Obama, McCain & the waning American...

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Iraq is draining our resources, and leaving us exposed to other threats with our military fully engaged (and struggling to keep up) in Iraq already.

I don't actually think Iraq is that much of a pull on our resources. Entitlement spending in the 2008 budget is 1.527 trillion (that's 1,000,000,000 x 1527 to look at it another way). Military spending is 626 billion, only 145 of which is the "Global War on Terror."

So the war in terror costs just a shade over 9% of what entitlements costs are. In a budget of roughly 2.9 trillion, the war on terror accounts of half a percent overall, entitlements 52 percent.

What other more pressing military threats are you alluding to? What had we ought to be doing to address them that we are unable to now?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Good post. Contrary to SU, I tend to think that engaging other countries in a positive fashion and being the preeminent global power aren't mutually exclusive. Rather, I think they compliment each other nicely if done appropriately. Just as there is a fine balance between diplomacy and appeasement, there is a fine balance between diplomacy and authoritarianism. Too much of appeasement and too much of authoritarianism contribute to the downfall of a superpower.

It's not what Seattle is preaching.

On the world stage, which other country will fight oppressions?

China?

India?

Not the Euros.

So approaching the world through a practice of appeasement as the naive, ignorant Obama preaches will some how temper oppression. How then?

I see Obama's "just make nice to them" approach as woefully naive and stupid.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Listen up, McCain, Barbara and I are feeding you your themes.

LOL. No matter. Unless he makes significant improvement, poor McCain will be lucky just to tread water in the debates. His performance the last year has been quite underwhelming. His only hope is for a third party candidate to enter and make it more of a roundtable than a head-to-head against Hillary/Obama, both of whom are much better speakers.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not what Seattle is preaching.

On the world stage, which other country will fight oppressions?

China?

India?

Not the Euros.

So approaching the world through a practice of appeasement as the naive, ignorant Obama preaches will some how temper oppression. How then?

I see Obama's "just make nice to them" approach as woefully naive and stupid.

It is the European approach. There are an entire generation of them that don't understand our fixation with the application of force because they have never, not once, in their lifetimes provided for their own defense. Not since the end of WWII. WE have provided for their security since then.

Because they never have to deal with baddies at the end of a bayonette as we do, they don't think it is ever necessary. Now some folks in the USA are beginning to overlook the central facet of the European approach: that it is predicated on American military might.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

It is the European approach. There are an entire generation of them that don't understand our fixation with the application of force because they have never, not once, in their lifetimes provided for their own defense. Not since the end of WWII. WE have provided for their security since then.

Because they never have to deal with baddies at the end of a bayonette as we do, they don't think it is ever necessary. Now some folks in the USA are beginning to overlook the central facet of the European approach: that it is predicated on American military might.

The bad part to this approach is we pay all the costs.

Europe sits on her arse, Japan the same and everybody complains, perhaps correctly so, how we do it. We shoulder the burden and now are not allowed to reap any benefits.

[MikeWaters]

Am I to understand that the longer we stayed in Vietnam, the greater the prestige for the USA, and those that advocated leaving Vietnam were wrong?

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The bad part to this approach is we pay all the costs.

Europe sits on her arse, Japan the same and everybody complains, perhaps correctly so, how we do it. We shoulder the burden and now are not allowed to reap any benefits.

This is true, not just for security issues, but for healthcare technology R & D, as well. The American healthcare consumer underwrites drug developmentt and high-tech healthcare advances for the whole world. (In truth, the Asians are getting pretty aggressive in this area, too).

So... what is the response?

In both cases the American public is stuck with the bill... why doesn't somebody show some leadership and start the ball rolling toward cost equity? Why is it only the US who can provide any kind of military muscle? Why do the Canucks (and everyone else) exploit Big Pharma to get their Rx on the cheap (while we pay through the nose & too frequently have to choose between medicine & food)?

It is time somebody starts to push some of this onto the rest of the world. We can't maintain our economic & military empire indefinitely.

At least with Obama the threat of pullout will cause others to step up (in this case within Iraq, maybe other Arab nations)

With healthcare the threat of moving toward a single-payer system will force Big Pharma to start dealing with other nations in a way that is more equitable for the American consumer.

Status quo has to change... At this point Obama is nothing if not a change agent - it's his entire campaign (so far) and it is catching fire.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Am I to understand that the longer we stayed in Vietnam, the greater the prestige for the USA, and those that advocated leaving Vietnam were wrong?

Vietnam to some extent provides a useful precedent but let's not get carried away. Vietnam had a couple of very different dynamics. First, you had the Chinese backing North Vietnam financially, with armament and personnel, and the nuclear threat. The Soviet Union was waiting in the wings as a potential ally of North Vietnam, which was a given everywhere (just as we were pleased to help the roots of Al Qaeda in the Soviet-Afgham war (they hated us then as much as now)). In short, the war was demonstrably unwinnable. In contrast, as you have noted, we're fighting a bunch of goat herders in Iraq. Second, our military then drafted soldiers, now it's all voluntary. Most Americans consciously or subsonsciously see a a moral distinction there. I think that's not irrational.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

This is true, not just for security issues, but for healthcare technology R & D, as well. The American healthcare consumer underwrites drug developmentt and high-tech healthcare advances for the whole world. (In truth, the Asians are getting pretty aggressive in this area, too).

So... what is the response?

In both cases the American public is stuck with the bill... why doesn't somebody show some leadership and start the ball rolling toward cost equity? Why is it only the US who can provide any kind of military muscle? Why do the Canucks (and everyone else) exploit Big Pharma to get their Rx on the cheap (while we pay through the nose & too frequently have to choose between medicine & food)?

It is time somebody starts to push some of this onto the rest of the world. We can't maintain our economic & military empire indefinitely.

At least with Obama the threat of pullout will cause others to step up (in this case within Iraq, maybe other Arab nations)

With healthcare the threat of moving toward a single-payer system will force Big Pharma to start dealing with other nations in a way that is more equitable for the American consumer.

Status quo has to change... At this point Obama is nothing if not a change agent - it's his entire campaign (so far) and it is catching fire.

How things have changed. In the 19050's-60's George W. Bush would be a liberal and Ma'ak and Obama would be conservatives, at least on foreign policy matters. The democrats set up the paradigm after WWII that you and Dan describe and decry. Though I think to an extent this was brilliant work, some of he best ever done by presidential administrations and helped to bring down Communism, the concept was taken to excess in Vietnam, Iraq, and other places.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

How things have changed. In the 19050's-60's George W. Bush would be a liberal and Ma'ak and Obama would be conservatives, at least on foreign policy matters. The democrats set up the paradigm after WWII that you and Dan describe and decry. Though I think to an extent this was brilliant work, some of he best ever done by presidential administrations and helped to bring down Communism, the concept was taken to excess in Vietnam, Iraq, and other places.

Very true. Many currently lament the blurring of lines, overlaps between the parties, etc.

I guess in many ways, it is the human experience... paradigms are erected & dismantled, perspectives shift.

Ron Paul sounds like Michael Moore, at least on foreign policy.