General Political Thread

[John Smith]

Help me out here but didn't Bush run on a position of not being the worlds policeman back in 2000. Also isn't the common position of screw what the rest if the world thinks we do it our way. Or does that only apply in some situations.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Like it or not, we're in a unique position of being able to project military might across the planet and much of the world expects us to do so. Some parts of the world -- such as the middle east -- are too important to ignore. 

 

This is what every neo-con out there says. And yet, the only other thing we constantly hear - especially from the Tea Party right - is how broke we are, how much debt we have to China, etc. etc.

 

So, which is it? Can we not afford to stick our noses into all these other countries' business, or do we have the money? I say, if we have the money, screw these other countries and their problems anyway. We need to start taking care of our own people at home. We have something like 40 MILLION people living in poverty here, not to mention major impending infrastructure failure on the most basic shit: roads, bridges, schools, on and on. Let the Syrians and Iraqis and Afghanis go to the devil. And if they come after us on any level, including going after our oh-so-valuable "ally" Israel, then we will deal with it then.

 

Maybe the rest of the world needs to start managing its expectations and not assuming the U.S. will pour money and resources into them to help them out of their problems.

[Hixter]

It's quite possible to be compelled to act while not being in the financial position to afford such action. It's been going on for centuries. Don't forget, inaction also has its costs and they can be very great indeed.

 

As for isolationism, it will be difficult to "deal with" a problem if we've folded up our tents and gone home. The assets and facilities we have in place around the world took a century to acquire and would be nearly impossible to restore.

 

The United States has a great capability for projecting power across the globe, but it's easy to overestimate. In these days of tightened budgets, that capability would be gutted if the United States were to embrace isolationism. No overseas bases, reduced carrier force, slashed transport capability = a nation with the rather meager capabilities of a France or a UK.

[NoJ]

The United States has a great capability for projecting power across the globe, but it's easy to overestimate. In these days of tightened budgets, that capability would be gutted if the United States were to embrace isolationism. No overseas bases, reduced carrier force, slashed transport capability = a nation with the rather meager capabilities of a France or a UK.

 

Sounds ok to me.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

You are forgetting that we still have a nuclear arsenal capable of blowing up the entire world five times over. Not to mention the pinpoint accuracy of drones.

There is no need for us to have military bases in 89 countries or whatever the hell it is these days. It's utterly ridiculous. We need to start "projecting power" at home more and not all over the rest of the planet. We can be respected without being as feared as we are now...there is no way any head of state would be stupid enough to view us as having the meager capabilities of a France or U.K.

[Winston Legthigh]

Provence is wonderful. Ah, the lavender fields. 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Provence is wonderful. Ah, the lavender fields. 

Seconded!

[KevinG]

So a deal has been reached between the US and Russia in regards to Syria.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/us-russia-agree-deal-o_n_3925636.html

 

So do you think it will work?  For those of you actually care out our standing in the world, does this completed (successful?) diplomatic option help our hurt our credibility?  

 

Do you think now PBO and congress can no start focusing on not shutting down the government in a couple of weeks.  Cause it is looking more and more likely that it will.  

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-11/a-government-shutdown-just-became-more-likely

 

As a side note, John Boehner might just be the worst Speaker in history.  

[Hixter]

So do you think it will work?

In a word, no.

 

Syria doesn't have to let inspectors in before November, so now they have several weeks to continue their war without risk of U.S. military intervention. A few days ago the administration said that it was imperative that the United States punish Assad for using chemical weapons, but now there will be no punishment. I can't see how they can destroy a thousand tons of chemical weapons in 9 months, since the U.S. and the Russians have been been destroying their stockpiles for more than 15 years and still haven't managed to finish the job.

 

We'll probably see the same thing we saw in Iraq: lies, evasions, roadblocks and minimal compliance and cooperation. It took us years to round up Saddam's stockpile and that wasn't while a war was raging.

 

For those of you actually care out our standing in the world, does this completed (successful?) diplomatic option help our hurt our credibility? 

We can't consider it to be completed or successful until it is actually completed and successful.

[IRememberDBoon]

is there anything on earth worse (besides listening to me of course) than listening to Republican inane ramblings on President Obamas foreign policy? As if they have a team that could do better. BWAK! Maybe we can get Paul Bremner to run the Syrian weapons inspection process.

[lost highway]

The whining about Russia upstaging us is pure Cold War bullshit.  Who cares?  We avert another costly, deadly war.  Oh no,  Russia looks so strong circumstantially.

[Hixter]

The whining about Russia upstaging us is pure Cold War bullshit.  Who cares?  We avert another costly, deadly war.  Oh no,  Russia looks so strong circumstantially.

Simply put, anything that strengthens or emboldens your enemies is a bad thing. Like it or not, that's the way things go on the international stage.

 

As for the strikes the administration were planning, I would have expected "unbelievably small" and "just enough so that we aren't mocked" to mean that they would have been quick, relatively bloodless and comparatively cheap.

[John Smith]

 

We'll probably see the same thing we saw in Iraq: lies, evasions, roadblocks and minimal compliance and cooperation. It took us years to round up Saddam's stockpile and that wasn't while a war was raging.

Just curious is this referring to the 90's when we were inspecting and destroying his weapons? or are you referring to the 2002 and later activity where we found that all the weapons actually had been destroyed?

[Hixter]

Just curious is this referring to the 90's when we were inspecting and destroying his weapons? or are you referring to the 2002 and later activity where we found that all the weapons actually had been destroyed?

I was clearly referring to the 1990s.

[John Smith]

That's not always obvious as there are many who still believe that Iraq hindered our attempts to disarm them in 2002 forcing us to invade and destroy the country in 2003. Turns out that we did get it all back in the 90's.

[Sir Stewart]

As for the strikes the administration were planning, I would have expected "unbelievably small" and "just enough so that we aren't mocked" to mean that they would have been quick, relatively bloodless and comparatively cheap.

 

So you were in support of the administration's stance?

[Hixter]

So you were in support of the administration's stance?

Which stance was that? There have been so many over the last few months.

 

No, I do no support an "unbelievably small" strike against Syria. It would be too little, too late.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Well, here's an interesting little tidbit to take the gun control argument in a different direction: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/aaron-alexis-navy_n_3941851.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D376818

Apparently, this Aaron Alexis psycho entered the Navy during a time when "the Navy and the other military services were struggling to reach their wartime recruiting goals, and were granting thousands of waivers to potential recruits with criminal backgrounds."

Disgusting.

"Come on in, boys. Don't worry about that little record thing. We need cannon fodder."

Kind of gives ya a whole new reality check on this propaganda we hear every damn day about how the military are all "heroes." What a load of crap. There are rapists and murderers in the military, just like there are in the general population...probably a higher percentage overall, as a matter of fact. But we gloss that over so the normal people don't look bad.

[uncool2pillow]

I hesitate to get involved in the gun control debate, especially since this post has really nothing to do with the tragic attack in Washington yesterday.  I mentioned long ago that when an entire country makes severe limits on gun ownership, it saves lives.  Period.  The U.K., Japan, etc. make this crystal clear.  

 

Here's the thing...  There's a serious situation at a place I frequent.  A former employee has been making veiled threats.  Not directly of violence, but he is clearly unhinged and violence is now within the realm of possibility.  While I would not personally want a gun for protection, I have serious misgivings with laws denying folks the right to protect themselves in this instance.

 

To me, it comes down to freedom v. personal security.  Spare me the arguments that if I have a gun, it's more likely to be used in violence than protection.  I know those arguments and it is part of why I personally choose to not arm myself in this case.  But it is my choice.  For the time being, I am glad it is my choice and not the law's.

[Hixter]

It's sad that politicians have used this tragedy to try to advance their gun control agenda. The shooter was already barred from owning and purchasing firearms and he broke a multitude of laws by simply bringing his weapon into DC. Worst of all, people like Senator Feinstein have been whining about so-called "assault weapons" while the DC shooter was only armed with a shotgun -- as suggested and endorsed by Vice President Biden.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I couldn't disagree more. Not only is it not sad, it's absolutely crucial that we have this conversation. And use it to drive some kind of reasonable gun control standards. How many more mass shootings do we have to have before we acknowledge that the standards that they have in other countries work better there than ours do here?

 

In the U.S. last year, I heard on the news that there were 11,000 deaths related to gun violence. In the U.K., it was something like 200. If we adjusted for population size, the U.K. % would have been something like 400. Contrast that with 11,000. It is a staggering figure. These are deaths, not incidents where a gun went off. That is more than twice as many people as we lost in the war in Iraq.

 

No one is talking about coming and taking your precious guns away. No one is denying that gun deaths are largely caused by criminals who obtained guns illegally. That Pandora's box is already open and can never be shut. We are talking about future purchases of weapons and reasonable background checks.

 

Sometimes I really think that gun advocates want a country where every single person is armed. So if some jackass pulls a gun, it will be like a scene in Blazing Saddles or something. I know I sure as hell don't want to live in that world...although I also recently learned that some places (Kennesaw, GA, for example) now have a law where it is mandatory for every "head of the household" to carry. Incredible, but true.

[Atticus]

From West Wing, Season Two, episode "In This White House":
 

Sam: But for a brilliant surgical team and two centimeters of a miracle, this guy's dead right now. From bullets fired from a gun bought legally. They bought guns, they loaded 'em, they drove from Wheeling to Rosslyn, and until they pulled the trigger they had yet to commit a crime. I am so off the charts tired of the gun lobby tossing around words like personal freedom and nobody calling 'em on it. It's not about personal freedom. And it certainly has nothing to do with public safety. It's just that some people like guns.

Ainsley: Yes, they do. But do you know what's even more insidious than that? Your gun control policy doesn't have anything to do with public safety, and it's certainly not about personal freedom. It's about that you don't like the people who do like guns. You don't like the people. Think about that the next time you make a joke about the South.

 

 

this is why (to me) the gun debate will never yield any positive results in the US: the opponents don't just dislike each other's stance on guns, they dislike each other.

[John Smith]

It's sad that politicians have used this tragedy to try to advance their gun control agenda. The shooter was already barred from owning and purchasing firearms and he broke a multitude of laws by simply bringing his weapon into DC. Worst of all, people like Senator Feinstein have been whining about so-called "assault weapons" while the DC shooter was only armed with a shotgun -- as suggested and endorsed by Vice President Biden.

It's all well and good to be disgusted by those politicizing this and for pushing their agendas before the blood is even dry but only as long as you condemn everybody doing so fronted Nugent to Alex jones and the whole Fox News network. As well as your usual go to condemnations.

 

By the way when did the phrase "so called assault weapon" become what it is today? When I was in the service the m-16 was called by the military an assault rifle. Sure the ar-15 and variants are semi auto but that is semantics they are for all intents and purposes the same weapon. Also from reports I have read he came with a shot gun and took the m-16 from a victim. Granted its early on but that's the news as I have read it.

[Hixter]

the opponents don't just dislike each other's stance on guns, they dislike each other.

 

No one is talking about coming and taking your precious guns away.

[KevinG]

In his remarks about this incident President Obama said this:

 

 

 

And, you know, I do get concerned that this becomes a ritual that we go through every three, four months, where we have these horrific mass shootings. Everybody expresses understandable horror. We all embrace the families and obviously our thoughts and prayers are with those families right now-- as they're absorbing this incredible loss. And yet we're not willing to take some basic actions that we know would make a difference.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603344/obama-urges-congress-to-act-in-wake-of-mass-shooting/

 

Which is about as true as a statement I have ever heard from a politician.  A shooting will happen, people will comfort the victims, one side will push for gun control the other side will push back, it will lose steam and then repeat the whole thing over and over again.  We live in a world were mass shootings are a part of lives and they will continue for the foreseeable future.  I have become resigned to that fact.  Nothing will change.