Has U.S. Politics

jdobbin · August 9, 2006

Will Iraq be the deciding factor given that 60% of Americans are now opposed to the war? Lieberman went down in flames because of it. Clinton has changed her stategy. Will other Congressmen and Senators run on the war or run away from it?

Charles Anthony · August 9, 2006

No. Iraq will not be the deciding factor. Money will be the deciding factor.

I am looking into my anarchist crystal ball and I see:

-> in less than 25 years the U.S.A. will turn 180degrees around with respect to its military and foreign policy

-> the age-old foreign interventionism culture will disappear

-> space research and exploration will be cancelled

-> the entire national military will disappear and be replaced by independent state armies

All of this will happen due to a soaring public debt, a crash of the American dollar and an inability to afford military funding.

jdobbin · August 9, 2006

No. Iraq will not be the deciding factor. Money will be the deciding factor.
I am looking into my anarchist crystal ball and I see:

-> in less than 25 years the U.S.A. will turn 180degrees around with respect to its military and foreign policy

-> the age-old foreign interventionism culture will disappear

-> space research and exploration will be cancelled

-> the entire national military will disappear and be replaced by independent state armies

All of this will happen due to a soaring public debt, a crash of the American dollar and an inability to afford military funding.

Will I be able to buy an American state cheap?

I'll settle for a stealth fighter though.

Shady · August 10, 2006

No offense, but you two really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to America.

Lieberman went down in flames because of it.

Lieberman didn't go down in flames, he lost by a few percentage points and still has a better then average chance of retaining his senate seat in November.

the age-old foreign interventionism culture will disappear

What "age-old" foreign intervention culture? Have you ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

jdobbin · August 10, 2006

No offense, but you two really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to America.
Lieberman didn't go down in flames, he lost by a few percentage points and still has a better then average chance of retaining his senate seat in November.

Considering that everyone was saying he would win the nomination, I think saying that he will win as an independent is overly optimistic.

60% of Americans oppose the war. Lieberman is for the war. I think the people of the state think that Lieberman will not change his view even if a civil war is happening in Iraq.

Charles Anthony · August 10, 2006

the age-old foreign interventionism culture will disappear
What "age-old" foreign intervention culture? Have you ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

No. I never heard of it. Thank you for enlightening me.

After doing a simple web search, I found the Monroe Doctrine, a speech presented in 1823 by President Monroe to Congress. It seems apparent that the U.S.A. did NOT follow this doctrine of non-intervention in recent history. What is your point?

[i will give you this much: the doctrine is selective in its application of non-intervention.]

I am suggesting that the U.S.A. should follow this type of doctrine. I return the question to you: have YOU heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Tell us how the principles of this doctrine have been practiced by the U.S.A. in Panama or VietNam or Iraq just to name a few sovereign countries.

Liam · August 10, 2006

(moved post to Lieberman thread)

Shady · August 10, 2006

What is your point?

My point is that, before WWII, America was not an interventionalist country. So your "age-old" characterization is not an accurate one.

Tell us how the principles of this doctrine have been practiced by the U.S.A. in Panama or VietNam or Iraq just to name a few sovereign countries

The Monroe Doctrine doesn't apply, at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. However, my beef was with your characterization of America's interventionalism as "age-old". Which it obviously isn't.

Charles Anthony · August 10, 2006

The original post asked questions about the future of the U.S.A. relative to current events.

My point is that, before WWII, America was not an interventionalist country. So your "age-old" characterization is not an accurate one.

I never put a time-line "beginning date" in my statement. Maybe I should have to make it clear that I am talking about recent history.

You never specified dates either in your post, so your "point is that, before WWII" yadda yadda yadda was not in your original post. Maybe you should have made it clear that you were talking about ancient history.

Tell us how the principles of this doctrine have been practiced by the U.S.A. in Panama or VietNam or Iraq just to name a few sovereign countries
The Monroe Doctrine doesn't apply, at all.

So, we agree when it comes to recent history and we disagree when it comes to ancient history.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

What impression did you want to give?? YOU arbitrarily brought up a specific and irrelevant episode of ancient history. You could have said "Have you ever heard of Magna Carta?" or "Have you ever heard of Pearl Harbor?" or "Have you ever heard of the McCarthy witch-hunts?" or "Have you ever heard of the underground railroad?" or "Have you ever heard of the Wright Brothers?"

However, my beef was with your characterization of America's interventionalism as "age-old". Which it obviously isn't.

You are right. I was not clear enough.

I should have said "older-than-me-but-younger-than-you" instead and you should have said "in-my-life-time" in your post.

You are playing semantics and nothing else.

geoffrey · August 21, 2006

No offense, but you two really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to America.

Lieberman didn't go down in flames, he lost by a few percentage points and still has a better then average chance of retaining his senate seat in November.

Considering that everyone was saying he would win the nomination, I think saying that he will win as an independent is overly optimistic.

60% of Americans oppose the war. Lieberman is for the war. I think the people of the state think that Lieberman will not change his view even if a civil war is happening in Iraq.

Lieberman is polling ahead of his rivals in that state. Just shows the Democrats continue to be too idealogical for anyone to take seriously, that, and they lack any cohesive policies.

Jerry J. Fortin · August 21, 2006

Never the less, if McCain doesn't run for the Republicans then Hillary Clinton will become the next president of the United States. Further to this, I think that the Democrats will dominate both houses come November.

jdobbin · August 21, 2006

Lieberman is polling ahead of his rivals in that state. Just shows the Democrats continue to be too idealogical for anyone to take seriously, that, and they lack any cohesive policies.

It's still early after the primary. George Bush has decided not to support the Republican candidate in the election and this is probably adding to Lieberman's support. We'll see if Bush's support ultimately helps Lieberman win.

Even if it does, Lieberman will still caucus with Democrats and have Democratic ideals other than national security. Not much of a victory for Bush in the long run.

geoffrey · August 21, 2006

Never the less, if McCain doesn't run for the Republicans then Hillary Clinton will become the next president of the United States. Further to this, I think that the Democrats will dominate both houses come November.

I think the Democrats can win at the local level. If they push local issues, people will elect them. But as a party they have no policies and that won't win them the Presidency.

I think there are likely a few Republicans that can beat Hillary, but McCain is likely the most suited to the current environment.

jdobbin · August 25, 2006

Republican calls for timetable for pull-out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14513656/

Black Dog · August 25, 2006

Lieberman is polling ahead of his rivals in that state. Just shows the Democrats continue to be too idealogical for anyone to take seriously, that, and they lack any cohesive policies.

I love the conservatives on this board. Over here, we get some die hard Republican partisan pointing out Liberaman's extremely liberal voting record in one breath and then breathlessly pointing ot how well ol Joementus is doing in the early polls. Why dyed-in-the-woll Republicans would want a guy who's more liberal than Kennedy is a bit of a mystery that no one has bothered to solve. But I digress.

Anyway, the latest polls have Liberman and Lamiont in a statistical dead heat.

I think the Democrats can win at the local level. If they push local issues, people will elect them. But as a party they have no policies and that won't win them the Presidency.

Yeah because the current denizen of the Oval Office is well known for his finely-honed policies. :rolleyes:

If policy won elections, we'd be talking about a permanant Democrat lock on all three houses. But it doesn't. Style trumps substance and most voters are content to go with the straight-talkin' good ol' boy they can see themselves having a beer with. Argus nailed it a long time ago:

Who won the election last two times around? The Republican? Nope. The folksy guy. Who won the previous two elections? The Democrat? Nope. The folksy guy. Bush senior beat who? Oh right, Mr Eybrows, Dukakis. Bush junior beat who? Two wooden faced stuffed shirts who could put sheep to sleep. Ronald Reagan, Republican - or folksy guy? Who did he beat? Mr. Charisma, Walter Mondale (duh!), and Carter, who had spent a year in his rose garden snivelling about hostages.
So is this really a victory of hard-line conservatives over liberals or a victory of folksy guys over bland, wooden boring guys?

I think there are likely a few Republicans that can beat Hillary, but McCain is likely the most suited to the current environment

Hillary won't win for one reason. She's a woman.

Rue · August 25, 2006

Never the less, if McCain doesn't run for the Republicans then Hillary Clinton will become the next president of the United States. Further to this, I think that the Democrats will dominate both houses come November.

You ask me Jerry two things won't happen in the states in our life time, a black prez or a woman prez. I think the bias is just too built in. Hilary Clinton's views by the way would never be able to sweep the majority of American voters outside the large urban centres. She might carry New York and that would be about it.

Right now if you also ask me I think Jebb Bush is gonna run sooner or later. Colin Powell is the logical candidate to win for the Republicans but some nut case for sure would kill him.

The democrats have a major problem because I think they have no one ready for the next election. Sen. McCain by the way is not popular enough in the Republican party to get their nod.

Do not underestimate how many enemies Hilary Clinton has made within her own party.

As well to get elected in the US you have to be right wing even if you are a democrat. Y'all think America is ready to trust fighting terrorists to a liberal woman who couldn't control Billy's wondering wazoo? Don't think so. She still has that image of being a closet Lesbian/cheated on wife to dispose of and I don't see that happening especially if Rosie O'Donell and Elen DeGeneres rally to her side and reinforce her image of being a leftist lesbian which goes over real good in mainstreamAmerica.

jdobbin · August 26, 2006

Another Republican senator fighting for his political career.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6082301836.html

August1991 · August 26, 2006

Hilary won't win for one reason. She's a woman.

In 1975, people said the same thing when Margaret Thatcher became the (surprise) leader of the Conservative Party.

----

As to this thread title, Dobbin, you can keep spinning this issue coyly by quoting Washington Post articles (I notice the one above does not state anywhere that either Republican candidate wants to unilaterally leave Iraq). But the fact is that the US will not leave Iraq until it is certain that something worse will not arise. IOW, staying in Iraq is less costly than leaving Iraq. It's a simple and obvious calculation.

Something else to consider. As long as US casualties are falling (which they are), then there will be less pressure to leave.

Something else. Ignore the US leftish MSM on this issue. Many of them are boomers stuck in a 1960s time warp and they want "to get" the frat boy Bush. These people are not representative of the US population.

To get out of Vietnam, it took far more and even then the US president initiated tremendous bombing, negotiated a peace settlement before withdrawal. Iraq is a minor skirmish in comparison.

Lastly Dobbin, how do you propose to deal with the threat of radical Islam? IOW, you can say "War is not the answer" but no serious US politician can say that because most American voters know that is false.

jdobbin · August 26, 2006

Hilary won't win for one reason. She's a woman.
In 1975, people said the same thing when Margaret Thatcher became the (surprise) leader of the Conservative Party.
----

As to this thread title, Dobbin, you can keep spinning this issue coyly by quoting Washington Post articles (I notice the one above does not state anywhere that either Republican candidate wants to unilaterally leave Iraq). But the fact is that the US will not leave Iraq until it is certain that something worse will not arise. IOW, staying in Iraq is less costly than leaving Iraq. It's a simple and obvious calculation.

Something else to consider. As long as US casualties are falling (which they are), then there will be less pressure to leave.

Something else. Ignore the US leftish MSM on this issue. Many of them are boomers stuck in a 1960s time warp and they want "to get" the frat boy Bush. These people are not representative of the US population.

To get out of Vietnam, it took far more and even then the US president initiated tremendous bombing, negotiated a peace settlement before withdrawal. Iraq is a minor skirmish in comparison.

Lastly Dobbin, how do you propose to deal with the threat of radical Islam? IOW, you can say "War is not the answer" but no serious US politician can say that because most American voters know that is false.

The British system doesn't compare. No one elects the prime minister in Britain.

I have shown in other links that some Republicans who have strongly supported the war are now talking about withdrawing.

And Chafee is feeling vulnerable on Iraq because it is hurting the Republican party overall. He is being personally attacked for being a moderate by his own party. The Democrats can smell blood in the water in this state.

Bush has been talking all week about the possibility of a civil war in Iraq. The death toll of civilians is still around 100 a day. Four Americans were killed yesterday.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

So please show me a reference where the death toll hasn't changed from one or two a day. They haven't. They've lost 43 soldiers in Iraq this month.

In three months there will be a election. We'll see if the sour feelings are just that of the so called leftish elite or if there is a malaise in the country about how the war has been fought in Iraq.

Some peace settlement in Vietnam.

The reason that the U.S. is where its at is because the war has been mishandled from the start. Their intelligence was wrong, their strategy was wrong and ultimately, they created the situation where a civil war was ripened on the vine.

There was radical Muslims in Iraq prior to the war?