http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1ExoaSCCcHw

I hope this shows his campaign was behind the past week....or could be to make me hope that.

A little of both I think. Part realization of the failure his past tactics have been, and part play for some kind of political future after a failed Presidential bid (my take on him being a man). Though what would be really telling is if people close to the campagin continue to press the Ayers/Wright/Rezko/Hussein line. I wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen. He has done just about everything but present a unified message.

dogma wrote:A little of both I think. Part realization of the failure his past tactics have been, and part play for some kind of political future after a failed Presidential bid (my take on him being a man). Though what would be really telling is if people close to the campagin continue to press the Ayers/Wright/Rezko/Hussein line. I wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen. He has done just about everything but present a unified message.

Yeah, I'm so damn cynical that I immediately thought the polls weren't responding so they were changing tactics. However, I think he goes beyond what he would need to do if that's the case. The older lady at the end could have been cut off with a simple 'he's not a terrorist, next question'...but he added he was a good family man and a good citizen. The idealist in me would love to see a McCain/Obama embrace after the election.

Couple this with the Palin probe showing she abused her power....he's done.

Yeah, an embarassment on the side that's up can bring a one-sided race back to an actual contest; an embarassment on the side that's down is a coffin nail.

As for the video... this is the fearmongering and negative campigning, targeted at people who can't think well for themselves in the first place, come home to roost. The box was opened, and all this crap flew out.

I think that was incredibly decent of McCain.

To recognise the value of ones opponent is something normally lacking in Politics. What McCain has said here is that although he feels he would make a better President, that should Obama win the Election, he ought to do a good enough job.

I think the important thing to remember here is just how monumental Obama's achievement would be. Not 40 years ago, America was still witnessing the Civil Rights movement, and in such a short space of time, a man who once would have been looked down upon for the colour of his skin is incredibly close to becoming the Nations figure head.

And yet, in those 40 years, how much have attitudes genuinely changed in the South? Certainly, the media paints things quite bleakly when it wants to, so I am somewhat unsure about how good/bad things can be.

And McCain realises this. If he loses the Election, with history being written by the Victor, he risks leaving behind a very negative portrayal of himself. Although it would appear both sides have gone out of their way to not bring up the race issue, and I applaud both sides for this, there are those who perceive it to be crucial.

But with this one speech, McCain has shown, or at least demonstrated, a respect for his opponent he would like his faithful to show. And regardless of motivation, that is a good thing. It was the body language and tone of voice that makes me think this is genuine. It reminds me of someone trying to reassure Children that there is nothing to fear. I mean, one person said they were *Scared* of Obama. Why? Like McCain said, he is a good man, despite the difference in Political Standpoints.

And I agree with McCain. It now looks like he is prepared to fight the sort of election I want to see. One where the candidates do not attack each others weaknesses and shortcomings, but where they promote their own strengths, and allay fears about where they lack by explaining how they intend to cover them, which advisors etc.

McCain came over as a decent bloke, though a cynic would say he couldn't possibly have agreed with racist comments about Obama's ancestry.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think the important thing to remember here is just how monumental Obama's achievement would be. Not 40 years ago, America was still witnessing the Civil Rights movement, and in such a short space of time, a man who once would have been looked down upon for the colour of his skin is incredibly close to becoming the Nations figure head.

And yet, in those 40 years, how much have attitudes genuinely changed in the South? Certainly, the media paints things quite bleakly when it wants to, so I am somewhat unsure about how good/bad things can be.

Have you ever been to that mythical "South"? I am from the south, and I assure you, it's hardly as racist as you perceive. Race is still an issue, but I'd wager the south has taken it head on better than some other sections of my country.

The northern states also have a good deal of racism...they just hide it better. Besides, how many brothers live in New Hampshire???

Good on McCain. He should have been doing this in the first place. I'm sure there is a political aspect to this, but it's probably also that he realized his campaign frigging stinks. He never should have wallowed in that mud.

Both of the candidates are good decent men, and both would be a damn sight better than W. Contrary to what the DNC or RNC campaign would have you believe.

Being from the South, and having lived in Connecticut for a couple years, I can safely say the Northeast has some serious racial problems to get over. Not just white-vs.-black, but even more nitpicky stuff, like Italian or Slovak. It blew me away when I heard my fellow bank tellers talking about "that stupid wop" or the like... and don't get me started on the n-word.

Now, I'm not saying that my backwoods brethren here in Dixie don't have some knuckle-dragging habits to get out of, but I can safely say that I've never heard that kind of talk in a business setting here in Tennessee.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think that was incredibly decent of McCain.

To recognise the value of ones opponent is something normally lacking in Politics. What McCain has said here is that although he feels he would make a better President, that should Obama win the Election, he ought to do a good enough job.

I think the important thing to remember here is just how monumental Obama's achievement would be. Not 40 years ago, America was still witnessing the Civil Rights movement, and in such a short space of time, a man who once would have been looked down upon for the colour of his skin is incredibly close to becoming the Nations figure head.

And yet, in those 40 years, how much have attitudes genuinely changed in the South? Certainly, the media paints things quite bleakly when it wants to, so I am somewhat unsure about how good/bad things can be.

And McCain realises this. If he loses the Election, with history being written by the Victor, he risks leaving behind a very negative portrayal of himself. Although it would appear both sides have gone out of their way to not bring up the race issue, and I applaud both sides for this, there are those who perceive it to be crucial.

But with this one speech, McCain has shown, or at least demonstrated, a respect for his opponent he would like his faithful to show. And regardless of motivation, that is a good thing. It was the body language and tone of voice that makes me think this is genuine. It reminds me of someone trying to reassure Children that there is nothing to fear. I mean, one person said they were *Scared* of Obama. Why? Like McCain said, he is a good man, despite the difference in Political Standpoints.

And I agree with McCain. It now looks like he is prepared to fight the sort of election I want to see. One where the candidates do not attack each others weaknesses and shortcomings, but where they promote their own strengths, and allay fears about where they lack by explaining how they intend to cover them, which advisors etc.

All that would be fine if looked at in isolation, ignoring the last three months of campaigning. McCain has been running a nasty campaign and now that that's failed he doesn't get to pull up and try for the high ground. Credit to the guy if he does run a clean campaign from here, maybe it'll help us all remember the McCain that we used to know, but we really shouldn't be expected to forget the crap he's tried to pull.

I personally believe he is playing politics again. Whenever he thinks something will look "presidential" to the undecided voters he does that. He's own party is already going to vote for him at this point, he has built up enough hatred for whatever false rumors are out there about Obama in his own party. He "suspended" his campaign to fix the financial crisis. It isn't fixed and he is still campaigning. His involvement actually delayed the magical bailout that didn't work. Now he knows if he deflects all the rumors about Obama for why a lot of unintelligent people don't like him he will seem like a very good presidential fellow to defend the honor of his opponent. Oh well, I don't which becomes president they both are going to end up being pretty bad for this country overall.

You also have to remember McCain is a stand-up guy period. He's a saint among politicians. The guy was a PoW, and because his dad was a high mucky-muck naval officer they offered to let him out early. He passed, and endured abuse and torture rather than abuse his parentage to be released before the ones who "earned" it by virtue of being there longer.

Agree with him or not, the guy (personally if not the people around him) has class, and a pretty decent moral compass.

Breton wrote:You also have to remember McCain is a stand-up guy period. He's a saint among politicians. The guy was a PoW, and because his dad was a high mucky-muck naval officer they offered to let him out early. He passed, and endured abuse and torture rather than abuse his parentage to be released before the ones who "earned" it by virtue of being there longer.

Agree with him or not, the guy (personally if not the people around him) has class, and a pretty decent moral compass.

Again, all that is fine, unless you've been following his campaign for the last three months.

sebster wrote:

Breton wrote:You also have to remember McCain is a stand-up guy period. He's a saint among politicians. The guy was a PoW, and because his dad was a high mucky-muck naval officer they offered to let him out early. He passed, and endured abuse and torture rather than abuse his parentage to be released before the ones who "earned" it by virtue of being there longer.

Agree with him or not, the guy (personally if not the people around him) has class, and a pretty decent moral compass.

Again, all that is fine, unless you've been following his campaign for the last three months.

I don't think his campaign was any better or worse than anyone else's in recent history. I also chalk that up to not having control over the people running his campaign rather than his opinion of it exactly- which certainly affects how I view his leadership capabilities. I haven't seen a decent (as in human, respect-filled, not treating the public at large as stupid, ignorant masses) for a long time.

As his competition has been no better, I don't see the issue. If you can't stand the heat you shouldn't be running.

dogma wrote:Couple this with the Palin probe showing she abused her power....he's done.

This issue is such a non-issue that it's ridiculous. The only thing that Palin is guilty of is not stopping the man from being terminated. She didn't initiate a witch hunt, she didn't try to bring him down, she just didn't stop the powers that be from doing what they did when she had the chance to.

If this is a show stopper, then all of the crap that has been popping up over Obama and Biden over the last couple of weeks should have sunk any chances they had at getting elected a County Sherrif.

This election is the 3rd I've witnessed since I began to care, and it's really pointed out that the power the media has in picking the next president. By and large, they are in the bag for Obama. But gak that would have Republicans nailed to the wall, isn't even getting a second glance, so the American public isn't learning about it. Ayers is a small issue. Huge things like the actual proof of Obama's citizenship from birth (and there is very good reason to question it), his dealings in Kenyan politics, his involvement with ACORN and what may be the worst voting scandal in this nations history (Indianapolis has 105% of it's eligible voters registered). Why isn't any of that in the spot light?

Instead, we're concentrating on things like a Governer being a human being.

djones520 wrote:Huge things like the actual proof of Obama's citizenship from birth (and there is very good reason to question it), his dealings in Kenyan politics, his involvement with ACORN and what may be the worst voting scandal in this nations history (Indianapolis has 105% of it's eligible voters registered). Why isn't any of that in the spot light?

Because there's no facts to report. These are non-existent "stories" that someone with just enough braincells to use e-mail and vote Republican came up with, just like the "he's a Muslim, and went to a madrassa, and had gay sex with Ahmadinejad on a nuke aimed at Israel" bullcrap. Just because it gets O'Reilly hard, or lets Rush skip his morning Oxycontin, it doesn't mean that there's any truth to it. And as for the media being "in the bag for Obama", that's so laughable it hurts. If there was a story to report, they'd be on it like wolverines, and damn who it's on. The media has no loyalties; they report whatever sells ad-time best. If Obama had a real scandal, something that could be proved with facts not wishful thinking, they would GLORY in bringing him down.

wtb swift boat veterans against obama

Military experience doesn't carry over to leadership experience. From what I've read the only thing McCain has even done in the military is crashed a ton of their planes and got captured. I don't see how that makes you a more viable leader for the United States.

Well, he could understand what it is like to be a soldier better than another candidate, which is important I reckon.
I still think he is a poorer choice though. But his military service is not completely irrelevant.

Typeline wrote:Military experience doesn't carry over to leadership experience. From what I've read the only thing McCain has even done in the military is crashed a ton of their planes and got captured. I don't see how that makes you a more viable leader for the United States.

In America, fighter pilots are kind of an upper class of the military. If you're both willing
and able to fly and fight at high speeds, you're looked at with some wonder and awe. See
our films from the 80s such as Top Gun (you can hear the Top Gun anthem at the end
of the Republican National Convention). You can also see an older film based on Tom
Wolfe's book The Right Stuff.

Typeline wrote:Military experience doesn't carry over to leadership experience. From what I've read the only thing McCain has even done in the military is crashed a ton of their planes and got captured. I don't see how that makes you a more viable leader for the United States.

Start actually reading stuff then. McCain served as the commander of the largest fighter squadron at the time in the Navy. Take it from someone who has dealt in the Operations area of the Air Force. They don't make idiots aviation squadron commanders. People who make that rank that can't hack command positions are shuffled off to harmless jobs till they retire. Being put in charge of 50 fighter jets, the pilots, and all the staff required to run that is a huge deal, and does equate to leadership experience.

As commanding officer, McCain relied upon a relatively unorthodox leadership style based upon the force of his personality.[188] He removed personnel he thought ineffective, and sought to improve morale and productivity by establishing an informal rapport with enlisted men.[186][63][188] Dealing with limited post-Vietnam defense budgets and parts shortages,[186][63] He was forceful in demanding that respect be given the female officers just beginning to arrive into the unit.[188] McCain's leadership abilities were credited with improving the unit's aircraft readiness; for the first time, all fifty of its aircraft were able to fly.[186][63] Although some operational metrics declined during the period,[185][188] the pilot safety metrics improved to the point of having zero accidents.[186][185] The squadron was awarded its first-ever Meritorious Unit Commendation,[184] while McCain received a Meritorious Service Medal.[91] McCain later stated that being commanding officer of VA-174 was the most rewarding assignment of his naval career.[189] When his stint ended in July 1977,[184] the change of command ceremony was attended by his father and the rest of his family, as well as some of his fellow POWs; speaker Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. said that John had joined Jack and Slew McCain in a place of honor in Navy tradition, a tribute that deeply moved McCain.

If I could find that from Wiki alone, then it out to be easy to find even more information. That is if you care to learn something other then the usual trash fed by KOS and the DemocraticUnderground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain#Commanding_officer

Certainly military service can be considered leadership experience. I doubt anyone would question that. What people do, and should, question is whether or not military experience is somehow more applicable to the Presidency than other credentials.

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on an issue of this importance. I'm not saying anything against McCain. It should be easy to verify his record from official sources.

I am not really following what we are talking about, but McCain is just one of those people you just respect. Competent, personable and responsible.

Maybe the Republicans had more learned/ experienced candidates, but McCain is personable and an experienced politician in his right.

If I was an American I would vote ... yeah I don't know. I would have voted for Hillary Clinton I think, just to see what happens. I would say the same for Obama. The Democrats seem to have experience (unofficially led by Bill Clinton) whereas maybe it is time for a change from the Rupublicans. Does that sound smart or just trite.

McCain's military record shows him to be personally brave and to have behaved with honour and distinction in an horrific situation.

All well and good, but this has no bearing on how good a president he would be. The only thing that should matter is the policy positions of the candidates (not that I'm naive enough to believe that this will be the deciding factor)

What will decide the election is the same thing that usually decides it - turnout.
1. Which party gets more of their base to the polls.
2. How many people are turned off voting for their 'preferred' candidate due to non-policy issues (these won't vote at all or will cast a 'protest' vote for a third party candidate).
3. How many undecideds (particularly in groups with traditionally low voter turnout such as under-25s and some minority communities) can be persuaded to actually go and vote.

Changing people's mind on who they vote for is incredibly difficult. To give a UK example, the old mining towns in the north of England are safe seats for the Labour party. Even when such constituencies suffer from Labour policies, the people who live there still vote overwhelmingly for Labour candidates.
The phrase commonly used is 'you could stick a red rosette on a monkey and they'd vote for it'.

I assume its the same in the US - most people will vote for the party they've always voted for with very little considered judgement.

I don't think serving in the forces and seeing action is any guarantee that you will have someone who is prepared to send in troops at the drop of a hat. My father was a Royal Marine in the 60's and served 2 tours of duty in Borneo, I think he joined up when he was 16 and came out when his 23, and he has a very cynical outlook on the military. He knows that leaders are more than happy to send youngmen to war and they reliy on the naivety of our youngmen to do this.

Breton wrote:You also have to remember McCain is a stand-up guy period. He's a saint among politicians. The guy was a PoW, and because his dad was a high mucky-muck naval officer they offered to let him out early. He passed, and endured abuse and torture rather than abuse his parentage to be released before the ones who "earned" it by virtue of being there longer.

Agree with him or not, the guy (personally if not the people around him) has class, and a pretty decent moral compass.

Certainly no saint. The North Vietnamese offered to let a lot of PoWs out early- provided that they signed a “confession” to being war criminals, and made statements that the US’ involvement in the war was illegal. McCain got the same offer a lot of guys did, and would have been in violation of the Code of Conduct had he accepted it.

djones520 wrote:This election is the 3rd I've witnessed since I began to care, and it's really pointed out that the power the media has in picking the next president. By and large, they are in the bag for Obama. But gak that would have Republicans nailed to the wall, isn't even getting a second glance, so the American public isn't learning about it. Ayers is a small issue. Huge things like the actual proof of Obama's citizenship from birth (and there is very good reason to question it), his dealings in Kenyan politics, his involvement with ACORN and what may be the worst voting scandal in this nations history (Indianapolis has 105% of it's eligible voters registered). Why isn't any of that in the spot light?

I'm an independent, and not a Dem. But I've heard enough of that Republican propaganda. The horribly biased media didn't seem to hurt you in the '80s when you won and controlled the Presidency, the '90s when you controlled both houses of Congress, or in the two extremely close elections this decade.

Never mind the media turning into W's lapdogs at the beginning of the Iraq war, instead of asking the tough questions about our actual reasons for being there. Seems as though the GOP's had a pretty good run despite the dreaded liberal media.

The GOP's going to lose this election for two reasons:

1) the current prez is widely viewed as a failure, and
2) McCain hasn't been able to stick to a message, let alone articulate how he'd be any different than the current failed prez

It's really that simple. Maybe if McCain had actually been a maverick during the past decade, he could have helped to rein in some of Bush's policies. But he instead toed the party line in order to get the nomination. And now you see what happens when you hitch your star to the wrong person.

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves (not hanging chads, etc.) for losing the last two elections. The GOP can look in the mirror for their loss in this one. It has nothing to do with bizarre stories spread by paid rumor-mongers.

Breton wrote:I don't think his campaign was any better or worse than anyone else's in recent history. I also chalk that up to not having control over the people running his campaign rather than his opinion of it exactly- which certainly affects how I view his leadership capabilities. I haven't seen a decent (as in human, respect-filled, not treating the public at large as stupid, ignorant masses) for a long time.

That first sentence is crazy for two reasons. First up, recent history would include Bush 2000 primary run, featuring the push polling gem 'would your support for McCain change if you knew he had fathered a black child', and his 2004 re-election bid and the whole swiftboats for truth thing. So no, this campaign is a lot better than at least one in recent memory. But it's also a crazy sentence because the standard isn't just other campaigns, but should be directly compared against the campaign run by the other guy.

Obama's campaign hasn't been flawless. There's been a couple pretty average misrepresentations of McCain's positions (mostly quotes taken out of context). Obama's shifted a few positions to be more politically viable (dropping his moderated position on troop withdrawal and going to a hard line 16 months timetable). But on the whole Obama's campaign has been built around selling Obama to the public, and it's been a selling job built around a lot of policy speach.

McCain's campaign hasn't been built around McCain. To the extent that it has, its never gone beyond the most superficial of branding exercises, maverick McCain the outsider. Instead he's built his campaign around attacking Obama. Which is fine, Reagan ran his first campaign on Carter's popularity... and won and won well because the facts were in and they weren't kind to Carter. But the facts aren't that bad for Obama, because it's been Republicans that have seen the country reach this position. So instead McCain has lied. Not just misquoted or misrepresented, he's lied. He's admitted he lied, then repeated the same damn lies. Stranger danger passed off as sex education. The bridge to nowhere. When all that saw him fall further and further behind, he's turned back to straight up slander, terrorist connections and similar rubbish.

And that didn't work either, so now he says it's time to play nice. And people go along with him...

As a American I would personally prefer the Pres to have had military leadership/experience but in this election it's about change from some of the bad Bush policies in the past. I just haven't heard McCain state how he would change or differentiate from Bush's administration in enough detail. His statement about buying up bad mortgages has frankly scared me much more than any statements made by Obama on social reforms/changes.

gorgon wrote:The Dems have no one to blame but themselves (not hanging chads, etc.) for losing the last two elections. The GOP can look in the mirror for their loss in this one. It has nothing to do with bizarre stories spread by paid rumor-mongers.

This is very true. Gore's campaign was bad. Kerry's campaign was bad. Gore should have been able to ride on the back of the success of the Clinton presidency, but failed. Kerry should have been able to ride on the growing dissatisfaction with the Bush admin, but failed remarkably.

McCain could have been able to run a campaign as the stable hand needed in these troubled times, opposed to the charismatic but untested and risky Obama. But he's swung all over the place, and run a campaign with so many changes in focus it's starting to annoy the ADD kids. Meanwhile Obama has maintained a steady hand, played the long game even when his numbers were dropping. Obama is now seen as the more reliable, stable candidate by a majority of voters.

It was always going to be hard for McCain to keep and enthuse traditional Republican values voters, while maintaining his own centre right image, and keeping himself seperated from Bush. It would have taken a good campaign to win. But he didn't come close, it's been a shambles. And media coverage has nothing to do with that. If anything, the media was remarkably kind to him, especially in the first half of the campaign.

sebster wrote:

gorgon wrote:The Dems have no one to blame but themselves (not hanging chads, etc.) for losing the last two elections. The GOP can look in the mirror for their loss in this one. It has nothing to do with bizarre stories spread by paid rumor-mongers.

This is very true. Gore's campaign was bad. Kerry's campaign was bad. Gore should have been able to ride on the back of the success of the Clinton presidency, but failed. Kerry should have been able to ride on the growing dissatisfaction with the Bush admin, but failed remarkably.

McCain could have been able to run a campaign as the stable hand needed in these troubled times, opposed to the charismatic but untested and risky Obama. But he's swung all over the place, and run a campaign with so many changes in focus it's starting to annoy the ADD kids. Meanwhile Obama has maintained a steady hand, played the long game even when his numbers were dropping. Obama is now seen as the more reliable, stable candidate by a majority of voters.

It was always going to be hard for McCain to keep and enthuse traditional Republican values voters, while maintaining his own centre right image, and keeping himself seperated from Bush. It would have taken a good campaign to win. But he didn't come close, it's been a shambles. And media coverage has nothing to do with that. If anything, the media was remarkably kind to him, especially in the first half of the campaign.

I think it goes deeper than that. Here is how I view the two parties;

Reps: Purity, Sacred, Tradition as priorities, fairness/authority secondary
Dems: Change, acceptance, fair as priorities, tradition secondary

Now each election cycle the two parties attempt to enthuse their base while grabbing each others secondary. If you think in these terms, it is not hard to see why Bush was successful and why McCain chose Palin. Palin appeals to tradition, purity and the sacred while McCain appeals to nationalism/fairness (Hence his mortage policy proposals). Bush/Rove played this as well, with many states have referendums on homosexual marriage on election night. Republicans will vote tradition/purity, threaten that and it's your peril.

On the other hand, Obama is running on change with 'fair' tax cuts. Again, enthusing his base while trying to grab the Rep. secondary. In addition, during the VP debates....who lost? Homosexuals. Both camps stated they would not allow marriage (while Biden did make mention of civil unions)...but neither would dare go after tradition/purity.

Although I hate to say it, I believe the Democrat party is most successful only when the country is in poor shape (like now!). This lessens peoples fear of change and encourages more open minds. In addition, add the economy (The rich CEOs) and you can also play off the fairness angle. This is not to discount McCains campaign, as it has without doubt been with message and looks to be a disaster....but util more of the country becomes better educated however and dogma is challenged more publicly...I wouldn't hold my breath that this is a new mandate.

Cheers.

/Youtube Jonathan Haidt if you want your hair blown back on this subject. He's a moral/evolutionary psychologist and his TED talk is fascinating.

sebster wrote:

gorgon wrote:The Dems have no one to blame but themselves (not hanging chads, etc.) for losing the last two elections. The GOP can look in the mirror for their loss in this one. It has nothing to do with bizarre stories spread by paid rumor-mongers.

This is very true. Gore's campaign was bad. Kerry's campaign was bad. Gore should have been able to ride on the back of the success of the Clinton presidency, but failed. Kerry should have been able to ride on the growing dissatisfaction with the Bush admin, but failed remarkably.

McCain could have been able to run a campaign as the stable hand needed in these troubled times, opposed to the charismatic but untested and risky Obama. But he's swung all over the place, and run a campaign with so many changes in focus it's starting to annoy the ADD kids. Meanwhile Obama has maintained a steady hand, played the long game even when his numbers were dropping. Obama is now seen as the more reliable, stable candidate by a majority of voters.

It was always going to be hard for McCain to keep and enthuse traditional Republican values voters, while maintaining his own centre right image, and keeping himself seperated from Bush. It would have taken a good campaign to win. But he didn't come close, it's been a shambles. And media coverage has nothing to do with that. If anything, the media was remarkably kind to him, especially in the first half of the campaign.

If you ask me, Bush is still surprised he won in 2000.

I agree that you have to give Obama credit...he kept his eye on the ball. McCain probably had a fine line to walk, but his campaign has been dreadful. Going negative about things that happened (or didn't happen) years ago is poor strategy when voters are faced with so many "now" problems.

McCain's veep choice is a whole 'nuther ball of wax...or should I have said "vial of nitroglycerin"? IMO, if you're making a veep choice, follow the same rules that doctors do..."do no harm." Palin is photogenic, no doubt. But IMO she stole too much of the spotlight from McCain at a time when he should have been honing his message. Meanwhile, her unfavorability rating has climbed the more we've seen her, and I have to think she's really cost McCain among moderates, which was his strength at one time. Although I guess no one could have completely foreseen that she'd be such a polarizing figure.

There's actually talk that the Dems could get 60 Senate seats, which would mean the GOP would be unable to filibuster. Amazing stuff.

Thursday night I was in a focus group for a marketing research company. Ten males between 30 and 50, all NH registered voters. We were mostly judging Senate ads- Sununu vs. Shaheen, but there was also some discussion of national politics.

I perceived most of the guys in the room to be more conservative than me (I believe it was a mix of Dem, Repub, and Independents), but the general discussion in the room was more favorable towards Obama and more negative towards McCain than I expected.

Based on that small sample, the ads we saw, and the commentary on them, it seems like Sununu's seat might be vulnerable.

My idea of the President's required skills are:

To form a government of all the talents, organise them so they work effectively and lead them so they work towards the same goals.

To formulate a coherent vision and strategy for what he is going to do, and communicate this to the people, and persuade them to come with him.

I think any specific area of experience -- economic, military, foreign policy etc -- will have its experts and the President does not need to be one of them, he needs to know how to harness them.

(I am not an American.)

I know some pretty disillusioned moderate Republicans. I think they thought McCain was their guy, but he's given them reasons to think otherwise.

This election could break really big for the Dems. If they govern wisely and don't screw things up (easier said than done), they could have a long run. Demographics are much more favorable for them than the GOP in the coming years.

Whatever happens, I hope we're past the high water mark of the culture wars.

Edited by Mod for profanity.

djones520 wrote:

Typeline wrote:Military experience doesn't carry over to leadership experience. From what I've read the only thing McCain has even done in the military is crashed a ton of their planes and got captured. I don't see how that makes you a more viable leader for the United States.

Start actually reading stuff then. McCain served as the commander of the largest fighter squadron at the time in the Navy. Take it from someone who has dealt in the Operations area of the Air Force. They don't make idiots aviation squadron commanders. People who make that rank that can't hack command positions are shuffled off to harmless jobs till they retire. Being put in charge of 50 fighter jets, the pilots, and all the staff required to run that is a huge deal, and does equate to leadership experience.

As commanding officer, McCain relied upon a relatively unorthodox leadership style based upon the force of his personality.[188] He removed personnel he thought ineffective, and sought to improve morale and productivity by establishing an informal rapport with enlisted men.[186][63][188] Dealing with limited post-Vietnam defense budgets and parts shortages,[186][63] He was forceful in demanding that respect be given the female officers just beginning to arrive into the unit.[188] McCain's leadership abilities were credited with improving the unit's aircraft readiness; for the first time, all fifty of its aircraft were able to fly.[186][63] Although some operational metrics declined during the period,[185][188] the pilot safety metrics improved to the point of having zero accidents.[186][185] The squadron was awarded its first-ever Meritorious Unit Commendation,[184] while McCain received a Meritorious Service Medal.[91] McCain later stated that being commanding officer of VA-174 was the most rewarding assignment of his naval career.[189] When his stint ended in July 1977,[184] the change of command ceremony was attended by his father and the rest of his family, as well as some of his fellow POWs; speaker Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. said that John had joined Jack and Slew McCain in a place of honor in Navy tradition, a tribute that deeply moved McCain.

If I could find that from Wiki alone, then it out to be easy to find even more information. That is if you care to learn something other then the usual trash fed by KOS and the DemocraticUnderground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain#Commanding_officer

Get ready to be shouted down.

I would do it. But Wesley Clark can do it better. McCain is certainly no idiot, but he hardly went through the crucible of combat command either. Also, the wiki article is wrong. McCain was never of sufficient rank to disqualify him from commanding a smaller squadron.

I dunno, I'm sure McCain gained plenty of leadership experience from his stint in the military. Seems kinda petty and pointless to start picking apart his service record like that.

But I don't think military experience is especially relevant to anything other than being in the military. It doesn't necessarily make you a better patriot, leader or man. There are plenty of great leaders that never served, just as there are those that served but are crappy leaders.

djones520 wrote: That is if you care to learn something other then the usual trash fed by KOS and the DemocraticUnderground.

Lol

The only thing McCain has leadership experience in is leading people off to more wars to get our young men and women killed in. Unpopular wars, here at home and abroad. I'm sure he has just the right kind of leadership experience to destroy this country out right. At least there will be a softer landing with Obama instead of a massive explosion.

so Virginia might go for Obama then ?


To clarify : Obama hasn't claimed he'll cutback/affect the military as far as I know, so why the fear ?

reds8n wrote:so Virginia might go for Obama then ?


To clarify : Obama hasn't claimed he'll cutback/affect the military as far as I know, so why the fear ?

He wants to pull out of Iraq and focus more on terrorist hunting I guess. The main thing is Iraq. At first he was saying he'd pull all of our boys back but now he doesn't want to leave Afghanistan in the dust... so to speak.

So why is that viewed as a bad thing then ? Surely not getting shot at would be viewed as a bonus by most service personnel ?

meanwhile I read this in the NYT website

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

palin really use that quote.. and the media haven't nailed her over it ? The "liberal dominated" media.

Every Democratic candidate goes to the KOS convention with inpugnity, but the NYT tries to make McCain responsible for everything said by everyone. Excellent. How about the Congressman who compared McCain to Wallace this weekend. Where's the rebuke from Obama? Where's the media outrage? Oh I forgot he was a Democrat.

Oh wait I promised myself I wouldn't post on these threads any more. Oh well...

Bit of a difference between what "someone"/random democrat said and your hand picked running mate said at an election rally though surely ?

and 1 google search later : Obama backs lewis condemnation

And from here

In response, the Obama campaign said in a statement, "Senator Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies." But the campaign added that Lewis was right to condemn some of the "hateful rhetoric" at McCain's rallies

Sems fairly clear there.

EDITED by Frazzled



Time for old school:

Vote the out.

Bring back Teddy! Bull Moose Party in 2008!

Frazzled wrote:Thats speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Oh never mind. The one sideness of the media has gotten to me of late and I can't stand either of them at this point. Time for old school:

Vote the out.

Bring back Teddy! Bull Moose Party in 2008!

lol, no doubt. Universal health insurance, government intervention in environmentalism, breaking up big business and more regulation in the economy. If only one of the candidates supported Teddys positions!

The media will only get more one-sided. They smell blood. Though in all honesty I think a lot of this has to do with the absence of major issues to report on Obama. There are plenty of minor 'bleeder' type of stories. All Presidential candidates have those in abundance. But there are no moments of the level of Palin's mumbling, 'The fundamentals of the economy are strong', or 'I will suspend my campaign'. Things of that level of questionability will only attract more sharks to the frenzy, exacerbating issues that are otherwise insignificant.

Also, part of me thinks that this is payback for the way Bush liked to abuse the press.

Yet McCain was loved by the press while he was sticking a thumb in the eye of the Republicans. Now that he's the real candidate, he's not. Interesting that.

Actually the ACORN thing is a major issue, but it is not being discussed. Ballot box stuffing is a time honored Chicago machine tradition, but now it has big money behind it. Again its irrelevant though and comes down to which incumbent party is in power.

I think you're confusing "loves a juicy story" with "bias."

McCain was good press about 7 or 8 years ago when he was antagonizing Bush because that's good theater. There's nothing juicy about a senior Senator toeing the party line, which is what he did after he decided he wanted the 2008 nomination. That's boring to readers and reporters.

The press (eventually) killed Bush on Iraq because it became a soul-sapping, morale-draining, decade-long money pit. And that makes a good story. It's not because the press was out to get Bush.

Really, if the media was so biased, they would have swept Monica Lewinsky under the rug or found a way to bring that story to a close. But it's all we heard about for what, a year? That's because it was a good story with so many National Inquirer-like angles.

The media is in love with one thing, and that's money -- which comes from readership or ratings in that business.

ACORN is far from the only group to engage i voter registration drives, and their statistics are roughly consistent with the standard deviation inherent in any census.

In any case, the press loved McCain during the primaries because he wasn't prone to the type of gaffe strewn rants the other candidates were. Like Romney saying we should double Gitmo, or Giuliani chanting 'They hate us!'. He won the nomination by simply letting the others take themselves out of the race. Obama is winning with a similar tactic in the current environment.

You have to admit though, you haven't heard of another group recently being investigated in ten separate states however. Thats, er twitchy. These allegations, and any against other groups, should be fully investigated and prosecuted with exuberance. I'm tired of the jerrymandering banarepublicing of the US electoral process. Once again Bull Moose in 2008!

I have to agree that incumbent parties normally get kicked out after 2-3 terms, especially if the economy goes down the tubes.

The US setup allows for more frequent elections than the UK, which probably alleviates the boredom/protest vote, however there is less to choose between the two parties.

(Though arguably there is very little to choose now between Labour and Conservative.)

A few things,

The reason some people in America don't want to pull out of Iraq: they are stupid red-necks, and view it as "losing" a war. Or, more rarely, they view Iraq as a pretty good nation to harbor terrorism and want to keep troops there to monitor terrorist activities. The problem there is that instead of doing what we're supposed to, like usual, we want to be the big bad ass hero and try to quell the two major factions in the nation from ripping each others throats out. They've been at it for longer than we have existed as a country we need to give up that fight. They are doing fine aswell. They have the money they can handle themselves.

The ACORN thing: Yeah people are only freaking out because they don't know the meaning of voter fraud. It is to illegally cast ballot in an election. CAST. They have to actually get counted and be found out afterward to be recorded as illegal, it can't be discounted before the election to even get started. To be honest I don't know a lot about this one. But I do know that ACORN was calling attention to the matter before even Mr. Hannity was. I'm not clearing ACORN of being full of evil SOBs. They strong armed many inner city banks into giving out trashy loans in the first place. F them.

Two party system: Is starting to dissolve into a same candidate different policies thing. We are all so bitterly torn between Dem and Rep that we honestly can't really see how similar these candidates are. They are telling us what we want to hear and how they will do it slightly differently than the other. When in all honestly they are just full of it and will raise taxes to pay for the countries deficit, not be able to end the war, not be able to continue the war as our economy falls into the... well... latrine or lou or whatever. The economy, and I know this seems like a stretch for most, is not really effected by the administration. It may have ups and downs based on what said administration does but it isn't that dependent on it. If it goes down now, it's Bush's fault. If it went down in Clinton's time it'd be his fault. It just so happens that we seem to boom under the Dems and suffer under the Reps. Well... I take it back... maybe there is something to that whole economy thing from the pres.

To wrap this up in an edit I'd like to note I hate both of these candidates. One is a crazy old man who wants to blow up the world like his predecessor. The reason? To keep it safe. The second is a hippy liberal douche who wants to take care of every tiny little person that gets left in the dust in a free market economy. The world isn't a safe place to live in, anywhere ever. And no matter how hard you try some people just don't want to be happy or even continue to cater to their basic needs to sustain their lives.

dogma wrote:I would do it. But Wesley Clark can do it better. McCain is certainly no idiot, but he hardly went through the crucible of combat command either. Also, the wiki article is wrong. McCain was never of sufficient rank to disqualify him from commanding a smaller squadron.

I served in the Kosovo Air campaign were Wesley Clark was the the CC. It was a complete shambles. He was a political appointee during the Clinton years. Those eight years were some of the hardest years of my nearly 20 years of service. If you were a "wartime" leader you got the shaft but if you were a sycophantic ass kiss political type you got promoted. It was brutal. To compare Clark to McCain is really doing the Maverick an injustice. Clark got fired! His folks hated him becuase it was never his fault (always someone elses usually a subordinate) and he was an incompetant leader. His own CFACC (Commander of the Air Forces in theater) said that he couldn't or wouldn't make a decision to use military forces at his disposal effectively. This caused his subordinates to lose faith with his definite lack of leadership.

There are times that an O-4 (Lt Commander) can commnad a squadron usually because no one of higher rank is sufficiently qualified to lead the squadron or higher command has deemed that you are ready to command at a junior rank.

Take it from this Texan, McCain may have his issues (age, cancer) but he is the steady hand that we need right now. His campaign managers are pissing me off because they and their candidate aren't always on the same sheet of music. Plus the MSM isn't helping matters especially when a large percentage of "journalists" are in the tank for Obama. But give the man credit he knows Washington and he does put country first.

Iraq/Afghanistan - Having been to both I have to say that what you are not seeing on the ground (ie not being reported because we are doing well) is what is important. I'm not some stupid "red-neck" Typeline, I'm a person who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the United States. 15 generations of my family have done it and God willing some of my kids will as well.

In Iraq we are definitely carrying the lion's share of the work. But are slowly giving more and more of the work to the Iraqis. The government has passed 15 of the 18 benchmarks set for them. The also just recently began to start taking investments into their own oil infrastructure for exploration. Money for them means less money of ours going to stabilize their country.

Is Iraq perfect far from it but...what my friends and I have fought for and helped to build is why we are there. Now it is the front-line in the global war on terror. Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qeada's No 2, even said so. The Iranian Quds forces are supplying training and personnel to Shiite special groups to undermine the Coalition and Government. An Iraq in the Iranian image is something the Arab Gulf States and the World does not want.

Afghanistan is a NATO run mission. Getting a coalition of 38+ countriess to do anything is almost impossible. Are we making gains...yes we are. Are the Taliban and Al-Qeada learning and adapting yes they are. Is the fact that they pretty much get carte-blanche in western Pakistan frustrating yes it is. It makes rebuilding a country and engaging anit-government fighters difficult. But we are commited to that engaement as well. Once the government can effectively influence/control the majority of the country most of the US troops will likely come home.

The general consensus in the military is that Iraq/Afghanistan will become like post WWII Germany (been there), Japan (grew up and stationed there as well) or South Korea (yep been there too). Those three countries are some of our staunchest allies across the globe. Do we always see eye to eye, nope, but we always make the effort to mutally support one another.

Is it frustrating, yes. Will I have to go back for another tour, yes most likely in a few months to either Iraq or Afghanistan. But I do it so folks without the personal fortitude or willingness to commit don't have to. The fact that I can have a "discussion" with folks of opposing views means I've been doing my job. That is why I do what I do. That is why McCain does what he does. A lifetime of service to his country is what McCain brings to the table.

AoS

I just think that going into Iraq was a mistake in the beginning.

Once in, there was a moral imperative to see the job through. However a better way could have been found to defuse Saddam and normalise the country, which would have cost less blood and treasure, and not created a focus of anti-western Islamic extremism.

We need to acknowledge and examine the initial mistake in order to avoid repeating it.

Frazzled wrote:You have to admit though, you haven't heard of another group recently being investigated in ten separate states however. Thats, er twitchy. These allegations, and any against other groups, should be fully investigated and prosecuted with exuberance. I'm tired of the jerrymandering banarepublicing of the US electoral process. Once again Bull Moose in 2008!

No, what there is is a lot of noise from the same old right wing pundits, the same old slip shod coverage from the media, and a handful of politicised investigations that are yet to call into doubt a single vote. There's certainly no evidence of anything close to widespread vote fraud. Well, unless you count the traditional Republican efforts to suppress the vote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/13/election-acorn-voter-fraud

Typeline wrote:To wrap this up in an edit I'd like to note I hate both of these candidates. One is a crazy old man who wants to blow up the world like his predecessor. The reason? To keep it safe. The second is a hippy liberal douche who wants to take care of every tiny little person that gets left in the dust in a free market economy. The world isn't a safe place to live in, anywhere ever. And no matter how hard you try some people just don't want to be happy or even continue to cater to their basic needs to sustain their lives.

Except he isn't a hippie. By world standards he's a centrist, maybe even centre right. Australia's no socialist utopia, but Obama is to the right of the leaders of both our left and right wing major parties.

It's good to be engaged and interested, but you really need to back it up with reading.

Go ahead, vote for McCain. He is likely to die in the next 2 years.

And then you will get a crazy woman who believes in creation instead of evolution. Who believes in the rapture.

Sure, give her the power to destroy the world a couple of times over :-)

Ace of Spades, thanks for serving our country.

But I'd like to point out that the election is about much more than Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's why McCain is going to lose.

The country is in an economic meltdown -- which might get worse before it gets better -- and that outweighs everything else right now. The election is going to boil down to the fact that people don't like the Bush adminstration's handling of the economy, and McCain hasn't really articulated how he'd be any different.

I don't think his campaign has done a very good job either. But it's important to note that McCain isn't a puppet. If his campaign has been all over the place, it's because *he's* been all over the place. Just one example -- McCain championed deregulation, and now since that policy has proven to be a disaster, he's trumpeting greater regulation.

The American people are kind of a dumb bunch in some ways, but they see through that kind of thing. It's really made McCain look like an ordinary politician, flip-flopping when the situation requires.

That contradicts his message that he's the "steady hand" and plays right into the Dems' contention that he's erratic (which also is a stealthy way they suggest he's too old). And here's how the American people usually get it right with these elections -- they ask themselves, how is this candidate going to run this country for four or eight years if he can't even run an effective campaign for one?

That's what bit Kerry (and Gore to a lesser extent) in the a$$. Kerry never really made the case for Kerry. And even though the people were already growing dissatisfied with Bush, they asked themselves why they should vote for Kerry if he couldn't even explain it. It raises a lot of leadership questions -- which is also McCain's problem right now.

When McCain loses, it'll be on merit. It doesn't have anything to do with liberal media or anything else. It's just like gaming, y'know -- if you lose, accept that you need to play better next time.

Or play when the economy goes into a recession on the Democrat's watch. Ding, instant win.

It's not an instant win. It just means that the odds are against the incumbent. If you're talented enough you can play your way out of it.

IIRC, Clinton won re-election in Arkansas more or less on the message that "yeah, okay, I sucked...but give me another chance and I'll do better." Clinton sure was a lot of things, but one of them was a masterful campaigner.

While it wasn't strictly an economic crisis (although I guess that usually comes with a civil war), Lincoln faced some pretty steep odds and he won re-election. Roosevelt could have been booted out of office multiple times during the Great Depression.

McCain hasn't shown himself to be similarly gifted. It's like a game in which your reserve rolls stink...it sure doesn't help you, but it's probably not the only reason you lost if you did.

Gorgon I was referring to the US Presidency, not governor positions.

If you look historically, if the economy is good the VP is elected. If not they aren't. Gore is a big exception, but one could argue the US had had enough of the scandals - with Gore being involved in at least one major financial one. Plus Gore was as interesting as petrified wood.

Incumbent Presidents generally do better, but the rule still applies to them. Carter-economy bad so he's out. Bush I-economy bad so he's out. If Cheney had been running it would have been a landslide against him and Obama didn't start really pulling ahead until the bailout exploded onto the scene.

gorgon wrote:Ace of Spades, thanks for serving our country.

But I'd like to point out that the election is about much more than Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's why McCain is going to lose.

The country is in an economic meltdown -- which might get worse before it gets better -- and that outweighs everything else right now. The election is going to boil down to the fact that people don't like the Bush adminstration's handling of the economy, and McCain hasn't really articulated how he'd be any different.

I don't think his campaign has done a very good job either. But it's important to note that McCain isn't a puppet. If his campaign has been all over the place, it's because *he's* been all over the place. Just one example -- McCain championed deregulation, and now since that policy has proven to be a disaster, he's trumpeting greater regulation.

The American people are kind of a dumb bunch in some ways, but they see through that kind of thing. It's really made McCain look like an ordinary politician, flip-flopping when the situation requires.

That contradicts his message that he's the "steady hand" and plays right into the Dems' contention that he's erratic (which also is a stealthy way they suggest he's too old). And here's how the American people usually get it right with these elections -- they ask themselves, how is this candidate going to run this country for four or eight years if he can't even run an effective campaign for one?

That's what bit Kerry (and Gore to a lesser extent) in the a$$. Kerry never really made the case for Kerry. And even though the people were already growing dissatisfied with Bush, they asked themselves why they should vote for Kerry if he couldn't even explain it. It raises a lot of leadership questions -- which is also McCain's problem right now.

When McCain loses, it'll be on merit. It doesn't have anything to do with liberal media or anything else. It's just like gaming, y'know -- if you lose, accept that you need to play better next time.

Thanks Gorgon....well the run to the White House isn't over yet but I will admit that McCain/Palin are definitely going to have to work hard in the closing days.

This election is about a whole plethora of problems the economy, national security, energy, health care....just to name a few. Is it looking pretty grim right now for the US I have to say yes.

McCain needs to be be the man who just about everyone admired. The guy who is known for working across party lines. The next President has to be able to get bi-partisian buy in and work with both parties within the government to get the country back on track.

Look y'all have your opinions and I have mine that's why were having this discussion. But I do remember another very Liberal President (some say probably the smartest one ever) who got elected in kind of the same type of campaign that is going on right now. His presidency was heralded as the potential second coming just like Obama. The man was Jimmy Carter. His time in office was so bad that his own cabinet basically went rouge on him his last two years in office. Now I'll admit he's done some great things since leaving office but the man has made/said/done some things that have been just plain awful for the US.

Even McGovern (uber-Lib) says the things that Obama wants to do with the economy and the folks that he has in his circle are suspect.

Is McCain totally the right fit...no but when I look at Obama I get a really bad feeling...kind of like the guy who you play in round three of an RTT and you knw he is going to slow play or rules lawyer you to death because his skills in the game just aren't up to par. He may be a great player on Friday night/Sat morning with the regular crew as his local store but in the GT/regional RTT setting he short-comings force him to cheat to stay ahead. He is willing to sacrifice his personal honor and integrity to win at any cost. A person like that I cannot respect and that is what I see when I look at Obama. His past radical associations/friendships and the constant changing of his "history"....it all makes my innner alarms go off.

But in the end IF Obama gets elected then I'll continue to serve him as my CinC. Unfortunately, it will mean that I'll have to wait out his term in office until the next Repeublican gets elected so that he isn't the one signing my retirement paperwork. Who knows maybe it'll be Jindal/Romney in '12.

Anyhow, goog stuff going on here and I glad I could have this "talk" with y'all.

AoS

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
I served in the Kosovo Air campaign were Wesley Clark was the the CC. It was a complete shambles. He was a political appointee during the Clinton years. Those eight years were some of the hardest years of my nearly 20 years of service. If you were a "wartime" leader you got the shaft but if you were a sycophantic ass kiss political type you got promoted. It was brutal. To compare Clark to McCain is really doing the Maverick an injustice. Clark got fired! His folks hated him becuase it was never his fault (always someone elses usually a subordinate) and he was an incompetant leader. His own CFACC (Commander of the Air Forces in theater) said that he couldn't or wouldn't make a decision to use military forces at his disposal effectively. This caused his subordinates to lose faith with his definite lack of leadership.

A lot of that has to do with the mission profile provided for the Kosovo intervention. Political policy written in the detonation of laser guided bombs. Very similar to what was done in Vietnam, and generally a poor tactic. That's why Clark was appointed, to be a mouthpiece for Clinton's Peacekeeping doctrine. In most instances that doesn't make for a strong chain of command, but in certain circumstances it can be beneficial. Namely when the compromise of military objectives is necessary in pursuit of political ones. That's one of the reasons, besides stress consideration, that theatre command is rotated on a regular basis. Flexibility in determining command character.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Take it from this Texan, McCain may have his issues (age, cancer) but he is the steady hand that we need right now. His campaign managers are pissing me off because they and their candidate aren't always on the same sheet of music. Plus the MSM isn't helping matters especially when a large percentage of "journalists" are in the tank for Obama. But give the man credit he knows Washington and he does put country first.

I have no doubt that he puts country first. My doubts lie in the way he views the geopolitical landscape. I think he sees a world where the US can afford to be uncompromising. And that simply isn't reality.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
In Iraq we are definitely carrying the lion's share of the work. But are slowly giving more and more of the work to the Iraqis. The government has passed 15 of the 18 benchmarks set for them. The also just recently began to start taking investments into their own oil infrastructure for exploration. Money for them means less money of ours going to stabilize their country.

Is Iraq perfect far from it but...what my friends and I have fought for and helped to build is why we are there. Now it is the front-line in the global war on terror. Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qeada's No 2, even said so. The Iranian Quds forces are supplying training and personnel to Shiite special groups to undermine the Coalition and Government. An Iraq in the Iranian image is something the Arab Gulf States and the World does not want.

I will admit that Iraq had taken a turn for the positive. Though I am reticent to attribute all that success to the surge. The surge was effective in developing US leverage against the various factions, essentially forcing them to cooperate, but it certainly didn't somehow eliminate them. Asan extension, what disturbs me most about McCain is his consistent assertion that WE can win Iraq. It isn't our conflict to win. What we can do is give the Iraqi government (which we installed) breathing room to develop a cohesive identity. In the end it will be the survival of that identity which determines 'victory'.

In the interest of fairness, I also believe that Obama's policy on Afghanistan is a joke. More troops is not the answer to that problem. The terrain simply isn't suited to a major deployment of force (just ask the Soviets). Realistically, that theatre should take advantage of the relatively rag-tag nature of the opposition to progressively train local forces under live-fire conditions. Not unlike the Green Beret force-multipliers in Vietnam.

As for Iraq being the front line against global terror, you're right, it is. But it is important to recognize that we chose the battleground, not the terrorists. There is a serious lesson to be learned in that; we hold all the cards, and it is our actions which determine the nature of wars to be fought. In any case, Iran would have a great deal of difficulty in securing Iraq as a mirror state. Between the Kurds, Sunnis, and the threat of American air strikes on any major forces moved across the border they are held well in check.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Afghanistan is a NATO run mission. Getting a coalition of 38+ countriess to do anything is almost impossible. Are we making gains...yes we are. Are the Taliban and Al-Qeada learning and adapting yes they are. Is the fact that they pretty much get carte-blanche in western Pakistan frustrating yes it is. It makes rebuilding a country and engaging anit-government fighters difficult. But we are commited to that engaement as well. Once the government can effectively influence/control the majority of the country most of the US troops will likely come home.

Aside from organizational issues, the campaign in Afghanistan is being handled in much the way Iraq should have been. Small groups of highly trained soldiers operating from a few heavily equipped strong-holds while taking advantage of courageous, if poorly trained, local forces.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
The general consensus in the military is that Iraq/Afghanistan will become like post WWII Germany (been there), Japan (grew up and stationed there as well) or South Korea (yep been there too). Those three countries are some of our staunchest allies across the globe. Do we always see eye to eye, nope, but we always make the effort to mutally support one another.

With all due respect, comparing any of those nations to either Iraq or Afghanistan is something of a reach. Germany, Japan, and South Korea all benefitted from either a strong national identity (Japan, SK, and Germany in a complicated sense) or intervention at the hands of perceived peers (Germany).

In any case, all my respect to the men of the armed services.

Frazzled, I guess my objection is to partisans blaming environmental factors instead of taking a long, hard look at their candidate. Confusing ballots didn't do in Gore, swift boat shenanigans didn't do in Kerry, and a credit crisis isn't what's going to do in McCain.

Using those exact examples, Gore should never had let Florida get that close, Kerry should have hit back against the swift boat crew, and McCain should have come out weeks ago with the economic package he just proposed instead of going negative during that time. In each case, you have questions about the leadership qualities of the men involved. Was Gore too cocky? Was Kerry too slow/meek to respond? Does McCain have good judgment?

Obama's not the perfect candidate, but (ironically) he looks to have learned from the Bush crew. Stay the course, and even those who don't agree with you may come to respect you.

Whatever happens, it's been a historic campaign and the results will be equally historic.

Gorgon, don't misinterpret. I'm not saying McCain is an ideal candidate by any means. I'm agreeing that economics put a strong weight behind a particular party.

I disagree on the respect point though. I don't see much repsect across either aisle at this point. Minimal has been given to Clinton, none to Bush II, and none to the candidates. I don't think thats going to change no matter who is elected. That is unfortunate.

He is willing to sacrifice his personal honor and integrity to win at any cost.

Really ? Because from here watching the campaign it looks like McCain is the one who has sacrificed everything he was/might have been in an attempt to win. Not saying Obama has been an immobile rock of integrity but he's seemed far more steadfast in what he's said and done.


Respectfully I don't know when you were stationed in Germany but the impression from euroland is that the Germans/Germany aren't keen on you at all. I'm sure a lot of that is really due to the strong French influence. With the exception of a few countries like Poland and maybe some of the balkans the Uk is your onlu ally here as such. Belusconi might have a bit of a love in for Bush but he's as trustworthy as a magic bean salesman.

gorgon wrote:...
...
...

The American people are kind of a dumb bunch in some ways, but they see through that kind of thing. It's really made McCain look like an ordinary politician, flip-flopping when the situation requires.
...

...
...

Winston Churchill once said that you can rely on the Americans to do the right thing, just as soon as they have tried every other way of proceeding.

Channel 4 News (UK) which has just finished, said that McCain's and Palin's negative campaigning on the Obama character issue backfired badly, and caused a slump in their ratings. Also, that McCain is getting crucified on the economy. So McCain's flip was a damage limitation exercise.

I think I will stay up late to watch tonight's debate. It is McCain's last chance to pull things back, so he will use every bit of firepower at his disposal.

He has to "use his forepower", but he hasn't yet learned how to apply it or how not to look like a fool while doing it. Unless he's made miraculous progress on content (by all reports, no) or delivery (unlikely at this point) in the past week, the debate will have little to no impact at best, and nail the coffin shut at the worst.

dogma wrote:

A lot of that has to do with the mission profile provided for the Kosovo intervention. Political policy written in the detonation of laser guided bombs. Very similar to what was done in Vietnam, and generally a poor tactic. That's why Clark was appointed, to be a mouthpiece for Clinton's Peacekeeping doctrine. In most instances that doesn't make for a strong chain of command, but in certain circumstances it can be beneficial. Namely when the compromise of military objectives is necessary in pursuit of political ones. That's one of the reasons, besides stress consideration, that theatre command is rotated on a regular basis. Flexibility in determining command character.

True...do a good job and get promoted to bigger things (or sometimes do a total crap job and get a buddy to give a plum assignment). Most of the time a good leader get rewarded by getting moved up to a larger role and his subordinate(s) will move in to fill tha vacuum.

dogma wrote:
I have no doubt that he puts country first. My doubts lie in the way he views the geopolitical landscape. I think he sees a world where the US can afford to be uncompromising. And that simply isn't reality.

I have to disagree...my assessment is that he is willing to compromise to a point (the old bend but not break) but he won't put US needs on the back seat to anyone else. It's a fineline distinction. I don't think he'll have the "bull-in-a-china-shop" approach to the geopolitical landscape but a more Teddy Roosevelt approach.

dogma wrote:
I will admit that Iraq had taken a turn for the positive. Though I am reticent to attribute all that success to the surge. The surge was effective in developing US leverage against the various factions, essentially forcing them to cooperate, but it certainly didn't somehow eliminate them. Asan extension, what disturbs me most about McCain is his consistent assertion that WE can win Iraq. It isn't our conflict to win. What we can do is give the Iraqi government (which we installed) breathing room to develop a cohesive identity. In the end it will be the survival of that identity which determines 'victory'.

In the interest of fairness, I also believe that Obama's policy on Afghanistan is a joke. More troops is not the answer to that problem. The terrain simply isn't suited to a major deployment of force (just ask the Soviets). Realistically, that theatre should take advantage of the relatively rag-tag nature of the opposition to progressively train local forces under live-fire conditions. Not unlike the Green Beret force-multipliers in Vietnam.

As for Iraq being the front line against global terror, you're right, it is. But it is important to recognize that we chose the battleground, not the terrorists. There is a serious lesson to be learned in that; we hold all the cards, and it is our actions which determine the nature of wars to be fought. In any case, Iran would have a great deal of difficulty in securing Iraq as a mirror state. Between the Kurds, Sunnis, and the threat of American air strikes on any major forces moved across the border they are held well in check.

Gen Petreus is an mastermind at COIN (Counter Insurgency Ops) an his approach was the right one. Alot of mil-types wanted that approach and when we got it...well it worked.

Afghanistan...I worked with an Estonian Captain who fought in the Rus/Afghan war. He had a real hard on for the Governor of Herat, Ismail Khan, because he had killed a bunch of his guys during their war. But even he admitted that the way to make things work was just like in Iraq.

As to the rag tag nature of the opposition I have to disagree. These guys are being taught by combat vets from Chechnya, the Former Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Iranian Quds types. They learn (to a point) from their mistakes. Each year we notice that more and more often they fight harder and better (not always smarter) and they don't give up.

We do need more troops...kind of like like a mini surge. Making FOBs/bases that support special ops teams that can travel out and help the Afghans seize and hold territory. Kind of like we are doing now but on a grander scale. But we also need more help from our NATO allies as well.

dogma wrote:
Aside from organizational issues, the campaign in Afghanistan is being handled in much the way Iraq should have been. Small groups of highly trained soldiers operating from a few heavily equipped strong-holds while taking advantage of courageous, if poorly trained, local forces.

dogma wrote:
With all due respect, comparing any of those nations to either Iraq or Afghanistan is something of a reach. Germany, Japan, and South Korea all benefitted from either a strong national identity (Japan, SK, and Germany in a complicated sense) or intervention at the hands of perceived peers (Germany).

In any case, all my respect to the men of the armed services.

It's a best case scenario...will it happen I hope so. Especially in Afghanistan...Kabul is the capital and the "cosmopolitan" city in the country. When I drive through the city it was depressing. That country has seen nothing but war for nearly thirty years and it shows. The Afghan people are tough and resilient but they need help. Will they appreciate everything we are doing? I beleive the majority do and when it's all said and done we will have a staunch ally in the region in that country.

Iraq...well it won't be a democracy as we understand it (no Middle Eastern "democratic" country is) but they will be an ally and to some extent should/would become an ally like Japan/S Korea/Germany only to a lesser degree.

If you go by the the ethinic divisions...the Kurds are totally on board with us..the Sunnis are getting there...the Shia are split...but what do you expect when Western powers come in and divide a country up on a map with no concern for tribal/historical affiliations.

I would hope in my heart that those two countries would become as strong an ally as the three other countries. But that will be a long time coming.

AoS

The best way to help the Afghans would be to legalise the purchase of their opium for manufacturing medical Heroin.

This would annoy western pharmaceutical companies, but it would allow the Afghans a valuable cash crop with which to bring in money and start rebuilding their country.

Do you think legalizing opium is a good thing? Ask the Chinese in the 1800s how legalized opium dens worked.

I don't think Killkrazy means legalising opium or heroin, but rather allowing the opium grown by the afgans to be processed into pain relieving drugs like morphine and the like. Opiates have more uses than just getting people stoned.

Isn't that already done though DB?

To be honest I have no idea. I know they don't have the facilities to produce and export it themselves. Possibly they are exporting the raw materials to more developed nations for refining, but that wouldn't be as profitable.
My brother served out in Afganistan with the Royal Marines, he was saying it was horrible taking the heroin off their hands because it left entire villages with no way to survive, literally condemning them to starvation. It's really a very sticky situation whatever way you look at it.

Heroin kills how many people per year worldwide (addicts not drug related violence)? Grow something else.

Yeah I'd prefer that too, but they see opium as a safer bet. Even if they lose half the crop from bad circumstances, they can still make enough profit to feed everyone.
I'd also say to the addicts: Don't take heroin, you morons.

Ah, a closet Republican!

Well, over here Republican has a different meaning

Erp ya got me there.

Frazzled wrote:I disagree on the respect point though. I don't see much repsect across either aisle at this point. Minimal has been given to Clinton, none to Bush II, and none to the candidates. I don't think thats going to change no matter who is elected. That is unfortunate.

What I meant by that was simply that Bush was elected twice, and each time there were groups of voters who said things like "I don't agree with everything that Bush says, but I know where he stands." Sticking to your message can win you character points.

Meanwhile, Gore and especially Kerry got labeled (and it stuck) as flipfloppers by Rove. And Gore and Kerry lost to Bush despite the fact that on a purely political level, more Americans are on their side of the issues. There are, after all, many more registered Dems than Reps. The whole flipflopper thing hurt them badly.

It's almost like the roles were reversed this time around. Obama's campaign managed to stick the "erratic" label (code for both "flipflopper" and "old") on McCain, while their candidate seemed to do a better job of playing it cool and staying on course.

lord_sutekh wrote:He has to "use his forepower", but he hasn't yet learned how to apply it or how not to look like a fool while doing it. Unless he's made miraculous progress on content (by all reports, no) or delivery (unlikely at this point) in the past week, the debate will have little to no impact at best, and nail the coffin shut at the worst.

McCain didn't get it done last night. The more I watch him, the more I wish he was the McCain of 10 years ago. He just comes across as old, angry, and even a little mean now. On a side note, HDTV really doesn't help him. A younger, more (genuinely) maverick McCain would have given Obama a much tougher battle even with the current economic environment.

I'm an independent...I want to see strong candidates on either side. It's better for the country. McCain might be the right man, but it might be at the wrong time in his life.

I can never understand how someone would look at heroin and think "yeah, I know it ruins basically everyone that touches it...but I really think it's going to work out for me."

Frazzled wrote:Isn't that already done though DB?

DB ?

I'd put forward this as an example of what could be done,

and to be fair things are being looked at

Da Boss

I'm all for opium use for painkillers. Selling opium for heroin is no bueno however.

To reply to several points in one post:

1. I am advocating the legal purchase of the Afghan opium crop to use it for manufacture of legally prescribed heroin and morphine used in hospitals.

2. While opium was bad for the Chinese in the 1800s, cannabis consumption had little deleterious social effects in India in the 1800s. This may be due to the social milieu in which the drugs were used.

3. The dangers from heroin and other drugs are largely due to mixing them inadvisedly and the impurities in illegal street drugs.

1. I am advocating the legal purchase of the Afghan opium crop to use it for manufacture of legally prescribed heroin and morphine used in hospitals.
*****OK if those supplies are not already available. I don't have evidence that its not already.

2. While opium was bad for the Chinese in the 1800s, cannabis consumption had little deleterious social effects in India in the 1800s. This may be due to the social milieu in which the drugs were used.
******The opium trade was so deleterious China resorted to solving the problem via shooting the dealers and addicts alike. It was having a disastrous effect upon their economy, but was indeed completely legal.

3. The dangers from heroin and other drugs are largely due to mixing them inadvisedly and the impurities in illegal street drugs.
****I disagree strongly. When used properly, heroin will eventually kill you, slowly over time. It will make your life a living first though.

The Afghans grow opium because its been a reliable cash crop for a long time. The problem with legalising it for use in medical or narcotic drugs is that other countries will quickly do it better and for less, as Afghan farming infrastructure is pretty crappy, to say the least.

Helping them develop the infrastructure and skills to develop different cash crops is probably the best long term solution, although there's certainly a lot of challenges to overcome. Besides the Taliban and other local powers having a vested interest in stopping modernisation, there's also the difficulty of competing with the commercial farming of the West and Asia.

No drugs (including tobacco and alcohol are totally safe. In fact, people in the UK have died of water intoxication!

To enlarge on that point, I don't think any drugs are a really great idea. Even coffee can give you the jitters.

However historical evidence suggests that people have always taken drugs and will not stop taking drugs however hard they are prohibited.

Prohibition creates a market which is lucrative because it is illegal. By criminalising what is actually fairly normal human behaviour causes social damage in a number of ways.

In the spirit of reducing the harmful effects on society and the individual, it may be better to permit drug use under reasonable legal restrictions. This would of course require careful study and preparation of the appropriate laws and social conditions.

I don't entirely agree with that. People have been smoking things for thousands of years, sure, but smoking cigarettes has been dying culturally for years. It used to be fairly normal for everyone past the age of 12 to smoke, now the simple act of smoking, though legal, is socially less favorable, and can downright make certain people avoid you. If it were made fully illegal, the fight would be over whether the government has the right to do so, not whether we should smoke or not.( that may be simply because of American attitudes) Making something like pot legal may not do anything at all, beyond making foreign drug cartels more money unless Americans start growing there own.

Furthermore, quite a few things are banned for everyones own good. Class 1 drugs, to use the FDA's scale, are highly addictive, dangerous, and provide no medical benefits. People abuse these, sure, and they are illegal. Unbanning them will not make them used less or lessen any illicit market activity.

Unbanning of drugs to lessen "harmful societal effects" is much more complicated than it is made out to be.

Not all class 1 drugs are created equal.

Making something illegal means that only criminals can sell it. This drives up prices and creates a market in which murder and theft are common business practices for dealing in that thing. For most things, having them be legal, but regulated and taxed, is a win/win from both the crime and cost standpoints.

Yes, I don't disagree, but I don't see that as the whole of possibilities here. Something that is made illegal is usually done so because it is perceived as harmful or otherwise undesireable by a good number of the population( or those in power at least). If people want the use of something to stop, it is entirely possible that it can happen culturally, with or without a legislative side of the issue.

The reduction in smoking cigarettes is a good example (as is drunk driving) of how a sensible programme of information and moderate law has turned around a social trend. I doubt it would have worked simply to ban tobacco in the same way that cannabis is banned, and probably wouldn't work even now since too large a proportion of the population smoke.

Unbanning illegal drugs would lessen illicit market activity because pharmaceutical companies would be able to sell drugs under proper licence. It is the illegality of drugs, combined with their desireability, that produces the very high profits that encourage criminal channels. (See Prohibition.)

I agree with you that these issues are very complex. Partly because they are surrounded by conflicting cultural attitudes and legal legacies. We have to deal with the situation we are in now, rather than the one that existed 100 years ago.

At the moment we are having an argument in the UK about Cannabis and Ecstasy.

The government set up an expert working group to study these drugs and make recommendations on medical and legal grounds about how they should be treated. The expert committee recommended that Cannabis should be kept a Class C drug and Extasy should be downgraded from A to B. (A is for Heroin and so on.)

However the government increased Cannabis to B and looks likely to keep Ecstasy as class A. This is not justified by the reality of the drugs' potential for harm, but it satisfies popular opinion.

But would un-banning cannabis make illegal growers disappear? How would the violent, illegal element react to this? Would they become even more violent to control trade on a local level?
I wonder because it isn't quite the same situation as prohibition. There was a legitimate business side, where honest people made money which was made illegal. Then you had predators who took advantage of the situation and perpeutated illegal business. I'm not entirely sure what happened to them after prohibition(not a history buff). It's my understanding that many were killed in open war with law enforcement.

Now something like weed, for example, has never had a large scale, legal market in the United States. How would that affect the "predator"s behaviour were it made legal? Would there really be a new market, or would thugs and other undesireables still hold control of it?

It was commonly used in the US in the 19th century and widely used in the first part of the 20th.

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm

I definitely think it's worth reading on what happened with alcohol during and after prohibition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Repeal

Ragnar again we agree to an extent. I'd posit the real heavy stuff (crack, heroin, Hersheys chocolate) is in a completely different league and has completely different effects regardless of whether legal or not.

Cannabis is so easy to grow anyone could do it for themselves if they were allowed to. Thugs would find it impossible to control the trade of cannabis when Aunty May could grow it in a window box or just buy it from the supermarket.

Well organised growers who are currently illegal would be able to go legit and probably find a good local market because their expertise would give them a competitive advantage.

I suppose some of them might want to bust up farmers' weekend markets or something like that. I don't know if such attempts would work once legal cannabis sellers had the same protection from the police that off licences and tobacconists have now. Alternatively, the hardcore crims might switch to trading other drugs which would still be illegal. It's pretty easy to cook up crystal meth or amphetamines with a bit of chemistry knowledge.

I don't claim to know about all this stuff. Older and wiser heads than mine would have to consider all angles of the issue.

I know in the US weed farming is a major cash crop Kentucky and the other Tennessee valley states (old moonshining states). As I alsways say Weed, Southern Comfort Whiskey, and crystal meth. Made in America, by Americans, for Americans

Frazzled wrote:Ragnar again we agree to an extent. I'd posit the real heavy stuff (crack, heroin, Hersheys chocolate) is in a completely different league and has completely different effects regardless of whether legal or not.

Can't disagree too much here. Heroin is deh debil. Cocaine's a little tougher. It's certainly worse than pot, though (while my addictions and chemical dependency classes are somewhat foggy memories now) not as bad as heroin.

Don't forget hershey's chocolate. Talk about a habit you can never ever kick...

Ah thanks for the links. Never realized that I didn't know what ultimately happened to the truly criminal involved in prohibition until a couple of hours ago.

But what do you mean that class 1 drugs aren't made equal? Are they not classed together because of particular shared characteristics, regardless of source? It's been a few years since my pharm tech classes, but aren't most narcotics class 2 or 3, usually more risky but with accepted medical uses? Doesn't cannabis fall into 2?

Is there a standard scientific definition of Class 1 (Class A) drugs?

I thought it was essentially a legislative convenience. That is, drugs classed A carry the highest penalties, unrelated to their clinical effects.

It's a legal construct, which, as is dramatically demonstrated by cannabis and heroin, is not really based on medical fact.

That's the point about the expert reports on Ecstacy and Cannabis. The science opinion says don't worry, they're not that bad, but the Daily Mail is all OMGWTF!!11! Drugs==End of Civilisation.

Well, not chemical or medical fact really. Its a classification of observable results, namely likelyhood to cause addiction, the potential lethality of the drug(or its side-effects) and whether it has an accepted medical use or not. As Mannahnin says, its mostly a legal construct that decisions are made around and is open to interpretation or revision.

Tha's the thing.

Extensive medical studies have concluded that cannabis is not physically addictive, less physically dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and is an extremely useful drug for treatment of nausea (extremely helpful to cancer patients), among other things.

And yet it continues to be classified as "highly addictive, dangerous, and provide no medical benefits", in defiance of medical fact.

It's pretty awful policy, actually, as it has serious consequences in the lives of people who are no threat or harm to society. And of course, wastes billions of tax dollars on enforcement, trials, prisons, etc. It's shameful.

It wouldn't be government if it t'wernt shameful.

But I think part of it is that society wants to prevent the spread of what we see as concurrent behaviour with smoking weed. You know the guy, I know a few, that have basically given up on their lives, wallow in self-pity, and use weed to escape the world. Now the drug itself may not be a cause in this place, unless people that are introduced to weed by such individuals without knowing about those that use it for other reasons, and becoming sort of subverted into the behaviour by peer pressure. Drug culture, if you will. So whether it is a direct cause or not, the cannabis gets banned. Same thing with alcohol. You can't ban people throwing their lives away, but you don't want such behaviour to become more common, so you ban things that are associated with the behaviour and hope for culture to go along.

Railguns wrote:Well, not chemical or medical fact really. Its a classification of observable results, namely likelyhood to cause addiction, the potential lethality of the drug(or its side-effects) and whether it has an accepted medical use or not. As Mannahnin says, its mostly a legal construct that decisions are made around and is open to interpretation or revision.

Weed was made illegal due to three things; Mormons, Mexicans and negros. There is no rational reason why alcohol is legal while weed is not. Tax it, sell it...our country could use the money (and good vibes).

Remember kids;

"Marijuana makes Negroes eat other Negroes when they get the munchies."

I was going to put the same argument in a much less pithy and elegant way.

Furthermore, cannabis was made illegal in most of the rest of the world because the USA pushed for it in international conferences.

It's worth pointing out one of the chief architects on the War on Drugs was Joe Biden.

The illegality of weed is skewed by the many vested interest of large companies.

The paper and chemical industry don't want it grown and used extensively as it would challenge their dominance, whilst the Pharmaceutical industry is very keen to develop a synthetic equivalent of THC ( the active bit that gives you the buzz) so they can patent it and makes millions

Few other points :
HISTORY FACTS

*Hemp has been grown for at least the last 12,000 years for fiber (textiles and paper) and food. It has been effectively prohibited in the United States since the 1950s.

*George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper.

*When US sources of "Manila hemp" (not true hemp) was cut off by the Japanese in WWII, the US Army and US Department of Agriculture promoted the "Hemp for Victory" campaign to grow hemp in the US.

*Because of its importance for sails (the word "canvass" is rooted in "cannabis") and rope for ships, hemp was a required crop in the American colonies.



INDUSTRY FACTS

*Henry Ford experimented with hemp to build car bodies. He wanted to build and fuel cars from farm products.

*BMW is experimenting with hemp materials in automobiles as part of an effort to make cars more recyclable.

*Much of the bird seed sold in the US has hemp seed (it's sterilized before importation), the hulls of which contain about 25% protein.

*Hemp oil once greased machines. Most paints, resins, shellacs, and varnishes used to be made out of linseed (from flax) and hemp oils.

*Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on hemp oil.

*Kimberly Clark (on the Fortune 500) has a mill in France which produces hemp paper preferred for bibles because it lasts a very long time and doesn't yellow.

*Construction products such as medium density fiber board, oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts could be made out of hemp. Because of hemp's long fibers, the products will be stronger and/or lighter than those made from wood.

*The products that can be made from hemp number over 25,000.



SCIENTIFIC FACTS

*Industrial hemp and marijuana are both classified by taxonomists as Cannabis sativa, a species with hundreds of varieties. C. sativa is a member of the mulberry family. Industrial hemp is bred to maximize fiber, seed and/or oil, while marijuana varieties seek to maximize THC (delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana).

*While industrial hemp and marijuana may look somewhat alike to an untrained eye, an easily trained eye can easily distinguish the difference.

*Industrial hemp has a THC content of between 0.05 and 1%. Marijuana has a THC content of 3% to 20%. To receive a standard psychoactive dose would require a person to power-smoke 10-12 hemp cigarettes over an extremely short period of time. The large volume and high temperature of vapor, gas and smoke would be almost impossible for a person to withstand.

*If hemp does pollinate any nearby marijuana, genetically, the result will always be lower-THC marijuana, not higher-THC hemp. If hemp is grown outdoors, marijuana will not be grown close by to avoid producing lower-grade marijuana.

*Hemp fibers are longer, stronger, more absorbent and more mildew-resistant than cotton.

*Fabrics made of at least one-half hemp block the sun's UV rays more effectively than other fabrics.

*Many of the varieties of hemp that were grown in North America have been lost. Seed banks weren't maintained. New genetic breeding will be necessary using both foreign and domestic "ditchweed," strains of hemp that went feral after cultivation ended. Various state national guard units often spend their weekends trying to eradicate this hemp, in the mistaken belief they are helping stop drug use.

*A 1938 Popular Mechanics described hemp as a "New Billion Dollar Crop." That's back when a billion was real money.

*Hemp can be made in to a variety of fabrics, including linen quality.



LEGAL FACTS

*The US Drug Enforcement Agency classifies all C. sativa varieties as "marijuana." While it is theoretically possible to get permission from the government to grow hemp, DEA would require that the field be secured by fence, razor wire, dogs, guards, and lights, making it cost-prohibitive.

*The US State Department must certify each year that a foreign nation is cooperating in the war on drugs. The European Union subsidizes its farmers to grow industrial hemp. Those nations are not on this list, because the State Department can tell the difference between hemp and marijuana.

*Hemp was grown commercially (with increasing governmental interference) in the United States until the 1950s. It was doomed by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which placed an extremely high tax on marijuana and made it effectively impossible to grow industrial hemp. While Congress expressly expected the continued production of industrial hemp, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics lumped industrial hemp with marijuana, as it's successor the US Drug Enforcement Administration, does to this day.

*Over 30 industrialized democracies do distinguish hemp from marijuana. International treaties regarding marijuana make an exception for industrial hemp.

*Canada now again allows the growing of hemp.



ECOLOGY FACTS

* Hemp growers can not hide marijuana plants in their fields. Marijuana is grown widely spaced to maximize leaves. Hemp is grown in tightly-spaced rows to maximize stalk and is usually harvested before it goes to seed.

*Hemp can be made into fine quality paper. The long fibers in hemp allow such paper to be recycled several times more than wood-based paper.

*Because of its low lignin content, hemp can be pulped using less chemicals than with wood. Its natural brightness can obviate the need to use chlorine bleach, which means no extremely toxic dioxin being dumped into streams. A kinder and gentler chemistry using hydrogen peroxide rather than chlorine dixoide is possible with hemp fibers.

*Hemp grows well in a variety of climates and soil types. It is naturally resistant to most pests, precluding the need for pesticides. It grows tightly spaced, out-competing any weeds, so herbicides are not necessary. It also leaves a weed-free field for a following crop.

*Hemp can displace cotton which is usually grown with massive amounts of chemicals harmful to people and the environment. 50% of all the world's pesticides are sprayed on cotton.

*Hemp can displace wood fiber and save forests for watershed, wildlife habitat, recreation and oxygen production, carbon sequestration (reduces global warming), and other values.

*Hemp can yield 3-8 dry tons of fiber per acre. This is four times what an average forest can yield.



HEALTH FACTS

*If one tried to ingest enough industrial hemp to get 'a buzz', it would be the equivalent of taking 2-3 doses of a high-fiber laxative.

*At a volume level of 81%, hemp oil is the richest known source of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids (the "good" fats). It's quite high in some essential amino acids, including gamma linoleic acid (GLA), a very rare nutrient also found in mother's milk.

*While the original "gruel" was made of hemp seed meal, hemp oil and seed can be made into tasty and nutritional products.



Prepared by the North American Industrial Hemp Council, October 1997

Oh, Gensis 1:12

King James Bible
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good

For once, QFT.

sebster wrote:It's worth pointing out one of the chief architects on the War on Drugs was Joe Biden.

The War on Drugs started in the early 20th century.

Hemp is irrelevant. I have nylon rope that treats Hemp like Cartman treats Hippies!

Pardon the pun but thats a smoke screen BS argument that no one, no one cares about. Make weed liegal or illegal on its own merits.

JF, that’s a pretty disrespectful and insulting response.

Hemp is a separate issue from Marijuana, and legitimately stands on its own merits. It’s an extremely useful plant, whose cultivation is made virtually impossible in this country due to wrongheaded, science-ignorant laws. What about it do you think is a "BS argument"?

Just because a lot of potheads do wind up being hemp advocates too doesn’t make it a “smokescreen.”

Its meant to be disrespectful, to Hemp! My awesome nylon and higher end syntehtic ropes laugh at Hemp rope. I hear them in the garage, snickering as we speak. Snicker snicker

It is a smoke screen...get it? Come on its Friday Ragnar, smile or my synthetic material ropage will taunt you a second time!

..er I care.

..Oh, hang on, I'm a no one.

No offence taken btw.

Good sidestep again though, you should try out out for one of the reality dancing shows.

Sorry JF, I wore out my laugher last night watching McCain and Obama's speeches. Now *that* was good stuff.

There is a scene from the Shakespearean drama best Little Whorehouse in Texas where the state governor does a dance routine called "I love to do the sidestep"
Loved that bit.

Kilkrazy wrote:The War on Drugs started in the early 20th century.

Well if you're gonna get all literal about things... there's been campaigns against illegal drugs in the US for a long time, but there's only been a War on Drugs since called it that in the 70s .

But anyway, point taken - I wasn't clear enough. Biden was on the sub-committee for crime and drugs for like ten years, and was the chair for much of that time. He's presently the chair of the Caucus on Narcotics Control. Basically, if you don't like US drug policy, you don't like Biden's policy.

Yes, the phrase War On Drugs was apparently coined by Richard Nixon in 1971. (The War On Terror dates to the 1980s, I believe... another great longterm success of western international relations.)

While I don't like US drug policy, I don't hold Biden solely and personally responsible for it, as he has merely continued a policy which has been in development arguably since the end of the Opium Wars.

It is one of my larger areas of disagreement with him.

Let's put it this way, if Biden dropped dead of a stroke tomorrow, there would not be a sudden change in US drug policy.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, the phrase War On Drugs was apparently coined by Richard Nixon in 1971. (The War On Terror dates to the 1980s, I believe... another great longterm success of western international relations.)

Ah, I didn't know that. I might hunt down a decent history of the war on terror, as its probably well worth knowing.

While I don't like US drug policy, I don't hold Biden solely and personally responsible for it, as he has merely continued a policy which has been in development arguably since the end of the Opium Wars.

Yeah, absolutely, I didn't mean to imply that it was all him. It probably wouldn't be all that different if anyone else was there, but he is there and its his policy.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, the phrase War On Drugs was apparently coined by Richard Nixon in 1971. (The War On Terror dates to the 1980s, I believe... another great longterm success of western international relations.)

While I don't like US drug policy, I don't hold Biden solely and personally responsible for it, as he has merely continued a policy which has been in development arguably since the end of the Opium Wars.

I would state the war on drugs began with this man;



Anslinger set the mood for how the government would fight the war on drugs for decades to come. You should Google some of his quotes (I included one in my earlier post).

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Gen Petreus is an mastermind at COIN (Counter Insurgency Ops) an his approach was the right one. Alot of mil-types wanted that approach and when we got it...well it worked.

Afghanistan...I worked with an Estonian Captain who fought in the Rus/Afghan war. He had a real hard on for the Governor of Herat, Ismail Khan, because he had killed a bunch of his guys during their war. But even he admitted that the way to make things work was just like in Iraq.

As to the rag tag nature of the opposition I have to disagree. These guys are being taught by combat vets from Chechnya, the Former Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Iranian Quds types. They learn (to a point) from their mistakes. Each year we notice that more and more often they fight harder and better (not always smarter) and they don't give up.

We do need more troops...kind of like like a mini surge. Making FOBs/bases that support special ops teams that can travel out and help the Afghans seize and hold territory. Kind of like we are doing now but on a grander scale. But we also need more help from our NATO allies as well.

I don't question Petreus' mastery of COIN Ops. Just from the barest examination of his strategy its pretty clear that he is a commendable student of French imperial tactics, especially in Algeria. If Iraq is defined as a counter-insurgency operation, then the surge is absolutely the correct choice. Deploy troops to secure territory and thereby leverage the opposition into cooperating with you. The problem is that we don't need the insurgents to cooperate with us, we need them to cooperate with each other. Its one thing to get dissident factions to respect an imperial power, it is quite another to get them to respect one another enough to concede authority without violence. That said, the surge was really the only choice given the prior mismanagement of the war.

In terms of Afghanistan I think that a surge may be necessary in the future, but for the time being there needs to be a greater arbitrational force between the dissident factions in that nation. In particular we need to find a way to install a President who isn't completely ineffective.

My rag tag comment was primarily meant as a comment on the intelligence of the opposition. Indeed, I have a great deal of respect for the insurgents. The harshness of their everyday existence makes them well disposed to the project of warfare, at least in terms of their determination and toughness.

Edit: I appreciate your discussion, despite my tardiness in response. I rarely find people who have a nuanced perspective of military operations and history. And it is always good to hear from the enlisted.

Afghanistan doesn't sound to great at the moment

How do I say this? Given Afghanistan's violent and turbulent history through the millennium, should our goal be a democratized Afghanistan or one where Al Qauaeda is gone/nuetralized. I don't see this country getting better no matter what we do. It could potentially be made moderately harmless, but more than that?

I'm tired of spending billions on other nations when we have our own needs. Frankly the "we broke it we bought it" rule somewhat applies to Iraq, but Afghanistan held the people that attacked us. We have no obligation other to make sure the ones who attacked us can never attack us again.

But if we relentlessly pursue our enemies through whatever borders we see fit we might have more enemies than we started with when we eliminate the original. Simply cutting our way across the map and telling every country we move through "we don't really have any money for you guys. So ummm... deal with it, terrorism." isn't really going to fly in most places.

Agreed Typline. I'll note though Afghanistan was the first country and the one that actually attacked us.

To be fair, neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban actually attacked us. It was Al-Queda, who was being harbored by Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

On a side note, am I the only one who gets hungry for quesadillas every time he sees the name "Al-Queda"?

Frazzled wrote:How do I say this? Given Afghanistan's violent and turbulent history through the millennium, should our goal be a democratized Afghanistan or one where Al Qauaeda is gone/nuetralized. I don't see this country getting better no matter what we do. It could potentially be made moderately harmless, but more than that?

I'm tired of spending billions on other nations when we have our own needs. Frankly the "we broke it we bought it" rule somewhat applies to Iraq, but Afghanistan held the people that attacked us. We have no obligation other to make sure the ones who attacked us can never attack us again.

Until they adopt a more secular republic there is little hope for that country.

gorgon wrote:To be fair, neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban actually attacked us. It was Al-Queda, who was being harbored by Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

On a side note, am I the only one who gets hungry for quesadillas every time he sees the name "Al-Queda"?

Your brain is linking Qaeda with queso... now I'm thinking of it. Thanks a lot gorgon
Oh wait its almost lunchtime, I foresee enchiladas in my future

I think that the UN colalition that is currently running ops in Afghanistan should look at ponying up more of the money to help restore the country. But honestly the country was a complete shambles before we got there. They have had some sort of war going for the last 30 years.

Unlike Iraq, the vast majority of the population is uneducated, illiterate and lives like they have for centuries. That country needs serious help.

On top of that they have no real resources to generate money. Some limited natural gas, wheat (it's actually worth something this year), semi-precious stones and of course the majority of the World's poppy. Hell, the country only has 10 miles of train rail laid down running from the north into the Herat region.

AoS

Frazzled wrote:How do I say this? Given Afghanistan's violent and turbulent history through the millennium, should our goal be a democratized Afghanistan or one where Al Qauaeda is gone/nuetralized. I don't see this country getting better no matter what we do. It could potentially be made moderately harmless, but more than that?

I'm tired of spending billions on other nations when we have our own needs. Frankly the "we broke it we bought it" rule somewhat applies to Iraq, but Afghanistan held the people that attacked us. We have no obligation other to make sure the ones who attacked us can never attack us again.

The trouble is where does that stop?

The Taleban and Al Quaeda are in the tribal provinces of Pakistan's NW frontier. We haven't run them out of Afghanistan because they keep coming in and attacking NATO troops. When US forces cross the border and attack them in Pakistan, it annoys the Pakistanis (who are meant to be our allies) and further destabilises their rather shakey democracy.

Without clear signs that our troops are getting the upper hand, we can't convincingly say we have beaten the terrorists. I don't see how we can nation build Afghanistan while it is the site of a terrorist insurgency created by the previous extremist government.

Can we hold on in Afghanistan for years and decades, just to suppress the terrorists? How much do they need Afghanistan as a base for organisation and training -- is it their only sanctuary?

It is not their only sanctuary.

That's what I thought.

Suppressing terrorists in Afghanistan is not very helpful if they pop up elsewhere.

Although the Taleban camps were useful for training insurgents, they were not necessary for recruiting extremists, or for training the pilots who flew the 9/11 planes, or for making the money that paid for the operation.

Its been quite helpful. Many of them are now dead. The question becomes, what do we do now?

*Terrorists are still at least in one region (Afghan/Pakistan border), along with the Taliban.

*As noted, historically the tribes and groups tend to fight it out, er constantly.

*Attempts by non-Afghanis to maintain control/raise up the country have not been...productive.

*If we quit supporting the current regime the Taliban could flood back in. Does that mean we stay their indefinitely?

*Hence the issue. We don't want to be there. We didn't start that war. How do you finish it short of going Mongol/Soviet?

Pull out?

Then what?

.. tradition would dictate making your excuses and phoning for a cab yes ? ba-dump tish !

Seriously, we partially got into this mess because no one asked after arming the mujis to fight the Rooskies-"then what." Lets not repeat the error and ask it now.

No matter the proposed action- then what?

Frazzled wrote:Then what?

Save a lot of lives and money.

The way I see it is that we're not preventing preparation for terrorism because it goes on elsewhere, we're providing a training ground for insurgents (as in Iraq) and an excuse for extremists to recruit people.

We can't win, at least not in any reasonable amount of time, so it's better to get out earlier rather than later.

1. How are we providing a trianing ground? They were already there, remember?

2. Saying Save a lot of lives and money doesn't answer the question.

3. We can't win is not an answer. If we leave then what happens? Do the Taliban come back? Does Al Qaeda come back? Are we prepared for that? If not what are we going to do?

This ain't Iraq. We were forced to go there (well ok we could have just nuked the place and solved the problem). We're there now. The Taliban is still there. Al Qaeda is still somewhat within the region. We have to think two steps down the line for every action we do or don't do here.

1. We're giving them someone to fight against.

2. Yes it does. We can use the resources for more profitable purposes elsewhere.

3. Yes it is. Only a fool continues in a war they can't win. It won't matter to us if the Taleban and Al Quaeda come back into Afghanistan. Kicking them out of Afghanistan has not done anything to reduce their operational capability for terrorist acts like 9/11, 7/7, the bombs in Bali, Madrid and so on. They are doing well enough in Pakistan's tribal areas. They still have their ideological and financial base in Saudi Arabia, and their supporters throughout the muslim world are encouraged by their stand against us in Afghanistan.

We weren't forced to go to Iraq. Hussein had nothing to do with Al Quaeda and no WMDs. He was too weak to do anything against any of his neighbours. We could have left him swinging in the wind quite happily until he died of natural causes.

I agree with thinking two steps down the line. The lack of strategic thinking is what got us into these messes.

Why do you keep talking about Iraq? We're talking about Afghanistan.

2. Ok we pull out. Taliban comes back. Al Qaeda comes back. We now look weak for not having destroyed them, something you don't dare do in a land where weakness makes you an attractive target.
Then what do we do?

Thats my point. I don't care one whit about Afghanistan. I don't care about what government's there or not there. I only care that the terrorists and their supporters are dead. but I don't want to create a vaccum that is again filled by terrorists.

So again I ask. What do we do?

The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are linked by the actions of the CotW, and the mainly Islamic religious identity of the countries.

What we do is what I have suggested, give up, look weak, and do something better instead.

The world won't fall apart because the CotW looks weak for a bit.

WE didn't do anything after Khobar, then they attacked the WTC, then they attacked the COler then they attacked the African embassies, then they took down the WTC. Finally we fought back in a big way.

Looking weak invites attack unless you're doing something massively different. What would you do? We tried the "leave em alone" approach after the Soviets pulled out and got the Taliban.

I would think about why some people want to attack the west and what could be done to change their minds.

Attacking Afghanistan didn't stop them attacking London, Bali, Madrid, the Israeli airliner and a bunch of other stuff.

And leaving them alone, helping in Somalia, supporting them in Afghanistan against the Soviets and fighting a war to stop aggression against them in Bosnia didn't help either.

Let me restate Killkrazy. I'm not advocating staying there or not staying there. I'm not advocating nation building (as noted I could care less and personally am much more in favor of pulling back to the continental US and some strategic bases). I'm saying we need to look at history before figuring out what to do.

Terrorism did not start in 2003.

Frazzled wrote:And leaving them alone, helping in Somalia, supporting them in Afghanistan against the Soviets and fighting a war to stop aggression against them in Bosnia didn't help either.

Let me restate Killkrazy. I'm not advocating staying there or not staying there. I'm not advocating nation building (as noted I could care less and personally am much more in favor of pulling back to the continental US and some strategic bases). I'm saying we need to look at history before figuring out what to do.

Terrorism did not start in 2003.

Nor will it end in 2008, or any time in the near future. The way to fight terrorism, from a military standpoint, is essentially two-fold.

1) Pick a side. Terrorism only works when the terrorist group is a disembodied entity. As soon as any given group of people is tied to a single region they open themselves up US air power. Something which makes the provocation of America dubious at best. As such, we should mirror the CIA sponsored conflicts of the Nixon era; supplying weapons and training to guerrilla forces in the interests of creating sympathetics, or at least territorial, regimes.

2) Specialize in retributory violence. This one of the few things Rumsfeld got right. His Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) dealt with the systematic expansion of the special forces and general electronic warfare capability. The aim being to gather information on potential threats so that we could preempt them with minimally invasive surgical strikes; assassination and precision bombing. However, that turn towards preemption was a misstep. The general approach is correct, but it should be used as a response, not a provocation.

Of course neither of these tactical approaches should be considered outside a diplomatic framework. Diplomacy must always be the first, and primary, option. There is no reason to destabilize a potential ally. That's why Afghanistan was a mistake, we chose to invade in lieu of negotiating with the Taliban. Something we have a long history of doing; Karzai was at one point a liaison between the Taliban and Unocal.

Any tactical approach whatsoever had to be considered within a diplomatic framework and a thorough strategic plan which accounts for things going differently to the way we want them to.

Lillkrazy I dare you to try to say that five times in a row, out loud. Can't do it!



Dogma you've made good points. Now I disagree on the initial start -we had to do something. Any president not dramatically taking action would have been successfully impeached in 30 seconds. However your follow on points are well taken. What would you recommend in Afghanistan at this point, not including the Russian approach of course.

Not fair! I have been drinking Spanish brandy.

Exactly. If you had been drinking tequila we wouldn't be having this conversation as you would be on the floor...

I know from experience.

Frazzled wrote:
Dogma you've made good points. Now I disagree on the initial start -we had to do something. Any president not dramatically taking action would have been successfully impeached in 30 seconds. However your follow on points are well taken. What would you recommend in Afghanistan at this point, not including the Russian approach of course.

I'm in the mood for a detailed response. So I'll open with some context.

I agree that something had to be done, but what we did was inappropriate as a simple response to terrorism. Terrorists are criminals, and should be treated as such. This means they should be found, and apprehended with as little collateral damage as possible. This is not a job for the regular army, indeed I question whether it is a job for the armed forces at all. This is a problem that Rumsfeld recognized. Driving him to expand the special forces into a kind of quasi-independent branch of the services under the directive of the Undersecretary of Intelligence for Defense (UID). Pretty much as close as it comes to the kind of black-bag organization you see in the spy movies.

On the whole this was a good idea. It only became problematic when our nominally civilian intelligence organizations were pulled into the Pentagon through the Office of Homeland Security, also overseen by the UID. This connection permitted the exertion of military force in the name of private satellite groups employed/maintained by the NSA, NRO, and others as well as similar groups attached to the Pentagon itself. These satellite groups, nominally private military companies run by recently retired military personnel, are themselves frequently owned by larger corporations. The textbook example is Kellogg, Brown, & Root, the military subsidiary of Halliburton. Brown & Root was hired by the military to build and maintain bases like Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. In order to do this the Pentagon issued them an open ended cost plus contract as payment for services rendered. I'm sure you can see the implicit issue in giving an open-ended financial agreement, and commitment of military support, to a subsidiary of an oil company in a region where oil pipelines are being considered.

Something similar happened in Afghanistan. Here the Pentagon back-stopped the Taliban's rise to power in the interest of bringing a recognizable face to the perpetually unstable region. This was primarily a way of preventing Soviet control of oil in Central Asia. Once the Soviet Union fell there was no longer any major threat to the region; allowing the corporate eye to turn to available natural resources. As a result, the Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) began exploring the possibility of building a gas pipeline from the rich fields in Turkmenistan across Afghanistan; stopping at Pakistan's Arabian Sea port of Gwadar. To facilitate negotiations with the Taliban Unocal employed, among others, Hamid Karzai and Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad was later appointed to the position of Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Planning, under Paul Wolfowitz in GHW's administration. During that time he also remained on the Unocal payroll. In an effort to quell Taliban opposition, Unocal formed the Central Asian Gas Consortium (CentGas); which included Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, and Russia's Gazprom. Unfortunately this gambit was unsuccessful, the Taliban would not be fooled into accepting a Western corporation. Eventually, after the Clinton administration became openly hostile to the Taliban, Unocal withdrew its support from CentGas. Despite he failure of his agenda Khalilzad must habe made a positive impression , because 9 years late Dick Cheney (HW's SecDef) made him a member of the Transition Team for Defense. He was later reassigned to the National Security Council under Condi Rice. Finally, Kalilzad was made the US Special Envoy to the Afghani government under Karzai. This, along with Halliburton's activities in Iraq, suggests that oil, not terrorism was the driving political impetus of our invasion of Afghanistan. That's why our strategy has depended upon counter-insurgency operations, as opposed the more appropriate counter-terrorist tactical dictum I outline earlier. Reganite supply side economics run-amok.

What should we do now? First understand that the interests of the American people are not equivalent to the interests of corporate America. The Taliban can prevent us from drawing profit from Central Asia, but they cannot threaten our global position. As such, there is no particular reason to occupy Afghanistan. Terrorists can, and will, go elsewhere in the interests of planning attacks on the continental US. Failing that, they will stay right where they are, and harass the US in order to bleed out as many of our resources as possible. The best thing we can do is reduce our footprint in the region; keeping only enough of a presence to facilitate the limited police actions that I proposed above. This means pulling back to bases that are out of country, in states which are more tolerant of our physical presence. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan spring to mind. Kazakhstan is also a viable option.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Dogma you've made good points. Now I disagree on the initial start -we had to do something. Any president not dramatically taking action would have been successfully impeached in 30 seconds. However your follow on points are well taken. What would you recommend in Afghanistan at this point, not including the Russian approach of course.

I'm in the mood for a detailed response. So I'll open with some context.

I agree that something had to be done, but what we did was inappropriate as a simple response to terrorism. Terrorists are criminals, and should be treated as such. This means they should be found, and apprehended with as little collateral damage as possible. This is not a job for the regular army, indeed I question whether it is a job for the armed forces at all. This is a problem that Rumsfeld recognized. Driving him to expand the special forces into a kind of quasi-independent branch of the services under the directive of the Undersecretary of Intelligence for Defense (UID). Pretty much as close as it comes to the kind of black-bag organization you see in the spy movies.

***********
What should we do now? First understand that the interests of the American people are not equivalent to the interests of corporate America. The Taliban can prevent us from drawing profit from Central Asia, but they cannot threaten our global position. As such, there is no particular reason to occupy Afghanistan. Terrorists can, and will, go elsewhere in the interests of planning attacks on the continental US. Failing that, they will stay right where they are, and harass the US in order to bleed out as many of our resources as possible. The best thing we can do is reduce our footprint in the region; keeping only enough of a presence to facilitate the limited police actions that I proposed above. This means pulling back to bases that are out of country, in states which are more tolerant of our physical presence. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan spring to mind. Kazakhstan is also a viable option.

So if I can paraphrase, this is your recommendation going forward: pull back and utilize paramilitary forces? I'd be ok with that if:
A. 1 Forces are not there to apprehend. Kill or capture for interrogation purposes.
A. 2 Any forces in this system have to well controlled within channels (ie controls so they don't go rogue in some manner).

B. More strategically, what to do about nations supporting them? (monetarily and otherwise)

C. More strategically, what to do anbout individuals supporting them? (monetarily and otherwise)

D. Here I'm being altruistic and worrying about the power vacuum. What do we leave behind after the pullout?

Frazzled wrote:

So if I can paraphrase, this is your recommendation going forward: pull back and utilize paramilitary forces? I'd be ok with that if:
A. 1 Forces are not there to apprehend. Kill or capture for interrogation purposes.
A. 2 Any forces in this system have to well controlled within channels (ie controls so they don't go rogue in some manner).

Pretty much. Though I think that your provisions are contradictory. The only real channel of control over a para-military group is force coercion. If they work with us both sides prosper. If not, we replace them through political maneuvering, or in extreme cases, assassination. However, it cannot be overstated that any interests we wish to further must be intrinsically tied to positive gains for the people overseen by our paramilitary/governmental proxies. If we cannot ensure such a connection it is better for us to simply allow the natural progression of conflict to run its course.

Frazzled wrote:
B. More strategically, what to do about nations supporting them? (monetarily and otherwise)

Much of the support for anti-US factions is motivated by the US presence in the theatre of operations. If we aren't there, then there is no reason for nations like Iran to funnel resources into an organization which do not necessarily have their best interests in mind.

Frazzled wrote:
C. More strategically, what to do anbout individuals supporting them? (monetarily and otherwise)

Eliminate them through assassination; political, character, or otherwise. Though we have been, in recent years, far less willing to compromise in order to achieve our goals. That is the great tragedy of the Neocon agenda as personified in Cheney and Rumsfeld. This pretty well gets at my feelings on the matter.

Frazzled wrote:
D. Here I'm being altruistic and worrying about the power vacuum. What do we leave behind after the pullout?

Nothing. Sometimes its best to let violence run its course. Our intervention is likely to simply be perceived as artificial. Something which will only serve to postpone the inevitable resumption of hostilities.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

So if I can paraphrase, this is your recommendation going forward: pull back and utilize paramilitary forces? I'd be ok with that if:
A. 1 Forces are not there to apprehend. Kill or capture for interrogation purposes.
A. 2 Any forces in this system have to well controlled within channels (ie controls so they don't go rogue in some manner).

Sorry I was not being clear. Any forces of ours that are paramilitary must have clear channel of control. By paramilitary I mean special forces, James Bond Guys whatever. I just don't want this group to go rogue. This is very foggy but there was an argument that Shultz/North were effectively trying to do in the early 80s, creating a force that was not answerable to anyone. Thats strictly no bueno.

Otherwise we're actually in agreement (checks to see if pigs have gained flight). Frazzled and Dogma on the same page, that has to be the Seventh Sign or something.

Ah, I see now. Also, I agree. One way to do that is to break up Homeland Security, and abolish the Undersecretary of Intelligence for Defense. If the military doesn't have authority over strategic intelligence they won't be able to to dig up 'support' for pet projects so easily. Similarly, I would like to see certain categories of defense contractors forced to operate as non-profits. That will help to prevent any more of this Halliburton nonsense.

This isn't the seventh sign though, its the eighth. Palin was the seventh.

You won't see defense contractors work as non-profits. There's no incentive for them to, er, work. The military would have to do the actual manufacturing. Outiside of limited areas its not something the military does or is particulary good at.

I won't discuss the Homeland Security. None of us are particularly qualified in that area. but I am not keen on strategic intelligence as a standalone. These are bureacratic secretive organizations. Siloing starts from day one and is partially what brought us to 9/11. But I freely admit I'm not sure how to address that, hence staying away with the exception of "make it better."

The type of defense contractors I'm talking about are the consultant firms formed by retired generals and intelligence operatives. Right now they have to be authorized by the DoD whenever they take foreign contracts. This is meant to be a check on their tendency to work for corporate interests. Of course, when the DoD is lead by aging Reaganites there is a major impetus to see corporate good as being tacit to public good. In that sense the most important thing is simply to push the agenda that the private sector is not a holy grail of efficiency against which all others organizations should be modeled.

However, if we force these consulting groups to operate as non-profits we can make it far less attractive for corporations to purchase them. With those that do being more actively considerate of the risk inherent in dictating operations abroad. The money will still be plenty good in an individual sense. People like Kissinger will still have a multi-million dollar income. Its just that their advice will not be so deeply tied into private interests as their personal station will be divorced from corporate success.

The reason strategic intelligence needs to be a standalone entity is that it places a check on the power of the Pentagon and the intelligence community. By building a bureaucratic wall between the two entities it helps to set the priorities of each group against on another. The centralization of intelligence and military command allows those in power to cut out voices they find inconvenient; like the DCI and other CIA officials who repeatedly stated that Iraq had no connection to 9/11.

Speaking of 9/11. This type of attack is going to happen again, and no amount of intelligence or military action will prevent it. We can stack the odds against repetition, but we will never have a perfect system. The CIA, in its guise prior to the Bush administration, has been remarkably effective in preventing attacks on US territory. Indeed, the real failure of 9/11 was not with the CIA (who foresaw it), but with the Bush administration which ignored the intelligence. Either out of a lack of faith in 'soft' power, or a desire to manipulate the strike into support for their own purposes; likely a combination of the two. The occasional 9/11 is a small price to pay for the maintenance of public authority.