American Politics

[Jelly Donut]

Anyone want to try for $30?

The growth rates of China and India, while they have slowed down, they are both moving along at a brisk pace. The Chinese economy is projected to grow at 8.5% next year; India at 6.3%. Together that's half the global population, right? China and India are the two 800-lbs gorillas in the room of oil consumption. This could keep oil prices from returning to the range they ran in during the last US recession.

Nobody else on the planet has the logistical capability to fight an overseas war. Fact.

The United Kingdom has the military means to fight some specific overseas wars, say, recapturing the Islas Malvinas. Likewise, the French maintain a respectable amphibious force. I strongly suspect they are going to put up a fight after I sieze Tahiti.

JD, being difficult.

[Cruiser D]

Just a general btw to all of you that have been following my political and economic postings in general. The line forms to the right for all the naysayers who said oil would never go under $50/barrel to kiss my ring. Anyone want to try for $30? Ding dong, the petro president will be no more in a couple of long months. Anyone willing to bet that 700+ billion will be long gone by then and the economy will be in just as bad shape if not worse when the corporate welfare hand outs started?

[Cruiser D]

Have you actually talked to anyone who serves in the US active military? Their professionalism and high morale always amazes me. Most of them realized when they signed up it wouldn't always be a Stateside or Western Europe posting. One doesn't sign up to be a trash truck driver and then gets amazed he has to drive trash around. It's the Reserves and the NG that got the real raw deal.

Bin Laden and his organization are a world problem - the bombings in W Europe and SE Asia. Afghanistan is a more true coalition operation and I don’t think support for it will be wavering anytime soon. Iraq was W's own personal deal, him fronting for the Saudi’s and big Oil. The only way we got anyone to support us in Iraq is by W squandering our good will capital in W Europe and bribing E Europe.

If the British had sent planes to bomb Ireland the US and the UN would have been there within a few days, probably not a good idea. I don't think there were any planes involved in the Easter Rebellion but there was plenty of artillery and a naval gunboat.

I also said (you must have glossed over it) that Afghanistan has gotten worst and even with troop draw down in Iraq, you start sending them back into battle, your going to get a large "Hell No We Won't Go" and to prevent that from reaching the media, he'll instead go to the UN and ask for help.

The EU will say, we like you Obama, but NO.

[CBGBConnisur]

I actually did the ROTC thing in college and had to do my obligatory period of service afterwards in the Navy, this was during the 1990s, the military was in horrific shape during the Clinton era. The one thing I will concede to Bush is that
he has actually supported the military better than his predecessor. I actually thought that time was one of the most interesting times in my life and initially exposed me to the world outside of America, that's how I initially got to see Australia.
McCain by far has superior military credentials to Obama, whatever Powell said was purely political. McCain was a career military man. Still I don't think this is a good time in history to be starting more wars.

[Doctor_Skank]

Who else is going to step forward with the equipment, technology and troops to continue the War in Afghanistan? Nobody and Russia even wouldn't be interested, they tried that already.

Nobody else on the planet has the logistical capability to fight an overseas war. Fact. Without US airlift capabilities, the EU can only transport and sustain a battalion or two. Russia can airlift, but can't keep logistics up for more than a couple weeks. China has zero power projection beyond it's borders and is 2 decades away from being a world military power.

Besides, I don't think anyone besides the US really thinks it is worth the effort. No fault of foreign troops though, UK, Canada, Aussies, Danes, Norwegians, French, Dutch all fulfilling combat roles..... well.

the Germans already want out of Iraq

I think you meant A-stan, the Germans aren't in Iraq.

We don't need wars to fight terrorism, duh after all the Brits didn't send planes to bomb Ireland....

I understand your point, but that is a poor comparison.

[DJ FourMoney]

It was the policies (the draft) and failures of Vietnam, which caused the decline of the US military. Which still at that point were a more effective force then the Soviets on their best day (a very rare day indeed). Carter is best known for the abortive Iranian rescue mission (a friend of mine was actually there). Instead of sending in a small commando group he should have sent in the Marine Corps and the 5th Fleet. The hostages would have been killed but it would have sent a strong message. But then again who knows, maybe Jimmy the humanitarian had it right.

Obama is all for pressing the war in Afghanistan while drawing down Iraq.

The US military and government buying foreign helicopters, planes and for that matter anything else is just out and out wrong.

Take what you want from this but the Pentagon says "You need to cut Military Spending"

I also said (you must have glossed over it) that Afghanistan has gotten worst and even with troop draw down in Iraq, you start sending them back into battle, your going to get a large "Hell No We Won't Go" and to prevent that from reaching the media, he'll instead go to the UN and ask for help.

The EU will say, we like you Obama, but NO.

Who else is going to step forward with the equipment, technology and troops to continue the War in Afghanistan? Nobody and Russia even wouldn't be interested, they tried that already.

The French won't do it, the Germans already want out of Iraq and growing impatience will prevent them from committing to it, so basically its dead in the water.

This is hope, pie in the sky, dreams (and all that other BS) that we would really rethink policies like this, but there's no boogieman out there anymore per say and we can find Osama just fine with the CIA, NSA and other world intelligent agencies. In fact umm I'm pretty sure we already know where he is...

We don't need wars to fight terrorism, duh after all the Brits didn't send planes to bomb Ireland....

[Cruiser D]

It was the policies (the draft) and failures of Vietnam, which caused the decline of the US military. Which still at that point were a more effective force then the Soviets on their best day (a very rare day indeed). Carter is best known for the abortive Iranian rescue mission (a friend of mine was actually there). Instead of sending in a small commando group he should have sent in the Marine Corps and the 5th Fleet. The hostages would have been killed but it would have sent a strong message. But then again who knows, maybe Jimmy the humanitarian had it right.

Obama is all for pressing the war in Afghanistan while drawing down Iraq.

The US military and government buying foreign helicopters, planes and for that matter anything else is just out and out wrong.

As long as he doesn't try to rip the balls off the military like Carter did, OK.

Main issues for me aren't even the wars, it's the self-serving corruption involved in weapons appropriation... where the decision to buy which weapons and equipment is more about jobs, egos and profit than providing our soldiers with the best equipment to get the job done.

[Member #2041]

A large number of voters who were and are anti war voted for Obama. If he does not make good on that promise he will probably lose those voters or just discourage them. I do think US foreign policy will change radically under Obama, especially with regards to military matters.

Well, we can certainly hope so.

[CBGBConnisur]

clinton did not exactly support the military either, back in those days people joked that you had a better chance of being anal raped than dying in battle unlike today where the military is taken very seriously. i seriously doubt the us will continue to have large military presence overseas, the military is already cutting staff in europe, a few years ago rhein main was shut for good, and smaller forces will be deployed overseas. i recall the military wanted to place soldiers in georgia, that did not happen. pointing a gun at other countries and expecting them to dance will not work anymore, especially since those other countries will have guns too, actually nukes. countries like india, pakistan, and nk have them, just about any country can. i bet brazil will go nuclear too, it almost did in the past. the mad principle mainly applies among relations between china, russia, and the us but it will gradually apply to more countries.

the military will be less people based and more automated in the coming decades, sounds like something out of a terminator movie, but self aware computer systems and robots will actually be reality in about 15 years.

certain key allies will continue to shift away from america, japan will be the most notable one, they are pretty much in china's pocket. in fact, japanese companies are aggressively trying to penetrate the growing chinese market which will actually be larger than the us in 12 years or so.

[Doctor_Skank]

A large number of voters who were and are anti war voted for Obama. If he does not make good on that promise he will probably lose those voters or just discourage them. I do think US foreign policy will change radically under Obama, especially with regards to military matters.

As long as he doesn't try to rip the balls off the military like Carter did, OK.

Main issues for me aren't even the wars, it's the self-serving corruption involved in weapons appropriation... where the decision to buy which weapons and equipment is more about jobs, egos and profit than providing our soldiers with the best equipment to get the job done.

[Cruiser D]

The power vacuum in Iraq has been filled and there is seemingly now a dominant faction. The US won't be leaving Iraq for a long time, unless the situation goes Vietnam. There will be a draw down of combat forces in Iraq and an increase in Afghanistan. It took 4 years and another president but it looks like the real war on terror, Afghanistan will finally be addressed.

I can assure you that not every state is forced to have a balanced budget by law. And how can the CA budget be balanced if the credit crunch and the inability to borrow is forcing them toward bankruptcy. Or is this some kind of special government economics where balancing your budget doesn’t mean paying your bills with the money you make but the money you borrow.

[CBGBConnisur]

A large number of voters who were and are anti war voted for Obama. If he does not make good on that promise he will probably lose those voters or just discourage them. I do think US foreign policy will change radically under Obama, especially with regards to military matters.

[DJ FourMoney]

getting back to politics, how exactly is obama going to restore america's "status in the world". this is something i am seriously wondering about. how is he going to do it? as in restoring the unipolar moment that existed since the soviet union collapsed? i seriously doubt it, in many ways american dominance in many areas will be contested and challenged, even the world bank predicts china will have a larger economy than the us in real exchange rate terms not ppp by the year 2020. small third world countries like north korea are now nuclear capable and more will follow, such as iran. its unlikely that obama is going to lead the world by pointing a gun at the planet, he will have to lead by example, and setting one that's better than his predecessor.

100% and we'll start by pulling out of iraq and surprise afghanistan! i'm sure you watched martin walker on dateline (the aussie version, not that sensationalized version in the us) that when obama goes to nato/un for more troop support for the "good" war, the eu will say "no way jose" and he'll have to "rethink" america's position which would go into "humanitarian" mode, where will start to rebuild afghanistan via the army corps of engineers.

wishful thinking?

nope, if he wants to keep his promises, he has to cut funding someplace and while mccain wanted to cut funding everywhere but on the wars, why not start with the wars since they are largely unpopular the world over, not just in the us. it would automatically put a happy face on the stars and stripes.

my best friend from high school works construction and lements the credit freeze which has state's cutting back budgets and considering layoffs since all states have to have balanced budgets by law (at least california does). he think the economy will get worst before it gets better and i agree, the bottom hasn't dropped from housing and unless this next stimulus package directly addresses foreclosures and public works projects it will last alot longer.

but the stimulus will fly pass the house and we'll see how adding 5 more senate seats effects its speed in getting out for obama to sign it. i don't see much hold up from the republicans that are left and risk further lost of seats in the mid-terms in 2010.

this action on the ground can not be lost just because he's been elected, we must continue to bug congress. when we didn't want the original bailout, we called (in fact) hammered on congress and it fell. but then cnbc and others kept telling people that it would be good and help the frozen credit issues, which hasn't largely happen...

then when the revision came down, it was fit (not really) to past and now we know it didn't have enough restrictions on it, but at least only 150 billion got released and we've largely seen where that has gone -
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/10..._bailout_cash/

even though wall st. invested heavily into obama, i think some extra restrictions are coming down.... no they didn't want it but hey they asked for the axe to come down.

it will be interesting to see what happens and if my opinions turn out correct.

[CBGBConnisur]

Getting back to politics, how exactly is Obama going to restore America's "status in the world". This is something I am seriously wondering about. How is he going to do it? As in restoring the unipolar moment that existed since the Soviet Union collapsed? I seriously doubt it, in many ways American dominance in many areas will be contested and challenged, even the World Bank predicts China will have a larger economy than the US in real exchange rate terms not PPP by the year 2020. Small third world countries like North Korea are now nuclear capable and more will follow, such as Iran. Its unlikely that Obama is going to lead the world by pointing a gun at the planet, he will have to lead by example, and setting one thats better than his predecessor.

[Run Mann]

Run, an article of JayZ humanitarian efforts from 2002, eh? I don't think Mother Theresa or Bill Gates for the matter will be too worried about the competition. Mr Z has taken a lot and hasn't given back all that much. Not that he has to, it just doesn't make him a humanitarian .

Cruiser, the date of 2002 shows he has been engaged in this type of work for some time now. Try to be objective, you neglected to acknowledge his very valuable scholarship foundation which has helped many who are less fortunate than him and him being honored by the UN for his work in Africa. You asked what he stood for which was what I replied to. He is a humanitarian to those he has helped and he is also much more than some one who only makes $ as you claimed he was.