People are seeing through is demise? But he's still alive!
I agree with Cane, it's WAY too early to tell how things will end up. There's no perfect president, but after 8 years of chronic bad decision making, I'm happy with the job he's doing so far. Not expecting to change anybody's mind, and would appreciate the same courtesy in return.
I also like that thanks to the forum's handy dandy feature that hightlights and defintes initials of game jargon, in Cane's post Palin is possibly being pushed as a Victory Point (VP). Kind of the same thing though - that is relying on Palin for victory. That would be like having a substitute teacher run the country. Except dumber and meaner. I like how she postures herself as a "pitbull with lipstick", then cries foul when Letterman busts her chops - this is "toughness"?
I think at the end of the day, there's a sizeable amount of folks who:
1. Can't stand the fact that the GOP lost the election, and by no small amount, meaning most of the country rejects their policies.
2. I also think there's a good chance that a good few of those who oppose Obama just don't like that there's a black dude sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. I'm not saying everyone against him is a racist, but for sure that's a factor. Just like if a lot of those folks opposed to gay marriage came out of the closet we'd all be happier.
The health care bill is going down in a pretty big and grandiose fashion. After months of arguing, we are pretty much left with only the most basic of changes. My vote hinges on reform, and if I feel that they we just duping everyone with "political tactics", Wrex is pretty much done with trying to follow politics. Not that there is much to actually follow...
I dunno about the next election, and yes it is silly to say that Obama will not get re-elected at this point, but I do feel that the Dems are most definitely going to be slapped silly overall.
This reminds me of when we had a mature student from Chicago staying with us for a few months, at the time the American elections were in full swing and I recall him saying that he felt Obama simply didn't have the experience to carry out the job all that well. I have no doubt that he has a strong team of advisors who will stop him from fouling up too badly. However I am inclined to agree that he does come across a little naive.
I get the feeling that a lot of people are begining to think that he was the better of two poor candidates. regardless of if he wins another term or not, I am more inclined to think that he will go down in history as an underwhelming president rather than a particularly good or bad one.
My prediction is that unless the Republicans can find an exceptional candidate he will comfortably win another term.
I would not be surprised if he did win the next election, but he will most likely have very little influence left (i.e. "inspiration", or whatever Hot word strikes your fancy) and it will basically be much more of the same; which, to be clear, we really don't know what direction he is going to go with everything.
Rhetoric is nice and all, and Obama has been a pretty good talking head, but I really think that his "game" is to buy time, and to re-establish our nation as a go-fer internationally, rather than a rampaging jolly green giant high on gasoline. I am paying attention to what happens in Iraq (and Iran at this point... rather, what will happen TO Iran), and the health care reform, which is like watching a magnifying glass get closer and closer... until you realize that there was little to be hyperbolic about in the first place.
THAT IS NO MOUNTAIN!!! GODDAMIT!!! W.T.F.is.this...
I still think that Obama made a very crucial mistake when he brought no real guidelines with him (perhaps even his own bill), but being the deal-maker that he is, none of this is coming out of left-field for me. After the noise machines calm down a bit (as they are both doing right now), I would also not be surprised if the Dems pulled a pygmy-rabbit out of a hat.
Full-sized rabbits... well... that would both surprise and delight me.
Lord-Loss wrote:BTW What happened with that healthcare bill?
Republicans said no, to the invincible super majority!
Afrikan Blonde wrote:I would like to see him impeached ASAP. we need a real president to straighten out this mess the last one has left us in.
Well maybe he'll get a BJ soon. Not much luck there though. His wife seems pretty awesome and he'll probably just start a war with Iran or some other country to grab a few votes. In before Presidents can't start wars, yes they can.
It's pretty rare for a president to lose reelection. The only times it's happened in the last 60 some years are:
Truman not running in '52, but he'd had almost two full terms anyway and an unpopular war.
Johnson not running in '68, he had almost two terms and an unpopular war.
Carter in 1976. He could run, didn't have a war, but the economy was awful and the Iranian embassy thing made him look very weak. CArter was a good guy, and tried, but he didn't have the proper skill set to be president.
Bush I in 1992. Two things here: one, the economy took a dive during the election, and 1988 was the first time one party kept the whitehouse more than eight years since FDR/Truman.
Absent a very dynamic candidate from the GOP (like a clinton or Reagan), or some sort of collapse, history is not kind to the likely republican challenger.
If you looked at clinton in late 93, or reagan in the early 80's, they looked really weak and vulnerable. Presidential elections for incumbents are "what have you done for me lately," while for challengers they're "Why are you better than this guy"
The Obama administration is bound to be planning some sort of flexible time-table for "Acts of good/ moar votes", probably setting it up so Obama can look better than the Reps, while maintaining some sort of "Well, I told you so" mentality when the gak hits the fan.
I have no doubts that the President placed way too many hopes in the people, especially when it comes to health care reform. People like to fight against stuff, it just seems to catch their fancy more often than defending and pushing back. As long as the economy can actually be stabilized, and set in the right direction (which in all honesty, is going to be a game of perception), mainly creating more jobs. The Green Industry seems pretty dead right now, but I would not be surprised if something jumpstarted that again. Biden has been pushing a bit, and Mrs. Obama likes to plant veggies everywhere, especially in your brain. They should just give her a sack of seeds, so she can sprinkle a bit of happiness and false-hope in the middle class.
The Sesame Street cracked me the feth up, especially with the talking veggies... I mean really? What happens when you eat them? Wait... don't tell me, I need to go and find out... .
Lord-Loss wrote:BTW What happened with that healthcare bill?
In the battle between public popularity and lobbyist dollars, the lobbyist dollars are recording a sound win. This is in part due to the scare tactics cutting away some public support and making the opposition loud enough that it is perceived to be much bigger than it is. Mostly it’s because the Democrats contain a lot of bought and paid for politicians, but lack the in-party discipline of the Republicans.
Meanwhile, it’s hard to make a case that Obama has really delivered to date. Healthcare reform will be superficial at best, there have been no prosecutions over torture, still in Iraq, Afghanistan is the same, and the stimulus bill was compromised. Perhaps someone with more time inside the federal Democrats could have maintained stronger party discipline, but maybe not.
But the big issue is who the Republicans will run. While elections against incumbents are typically about the performance of the incumbent, you have to be able to put up someone with some positive features. People were ready to vote against Bush in 2004, but then the Democrats nominated Kerry…
People keep mentioning Palin, but no. Just no. She’s got undying support among a specific crowd, but that crowd is a subset of a subset of the Republican base, and I can’t see a woman who walked out in the middle of her first term as governor winning over much of the rest of the population. This is exactly the candidate Obama would want to run against.
People talked up Bobby Jindal, then he made his first national appearance and people stopped talking about him.
Powell was too tied up in the Bush administration. Obama had a lot of success in 2008 tying McCain to Bush, I can only think it’d be easier for Obama if he’s up against Powell. Also, he’s black.
Huckabee is a likeable guy, who could best sell the next version of compassionate conservatism, minimise his own platform and make it all about Obama. But I’m not sure if his race has been won and lost. By 2012 he will have been out of the game for a long time.
But the choice will probably come from among the mass of slightly famous governors, Crist, Pawlenty, someone like that. But people keep saying Crist is gay, and Pawlenty’s bridge fell down so they’re maybe out. Probably the biggest tick against Crist is that I think he looks pretty good, and the Republican base has a long history of really hating the people I like.
What are peoples feelings about the economy? The U.S. specifically of course, but worldwide most definitely matters.
Does anyone feel like Obama has had a significant impact on the economy? I feel that he has stemmed job-loss, at least for now, besides which little to nothing has actually been done to create more jobs. Sometimes I feel like the current administration is basically waiting for things to just get better on their own, while jumping in to take credit for considerable changes.
wingedskull wrote:
1. Can't stand the fact that the GOP lost the election, and by no small amount, meaning most of the country rejects their policies.
2. I also think there's a good chance that a good few of those who oppose Obama just don't like that there's a black dude sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. I'm not saying everyone against him is a racist, but for sure that's a factor. Just like if a lot of those folks opposed to gay marriage came out of the closet we'd all be happier.
You forgot another group that's growing day by day, on both sides of the political spectrum, that voted for Obama and are now regreting that they did. I agree that it's way too early to be predicting the next election but, if Obama doesn't turn his falling poll numbers around, he will be a one term president.
Just out of interest, does the incumbent president have to wait for the full 4 year term to be up before calling the election ? As in if he/she is miles ahead in the polls and all is well in the country can they schedule the election after, say, 2 years if they so desire ?
reds8n wrote:Just out of interest, does the incumbent president have to wait for the full 4 year term to be up before calling the election ? As in if he/she is miles ahead in the polls and all is well in the country can they schedule the election after, say, 2 years if they so desire ?
Nope, have to wait the full 4 years. Well, the election machine kicking in actually is more like 3 years after swearing in. Fund raising starts before then. Really the president only gets a year before having to really worry about it. It seems to start sooner and sooner though and by 2020 election commercials for Primary candidates will begin two days after the inauguration.
Valhallan42nd wrote:Sadly, neither MechaGodzilla nor Godzilla qualify to be president, since neither is native born.
The Toxic Avenger, however...
Well since we're discussing native born sons. I'll be the first to nominate:
Reddy the election cycle has been expanding recently. Ahtmen's right. They really only have the first year. After that its positioning for Congress and long term positioning for President.
He wouldn't be the first by a long shot. I think that harkens back to Jackson. After wiping out the British of course, he didn't need to spell, just wear that craptacular hat.
Frazzled wrote:He wouldn't be the first by a long shot. I think that harkens back to Jackson. After wiping out the British of course, he didn't need to spell, just wear that craptacular hat.
No-one could spel in those days anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:I nominate Condi Rice for 2012.
GG
I rather like her too.
One of the more level-headed and pragmatic Republicans, I always thought.
She would lose very badly. There remains considerable uncertainty as to whether or not she ignored warnings about AQ threats in the US in the lead up to 9/11. Rice was a key figure in arguing for the invasion of Iraq, coining the phrase 'we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud'. She's directly connected to torture, and one of the key figures in the core neo-con philosophy of democratic dominoes.
And she's never campaigned before. It would be a very odd thing to go from bureaucrat to presidential candidate without ever winning any other election.
BloodofOrks wrote:Condi Rice was a member of The Project For the New American Century, the think-tank that formulated much of neo-con theory. She is very pro-war.
Condi Rice was never a part of PNAC.
Its also worth noting that Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were probably the most extreme members of the organization (besides Bill Kristol, who's just a harmful moron). It also included significantly more moderate minds like Francis Fukuyama.
Wrexasaur wrote:I still think that Obama made a very crucial mistake when he brought no real guidelines with him (perhaps even his own bill), but being the deal-maker that he is, none of this is coming out of left-field for me. After the noise machines calm down a bit (as they are both doing right now), I would also not be surprised if the Dems pulled a pygmy-rabbit out of a hat.
Full-sized rabbits... well... that would both surprise and delight me.
After the Clinton White House failed on health care, they took a new approach to working with Congress and winning little victories. And they won a lot of little ones, and it was generally perceived that this got his presidency back on track. However, what's Clinton's major achievement(s)? Many might have a generally good feeling about his time in office, but there's nothing that makes him historically great.
IIRC, one of Obama's main criticisms of the Clinton White House was that they *weren't* transformational and that when the going got tough or unpopular, they looked to cut their losses. So the political decision for Obama is interesting. How long do you back a potential failure?
You may be right about the lack of clear guidelines dooming this thing from the start.
BloodofOrks wrote:If ignoring the memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" qualifies one to be president, then sure Condi Rice would be great.
edit: Oh and under her watch as Secretary of State, North Korea got nukes, so rock on!
I'm not a Condi apologist, but both of those things would have happened, no matter who was the NSA or Sec of state.
GG
I'm sorry but I don't buy the whole 9/11 was inevitable argument. Their were several clearly worded reports on Al Queda presented to the White house prior to the attacks. The WH did noting in response to these warnings. Also, Bush referring to N Korea as part of the "axis of evil" caused them to massively ramp up their nuclear program. IMHO Rice was a weak, ineffective figure during the Bush years and it is extremely unlikely that she could ever be elected.
reds8n wrote:..if you're really that interested in having a Brit back in charge then there's this old lady In Windsor castle who...
Who's that? Margaret Thatcher?
BloodofOrks wrote:I'm sorry but I don't buy the whole 9/11 was inevitable argument. Their were several clearly worded reports on Al Queda presented to the White house prior to the attacks. The WH did noting in response to these warnings.
And, in hindsight, there were a lot of warnings about the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor too. Having the info and knowing what it means are two different things.
I'm sorry but I don't buy the whole 9/11 was inevitable argument.
You're right, if only Clinton had gone after Al Qaeda full bore post embassy bombings the towers might never have fallen.
At least Clinton bothered to meet with his anti-terrorism czar rather then push back meetings for months.
From Richard Clarke's Wiki:
Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condaleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[6] from January 25, 2001 that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration.[7]
In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.
"Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies."[8]At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clark strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clark replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clark, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist." [9]
At a July 5, 2001 White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, a three-star general who was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration and stayed on into the Bush administration, wrote Hadley a classified two-page memo stating that the NSA needed to "pay attention to Al-Qaida and counterterrorism" and that the U.S. would be "struck again." As a result of writing that memo, he was not invited to any more meetings.
On August 6, 2001, Clarke finally delivered a Daily Briefing Memo to President Bush entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States", five weeks before the attacks. It featured information about ongoing Al-Qaeda activities within the United States, signs of a terror support network, indications of hijacking preparations and plans for domestic attacks using explosives.
Frazzled wrote:
You're right, if only Clinton had gone after Al Qaeda full bore post embassy bombings the towers might never have fallen.
He did; it was his successor that ignored the data and the priority that his administration placed on catching Bin Laden. Clinton was actually criticized while in office for his "obsession" with hunting terrorists, and certain parties in Congress (remember who was running it at that point?) said he was wasting America's time.
No he didn't. He fired a few missiles, conveniently at the same time there were distractions about cetain domestic affairs in the news. He wouldn't pop the cap several times when there were chances because it might harm civilians.
When Khadaffy was a threat we dealt with him mob style and took out his kid.
When the same number of cvilian deaths occurred in 2001 we went to war. Clinton fired some cruise missiles.
And it's exactly that type of attitude that makes us more like Khadaffy and less like the America we'd been before torture became "enhanced interrogation".
Don't forget that political support for Clinton's strikes evaporated with the destruction of a Sudanese medicine factory. After that embarrassing misstep, public support (particularly amongst the left as I recall) turned against Clinton's efforts.
lord_sutekh wrote:And it's exactly that type of attitude that makes us more like Khadaffy and less like the America we'd been before torture became "enhanced interrogation".
You mean the one where Libya quit sponsoring terrorism right? I'm sure the people who are alive because we made them stop are quite thankful.
If you want to be a giant mangina, bend over the table and tell the world to us till we die just say so and quit the sophistry. You and yours can go to the extermination camp. Me and mine won't go so quietly into the night thank you very much.
Frazzled wrote:No he didn't. He fired a few missiles, conveniently at the same time there were distractions about cetain domestic affairs in the news. He wouldn't pop the cap several times when there were chances because it might harm civilians.
10 warships, and 5 submarines launched roughly 100 cruise missiles at the Sudan and Afghanistan.
Frazzled wrote:
When Khadaffy was a threat we dealt with him mob style and took out his kid.
By launching 7 independent air strikes involving 45 aircraft. About the same as launching some cruise missiles, which we probably would have done had they been viable at the time.
BloodofOrks wrote:
When the same number of cvilian deaths occurred in 2001 we went to war. Clinton fired some cruise missiles.
212 people died in the embassy bombings, only 12 were American citizens. 2,995 people died in the WTC attack, all American citizens. I was unaware that 2,995 and 12 were the same number.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BloodofOrks wrote:Also, Bush referring to N Korea as part of the "axis of evil" caused them to massively ramp up their nuclear program.
That's highly debatable. North Korean nuclear development occurred in rough concurrence with the expected time-line as established in 1998 following their missile test.
BloodofOrks wrote:
IMHO Rice was a weak, ineffective figure during the Bush years and it is extremely unlikely that she could ever be elected.
In your opinion she was also a member of PNAC, so that doesn't get us very far.
Woops your close ~290 killed but 4,000 wounded. Thats comparable to me.
The cruise missiles hit a camp big whup. We invaded a country.
Interesting that the missiles flew less than a week after Clinton admitted the Lewinsky affair. I am sure thats just a coincidence, completely unrelated and happenstance.
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/august-1998/
Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure the people who are alive because we made them stop are quite thankful.
I doubt it. People don't tend to express gratitude for the fact they've been 'saved' from speculative harm.
Frazzled wrote:
If you want to be a giant mangina, bend over the table and tell the world to us till we die just say so and quit the sophistry. You and yours can go to the extermination camp. Me and mine won't go so quietly into the night thank you very much.
See, this is how the defense budget spirals out of control. People forget how to take a reasonable loss, and start demanding that we protect the military deployments that were designed to protect civilians. Its a never ending cascade of irrational machismo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Woops your close ~290 killed but 4,000 wounded. Thats comparable to me.
So now we should be defending foreign citizens from harm? Shouldn't you be jumping up and down in support of an invasion of the Sudan over Darfur?
Frazzled wrote:
The cruise missiles hit a camp big whup. We invaded a country.
In order to attack a series of camps...
You're really not getting this whole concept of proportionate response.
Fortunately the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were very successful. They were concluded quickly and cheaply. They turned up heaps of WMD stockpiles, established successful democracies in both countries, prevented further terrorist attacks, promoted the reputation of the US, UK and west generally throughout the Islamic world, and acted as an example to other borderline states (Iran, NK) not to get into the WMD business.
It could all have gone so wrong if it hadn't been thought out and executed cleverly. God knows, we might still be mired there eight years later with no end in sight.
Frazzled wrote:Proportionate reponse only works when you kill he guy trying to kill you. Otherwise its a missed shot.
See, that would make sense if this were a mob movie, but its not. This is geopolitics, we're talking about groups, not individuals. Its nigh unto impossible to kill an entire group of people; especially when the group identity is predicated on ideological committment which tends to outlive any given series of targets.
Frazzled wrote:
Your own argument fails. If it was proportionate it sure didn't work now did it?
No, it worked. The response dealt with those people who were a threat as a result of the immediate bombings on the embassies. They weren't given an opportunity to strike again, because they were killed and security was increased in US embassies around the world.
Your operating under the illusion that its possible to end the danger to American lives. It isn't. The best we can do is minimize it through the control our resources allow us to exercise.
No, it worked. The response dealt with those people who were a threat as a result of the immediate bombings on the embassies. They weren't given an opportunity to strike again, because they were killed and security was increased in US embassies around the world.
Your operating under the illusion that its possible to end the danger to American lives. It isn't. The best we can do is minimize it through the control our resources allow us to exercise.
Clearly it didn't work if they kept hitting, culminating in the Towers.
To KK, yep its a cluster but we haven't been attacked, which is more than can be said previously.
No, it worked. The response dealt with those people who were a threat as a result of the immediate bombings on the embassies. They weren't given an opportunity to strike again, because they were killed and security was increased in US embassies around the world.
Your operating under the illusion that its possible to end the danger to American lives. It isn't. The best we can do is minimize it through the control our resources allow us to exercise.
Clearly it didn't work if they kept hitting, culminating in the Towers.
To KK, yep its a cluster but we haven't been attacked, which is more than can be said previously.
I have this stone that magically keeps tigers away from your monitor. Are there tigers near your monitor? See, it works. Magic is real!
BloodofOrks wrote:
When the same number of cvilian deaths occurred in 2001 we went to war. Clinton fired some cruise missiles.
212 people died in the embassy bombings, only 12 were American citizens. 2,995 people died in the WTC attack, all American citizens. I was unaware that 2,995 and 12 were the same number.
I believe Fraz said this one. I'm not taking credit that remark.
Apparently my computer ate my post where I acknowledged Rice was not part of PNAC. I will say it again, Rice was not part of PNAC. Sorry, I was wrong. There's not need to beat me over the head with it.
The real thing I think people need to look at is will people think Obama not getting much done is what his entire presidency will turn into?
Like really think about it. If every time he wants to do something the republicans say no, I'll still vote for him. It isn't his fault. But some people on the same side as me might as well cycle another republican into office so we can get another Dem in four years who the republicans don't arbitrarily hate.
Frazzled wrote:You mean the one where Libya quit sponsoring terrorism right? I'm sure the people who are alive because we made them stop are quite thankful.
If you want to be a giant mangina, bend over the table and tell the world to us till we die just say so and quit the sophistry. You and yours can go to the extermination camp. Me and mine won't go so quietly into the night thank you very much.
We didn't make them do a damn thing, unless by "we", you mean the UN. I mean, if we'd invaded Libya and forced them to stop, I'm pretty sure that would have hit the news.
See, that second bit is why you fail as a mod. Personal attacks completely out of relation to the conversation are something to expect out of our younger members, not a moderator. How do you jump from me essentailly saying "America doesn't torture" to you saying "extermination camps"? I'm sure the process is fascinating, and would be even more engaging if it had a lick of engagement with reality.
To KK, yep its a cluster but we haven't been attacked, which is more than can be said previously.
YOU may not have been, but WE have. Remember 7/7? Didn't think so. The Madrid Train Bombings? No?
What about The Bali Nightclub bombing? Really? Are you sure?
Also, America didn't seem too worried about Libya sponsoring terrorism when it involved the IRA. Plus, it wasn't only Americans who died in the WTC attacks as someone posted - Brits died there too, amongst other nationalities.
Frazzled wrote:
Clearly it didn't work if they kept hitting, culminating in the Towers.
Different people. Again, there is a difference between a group, and a person. You're looking at this from the perspective of one individual against another, which is absolutely wrong. As much as you may want to see Al-Qaeda as some kind of homogeneous organization it simply isn't one.
Let's also appreciate the implications of what you're advocating. Twelve Americans were killed in the embassy bombings. Are we supposed to invade any nation which intentionally, or unintentionally, causes the death of 12 American citizens? That's ridiculous, and leads only to colonialism. I thought you wanted to cut back the number of foreign military bases?
Frazzled wrote:
To KK, yep its a cluster but we haven't been attacked, which is more than can be said previously.
Sure we have, or are all those dead soldiers and Iraqi/Afghani civilians (you were offended by foreign, civilian casualties in the case of the embassy bombings, so why not Iraq/Afghanistan?) not indicative of an attack?
BloodofOrks wrote:If ignoring the memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" qualifies one to be president, then sure Condi Rice would be great.
edit: Oh and under her watch as Secretary of State, North Korea got nukes, so rock on!
I'm not a Condi apologist, but both of those things would have happened, no matter who was the NSA or Sec of state.
GG
I'm sorry but I don't buy the whole 9/11 was inevitable argument. Their were several clearly worded reports on Al Queda presented to the White house prior to the attacks. The WH did noting in response to these warnings. Also, Bush referring to N Korea as part of the "axis of evil" caused them to massively ramp up their nuclear program. IMHO Rice was a weak, ineffective figure during the Bush years and it is extremely unlikely that she could ever be elected.
It's really impossible to say whether or not it was inevitable isn't it. I mean, it's my opinion that whoever was in office would have ignored the memos becuase they would have considered it noise. If I recall there were several memos saying bin laden to attack america is imminent. Dating even back to Clinton era.
Now as far as Rice being weak. She is the one that came up with the plan(or at least listened to the generals) to "fix" the Iraq situation with "the surge". The surge worked even though most people didn't think it would. I also watched a Fontline program that went into detail on some other things she fixed when rummy the vampire was fired..err um... resigned.
The initial purpose of the surge was to calm things down to allow the Iraqi government time to reach political consensus regarding Iraq's economy as well as brokering peace amongst different groups of Iraqis. While violence did drop, few political reconciliations have been reached . It is important to note that Muqtada al-Sadir, head of the Mahdi army, was keeping the group on a short leash as he was attempting to cultivate his political power which meant far fewer attacks from the Mahdi army. Also, their was the Sunni Awakening in which the US convinced (and paid) Sunnis to take up arms against other Sunni extremists. Also, it has been argued that much of the drop in violence in Iraq was the result of ethnic cleansing. Basically the integrated neighborhoods where much of the fighting had been taking place had been won over by one side or the other resulting in large groups of people packing up and getting the hell out of dodge. Iran of all places helped negotiate cease fires in a few areas of Iraq as well.
Whether the surge worked or not is a bit of a question mark. Was the purpose of the surge to lower violence, or to allow Iraq's government breathing room to get much needed work done? What other factors influenced the outcome surge and by how much? I'm not sure I would call the surge a success, at least not a clear cut success. Things appeared to improve, but it's hard to measure which factors played the largest role, or if the perceived improvement is real or if it will last. Whether or not the surge worked depends largely on who you ask.
All things considered, Rice was better then Rumsfeld, but who isn't?
generalgrog wrote:Now as far as Rice being weak. She is the one that came up with the plan(or at least listened to the generals) to "fix" the Iraq situation with "the surge". The surge worked even though most people didn't think it would. I also watched a Fontline program that went into detail on some other things she fixed when rummy the vampire was fired..err um... resigned.GG
Yeah, but she was in the midst of the Whitehouse from beginning to end. She can be tied to much of the policy of the Bush administration, and those policies are not looked upon favourably by many people.
No matter how many of the better parts of Bush policy were hers, she will be left with all the baggage. Same with Powell. The Bush admin left some pretty promising careers in its wake.
BloodofOrks wrote:
All things considered, Rice was better then Rumsfeld, but who isn't?
Rice and Rumsfeld have never held the same office.
BloodofOrks wrote:
Whether the surge worked or not is a bit of a question mark. Was the purpose of the surge to lower violence, or to allow Iraq's government breathing room to get much needed work done?
These are independent goals? Its very difficult to claim that the surge did not work (where surge is not just an increase in troop deployments, but a strategic choice which enabled a number of previously off-limits tactics) without being deliberately obtuse.
Bill Clinton, regardless of anyone's belifs of guilt or innocence, or the statements or validity of polls by Gallup or anyone else; got re-elected whilst under impeachment proceedings.
grizgrin wrote:Point of order to top that off, Frazz.
Bill Clinton, regardless of anyone's belifs of guilt or innocence, or the statements or validity of polls by Gallup or anyone else; got re-elected whilst under impeachment proceedings.
Love him or hate him.
Not saying otherwise. Just saw that stat right before the Typeline post.
Yes, of course Obama can win the next US Presidential election.
If at the time of the election most people are better off than they were 4 years ago and the economy is all better, he will have a good chance at reelection.
However, if people are still out of work at that time, he can kiss the job goodbye.
Yes, of course Obama can win the next US Presidential election.
If at the time of the election most people are better off than they were 4 years ago and the economy is all better, he will have a good chance at reelection.
However, if people are still out of work at that time, he can kiss the job goodbye.
They don't even have to be better off, they just have to think they're better off. American sheeeeple...
Frazzled wrote:
When Khadaffy was a threat we dealt with him mob style and took out his kid.
Which was later revealed to have done pretty much SFA with regards to actually stopping his terrorist support, didn't with regards to the IRA anyway.
When the same number of cvilian deaths occurred in 2001 we went to war. Clinton fired some cruise missiles.
The major difference being of course Clinton was at least attacking the right country... a minor issue I know but one genereally considered key to military success.
With regards to Libya stopping sponsoring terrorism : I am pleased to see then that you're finally admiting that they had nothing at all to do with the Lockerbie bombing two years after the "successful" air raids.... cause that is what you're saying right ?
BloodofOrks wrote:
I never said they did, so there's no problem then.
Then why compare them? Is this some kind of logic problem?
There are 5 members of the Bush administration: Rice, Rummy, Dick, Wolfy, and Powell
They all might occupy a set potential positions along a hierarchy of quality.
They are arranged as follows:
Rice is better than Rummy
Rummy is better than Dick
Wolfy cannot be between Rummy and Dick, or Rice and Rummy
Powell must always be best.
In what order might the members of the Bush administration be arranged, from best to worst?
Wow, I really have to justify my personal opinion of public figures? You know what? I'm not going to bother. You seem to be itching to start a fight so I'm backing off. Have fun flame baiting other people.
Hmmm, higher unemployment than when he took office despite wasting trillions of dollars on the stimulus (not a cent of which went to defense during a two front war), being stymied again and again by the opposition party despite having a super majority, and meeting with his commanding general in a bloody war we are loosing for 90 minutes over the course of ten months.
Yeah, I'd say he is boned.
Who said the surge didn't work? The insurgency was all but annihilated. All but two of the political benchmarks demanded by congress were achieved within six months of the start of the operation. Aside from the Brits folding like a wet taco in Basra, anyone who claims the surge was unsuccessful is, as was stated previously, being obtuse.
Just to throw in my 2 cents; its too early to tell.
The man hasnt even had a year in office, and already folks are starting to talk about something 3 years out. A lot can happen in 3 years. Perhaps a new political star will rise or perhaps Pres. Obama will do something spectacular. Who knows.
The one thing that is certain is this: Ever first term president wants the same thing; a second term. So he will at the very least do some crowd pleasing things to get a good spot in the hearts and minds of voters.
Aside from the Brits folding like a wet taco in Basra
What a disrespectful thing to say. And untrue.
British forces handed over control of Basra Province to Iraq’s government on Sunday, giving up military control of the final region under their supervision after four and a half years
American officials believe the transfer of control will be a serious test of Iraqi political and military leaders to maintain Basra — a strategically vital and politically fractious southern province, and the port city of the same name — under Iraqi control, and prevent Iran or Shiite militias from gaining too much influence.
In a formal ceremony, held indoors to avoid mortar attacks from the militias that have continually battled British forces over the years, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns of the British Army said Iraq was prepared to take over the Basra region, with British forces assuming a much lower profile in a support role.
“I came to rid Basra of its enemies, and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends,” General Binns said before signing documents giving Iraqi forces operational control of the province, which holds most of Iraq’s proven petroleum reserves. “We will continue to help train Basra security forces,” he added. “But we are guests in your country, and we will act accordingly.”
British paratroopers first arrived in Basra virtually unopposed during the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In September, British forces withdrew to an air base on the outskirts of the city, abandoning a former palace built by Saddam Hussein after being attacked several times by mortar rounds and coordinated small-arms fire from Shiite-led factions vying for control of the city.
The two most prominent rival groups are the Mahdi Army, led by the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a militia affiliated with the political faction of the same name.
After the ceremony, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser, challenged Basra’s provincial and city leaders to stabilize the region.
“The security of Basra is one of our main responsibilities,” Mr. Rubaie said. “I address, directly, the governor, the general commander of the security forces in Basra, the provincial council and the people of Basra. Will you agree with militias? Will you engage in corruption? Will you go easy on terrorism?”
Basra is the ninth and most important province to be transferred to Iraqi control by American-led forces since July 2006. The most recent was Karbala Province, another Shiite-dominated area south of Baghdad, in October.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, said in a statement on Sunday that Iraqi forces had “demonstrated their readiness” to take over.
That's from The New York Times, apologies for the text wall.
America started the Iraq war - don't blame the British when we don't want to throw more bodies at a war of adventure that is going badly. Surely it's better to train local forces to deal with the insurgency than have more of OUR troops die. War isn't a game - people get killed. I would prefer those people not to be British.
generalgrog wrote:Well the Scandinavians certainly are trying to help him win, by bestowing the Nobel peace prize for Feel good speeches.
GG
They just don't hand those things out like candy generalgrog. He has done more for peace during his presidency so far than Bush did in his entire eight years.
He hasn't done a damn thing except piss off the vast majority of those on the Right and now is pissing off some of those politicians on his side, ie leaning Left.
I'm sorry but what has he done to promote peace? I guess if doing NOTHING at all but sitting on your laurels and talking a lot promotes peace than that means "I" have done more to promote peace.
generalgrog wrote:Well the Scandinavians certainly are trying to help him win, by bestowing the Nobel peace prize for Feel good speeches.
GG
They just don't hand those things out like candy generalgrog. He has done more for peace during his presidency so far than Bush did in his entire eight years.
Like what? Not invade a country? That is inaction, not action. I'm not saying right or wrong, but why is it exceptional?
Aside from the Brits folding like a wet taco in Basra
What a disrespectful thing to say. And untrue.
British forces handed over control of Basra Province to Iraq’s government on Sunday, giving up military control of the final region under their supervision after four and a half years
American officials believe the transfer of control will be a serious test of Iraqi political and military leaders to maintain Basra — a strategically vital and politically fractious southern province, and the port city of the same name — under Iraqi control, and prevent Iran or Shiite militias from gaining too much influence.
In a formal ceremony, held indoors to avoid mortar attacks from the militias that have continually battled British forces over the years, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns of the British Army said Iraq was prepared to take over the Basra region, with British forces assuming a much lower profile in a support role.
“I came to rid Basra of its enemies, and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends,” General Binns said before signing documents giving Iraqi forces operational control of the province, which holds most of Iraq’s proven petroleum reserves. “We will continue to help train Basra security forces,” he added. “But we are guests in your country, and we will act accordingly.”
British paratroopers first arrived in Basra virtually unopposed during the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In September, British forces withdrew to an air base on the outskirts of the city, abandoning a former palace built by Saddam Hussein after being attacked several times by mortar rounds and coordinated small-arms fire from Shiite-led factions vying for control of the city.
The two most prominent rival groups are the Mahdi Army, led by the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a militia affiliated with the political faction of the same name.
After the ceremony, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser, challenged Basra’s provincial and city leaders to stabilize the region.
“The security of Basra is one of our main responsibilities,” Mr. Rubaie said. “I address, directly, the governor, the general commander of the security forces in Basra, the provincial council and the people of Basra. Will you agree with militias? Will you engage in corruption? Will you go easy on terrorism?”
Basra is the ninth and most important province to be transferred to Iraqi control by American-led forces since July 2006. The most recent was Karbala Province, another Shiite-dominated area south of Baghdad, in October.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, said in a statement on Sunday that Iraqi forces had “demonstrated their readiness” to take over.
That's from The New York Times, apologies for the text wall.
America started the Iraq war - don't blame the British when we don't want to throw more bodies at a war of adventure that is going badly. Surely it's better to train local forces to deal with the insurgency than have more of OUR troops die. War isn't a game - people get killed. I would prefer those people not to be British.
Was camping, sorry for the delay getting back to you.
I'll blame the British for whatever I damn please in the middle east. The incredibly shaky foundation of that entire region was set up by the plotting empire builders of England. Iraq, Iran, Israel, every I country that gives anyone headaches owes it's problems largely to a failed British colonial experiment, that they set up so they could exploit people and take their natural resources. Boo Hoo.
Fact is, Basra, and currently the Helmed province of Afghanistan is making many in the US military question the value of the British as allies, and even the function of the entire NATO alliance. The 'hold ground and train militia' strategy was tried in Iraq by all coalition forces for years. It doesn't work. Basra was given to the British because the Americans were uncertain about the British Army's ability to hold a more difficult city, in terms of ethnic diversity, distance from resupply, and prosperity of the local economy. So we gave the British the richest, most ethnically homogeneous, and western friendly city in the nation. And the British Army STILL couldn't pacify the city. Massive riots and counterattacks started as soon as the ill-advised British retreat started. And American units had to roll in, with the help of the Iraqi army and police, to put out the fires.
The British Army is in shambles. It is chronically under supplied. Brits are constantly having to use US airlift, US sealift, US medical facilities, and US air support. The average British soldier may be a fine fighter, but the British military is inflexible, and a poor ally. Look at the Surge. The US announce a change in strategy to crush the insurgency, and take the initiative in the war. The plan works, with less loss of life than anticipated. The British refuse to adopt the new tactics, instead sticking with the large base and patrol strategy that has been proven ineffective. Then they flee the country and leave the ONE city they were asked to garrison, in the middle of street war. Again, the US rolls in and manages to disperse the rebels and take control in 72 hours. Why couldn't the British do that? If that isn't folding like a wet taco, I don't know what is.
And yes the Americans started the war. You are our Ally. You receive the benefit of our protection, and assurances of our defense. You are able to massively skimp on your own defense budgets because you know we will defend you if attacked. When we go to war, it is time to put paid to that agreement, and make good your part of that alliance. If you cannot, then you should not look forward to any of the protections you enjoy as a US ally. And seeing as in all likelihood you are a civilian- please don't lecture me on war not being a game. I imagine I have a better understanding of that than you.
and yes the Americans started the war. You are our Ally. You receive the benefit of our protection, and assurances of our defense. You are able to massively skimp on your own defense budgets because you know we will defend you if attacked. When we go to war, it is time to put paid to that agreement, and make good your part of that alliance. If you cannot, then you should not look forward to any of the protections you enjoy as a US ally. And seeing as in all likelihood you are a civilian- please don't lecture me on war not being a game. I imagine I have a better understanding of that than you.
You are our Ally. You receive the benefit of our protection
Like on the 7/7
When we go to war,
At what point, ever, have "you" gone to war successfully?
Silverthorne wrote:
I'll blame the British for whatever I damn please in the middle east. The incredibly shaky foundation of that entire region was set up by the plotting empire builders of England. Iraq, Iran, Israel, every I country that gives anyone headaches owes it's problems largely to a failed British colonial experiment, that they set up so they could exploit people and take their natural resources. Boo Hoo.
Yeah, that's pretty much correct. Though Iran has nothing, or at least very little, to do with Britain. That's pretty much a homegrown monster (where home is the US).
If only Imperial Britain had taken more lessons from the USA, we might have left a legacy of thriving colonies like the Philipines and Liberia, instead of holes like Canada and India.
Silverthorne wrote:
And yes the Americans started the war. You are our Ally. You receive the benefit of our protection, and assurances of our defense. You are able to massively skimp on your own defense budgets because you know we will defend you if attacked. When we go to war, it is time to put paid to that agreement, and make good your part of that alliance. If you cannot, then you should not look forward to any of the protections you enjoy as a US ally. And seeing as in all likelihood you are a civilian- please don't lecture me on war not being a game. I imagine I have a better understanding of that than you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:If only Imperial Britain had taken more lessons from the USA, we might have left a legacy of thriving colonies like the Philipines and Liberia, instead of holes like Canada and India.
(Looks at the former African nations Britain had and ed up)
Er what was that? How's Zimbabwe and Pakistan doing again?
Kilkrazy wrote:If only Imperial Britain had taken more lessons from the USA, we might have left a legacy of thriving colonies like the Philipines and Liberia, instead of holes like Canada and India.
Or other beacons of imperialistic glory like Zimbabwe and the Sudan....
You are able to massively skimp on your own defense budgets because you know we will defend you if attacked.
Like in the Falklands? The Argentinians directly attacked Sovereign British territory. What did America do? Nothing - cheers guys!
Not that the British forces needed American assistance. Despite the points you raised, (which are largely down to the current Labour gov'ts unwillingness to throw billions at another American war of adventure) The United Kingdom still has the 3rd highest defence budget in the world, behind the USA and China (I was surprised by this - more than the Russian Federation?), and is a major nuclear power, able to project force anywhere in the world (one of only a handful of countries with this capability).
How exactly are we relying on the USA for our defence? If anything, our association with America puts our citizens in GREATER danger (see the 7/7 attacks). At the end of the day, you can buy into the 'America: World Police!!!' propaganda all you like - the rest of the world doesn't buy it. Our association with America has damaged our reputation on the world stage, cost the lives of hundred of our citizens and soldiers, and nearly wrecked our economy. And what thanks do we get?
Ignorant and jingoistic posts like the one from which the above quote was taken. Nice one.
Albatross wrote:The United Kingdom still has the 3rd highest defence budget in the world, behind the USA and China (I was surprised by this - more than the Russian Federation?), and is a major nuclear power, able to project force anywhere in the world (one of only a handful of countries with this capability).
So you're attempting to address a question of mass with a statement of proportion. Right.
Albatross wrote:
At the end of the day, you can buy into the 'America: World Police!!!' propaganda all you like - the rest of the world doesn't buy it.
Hyperbole.
Albatross wrote:
Our association with America has damaged our reputation on the world stage, cost the lives of hundred of our citizens and soldiers, and nearly wrecked our economy. And what thanks do we get?
You wrecked your own economy. Way to absolve via misdirection.
Albatross wrote:
Ignorant and jingoistic posts like the one from which the above quote was taken. Nice one.
Yuo clearly don't know what jingoism means. More hyperbole.
dogma wrote:Their track record is still better than ours.
I highly doubt that. Considering that the BE ruled most of Africa, the entire Asian Sub-continent, etc., etc. The US was limited to the Caribbean, the Philippines, and random islands in the Pacific. Realistically they are not comparable at all. Besides the Philippines were a growing gem in the Pacific pre-WWII. The Japanese Empire kind of threw a big wrench in the works though.
You wrecked your own economy. Way to absolve via misdirection.
I see. And the fact that the US economy went into a (relative) nosedive due to cheap credit shortly before ours is a coincidence, yeah?
I'm no expert, but I assume that would ripple across the atlantic...
This is what Jingoism means:
Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy". In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism.
I think I was fairly accurate when using this word to describe the post I quoted from. On the other hand, YOU seem to like the word 'Hyperbole' - good for you. Not always appropriate, though.
So you're attempting to address a question of mass with a statement of proportion. Right.
No idea what you're talking about here - the poster I quoted questioned the military capability of the UK, I responded with relevant points. I really don't see the problem.
I honestly wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, or the feelings of any Americans (I wish the same could be said...etc) - let's not start a flame-war. The whole 'Post-lawyer' thing seems to kill off many an interesting thread and it would be nice not to go down that route (he said, hypocritically...).
Albatross wrote:
I see. And the fact that the US economy went into a (relative) nosedive due to cheap credit shortly before ours is a coincidence, yeah?
I'm no expert, but I assume that would ripple across the atlantic...
Yeah, because you bought up a bunch of our debt.
If you want we can consider this as the result of the Cold War (because, in a very significant sense, it is) but that doesn't really help your claim of independence.
Albatross wrote:
This is what Jingoism means:
Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy". In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism.
I think I was fairly accurate when using this word to describe the post I quoted from. On the other hand, YOU seem to like the word 'Hyperbole' - good for you. Not always appropriate, though.
No, it isn't always appropriate, however this was one of those situations in which it was. You attempted to apply a critique which had no relation to what was said as a result of your own machismo.
As for 'jingoism', nothing about Silver's post explicitly endorsed adventurism. He criticized the British military vis a vis their operations in Iraq. If anything your response was jingoistic for its inability to deal with that criticism.
Albatross wrote:
No idea what you're talking about here - the poster I quoted questioned the military capability of the UK, I responded with relevant points.
No you didn't, that was the thrust of the point. It doesn't matter if the UK has the third highest military budget in the world if the US still spends half of the global amount.
Albatross wrote:
I really don't see the problem.
Of course not.
Albatross wrote:
I honestly wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, or the feelings of any Americans (I wish the same could be said...etc) - let's not start a flame-war. The whole 'Post-lawyer' thing seems to kill off many an interesting thread and it would be nice not to go down that route (he said, hypocritically...).
I'm not trying to flame you. I honestly do not know what your intent is. It seems as though you're attempting to defend the UK because you feel offended.
Nah, man - I guess my point was that my country, despite it's faults, is america's most powerful ally, and deserving of respect. You can pick through as many posts as you like, and pick flaws etc, but THAT's my point and it's a valid one.
I can't be bothered to go through your post and rebut everything, although the 'machismo' part did make me chuckle. Did you actually READ the post I quoted from (it wasn't yours incidentally, though heart-warming to see you leap to the defence of your countryman!) it was one of the most macho, superior and yes - Jingoistic things I've ever read. Please don't just quote that and type 'Hyperbole' underneath it! Anyway, I think the rest of the world would like Obama to win another term (or two) but it seems worryingly like a lot of americans miss having a red-neck in charge!
Albatross wrote:Like in the Falklands? The Argentinians directly attacked Sovereign British territory. What did America do? Nothing - cheers guys!
The US was bound by treaty to defend Argentina (co-Americas defence pact some such...) The US provided AWACS reconnaissance support to the UK but otherwise stayed out. Our neighbour and ally France on the other hand...
I am all for a three year cooling off period when the US starts wars. After this cooling off period we will join in (on their side) with full vigour and claim the win.
Albatross wrote:Nah, man - I guess my point was that my country, despite it's faults, is america's most powerful ally, and deserving of respect. You can pick through as many posts as you like, and pick flaws etc, but THAT's my point and it's a valid one.
I agree. Though I might also add that respect does not absolve one from criticism. In fact, it often intensifies it.
Albatross wrote:
I can't be bothered to go through your post and rebut everything, although the 'machismo' part did make me chuckle. Did you actually READ the post I quoted from (it wasn't yours incidentally, though heart-warming to see you leap to the defence of your countryman!) it was one of the most macho, superior and yes - Jingoistic things I've ever read.
I read it. My defense of it has nothing to do with national pride. Indeed, I might be one of the least nationalist people on this board. I simply did not see it as jingoistic as it lacked any necessary committment to American supremacy.
Dude said the Brits be bad. Not else.
Albatross wrote:
Please don't just quote that and type 'Hyperbole' underneath it!
Yeah, apologies. I'm in something of logical/labeling mood. It wasn't very polite.
Albatross wrote:
Anyway, I think the rest of the world would like Obama to win another term (or two) but it seems worryingly like a lot of americans miss having a red-neck in charge!
You know, I don't diagree with you. Thouhg I would substitute 'red-neck' for 'a man who seems like a worker' (where worker is very much akin to a scotsman).
dogma wrote:
You know, I don't diagree with you. Thouhg I would substitute 'red-neck' for 'a man who seems like a worker' (where worker is very much akin to a scotsman).
I can see the drinks are affecting you now! (you said in the other thread you were drinking)
Kilkrazy wrote:If only Imperial Britain had taken more lessons from the USA, we might have left a legacy of thriving colonies like the Philipines and Liberia, instead of holes like Canada and India.
Or other beacons of imperialistic glory like Zimbabwe and the Sudan....
I think that the problem that for those countries is that the UK left.
Typeline wrote:They just don't hand those things out like candy generalgrog. He has done more for peace during his presidency so far than Bush did in his entire eight years.
True, but doesn't it feel just a little bit like 'this is the award for not being GW Bush'. Which, to some extent, is a fair award, by not being Bush he's improved the world more than most Nobel Peace Prize winners.
But on the other hand, I'm also Not Bush. You're also Not Bush. So when do we expect our awards?
I can easily see Hillary winning the liberal nomination next election time. I think Obama means well but it just seems like he doesn't have a good grasp how to run the country and so far has been unable to deliver upon his election promises. I have a rumor recently that a lot of people are unsubscribing from his website.
Fateweaver wrote:He hasn't done a damn thing except piss off the vast majority of those on the Right and now is pissing off some of those politicians on his side, ie leaning Left.
No, Obama has done almost nothing to piss off the rightwing. He's been excessively moderate in his policies. The rightwing has gotten pissed off because the rightwing now exists in a place defined entirely by spite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think that the problem that for those countries is that the UK left.
Tinpot dictators < Imperial rule.
British rule, as it was, was unsustainable. Barring exceptional circumstances nations in the modern world don't accept foreign rule for very long. Where government has been built to include local customs and values, and where a middle class and bureaucracy has grown up including many natives, the independent state is more likely to be successful. But where overt or background racism have kept the native population out of government, you increase the chance of ending up with a failed. That’s a pretty general rule, of course, specific situations have other relevant factors.
So yeah, what the British did in its colonies was pretty crappy. Better than the French for the most part and certainly better than the Belgians, but still pretty crappy. But it was also the product of another time, another kind of thinking. One of the reasons we no longer think as they did is because we saw what they tried, and saw it fail.
So when the US tromps into Iraq, fully believing they can bring in their obviously superior values, fully expecting it will sweep through the middle east… it really is a new kind of stupid. When supporters of that kind of thinking then start blaming the mess on things the British did decades ago, then it can’t really be anything more than, as Dogma said, a pissing contest.
They just don't hand those things out like candy generalgrog
No.
But when they started handing them out to terrorists like Yassir Arafat and Nelson Mandella I lost all respect for the award.
But on topic:
I think it's very likely that Obama will get reelected...sadly. What people need to keep in mind is how slavishly in the tank the majority of the media is for this guy. No matter what he does or does not do they are going to do everything in their power to help him out. Likewise the Dems will pull every dirty trick in their arsenal to support their guy. One only has to look at the way they have been (almost by reflex) trying to paint every bit of oppositon to Obama as bieng based upon "racism" to get a taste of what the next election will be like.
What I think is far more likely is the GOP winning back control of one or more houses of congress next year. Obama is making much the same mistake that Clinton did...he's over-reaching. He keeps pushing an agenda that is at odds with the center-right majority of the country (amazingly on much the same issues (ie spending and big goverment/taxes, "health care reform", and now apparently homosexuals in the military), so the result will likely be much the same. The Republican Revolution of '94 greatly limited Clinton's real effect and meant that he had to move to right a bit or be willing to deal with the opposition if he wanted anything done. Obama will probably face a similar scenario in the latter part of his first term and his probable second one.
Trench-Raider wrote:
But when they started handing them out to terrorists like Yassir Arafat and Nelson Mandella I lost all respect for the award.
And then the standards became unrealistic.
Personally, I thin the peace prize should only go to the theoretical people who have been aborted. Clearly they have contributed the most to peace between nations by deigning to avoid existence.
Trench-Raider wrote:
I think it's very likely that Obama will get reelected...sadly. What people need to keep in mind is how slavishly in the tank the majority of the media is for this guy. No matter what he does or does not do they are going to do everything in their power to help him out. Likewise the Dems will pull every dirty trick in their arsenal to support their guy. One only has to look at the way they have been (almost by reflex) trying to paint every bit of oppositon to Obama as bieng based upon "racism" to get a taste of what the next election will be like.
Its good to know that the copy function is alive and well.
Trench-Raider wrote:I think it's very likely that Obama will get reelected...sadly. What people need to keep in mind is how slavishly in the tank the majority of the media is for this guy. No matter what he does or does not do they are going to do everything in their power to help him out. Likewise the Dems will pull every dirty trick in their arsenal to support their guy. One only has to look at the way they have been (almost by reflex) trying to paint every bit of oppositon to Obama as bieng based upon "racism" to get a taste of what the next election will be like.
The myth of the liberal media is based on the idea that political bias beats out the drive for ratings. It's a very silly idea. The only other factor besides ratings is the need to look after sponsors. The result is a media generally built around sensationalism, but with considerable wariness over offending corporate sponsors.
The myth only exists because idealogues like to pretend they're really the centre of politics, therefore when the media isn't reporting what they assume must be the objective truth, it's because the media is biased. The myth of the liberal media is an excuse to never challenge one's ideas, and it really, really needs to die.
sebster wrote:The myth of the liberal media is based on the idea that political bias beats out the drive for ratings. It's a very silly idea. The only other factor besides ratings is the need to look after sponsors. The result is a media generally built around sensationalism, but with considerable wariness over offending corporate sponsors.
The myth only exists because idealogues like to pretend they're really the centre of politics, therefore when the media isn't reporting what they assume must be the objective truth, it's because the media is biased. The myth of the liberal media is an excuse to never challenge one's ideas, and it really, really needs to die.
According to a Gallup survey, the "myth" is anything but that. With 78% of journalists identifying with the Democratic Party and 2/3 of them being self-declared liberals, I think it is a fairly supported idea....
JEB_Stuart wrote:According to a Gallup survey, the "myth" is anything but that. With 78% of journalists identifying with the Democratic Party and 2/3 of them being self-declared liberals, I think it is a fairly supported idea....
What does 'liberal' mean?
Are we talking about Hobbesian political science, or American political predictions?
You are able to massively skimp on your own defense budgets because you know we will defend you if attacked.
Like in the Falklands? The Argentinians directly attacked Sovereign British territory. What did America do? Nothing - cheers guys!
Not that the British forces needed American assistance. Despite the points you raised, (which are largely down to the current Labour gov'ts unwillingness to throw billions at another American war of adventure) The United Kingdom still has the 3rd highest defence budget in the world, behind the USA and China (I was surprised by this - more than the Russian Federation?), and is a major nuclear power, able to project force anywhere in the world (one of only a handful of countries with this capability).
How exactly are we relying on the USA for our defence? If anything, our association with America puts our citizens in GREATER danger (see the 7/7 attacks). At the end of the day, you can buy into the 'America: World Police!!!' propaganda all you like - the rest of the world doesn't buy it. Our association with America has damaged our reputation on the world stage, cost the lives of hundred of our citizens and soldiers, and nearly wrecked our economy. And what thanks do we get?
Ignorant and jingoistic posts like the one from which the above quote was taken. Nice one.
America helped us in the Falklands quite a lot actually, with satellite intelligence and extra shipments of Sidewinder missiles.
JEB_Stuart wrote:According to a Gallup survey, the "myth" is anything but that. With 78% of journalists identifying with the Democratic Party and 2/3 of them being self-declared liberals, I think it is a fairly supported idea....
What does 'liberal' mean?
Are we talking about Hobbesian political science, or American political predictions?
Haha, I find this interesting. Why would you associate Thomas Hobbes with American Liberalism? After reading Leviathan, which is incredible btw, I thought he was in favor of a Christian monarchy above all else. Or am I missing your point on Hobbes? If by Hobbesian ideals you mean classical liberalism, then I don't think so. If I remember correctly Gallup defined "liberal" as stronger regulation on the economy by the government, and progressive on social issues. I will try to find the survey. After putting together a Wartrukk, a bunch of cursing, and several glasses of port and some scotch, things aren't as clear as they used to be
JEB_Stuart wrote:According to a Gallup survey, the "myth" is anything but that. With 78% of journalists identifying with the Democratic Party and 2/3 of them being self-declared liberals, I think it is a fairly supported idea....
Nah, my point is that personal political views do not play that big a role in the news that gets reported. They could be Maoists for all it matters, because the priority in news is getting vision, getting a story that can be completed in 60 seconds, and not pissing off the advertisers. Politics doesn't factor compared to those issues.
A classic example is Rupert Murdoch, whose personal politics are described as non-authoritarian left. Yet he spotted an opportunity to target a news station at a specific market, and so we have FOX news and a vast swathe of right wing papers across the globe. While Murdoch would show up in a survey as left wing, the news produced by his outlets is anything but.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Why would you associate Thomas Hobbes with American Liberalism?
Because Hobbes was a Liberal. THE Liberal, actually. His work essentially serves as the foundation of all American politics.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
After reading Leviathan, which is incredible btw, I thought he was in favor of a Christian monarchy above all else. Or am I missing your point on Hobbes?
I think you're missing Hobbes' point, but I digress.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
If by Hobbesian ideals you mean classical liberalism, then I don't think so. If I remember correctly Gallup defined "liberal" as stronger regulation on the economy by the government, and progressive on social issues. I will try to find the survey. After putting together a Wartrukk, a bunch of cursing, and several glasses of port and some scotch, things aren't as clear as they used to be
I don't mean anything in particular, at least not beyond obfuscation. The word 'liberal' simply is not useful in American politics. Most people don't know what it means, or how they relate to it, because there are simply too many emotional associations with respect to it.
Taking surveys on the leanings of the American populace is a waste of time. I've seen people say they were for greater government control of the economy, but against liberal thought.
If Obama is re elected it will probably bring about the end of the world as predicted by the Mayans. He and I have something in common as he is referred to also as GBF.
.
us till we die just say so and quit the sophistry. You and yours can go to the extermination camp. Me and mine won't go so quietly into the night thank you very much.
