NationStates Jolt Archive

I am growing increasingly convinced that Kerry will win, and that is sealed by Bush's double-digit lead (it means Kerry will try fighting harder). So when he wins on Nov. 3, I won't pout. I've started accepting him as our next president.
This is one thing I found in my journey to accept Kerry: his foreign policy won't be that different from Bush. Many hope this current foreign policy is a fluke, the product of an idiot. But the truth is that this also means 9/11 was a fluke, a one-time event. To understand the foreign policy of Bush, we need to go back to the end of the Cold War.
During that time, Pres. Clinton served through most of it. He had the same basic goal of every president since Polk: to protect US interests abroad. But since the Soviet Union was dead, that was now easy. It meant that Clinton had no real use for the massive military power of after the Cold War, so he had it become an international babysitter, to look after the bad boys on the margins of society.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon yearned for the good ole' days of the Cold War, where it had a nation-state as an enemy. They became convinced that China would fill this role, and hopes were raised in the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1996. When Bush came to office, he had the same goals as the military.
Bush wanted to "liberat" the Pentagon from the position of international nanny, and get us out of the nation building business altogether. Meanwhile, our forces would be at home, preparing for a future grand war with China or, if something happened to them, Russia or India.
9/11 turned that outlook onto its head. It was a brand new security crisis for the US, and it required new security rules. Bush obviously can't prefect them yet, as the enemy is nothing like we've faced before. But in this sense, he is like Harry Truman: he created new security rules, and there is no turning back.
It is impossible for John Kerry to work outside these new rules, even if he wanted to. In the same way that Truman made containment policy for decades to come (in aiding the Greek and Turkish governments fight against Communist rebels), Bush has firmly established preemption as policy (by invading Iraq and threatening states with WMDs). Even if Kerry doesn't do more, he'll be the president left with Afghanistan and Iraq. Which leads me to another point.
Kerry promises he can work multilaterally on these issues. But ultimatly, what does that mean for us? Merely a stamp of approval. The British, our most loyal ally, currently have less than 10% of all the troops fielded in Iraq. This isn't to say they aren't important, but it shows that Britain, and the rest of the world, don't have as powerful of a military as we do. The end result means that there will be no military help, only giant stamps of approval. Even if these nations give financial aid, it'll be no where near the money the private sector can put into their economy. It is almost a given that money will flow into a nation, so long as there is adequate security. While it doesn't exist in Iraq or Afghanistan, other nations cannot help the security problem simply because they can't.
So my basic point is that Bushesque foreign policy isn't an anomoly. It is here to stay. Perhaps certain elements of it will change, but nothing drastic. The US military will be the world's premier force for the next four years, and the private sector will have gobs of cash. With the current military affairs, this doesn't leave Kerry a lot of wiggle room.

I am growing increasingly convinced that Kerry will win, and that is sealed by Bush's double-digit lead (it means Kerry will try fighting harder). So when he wins on Nov. 3, I won't pout. I've started accepting him as our next president.

Huh?

According to most polls including the most respected Gallup, Bush does not have a double digit lead. Bush only got a 2 point bounce from his convention and only leads Kerry by a mere 7 points. I think it's still too close to call.

As for what Kerry's foreign policy might look like, I think that's pure speculation at this point. However I'm sure it will go a long way in gaining the world's respect back for the USA. It will be better then Bush's, of that I have no doubt.

According to most polls including the most respected Gallup, Bush does not have a double digit lead. Bush only got a 2 point bounce from his convention and only leads Kerry by a mere 7 points. I think it's still too close to call.

As for what Kerry's foreign policy might look like, I think that's pure speculation at this point. However I'm sure it will go a long way in gaining the world's respect back for the USA. It will be better then Bush's, of that I have no doubt.
What I'm saying, however, is that if Kerry is able to get more international support, will that help? Most likely not. It will merely be a goodwill gesture, but nothing significant.

Huh?
The signs are there that Kerry will win. Just yesterday, he's fired his campaign staff, and replaced them with Clintonistas. Worse yet, he's finally able to convey a clear stance on Iraq.

Wow... I think that was the most level headed, intelligent analysis that I have read so far.

I have read in other threads people threatening violence if Bush when again or how we will become too soft and fragile under Kerry, but I have to agree that I will accept whoever becomes the president. That doesn't mean I will agree with everything that either might do, and I can still voice my support or decent in a civil manner.

We are living in interesting times that require a lot of hard solutions. We need to improve our image with other nations, at the same time we need to stand strong and say "We are going to do what we believe we must do to protect our interests." (Which really is the purpose of any government.) I believe we can do both, though it is going to take some time.

The signs are there that Kerry will win. Just yesterday, he's fired his campaign staff, and replaced them with Clintonistas. Worse yet, he's finally able to convey a clear stance on Iraq.

Most of the signs show he is going to lose. Any seated president with a lead like this going into an election has won historically. Plus Kerry has 8 more than Gore had even in deficit in the electorial College in 2000 do to demographic changes in the US, and Gore has a significant deficit. Now you have the RNC going off much better than the DNC (let's face it Giuliani and McCain appeal to the swing voters way more than Carter and Kennedy), and you have Clinton in effect knocked out of most campaigning for heart surgery. Plus the Republicans have kept Kerry on the defensive and all about Vietnam instead of anything relevant, and have made him look untrust worthy in the process. With less than two months to go, it's an uphill battle at best for Kerry.

Most of the signs show he is going to lose. Any seated president with a lead like this going into an election has won historically. Plus Kerry has 8 more than Gore had even in deficit in the electorial College in 2000 do to demographic changes in the US, and Gore has a significant deficit. Now you have the RNC going off much better than the DNC (let's face it Giuliani and McCain appeal to the swing voters way more than Carter and Kennedy), and you have Clinton in effect knocked out of most campaigning for heart surgery. Plus the Republicans have kept Kerry on the defensive and all about Vietnam instead of anything relevant, and have made him look untrust worthy in the process. With less than two months to go, it's an uphill battle at best for Kerry.
The bad part, however, is that Kerry has been showing his sabers lately. He's been able to formulate clear positions, actually speak eloquently, and I believe his mask of moderacy appeals to voters more than the red meat Bush throws about. Nothing's impossible, but I'm doing the best I can to convince myself Kerry will win, because I don't want to be shocked if he does.

Wow... I think that was the most level headed, intelligent analysis that I have read so far.

I have read in other threads people threatening violence if Bush when again or how we will become too soft and fragile under Kerry, but I have to agree that I will accept whoever becomes the president. That doesn't mean I will agree with everything that either might do, and I can still voice my support or decent in a civil manner.


I have to say I agree, although I would point out that it really isn't that important who the president is. Politicians aren't the bosses: they have to work under the rules of the system.

Wow... I think that was the most level headed, intelligent analysis that I have read so far.

I have read in other threads people threatening violence if Bush when again or how we will become too soft and fragile under Kerry, but I have to agree that I will accept whoever becomes the president. That doesn't mean I will agree with everything that either might do, and I can still voice my support or decent in a civil manner.

We are living in interesting times that require a lot of hard solutions. We need to improve our image with other nations, at the same time we need to stand strong and say "We are going to do what we believe we must do to protect our interests." (Which really is the purpose of any government.) I believe we can do both, though it is going to take some time.
I believe that the reason we are unpopular in the world is not because of the GWOT, that merely accelarated it. I believe it is because of how ideaologically different we are from the world, especially other Westerners. For one thing, Europe keeps war and law enforcement separate, regarding terrorism as falling into the later. For the US, it's becoming hard to do, and to win this war, the two have to be intergrated, as we are learning. There are many other differences, but our security philosphy is a big one. The problem, however, is not that they are right and we are wrong, but the US can't articulate our philosophy well enough for the rest of the world, probably because I find this approach to terrorism to be too young to boil down to one sentence.

The bad part, however, is that Kerry has been showing his sabers lately. He's been able to formulate clear positions, actually speak eloquently, and I believe his mask of moderacy appeals to voters more than the red meat Bush throws about. Nothing's impossible, but I'm doing the best I can to convince myself Kerry will win, because I don't want to be shocked if he does.

Despite the fact Kerry's moderacy is a mask (which appeals to leftists like me), the effect is the same as if he were a moderate, because he won't be able to make policy as a leftist. If he tried, he would first of all be blocked by the Congress, and second quite possibly be removed from office as Nixon was.

Plus the Republicans have kept Kerry on the defensive and all about Vietnam instead of anything relevant, and have made him look untrust worthy in the process.

You should see his speeches. C-Span plays the whole things, unedited. Kerry has devoted very little of his time to defending his Vietnam service. He spends most of his time on issues, formulation of strategy, and voter appeal.

None of that matters, though, because Bush has Rove. Rove is the master of mudslinging and will browbeat the voters into feeling guilty if they vote Kerry. Rove is a thug. He has been since the very beginning when he masterminded unseating Anne Richards, one of the most popular Texas governors ever, by exposing that she used to snort coke. (Funny, eh?) For Bush, as it always has been, it's about catch phrases and knee-jerk slams ...

If the debates are fair and proper, Bush will be defeated in the first 10 minutes. No catch phrase in the world will be able to save him.

I have to say I agree, although I would point out that it really isn't that important who the president is. Politicians aren't the bosses: they have to work under the rules of the system.
But some politicians, like Bush right now, is setting the rules. The Bush Administration first set the rules after 9/11, and made our policy away from the never-ending search for a near-peer competitor (as the Pentagon calls it), and to fighting a series of small wars to fight terrorism. And right now, with the invasion of Iraq, Bush is radically reseting the security rules of the Middle East that have been there since 1948, with the creation of Israel. No matter what the intentions for going into Iraq were, what the Bush Administration is doing is nothing short of revolutionary, and whether Iraq collapses into civil war or not, the region as a whole will begin transformation. It's why the Arab leaders, especially Bashir and the House of Saud, are intimidated: they know this war has launched sweeping changes that'll affect them sooner or later.

The problem, however, is not that they are right and we are wrong, but the US can't articulate our philosophy well enough for the rest of the world, probably because I find this approach to terrorism to be too young to boil down to one sentence.

The problem is that the US looks out for the US first, and France looks out for France first, and Germany looks out for Germany first. And though in many ways globally we may be brothers, when we don't have the spector of a common enemy looming over us, we're gonna butt heads like crazy.

Despite the fact Kerry's moderacy is a mask (which appeals to leftists like me), the effect is the same as if he were a moderate, because he won't be able to make policy as a leftist. If he tried, he would first of all be blocked by the Congress, and second quite possibly be removed from office as Nixon was.
It'd be very likely, however, that if Kerry wins, the Senate becomes Democratic, and they close the gap in the House. It is likely this will happen, but hopefully, it won't. Because quite frankly, I feel Kerry's domestic plans are a nightmare.

The problem is that the US looks out for the US first, and France looks out for France first, and Germany looks out for Germany first. And though in many ways globally we may be brothers, when we don't have the spector of a common enemy looming over us, we're gonna butt heads like crazy.
Well, that's also true. But when terrorism does happen in Europe, they view it as a simple crime, not a security threat. The UK is different in this sense, and so are the Italians. The Spanish government was, but as we've seen with 3/11, not their people. In fact, the people chose appeasement over staying the course.

If the debates are fair and proper, Bush will be defeated in the first 10 minutes. No catch phrase in the world will be able to save him.

Gore made the same mistake in thinking he would nail Bush in the debates. Although Bush is a crummy speach reader, I think he shoots from the hip pretty well. He has alot of appeal when he is just talking to average Americans. I think Kerry supporters will be unpleasently surprised at how well Bush does in the debates.

But some politicians, like Bush right now, is setting the rules. The Bush Administration first set the rules after 9/11, and made our policy away from the never-ending search for a near-peer competitor (as the Pentagon calls it), and to fighting a series of small wars to fight terrorism. And right now, with the invasion of Iraq, Bush is radically reseting the security rules of the Middle East that have been there since 1948, with the creation of Israel. No matter what the intentions for going into Iraq were, what the Bush Administration is doing is nothing short of revolutionary, and whether Iraq collapses into civil war or not, the region as a whole will begin transformation. It's why the Arab leaders, especially Bashir and the House of Saud, are intimidated: they know this war has launched sweeping changes that'll affect them sooner or later.

Therin lies the problem. With all these leaders fearing the security of their assets and security, I wouldn't put it past them to launch a preemptive or retaliatory strike on U.S. military targets in the Middle East. Especially with Saudia Arabia it's possible that we would have some iffy oil solutions. If they stopped exporting them to us, we would be dependent on our newly found Iraqi supplies that keep getting blown up by saboteurs.

Gore made the same mistake in thinking he would nail Bush in the debates. Although Bush is a crummy speach reader, I think he shoots from the hip pretty well. He has alot of appeal when he is just talking to average Americans. I think Kerry supporters will be unpleasently surprised at how well Bush does in the debates.

Kerry's campaign people have been stressing this point a lot. I expect they will engage Kerry with mock debates to strengthen his points and some nice sound bytes.

This will be a masterful debate...Kerry being a tried and true debater from Yale and it's political entities and Bush being a master of spin and rhetoric not to mention a (seemingly) commonality with the average man.

Therin lies the problem. With all these leaders fearing the security of their assets and security, I wouldn't put it past them to launch a preemptive or retaliatory strike on U.S. military targets in the Middle East. Especially with Saudia Arabia it's possible that we would have some iffy oil solutions. If they stopped exporting them to us, we would be dependent on our newly found Iraqi supplies that keep getting blown up by saboteurs.
If Syria needs to strike at us, be that as it may. Syria will definitly be defeated, and they really need to get out of Lebannon. But Saudi Arabia won't dare strike at us. They need our money more than we need their oil. At least we have other sources of oil, but the Saudis hardly have other sources of cash.
What I personally predict to happen with the Saudis is if they meet the world halfway. The Saudi people themselves are a funny bunch, in the dark ages but at the pinnacle of progress at the same time. Plenty of elements in Saudi Arabia want to badly make their nation intergrated, and ultimatly, some form of a democracy. This is especially good, because King Fahd is dying, and Prince Abdullah, the heir appearant and de facto ruler, is very old. Some princes want to go the same way bin Laden is pushing them, e.i, back to the seventh century. Others want a constitutional monarchy. In any succession crisis, both will battle (the House of Saud has at least 2,000 crowned princes), and it is important for the US to support whoever the most progressive is. No matter who's president here, we'll back the progressive one, as it is our nature.
This is happening elsewhere in the Middle East. Qatar was a backwater sattelite state of Saudi Arabia a decade ago. The current emir dethroned his father, however, and liberalized it at breathtaking speed. He modernized the nation and invested in natural gas fields. Most importantly, however, he has created real change. He goes out of his way to lobby Western universities to establish ranch campuses (built by the emir), and so far, Cornell has accepted. Women have far more rights. Literacy is skyrocketing. Economic freedom is actually a reality. And most importantly, it's a constitutional monarchy. Elections are set for the fall to elect a legislative concil by popular vote. Already, local mayors and city concils are elected.

bump

Most of the signs show he is going to lose. Any seated president with a lead like this going into an election has won historically.

Actually looking at it from an historical view point, the odds are still against Bush. He had the smallest bounce of any sitting president after his convention who won a second term. If we look at recent historical signs, Gore came out of his convention ahead of Bush and was expected to win (some of us believe he did) but if you truly believe he lost, bad for Bush this round. Michael Dukakis came out of his convention ahead of Bush Sr and lost. Bush Sr came out of his convention ahead of Clinton and lost. The stats go on and on. I believe it's too close to call. But if you want to look at it from an historical view point, the odds are not in Bush's favour.

Well, that's also true. But when terrorism does happen in Europe, they view it as a simple crime, not a security threat. The UK is different in this sense, and so are the Italians. The Spanish government was, but as we've seen with 3/11, not their people. In fact, the people chose appeasement over staying the course.

I beg to differ with you on this. The Europeans have been dealing with terrorism much longer that the USA has. The Spanish response wasn't one of appeasement but rather, the Spanish removed what they saw as a LYING Gov't ( trying to blame it in on ETA). If the gov't had lied to them on ETA what else were they being lied to about? Remember that the Spanish still went to the polls despite the horror that had happened to them. Would the American populace go to the polls in light of similarly horrible circumstances? I hope so but am doubtful...

What I'm saying, however, is that if Kerry is able to get more international support, will that help? Most likely not. It will merely be a goodwill gesture, but nothing significant.
It may not prove to be significant materiel wise but it is a damn huge improvement to be acting as a member of the world community rather than the outlaw of the western world.

Actually looking at it from an historical view point, the odds are still against Bush. He had the smallest bounce of any sitting president after his convention who won a second term. If we look at recent historical signs, Gore came out of his convention ahead of Bush and was expected to win (some of us believe he did) but if you truly believe he lost, bad for Bush this round. Michael Dukakis came out of his convention ahead of Bush Sr and lost. Bush Sr came out of his convention ahead of Clinton and lost. The stats go on and on. I believe it's too close to call. But if you want to look at it from an historical view point, the odds are not in Bush's favour.
So, since you are back on, could you answer a question for me? You've said earlier that Kerry will help make America admired in the world. I just want to know why you think this is important.

Gore made the same mistake in thinking he would nail Bush in the debates. Although Bush is a crummy speach reader, I think he shoots from the hip pretty well. He has alot of appeal when he is just talking to average Americans. I think Kerry supporters will be unpleasently surprised at how well Bush does in the debates.

Ah yes, but I have two points:

1] Gore tried to debate Bush using Bush's strategy: catch phrases. Remember "lock box"? Karl Rove is the master of the catch phrase, hence, there is no way to beat Bush at catch phrases.

2] Kerry is not Gore.

Um, Clinton pulled ahead after the DNC and never looked back against Bush Sr. Every seated president this close to an election with a lead has won in recent history.

I beg to differ with you on this. The Europeans have been dealing with terrorism much longer that the USA has. The Spanish response wasn't one of appeasement but rather, the Spanish removed what they saw as a LYING Gov't ( trying to blame it in on ETA). If the gov't had lied to them on ETA what else were they being lied to about? Remember that the Spanish still went to the polls despite the horror that had happened to them. Would the American populace go to the polls in light of similarly horrible circumstances? I hope so but am doubtful...
I think we would, personally. Why wouldn't we?
Anyhow, they elected the candidate that pledged withdrawl from Iraq. Whether or not he realized it, it was appeasement, and it really was a victory for the terrorists. It's made me concerned that the terrorists may try to attack before another election somewhere in the world, to try and influence the vote.

The difference in foreign policy between Kerry and Bush (were Kerry to be elected)would be a matter of perception rather than deep changes. Form over substance

I think we would, personally. Why wouldn't we?
Anyhow, they elected the candidate that pledged withdrawl from Iraq. Whether or not he realized it, it was appeasement, and it really was a victory for the terrorists. It's made me concerned that the terrorists may try to attack before another election somewhere in the world, to try and influence the vote.

Aznar's government was expected to win reelection despite the opposition party's platform of withdrawal. It was the realisation that the incumbent was lying to the population that made them change their mind and vote for the party that was originally expected to lose. I am sure that there are others who will try and influence elections if they think they can succeed. That brings up an interesting thought that I am sure has been bandied around before. Would Al q want Bush reelected or not? Would that help their cause or hinder it?

It may not prove to be significant materiel wise but it is a damn huge improvement to be acting as a member of the world community rather than the outlaw of the western world.
But does it carry any weight to it? I beg to differ.
I agree that the US needs to be respected by many, and feared by a few, but certainly not admired by all. Why do we need to be? As I've said, we're the only nation that can export security in large amounts. After that, the money flows in, and money knows no nationality. All that has to happen afterwards is based on the indigeonous population's actions, or in this case, Iraq. BTW, I should note that in poll after poll, Iraq respects the US more than the rest of the Arab world. I wouldn't even be surprised if some admiration is also mixed in there, too.
But anyhow, I really do think that if the US thinks it knows best, and has the means and the plan to carry it out, then the US doesn't need to beg the UN for permission. International support is nice, but it certainly isn't needed, unless a country like Poland invaded Iraq for us. But they don't have the power projection capabilities to wage overseas war without our help. Quite frankly, no one does.

So, since you are back on, could you answer a question for me? You've said earlier that Kerry will help make America admired in the world. I just want to know why you think this is important.

I know you weren't asking me, but I can answer anyway. :)

It's important because we live in the world, not just within our own borders. We exist at a time of global economy and are no longer self-sufficient (as if we ever were).

Good example is our economic ties with Japan. If we were to alienate Japan, our economy as well as theirs would go in the crapper. It's intertwined that much. No, I have no link for this information, you'll just have to look up all of our treaties, import/export laws with Japan, US property owned by Japanese interests, major US conglomerations who's parent company is a Japanese concern, etc etc. And, of course, look up the reverse.

Politics of isolation is a horrible thing to do. If we alienate the world, we alienate ourselves. Think about your own lineage, your own family.

Let's say your family is German and the US alienates Germany and it ends up in a bizarre tension cold war like situation and you suddenly have FBI watching you 24/7.

Let's say you're Jewish and the US decides to go to war with Israel. How many Jews in the US would have to hide in fear a la 1938 Europe? Look at the way people in the US treated Muslims (well, not the white Muslims) in the 6 months following 9/11.

It's a great big world. It doesn't just end at our borders. We can't say "fuck off" to the world. We have to do everything in our power (which is a lot of power) to help make sure the world - the whole world - is truly a safer place, a happier place, and a more welcoming place to the next generation.

Bush says the world is a safer place thanks to us and his alienating politics of "if you're not with us, you're against us".

140 Russian children know he's a liar.

Aznar's government was expected to win reelection despite the opposition party's platform of withdrawal. It was the realisation that the incumbent was lying to the population that made them change their mind and vote for the party that was originally expected to lose. I am sure that there are others who will try and influence elections if they think they can succeed. That brings up an interesting thought that I am sure has been bandied around before. Would Al q want Bush reelected or not? Would that help their cause or hinder it?
I don't think it matters. Both will end up with policies terrorists hate. The biggest dillema for terrorists is appearances. Bush has often reffered to this as a crusade, and letting the terrorists claim it's a war against Islam. But Kerry has a face I think can look menacing. So all it's a question of is which guy is better to put on recruitment posters.

I know you weren't asking me, but I can answer anyway. :)

It's important because we live in the world, not just within our own borders. We exist at a time of global economy and are no longer self-sufficient (as if we ever were).

Good example is our economic ties with Japan. If we were to alienate Japan, our economy as well as theirs would go in the crapper. It's intertwined that much. No, I have no link for this information, you'll just have to look up all of our treaties, import/export laws with Japan, US property owned by Japanese interests, major US conglomerations who's parent company is a Japanese concern, etc etc. And, of course, look up the reverse.

Politics of isolation is a horrible thing to do. If we alienate the world, we alienate ourselves. Think about your own lineage, your own family.

Let's say your family is German and the US alienates Germany and it ends up in a bizarre tension cold war like situation and you suddenly have FBI watching you 24/7.

Let's say you're Jewish and the US decides to go to war with Israel. How many Jews in the US would have to hide in fear a la 1938 Europe? Look at the way people in the US treated Muslims (well, not the white Muslims) in the 6 months following 9/11.

It's a great big world. It doesn't just end at our borders. We can't say "fuck off" to the world. We have to do everything in our power (which is a lot of power) to help make sure the world - the whole world - is truly a safer place, a happier place, and a more welcoming place to the next generation.
But you're talking about economies. Economically, the world is a multilateral place. But politically and militarily, we're peerless. It is as if nation-states outside the US don't matter anymore, only economies outside the US. They are the ones that need our help, and money answers to no nation, as we know. If it does, why are there so many foreign companies and employees operating in Iraq (and not just Americans)? Money is a coward, so we need to make it feel safe. Money can do wonderful things once it is in, however. That's why in developing states, I believe security forces must go first (and they can be provided only by the US), followed by the foreign direct investments.
BTW, leaving allies out of certain ventures doesn't mean that we'll have deep tensions with them. The American people and the world are so connected in every way that war is virtually impossible. Even if it was iminent, many of these first world nations are nuclear armed, or their close allies are. MAD still holds in the world's core.
[/QUOTE]

It'd be very likely, however, that if Kerry wins, the Senate becomes Democratic, and they close the gap in the House. It is likely this will happen, but hopefully, it won't. Because quite frankly, I feel Kerry's domestic plans are a nightmare.

Please define nightmare and who will be having it. The working and middle class is in the midst of a nightmare that is growing worse by the policy decision. Exporting jobs, cutting wages, less opportunity, rising prices, shrinking or evaporating pensions and Social Security push backs all are the current source of disenchantment with Bush's economic & domestic policies. The corps are getting fat while the middle, working and poor classes get the shaft.

Kerry is hitting that point this week. If you are doing better under Bush then you should vote for him. If you are worse off, then it's time for a change.

Please define nightmare and who will be having it. The working and middle class is in the midst of a nightmare that is growing worse by the policy decision. Exporting jobs, cutting wages, less opportunity, rising prices, shrinking or evaporating pensions and Social Security push backs all are the current source of disenchantment with Bush's economic & domestic policies. The corps are getting fat while the middle, working and poor classes get the shaft.


I feel that this is off topic, but you'll say I lack an answer if I don't reply, so I will (but don't expect me to refute your reply to this answer).
Outsourcing is very good for the economy. It creates consumer price efficiency, and forces the outsourced country to move into better jobs. I'll use the IT industry as an example. In the early 1990s, the production of chips, modems, and monitors moved overseas. It looked like the end of high tech in America, but that wasn't the case. Those systems analysts making the chips were making even better chips for companies like Intel, and it was the rise of the software industry. Those that made the monitors and modems at home were either making flat screen monitors, or seeking bureaocratic work.
Even layoffs aren't bad. Kodak is a company based locally, and has taken a hit with their payroll. That wasn't bad, however, because the laid off workers formed their own businesses, each competing against one another. Some were even bought out by Kodak years later, so it was back to square one :).
As for corporate profits, obviously, I am thrilled they are going up. I staunchly believe in trickle down economics, creating the era of the fastest growth this nation has ever seen (in the 1980s). It won't be long before corporations start hiring (which they have), or buy resources and big ticket items found in the US. And as you can guess, I'm a believer in the comparative advantage: we don't need superiority in every economic sector in order to be sucessful. You, obviously, are living in protectionist la-la land.

But does it carry any weight to it? I beg to differ.
I agree that the US needs to be respected by many, and feared by a few, but certainly not admired by all. Why do we need to be? As I've said, we're the only nation that can export security in large amounts. After that, the money flows in, and money knows no nationality. All that has to happen afterwards is based on the indigeonous population's actions, or in this case, Iraq. BTW, I should note that in poll after poll, Iraq respects the US more than the rest of the Arab world. I wouldn't even be surprised if some admiration is also mixed in there, too.
But anyhow, I really do think that if the US thinks it knows best, and has the means and the plan to carry it out, then the US doesn't need to beg the UN for permission. International support is nice, but it certainly isn't needed, unless a country like Poland invaded Iraq for us. But they don't have the power projection capabilities to wage overseas war without our help. Quite frankly, no one does.
Does might make right? The cost to us in the perception of what the US is will unfold thousands times over the years to come. Might can win the momentary victory only to lose the overall objective. Bully regimes have a way of garnering more and more enemies who quietly work to the demise of the bully.

I do not suggest that we kow tow to the opinion of the likes of France and Germany who main objection was truly the loss of their profits in Iraq. But there is a balance in which we are also a member of the world community. Like it or not, as a leader in that community we set the standard for others. We are ill advised to abuse the role and turn our back on our responsibilities there.

Does might make right? The cost to us in the perception of what the US is will unfold thousands times over the years to come. Might can win the momentary victory only to lose the overall objective. Bully regimes have a way of garnering more and more enemies who quietly work to the demise of the bully.

I do not suggest that we kow tow to the opinion of the likes of France and Germany who main objection was truly the loss of their profits in Iraq. But there is a balance in which we are also a member of the world community. Like it or not, as a leader in that community we set the standard for others. We are ill advised to abuse the role and turn our back on our responsibilities there.
Oh I agree about that. We are the world's role model. But why are we trying to run to the UN over and over again? Our problem is in our articulation to the world, not our policies. If we can better explain what we're doing and why, the world will be content. But that still doesn't mean we need to seek permission from the world every time we need to do something.
What I mean by articulation, btw, is that we run into the problem of politics vs. policy. The US didn't go into Iraq for WMDs, a brutal dictator, or oil. It was to reset the Middle East, create an economically and politically free environment, and use Iraq as a regional model. But WMDs seem to appeal to Americans, who have images of mushroom clouds. That can't work, anymore. We have to be completely honest in the future. In fact, I hear from non Americans on this forum something along the lines that Bush didn't explain this war good enough. We need to do a better job next time, and the world won't mind us.

I liked Clinton i wish the Clinton years were back. But what made me really pissed is when President Bush told the Republicans he was talking to keep preisdent Clinton in there prayers (nice gesture) BUT THE CROWED BOOED That is the sadest thing in history i dont like bush but i would never wish him to die.

you mean, beside not sending us into two unwinnable counter-insurgencies during a depression?

I feel that this is off topic, but you'll say I lack an answer if I don't reply, so I will (but don't expect me to refute your reply to this answer).
Outsourcing is very good for the economy. It creates consumer price efficiency, and forces the outsourced country to move into better jobs. I'll use the IT industry as an example. In the early 1990s, the production of chips, modems, and monitors moved overseas. It looked like the end of high tech in America, but that wasn't the case. Those systems analysts making the chips were making even better chips for companies like Intel, and it was the rise of the software industry. Those that made the monitors and modems at home were either making flat screen monitors, or seeking bureaocratic work.
Even layoffs aren't bad. Kodak is a company based locally, and has taken a hit with their payroll. That wasn't bad, however, because the laid off workers formed their own businesses, each competing against one another. Some were even bought out by Kodak years later, so it was back to square one :).
As for corporate profits, obviously, I am thrilled they are going up. I staunchly believe in trickle down economics, creating the era of the fastest growth this nation has ever seen (in the 1980s). It won't be long before corporations start hiring (which they have), or buy resources and big ticket items found in the US. And as you can guess, I'm a believer in the comparative advantage: we don't need superiority in every economic sector in order to be sucessful. You, obviously, are living in protectionist la-la land.

First, I would not accuse you of not having an answer. I have read enough of your posts to be aware that you are well informed and certainly hold established opinions. In short while I may disagree with you on a point yet I respect you.

As for our differing perspectives, we are looking at it from macro/micro perspectives. Your view appears to be that what is good for corporations is good for the working man. While some may be able to turn the misfortune into fortune as you cited - most do not. I am not talking about those with management or technical skills that are transferrable. I am talking about the general shrinkage of prospects the average skilled but not transferrable, semi-skilled but no longer needed and unskilled workers face. Where an economist sees economic efficiencey a working class family sees disaster.

Reagans analogy that a rising tide lifts all boats never quite made the transferrance to the real world. Only the yachts got lifted. In many places in America, the dingys are still beached.

The British, our most loyal ally, currently have less than 10% of all the troops fielded in Iraq. This isn't to say they aren't important, but it shows that Britain, and the rest of the world, don't have as powerful of a military as we do.2 things wrong with that.

1:Canada is your most loyal allie(mainy because of our economic dependents on each other) ,the Brits (although on very good terms with the US) are simple your strongest allie. We just don't follow you blindly and we still have great faith in the UN.

2:Birttian is currently the second most powerful nation in the world, and just before for ww2 was notably more powerful that any other nation. And allthough it's Empire is bulky dismantled, It commands great Loyalty amougst it's former holdsing that is now the commonwealth. (which inclued UK(most power european nation),Canada(a economic and scientific power with a history of dispaortionaly high miltary succes and amries in wartime (i.e.sent 1million troops at start of ww1 at the time having a population of 7mil, and at the end of ww2 with had the second largest Navy in the world with over 300 ships(although they were mostly corvettes,and the current size of our fleet is 34 ships ))) ,Australia(a economic and scientific power),India(nuclear power with large land army),Pakistan(nuclear power with large land army),South Africa(most powerful African nation),New Zealand(....there....ummm....there?).

FYI: full list of commonwealth nations is here: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20724

But does it carry any weight to it? I beg to differ.
I agree that the US needs to be respected by many, and feared by a few, but certainly not admired by all. Why do we need to be? As I've said, we're the only nation that can export security in large amounts. After that, the money flows in, and money knows no nationality. All that has to happen afterwards is based on the indigeonous population's actions, or in this case, Iraq. BTW, I should note that in poll after poll, Iraq respects the US more than the rest of the Arab world. I wouldn't even be surprised if some admiration is also mixed in there, too.
But anyhow, I really do think that if the US thinks it knows best, and has the means and the plan to carry it out, then the US doesn't need to beg the UN for permission. International support is nice, but it certainly isn't needed, unless a country like Poland invaded Iraq for us. But they don't have the power projection capabilities to wage overseas war without our help. Quite frankly, no one does.

The UN is in place to make sure countries dont go in and invade smaller ones that they dont like (USA to Iraq). Sure, Saddam gassed some kurds, doesnt mean you can get countless soldiers/civilians slaughtered decades after the fact. (no one mention WMD, its not up for debate) America invaded a smaller country and the UN did nothing to stop them. Appeasement? This shows the sad state of the world right now, relying soley on the US president for how the world should be run. Might as well crown bush and abolish the UN.

And now, for no apparent reason, heres a bio-terrorism smiley
:gundge:

Oh I agree about that. We are the world's role model. But why are we trying to run to the UN over and over again? Our problem is in our articulation to the world, not our policies. If we can better explain what we're doing and why, the world will be content. But that still doesn't mean we need to seek permission from the world every time we need to do something.
What I mean by articulation, btw, is that we run into the problem of politics vs. policy. The US didn't go into Iraq for WMDs, a brutal dictator, or oil. It was to reset the Middle East, create an economically and politically free environment, and use Iraq as a regional model. But WMDs seem to appeal to Americans, who have images of mushroom clouds. That can't work, anymore. We have to be completely honest in the future. In fact, I hear from non Americans on this forum something along the lines that Bush didn't explain this war good enough. We need to do a better job next time, and the world won't mind us.
We didn't bring it to him. Bush played on our post 9-11 fears by planting the images of mushroom clouds over the capitol and crop dusters spraying us with Bio/Chem WMD's. He pushed our "national survival" button. In short, he lied a huge bald faced lie. This from a man who promised to return honesty and integrity to the office of POTUS. It really makes any sins that Clinton committed fairly venial in comparison. If you take all the Whitewater dealings, his dalliances, his lies about them and even throw in Vince Foster's suicide, you don't rise to the toe nail of the monumental abuse of office Bush has perpetrated.

Revisionist wishful thinking aside, Bush has done more to bring discredit to the integrity of the office than Ahnold's hero, Nixon. Were he to gain a second term and were he to face a real issue that required national resolve: he would not have the trust and confidence of the majority of Americans, let alone the world.

2 things wrong with that.

1:Canada is your most loyal allie(mainy because of our economic dependents on each other) ,the Brits (although on very good terms with the US) are simple your strongest allie. We just don't follow you blindly and we still have great faith in the UN.

2:Birttian is currently the second most powerful nation in the world, and just before for ww2 was notably more powerful that any other nation. And allthough it's Empire is bulky dismantled, It commands great Loyalty amougst it's former holdsing that is now the commonwealth. (which inclued UK(most power european nation),Canada(a economic and scientific power with a history of dispaortionaly high miltary succes and amries in wartime (i.e.sent 1million troops at start of ww1 at the time having a population of 7mil, and at the end of ww2 with had the second largest Navy in the world with over 300 ships(although they were mostly corvettes,and the current size of our fleet is 34 ships ))) ,Australia(a economic and scientific power),India(nuclear power with large land army),Pakistan(nuclear power with large land army),South Africa(most powerful African nation),New Zealand(....there....ummm....there?).

FYI: full list of commonwealth nations is here: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20724
I believe you have a good point. The US has only gone to war with Canada once. Joking aside, it seems a bit juvenile to say who is "best friends". No? Sufficient to say we are at heart close allies and when the going gets bad we are there for each other.

First, I would not accuse you of not having an answer. I have read enough of your posts to be aware that you are well informed and certainly hold established opinions. In short while I may disagree with you on a point yet I respect you.

As for our differing perspectives, we are looking at it from macro/micro perspectives. Your view appears to be that what is good for corporations is good for the working man. While some may be able to turn the misfortune into fortune as you cited - most do not. I am not talking about those with management or technical skills that are transferrable. I am talking about the general shrinkage of prospects the average skilled but not transferrable, semi-skilled but no longer needed and unskilled workers face. Where an economist sees economic efficiencey a working class family sees disaster.

Reagans analogy that a rising tide lifts all boats never quite made the transferrance to the real world. Only the yachts got lifted. In many places in America, the dingys are still beached.
Fair enough. I am a bit of a macromanager. I find it as the best way to be pragmatic in society.

2 things wrong with that.

1:Canada is your most loyal allie(mainy because of our economic dependents on each other) ,the Brits (although on very good terms with the US) are simple your strongest allie. We just don't follow you blindly and we still have great faith in the UN.
Remember what Henry Kissenger said: "There are no enemies or allies, only interests." By using that from one of the great diplomats of the 20th century, it is reasonable to conclude that, at the moment, Britain is our strongest ally. Besides, Canada has more of a little brother/big brother relationship with the US. We fight, then make up, but we always have a love-hate relationship. Britain is more like our best friend than little brother at this point.

2:Birttian is currently the second most powerful nation in the world, and just before for ww2 was notably more powerful that any other nation. And allthough it's Empire is bulky dismantled, It commands great Loyalty amougst it's former holdsing that is now the commonwealth. (which inclued UK(most power european nation),Canada(a economic and scientific power with a history of dispaortionaly high miltary succes and amries in wartime (i.e.sent 1million troops at start of ww1 at the time having a population of 7mil, and at the end of ww2 with had the second largest Navy in the world with over 300 ships(although they were mostly corvettes,and the current size of our fleet is 34 ships ))) ,Australia(a economic and scientific power),India(nuclear power with large land army),Pakistan(nuclear power with large land army),South Africa(most powerful African nation),New Zealand(....there....ummm....there?).

FYI: full list of commonwealth nations is here: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20724
I expect commonwealth nations in general will be more assistence to us than any other nation on the planet. However, Britain spends just $40 billion on defense, while the US may top $500 billion this year. A distant second is China, with $60 billion. The British also don't have the power projection capabilities, and according to many naval strategists (I'm reading a book by one right now), the US navy is the only one able to sustain blue water operations. Britain is a help, but it could never take on another nation alone, except if it were real small or, as in the Falkland Island wars, a very breif conflict.

We didn't bring it to him. Bush played on our post 9-11 fears by planting the images of mushroom clouds over the capitol and crop dusters spraying us with Bio/Chem WMD's. He pushed our "national survival" button. In short, he lied a huge bald faced lie. This from a man who promised to return honesty and integrity to the office of POTUS. It really makes any sins that Clinton committed fairly venial in comparison. If you take all the Whitewater dealings, his dalliances, his lies about them and even throw in Vince Foster's suicide, you don't rise to the toe nail of the monumental abuse of office Bush has perpetrated.

Revisionist wishful thinking aside, Bush has done more to bring discredit to the integrity of the office than Ahnold's hero, Nixon. Were he to gain a second term and were he to face a real issue that required national resolve: he would not have the trust and confidence of the majority of Americans, let alone the world.
He planted hints that his plan was to reform the Middle East, so technically, he wasn't lying. Unethical, certainly. But he wasn't lying, and it doesn't qualify for impeachment. Besides, do we know if Saddam had WMDs? Was there conclusive evidence that he didn't? Sure, non haven't been found yet, but maybe he hid them real well. It may not have been honest, but it was certainly not lying. I notice that the only ones who suggest it are those that also say that the war was wrong. I really think that if you though about it, you'd recognize that a.) there are merits to the war, even if that means you still don't agree with it, and b.) this isn't grounds for Bush to be impeached, because he stated his intentions.
Now we can still have our arguements about whether Iraq was right or wrong, but saying that Bush should be impeached because he lied just isn't true. What I also challenge those that oppose the Iraq war to do is to think of at least one benefit from it, and we'll go from there.
I can name at least one negative thing about it: it has temporarily made the security situation worse for us, and far worse for our troops overseas. In fact, no matter who's president, I can gurantee you that our security situation will get worse before it gets better, but it's now guranteed to get better than even in the nineties.

bump

The signs are there that Kerry will win. Just yesterday, he's fired his campaign staff, and replaced them with Clintonistas. Worse yet, he's finally able to convey a clear stance on Iraq.
Really?

Last I heard he said that he'd vote for invading Iraq again if he knew then what he knew now. Then today he said he would have done not some things different, but all things different.

Does that mean he would not have addressed the UN as Bush did?

I really have no idea what Kerry or his supporters position on Iraq is...

Really?

Last I heard he said that he'd vote for invading Iraq again if he knew then what he knew now. Then today he said he would have done not some things different, but all things different.

Does that mean he would not have addressed the UN as Bush did?

I really have no idea what Kerry or his supporters position on Iraq is...
bump

Wow... you guys are really impressing me. This is the first political thread that I have read that has managed to stay civil. Good form!

I just read a good book entitled "Arts of Power" which is a very interesting book. In the end a government exsists to promote national interests. I hope whoever wins the election will have some success in solidifying our national will. Right now I fear we appear weak because there is a perception that we might waffle on the issue of the War in Iraq and terrorism in general.

A second problem is that we don't have a lot of credibility in the middle east. I wish we had an ally in the region that we could trust to take a larger role in helping with Iraq.

In any case, I feel that time will smooth some of the bumps we have enountered no matter who wins.

Wow... you guys are really impressing me. This is the first political thread that I have read that has managed to stay civil. Good form!

I just read a good book entitled "Arts of Power" which is a very interesting book. In the end a government exsists to promote national interests. I hope whoever wins the election will have some success in solidifying our national will. Right now I fear we appear weak because there is a perception that we might waffle on the issue of the War in Iraq and terrorism in general.

A second problem is that we don't have a lot of credibility in the middle east. I wish we had an ally in the region that we could trust to take a larger role in helping with Iraq.

In any case, I feel that time will smooth some of the bumps we have enountered no matter who wins.
Jordan, I think, is the closest we have to a true ally in the Middle East. They'll greatly benefit from a successful Iraq, and want it to succeed. They are also one of the more liberal nations in the Middle East, and King Abdullah often asks the US for help on these matters. They may be of no practical use, but if you want symbollic use, this is the closest there is in the Middle East. The Saudis may be a candidate, but as long as they get our cash for their oil, they don't care if every nation around them is nuked.

bump