USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[scubaman3D 0]

old

[Panda-PL- 0]

Just because I criticised does not mean my like drops for them. Unless of course the US becomes something like Nazi Germany.

I ask you for constructive critisizm.

If you critisize people for dooing things the wrong way you first need to know how to do the same things right. Otherwise how can you tell they are not just now dooing the best possible thing?

People (not you) when asked for advice usually start with "you shouldn't have...". It is an easy position to take but when you are making an actual decison you cannot predict the results with certainity.

I dismiss charity argument because you arbitrarly pick the measure. You say divide the ammount by GNP? Why not divide it by avarage spendings on health care per own citizen?

I am sure you can find a statistic to support any conclusion.

Besides USA pays a lot of price with lives of its citizens or by taking part in peacekeeping, something many EU countries are far behind with.

Quote[/b] ]I didn't do a critical analysis of their role as the superpower.

You brought up "superpower" so I assumed it has something to do with your argument. If it was just a figure of speech then I misunderstood you.

[Scorpio 0]

Really? How old? It can't be any more than 5 weeks, which is how long Palin has been on this "whole VP thing". She makes Bush look sane and intelligent. In fact, so does McCain. It amazes me, simply amazes me how anyone would even consider rooting for her. But then again, Americans voters really are stupid enough to buy into the crap of the Republicans. Just look at the last 8 years.

It seems like a stroke of genius for whoever proposed to pick her has the VP candidate. She can woo the voters with her shiny glasses and fabulous hair-do, she can put on the folksy charm and flirt with the camera, and she can spew out the age-old ro-ha-ha deluded good-vs-evil rhetoric of the Republicans. Yet people don't seem to notice that.

For an example among countless others, just look at this. It's not only hypocricy, its just pathetic. I feel for Americans, really I do...because there's going to be many among them that are ignorant, afraid, and stubborn enough to buy into this kind of crap.

[-Snafu- 78]

@ Oct. 05 2008,19:22)]

Just because I criticised does not mean my like drops for them. Unless of course the US becomes something like Nazi Germany.

I ask you for constructive critisizm.

If you critisize people for dooing things the wrong way you first need to know how to do the same things right. Otherwise how can you tell they are not just now dooing the best possible thing?

People (not you) when asked for advice usually start with "you shouldn't have...". It is an easy position to take but when you are making an actual decison you cannot predict the results with certainity.

I pointed out that aid is done via GDP, aid can be used as a weapon, aid can be used for the benefit of the donor nation.

Your argument here seems rather strange. I can't point out wrongs in using aid because I don't have a solution? And that using aid for their own benefits and/or as a weapon might be a mistake?

What is the problem here? Are you just arguing with me for the sake of it?

Quote[/b] ]I dismiss charity argument because you arbitrarly pick the measure. You say divide the ammount by GNP? Why not divide it by avarage spendings on health care per own citizen?

This is the way it is measured, the way it's done. As I mentioned countries do not have the same financial capabilities/capacities as each other. GDP is a fair way to measure. GDP is used to measure lots of different things such as defence spending. It shows how much a country puts toward aid compared to other things.

You can't dismiss it just because it doesn't support your views.

Quote[/b] ]Besides USA pays a lot of price with lives of its citizens or by taking part in peacekeeping, something many EU countries are far behind with.

Pray tell how EU countries with smaller budgets, populations and armed forces are going to post the same amount of troops as the US in different parts of the world?

The US Forces have the ability to do 'power projection' a lot better than most armed forces around the world. Meaning they can deploy Task Forces to all most anywhere. Plus they are a lot bigger.

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping_forces#Participation

[scubaman3D 0]

Really? How old? It can't be any more than 5 weeks

This was discussed a few pages ago.

She is referring to the probing of US anti-air defenses by Russian military aircraft over Alaskan territory.

[Scorpio 0]

She is referring to the probing of US anti-air defenses by Russian military aircraft over Alaskan territory.

Well then forgive me for bringing it up again, but I'd really like to know how this enhances her foreign policy credentials, considering that Russian aircraft havn't flown into Alaska's airspace during her entire time in office.

Also, I'm guessing the "anti-air defences" you're referring to are the anti-missile defences at Fort Greely? That place couldn't be less than 1000km from the closest maritime border between Russia and Alaska. Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is "probing" these defences, and how close do you have to get to carry out a successful probe?

In fact, what Palin might have been referring to was a buffer zone of airspace that extends beyond the 12-mile strip. Although not recognized internationally as America's to protect, the military watches it. According to Palin's campaign foreign policy adviser, she was informed by her National Guard Commander whenever Russian aircraft carry out exercises in that area.

So, assuming that (pray God) she doesn't have any involvement in these routine military matters, and that she hasn't been in any negotiations with the Russians regarding this matter, again I'd like to know how this helps her foreign policy credentials and/or experience in any way.

[chops 111]

It is frightening to see her speak. I watched that

she did with Katie Couric. It's just jaw-droppingly unfathomable to suggest that this woman is somehow qualified to be VP.

Granted Obama is pretty green by Presidential standards, but Jesus titty-fucking Christ, how can anybody seriously think that voting for a single term Governor who seems to think she's in charge of the air defence of Alaska?

Couric went very soft on her in that interview, she could've asked so many more questions and exposed Palin for the pretender she is trying to be and failing. She's just plain dumb.

I hope they change the rules so foreign-born citizens can run for President, at least that way the Republicans can nominate Schwarzenegger, who is an intellectual giant in comparison to Palin.

Looks like she might yet get into some strife about her ordering her former brother-in-law sacked.

[walker 0]

Hi all

What is all this about Palin being a sessesionist?

Kind Regards walker

[scubaman3D 0]

Also, I'm guessing the "anti-air defences" you're referring to are the anti-missile defences at Fort Greely?

I have read stories of Russian bombers or fighters approaching the airspace and then being escorted away by US fighters - so you're right, thats what I was thinking about.

One example:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us.russian.planes/index.html

Now, as to your point that this doesn't translate to experience. I will restate my point for the "who-knows-how-many-ith-time":  

However little experience she actually has, its still more than Obama.

[chops 111]

However little experience she actually has, its still more than Obama.

We'll she's not running for president, McCain is, who obviously does have more experience, though I'm still not sure which war it was that he won, according to Palin.

Comparing Obama (federal senator) and Palin (Governor) seems a moot point, but I'm curious as to how she has "more experience"?

Christopher Hitchens, a man who's writing I don't always agree with, but often admire, had some good points to make against Obama

To offer my own two cents I'd have to say this election campaign is woeful. Compare it to 1992 Clinton, Bush and Perot debating were at least in heated debate about NAFTA.

All that comes out of this current bullshit is personal attacks. Zero on policy from both sides, at a crucial time in US and global history. "He said lipstick on a pig" "You said it first" "You're friends with terrorists" "You're deceitful".

This election seems to be the seeking out of a King, who must be of noble and brave of heart, wise and genuine who can be the best American there is.

[scubaman3D 0]

To offer my own two cents I'd have to say this election campaign is woeful. Compare it to 1992 Clinton, Bush and Perot debating were at least in heated debate about NAFTA.

Well this I agree with. When "American Idol" gets more votes than the US President, you know we live in a sad state of affairs.

[MehMan 0]

All that comes out of this current bullshit is personal attacks. Zero on policy from both sides, at a crucial time in US and global history.

Because everybody wants to see poo being thrown around in the big monkey cage.

And that is a bad sign. Also the general disinterest of people in politics is bad bad bad bad.

[Scorpio 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have read stories of Russian bombers or fighters approaching the airspace and then being escorted away by US fighters - so you're right, thats what I was thinking about.

One example:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us.russian.planes/index.html

This seems contradict [url=I have read stories of Russian bombers or fighters approaching the airspace and then being escorted away by US fighters - so you're right, thats what I was thinking about.  One example:  http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us.russian.planes/index.html]this story[/url] that Russian aircraft have never entered Alaskan airspace, but oh well.

Quote[/b] ]However little experience she actually has, its still more than Obama.

You mean foreign policy experience? Surely you cannot be serious? She didn't even travel outside the country until 2007. You get foreign policy experience not only by, say, negotiations and diplomatic missions with foreign countries, but at the very least an understanding of other cultures. That can only be done I think through seeing those countries for yourself. I think its safe to say, even I have more foreign policy experience than her. Here's a bit of the interview with Katie Couric:

Quote[/b] ]Couric: In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.

Palin: I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world.

No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world.

Pray tell, Governor, what exactly are those mediums, such as the newspapers, that you get your information from?

Quote[/b] ]Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

God knows what her "world view" is. To be fair on her - I think the  Governor of Alaska wouldnt be particularly interested in the outside world, let alone be worried about foreign policy or military issues. But whats pathetic is how she's trying to enhance her credentials when she obviously has nothing.

Hell, don't vote for Obama just because he's the right man for the job. Vote for him just to save the world from McCain. Which brings me the big guy:

The very fact that he has been involved in almost all foreign policy and natural security issues in the last few years (his words) is reason why he cannot be trusted to be Commander in Chief. I mean, hell, here's what he once said about Al-Qaeda:

Quote[/b] ]It's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate.

This claim was repeated twice. That, and many other stupid statements that I'd very happily list if requested. Funny how they excuse every stupid thing he says as a "gaffe" or "simple mistake". Oh that's right - I forgot, he's a maverick.

For a guy who's spending so much effort concentrating on Iraq, you'd think he would at least know what's going on over there.

He's a very angry guy who constantly explodes. Bless him, he just needs a hug. I remember one interview on his campaign jet a reporter asked him why he's so angry. Hehh

His whole career has been wrapped up in the military, albeit a very mediocre one. He graduated 895th out of 899 in the Naval Academy and crashed his aircraft 5 times. Wow. And despite all this, he didn't have so much as a smear on him due to his four-star admiral father taking care of things. Also, in my opinion, its shameful how he constantly exploits his status as a former POW...I've known POW's and victims of torture (my own father was one) and none of them seem stable enough to live a normal life, and I highly doubt being a former POW is a healthy prerequisite to being the President of the US.

[Scorpio 0]

This election seems to be the seeking out of a King, who must be of noble and brave of heart, wise and genuine who can be the best American there is.

You're exactly right.

however in my opinion they seem to be judging character and past history, rather than policy and plans..which is all fair and well considering that politicians tend to lie to get what they want. However, whats crazy is how they take something small and completely blow it out of proportion, while giving no considerations to the huge flaws and/or lies of the other candidate.

e.g. the "madrassa" claim on Obama.

[scubaman3D 0]

This seems contradict that Russian aircraft have never entered Alaskan airspace, but oh well.

But then, that's not really the point, is it?

And how does Obama living in a foreign country for 4 years equate to foreign policy experience?

Obama has been in the senate for what, three years. He has been campaigning for 1.5 of those 3 years and he is supposed to be more qualified and experienced than McCain, who has been there for 26 years or Palin, who has actually governed something before?

[Scorpio 0]

Quote[/b] ]But then, that's not really the point, is it?

No, not at all. That's exactly my point. My remaining question is how does proximity to Russia give her foreign policy experience?

Quote[/b] ]And how does Obama living in a foreign country for 4 years equate to foreign policy experience?

Again, here's what I said:

Quote[/b] ]You get foreign policy experience not only by, say, negotiations and diplomatic missions with foreign countries, but at the very least an understanding of other cultures. That can only be done I think through seeing those countries for yourself.

What I'm saying is: of course, he doesn't have enough foreign policy experience. But he has at least some understanding of the world around him. That, and his very sensible foreign policy outlined in his campaign. That, of course, is my opinion that it is sensible..but the alternative is McCain's...now you'd have to ask yourself: do you really want McCain as Commander in Chief? And if so, why?!

Quote[/b] ]Obama has been in the senate for what, three years. He has been campaigning for 1.5 of those 3 years and he is supposed to be more qualified and experienced than McCain, who has been there for 26 years or Palin, who has actually governed something before?

I for one am not saying that Obama has more experience in government than McCain has. That's absurd. But I do prefer Obama's behavior as senator and previous activites to McCain's.

On a small note, personally I just want the US out of Iraq (and hopefuly the rest of the Mid-East although thats not likely). A responsbile withdrawal is feasible and absolutely essential, (but thats for another topic). And that's why I'd like Obama to win. Couldn't care less if you screw up things at home, it'll be no wonder since these two chaps are the best you can come up with.

[edit] On another subject, I'd like to ask the more conservative posters here (if there are any) whats with this term "liberal"? I've never quite understood why people in the US snarl it as an insult?

[scubaman3D 0]

On a small note, personally I just want the US out of Iraq (and hopefuly the rest of the Mid-East although thats not likely). A responsbile withdrawal is feasible and absolutely essential, (but thats for another topic). And that's why I'd like Obama to win. Couldn't care less if you screw up things at home, it'll be no wonder since these two chaps are the best you can come up with.

To begin with, if thats all you care about in the context of this election, I'm afraid you're being slightly obtuse.

Anyways, from what I've read, Bush has already instituted a plan to gradually drawdown troops from Iraq over the next 2 or 3 years, I believe. He plans on taking something like 4,000 or 8,000 out before he leaves office.

I guess Obama's thunder has been stolen already.

General Petraeus is saying more cuts could come next year - a decision the next president will need to make.

Oh, and you know that because Palin hasn't traveled abroad as much as Obama, she can't possible understand other cultures and therefore couldn't possibly function as a VP. Is this seriously your argument?

Also, at least Palin knows what the VP does, unlike Joe Biden:

http://washingtontimes.com/news....e-wrong

[Scorpio 0]

Quote[/b] ]To begin with, if thats all you care about in the context of this election, I'm afraid you're being slightly obtuse.

Of course. I'm not a US citizen. I feel for those Americans who have some sense in them, but this country I believe is headed for collapse, and I stand by my statement.

Quote[/b] ]Anyways, from what I've read, Bush has already instituted a plan to gradually drawdown troops from Iraq over the next 2 or 3 years, I believe. He plans on taking something like 4,000 or 8,000 out before he leaves office.

I guess Obama's thunder has been stolen already.

Hardly. Obama would reduce these numbers much quicker, and anything to spew out of Bush's mouth..well, its just not funny anymore.

Quote[/b] ]General Petraeus is saying more cuts could come next year - a decision the next president will need to make.

Of course. And yet McCain doesn't seem to be worried about that, since he says that he doesn't care if they're in Iraq for "50, 100 or 1000, or 10000 years"...Now, I sincerely hope he's talking about just keeping bases and a strategic presence there after the majority has withdrawn, but even that I disagree with. As I said previously, America should be out of Iraq and the MidEast for good.

Quote[/b] ]Oh, and you know that because Palin hasn't traveled abroad as much as Obama, she can't possible understand other cultures and therefore couldn't possibly function as a VP. Is this seriously your argument?

I never said that I was firstly talking about the whole Alaska-Russia thing, then I said that Obama has at least an understanding of other cultures. And finally I displayed the Couric interview quote to show that: if she can't even name a news source she uses, how does she keep in touch with world affairs?

Quote[/b] ]Also, at least Palin knows what the VP does, unlike Joe Biden:

http://washingtontimes.com/news....e-wrong

I'm sure Joe Biden had at least an idea what the VP does before he got asked to be Obama's running mate, unlike: Miss Wasilla

[froggyluv 2136]

Or Bush is finally letting go of his stubborn,failing ways is more the proper question. Sen. Obama has been calling for these cuts for a long time. Called for starting talks with 'Rogue Nations', which 5 previous Secretary Of States have agreed with and now Bush is finally acting -hardly constitutes stealing anyone's thunder.

And please with the Palin is more knowledgable than Biden material - if you saw her interviews, and debates, I find it nearly impossible for a reasonable person, barring rabid partisanship, to feel like she's got a firm grasp of anything besides, " Isn't it AMAZING how folksy-charmy I am! Ya gotta love me Joe! You betcha!!! Wink-Wink...

[scubaman3D 0]

Or Bush is finally letting go of his stubborn,failing ways

Or, God-forbid, did Bush's plan for a surge actually work, and its ok to now start a drawdown.

I know, this is an unthinkable alternative - that he might have actually done something right.

Scorpio

I think McCain is stating to his commitment to victory in Iraq, and he used a hyperbole to drive his point home. This is in contrast to democrats like obama who seems to think we were defeated in Iraq. A win in Iraq is bad news for obama, so why would you want a US president to have interest in the loss of our war overseas?

Anyways, all you've managed to prove is that before Palin was picked for VP, she wasn't exactly sure what the VPs role is. In contrast to Biden, who still didn't know as of last week.

Also, this business about the US falling. For your sake, you should hope not. The world's economy is a house of cards the whole thing will crumble after a US crash.

[Scorpio 0]

And please with the Palin is more knowledgable than Biden material - if you saw her interviews, and debates, I find it nearly impossible for a reasonable person, barring rabid partisanship, to feel like she's got a firm grasp of anything besides, " Isn't it AMAZING how folksy-charmy I am! Ya gotta love me Joe! You betcha!!! Wink-Wink...

Bear in mind, that's even after pre-interview training and preperation. Imagine what she'd be like without the aid of her trusty little helpers to tell her what to say.

[Scorpio 0]

Quote[/b] ]Or, God-forbid, did Bush's plan for a surge actually work, and its ok to now start a drawdown?

Depends what you mean by "worked". I for one believe it has improved Iraq's security situation (of course couldn't have done so without other things like the Awakening programme), but Iraq remains a very dangerous place to be.

Quote[/b] ]I know, this is an unthinkable alternative - that he might have actually done something right.

Actually there is no other alternative - withdraw quickly now, or face another change of tide which you won't be able to fix with your remaining resources.

[Scorpio 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think McCain is stating to his commitment to victory in Iraq, and he used a hyperbole to drive his point home.

HUH?!

Quote[/b] ]This is in contrast to democrats like obama who seems to think we were defeated in Iraq.

You are certainly not winning you've spent $560billion and counting, 4000 of your soldiers have bravely given their lives, and 85,000 Iraqis have died, 2.2million displaced, and the rest are living without constant running water or electricity.

And for what? All you've managed to create is a fragile illusion of democracy, trying to help an inept and corrupt government onto its feet.

Quote[/b] ]A win in Iraq is bad news for obama, so why would you want a US president to have interest in the loss of our war overseas?

How can you say that? *sigh* theres so much wrong with that statement, I'm not going to bother.

Quote[/b] ]Anyways, all you've managed to prove is that before Palin was picked for VP, she wasn't exactly sure what the VPs role is. In contrast to Biden, who still didn't know as of last week.

He got a technical issue with the VP role wrong, yes But I'd really really like to ask Palin, even now, does she know what the VP does? In fact no, it would just be a waste of time. She wouldn't answer my question.

Quote[/b] ]Also, this business about the US falling. For your sake, you should hope not. The world's economy is a house of cards the whole thing will crumble after a US crash.

Of course. I still think its bound to happen though. And when it does, well I hope it'll give the world a better direction instead of the persuit of wealth.

[scubaman3D 0]

I see, you're an idealist.

You think the world will frolic and live at peace after the evil capitalist empire has fallen?

What about my statement regarding McCain is unclear?

I disagree that we are loosing. I think we have to put some hard work into making Iraq work and I'm one of those idealists that democracy can eventually develop there - unless you think there is something inherently wrong with the Iraqi people...

Call me an optimist.

And the obama campaign is built, in part (even in your eyes), that we have lost the war in Iraq and that he will end it.

Therefore a win in Iraq will mean one of his running platforms will no longer resonate in people's opinions. If we win in Iraq, its bad news for his campaign. Therefore I say a win in Iraq is a loss for obama.

[Wolfrug 0]

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."

~Jeanette Rankin

And, since I'm at it:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."

~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953

But seriously, stop talking about "winning the war"; you can't, now more so than ever before.

That is all.

Regards,

Wolfrug