OT: 2008 Elections

[RobVarak]

Are you insinuating that Obama is a Communist and/or revolutionary sympathizer, by saying that Obama "may (at least publicly) disavow any affection for Che"? And would you like to clarify what you mean by saying that the Che flag is "emblematic of some portion of his grass roots support"? Are you saying that his campaign is being supported by Communists?

Whoa, whoa! I thought I was pretty clearly poking some fun at this. I even explicitly stated that I didn't necessarily think it was authentic. Believe me, even if it is true there are about 1000 good reasons that Obama shouldn't be president, and they have nothing to do with the decorating choices made by his loony campaign office in Texas.

With respect to Obama personally, my tongue was firmly planted in cheek. He's obviously not a communist, and thus I felt was a fair target for the remark.

As for the campaign being supported by communists, I'd wager that an appreciable percentage of his support would identify themselves as being sympathetic to Che or Fidel. Not dyed-in-the-wool pinkos, but certainly the college-aged dilletantes who carry dog-eared copies of Das Kapital and try to pick up PoliSci majors with hackneyed lines about the means of production

Jared, the man is winning college campuses by a 5-to-1 margin. Do you really think that there isn't nearly a 1:1 ratio of his supporters to those people that have a picture or T-shirt of Che or a copy of the Little Red Book in their backpack?

He's obviously running a hugely successful campaign. I think that my original post was clearly not suggesting that a majority or even a large percentage of his followers are communists or sympathetic to communism. But get one of the big polling firms to survey people who would rather have Fidel as President than Bush and I think you'll find them running in huge numbers to support Obama.

But you raise an interesing question: Who are the real communists supporting? Will they trot out their usual sacrificial lamb again or rally around a Democratic candidate who will redistribute wealth on a grand scale? Oh, and he conveniently also happens to be the one with experience organizing community groups. Hell, now that you mention it I would bet that a fair number of bona fide communists are supporting Obama

[Smurfy]

Absolutely Jack. The "War on Terrorism" is just as much a branding trick as the "War on Drugs".

That's so ignorant that it's dangerous. Unfortunately, much of the electorate seems to agree with you.

There really is no realistic debate about whether or not we are in direct conflict with Islamic extremism in a variety of guises...

...Imagine if they had to live in the Israeli domestic security environment...OTOH maybe compulsory military service would go some ways to disposing of notions that this war is a "branding trick."

I think it's actually a correct description. I have no good quick response but I'll try to point out some places to start. It will take a lot of effort and work to come to the realization that your assessment of the state of affairs is incorrect. Why I care is that I consider your response symptomatic of our problems - not a cure. As a fellow North American I can only hope that you some how take the time to look over your 20th century history or we will be doomed to continually repeat our pattern of destruction.

First of all you can start by looking up the history of the Pentagon Papers. Next you can look up the Report of the Congressional Committees into the Iran-Contra Affair. Finally, you can look up the history of the Reagan Administration's dealings in Lebanon.

The following pattern emerges:
1) A pattern of lies by successive administrations about our "enemies".
2) Willingness of all sorts of groups who claim to be "mortal enemies" to do lots of deals with each other behind the scenes when it suits their interests.
3) Given the involvement of the Reagan administration in the Contra war in Nicaragua - which led to the death of 30,000 civilians since the Contras had a bad habit of not hitting military targets - you could say they both funded and supported terrorist organizations. If Bush was really serious about tackling terrorism, members of that administration would have been up on trial in 2001.
4) The Reagan administration was very willing to talk and negotiate with all sorts of unsavoury folks both friend and foe. In the 80's, Canada, the U.S., and Israel were all involved in the sale/shipment of military parts to the Iranian government (this was illegal in the U.S., but still done). Throughout their involvement in Lebanon, the Reagan Administration negotiated regularly with Islamic militant groups.

And in all honesty, you can't directly compare the situation Israel faces with what's going on with American policy of the last seven years. The Arab-Israeli conflict far predates the current conflict. Most Arab citizens love American-style democracy and American capitalism. When I watch the BBC, I get the impression that many Iraqis today are disappointed because the invasion that toppled Saddam has led to a more polarized and religious state than what they thought the American invasion would result in. They expected to share in American freedom and democracy! Heck, aren't you aware that after 9/11, members of the public in Iran (would are also hated by Bin Laden's group for religious reasons) lit candles for the victims. Unfortunately, the Israeli government and populace does not share this sort of love-hate relationship with the Arab or Muslim world (edit: adding "Sadly, it's much less love and much more hate").

So I'd recommend to you that if you really want to see these problems resolved, you put some time into questioning things rather than just taking them for granted to be true.

Edit: I'm not saying putting an end to religious extremism or stopping the harm caused by the use of illegal drugs is wrong. But I'm saying that the Administration doesn't really care much about such things and I think 20th century history gives me PLENTY of reason to be suspiscious of it. Me, I'd love to see us all implement a universal system of justice, but I think one of the side effects would be many of our own perceived heros would be vulnerable to prosecution.

Edit 2: You aren't by chance hired by the CIA to post on these forums, are you?

[Jared]

It was the (at least publicly) comment that had me wondering whether it was tongue-in-cheek or not. And that this is the new smear, where (not you) but others are painting Obama as a Communist based on this.

And regarding college campuses, my guess is that the majority of students don't even know who Guevara is.

I'd guess at something more like 100:1 or more...Obama has a ton of support from your average, everyday college student (at least from what I've seen). There aren't as many young Communist college students on campus now compared to the past.

[RobVarak]

Absolutely Jack. The "War on Terrorism" is just as much a branding trick as the "War on Drugs".

That's so ignorant that it's dangerous. Unfortunately, much of the electorate seems to agree with you.

There really is no realistic debate about whether or not we are in direct conflict with Islamic extremism in a variety of guises...

...Imagine if they had to live in the Israeli domestic security environment...OTOH maybe compulsory military service would go some ways to disposing of notions that this war is a "branding trick."

I think it's actually a correct description. I have no good quick response but I'll try to point out some places to start. It will take a lot of effort and work to come to the realization that your assessment of the state of affairs is incorrect. Why I care is that I consider your response symptomatic of our problems - not a cure. As a fellow North American I can only hope that you some how take the time to look over your 20th century history or we will be doomed to continually repeat our pattern of destruction.

First of all you can start by looking up the history of the Pentagon Papers. Next you can look up the Report of the Congressional Committees into the Iran-Contra Affair. Finally, you can look up the history of the Reagan Administration's dealings in Lebanon.

The following pattern emerges:
1) A pattern of lies by successive administrations about our "enemies".
2) Willingness of all sorts of groups who claim to be "mortal enemies" only for them to do lots of deals with each other behind the scenes when it suits their interests.
3) Given the involvement of the Reagan administration in the Contra war in Nicaragua - which led to the death of 30,000 civilians since the Contras had a bad habit of not hitting military targets - you could say they both funded and supported terrorist organizations. If Bush was really serious about tackling terrorism, members of that administration would have been up on trial in 2001.
4) The Reagan administration was very willing to talk and negotiate with all sorts of unsavoury folks both friend and foe. In the 80's, Canada, the U.S., and Israel were all involved in the sale/shipment of military parts to the Iranian government (this was illegal in the U.S., but still done). Throughout their involvement in Lebanon, the Reagan Administration negotiated regularly with Islamic militant groups.

And in all honesty, you can't directly compare the situation Israel faces with what's going on with American policy of the last seven years. The Arab-Israeli conflict far predates the current conflict. Most Arab citizens love American-style democracy and American capitalism. When I watch the BBC, I get the impression that many Iraqis today are disappointed because the invasion that toppled Saddam has led to a more polarized and religious state than what they thought the American invasion would result in. They expected to share in American freedom and democracy! Heck, aren't you aware that after 9/11, members of the public in Iran (would are also hated by Bin Laden's group for religious reasons) lit candles for the victims. Unfortunately, the Israeli government and populace does not share this sort of love-hate relationship with the Arab or Muslim world.

So I'd recommend to you that if you really want to see these problems resolved, you put some time into questioning things rather than just taking them for granted to be true.

Edit: I'm not saying putting an end to religious extremism or stopping the harm caused by the use of illegal drugs is wrong. But I'm saying that the Administration doesn't really care much about such things and I think 20th century history gives me PLENTY of reason to be suspiscious of it. Me, I'd love to see us all implement a universal system of justice, but I think one of the side effects would be many of our own perceived heros would be vulnerable to prosecution.

Edit 2: You aren't by chance hired by the CIA to post on these forums, are you?

Please feel free to take issue with my postions, but rest assured that I have more than a passing familiarity with the sources to which you refer. Before I had to gain a useful living, I studied PoliSci with an emphasis on international relations and a concentration on Soviet-East European studies, with a minor in US history concentrating on 20th c. US history. I've spent more time with my nose in committee-composed gobbligook like the Iran-Contra report than I'd care to remember. My college department advisor was a Palestinian christian married to a Druze woman. I spent countless hours being tutored by him in the ills of Reagan's deeds in the MidEast. I read the Pentagon Papers for the first time when I was 15, and I still have that copy of the book with marginalia...sadly.

So I may be wrong, but I am not ill-informed.

[RobVarak]

And regarding college campuses, my guess is that the majority of students don't even know who Guevara is.

Maybe, but that Motorcylce Diaries movie made him dreamy for a whole new generation of binge drinkers and clove-cigarette smoking anti-Globalism protestors

[Smurfy]

[Please feel free to take issue with my postions, but rest assured that I have more than a passing familiarity with the sources to which you refer. Before I had to gain a useful living, I studied PoliSci with an emphasis on international relations and a concentration on Soviet-East European studies, with a minor in US history concentrating on 20th c. US history. I've spent more time with my nose in committee-composed gobbligook like the Iran-Contra report than I'd care to remember. I read the Pentagon Papers for the first time when I was 15, and I still have that copy of the book with marginalia and all LOL

So I may be wrong, but I am not ill-informed.

Okay. So this is really an issue of us having two quite different views of the world. This is what concerns me most. Obviously, we both have strong feelings that each other's beliefs are dangerous for society. We both seem to have seen the same evidence and yet we reach two quite contrasting conclusions. I really have to say I'm dumbfounded that you come to such conclusions given your level of awareness. I'll bet you look at me the same way.

I'll now cut off my part of the discussion since it's gone far off the topic of the elections. I can only hope that those inside America who share your views and those who don't can one day figure out some way to reconcile them without so much national division and international bloodshed. This will take some thinking outside the box and I'm at a complete loss to figure how.

[JackB1]

Rob,
I didn't think that Smurf was saying that "The War On Drugs" is on the same level as "The War on Terror". I think he was trying to say they were both deceptive ways the Govt wants us to think about these two different things. They want the general public to believe that we are fighting the "War on Terror" over in Iraq, just as they want you to believe they are fighting "The War on (Illegal) Drugs", while they support the Prescription Drug Companies that sell us unnecessary pills to cure all of our ills.

[XXXIV]

f***in government !!!

[wco81]

I don't know about the War on Drugs but there are certainly people in this country who conflate the threat of the "Islamic facists" to be on par with the threat of the Soviet Union.

Certainly the DoD is being funded as if we face an enemy which has large forces on land, air and sea.

The people who complain about wasteful govt. spending decry anything other than military spending, even as the Pentagon budget has become larger than any other program.


Do Republicans disapprove of spending under Bush? They still approve of his performance by well over 60% and they may decry earmarks but nobody is questioning DoD spending.

With the kind of money involved, it's astounding that nobody seems to question whether foreign and fiscal policies being pursued are in the best interests of the country or mainly to benefit contractors.

[RobVarak]

Do Republicans disapprove of spending under Bush? They still approve of his performance by well over 60% and they may decry earmarks but nobody is questioning DoD spending.

Many certainly do, but probably still answer opinion polls favorably because they focus on the war rather than the economy. Not smart, but not surprising either given the fact that the war has more "sizzle" as an issue and much of the blame for the spending is laid at the door of Congress. They also overlook his poor fiscal policy in favor of his loud and strident support of several of conservatives' pet social issues and especially his judicial appointments.

[FatPitcher]

I don't know about the War on Drugs but there are certainly people in this country who conflate the threat of the "Islamic facists" to be on par with the threat of the Soviet Union.

Certainly the DoD is being funded as if we face an enemy which has large forces on land, air and sea.

China has an active duty military of over 2.25 million.

Many countries spend very little on defense because they know the U.S. will protect them.

It used to be that the mandate was to be able to fight a war on two fronts. Right now, we barely have enough active duty and reserve troops to occupy a single small country. Of course, technology is more important for fighting a war, while personnel are more important for policing.

[JRod]

I'll now cut off my part of the discussion since it's gone far off the topic of the elections. I can only hope that those inside America who share your views and those who don't can one day figure out some way to reconcile them without so much national division and international bloodshed. This will take some thinking outside the box and I'm at a complete loss to figure how.

I know what you are trying to say but I just wanted to say, it's all about civility. I don't want a bipartisan country. I want two, three or four positions discussed in a civil manner.

Disagreeing in the country is thought of as wrong. And when we are wrong, we can't concede that we made a mistake. Everything wrong about America is embodied in Bush's presidency. Arrogance, stubbornness, deceit and dishonesty.

It's okay to disagree but this country has to learn to do in a civil manner. A bipartisan is what got us into this mess. Not enough people stepped outside the hive mind before the war and questioned it.

That's why I want the debate between Obama and McCain. I fear if it's Clinton v McCain we get to see this whole spirit of change turn into the war of politics. McCain will be branded as old and boring. Obama and Clinton will be more flash than substance to beat the republican nominee because they know that's all that needs to be done to knock off the limping Republicans.

And at the end of the day, Americans won't know what is the plan to tackled our health insurance crisis, the war in Iraq, the environment. Instead will be political talk such as, "We need a leader on the subject and I intend to lead to fight on/for/or against [insert the issue here]."

The sad reality is that dirt is nothing new to American politics. Even in the period of Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton verbal accusations were thrown around by each other and the various newspapers of the day. Accusing someone of being a bastard child wasn't uncommon.

Anyway, maybe you did say it the best...reconcile them without so much national division.

[JackB1]

I know what you are trying to say but I just wanted to say, it's all about civility. I don't want a bipartisan country. I want two, three or four positions discussed in a civil manner.

Disagreeing in the country is thought of as wrong. And when we are wrong, we can't concede that we made a mistake. Everything wrong about America is embodied in Bush's presidency. Arrogance, stubbornness, deceit and dishonesty.

It's okay to disagree but this country has to learn to do in a civil manner. A bipartisan is what got us into this mess. Not enough people stepped outside the hive mind before the war and questioned it.

That's why I want the debate between Obama and McCain. I fear if it's Clinton v McCain we get to see this whole spirit of change turn into the war of politics. McCain will be branded as old and boring. Obama and Clinton will be more flash than substance to beat the republican nominee because they know that's all that needs to be done to knock off the limping Republicans.

And at the end of the day, Americans won't know what is the plan to tackled our health insurance crisis, the war in Iraq, the environment. Instead will be political talk such as, "We need a leader on the subject and I intend to lead to fight on/for/or against [insert the issue here]."

The sad reality is that dirt is nothing new to American politics. Even in the period of Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton verbal accusations were thrown around by each other and the various newspapers of the day. Accusing someone of being a bastard child wasn't uncommon.

Anyway, maybe you did say it the best...reconcile them without so much national division.

Great post. I am all for questioning everything. It's not un-patriotic to care enough to question things. Just sitting by and accepting everything is more dangerous than anything.

[wco81]

China is another rationalization to pour money into the military.

If you're really worried about China, stop pouring money into its coffers and then borrow from them in order to fund the Pentagon.

[Brando70]

China is another rationalization to pour money into the military.

If you're really worried about China, stop pouring money into its coffers and then borrow from them in order to fund the Pentagon.

Do they get royalties for General Tso's Chicken?

[RobVarak]

China is another rationalization to pour money into the military.

Absolutely! There's nothing to fear from those peace-loving Chinese. Live and let live, I say.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glLF ... wD8UOJV1G3

[wco81]

Again, if China is a threat, why trade with them?

Just read an article about the Doha round starting up again because the dealbreaker -- US and EU refusing to drop ag tariffs and subsidies -- is becoming moot as high food prices force nations to suspend these tariffs.

The article noted that in the '70s, the USSR suffered shortages of soybeans, wheat and other crops. The Western nations imposed export tariffs and quotas to prevent Moscow from being able to secure crop imports.

If China is your mortal enemy, why are you enriching it?

China is no sweetheart. Their political leadership, despite benefitting from global trade, are still diehard communists who will not allow political reforms any time soon.

But the US has been accommodative to China for the past two decades, from granting them Most Favored Nation status to getting them in the WTO, to facilitating ties for American corporations.

So if anything, they're crying wolf about some military showdown with China, when there's so much money being exchanged between the two nations.

[RobVarak]

Again, if China is a threat, why trade with them?

Just read an article about the Doha round starting up again because the dealbreaker -- US and EU refusing to drop ag tariffs and subsidies -- is becoming moot as high food prices force nations to suspend these tariffs.

The article noted that in the '70s, the USSR suffered shortages of soybeans, wheat and other crops. The Western nations imposed export tariffs and quotas to prevent Moscow from being able to secure crop imports.

If China is your mortal enemy, why are you enriching it?

China is no sweetheart. Their political leadership, despite benefitting from global trade, are still diehard communists who will not allow political reforms any time soon.

But the US has been accommodative to China for the past two decades, from granting them Most Favored Nation status to getting them in the WTO, to facilitating ties for American corporations.

So if anything, they're crying wolf about some military showdown with China, when there's so much money being exchanged between the two nations.

So by your logic every nation in the world is either mortal enemy or trading partner? One can't engage with a nation economically, and in doing so extend one's own economic interest, while simultaneously remaing alert to the military threat that it poses? That's not a terribly nuanced way to approach international affairs.

I'll grant you that US policy toward China has been inconsistent for decades, but that's the result of a wide range of factors: the Cold War, Taiwan, human rights issues, trade etc. But nations since time immemorial have been able to trade with a nation while also remaining prepared should that nation present a military problem.

Suggesting that China is a paper tiger blown out of proportion by the military-industrial complex may seem appealing, particularly to the large segment out there who find Eisenhower's warning a reason to find Boeing and the Pentagon in cahoots at every turn. But that's a real tiger with real teeth, and its the job of our government and military to be prepared for its damndest efforts.

[XXXIV]

I know everyone knows about the price of oil but has anyone checked the price of steel?...Take a wild guess at whose buying them both at new ridiculous levels...one clue...Its not Iran.

There is a new super power emerging very soon...

[XXXIV]

double post

[wco81]

How much trading did we do with the Eastern Bloc back in the day?

The point is, there's too much money being made on both sides from trade that a military confrontation is unlikely. Some conservatives would draw a red line on the Straits of Taiwan. Would the country support a war to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? Especially when a lot of Taiwanese interests have forged business ties on the mainland?

Criticisms of fiscal spending excesses would have more credibility if they admitted Defense spending, which has grown faster than any other program, is a huge part of those excesses.

[RobVarak]

How much trading did we do with the Eastern Bloc back in the day?

The point is, there's too much money being made on both sides from trade that a military confrontation is unlikely. Some conservatives would draw a red line on the Straits of Taiwan. Would the country support a war to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? Especially when a lot of Taiwanese interests have forged business ties on the mainland?

Criticisms of fiscal spending excesses would have more credibility if they admitted Defense spending, which has grown faster than any other program, is a huge part of those excesses.

I do agree that a shooting war with China is unlikely. But the military should be prepared for the eventuality nonetheless.

I think criticism of spending excess is appropriate anytime that the spending is not in keeping with the best interest of the nation. That's why the criticism of the earmark explosion is the primary target of fiscal hawks, and justifiably so. Moreover, you're just not going to see a groundswell of criticism of military spending in the middle of a war.

Obviously there is fat in the military budget, and there always has been. Every effort should naturally be made to trim that fat. But that's no reason to avoid preparing from the real danger that China presents, nor is it any reason to diminish efforts to end (or at least severely limit) earmarks.

[JackB1]

boy did this thread go off the topic

[TheHiddenTrack]

I like OBAMA because CHANGE!

I like CLINTON because EXPERIENCE!

I like MCCAIN because WAR!

...back on topic.

[wco81]

Well, presidential candidates used to campaign on the Defense budget.

Reagan said we needed to build up our capabilities.

I don't know if Clinton campaigned on it, because the fiscal situation was bad and the economy wasn't doing well.

But they did talk about peace dividend and started closing down bases.

Then the GOP got control of Congress and decried how things had supposedly gone to pot. There was no shortage of cruise missiles for the Balkans or Afghanistan when those deployments came up with relatively little notice.