomers, while trying to keep budget balance.
They don't have a dime for Irak, and still have massively antiwar public opinion.
USA, GB and allies will have to deal with Irak whoever is at White House, so Americans have to prepare their minds to a long lasting and bloody occupation that will be much similar to IsraelvPalestine neverending conflict.

White House Says Iraq Sovereignty Could Be Limited

I guess that Irakis will not stand "limited sovereignty" that means US proconsulate for a long time.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-23 18:29:25

Something occured to me today that may be worth considering.

We are attempting to rebuild Iraq under, essentially, military authority. While our military is superb at killing people and blowing things up, they aren't good at civil administration, policing, or nation-building. These things are not their job and they shouldn't be doing them.

What is required is a professional "service" of volunteers in the needed fields. I've mentioned this idea before, but in a vague way. The UN attempts to do this but through incompetence and corruption has been unable to accomplish much. A similar approach but with greater competence and centralization is needed. We'd be much better off if we could fill the government vacuum created by the war almost immediately afterward, then gradually replace our people with locals. Insurrection could likely be avoided this way.

But in Iraq we missed our chance, lessons learned for next time. In the here and now, and I don't say this lightly, a civil war may not be a bad thing. If the Iraqis begin fighting each other more than they are fighting us, we have greater leverage. We can choose the side that most closely conforms to our interests and support them, molding them further in the process. Maybe, just maybe, trying desperately to prevent civil war is counter-productive. If the "Roman" approach is unworkable for America, this may be the best chance for a speedy resolution. Moral, no. But if George Bush is already a lying, war mongering murder it's hardly worse, is it?

Civil war, victory of our guys, diplomatic recognition, withdrawal. At least it's an exit strategy.

Bill White · 2004-04-23 19:45:56

I admit this may be more sentimental than rational, yet I have this sense the Kurds deserve their own country, even if it means the Turks and Iran must surrender a small slice of their territory and Iraq loses Kirkuk.

DonPanic · 2004-04-24 04:56:24

LO

But in Iraq we missed our chance, lessons learned for next time.

There has been a lack of analysis, Saddam didn't hold the power just with Baathists, or there would have been a state of civil war in southern Irak, but he had agreements with some of main shiite clerics.
The point is does the population feel free or occupied, and by now, except for the Kurds, 95 % of Irakis feel occupied, smile at US by day and support mujahidins by night, so that any puppet government will be as hatred as occupiers.
The spectrum of a civil war is mainly a pretext for holding occupation, the goal being to insure having a proUS government letting freehands for oil control.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-25 07:28:29

Yes, Cindy.
That Tillman showed a lot of self-sacrificing patriotism to do what he did. He must have been quite a man and it restores one's faith in the finer qualities of human nature to see someone cast aside money in favour of something he sees as more important.
It makes you think, doesn't it? ???

Palomar · 2004-04-25 07:46:29

Yes, Cindy.
That Tillman showed a lot of self-sacrificing patriotism to do what he did. He must have been quite a man and it restores one's faith in the finer qualities of human nature to see someone cast aside money in favour of something he sees as more important.
It makes you think, doesn't it? ???

*Yes, Shaun...indeed it does. Particularly in a day and age when "I've got mine, screw you" seems to be the overriding mentality. That, and the mirror-licking, camera-obsessed, reality TV voyeuristic Me-Me-Me attitude of America in general (which makes me want to puke).

I'm amazed by Tillman. An exceptional human being, especially for today. I have profound respect for him.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-04-28 21:18:27

*So, how do you all feel about one of -the- most contentious of topics this election year: Outsourcing]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040428/ap_on_bi_ge/ge_shareholder_meeting_1]"Outsourcing" jobs.

I wish they'd keep these jobs HERE. But isn't there the issue of average Americans contributing to the problem by constantly demanding lower prices in the checkout line? Well, I'm not much of an amateur economist.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-29 10:52:20

What is rarely addressed on the outsourcing issue is that "jobs" are not a finite commodity.

For example: Let's say Ford can make a car cheaper in China than in the US. They close a plant in Detroit and subcontract out to the Chinese.

The Chinese don't have much in the way of a steel industry. They import most of it, some of it from the US. So the Chinese import some steel to build the cars, thus employing US steel workers.

When the cars are done, they have to be shipped over here. Ship's have crews, and given security concerns there are good, economically viable reasons to use US shipping companies. More jobs.

Then the cars have to be moved from the docks on trucks, probably requiring more trucks than if the cars were made in one factory in the US. There are several points to ship them in, meaning more routes.

So in short, we haven't lost jobs so much as reshuffling them. Also keep in mind that many foreign companies "outsource" to the US! I'm in a room full of engineers right now, all working on stuff for Honda. Outsourcing is in large part one of those phantoms that crop up in election years. Certainly there are a lot of people who have lost their jobs, but as a nation we aren't really losing jobs in total. And those that are available aren't all burger-flippin' jobs either.

Euler · 2004-04-29 12:00:14

The Chinese don't have much in the way of a steel industry. They import most of it, some of it from the US. So the Chinese import some steel to build the cars, thus employing US steel workers.

Huh? China is the world's largest steel producer (with more than double America's production). Not only that, but there production has been increasing by 25-30% per year for the last few years.

When the cars are done, they have to be shipped over here. Ship's have crews, and given security concerns there are good, economically viable reasons to use US shipping companies. More jobs.

China also has a shipping industry that is more than twice as large as America's.

This gives the US an enormous trade deficit with China, which is one of the main reasons why China's economy is growing by 10% per year while the US economy stagnates.

Bill White · 2004-04-29 12:11:55

This year, China began importing more from Japan than America. That trend will only grow.

In the future, if Japan is forced to choose sides (as GWB is fond of making people do), Tokyo will have an increasingly difficult choice.

Palomar · 2004-04-29 12:17:27

*I'm just kind of curious...how is it that China has continued to thrive as a Communist nation, when all other Commie nations have failed?

What is it (what factors) about their culture which make this so? I suppose it's an involved, complicated thing...but if anyone could shed a bit of light, I'd be appreciative.

They certainly are interesting people. One of my best friends in college was a journalist from Beijing. I'd love to visit China.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-29 13:49:26

Quote
The Chinese don't have much in the way of a steel industry. They import most of it, some of it from the US. So the Chinese import some steel to build the cars, thus employing US steel workers.

Huh? China is the world's largest steel producer (with more than double America's production). Not only that, but there production has been increasing by 25-30% per year for the last few years.

Okay, I'm half-wrong here. Chinese steel production is huge, but their demand still exceeds their production (largely due to increased manufacturing work) The Chinese also import roughly 20% of the iron ore they use to make steel, and that number will increase. Chinese ore is, well, sub-standard.

But I concede they don't import much from the US, but the concepts behind the example still stand.

China also has a shipping industry that is more than twice as large as America's.
This gives the US an enormous trade deficit with China, which is one of the main reasons why China's economy is growing by 10% per year while the US economy stagnates.

US shipping has less security hassles than the Chinese competition. This alone can be a factor.

The US economy isn't stagnating. It's not ripping across the global stage, but it's growing at a steady rate. For the US, growth of 10% a year would be unhealthy, we're far more developed than China.

*I'm just kind of curious...how is it that China has continued to thrive as a Communist nation, when all other Commie nations have failed?

They've watered down the communism with a big dose of capitalism, simple as that. They've got a weird transitional thing going on. It's not terribly stable, but it gives the appearance of massive growth and progress in a short time. It's going to come to a head one of these days.

Big portraits of Chairman Mao can't co-exist with Coca-Cola billboards indefinately.

Palomar · 2004-04-29 16:03:48

They've watered down the communism with a big dose of capitalism, simple as that. They've got a weird transitional thing going on. It's not terribly stable, but it gives the appearance of massive growth and progress in a short time. It's going to come to a head one of these days.
Big portraits of Chairman Mao can't co-exist with Coca-Cola billboards indefinately.

*I see your point about Mao and Coca-Cola.

But -how- do you mean "it's going to come to a head one of these days"? ???

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-29 18:30:13

*I see your point about Mao and Coca-Cola.
But -how- do you mean "it's going to come to a head one of these days"?

Just that they currently have a nation running on two different economic foundations. It can't hold, they're going in two opposite directions. At some point, probably in the next 15-20 years, they'll either have to make a hard swing back to communism (unlikely) or they'll become so capitalistic that Chinese Communism will cease to exist in any meaningful sense.

They'll still have the founders on the money, but the philosphy will be so degraded as to be almost unrecognizable.

Kinda like the US today. ???

So the Chinese need to start asking themselves... Mao, or Coke.

Bill White · 2004-04-29 22:47:18

*I see your point about Mao and Coca-Cola.
But -how- do you mean "it's going to come to a head one of these days"?
Just that they currently have a nation running on two different economic foundations. It can't hold, they're going in two opposite directions. At some point, probably in the next 15-20 years, they'll either have to make a hard swing back to communism (unlikely) or they'll become so capitalistic that Chinese Communism will cease to exist in any meaningful sense.
They'll still have the founders on the money, but the philosphy will be so degraded as to be almost unrecognizable.
Kinda like the US today. ???
So the Chinese need to start asking themselves... Mao, or Coke.

Or Chinese nationalism and Coke. Good for them. Not so good for us.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-04-23 09:08:50

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#52 2004-04-23 09:10:49

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#53 2004-04-23 09:20:48

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#54 2004-04-23 09:31:40

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#55 2004-04-23 09:35:32

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#56 2004-04-23 09:36:33

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#57 2004-04-23 09:38:30

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#58 2004-04-23 09:50:17

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#59 2004-04-23 09:54:39

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#60 2004-04-23 09:59:04

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#61 2004-04-23 10:01:32

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#62 2004-04-23 18:29:25

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#63 2004-04-23 19:45:56

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#64 2004-04-24 04:56:24

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#65 2004-04-25 07:28:29

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#66 2004-04-25 07:46:29

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#67 2004-04-28 21:18:27

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#68 2004-04-29 10:52:20

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#69 2004-04-29 12:00:14

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#70 2004-04-29 12:11:55

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#71 2004-04-29 12:17:27

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#72 2004-04-29 13:49:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#73 2004-04-29 16:03:48

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#74 2004-04-29 18:30:13

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#75 2004-04-29 22:47:18

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Board footer

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2