USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Seakony]

too busy for this thread..but what eever PDS and Dartay says...I agree.

BTW.. i got lots of toilet paper and plan to paper wrap a hotel this week.

[JudyBluEyes]

Originally Posted by Seakony

too busy for this thread..but what eever PDS and Dartay says...I agree.

BTW.. i got lots of toilet paper and plan to paper wrap a hotel this week.

Hey aren't you in Playa!?? What are you doing on here??? btw.. I saw you and Slim on the webcam, but I didn't know how to capture it...

[ryberg]

Iraq and how to deal with terrorism is obviously one of the central issues of importance today and important in the election. I was surprised at finishing out Obama's book to read some of his views in this regard. He is more forgiving of many maneuvers and more happy to accept the idea of policing things around the world with military action, even unilaterally, than many on the liberal end. The following characterization of the situation now on this point shows that and presents a frighteningly accurate sounding summation of our situation. One hopes we haven't just been played this way...

Osama bin Laden understands that he cannot defeat or even incapacitate the United States in a conventional war. What he and his allies can do is inflict enough pain to provoke a reaction of the sort we've seen in Iraq -- a botched and ill-advised U.S. military incursion into a Muslim country, which in turn spurs on insurgencies based on religious sentiment and nationalist pride, which in turn necessitates a lengthy and difficult U.S. occupation, which in turn leads to an escalating death toll on the part of U.S. troops and the local civilian population. All of this fans anti-American sentiment among Muslims, increase the pool of potential terrorist recruits, and prompts the American public to question not only the war but also those policies that project us into the Islamic world in the first place.

That's the plan for winning a war from a cave, and so far, at least, we are playing to script . . .

What does this mean in practical terms? We should start with the premise that the United States, like all sovereign nations, has the unilateral right to defend itself against attack. As such, our campaign to take out Al Qaeda base camps and the Taliban regime that harbored them was entirely justified -- ans was viewed as legitimate even in most Islamic countries. It may be preferable to have th support of our allies in such military campaigns, but our immediate safety can't be held hostage to the desire for international consensus; if we have to go it alone, then the American people stand ready to pay any price and bear any burden to protect our country.

I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent [emphasis in the original] thread to our security -- so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. Al Qaeda qualifies under this standard, and we can and should carry our preemptive strikes against them wherever we can. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder. If we are going to act unilaterally, then we had better have the goods on our targets.

Once we get beyond matters of self-defense, though, I'm convinced that it will almost always be in our strategic interest to act multilaterally rather than unilaterally when we use force around the world. By this, I do not mean that the UN Security Council -- a body that in its structure and rules to often appears frozen in a Cold War-era time warp -- should have a veto over our actions. Nor do I mean we round up the United Kingdom and Togo and then do what we please. Acting multilaterally means doing what George H.W. Bush and his team did in the first Gulf War -- engaging in the hard diplomatic work of obtaining most of the world's support for our actions, and making sure our actions serve to further recognize international norms.

Why conduct ourselves in this way? Because nobody benefits more than we do from the observance of international "rules of the road." We can't win converts to those rules if we act is if they apply to everyone but us. When the world's sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following, and robs terrorists and dictators of the argument that these rules are simply tools of American imperialism.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Seakony

what eever PDS and Dartay says...I agree.

Well just a second, let me just make a note of that, here, for future reference, you know...

Rita . . . thinks . . . what . . . ever . . . Mark . . . and . . . Dartay . . . think . . .

Got it -- thanks for the heads up on that!

So... do you plan to continue posting on the forum, then, or...?



Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Iraq and how to deal with terrorism is obviously one of the central issues of importance today and important in the election. I was surprised at finishing out Obama's book to read some of his views in this regard. He is more forgiving of many maneuvers and more happy to accept the idea of policing things around the world with military action, even unilaterally, than many on the liberal end. The following characterization of the situation now on this point shows that and presents a frighteningly accurate sounding summation of our situation. One hopes we haven't just been played this way...

All this discussion from Obama seems very sensible and level-headed to me....

I get a kick out of his reference to clarify that he does NOT mean "and then round up the United Kingdom and Togo and then do what we please"....

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

All this discussion from Obama seems very sensible and level-headed to me....

How many conservatives do you think will ever even hear/read/listen to his views? I mean, not to single out Dartay, but he for example has already said he could never vote for a Democrat because of foreign policy concerns. So just wondering how worthwhile it is to even discuss such things, sometimes...

Originally Posted by Jacko

I get a kick out of his reference to clarify that he does NOT mean "and then round up the United Kingdom and Togo and then do what we please"....

Yes he's good at maintaining a healthy sense of humor. He comments in passing in one part about his visit to the Ukraine with Rep. Dick Lugar on work they were doing to fund security at sites where nuclear weapons and chemical/biological agents were being defused and watched over that they served them, among other things, a scary type of Jell-o for dessert.

Actually what I really like is the way he continually contextualizes the issue at hand in terms of our history, often (as in this one) starting back with the Founding Fathers and moving forward in admirable summary fashion to get to the present day. Way too little consideration of context and history these days on many issues. It's I think a kind of side-effect of the extreme version of the individual responsibility myth, which of course in its overriding focus, cuts out situation and context and history. The past doesn't matter -- you can do whatever you want now. Ergo, the past doesn't matter when we consider what to do as a country, either -- neither in terms of our blame for any part of any past situation nor in terms of learning from the mistakes we or many others have made in the past.

Steve

[MWC]

Originally Posted by ryberg

How many conservatives do you think will ever even hear/read/listen to his views? I mean, not to single out Dartay, but he for example has already said he could never vote for a Democrat because of foreign policy concerns. So just wondering how worthwhile it is to even discuss such things, sometimes...
Yes he's good at maintaining a healthy sense of humor. He comments in passing in one part about his visit to the Ukraine with Rep. Dick Lugar on work they were doing to fund security at sites where nuclear weapons and chemical/biological agents were being defused and watched over that they served them, among other things, a scary type of Jell-o for dessert.

Actually what I really like is the way he continually contextualizes the issue at hand in terms of our history, often (as in this one) starting back with the Founding Fathers and moving forward in admirable summary fashion to get to the present day. Way too little consideration of context and history these days on many issues. It's I think a kind of side-effect of the extreme version of the individual responsibility myth, which of course in its overriding focus, cuts out situation and context and history. The past doesn't matter -- you can do whatever you want now. Ergo, the past doesn't matter when we consider what to do as a country, either -- neither in terms of our blame for any part of any past situation nor in terms of learning from the mistakes we or many others have made in the past.

Steve

The media is just as much to blame. In the Democratic debate where the terrorist-attack-on-US-soil scenario was given to the candidates to discuss, Obama's approach was actually the most mature and far-reaching. But he was pilloried for not being knee-jerk macho enough in what his suggested approach would be.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

How many conservatives do you think will ever even hear/read/listen to his views? I mean, not to single out Dartay, but he for example has already said he could never vote for a Democrat because of foreign policy concerns. So just wondering how worthwhile it is to even discuss such things, sometimes...

Yes he's good at maintaining a healthy sense of humor. He comments in passing in one part about his visit to the Ukraine with Rep. Dick Lugar on work they were doing to fund security at sites where nuclear weapons and chemical/biological agents were being defused and watched over that they served them, among other things, a scary type of Jell-o for dessert.

Actually what I really like is the way he continually contextualizes the issue at hand in terms of our history, often (as in this one) starting back with the Founding Fathers and moving forward in admirable summary fashion to get to the present day. Way too little consideration of context and history these days on many issues. It's I think a kind of side-effect of the extreme version of the individual responsibility myth, which of course in its overriding focus, cuts out situation and context and history. The past doesn't matter -- you can do whatever you want now. Ergo, the past doesn't matter when we consider what to do as a country, either -- neither in terms of our blame for any part of any past situation nor in terms of learning from the mistakes we our many others have made in the past.

Steve

Interesting point...over the weekend I was reading a National Geographic article regarding our horrendous overfishing in many places in the world that is crashing the stocks of fish, even leading to potential elimination of species. Now many conservatives would say these are just overblown "scare" tactics, rather than reading the facts as they exist and taking a responsible position as a voting citizen to respond.....

National Geographic makes the point in the article that one of the biggest problems is that folks don't have a memory of how many fish there used to be so they base their opinions on change during their lifetime (read "less negative"), rather than change over say the past 50 years..in this way, the rapid increase in the rate of destruction of the habitat and the species themselves (90% drop in stocks since 1950) are "covered up" by again cutting out situation, context and history.....we had better get up to speed on some of this stuff soon and start taking some responsible, and in some cases, some rather dramatic action.......

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Interesting point...over the weekend I was reading a National Geographic article regarding our horrendous overfishing in many places in the world that is crashing the stocks of fish, even leading to potential elimination of species. Now many conservatives would say these are just overblown "scare" tactics, rather than reading the facts as they exist and taking a responsible position as a voting citizen to respond.....

The reason this is done is because "scare tactics" are used on a regular basis. Its like the Boy that Cried Wolf. Take, for example, polar bears. We have been led to believe that they will disappear off the face of the earth due to global warming. Well, you investigate these claims, and what do you find? A huge increase in the polar bear population.

Or, how about DDT? Its going to cause our babies to be born with 3 legs and one eye. It gets banned, and now hundreds of thousands of people die from malaria.

Or nuclear power. Again, its going to cause all of us to glow. So, we give up on the idea. Now, we face problems with energy.

The left has a history of using scare tactics to formulate public policy. Any surprise that some might think it the same. Cry wolf enough and you can't blame people for ignoring you.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

The reason this is done is because "scare tactics" are used on a regular basis. Its like the Boy that Cried Wolf. Take, for example, polar bears. We have been led to believe that they will disappear off the face of the earth due to global warming. Well, you investigate these claims, and what do you find? A huge increase in the polar bear population.

Or, how about DDT? Its going to cause our babies to be born with 3 legs and one eye. It gets banned, and now hundreds of thousands of people die from malaria.

Or nuclear power. Again, its going to cause all of us to glow. So, we give up on the idea. Now, we face problems with energy.

The left has a history of using scare tactics to formulate public policy. Any surprise that some might think it the same. Cry wolf enough and you can't blame people for ignoring you.

See what I mean, ryberg? Its very sad really....

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by MWC

The media is just as much to blame. In the Democratic debate where the terrorist-attack-on-US-soil scenario was given to the candidates to discuss, Obama's approach was actually the most mature and far-reaching. But he was pilloried for not being knee-jerk macho enough in what his suggested approach would be.

Well that may be -- I wasn't trying to blame anybody -- but even so, identifying it won't help in terms of the exchange of ideas, I don't think...

I found it interesting in a politics sort of way that he and Clinton differed on the question of whether we and the world were safer today as a result of having invaded Iraq and so forth (sorry -- forget exactly how the question was phrased), her saying yes, we are, and him saying, no, we aren't. I dunno -- maybe that's just truly how she feels, and of course there are lots of arguments for that opinion, but I also go the shadowy sense that perhaps she said that also to be more moderate or mainstream or even to look more Presidential, somehow, you know, giving the nod to the current Commander-in-Chief and the military effort and all that. Or put it this way: her response seems less "dangerous" politically than his, I think.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

The left has a history of using scare tactics to formulate public policy.

Well, that, OR the left has a history of focusing on (rather than sticking their heads in the sand with respect to) the concerns that most urgently need our attention if we are to improve our lives, and researching the facts of the situation to properly consider the context (historical or otherwise) in which the situation has come to be problematic (instead of suggesting that such context is largely irrelevant and that we should just move forward on our own gumption, as in your response to those trapped in terrible urban situations).

Just imo.

Steve

[MWC]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well that may be -- I wasn't trying to blame anybody -- but even so, identifying it won't help in terms of the exchange of ideas, I don't think...

I found it interesting in a politics sort of way that he and Clinton differed on the question of whether we and the world were safer today as a result of having invaded Iraq and so forth (sorry -- forget exactly how the question was phrased), her saying yes, we are, and him saying, no, we aren't. I dunno -- maybe that's just truly how she feels, and of course there are lots of arguments for that opinion, but I also go the shadowy sense that perhaps she said that also to be more moderate or mainstream or even to look more Presidential, somehow, you know, giving the nod to the current Commander-in-Chief and the military effort and all that. Or put it this way: her response seems less "dangerous" politically than his, I think.

Steve

I think she was looking at the issue internally -- is the US itself safer -- and he was looking at it from a more philosophical, global viewpoint. I agree with them both.

While I do think a lot of the funding for Homeland Security is going toward complete boondoggles, I think an excellent job has been done with proactive intelligence work. Will an attack on our soil happen again? No doubt.
But I do feel that local, state and federal law enforcement is doing its utmost to keep our citizens safe.

I also agree with Obama that the US runs the risk of squandering all that has always made it "the shining city on the hill" for the rest of the world. Some of this was necessary, or at least consistent, with certain law enforcement policies that needed to be made in a post-9/11 world. Other aspects of this have been an unmitigated disaster.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well, that, OR the left has a history of focusing on (rather than sticking their heads in the sand with respect to) the concerns that most urgently need our attention if we are to improve our lives, and researching the facts of the situation to properly consider the context (historical or otherwise) in which the situation has come to be problematic (instead of suggesting that such context is largely irrelevant and that we should just move forward on our own gumption, as in your response to those trapped in terrible urban situations).

Just imo.

Steve

And, thanks to that, we are years behind countries, like France, when it comes to being more energy self-sufficient. Thousands of Africans are dead from malaria. There is a difference between acting and reacting. The two above-mentioned "scares" turned out to be false, verdad? Look what it has cost us.

BTW, if I eat too much fish, I can always make a donation to my local fish farm. If there is no such thing as fair share, then you can't overuse anything.

[MWC]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well, that, OR the left has a history of focusing on (rather than sticking their heads in the sand with respect to) the concerns that most urgently need our attention if we are to improve our lives, and researching the facts of the situation to properly consider the context (historical or otherwise) in which the situation has come to be problematic (instead of suggesting that such context is largely irrelevant and that we should just move forward on our own gumption, as in your response to those trapped in terrible urban situations).

Just imo.

Steve

I don't think that is what Mark was saying, although I wouldn't disagree that his comments come from the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Sometimes the activist in us seeks to control that which is beyond our capacity to control. Sometimes there is a rush to action over an "emergency" that turns out not to be so dire -- either because the law-of-unintended-consequences is not taken to its ad absurdum conclusion; or because the emergency might be localized; or because research cannot be fully complete because there are unknowns or unquantifiables; or because our attempt to do the right thing in one area of our life may have unintended consequences in yet another area.

Yes, I think we have all agreed that there are steps we can all take to make less of a negative impact on our world. But I do think that more money should be spend on how we can adjust ourselves to the changes, and less on figuring out how to undo that which is already done -- and may very well be beyond our power to impact.

Overfishing I would agree is an important issue. I've been on small-scale fishing boats, and the amount of waste they generate is appalling. Fishermen have already pretty much blown through the best-quality eating fish, and are now going for species that were formerly considered junkfish (say, skate or monkfish).
On one hand, it's good for our health to be eating more fish.
One one hand, it's good that we have embraced the sushi/sashimi cuisine of Asia, and have welcomed its practitioners in the US and elsewhere around the world.
On one hand, it's great that I can get flash-frozen fish for under $5 a pound at Trader Joe's.
On the other hand, it's bad that increased demand means more fish need to be caught.
On the other hand, it's bad that foreign trawlers have made large-scale fish harvesting so cost-effective.

On yet another hand, maybe the spike in gas prices will solve the overfishing problem entirely, because it will become too cost-prohibitive to send gas-inefficient craft out to catch fish.