2008 US Elections: Shake Hands and Come Out Fighting

I think it will stick, but it will be in the form of advertising down the road. How powerful will a "100 years" combined with "whiners" comment ad be? McCain's campaign seems determined to give up any possible advantage they have with the Wright scandal. If it weren't for that, they'd be in even deeper trouble.

No, the problem is that people like you have forgotten Munich. The fact is, you don't have the guts to stand and fight an ideology that ultimately seeks world domination.


Smuggler:

An ideology is just that, an ideology. It's used by people, and it's people who do or don't seek world domination. In this case, I don't think they seek that, and furthermore, saying you want something and having the means to attain it are two entirely different things. The United States is physically invulnerable by virtue of its location, save Canada and Mexico. We're fine. We can only be destroyed from within, which is certainly a possibility, given our leadership incompetence and a public that keeps voting those responsible into office. As for Iran, it doesn't have a fraction of what it would take for "world domination," along with any other country in the world. No country can do that now.

The world keeps changing and you're stuck in a worldview that's probably a better fit for the hunter-gatherer phase of humanity.

On a more political note, am I the only person who's suddenly finding Edwards possibly okay as a VP again? He seems to do very well with Obama on the stage, and one of the Kerry campaign's worst problems was a bad ticket match. Edwards is old hat now, and I can't help but wonder if that's not a bad thing these days. I read a column a couple days ago outlining why he might be a good choice, and I'm starting to wonder myself.

I still think Biden gets it, or Sebelius, but now I wonder about Edwards.

 

Even you can't justify murdering a thousand civilians over the deaths of three soldiers, and the kidnapping of two more. Not even you.

Some of those photos were faked. Those thousand deaths weren't. The collapse of Lebanon's infrastructure wasn't. The near-total destruction of a Middle Eastern democracy -- one of the very few, leaving it wide open for Syria to reclaim just after the Lebanese had won their independence -- that was not faked, Smuggler. It was real, and it was Israel's doing.

No excuse is good enough for that.

 

You seem to forget - it is not Israel who has assassinated Lebanese politicians, it has been Syria.

Whether it be al-Qaeda, or Hezbollah, it seems pretty obvious that their first recourse, and arguably their preferred recourse, to those who do not accept their worldview is the assassin's bullet and the bomb.

They're thugs. They need to be stopped. And the only means by which to stop them are obvious: Take them out.

If the assassinations of Rafiq Hariri and Benazir Bhutto won't convince you, what will? Will an American president, UN Secretary-General, or some other figure have to die before you will see what must be done?

It's ugly, yes. But if civilization is to survive, thugs like Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad must be fought, not appeased.

 

A, you're dodging. Israel, not Syria, decimated Lebanon's infrastructure, killed a thousand of their civilians, and left them vulnerable to Syria's maneuvers ever since.

B, if you haven't noticed, Israel's massive airstrikes and ground invasion didn't work. Hezbollah is still around, and actually benefited from Israel's attacks, since it made Israel look like the bad guys (especially when Hezbollah offered relief and charity to the wounded and bereaved afterwards, and Israel didn't).

The solution to the cycle of death is not more death, and the solution to the cycle of hate is not more hate. And force, as Israel clearly proved while killing people who had nothing to do with their problems, doesn't solve everything.

 

It's ugly, yes. But if civilization is to survive, thugs like Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad must be fought, not appeased.


Civilization will live or die based on what we do with things like the environment and having sound governmental policies and leaders, not stuff like that.

It's amazing to me how focused you are on something that not only does not require your focus, but also takes you away from things you should be thinking more about.

 

Jedi Smuggler

 

Smuggler, if there were an ignore filter on this board, you would be on it now. Your arguments display a complete lack of understanding of history, politics, current affairs, etc. You are not worth responding to, and I will do my best to resist doing so in the future.

toned that down just a touch in a "direct posts at the argument, not the person" sense.

 

I think there might be

 

How does government surveillance affect the quality of your life?

Islamic extremists, specifically the Al Qaeda organization, killed thousands of Americans in a variety of attacks over the years, as well as various other Westerners. As such, we have a vested interest in their annihilation; not because they can hurt us again necessarily, but as a matter of retribution. Thankfully, both candidates are going to continue our standing policy of trying to find high-level terrorists/militants, and blowing them up.

When has Israel conquered another nation?

I don't know about him, but I probably could. Fun fact: the US once bombed half a million civilians to death in 6 months.

I wouldn't say Israel's 2006 war was a good idea. But the main problem was that it was poorly conceived, and counterproductive, not that civilian casaulties are a cardinal sin.

 

Er, wouldn't you consider taking over the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights some form of conquering? Israel hasn't conquered whole nations, it's just broken off bits and pieces, and then kept them (with the exception of the Sinai Peninsula.)

 

I'm always amazed at the ability of the word "Israel" to send any thread spinning wildly off-topic.

 

Its not what America should be. Simply put.

 

How does government surveillance affect the quality of your life?


The same way terrorists do. They don't, until they do. You've a better chance of winning your state lottery than of being killed in a terrorist attack in your life.

As such, we have a vested interest in their annihilation; not because they can hurt us again necessarily, but as a matter of retribution

Which just furthers the cycle, and ends up costing more Americans and other people their lives. How exactly does that contribute to our security? Answer: It doesn't.

I don't know about him, but I probably could. Fun fact: the US once bombed half a million civilians to death in 6 months.


And had the United States been on the losing side in that war, it would certainly have been indicted for war crimes for doing that.

 

*tries steering thread back on course*


Okay, here's a question for Diz, KW, LetoII, Jabba or any other declared Obama supporter:

The argument being put forth by KW & Diz is that America doesn't have "enemies" in the modern sense, so the emphasis on defense actions & espionage isn't necessary they way the Right claims.

How should Obama's administration deal with Iran?

I'm presuming three things:
1. The election's Obama's to win or lose.
2. Bush does not attack Iran.
3. Israel does not attack Iran.

So what exactly should he do? He's made it clear that he'd defend Israel were Iran to launch missiles. But barring an Iranian first-strike, how should he handle the situation?

 

In exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons and missile programs and perhaps some restrictions on Hezbollah, Obama should normalize relations with Iran, drop all sanctions and business restrictions, and develop some sort of U.N. sponsored/inspected nuclear power program, perhaps funded by the U.S.

 

If McCain wants to control America and the world like he controlled this womans free speech and he gets into power we are in some serious trouble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lyaMrS0hzk

 

Several questions.

First, why should Iran give up any hypothetical nuclear weapons programs? Do they not have the right to use the stalemate defense of their country as other do?

Why should Iran be forced to submit to U.N. inspected nuclear power plants when other countries do not?

Why should the U.S. fund any sort of programs for Iran when our economy is in trouble, our government spending is already too high under any political party and Iran's economy has the potential to boom with a fresh crop of well educated engineers?

Finally, why is any of this an issue to the U.S.? Defense of Israel is a load of garbage. They have enough nuclear weapons to obliterate all of Iran and a very competent conventional military. U.S. interference is unlikely to stabilize anything in the oil trade. Which leaves the question wide open.

 

Just wanted to put in a couple of words here to note that Bush's former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow has passed at the early age of 53.

What a genuine person -- whether you were on the left or right of an issue, you had to respect Mr. Snow, and his ability to hold those in powers' feet to the fire. Snow, for the task he was given, did an excellent job as Press Secretary. He defended Bush in a time that no one else dared. As a correspondent, he was just as dedicated.

As a cancer survivor myself, I found his courage and candor in the face of cancer to be certainly inspiring. I had a feeling he was worse off than he was letting on. We've lost two great ones in the past month. Let's hope this inspires others to fill the big shoes of Mr. Snow and Mr. Russert.

It sounds like his family will have lots of people around them to help them through this, but sad to see him pass.

 

First, why should Iran give up any hypothetical nuclear weapons programs? Do they not have the right to use the stalemate defense of their country as other do?

The vast majority of countries agreed that nuclear weapons should not spread from the original states. This agreement was codified and made binding in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed.

Of course, Israel remains a problem in this area. Perhaps as part of the grand bargain we could have Israel give up all its nuclear weapons in return for a NATO type defense alliance. That way, Israel would not be able to skirt the law while we stick it to others.

Why should Iran be forced to submit to U.N. inspected nuclear power plants when other countries do not?

Because there is legitimate cause to believe they are developing nuclear weapons while they claim they are not. Everyone else either already has nuclear weapons (and there are inspection programs in place for those, especially between the U.S. and Russia) or are not developing nuclear weapons. The exception here is North Korea, but as recently shown on the news, there was some kind of deal made with them where they are submitting to inspections and other terms.

Why should the U.S. fund any sort of programs for Iran when our economy is in trouble, our government spending is already too high under any political party and Iran's economy has the potential to boom with a fresh crop of well educated engineers?

First, because Iran needs incentives to stop building nuclear weapons. We can't expect something for nothing. Secondly, a war with Iran, especially a nuclear Iran, would be far more costly. Even without a war, the destabilization/shift in regional power would cause speculation on oil to further skyrocket, a far more expansive cost than any aid program would.

Finally, why is any of this an issue to the U.S.? Defense of Israel is a load of garbage. They have enough nuclear weapons to obliterate all of Iran and a very competent conventional military. U.S. interference is unlikely to stabilize anything in the oil trade. Which leaves the question wide open.

It is an issue to the U.S. because once a nation has nuclear arms, they are very unlikely to give them up (and for good reason). I am not all that concerned about Israel. My concerns are rather different: First, Proliferation of nuclear arms is in general is a bad idea--it makes their use far more likely. Secondly, although their missiles may only reach a thousand or so miles now, in 10-20 years, they could reach a lot further. Thirdly, nuclear weapons would allow Iran to swing its weight around far more in the Mid-East, effectively giving them a veto on any U.S. action in the region. Fourthly, Iran is a Persian nation which Arab nations from Egypt to Saudi Arabia see as a threat. They are likely to pursue nuclear weapons in the event Iran obtains them (most especially Egypt).

There are indeed valid reasons why a country would want nuclear weapons, and it is unfair that some have them while most do not. However, that is not a reason to allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons--that will only make the world more dangerous and their use more likely. Instead, it is a reason to compensate those countries that forgo their development and to take strides to guarantee their country's security and defense.

 

I'm assuming he's referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which works with the UN on nuclear matters, and does perform inspections on nuclear programs worldwide.

 

Actually, to add something, if I was President, I would seek to form a U.N agency that controlled all nuclear material and could inspect any nuclear facility in any nation. Countries would be able to purchase the nuclear material at market prices from the agency and the agency would track the material throughout its lifecycle.

Over time, something similar to this concept would make nuclear disarmament possible by making nuclear activities transparant.

 

A well-placed source close to the State Department confirms that Sen. Chuck Hagel will indeed definitely be joining Barack Obama on his trip later this month to Europe and the Middle East. This is a blow to John McCain's candidacy. Just as the neocons peeled off from the Democratic party in the 1970s, so some realists such as Hagel now seem to be moving away from the GOP. Hagel, who fought on the ground in Vietnam, has taken away different lessons about the conflict and is a vocal critic of the Iraq War. This will further strain relations between Hagel and McCain. Hagel's presence will further shore up Obama's foreign policy bona fides.



Interesting

 

From the WSJ today:

Investors continued to flee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac yesterday, almost as frantically as the political class tried to reassure everybody there was nothing to worry about. Allow us to sort the good (there isn't much) from the ugly.

In the good category, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson swatted back reports of a government "nationalization" of the companies ? which would mean making explicit what has long been an implicit taxpayer guarantee of their liabilities. This would instantly add $5 trillion in liabilities to the federal balance sheet, doubling the U.S. public debt burden and putting America's AAA credit rating at risk. This is the nightmare scenario for taxpayers.

Less reassuringly, Mr. Paulson said, "our primary focus is supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form as they carry out their important mission." This suggests that Treasury thinks the two companies have enough capital, or can raise enough in private markets, to ride out any mortgage losses. We're not so sure, and neither are investors, who have kept bidding Fan and Fred shares to new lows on fears of insolvency.

The most immediate danger is that investors will shrink from rolling over the debt of the two companies, leading to a run a la Bear Stearns. Mr. Paulson is trying to reassure people that the companies are sound, but after Bear everyone has the heebie-jeebies. With so much on the line, we've been suggesting that Treasury and Congress step up now with a public capital injection to help the companies ride out their losses.

Yes, this would mean putting some taxpayer cash up front, but in the cause of avoiding the far greater risk of a collapse or Bear-like run. If the capital injection was made in the form of a subordinated debt or preferred stock offer, taxpayers would get a stake in the companies and some return on their investment once the crisis passes.

We haven't suddenly become socialists. What taxpayers need to understand is that Fannie and Freddie already practice socialism, albeit of the dishonest kind. Their profit is privatized but their risk is socialized. We're proposing a more honest form of socialism, with the prospect of long-term reform.

In return for putting up the cash, the taxpayers would also need some reassurance that this Fan and Fred debacle couldn't happen again. Thus their regulator would need the power to shrink their portfolios of mortgage-backed securities that have made them such high-risk monsters, and ultimately to wind the companies down. Apart from outright failure, the worst scenario would be a capital injection that left the companies free to commit the same mayhem all over again two or 10 years from now.

Now we get to the ugly: Congress. On Friday, Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) declared that Fannie and Freddie are "fundamentally strong," that fears about their capital are overwrought, and that "this is not a time to be panicking about this. These are viable, strong institutions." Yet he also said that one option under discussion is to let the two companies borrow from the Federal Reserve's discount window.

In other words, Mr. Dodd says the companies are so safe that the Fed may have to rescue them. What he really wants to do is to pass the buck ? literally ? to the Fed so he and Congress don't have to appropriate taxpayer money up front. Opening up the window would nonetheless be a giant step toward an explicit taxpayer guarantee of Fannie and Freddie debt. It would further poison the Fed's balance sheet, not to mention get it tangled up in the politics of the mortgage markets in a way that would jeopardize Fed independence.

And speaking of ugly, yesterday's markets showed one more nasty side effect of the Fannie Mae panic: fear of rising inflation. Gold popped by $23 an ounce, and at $965 is back at the heights it reached during the March run on Bear Stearns. Oil also bounced up as the dollar fell, a sign that investors think the Fed will react to the Fannie fears by delaying any monetary tightening even

 

The chilling effect / self-censorship.

I'm half Lebanese and, I know that this will come as a shock to some of you, I have some friends who support Hezbollah. In fact, a woman I know once flew from Lebanon to the US wearing a Hezbollah bracelet without getting stopped, a fact which I hope is currently sending Lassic into a seizure. These people aren't terrorists, but they feel strongly about the situation in their country and they think, however mistaken they might be, that this organization is doing the right thing, whether or not they are going about it in the most legal way.

With government surveillance, I won't speak as freely to these people as I could without surveillance because the mere knowledge that They are listening is enough to make me self-censor. I have to phrase everything carefully in order to be perfectly clear to any listening third parties that I am not endorsing Hezbollah. My friends know that I do not agree with them on every issue, and people participating in the conversation would be able to clarify any misleading or unclear statements I may make, but a third party snooping in a private conversation between friends who have an established communication pattern is always going to misunderstand something. So to avoid any negative consequences, I'll have to conduct all of my conversations as though a third-party stranger who might misunderstand is listening.
In fact, I might even feel forced to taper off my communication with my friends altogether so that I don't get labeled an associate of theirs, to keep my record clean of false allegations or suspicion.

When I am forced to carefully choose my words or curtail my speech in private conversation with friends, my quality of life decreases.

When I am forced to change my friendships and censor my relationships, and when I am no longer allowed to interact with the smart, engaging, strong-minded, good-hearted people I know who have unpopular allegiances for fear of giving off the wrong impression, my quality of life decreases.

That's how.

 

I'm trying to understand all this. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are responsible for half of home loans (worth about $5 trillion), look like they are going to collapse. If we nationalized them to save them, it would double U.S. debt and likely mean some big tax increases. The government right now is saying to have faith, they'll recover. And if they do fail, what happens? Am I understanding this right, because I'm seeing tons of people freaking out about this on more websites than just this one.