Obama Reelected

Thoughts, feelings?

Go Bronco!!!! I hope he will be able to wrestle the idiots, who intensified the economic depression by refusing to pass a bipartisan budget, into submission. Maybe the new congress will allow that.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49464221/?What_Is_the_Fiscal_Cliff

I think the Republicans lost this election as much as Obama won it.

Women being raped at the behest of or by heavenly beings is not a topic for a campaign speech, I would think. A lot of weirdos got to display their stuff and found out their opinions were considered rational only in their deluded insular clique. IMOHO

Limbaugh was desperately reassuring the women yesterday that no Republican would ever, ever want to limit or take away their access to contraceptives or abortions. Seriously, to win, they were willing to throw away every issue they believe in. And then it didn't work.

The next few weeks should prove interesting.

Thank god.

Straight after a 'battle' all you see is the wreckage.
Your Congress hasn't changes, has it?

Yes, the next few months will be...interesting?

#3: I was going to vote for Obama pretty much no matter who the Republicans put up, but it seems like they could have found someone more appealing then Mitt Romney. The whole Bain Capital stuff (and 47% and missing tax returns) on one hand; the position sprints between Romney, governor of Massachusetts, Romney, aspiring Republican candidate, and Romney, presidential candidate on another. Romney was almost the bad part of Clinton and Gore; the sleazy politician feel without the warm affability; the lack of personality without the impression of honesty.

not to mention that cretinous turd Ryan who was running with him.

I am so glad Obama was reelected. The alternative was frightening for women specifically and all of us globally.

Very very glad that the Americans reelected Obama!!!

Did anyone notice that the "popular vote" - the actual national total of votes, was not even displayed during the tallies displayed on the TV??? Jeez , talk about being disenfranchised.

I think most of the rest of the world will be very relieved at Obama's re-election.

>12 DugsBooks: Did anyone notice that the "popular vote" - the actual national total of votes, was not even displayed during the tallies displayed on the TV?

I've been switching between BBC and CNN here in Nairobi and the popular vote was displayed on both channels, with a great deal of comment on how close it was.

Despite the irrationality of the campaigns, reason won.

the "popular vote" was not even displayed . . ."

" (it). . .WAS displayed on both (CNN and BBC) with a great deal of comment"

I heard little or no comment, but youʻre right, John, that it was displayed. ----Also on Bing, which was one of the few sites I could get.
(IʻM dependent on what this computer can pick of TV coverage -- no working TV set, and "Bing" which I havenʻt heard of before, was one of them. I didnʻt hear much commentary. I think there were some sidebars
recalling 2000 and 1888 which also had the loser of the popular vote winning the electoral college.
I predicted a Romney victory -- and was praying to
be proved wrong. And thank God I was.

I am so glad Obama was reelected. The alternative was frightening for women specifically and all of us globally.

I'm sure the alternative was...basically, exactly the same, as always.

#16: I don't get it; why bother coming here then? Stop fighting the inevitable and accept it. If you believe it can be changed... I don't understand how anyone can combine that level of cynicism and that level of idealism.

Sure hope this means that attacks on Obamacare cease. Last month introduced a "pre-existing condition" into my immediate family.

Reasons for optimism.

* It's a good thing Obama will win the popular vote. Popular/electoral splits are bad news for the country.

* I'm very pleased about Maine, and Maryland.

Reasons for pessimism.

* For various reasons having nothing to do with left and right, second terms are usually disappointments. Obama won, but he doesn't have any sort of mandate—the victory was narrow, and he won it without much in the way of a program for the future. Meanwhile, Republicans, who control the House and have a Senate filibuster, are not going to be in a giving mood. With the electorate so split, and their base so angry, Republicans will have little incentive to reach across the aisle. We're up for four more years of stalemate and angry division.

* Four years is a long time, but the economy is not recovering very fast. The election won't change that. I fear we're in for a "new normal" of tepid growth, with a continuing background of ruinously spending our children and grandchildren into debt.

* Others may not find this a bad thing, but I think the Republican party is in serious trouble. Romney had a chance tonight, but a future Romney won't. The demographics of the thing are slipping away from the Republicans. Romney did worse among Latinos than any Republican in 20 years, and the percentage is going nowhere but up, taking state after state out of Republican grasp. The youth vote is another problem, and sign that things can only get worse.

To get Latinos back, Republicans are going to need to walk back the dog on immigration—back to where the party was in, say, 2000. I suspect this will happen, but it will be long fight—the Republican base is unified behind the most extreme anti-immigrant positions. To win back young people, same-sex marriage has to go away as an issue. I don't see that happening; we're in for a state-by-state fight lasting years. Overall, to get back in the game, Republicans are going to need a Clinton—a moderate to modernize and moderate the party. I don't see that guy out there. Maybe Christie?

* Although I don't like his economic policy, I have a lot of respect for Obama as a leader in crises. Unlike the last guy, he's not an idiot. He's going to need leadership and brains to deal with Iran, and an upcoming Israeli decision-point. If Israel decides they need to attack, we're looking at another war, $10 gas and a scalding political battle at home.

Inevitable. As far as the electoral college vote the math was never on Romney's side and Mitt was not a compelling candidate nor were any of the other Republican primary candidates with the exception of maybe Ron Paul. The problem for the GOP is the wide divide between the wall st. end of the party and the trailer park tea party go to church every sunday end. I don't think there is a republican that can get all those diverse elements together into one cohesive group. In that sense Obama wins almost by default and a good chance that Obama's successor will do the same. Biggest losers IMO are the Koch brothers. Karl Rove too.

20>

Winners: Obama, Biden, Big Bird, Silver, Christie

Losers: Romney, Ryan, Ailes, Rove, Barone, Rasmussen, Netanyahu

I think the most significant thing, and a good one, was the voting on marijuana legalization. It's obviously only the start of the process, but it's a step in the right direction of no longer throwing huge amounts of money into the garbage.

Another thing Obama does that is often overlooked is that he diffuses his enemies not to shove them aside but to make allies out of them. When he defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008 he then brought her on board as his secretary of state. He welcomed Bill's support and insight (then) in spite of the fact that Bill said VERY mean things about him in that year's campaign. He was very bipartisan with Chris Christie last week, even though Christie had said very stern things about Obama virtually all summer. Suddenly, in spite of their differences, Christie was Obama's biggest fan.

And then tonight, in his acceptance speech, he said he hopes to sit down with Mitt Romney over the next few weeks to see what they can work on together. He doesn't have to do that--and I can't remember any president ever even suggesting such a thing before. He holds no grudges, carries little animosity. I can only assume that he's the same way with other countries--doing everything possible to find what they can agree on rather than dwelling on their differences.

And Tim's right: the GOP needs to try something else--not necessarily something BETTER, just different, perhaps.

20, 21 (winners & losers)

Re Koch brothers, looks like money can't necessarily buy the presidency. How did it do down ticket? Where will it go next time, I wonder.

Bishops! We'll be hearing what now??

#23: I can only assume that he's the same way with other countries--doing everything possible to find what they can agree on rather than dwelling on their differences.

In other words, you decided to ignore his past four years of brown rice diplomacy and decided to substitute in some idyllic gobbledegook to rationalize your irrational decision process.

But no, your song and dance about how he's being all lovey-dovey with his political opponents is just a bunch of haggiographical horseshit. Perhaps you chose to forget the fighting between Obama and Clinton in the primaries and that they were pretty much neck and neck making some kind of political hand-me-down from the eventual winner more than obligatory. And let's not forget how he gave Petraeus the CIA position to prevent him from spinning his vocal criticism of Obama into the beginnings of a political campaign. I mean, who knows what kind of damage he's been doing at the helm of the CIA (not that Obama would object), but I guess it's OK as long it doesn't damage Obama's reputation among his dumb-fuck supporters who faun over his political posturing as if it accomplished anything but further his political career.

> 17

I don't get it; why bother coming here then?

Because he, like you, is entitled to have and express an opinion. The subject line of this thread does not read "Obama supporters only". And note that this group is called "Pro AND Con" (emphasis mine).

> 24

Re Koch brothers, looks like money can't necessarily buy the presidency. How did it do down ticket?

Well, Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut, despite throwing tens of millions of her own money at it. Guess money can't buy you love or a Senate seat.

Everyone seemed to focus on Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, but it looks to me like Obama would have won without any of those electoral votes.

>19 timspalding: Meanwhile, Republicans, who control the House and have a Senate filibuster, are not going to be in a giving mood. With the electorate so split, and their base so angry, Republicans will have little incentive to reach across the aisle.

That anger in their own party is what's strangling the GOP. They seem unable to move past dogmatic positions and lack any clear mission or idea of how to be a party for the America that is now, rather than the America that was sixty years ago. There's a vacuum where there used to be vision.

19>> I assume you are happy about Maryland not because of representation, but question results. You don't have to live in Maryland.

#26: The subject line of this thread does not read "Obama supporters only".

Which misses my point altogether. It's not whether or not he is an Obama supporter at all; it's that he's one of those people who hangs around politics groups and tells us that all the politicians are exactly the same. It's a tiring and frustrating denial of reality. Especially when combined with the belief in a libertarian messiah who can escape all this.

That anger in their own party is what's strangling the GOP. They seem unable to move past dogmatic positions and lack any clear mission or idea of how to be a party for the America that is now, rather than the America that was sixty years ago. There's a vacuum where there used to be vision.

Reagan won 49 states in 1984—everything but Mondale's home state, even Massachusetts! And Bush won 31 states in 2004. So your math is a bit off. But I think you're right—the Republican is hobbled by extremism and has been left behind by demographics. While it's quite possible the Democrats will get fat and lazy—staying in power too long tends to weaken and corrupt, I think they need more than a bad administration. The fundamentals have shifted. They need a Clinton-like figure to refocus the party.

I'm no fan of Gingrich, but his thoughts are pretty good about what needs to happen: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/07/gingrich-i-was-wrong/

I assume you are happy about Maryland not because of representation, but question results.

Yes, same-sex marriage.

>32 timspalding: the Republican is hobbled by extremism and has been left behind by demographics.

I think if they stopped talking about "traditional family values" and started talking about things like self-sufficiency and personal responsibility it would be a start.

#28: He needed at least one of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, or Colorado, all of which he took by less than 4 percentage points. 165,000 voters changing their minds, spread among those four states, would have given the election to Romney. (NM instead of CO gets us down to under 150K). Looking at *, 150K is pretty tight; no election in 30 years that didn't have George W. Bush in it could be switched with that many votes. (I also eyeballed it, so it's possible careful work could get it down below 150K.)

* http://web.archive.org/web/20110608035100/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections....

Best I heard of this election ....... More young people turned out than in 2008. Very good sign !
Next best......people are willing to stand in line for over 6 hours, without violence or undue commotion, rather than having their voices surpressed.
Third : My state voted in the first openly gay Senator. In a discussion with a Republican aquaintance this morning the subject came up....his comment : "Wow, so you voted for someone because they are a lady licker" ? Some people just don't get it.... they do not understand bias and can not see that they are filled with it !

We owe so much to all those who have made this possible....those who paid the "poll tax" and the women and men who spent years not feeling free to be who and what they are.

and then there is this : http://gawker.com/5958442/

It is a good day !

> 1

At midnight a friend sent an email with just the words "Woo Hoo". I knew exactly what she meant and how she felt.

Being lazy, always quoting the best, and since my email in reply to her is all I have to say I reproduce it here:

Woo Hoo indeed. Strictly metaphorically speaking, the nation dodged a full metal jacket bullet coated in fresh cow crap. Even though we are all still going to die one day at least we can now die with some dignity. That certainly is meaningful to me in the relative sense, I can god damn guarantee you.

One interested comparison of stats that is being touted a lot by the talking heads:

In 1988 George Bush Sr. got 60% of the white vote and won with 426 electoral votes.

In 2012 Mitt Rmoney got 60% of the white vote and lost in getting only 206 electoral votes (234 if Florida is stolen).

From the exit polling it can be seen that the future in America belongs to women, Latinos and homosexuals. Your non-white grandchildren will have half a chance to grow up in a semi-decent world and (though a very white heterosexual male) I could not be fucking happier about that.

I see my alma mater still has plenty of fucked-up shithead racists - maybe not as many as in my day, but still......

http://www.wmctv.com/story/20025451/riots-brew-on-ole-miss-campus

And, in anticipation of a President Castro (of the U.S.) in 2016, this is the two word headline today on Huffington Post:

¡VIVA OBAMA!

.... Buenas noches mi amiga.

>20 lriley:: I don't think there is a republican that can get all those diverse elements together into one cohesive group.

I find this a very interesting statement, as for the longest time, it was made not of Republicans but of Democrats -- for the Democrats were (are?) the party of the "everybody else" that manage to get the GLBT and pro-abortion folks to vote together with the Catholics and the unions.

26> And note that this group is called "Pro AND Con" (emphasis mine).

Yep. Progressive AND Conservative. So by that logic someone who is not on either side of that dichotomy doesn't belong here. (But then I don't buy that logic).

#25 " he gave Petraeus the CIA position to prevent him from spinning his vocal criticism of Obama into the beginnings of a political campaign."

Fact is Petreaeus is a kick ass general. He was mentioned in some NPR interview of an author of a book just out on military leadership - how generals have not been held accountable for their performance on many occasions. He gave viet nam as an example where the big officers were rotated to "nam , every 6 months?, while the enlisted men stayed there in the freaking trenches. This gave the surplus officers a chance to advance their careers.

With the conflicts in Iraqi and Afghanistan the troops and officers rotated in & out at the same time. I need to look up the title of that book.

::edit:: Aha! The Generals American Military Command from World War II to Today by Thomas E. Ricks

he's one of those people who hangs around politics groups and tells us that all the politicians are exactly the same

Not exactly, but pretty nearly. If, say, 100 years from now, someone handed you ("you" being someone living 100 years from now) a description of what recent two presidents actually did during their term (leaving off specific well-known incidents) do you think you could tell which was the Democrat and which the Republican?

Even if they want to be different, the system makes it nearly impossible. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing, since mostly the direction in which any politician wants to be different is even worse than the status quo!)

Especially when combined with the belief in a libertarian messiah who can escape all this.

Yes, that would be denial of reality...but since I don't believe in any messiah, libertarian or otherwise...

the condiitions/environments of people are ever evolving things. Status quo idealism is death in today's politics. A candidate giving the public visions/dreams is much more likely to win than one who doesn't--whether those visions/dreams ever become a realities is another thing. Falling back on traditional family values did not cut it in 2012 except with older and whiter voters. Looking at the first black president winning a second term, looking at the victory of the first lesbian senator, looking at the approval or recreational marijuana use in Colorado and Washington just for examples--also looking at the growth of the latino vote and the gay vote. However you feel about JFK, Nixon, Reagan or Clinton the American electorate dynamic has changed quite a lot and nostalgia for how things were during those presidencies is not going to get you anywhere now. You grow with the times. Disconnecting yourself from large segments of the voting population will not get you elected.

I find this a very interesting statement, as for the longest time, it was made not of Republicans but of Democrats -- for the Democrats were (are?) the party of the "everybody else" that manage to get the GLBT and pro-abortion folks to vote together with the Catholics and the unions.

I was talking to a party-line Democrat yesterday who expressed complete and utter dismay with both candidates, yet voted for a Republican for the first time in her life. As a Catholic, abortion and the "persecution" of Christians under Obama was her sole issue.

I was heartened by the things lriley cited - black president re-elected, first gay woman senator, marijuana legalized, big increase in Latino vote. Also gay marriage legalized. And Puerto Ricans voted that they want to become a state. Any group of people wanting to join the Union instead of secede, I think is a positive sign. Bottom line, the electorate is definitely changing.

Alas, California's GMO-labeling law was defeated, so it may also be mutating.

>42 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

One of the big losers last night were the bishops, who, while often emphasizing the ways Republicans missed the mark on Catholic social teaching, largely pushed for Romney and against gay marriage. But Catholics went for Obama, especially hispanics, who are the future of the church as much as they are the future of the US. Catholics in Maine went for gay marriage. Maryland, the cradle of American Catholicism, voted for gay marriage and Minnesota, a stronghold, defeated an attempt to ban it. While Catholics, when polled, appear to agree with the bishops that Catholic institutions should not be forced to provide birth control against their consciences, the issue did not appear to decide many votes.

Speaking as a Catholic, I think the church will benefit from gay marriage being in law and thereby dying as a divisive political issue. The church also opposes divorce and cohabitation, but it does so exclusively through normal ministering and teaching. If the church were trying to pass bills making it illegal for anyone—Catholic or not—to live with their girlfriend, they'd be hemorrhaging adherents, and lose all influence in the larger culture. They need to learn that lesson with gay marriage.

Alas, California's GMO-labeling law was defeated, so it may also be mutating

I voted against it. Not because I don't support the thrust of it, but because I heard it was a crappily written law.

I'm a little concerned that a Catholic who considers abortion the central deciding factor in how she votes just now switched parties. Has she really been paying so little attention? I don't think that the Democrats have ever hid their party position that abortion should be safe and legal. What reasoning did she present for being fine with abortion until last week?

What was the GMO-Labeling law? Genetically Manufactured Organisms?

Food stuff. I have an FB friend (who has not yet unfriended me) who is bigtime anti Monsanto and others. GMO warrants regular comments from her.

#43--basically I don't think a movement like the tea party can close the gap for the Republican party. They definitely need to rethink where they are going. They were crushed by the Latino vote which is the fastest growing dynamic out there. They almost have to reach out to groups they've been driving away. Some people begin voting for a party and they'll never stop. Can't afford to let that fastest growing voting dynamic do that. It's self destructive and it's bad enough that we have only two viable political parties in this country--IMO it would be worse if there were only one.

I think my favorite discussion of Genetically Modified Foodstuffs came when I worked at a restaurant that had an Heirloom Tomato Caprese Salad on the menu. The producer that supplied the tomatoes informed us that he had to make sure to plant the various strains a good distance apart. Otherwise the bees and the wind would genetically modify his produce.

The Republican Party needs to change a bit I think. And I am a Republican. Some have suggested that the party needs to be truer to its conservative ideals. Interestingly enough, I agree with the statement only I don't think I agree with what it means to be conservative.

As far as deep soul searching being needed, I think it is needed by both parties. But not especially for Republicans just because they lost this election.

Is a less than 2% margin indicative of a party that has lost significance?

It's not just the two percent. It also the fact that many felt that Obama was low hanging fruit (no racial or sexual innuendos in that) and the R's could not nominate someone who could beat him. Also, as much as they may want to ignore the changing demographics of our country, they cannot, and some of them are highly aware of that.

And given that four states voted to support, in some form or another, same sex marriage, the handwriting is on the wall for "Traditional Republican Values."

Also noted is the fact that NO ONE from the last Republican administration was welcome at the GOP convention this year. When they last had power, they blew it. Why did not Bush play the same role at the GOP convention that Clinton (who was wildly cheered) did at the Democratic convention?

And add to that the fact that at least a part of the GOP, the Tea Party party, is pretty much out of control. This looks like a party that needs to do some major reforming if they want to remain relevent.

That said, the Alaska GOP won a significant victory last night. Fortunately for me, I ended up with a new job a few weeks ago, and am no longer in the legislative business. My former boss lost last night, as did The Redhead's boss. (The Redhead just took a job with Barnes and Noble as the Manager of Community Relationships and Outreach.)

Congrats on the new job, Arctic-Stranger. I hope it's one you'll enjoy.

Their soul searching then has to do with selecting better candidates. None of those who ran for the nomination inspired me.

Perhaps the point could be turned the other way. It was a close election despite that the Republicans gave the incumbent President low hanging fruit to win, given all the advantages of an incumbent.

And I also offer congratulations on the new job.

Thanks. I am doing group therapy for emotionally disturbed adolescents. I run about eight groups a week. (And the jokes about politicians being emotionally disturbed adolescents may commence.)

Actually though, my boss was a decent, intelligent man, who had some pretty good ideas for energy independence and relief in Alaska. He fought hard for increased school funding, and for the abilty of the average Alaskan to succeed financially. He jump started a big hydro project, which was mothballed in the '80s, and refused to acquiese to our governor's insane plan to give about $2 worth of tax revenues back to the oil companies.

Sen. Joe Thomas will be missed, and I for one am proud to have been on his staff.

#40: If, say, 100 years from now, someone handed you ("you" being someone living 100 years from now) a description of what recent two presidents actually did during their term (leaving off specific well-known incidents) do you think you could tell which was the Democrat and which the Republican?

Why would I? I don't even know that Democratic and Republican 100 years from now will mean anything more then Whig does today. Why is all that is important defined as being Democratic or Republican? Fixing New Orleans' levees wouldn't have been a Democratic or Republican act, and more frustratingly wouldn't have been someone anyone ever thought to make a big deal about.

>44 timspalding:: "But Catholics went for Obama"

According to the exit polls as reported by NBC, Catholics went 50% Obama, 48% Romney -- in other words, the "Catholic" vote perfectly mirrored the vote of the general population, indicating that there really is no such thing as the "Catholic vote".

On genetically modified organisms / food:

I would just point out that pretty much all the fruits and vegetables that we eat are genetically modified -- that's what domestication is. Those stone age folks who domesticated grain? They did it by hybridizing different species to produce the best crop -- and hybridization is genetic modification.

Is a less than 2% margin indicative of a party that has lost significance?

No. And, of course, the Republicans have the House. But demographics played a large part in Romney's defeat, and the demographic situation just gets worse and worse for Republicans.

The Redhead just took a job with Barnes and Noble as the Manager of Community Relationships and Outreach

Cool!

And contrats on your job.

According to the exit polls as reported by NBC, Catholics went 50% Obama, 48% Romney -- in other words, the "Catholic" vote perfectly mirrored the vote of the general population, indicating that there really is no such thing as the "Catholic vote"

There are a couple of Catholic votes, but I wouldn't agree that just because a group's votes mirror the electorate in a given election doesn't mean it has no "vote." The Catholic vote is turned off and on in certain ways, and is worth appealing to in those ways.

Richard, given that this was biggest recession since Great Depression--and unemployment rate of 7.9% (?), I think advantages were all with challenger, don't you think?

Yes and no, because Obama could make a convincing case that all the up was his and all the down Bush's. I don't agree, but the case was there to make.

#54 all the advantages of an incumbent

Richard, given that this was biggest recession since Great Depression--and unemployment rate of 7.9% (?), I think advantages were all with challenger, don't you think?

It's a dirty, rotten shame that Obama won. It would have been a dirty, rotten shame if Romney had won. It's also a dirty, rotten shame that either of them ever got so close to the Oval Office.

>57 nathanielcampbell: I would just point out that pretty much all the fruits and vegetables that we eat are genetically modified -- that's what domestication is. Those stone age folks who domesticated grain? They did it by hybridizing different species to produce the best crop -- and hybridization is genetic modification.

That's a red herring. Selecting for specific traits like by breeding or attempting to increase yields by grafting is "genetic modification" in the same sense that wearing glasses and having eye surgery are both techniques to make you see better. If the glasses give you a headache you can try another pair, but if you are going in for surgery, the guy with the scalpel and the laser better know what the hell he is doing.

I am not knee-jerk against GMO because it is scary science, (just as I am not automatically against nuclear power because I'm afraid of mushroom clouds on the horizon) but I am suspicious of our ability to truly understand the ramifications of what we're doing. We're children playing with matches, and I think it behooves us to be overly overly cautious.

59> It could be that Obama is comparable to FDR, who also won with similarly poor economic numbers. Republicans said "it never happens." It did, again.

but if you are going in for surgery, the guy with the scalpel and the laser better know what the hell he is doing

But surely that's an argument for regulations on scientific work on genetic modification, not for a state requiring labeling. The eye surgeon had better be an expert. The buy who buys Special K in California is not really in the position of the eye surgeon. Rather, they seem to me in the position of fanatical anti-vivisectionists.

>63 timspalding: But surely that's an argument for regulations on scientific work on genetic modification, not for a state requiring labeling.

Well, it goes without saying that the doctor isn't practicing without a license from the state. That is a kind of labeling, is it not?

I am not particularly paranoid about what's in Special K myself, but I do think caution is in order when we monkey directly with the genetics of food. Science is notorious for setting off all sorts of unintended consequences.

I think one thing that maybe was more significant than the Obama/Romney %'s of the popular vote was that there were 33 Senate seats up for grabs and 23 of them were held by democrats. A year ago the expected outcome was that the republicans had a great chance to take several of them and very possibly be the majority party in the Senate. Instead they wind up the whole process a negative 2. Candidates that were seen as very vulnerable--e.g. Claire McCaskill survived even though Missouri went comfortably Romney. Losing Indiana is a disaster for republicans as well as that seat had been held for a long time by a more moderate republican Richard Lugar. In both these cases the GOP lost those seats which they should have won handily pretty much because of crazy talk by their tea party affiliated candidates. They spent millions upon millions of $ trying to unseat Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Karl Rove had a meltdown last night on FOX over Ohio being called too soon for Obama but behind all of that was all the work he put in for the Koch brothers coordinating the attacks on Brown. For the republican party this was a huge opportunity that was absolutely missed. A lot easier to defend 10 seats instead of 23.

Rove's future career in politics evaporated in a very public setting. He helped his big donors create one job: a second term for the POTUS.

The GMO issue is a joke. Most of the unwashed masses don't care what is in the food as long as they think it tastes good and is filling and the price is right, similar in many ways to how swine live their lives, and with the same results.

The hippies who run the food coop near me are all worked up about GMOs. They aren't rednecks, they're just a different kind of ignorant paranoids.

Personally I look forward to the day when the mad scientists at Monsanto will cross a spider with a horse. Then, if it bites you, you can ride it to the hospital.

BTW, has anyone taken a close look at Karl Rove lately? Or Sheldon Adelson? I think they may be GMOs.

#57: According to the exit polls as reported by NBC, Catholics went 50% Obama, 48% Romney -- in other words, the "Catholic" vote perfectly mirrored the vote of the general population, indicating that there really is no such thing as the "Catholic vote".

The Catholic vote, no. But let's look at the complete exit poll.

Obama / Romney / % of population
Protestant 37 62 29
Catholic 50 48 25
Mormon 21 78 2
Other Christian 50 49 23
Jewish 69 30 2
Muslim - - 1
Other 73 24 7
None 70 26 12

Or sorted with percent for Obama: Mormon (21%), Protestant (37%), Catholic (50%), Other Christian (50%), Jewish (69%), None (70%), Other (73%). So you can't just lump all Christians into one group and approach them the same way. I think this data makes clear that Catholics don't respond to the same issues Protestants do, and that a candidate needs to approach that 25% of the population in their own way.

Of course, the fact that 29% of Catholics are Hispanic, and less then 10% of other Christian groups are Hispanic, surely has an impact. (The Pew numbers separate out Historically Black Churches, so figuring minorities as a whole is more complex.) (And for some reason I thought the Jehovah's Witnesses to be lily-white, where as they're less then 48% white.)

#60: It's also a dirty, rotten shame that either of them ever got so close to the Oval Office.

Why? Besides disagreements about politics, and looney stuff like his Muslim birth certificate, I've never seen anything wrong with Obama. Is this that you don't think someone with his political positions should have got close, or is there something about the man personally?

By "Protestant" they've got to mean evangelical Christian, because Protestants are more than 29% and whatever Christians are left after Protestant and Catholic—Orthodox, some Armenians and Copts?—are not 23%!

margd,

No, I think incumbency has a massive advantage - generally no damaging primary, greater visibility of the office, the power of the office, an ability to control the news focus to a significant extent, much longer time to prepare, likely greater money. I am sure others more politically astute can list many more incumbent advantages.

Polls seemed to indicate, I think, that voters generally blamed the economic woes on Bush. That might have carried even more to Romney by party association. So I am not sure whether the economic struggles hurt the President more or Romney.

Why would I? I don't even know that Democratic and Republican 100 years from now will mean anything more then Whig does today.

No, I'm not talking about D or R 100 years from now, I'm talking about D or R today (the 100 years perspective is just so you won't recognize otherwise-irrelevant specifics that would give away which was which with presidents you'd lived through)

Or the pollers could mean they handed a form saying "Protestant / Catholic / Mormon / Other Christian" to people and counted the people as they checked themselves off.

#73: That's because you would have licked Bush's fat ass if only he had a "D" next to his name.

Ah, yes, way to raise the rhetoric. When I ask what you see wrong with Obama, use it as a chance not to answer the question, but to insult me.

GMOs have potential for unintended consequences in the field and in the wild. For example, insect pests become resistant to corn with Bt trait. I think I've also read that the trait has spread to nearby regular crops? (Per Wikipedia, Bt or Bacillus thuringiensis is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, commonly used as a biological pesticide. I've used it myself against cabbage worms.)

A Minnesota scientist expert in lab and aquaculture controls worries that "Frankenfish" escaping into wild populations may out-compete or otherwise displace native salmon.

Australia, which like America, is plagued with introduced carp species, is developing a "daughterless carp" control technique, in which release of large numbers of the modified fish can control or even eliminate a population. North American biologists considering the technique tell me it can't harm in the absence of extensive stocking programs, but I worry that the gene could find its way back to Asia where the carp originate and are an important foodstuff. The principal Australian investigator writes: "Options for including an ‘off-switch’ in the construct, as an ultimate safety feature for the technology were assessed. Advice from stakeholders indicated that this not a useful feature for the technology." ( http://www.invasiveanimals.com/research/goals/goal-4/4f3/) Crikey!

#75: When I ask what you see wrong with Obama, use it as a chance not to answer the question, but to insult me.

And now you're bullshitting about desiring answers when you've already been exposed to plenty of the sick shit Obama's gotten up to over the years.

See, you could have said "I don't like Obama's extrajudicial killings, but otherwise he's grrrreat!" Or...

"I don't like that Obama refused to sign an LGBT non-discrimination order against government contractors and then gave a meaningless statement about his belief in marriage equality just a couple weeks after to cover it up, but otherwise he's grrrreat!"

"I don't like that Obama knowingly refused to read a report about why the Afghan surge would be the wrong thing to do, but otherwise he's grrrreat!"

"I don't like that he's been prosecuting whistleblowers more than anyone else before him, but otherwise he's grrrreat!"

"I don't like that he's treated Bradley Manning like shit and proclaimed him guilty before being proven so, but otherwise he's grrrreat!"

"I don't like the fact that he only left Iraq kicking and screaming because Maliki refused to continue granting soldiers amnesty, but otherwise he's grrrreat!"

"I don't like that four days after Iran declared the establishment of the Qom nuclear enrichment facility with the requisite amount of advance notice according to their international agreements that Obama and his fellow French and British fucktards announced to the world that they had caught Iran 'hiding' the Qom facility, but otherwise he's grrrreat!"

"I don't like that Obama signed off on selling arms to Bahrain in the wake of the Bahraini government's violent attacks against protestors during the Arab Spring, but otherwise he's grrrreat!"

"I don't like the fact that Obama propped up the Lybian rebels to effect yet another violent regime change which has resulted in the systemic abuse of black African migrant workers by rebels and a coup in Mali when Gaddafi's disbanded Tuareg fighters returned to Mali with their new Lybian military toys, but otherwise he's grrrreat!"

"I don't like that he signed the NDAA, but he said in his signing statement that we can 'trust' him, so I take that back!"

But as you say, you've never seen anything wrong with Obama, thus showing just how much of a zombie you are. As someone else said, this is the Pro and Con group. It sure as hell ain't the Obama drone bullshit group.

> 69 -- Yes. I suspect there is something wrong with anyone who claims the right to kill people without trial. Election 2012 is the first in my memory in which one candidate was proud to be a known war criminal and mass murderer and the other candidate publicly aspired to be a war criminal and mass murderer.

You must be very young.

that religious break down is a bit is odd I might assume, the Baptists are in the "Other" group along with the Seventh Day Adventists, and the remaining apostolic churches. but they seem unlikely supporters
of Abortion. I suspect we are seeing casual Christians having to self select their churches category, and not knowing what the party lines are plumping for "Other". which leads to the less knowledgeable people are about their church the more likely they are to be pro abortion.

Its interesting that I have been discussing politics with emotionally disturbed children for the past three days, kids that are prone to violent behavior, and have impulse control issues, and no one said anything close to kissing someone's fat ass. Even the most racist kid was able to talk about Obama is terms that avoided escalating behavior.

>80 SimonW11: the more likely they are to be pro abortion

Or perhaps not "pro abortion" as such but simply not ready to support legislation which limits other people's freedom?

Some Americans have always been happy to limit the freedom of others in the name of....(fill in the blank).

But there are those who support choice (in many areas), despite their personal preferences. They tend to be quieter, and not as much attention is paid to them.

Ah, the "rights for me, but not for thee" brigade.

I would be one of those people who think that abortion is not always the best way to deal with a pregnancy. When my ex was pregnant at the age of 40 we both agreed not to have testing done to determine the health of the fetus, because regardless of the outcome we would not have had an abortion. However that was our decision. I would not want to codify that for every person in every situation.

Libertarians respond:

"Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who voted Democrat

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.
I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.
Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job. Co-workers who voted for Obama. Simply don't talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere. . ."

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only....

You think this could catch on? I am excited! Can we get the word out to all Libertarians on this?

87> Idaho awaits them with open arms.

Too close to Alaska. Can we send them to New Hampshire...oh wait, they went for Obama. I guess Idaho will do.

There are no Democrats in Idaho. I think.

#77--a fairly good selection of critiques that can be made against Obama IMO. Personally I prefer having Obama win a 2nd term than a Romney presidency but I still have to say his first term was not very good and a second term is not very promising vis-a-vis that litany of sins. Could Romney really be worse? I think so--which just goes to show how fucked up we are--again an opinion. A lot of people are happy about where we are.

In any case I note that a lot of your examples are about curtailing freedoms both here and abroad. To go back to the Occupy demonstrations--he sat on his hands and hardly made a peep--actually his attorney general coordinated much of the police brutality. The freedom to demonstrate against power whether those demonstrations come from the left or the right or wherever is fundamental to a free society. Giving law enforcement carte blanche to beat up people, gas, mace or taser them--shoot rubber bullets at them or even generally intimidate people from expressing anger at government--whether local, state or federal was shameful.

I certainly do not agree with everything Obama has done, even though I voted for him--twice.

I would like to see how Holder "coordinated much of the police brutality." I am not sure the attorney general has THAT much power, except in the minds of those who want something from him.

>92 Arctic-Stranger:

His fleet of UN black helicopters can't be everywhere at once!

The Attorney General had a full plate, from running guns to Mexican drug cartels to chasing Julian Assange into Gitmo. This would leave little time for the day-to-day oppression of the Occupyistas.

The next time people demonstrate in parks he'll just use the hurricane generator again.

>95 Amtep:

Like he did against Romneymentum. Crafty, crafty man.

82> opps I think I used the wrong sides code words.

I think the tone and measure of police actions concerning the "occupy" actions were more determined on a state level. All the newspaper articles here, where the Democratic convention was held and a big banking center outside of NYC, seemed to indicate that- many measures were voted into effect by the city council etc. for example.

As a matter of fact the news crews for all those events were desperately following poor hoarse demonstrators around waiting for them to do something photogenic. Some video clips even, evidently an editing error, showed that there were more media people at the event than demonstrators.

85> Are there people that think abortion is always the best way to deal with a pregnancy?

#99:

Yes! http://www.vhemt.org/

The Church of Euthanasia had a similar stance ("we're not pro-choice, we're pro-abortion") but they don't seem to be around any more.

This is the great thing about LT - exposure to new ideas.

Here is a very valid point I found in the VHEMT site. It is very hard to argue against this. It is from the section about whether we must cease having sexual intercourse.

"Please note: the above shows how statistics may be manipulated. If we approach the equation from the other end, more than 99% of us were started by sexual intercourse."

Shame on the USA and VA http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com

#101 Success for The Church of Euthanasia!!

Ideas with built in extinction reminds me of a China history course I took many years ago. The Prof. explained there was a sect of warriors who specialized in only defense, of fortified cities etc. traveling from conflict to conflict. They became extinct when one emperor took over all of China.

> 79 -- You're right. I'm very young. I'm only 64 years old and I only did 4 years in the Marines (1969-72) and I only made sergeant after 2 1/2 years in service. I'm not gonna tell you all the things I did because it's none of your business, but I will tell you that I am taken aback by the eagerness with which Bush and Obama together trashed the U.S. Constitution and with how willing so many are to cheer the two of them on while they do the trashing.

A lot of people around the world lately get the idea that being an American is a thing any decent person ought to be ashamed of and I get the idea that they are correct.

A lot of people around the world lately get the idea that being an American is a thing any decent person ought to be ashamed of and I get the idea that they are correct.

There are different ways to love your country, and insisting on only one style, or even one stream of styles is just....unAmerican!

Fact check, please. Although I dissented from many of his policies, I feel empirically compelled to challenge the allegation that Bush had a fat ass.

I'm relying on memory, though, and will leave it to the zealous to upload a photo.

We'll excuse Mr. Holder for now but not Mr. Obama on the Occupy thing:

http://www.examiner.com/article/update-occupy-crackdowns-coordinated-with-federa...

#109 yep, there we go. I know the locals would do anything to keep the homeland security money coming in. {vis a vis my post #105} The local politicos also got a lot of press from the matter and other than being unsightly there was no big woof.

Maybe federal co ordination & some oversight avoided a - Chicago 68? convention type affair.

#109

In the story it unclear who contacted who. It sounds like a lot of mayors said, "We have this pest we need to get rid of, how can we do it," and contacted either other or the Feds, or both. In any case, where is the evidence that the crackdown started from the Federal level, or that the Feds were involved in anything other than giving solicited advice?

And it is silly to imagine all, or even "a lot" of the people in the entire rest of the world might have one idea about "being an American". Many of them have no realistic idea at all of what it means. Some are busy paying attention to Survival.

Another word on genetically modified foods, I think the companies which develop the new modified foods often then get a patent on them. This guarantees they are the only sellers of the seeds. No one can collect seeds from their fields and use those for the next years crops. This doesn't mean a great deal to large corporation owned farms, but is tragically fatal to small, subsistence farmers in "developing countries".

#106: A lot of people around the world lately get the idea that being an American is a thing any decent person ought to be ashamed of and I get the idea that they are correct.

Lately? We've been destabilizing regimes around the world for decades. We set up people like Pinochet and Shāh Pahlavī. We basically gave the okay to the assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm. We supported the war of Iraq against Iran, leaving a million people dead.

Yeah, but we were beloved internationally under Bush.

I was living in Europe (Germany and England) from the Clinton years through much of the Bush years. The great dip in public opinion in Europe occurred with the American reaction to 9/11 and the outrage many Americans felt that any other country would dare to have a different opinion. Before that, there was a general feeling that while the US might have policies others disagreed with, ordinary Americans were not to blame and could well hold opinions that differed from the Government's stance.

I was living in Paris during the first Gulf War, and while many there disagreed with the action, there was a feeling that there was an obligation to stand with the US. And as an American, I was never subject to any hostility, although the same could not be said for fellow students whose appearance might indicate they were from the Middle East.

It seemed to me -- and I'm aware that experience is not data -- that the world's opinion softened significantly toward us with Obama's election. Disapproval of American actions is not something newly sprung up under Obama.

The continuing drone attacks and general bellicosity are an issue, but the Republican's stance tends to be much more aggressive and warmongery. I seriously doubt that the world would look upon us more favorably had we chosen Romney to be our president.

About those "GMOs", there is cross species DNA exchange in nature. Plasmid rings are one example I remember from years ago. Also a theory that evolution consists of genetic variegation through mutations & other changes and that human genetic engineering is as "natural" as any.

Be that as it may; I hate these damn tomatoes that have no taste and while genetic "sports" that eliminate huge portions of the earth's existing species may be only blip in geologic terms I could do without them. I like the seed preservationists but I hope we clone a wooly mammoth!

#81: I'm sure it makes you feel very clever to compare me to children and racists, but kissing ass is kissing ass. It's not like prosfilaes can claim he was asleep for the past four years. The reason he can't see anything wrong with Obama is because his only insipid concern is that the "D" team wins this reality TV show. It's like in those trivia surveys where they ask passersby simple questions and some of them are just hopelessly ignorant. Some people's heads are just hollow and empty no matter what candidate they happen to be enamored of.

> 116 -- It's possible that prosfilaes isn't really as bigoted as he puts on to be and is only trying to get a rise out of those who will rise to his nonsense.

On the whole, however, I lean toward the conclusion that this particular thread is a haven for the "D" team. Like the "R" team they are a crowd of people who are utter strangers to the concept of political introspection.

It is interesting to me how quickly we stop talking about ideas, and start insulting each other.

>118 maggie1944: alas, not "interesting" so much as tediously predictable.

The list Lunar provided at #77 did have one interesting effect on this member of "The D team" though--it got me thinking about what kind of things would take for me NOT to vote for a candidate I otherwise approve of. I don't kid myself that Obama is a saint and he's done plenty of things I don't like and even hate. But in this last election my notion was we had a choice between going in the direction Romney would like to lead us, or continuing in the direction that Obama has set. So I chose the latter.

The personal failings of either man didn't really come into it. But I do wonder what would. What would Obama have to have done for me to say, no, I just can't support you, even though you are a good husband and father and your heart is in the right place.

I don't have an answer yet, I should say. Lunar's list at #77 is a series of simple statements about what I suspect are very complex situations, so I reserve judgment until I know more context. But there are presumably things Obama could do that would be so bad in my eyes I would no longer be able to support him.

Judging someone by their personal follies is one of the most unreliable methods of judging their effectiveness in public office. And yet, being human, we do this time and time again. Someone can have an exemplary home life and great personal integrity (Jay Gould, Richard M. Nixon) and yet be very destructive in the public sphere. By the same token, someone can be very lacking in personal morals (FDR) and yet be very effective and positive in the public arena.

Karl Rove's debacle http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/committee/american-cros...

> 119 -- southernbooklady -- the list at #77 are things that Obama has already done. So you're right: I have no idea what Obama could possible do to lose your support. If blowing up schoolhouses full of innocent children doesn't faze you, I can't imagine what would.

>122 dekesolomon: oh yes, I am completely in support of blowing up schoolhouses of innocent schoolchildren. naturally.

Your statements make me interested enough to look into such issues for myself. Your inflammatory presentation makes me want to proceed with caution.

#123

The statements in #77 are presented in an inflammatory, alledgedly humourous fashion.

I think you will find, upon careful research, that many of the charges made, however, are substantially correct.

I did not vote for Obama, primarily based on his continued support for drone attacks, which give the POTUS the power to basically assassinate anyone in the world, at any time, with little to no external review for those actions. Many of the other issues raised by Lunar as matters of concern to me as well.

tomdispatch.com and Juan Cole's Informed Comment are good places to start.

There was an interesting and somewhat heated debate on the morality of using unmanned drones on Moral Maze, a BBC Radio 4 program. I found it worth listening to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nl8gh

And I just noticed that the latest program is the moral leadership of America.

For some reason I keep losing that perfect world that Lunar et. al. seem to think we live in. I know it is here somewhere. I am sure there is a place where power plays are not needed.

But seriously, do I agree with Obama's use of drones? No. Is that the litmus test for me in terms of voting? No. That is is for Lunar et. al. is fine, and I am glad that there are people like him to bring these things to light. But the world is a lot bigger, and I have counselled enough soldiers, who lived through some horriific stuff, to know that it is not the black and white situation that we all wish it could be.

I would love to live in a world where good is always good, and bad is always bad, but that is, psychologically speaking, a thinking error. The world is not that way.

But let me take a stab at it this way--Why did I vote for Obama, even though I am morally opposed to his continued presence in Afghanistan and the drone attacks, and even though I question the morallity of killing Osama bin Laden?

First, I don't think Romney would do anything any differently. Historically, when parties change power, they tend to rely on advisors who advised the last guy of their stripe. Which means, like it or not, Romney would have gotten Bush reruns. And we know how THAT turned out. (Taht was a major criticism leveled against both Clinton (ex-Carter advisors) and Obama (ex-Clinton advisors). It would not have been different for Romney. And given Romney's inherent inablity to empathize, the results could have been a lot worse.

Second, I STRONGLY opposed almost every plank of Romney's faux domestic policies (at least those you could pin to him--he did move around a bit). I thought his opposition to the Affordable Care Act was unconscionable. His notion that making the rich richer would help the poor is just wishful thinking. His math did not add up, when it came to budget decisions, and his relationship with the truth was much more questionable than Obama's.

Someone made the comment earlier that a person's personal ethics may or may not affect how well they will lead. I think Romney is, at heart, a decent man, by most people's standards. However, he is a person who lacks basic empathy, and while holding to a high, but limited sense of personal morality, he has no sense of the broader implications of his morality on people who do not hold to his basic tenets. In short, he like most fundamentalists, although his theology is very different.

Obama has done a pretty good job of exhibiting grace under pressure--extreme pressure. He is able to bend (too much actually) and is a skillful but firm negotiator. The way he handled Libya and China will be textbook cases for future generations. I think his handling of the economy was sound. Fast growth would lead to another bubble burst, and we need sustained growth--which is slow and frustrating, but more stable. And I say as someone whose significant other has been unemployed for a large part of his term.

I also think his stab at health care (actually insurance) reform was the very best would could have expected, given the reality on the ground.

Both Romney and Obama are borderline outsiders--Obama because of his race, and Romney because of his religion. Obama, as I see it, has used his position to better understand others. Romney has used his position to insulate himself from others.

For those who disagree, I do not say you are clearly deluded, and would kiss any republican's ass. (And for the record, I have voted for a Republican for president in my time.) You can disagree with me, and still maintain your intellect and your humanity as far as I am concerned. We just disagree. And that is fine. If everyone thought the way I did, the world would be pretty boring, and also in big trouble.

>124 BruceCoulson: I did not vote for Obama, primarily based on his continued support for drone attacks

I understand this. Of course, voting for Romney would not have been a vote against drone attacks, since as far as I could tell Romney's position was almost a carbon copy of Obama's. So the question becomes, for me, do you NOT vote in the election, because none of the candidates will stop or even address this issue? Or do you vote for the one you have the most hope of changing their policy? Or do you grit your teeth on the subject because the candidate has other programs that are important to you and real possibilities of addressing them?

I am, believe it or not, a pacifist. I hate guns. I hate war. I hated that we went to war in Iraq. I never wanted to go to war in Afghanistan. But if I were to only vote for candidates that mirrored my ideals I would never be able to vote for anyone. I don't think I could vote for my local county commissioner if that particular ideal was my line in the sand.

I do find myself wondering, however, what my line in the sand actually is. Not gay rights--because I think progress is being made and Obama is the most pragmatic of politicians, so he won't try to stem the tide of public opinion, whatever his personal beliefs.

Not, I'm sorry to say, drones or aggressive attacks on foreign soil, although I hate that it is policy. Perhaps because I think Obama stands the best chance of restoring America's standing with the rest of the planet.

Here's a couple things he could do that would cost him my support: State publicly that he does not "believe in" evolution. Increase pressure to send public money to private educational institutions (ei, vouchers) at the expense of the public school system. Decide to defend DOMA. Abandon his progress towards universal healthcare.

I agree that Romney, if he had been elected, would have made no substantial changes in any of the policies I disagreed with, and would have attempted to make a lot of changes that would have been bad, both for me and many other people. Which is why I didn't vote for him, either.

Clearly, those that voted for Romney (or Obama) either didn't know about these issues, didn't care about those issues, thought those issues were secondary to other concerns, or generally supported the status quo on those policies. Obviously, without extensive interrogation or open statements (such as the above), it would be impossible to determine which of the above (or the combination of the above) was the chief influence on their vote.

It's self-defeating to presume that everyone who voted differently (for the 'wrong' candidate) is evil and/or ignorant. Such an attitude means no serious effort will ever be made to sway their opinions, which means they'll continue to vote the 'wrong' way every time. If your goal is to make changes, you have to get as many people as possible to support your way of seeing the world; your POV that THESE issues are the important ones. Mocking, insulting, or denigrating those that disagree with you may be fun; but leaves you in the same boat as before.

There was an interesting story on NPR this morning about how elections are decided. Basically, unless there is a "seismic event" ie, a recesssion, war, foreign policy blunder, etc, the incumbant, or the party currently in power, will win. If there is a seismic event, the challenger will win.

#120 Judging someone by their personal follies is one of the most unreliable methods of judging their effectiveness in public office. And yet, being human, we do this time and time again

CIA Director David Petraeus resigns, cites extramarital affair Another man done gone.

I am confused over the opposition to "just drones". In my opinion drones are being used, in lieu of conventional air bombing/missile attacks, to lower the collateral damage done when making a strike on an enemy. Meaning that in the past, like when we tossed a few missiles through Qaddafi's living room after the Lockerbiy incident, the same actions were taken - just with a less precise method.

I think the question should be why/how the drone/air strikes are used other than condemning the method. They aren't cluster bombs, which should be banned.

>129 Arctic-Stranger:: Did the "seismic event" of the current economic malaise then get credited to the Republicans, leading to Obama's election in the first place?

Part of the hype going into this election was that no sitting president had ever been reelected (at least for the time period we have such data) with an economy doing as poorly as ours currently is. From that perspective, Obama broke the pattern.

> 129

I heard that story, too, and it's rather more complex than your post would suggest. Lichtman looks at what he calls "markers of stability and upheaval", and found that if 6 or more of 13 markers are against the party in power, the challenger wins. It's not simply an event.

More on this, and a link to the story on Morning Edition here.

In this particular election I think most people did realize that the current economic seismic event started under Bush, and Republican attempts to pin to Obama were futile. I am surprised that the R's resorted to a tactic that blatantly wrongheaded. It did not go without notice that none of the Bush people were at the convention, and it was clear to anyone who was alive in the 2008 (which would be 100 percent of the current voters) that the recession occurred during Bush's watch.

As an aside: The continued attacks on the stimulus were also doomed to failure. The people who didn't know better were already going to vote for Romney. Independents who were paying any attention were able to realize a) that politicians who derailed stimulus money took it, and b) it worked. (Alaska used stimulus money to hire teachers. When it dried up, we had to cut those jobs, and the superintendents all said why--so we KNEW where our money went.)

There was some progress IMO with Obama as far as the economy goes. I think he could have done a lot of things better as far as that goes but more or less things have somewhat stabilized. A Romney/Ryan administration would have set our economy back IMO. Just on that I would have voted for Obama. Other things bothered me. Bruce frames some of it very well in #124. In the end I voted for a candidate that was much closer to the way I think even if she had no chance to win. There's no reason to apologize for picking who you think would be the best.

So I'm reading the last few dozen posts and I now see you folks support Obama not because you suffer from a total lack of political introspection but from a tragic over-reliance on mainstream media news.

Somebody says "drone warfare" and you take that up for discussion. Nobody comments on the fact that Obama issued a signing statement a year or two ago in which he claims absolute power to snuff anybody, anywhere, any time in the world if he merely suspects they might be a threat to America. That is ANYBODY! Men, women, children, foreigners, U.S. citizens, any human being on the planet, and he can do it without charging them with a crime, without an investigation or a trial, without any evidence of probable cause.

And it's not strictly an Obama thing. Bush claimed the same power. It's what Cheney hinted at when he said publicly that the Bush administration was going to go "to the dark side" to get the people they thought MIGHT be terrorists.

Obama has turned it into a weekly meeting at the White House -- every Tuesday -- he and some of his "advisors" meet in secret, go over lists of suspects, and decide who in the world they're going to snuff this week.

It scares me A) to think you people don't know these things and B) to think that -- knowing them -- you don't feel threatened by them. And I won't even discuss the repeal of Habeas Corpus by presidential signing statement (again). Common people struggled for hundreds of years to gain the rights granted in Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution. Now Bush and Obama come along and wipe all that out with the stroke of a pen and not only doesn't the fact seem to bother any of you, none of you seem to be aware that it's been done.

When you wake up one morning and find yourselves dead or freezing and starving in a gulag you won't be able to say nobody warned you, and that's good enough for me.

So you think Romney would have abolished the practices of Obama and Bush vis-a-vis the Patriot Act, use of drones, etc. Gullible.

The chances I'll wind up in a gulag are -.076 according to Nate Silver.

135-- Are you really saying here that the mainstream media is less reliable than, say, Fox News and Unskewed Polls?

No, there is a special fount of knowledge, that not all of us are privy to.

Here, wear this hat, and you can have it too!

Truth has a well known liberal bias.
--Stephen Colbert

#135 Thanks Dekes. I had only glossed over the news on the determination of what to use drone strikes on. I do remember reading that Obama has to sign off on those in questionable areas, like Pakistan for instance. I think that is a power that could easily abused an I congratulate people like you for keeping a close eye on events. I hope the rhetoric of the statement allowing Obama to do this can not be construed to allow political assassinations in the USA etc. under a future administration. I think Congress and the people would overthrow any such attempts.

Personally I think they have been good calls so far except for the times when people have lied on the intel and caused innocents to die. I even agree with the "USA citizen" from my home state North Carolina >

The strike hit a vehicle with other suspected Al Qaeda members inside, in addition to al-Awlaki. According to a U.S. senior official, the other American militant killed in the strike was Samir Khan, the co-editor of an English-language Al Qaeda web magazine called "Inspire."

Khan, in his 20s, was an American of Pakistani heritage from North Carolina. His magazine promoted attacks against U.S. targets, even running articles on how to put together explosives. In one issue, Khan wrote that he had moved to Yemen and joined Al Qaeda's fighters, pledging to "wage jihad for the rest of our lives."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-k...

I think the concept of a "mandate" is simply not applicable in our electoral system. The electoral college structure drives a very specific campaign strategy for a candidate of either party. They leave millions of votes on the table in safe states and spend millions on a hundred of thousands of votes in other states. Looks like Florida is finally being called and the margin of victory for Obama is looking to be in the ballpark of 50,000 votes. And every election, you always hear crazy math that if you flipped 100,000 votes in this state, 200,000 in that state, etc. you could actually change the electoral college winner by some tiny number of votes.

That's just how our system works, and that's how our candidates build their campaign strategy. They focus their GOTV efforts in those areas that are battlegrounds. It's not just about how many people are for your candidate but how many people show up and vote for your candidate.

These days, a "mandate" in US presidential elections are usually just what the winner's team will define it as (or the loser's team will claim doesn't exist by their definition of "mandate"). You could spin a mandate narrative by simply looking at the gains that Democrats made in the Senate and House when the electoral math was so against them (most "competitive" seats were Dem seats and most "safe" ones were GOP seats). That's one of the weird side-effects of the Senate having 6 year terms. Some elections are just much harder for one party than others because of how many incumbents they have retiring or the particular group of senators having more seats where the state is a battleground or even leaning towards the opposite party. 2012 was one of those years that were going to be bad for Dems - they had to defend 23 seats while Reps only had to defend 10 - yet they managed to make GAINS. This comes from a situation where the Reps rightfully thought they had a strong chance of actually taking majority control of the Senate not that many months ago.

Combine that with all the successes in ballot initiatives and that Democrats posted a significant net gain in control of various state leg chambers (though not as impressive as Reps in 2010).

Anyone care to point to what they consider the biggest Republicans win(s) in 2012? Arkansas state leg flipping both chambers (even though the House only has a razor thin 1 seat margin with one seat won by only 44 votes out of 10k and headed to a recount)? Netting one more governor's seat (even though the Dems were on defense this election with four incumbents stepping down compared to one Rep)?

But as our nation has become more solidly divided into red state/blue state/battleground state categories, the more I think this "mandate" thing is a thing of the past. And I agree that with Reps in control of the House, Obama's agenda has little chance of making much progress. But he will be in control of some pretty important keys - appointment of replacement Supreme Court justices. He's already appointed two - as many as any other president's appointees currently on the court. And in terms of total appointments, Reagan appointed 3, Nixon and Truman 4 and Eisenhower 5. Ginsburg and Breyer, both Clinton appointees and in the liberal bloc, could potentially retire. While that wouldn't shift the court, it would cement it and cover a potential vulnerability. Furthermore, you have conservative appointees that will be 80, 80 and 68 when Obama's term ends. I wish them good health, but there's the very real possibility that one or more may wind up leaving in the next four years.

Plus, Reid is about to make the filibuster-in-name-only (motion to proceed) a thing of the past (which is funny, given that it wasn't always even a thing in the past and only got tacked on as a Senate rule, not anything in the Constitution). And even though Reid doesn't have pure-hearted motives, I'm all for it. Both parties have used and abused the false-filibuster to basically to grind important business to a halt whenever neither party has a supermajority. Now that both parties have had their fun, it's time to call off that farce. And doing so will make Obama's SC justice confirmations so very much easier.

And then in 2014 where the re-election math really favors the Republicans in the Senate, they'll even get to be on the other side and enjoy not having obstructionist Democrats gumming up the works. Win-win!

#122: If blowing up schoolhouses full of innocent children doesn't faze you

Somehow they didn't faze you. How many presidents can say they haven't done that? I won't finger Kennedy, but LBJ and Nixon did (you remember that photo of Phan Thị Kim Phúc, the naked girl after the napalm attack?). I have no problem laying the Iran-Iraq war on Reagan's doorstop, at least in large enough part to count two schoolhouses to his credit. Even GHWB's relatively hygienic Gulf War killed a couple thousand civilians.

#126: I think Romney is, at heart, a decent man, by most people's standards.

The whole forming a posse to chase down a schoolmate and attack him with scissors thing would have made it hard for me to vote for Romney even as the lesser of two evils. (As for the other two, Gary Johnson is the worse then the two major players, and as for Jill Stein, I don't believe that someone who can't refrain from civil disobedience while running for office can forge any sort of consensus or is even trustworthy in that office.)

#135: Nobody comments on the fact that Obama issued a signing statement a year or two ago in which he claims absolute power to snuff anybody, anywhere, any time in the world if he merely suspects they might be a threat to America.

If I believed that such a policy had not been in de facto existence for the past 60 years, I might be more stressed. It's something to be fixed, but I have a hard time fussing at business as usual. (Oh, and I might be more concerned had you said Executive Order nnn,nnn, or had given me a link to an authoritative source here. Secondhand hard-to-verify claims aren't very convincing.)

Edit: When you wake up one morning and find yourselves dead or freezing and starving in a gulag you won't be able to say nobody warned you, and that's good enough for me.

See, I'm worried that libertarians may leave me dead or freezing. The Soviet Union of the 60s, 70s, 80s was worse then the Western World, but kept its citizens alive, fed, and generally knowing that tomorrow would be more of the same. I can't say the same of the libertarians.

#141: Jay Wexler, in The Odd Clauses: Understanding the Constitution Through Ten of Its Most Curious Provisions says the way to know if someone is really a strict constructionalist, is the Constitutional rule that a president can't appoint a congressmen to an office that had a pay raise when he was in office. Is it good enough to roll back the pay raise (like was done for Hillary Clinton) or do we follow the strict letter of the law and say that's not good enough? Either way, it's going to have consequences for them and their opponents alike, so it's not a partisan question.

Part of the hype going into this election was that no sitting president had ever been reelected (at least for the time period we have such data) with an economy doing as poorly as ours currently is. From that perspective, Obama broke the pattern.

http://www.xkcd.com/1122/

#142: I don't believe that someone who can't refrain from civil disobedience while running for office can forge any sort of consensus or is even trustworthy in that office.

Oh, please. You make it sound like civil disobedience is a sign of adolescent compulsivity instead of the next logical step after your corrupt system has denied someone justice. Rather, she should be commended for following up on the example of Badnarik and Camejo in 2004 and it actually takes a lot of discipline to carry out civil disbedience without letting it turn into an altercation. You should have just stuck to making opiate-induced statements about how you can't see anything wrong with your Obama.

See, I'm worried that libertarians may leave me dead or freezing.

It's not my intention to answer for dekesolomon's alarmist bullshit, but this is just more alarmist bullshit.

Civil disobedience is NOT what you do after you jump through all the legal hoops and get a permit to hold a demonstration in a "free speech zone".

Civil disobedience IS what you do when you've tried and been denied a permit, so you decide to hold your demonstation on the courthouse steps, "free speech zones" be damned. Civil disobedience is the practice of breaking immoral laws with moral intent. If you're not breaking the law, you cannot claim to be disobedient.

>135 dekesolomon:: For what it's worth, the excesses of executive authority were just one of many reasons I did NOT vote to reelect the President. But then, I didn't vote to put Mitt Romney, who would have been the same or worse with respect to the drones, in the White House either.

But I do think the country will be better off with President Obama than it would have been with President Romney.

I voted for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, one of whose planks was to roll back the severe restrictions on civil liberties in the name of national security that we have seen over the last decade. But then, she also supported teaching real science in our schools, raising taxes on the wealthy in order to get the country out of debt without dumping the poor on the side of the road, and gun control (a topic that neither major party candidate seemed interested in addressing).

For all the Obama worshippers, here's Robert Scheer of Truthdig. I agree with his idea that what happens next is your fault. I do not agree that what happens next is going to be different than the last four years. I know that's what you all are hoping for but I don't believe it will happen. The tiger has already shown his stripes and he's not about to grow a different coat.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32988.htm

Well, all the yadda yadda yadda passes the time, does it not?

The fact is: about three million more Americans thought Rmoney stunk up the place more so than Obama does. This translated into a 332 -206 electoral victory for Obama. The only reason the house stayed republican was that the congressional districts have been gerrymandered by the republicans, i.e., democrat candidates for the house received more total raw vote than did the republicans. In the senate races the democrats bent over the republicans and banged them like they were prison punks.

End of election story.

Now, as they say - looking forward - many people think Obama will be more kick-ass now that he has nothing to lose. Many other people say, no, that is bullshit.

Which group is right? We shall see. The future in any case will be a surprise to 100 per cent of us in some serious way. That is why it is called the future.

Anyone who thinks they can predict the future is an asshat.

Except for Nate Silver, of course. And all he does is give per cent probabilities.

The end.

It is interesting that the "professional left" and the "professional right" are equally upset with the electoral outcome. Perhaps a Grand Coalition lies ahead in the near future.

> 149 JLG53

The fact is just as Robert Scheer said: those of you who claim to know the things Obama has done and persist in voting for him anyway are responsible for what he does (or doesn't do) over the next four years. Of course, if what he does is positive, you'll be pleased to say "we told you so," while you won't be so happy to say "it's all our fault" if things go the way I expect they will.

Big O is already talking about points upon which he and Boehner can compromise. Boehner says that -- whatever they may find to agree on -- it won't have anything to do with tax increases for upper-income Americans. So what do you suppose they'll find to agree on? Reductions in Social Security and Medicare? How they're going to spend your 401-K? Dismantle the EPA? Tougher drug laws? More cops? Bigger and better drones? A death penalty (without trial) for suspected whistleblowers?

Seems to me you better start right now thinking about what they could possibly agree on that's the lesser of several dozen major evils -- not that they care what anybody thinks but, you know, it'll make you feel like a responsible citizen and help you keep from sounding like an asshat when you sit with your latte and your Obama loving friends trying to figure out when he's going to show his progressive side.

I knew what he was long before he nominated Joe Biden for his running mate. I didn't vote for him in '08 and I didn't vote for him in '12. You, on the other hand, have just been punk'd again.

> 151

I live in a red state. I vote for fun as I realize my vote counts for shit.

I don't like latte.

Those who take themselves as seriously as you do have punk'd themselves. Obviously.

LOL.

#147--here we are always quarreling with each other and we vote for the same person. Amazing.

#151--so those who voted for G.W. Bush the second time around are responsible for all the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan in his second term--responsible for the black sites and whatever goes on at Gitmo? Responsible for his tanking the economy?

#151: those of you who claim to know the things Obama has done and persist in voting for him anyway are responsible for what he does (or doesn't do) over the next four years.

And that's what really matters in the long run; getting the rights to say I told you so.

#145: You make it sound like civil disobedience is a sign of adolescent compulsivity instead of the next logical step after your corrupt system has denied someone justice.

Civil disobedience has its place in the world, but pulling it out for every cause blunts its impact. We build a rule of law, staffed by people who don't all think like you; reality means that when you feel the system has denied someone justice, perhaps it's because others don't understand justice the same way you do, or that the rule of law needs a tweak with a fine-tipped screwdriver instead of a smack with a hammer.

And when it comes to the president; civil liberties and civil disobedience don't mix. You can't demand that you have rights protected by the law and expect a president who feels that she should break the law whenever there's an injustice to pay attention to them. Nor do I expect Congressfolk whose viewpoints differ wildly from hers to trust that she will follow the law that Congress laws down. Perhaps in response to one of her "corrupt" veto, they will engage in civil disobedience and order the bill promulgated as law anyway.

#155--free trade deals--global economic engines like the IMF, World Bank etc. are a big reason for the deindustrialization of the United States. The policies of such organizations along with the free market mentality are supported by both major parties. If you're arguing that we need other viable political party choices I agree with you but those out there like the libertarians and the greens are behind the 8 ball. They don't have any traction. I voted for Obama in 2008--that was the first time and quite possibly the last time that I vote for a major party candidate. IMO he didn't live up to my expectations--so I'm sorry--I can only say I made a mistake but I didn't repeat it and I didn't stay home though the odds against who I did vote for were astronomical . It's not that I don't agree with your premise that re-electing someone lays more of the onus on the voter for that electie and his/her policies. I can understand though why people choose someone they believe to be the lesser evil--when there really are only two possible winners.

Those in power from both parties have more or less created a world that most people are comfortable enough in even if their opportunities and the future of those who follow them are being diminished exponentially degree by degree. I find it frustrating but WTF--I'm only one person out of over 300 million in this country. It is what it is and in any case I think Romney would have been even worse. I would say though that someone choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil. Personally I'm neither a sadist nor a masochist--I don't care for pain.

#148: This line made me laugh. "It is now our fingers on the video game buttons that order the drones to kill innocent civilians, and we bear responsibility if the president maintains the Guantanamo gulag and continues to vilify Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for confronting America with its war crimes." That overblown pomposity. Actually, I believe that they stopped using Xbox-360 controllers to control the drones so that makes it all right. Oh, and Bradley Manning didn't exactly release 4 volumes of the Pentagon Papers (out of six, since the last two could damage diplomatic talks); he released evidence of such horrible war crimes as the Secretary of State asking if we knew of mental illness in a foreign political leader she had to deal with (Hugo Chávez). As for Guantanamo... we do bear responsibility, not Obama. To quote Wikipedia:

On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and that the detention facility would be shut down within the year. ... On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

If you really gave a damn about Guantanamo, and aren't more interested in getting high on indignation, you'll stop complaining about who's president and start complaining about the people who actually blocked the shutdown of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

#157: I would say though that someone choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil.

I don't see as any different from anything else in life. You can't always get what you want; sometimes all the choices are unpalatable. If you're traveling with eight other people, and four of them want hamburgers, and the other four want Chinese, and you want Mexican, I think if you have preference for one of the two options you should speak up instead of letting the driver make the choice, because Mexican is not really on the table. I understand; if you stand up for Mexican enough, maybe you'll get your way, maybe at least a Carl's Jr./Green Burrito. But all this vilification of those who do pick from the choices they're actually given is frustrating.

According to Nate Silver, I joined my fellow Nevadans in having the highest chance in having the entire election swing on my single vote. In 2000, over 100,000 people in Florida decided not to pick from the choices actually on the table; 538 of them could have swung the election. If that happened again, I couldn't be one of those 538 who decided to vote on principle instead of for the person in the running that they preferred that they could have put in office.

Manning is going to spill the beans on Assange soon.

> 149

The only reason the house stayed republican was that the congressional districts have been gerrymandered by the republicans,

Depends where you live. Here in Illinois, the congressional districts were gerrymandered to ensure the election of Democrats.

If you're traveling with eight other people, and four of them want hamburgers, and the other four want Chinese, and you want Mexican, I think if you have preference for one of the two options you should speak up instead of letting the driver make the choice, because Mexican is not really on the table.

Why can't the four who want hamburgers have hamburgers, the four who want Chinese have Chinese, and you have Mexican? That would be the most sensible solution....

Because you're in North Dakota.

#162: One: it was a hypothetical situation. Two: That would require getting off the highway three times. Part of the selling point of the hamburgers was that they would be quick, and after all this arguing (not helped by you declaring that both sides had horrible taste), nobody is interested in the compromise that would require stopping three times.

131> an "economic malaise" is rather the opposite of a sesmic event, "Things are gradually getting a little bit better" does not translate into headlines.

A view from Britain:

Republican right weeps over Obama's victory – then begins internal civil war (Observer)

The clash between diehard conservatives and modernisers will dictate the fate of a party which increasingly seems to appeal only to angry, older white Americans

The Republican Party: The death of America’s angry white man (Independent)

#156: And when it comes to the president; civil liberties and civil disobedience don't mix.

That's just some Obama drone bullshit you pulled out of your ass to discount Stein. She was a candidate for president and she used civil disobedience to make a statement that only she and a few other excluded voices were in any position to make. If you don't see anything wrong with Obama, then who the fuck are you to bitch about Jill Stein over such an abstruse contention?

I don't think participating in acts of civil disobedience de facto disqualifies you from running for, or being an effective, president. Or governor, or senator, or any other elected office.

Civil disobedience is something people resort to who have--or feel they have--been excluded from, denied, any other options. They think their backs are against a wall. Often their backs are against the wall. But presumably, once elected, they have a place at the table and a voice in the conversation. So the idea that they would resort to civil disobedience if Congress "didn't go their way" or veto everything they didn't like doesn't hold water for me.

Like anything else, I would look at each particular incident and judge it accordingly as to whether I thought it was justified or not, performed in good faith or not. But the fact that Stein uses civil disobedience as a tool to promote a message is not a problem for me.

After all, I don't think we'd have disqualified Rosa Parks for sitting in the wrong place on the bus.

I'm traveling down the highway with 8 other people. They've gorged themselves on their burgers and chinese and basically don't care whether I'm happy with my meal or not. What the fuck am I traveling with these assholes for? As long as they've gotten what they've wanted they won't go an extra step for me. Anyway nice scenario. Drop me off by the side of the road--you guys can have fun f***ing each other or yourselves. By the way Mexican is nice but I'm heading for the nearest saloon. Drinks aren't on me.

On Civil disobedience--it is a core requirement in this so-called free land of ours. Without it the military and police take over and it's not a so-called free land anymore. Next thing we'll have to watch every word that comes out of our mouths and/or every word that comes out of the mouths of family/friends/neighbors/acquaintances/people we work with/passersby. Time to jump off the proverbial bridge--make sure it's high enough.

#168: Civil disobedience is something people resort to who have--or feel they have--been excluded from, denied, any other options. They think their backs are against a wall. Often their backs are against the wall. But presumably, once elected, they have a place at the table and a voice in the conversation. So the idea that they would resort to civil disobedience if Congress "didn't go their way" or veto everything they didn't like doesn't hold water for me.

If they could get elected, then their backs weren't against the wall. I think civil disobedience is so frequently used in cases where there's multiple conflicting interests, each with valid claims, with tedious compromise and balances. But it's so much easier to chain yourself to a fence. If you cannot forsake breaking the law as a measure of good faith when running for office, I don't see why you'll have so much more respect for it in office.

After all, I don't think we'd have disqualified Rosa Parks for sitting in the wrong place on the bus.

Rosa Parks was a black woman in the US in the 1950s. It would be ten years before a black woman sat in the US Congress. Rosa Parks could make the claim of being excluded from other options in the way a major candidate for US president never could.

If they could get elected, then their backs weren't against the wall.

Well there's a chicken/egg scenario if I ever heard one. Actually, I think you could make the case that the Green Party is excluded from other options. I notice you qualify your statement with "a major candidate for US President." So Stein, although running for president, is not a "major" candidate (I note that one of her acts of civil disobedience was to sit outside the gates of the university where the 2nd presidential debate was being held--from which she had been excluded. The charge was "blocking traffic.")

~86 & 87

Another pointless smear by someone who knows better. Let's see, find a libertarianfascist site that says bad things about nonfascists and, presto, all libertarians are fascists. Nevermind that the site has two followers.

Pitiful and sad. But I guess that is as much as some people can manage in ideological combat.

I understand that when the news of Obama's election was announced at Guantanamo that all the prisoners cheered. http://gtmoblog.blogspot.com/ You see, they are very forgiving people, and hope springs eternal.......

~128

"I agree that Romney, if he had been elected, would have made no substantial changes in any of the policies I disagreed with, and would have attempted to make a lot of changes that would have been bad, both for me and many other people. Which is why I didn't vote for him, either."

...........

"It's self-defeating to presume that everyone who voted differently (for the 'wrong' candidate) is evil and/or ignorant. Such an attitude means no serious effort will ever be made to sway their opinions, which means they'll continue to vote the 'wrong' way every time. If your goal is to make changes, you have to get as many people as possible to support your way of seeing the world; your POV that THESE issues are the important ones. Mocking, insulting, or denigrating those that disagree with you may be fun; but leaves you in the same boat as before."

I am curious, oh political sage, what would you have done in late Wiemar Germany? OF COURSE there is NO RESEMBLANCE AT ALL. I am just asking out of pure intellectual curiosity, and because I know that you can give me good advice, just should the issue ever come up in the future.

~136

"The chances I'll wind up in a gulag are -.076 according to Nate Silver."

You know, I went to Nate's blog and couldn't find his analysis of theoria's chances of ending up in a gulag. Could you give us the link?

What did he say about your chances of being shot out of hand, given your level of political activity and concern? Most people with similar traits are, you know. The ones in the gulag are the select few. And most are certainly not worth a drone.

How come none of you ferocious establishmentarians and mainstream media addicts has bothered to answer my question from > 151?

Big O is already talking about points upon which he and Boehner can compromise. Boehner says that -- whatever they may find to agree on -- it won't have anything to do with tax increases for upper-income Americans. So what do you suppose they'll find to agree on? Reductions in Social Security and Medicare? How they're going to spend your 401-K? Dismantle the EPA? Tougher drug laws? More cops? Bigger and better drones? A death penalty (without trial) for suspected whistleblowers?

If the prisoners at Guantanamo did cheer when they heard Obama was reelected I doubt it was simply the celebration of muslims over a "secret" muslim continuing to be U.S. President.

I suspect they cheered because they believed that their chances of again being waterboarded or having broomsticks shoved up their asses was to a great deal decreased with Obama's election.

From Rmoney's rhetoric they probably feared that with republicans returning to presidential power the hoods, naked piles of bodies, cigarette burns, beatings etc. by their guards would probably come back with impunity - and that's no LOL.

176> Big O is already talking about points upon which he and Boehner can compromise. Boehner says that -- whatever they may find to agree on -- it won't have anything to do with tax increases for upper-income Americans. So what do you suppose they'll find to agree on?

I'm hoping that Boehner (Little B?) reads the writing on the wall and backs down. He's already signalled that he isn't opposed to revenue increases from the rich as long as the tax rates don't go up, so perhaps they'll agree to limit deductions for those in the upper brackets.

The Republicans are boxed in: if there's no deal, the Democrats walk away, all of the Bush tax cuts expire, and the Republican Party's inability to separate governing from politics is again put on display. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, "there is no alternative" than to deal.

"compromise" is not a dirty word in politics.

#176: As southernbooklady said, "compromise" is not a dirty word. (I'd extend that out of politics; life is often the art of finding mutually acceptable solutions.)

Who did you vote for? For some reason I thought you voted for Gary Johnson, but he was a fan of cutting Social Security and Medicare. I find your obsession with cops misplaced. It doesn't take many cops to do all the evil things that you hear about, but it takes a lot of cops to respond to all the issues normal citizens have.

#169: Then move to Canada; that is the equivalent in the analogy. I find the analogy perfect here; instead of trying to work out a long-term solution, acknowledging that people are being frustrated and intransigent, you'd rather get out of the vehicle several hundred miles from home with no easy way to cover that distance. Or at least add to the problem by loudly claiming that you're going to do just that because everyone else is being jerks, which does not tend to make people less frustrated or stubborn.

~177

"From Rmoney's rhetoric they probably feared that with republicans returning to presidential power the hoods, naked piles of bodies, cigarette burns, beatings etc. by their guards would probably come back with impunity - and that's no LOL."

All of that, and they knew that they'd have a nice comfortable, well, ah, a cage, whether it was nice or comfortable or not, for the next four years.

Maybe you'd like to volunteer to join them? Just tap your heels together four times and mummer, "I'm not in Kansas any more." That will certainly make you a terrorist.

~183

Sounds like incitement to terrorism to me.

It would.

Truly. The nice thing about "incitement to terrorism" is that it can be just about anything. Something I'd keep in mind if I had your disposition.

From Kenya's Daily Nation today:

There is a kind of war under way in the United States nowadays between fact and fantasy. President Barack Obama’s re-election marked a victory, limited but unmistakable, for the cause of fact...

Incidentally, the people in Obama's grandmother's village held a mock vote. No surprises who won by a landslide! A number of Kenyan children born around the time of the US election have been named after both candidates.

> 181 -- "Who did you vote for?"

I didn't vote. Starting in 2008, I'm into total non-participation. With me it's like Ken Kesey told radicals who wanted him to take up the anti-war crusade: You wanna stop the war, I'll tell you how to do it: Just say 'Fuck it' and walk away.

I'm never going to vote again until we're offered some meaningful choices. Why encourage the bastards and the oligarchs they represent?

~187

" A number of Kenyan children born around the time of the US election have been named after both candidates."

"Obama Romney X" What a name!

I had to look up Ken Kesey, but he seems to have been a very wise man.

> 182 -- From Rmoney's rhetoric they probably feared that with republicans returning to presidential power the hoods, naked piles of bodies, cigarette burns, beatings etc. by their guards would probably come back with impunity - and that's no LOL.

All of that, and they knew that they'd have a nice comfortable, well, ah, a cage, whether it was nice or comfortable or not, for the next four years.

Naaaah! What they probably thought is that if Obama was running things, there's a good chance he'd whack them all with a drone strike and put an end to their miserable captivity, whereas, if Romney got to run the show, their regimen would be "beatings and waterboarding for everyone forever".

Maybe you'd like to volunteer to join them? Just tap your heels together four times and mummer, "I'm not in Kansas any more." That will certainly make you a terrorist.

I heard that!

~191

"Naaaah! What they probably thought is that if Obama was running things, there's a good chance he'd whack them all with a drone strike and put an end to their miserable captivity, whereas, if Romney got to run the show, their regimen would be "beatings and waterboarding for everyone forever"."

Very possibly. And Obama could then declare the Marines killed in the drone attack as "necessary collateral damage" and his stooges could point out, yet again, that the interns were engaged in "acts of asymmetric warfare waged against us," as when several engaged in the heinously aggressive tactic of committing suicide. (Will these terrorists never learn of the terrible justice of the United States? Maybe someone could sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic to them!)

> 190 -- Rolling Stone magazine once sent Ken Kesey and a couple of others to Egypt. Their mission: To climb to the top of the Great Pyramid, sit down, and drop LSD.

Kesey, you see, was known to be clairvoyant sometimes, when under the influence of the drug. Stone editors thought Kesey might, from the top of the Great Pyramid, be visited by a flash that would reveal the location of the long-sought "Hall of Records" -- which is thought to contain written records of who we humans are and where we originally came from.

As all the world knows by now, the mission failed. They went; they dropped; but there was no flash.

No matter. I read every word in the articles that ensued on principle: "It's the thought that counts," after all. Now, more than 40 years later, having earned a M.A. in Journalism from one of the top schools in the country, I look back upon the Kesey Expedition fondly and think of it as Journalism's Last Hurrah.

Thank you, Jan Wenner and thank you, Mr. Kesey, wherever you are.

Deke

#188: I'm never going to vote again until we're offered some meaningful choices. Why encourage the bastards and the oligarchs they represent?

I don't get the logic there. It's not like boycotting a store; they get elected whether there's 20 million voters or 200 million. If you don't vote, they have absolutely no reason to care about your opinion. I can't imagine there's anything the powers behind the scenes like better then a frustrated voter dropping out, as that reduces the uncertainty they have to deal with.

As for meaningful choices... the way our system is set up, the serious contest is almost always going to be between two centrist candidates that approach what the average person is interested in, with varying numbers of third parties that will garner some small part of the vote. If you don't like that, I don't think it's going to change. (It's nigh optimal for a winner-take-all system; with more real contenders, it's way too easy for someone who is passionately disliked by a majority of the population to garner a plurality of the vote.)

I don't understand why you think you're morally superior to Obama voters. If none of us had meaningful choices, then theirs were as meaningless as yours. If they did, then you had a chance to stand against evil, at no cost to yourself, and failed to do so.

If you're going to espouse "Just say 'Fuck it' and walk away", then why don't you do so?

If a particular person decides not to vote - well, that is groovy, man. If you prefer instead to sit out elections all potted up on marijuana, then go for it dude. There are millions of your fellow citizens, from good guys to douches, who WILL be voting in your stead.

And as pointed out, they will be voting for a republican or a democrat. Most people, and I mean MOST people, have been laughing and will continue to laugh at all third parties - libertarian, communist, socialist, green, pro-slavery conservatives, the naked party, Rosanne, what the eff ever. Life is just so unfair and so downright mean like that. It's enough to make a boy want to take his ball and go home.

In the meantime Obama will be POTUS for a total of eight years, i.e., until late January 2017, Harry Reid, the mormon with a (secular) mission, will soon be whipping that filibuster ass, the democrats will be pushing the republicans off the (fiscal) cliff next year and grover norquist, at present the second most powerful man in Washington, will be reduced to irrelevancy.

My point is - it could be worse - so cheer up, kids.

The not voting idea is not a bad one at all. I considered that very seriously. FWIW there were a few reasons I did vote. Silly as it may sound 1) was the symbolic protest of not voting for Obama again thought that having carried his predecessor's Iraq--Afghanistan wars, Gitmo and Patriot Acts (and there's a few more etc.'s) even further down the road more or less contradicting his first go around campaign promises--that he didn't deserve to be rehired even if it was evident that it was going to happen anyway and even though the other major candidate appeared to be even worse. 2) the possibly even sillier idea that the Green party candidate against all odds would do well enough so that that party would qualify for matching funds in the next presidential election cycle. The possibility of that happening (or ever happening) being extremely remote. If there was a 3rd reason it was to vote for the anti-fracking democratic challenger for the local US house seat. He didn't win either though his mid 40's numbers were surprisingly close.

Not voting at all is pretty pointless. Almost anywhere you are, there are going to be some downballot candidates/initiatives/amendments/referendums where your vote likely matters and you're probably for one side or the other more (gay marriage, voter id, etc.) And if you want to protest the major candidates being "all the same" or whatever, you're much better off turning out and voting for one of the third party candidates like Johnson or Stein to help them get to the 5% level, thus ensuring matching campaign funds and actually breaking up the party duopoly (at least temporarily).

> 194 -- I don't get the logic there.

That's entirely obvious.

If you're going to espouse . . . then why don't you do so?

I've already done so. That doesn't mean I shouldn't or can't try to sell others on the idea of doing the same. But then, as you say, you don't get the logic there.

So I guess there's nothing I (or anyone else) can do for you.

> 195 -- JGL53 -- My point is - it could be worse - so cheer up, kids.

My point is, it could be worse and it will be a lot worse before the Big O is through with us. So what's to cheer up about? You like PAIN, Boy?

. Almost anywhere you are, there are going to be some downballot candidates/initiatives/amendments/referendums where your vote likely matters

I probably spent more time trying to figure out how to vote on local ballots than I did on national ones. We has a host of judicial seats on the ballot here this time, a referendum about whether to have a bond to fund a baseball stadium, not to mention school board positions and whatnot. Talk about things that will directly and immediately impact your life.

> 196 -- Iriley -- The not voting idea is not a bad one at all. I considered that very seriously.

Consider it more seriously next time. The oligarchs didn't have their hired help nullify habeus corpus and our Bill of Rights because they plan on making things better for us.

Ken Kesey was both a brilliant and a mediocre writer. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Sometimes a Great Notion are masterpieces of American Literature. But the acid greatly affected his writing, something he admited toward the end of his life. His feud with Wallace Stegner was legendary (Kesey, along with Wendell Berry and Guerney Norman were a part of Stegner's writing program at Stanford.) Stegner recounts part of his side of the feud in All the Little Live Things. Of Kesey's later works, none really stand out. Demon Box and Sailor Song are readable, but that is about all.

What does it mean that those who voted for Obama are "responsible" for what happens next?

does that mean I can sue everyone who voted for Bush in '04?

deke: Can we get some definite predictions for you for the next three months, year, 2 years, 4 years? When one is vociferously predicting that Obama's election means horrible things, it's easy to be vague. I'm just looking for a handful of concrete predictions that can be easily proved or disproved when the time comes. Your previous statement "Reductions in Social Security and Medicare? How they're going to spend your 401-K? Dismantle the EPA? Tougher drug laws? More cops? Bigger and better drones? A death penalty (without trial) for suspected whistleblowers?" seems like you might be trying to make some predictions, but it wasn't really phrased that way.

So, for example, would you care to predict when the death penalty without trial for suspected whistleblowers (or, really, any US citizen not in a combat zone) will happen?

And no fair saying "they'll be lots of bad horrible stuff and no one will ever know because it's all going to be super secret." While that could theoretically happen, you could theoretically also be a secret serial killer that's hiding bodies in your woods. But until we find some evidence of either, it's fruitless to speculate.

#200 by @southernbooklady> I probably spent more time trying to figure out how to vote on local ballots than I did on national ones.

I really don't want to think about how much time I've spent researching the candidates for each of five positions on the Soil and Water Supervisor board. Every one of those seats are elected at-large. It's even more depressing when I found out that of the four seats open right now, only one has someone on it that was elected. The other four are all appointed. I guess the other people got bored.

> 202 -- There was also a novel called "The Last Go-Round." I believe it was the last one but I'm not certain. It was about a real-life, old time, champion rodeo cowboy and it was set at the Pendleton Roundup. I never heard of Demon Box or Sailor Song.

FWIW Pendleton (when I lived there in 1974-5) was the tenth largest rodeo on the circuit. I don't know how it rates today and I really don't care. My experience of the thing was that for 10 days the town filled up with a horde of vicious drunks and it wasn't safe for a guy to walk around if he had long hair (which I had).

Of Kesey's novels I read Cuckoo's Nest and Sometimes a Great Notion. About Kesey I read Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. I never heard of Stegner or his book. I guess I better look that one up.

You never heard of Stegner? You have a treat in store for you. I put him in the same category as Norman Maclean, although stricly speaking he is not a western writer. His magnum opus is Angle of Repose and it is magnificent. Crossing to Safety is shorter, but more dense with ideas, I think. All the Little Live Things is my favorite, but not because of the Kesey part.

> 203 -- What does it mean that those who voted for Obama are "responsible" for what happens next?

As you may or may not know, real democracy is government "of the people, by the people, for people" (Thank you, Mr. Lincoln). Voters decide who gets to run the country and how the country is run. So -- on the principle that we're all responsible for the choices we make -- those who voted for Obama are responsible for Obama's governance and for his foreign policy decisions. Every missile fired by every drone, every man, woman and child killed in that way is your responsibility.

If you believe in democracy, there's no way around it.

> 199

I would never call you a drama queen.

However, I will say that you certainly remind me - very strongly - of a drama queen.

Do you actually plan on whining and bitching and moaning and foaming for the next four years or is this just a short term letting off of steam? ChristBuddhaAllah, for your sake I hope it’s the latter.

I asked what you mean when you say we are responsible, and your answer is that we are responsible. Again, what does that mean? That in some cosmic sense I am guilty? Who is the judge? Is the Pakistani government coming to get me? Does the electorate get to hold me in contempt?

Seriously, what does it mean to be responsible AFTER your vote?

#210 by @Arctic-Stranger> I think it'd be the same as being responsible for your kid (that you gave a normal childhood) growing up to become a serial killer. Or for the bum you gave $5 to buying some smack and dying of an overdose. Or the dog you picked up at the pound biting someone the first time you took him for a walk. Or the country you helped found one day intentionally withholding treatment from poor black men who had syphilis.

They're all pretty loose definitions of "responsible", even if they have a logical chain to connect them.

#201--in the sense that our political system is all fucked up and corrupt--that practically every POTUS is going to get us into some nonsensical war game adventure and that we can vote all we want for yadda, yadda and yadda and it's only the yadda's who have the tools to fix the system but because of self interested motivations are not about to. Personally if I vote--a couple years later it seems I'm being called in to some kind of jury duty mass interview which I have no interest in--having deep suspicions about judges, lawyers, law enforcement and what passes for justice. There's not really a big win in voting for me. Again the green party is fairly close on a lot of things to my own viewpoints--what they might be like if they ever were to win is open to question but at least initially I'd have to think they would be a breath of fresh air--if they were eventually to become a real power player one might see where they could turn into the same old thing. The anti-fracking thing is important to me as a resident of the southern tier of NYS. Energy companies are really keen on moving in here soon and they don't give a rat's ass what they do to the local environment as long as they can make $$$$$$$$$$$$$ x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. I have to live here. I don't want to see the environment--particularly my water supply all fucked up. I don't want to fucking move and the people behind this are amongst the worst scumbags on the face of the earth.

> 209 -- JGL53 -- Do you actually plan on whining and bitching and moaning and foaming for the next four years or is this just a short term letting off of steam? ChristBuddhaAllah, for your sake I hope it’s the latter.

Don't do me any favors. I'm comfortable where I'm at.

> 210 -- Arctic-Stranger -- is evidently NOT comfortable. (S)he is worried about the definition of the word "responsible." I guess it means whatever (s)he wants it to mean. One thing is certain: (S)he'd like Bill Clinton's definition a lot better than mine, so maybe (s)he should email Mr. Clinton and ask him.

~194 & 195

"I don't get the logic there. It's not like boycotting a store; they get elected whether there's 20 million voters or 200 million. If you don't vote, they have absolutely no reason to care about your opinion. I can't imagine there's anything the powers behind the scenes like better then a frustrated voter dropping out, as that reduces the uncertainty they have to deal with"

"I don't like any of the major brands of gooseberry jam. Therefore, I'm not going to buy any gooseberry jam until someone comes out with a better brand. What !!! You'll never get a better brand that way. How would anyone know that you and ten million other people weren't buying gooseberry jam because you all didn't like the current brands. You MUST buy a current brand to express your preferences.

...........

"If you're going to espouse "Just say 'Fuck it' and walk away", then why don't you do so? Then you won't be eating ANY gooseberry jam. What will you do then, huh? What?"

Sound familiar? (It is an example of limited imagination. You REALLY can't imagine any way of expressing your political preferences other than voting for one of two predetermined candidates? Really? You ought to get out more often.)

Actually I am really interested in whether or not I can sue the responsible Bush voters. As to Obama, I am happy.

~214

You can't. You can't even sue the candidates for fraud, although what they do during their campaigns meets all 7 elements for proof of fraud. (Well maybe a voter's reliance on their promises is per se not reasonable. So six of the seven elements for fraud.)

Well, then I guess it is a theoretical question, although not one I can expect to be answered.

#210

Responsibility, in this context, would seem to mean that those that voted for (or derived benefits from the election of) a candidate are responsible for the actions taken by that candidate on the public's behalf. That our elected officials are ultimately our agents, and actions they take acting as our agents are to be considered actions that we support or at least permit, no matter how reprehensible they might be. The flip side is that actions taken by our elected officials/agents that are NOT part of their duties are strictly their own responsibility.

To take an example from that a name given above: those that voted for Clinton are responsible for his actions in the Balkans, and similar foreign policy actions. The voters were NOT responsible for Clinton's sex life, as that was not part of his duties as POTUS, and he was not acting as an agent of the U.S. voting public in that matter.

Since, however, establishing who actually voted for Clinton would be difficult in the majority of cases, the assignment of that responsibility would be difficult (to say the least).

Ok, so let's say I am "responsible" for Clinton's actions in the Balkins. And that concerns me, how?

I do find this interesting, but let's take a different tack. (I knew people who served in the Balkens, so I don't have a major issue with that.) Let's take Clinton's inaction on Rwanda. He could have sent in troops to avert the slaughter, but didn't. I did vote for him, so I am somehow "responsible" for that. I feel bad about it, a normal, ineffective 20th century response.

As I write this I can feel my blood boil a little. I mean, really now, when Bush declares war on TWO foreign countries, the only "responsibility" he calls for is for us to lower taxes. No sacrifice, no support (other than bumper stickers and flag pins) and all we have to do is bury those one who came home in a box.

Don't talk to me about responsibility if you voted for Bush.

It's funny how "responsibility" is tossed around when you are looking to blame someone for something, but "credit" is rarely equally applied. If the voters are now "responsible" for

Every missile fired by every drone, every man, woman and child killed in that way

then surely they can also take credit for the fact that for the first time in her adult life my cousin can get health insurance despite a life-threatening pre-existing condition.

The other aspect of "responsibility" is what actions you are then obligated to take, or authorized to take. If voters are responsible for all those women and children killed, then they have a very specific course of action open to them. Vote for someone else the next time.

They have other things they can do as well, if they are so motivated, such are writing letters, signing petitions, donating time and money to relief charities, etc etc. They can even protest and commit acts of civil disobedience if they feel strongly enough.

Luckily, they are not required to be prosecuted for the crimes of the officials they elect into office. In that sense, anyway, the law deems them "not responsible."

Applying the whole "you voted for the candidate, his actions are your responsibility" logic, then non-voters also share some responsibility. When you specifically decide not to vote for A or B and A wins, then you are part of that victory because you withheld a vote from B that could have helped them win instead. You could have helped avert (insert tragic event here), but instead of helping you sat on your hands and did nothing.

I was merely trying to explain the position; I'm not saying that I necessarily support it. It can lead to interesting questions (when does responsibility stop?) but ultimately futile ones.

#198: That's entirely obvious.

You can always tell when someone has a good cogent argument for something; when they stick around, clearly having the time to make it, but would rather make dismissive noises instead of making it.

#208: So -- on the principle that we're all responsible for the choices we make -- those who voted for Obama are responsible for Obama's governance and for his foreign policy decisions.

You can be held responsible for the results of your actions, but only the results. Each one of us is responsible for some small part of the difference between Obama's governance and Romney's governance. If there were no meaningful choices, that's nothing. Likewise, you are responsible for some small part of the difference between Obama's governance and Romney's governance, as you could have acted to stop that, and didn't. The differential impact between me voting for Obama and me voting for Jill Stein was the exact same (assuming you lived in an equally important state, electoral college wise) as you voting for Romney and not voting at all.

Either we had meaningful choices and chose poorly (as did you), or we had no meaningful choices, our choices had no consequences, and we can't be held responsible for anything.

For those of you who just don't get it, let me try it this way: When foreign soldiers come here to occupy our nation, they're not gonna give a crap who voted for Bush or Obama. What they're gonna pay attention to is that the people of AMERICA sent those drones and killed those babies and they're going to hold all of us, collectively, responsible.

In 1945 citizens of Germany and Japan were governed by dictatorships. They had to do what their leaders told them. AMERICAN civilians can't make that claim. Because we live in a democracy, WE chose leaders who committed war crimes and atrocities in our name. Worse yet, our leaders bragged about what they did on global television. A good part of the back-and-forth leading up to election 2012 saw Obama and Romney arguing about which of them is tougher. Romney (for example) made it plain to us that he thought it might be a good idea to bomb Iran. And what did Hillary say when she went to Libya? "We came. We saw. He died."

Ergo: there's no way in the world the American people can argue that we didn't know (as the Germans and Japanese argued) what was being done in our name. We might try that, but I don't expect anybody is going to listen. So if and when (God forbid) the Chinese People's Marine Corps comes swaggering down Main Street, shooting Americans like rabbits, who are y'all gonna call that gives a crap about it?

Yo' Momma?

When foreign soldiers come here to occupy our nation, they're not gonna give a crap who voted for Bush or Obama

What foreign soldiers might those be? The ones from Red Dawn?

>220 southernbooklady: They have other things they can do as well, if they are so motivated, such are writing letters, signing petitions, donating time and money to relief charities, etc etc. They can even protest and commit acts of civil disobedience if they feel strongly enough.

Very true. Democracy is not only about electing candidates but also about influencing policies. It can work, particularly on issues where citizens and parties are not highly polarised.

An example in which I was involved: in the second half of 2010 the US government changed its position on the date, feasibility and desirability of the South Sudan referendum. This was a result of a great deal of activity by interested citizens in the USA as well as lobbying by civil society, church and government from South Sudan. Since much of the international community looked to the USA for leadership in that particular issue, it had a profound effect, leading to the birth of a new nation.

>225 theoria:

Although I'm also skeptical about the likelihood of an occupation, I think Deke in >224 dekesolomon: does have a valid point about reprisals, which are probably inevitable. Americans shouldn't pretend to be surprised. But I suspect many will...

#227: While the ability to deceive ourselves about far-off happenings is fairly great, I'm not so sure that very many Americans actually have to pretend to be surprised. A lot of it is due to the cultural narrative unintentionally woven through the mass media. You've got war-loving fuckers like Tom Hanks making movies like Charlie Wilson's War that leave you with the wrong impression that the mistake of the Afghan War was that the US didn't stay to help prop up the mujahedin. There's even this new movie Argo set during the time of the Iranian Revolution and while I haven't seen it myself and don't know where the filmmakers' are coming from, I have a sneaking suspicion that it at least unintentionally portrays the evil moozlims coming out of thin air as if the preceding history of the US propping up the Shah never happened.

What foreign soldiers might those be? The ones from Red Dawn?

Isn't it funny how the same people who are basically saying "I don't give a crap, we have bigger guns so nobody's going to hold me accountable" are usually the same people saying "I don't like guns"?

#227: Ultimately, I don't think that's a really productive argument. No matter what we do, there will be reprisals; and some of our most hideous crimes historically have gone unpunished, whereas the stated causes of 9/11 were the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. Certainly Israel is a damned if you, damned if you don't thing; we can hardly let the entire nation be wiped off the map. Nor is the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia a high crime. Iraqi sanctions were more problematic; but you'll note the widespread lack of concern among Arabian nations about this muzzling of a leader who fully gained office in 1979 and between 1979-1991 spent three years not involved in attacking other Middle Eastern nations.

There are many examples of immoral strategies winning historically. In 1910, there were 250 thousand American Indians left and 4.4 million Irish. The failure of the British to push the Great Famine of 1842-1852 cost them the island, whereas the US's much more successful genocide of the American Indian left us few problems. Pragmatically speaking, I suspect that our murders of terrorists without trial will have a net reduction in reprisal on the US. Our drone strikes in Afghanistan aren't going to have much of a net effect on anything, IMO, in the overall mess.

Push morality, not consequences; you have a much better case for the first.

"Ultimately, I don't think that's a really productive argument. No matter what we do, there will be reprisals; and some of our most hideous crimes historically have gone unpunished, whereas the stated causes of 9/11 were the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. Certainly Israel is a damned if you, damned if you don't thing; we can hardly let the entire nation be wiped off the map. Nor is the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia a high crime. Iraqi sanctions were more problematic; but you'll note the widespread lack of concern among Arabian nations about this muzzling of a leader who fully gained office in 1979 and between 1979-1991 spent three years not involved in attacking other Middle Eastern nations."

Yes, you're probably right. So long as "we" continue to try to "do good" through the muzzle of a gun through out the world there will be reprisals. People get all upset when you kill their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts or uncles or prop up the regimes that do the killing. It is, of course, completely irrational. I'm sure you would react differently. But dang, you know, the last time that a "foreign power" of sorts acted similarly on US soil many people got all upset and seemed ready to authorize dictatorship and unlimited war.

See what Chris Hedges has to say about the election:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33006.htm

227> ". . . does have a valid point about reprisals, which are probably inevitable. Americans shouldn't pretend to be surprised. But I suspect many will..."

I won't be surprised, neither will most rational people. It's not as if warfare, international tensions, and strife were invented yesterday. Reprisals happen. So does rain.

Right now China is much more pissed at Japan than they are pissed at us. I don't know if you have noticed it, but slowly the Obama administration has been winning allies in that region, without provoking China. India, Japan, Indonesia, have been coddle by us, while China has been...well, China. I may be wrong, but I don't think we will see Chinese soldiers in the streets anytime soon.

If we have a blow up with China, it will over the budget, not foreign policy.

China invading the US makes about as much sense as you invading your piggy bank.

You kidding me? That's where the money is!

Most people won't want to hear this but the CIA needs to be abolished IMO. Secret Services are behind much of the external antagonism towards our country and for good reason. The CIA has carte blanche to do as it pleases and the government (whatever the party in power) protects and covers up. The lack of transparency is anti-democratic and I'm not talking about the democratic party--more like going against the american grain.

236> Yes, that's where the money is. The money that's already yours.

the money that goes to pay for the goods and services you consume as a citizen of the U S of A. Red state more than blue states.

How many billions per year are we as a nation wasting on so-called "homeland security'?

In 2017 President Rand Paul, while he's cutting the defense budget by half, should just do away completely with the "homeland security" joke.

(that last bit was sarcasm.)

"A great art of politics is to insist on a particular demand that, while thoroughly realist, feasible and legitimate, disturbs the core of the hegemonic ideology." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/obama-ground-floor-thinking

239> Was that directed towards me? I'm not sure about how that fit into context.

I clarified my comment to show it was part of the piggy bank thread.

#231: So long as "we" continue to try to "do good" through the muzzle of a gun through out the world there will be reprisals.

Like all the reprisals for our involvement in WWII. The Holocaust was an internal affair and none of our business, right? That goes for the Brits, too, right? Polish-German relations were none of their business?

You want to stand by while genocide goes on? Most people aren't. You don't? Well, then we're back in the miasma of trying to do good through the muzzle of a gun.

prop up the regimes that do the killing.

Which means what? Our "doing good" through our economic power hasn't made fans in many places around the world, either. All regimes kill; all regimes have done wrong. How are we supposed to interact with them?

(No, don't tell me I know what that means. What does that mean? Are we free to sell guns to anyone we want? Should we sell weapons to no one? What do we do about Israel?)

You were completely general, dodging any real-world examples in that statement. Let's drop you in the hot seat; you won the 1988 presidential elections instead of George H. W. Bush. Iraq has invaded Kuwait. Respond or not. How do you deal with the aftermath of your response?

You going to tell the people of Kuwait to suck it? That will do wonders for Arab-US relations, abandoning an ally like that. And on 9/11, planes are going to fly into buildings, all about how we let our secular ally invade Kuwait. (Sorry; his allyship predates your administration.)

You going to "do good" through the muzzle of a gun? What are you going to do afterward?

Real-life problems are not so magically simple. You can poke at a dozen cases where I'd agree that we acted poorly, but that doesn't make your simple, yet ill-described, proposals functional.

#237: Most people won't want to hear this but the CIA needs to be abolished IMO.

The CIA sucks, no doubt about it. I do not see it feasible for us to go without a foreign intelligence service, though. How do you balance the need for privacy (the frequently life-and-death need for privacy) of espionage with the need for transparency in a democracy?

The money that's already yours.

Yeah, but it's locked in the stupid piggy bank! Weren't you ever a child? ;)

the money that goes to pay for the goods and services you consume as a citizen of the U S of A. Red state more than blue states.

I hate that argument, and I don't think sensible people should use it. Sure, it's trivially true, but correlation isn't causation. If you simply slice by urban vs. rural instead, you get a stronger result, as well as a good explanation, that rural populations—red or blue—are poorer and more expensive to service than city populations.

Anyway, if we're going to play this silly game, it's also true that red states contribute more soldiers to our military, and have died in disproportionate numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, if one were inclined to see things that way, blue states are free-loading off the sweat and blood of red states. But, again, the best explanation isn't politics but rural vs. urban, with deep blue Vermont right up there beside deep red Montana as a top military state.

>245 timspalding: If you simply slice by urban vs. rural instead, you get a stronger result, as well as a good explanation

I sometimes think the whole obsession with red and blue masks the real source of ideological and cultural division, which is rural/urban.

Certainly true when you look at the "heat map" or bubble type maps. Click on "size of lead" here:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president

Even in "red" states, there are large blue bubbles around many big cities. And in "blue" states, there are many small rural red bubbles (harder to see due to the nature of the map).

Here's another interesting coloring, showing purpleness as well as red/blue by county:
http://nyopoliticker.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/545543_10151321923986667_860632...

The latter of those shows a third thing—density. Big areas of the country are a light pink not because they're only just Republican, but because they're relatively less populated. It skews things because the eye doesn't see a large area of very light pink as equivalent to small areas of bright blue.

~243

Despite, I'm sure, your wishes to the contrary, the US simply doesn't have the complicity to reduce all of its imagined enemies to the rubble that was post-WWII Germany. It is, of course, true that if you totally demolish your enemies that they won't retaliate.

The problem is when you don't or when those who you supported in the last chess game become your enemy in the next chess game. As you say, it is so very complex when one feels the compulsion to play chess with other peoples' lives.

#249: Respond to the question: it's 2nd August 1990, you're George H. W. Bush (or the president elected instead) and you've received the news that Iraq has conquered Kuwait. What do you do? I'm not interested in random haverings if you aren't willing to discuss how your philosophy will work in practice.

Edit: Fix date.

>250 prosfilaes: Do you mean 2nd August 1990?

Might be worth remembering that there was a UN mandate for the liberation of Kuwait in 1991*. Thus the USA was operating with the agreement of and on behalf of virtually every country in the world and in accordance with international law, rather than cobbling together its own "coalition of the willing" in a situation where the legality was arguable, to say the least, in 2003.

* UN Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) "Authorizes Member States... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area"; while UN SCR 660 (1990) "Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all
its forces".

#251: UN or not, it was doing good at the point of a gun. All of the reasons Osama bin Laden gave for attacking the US, Israel, American troops in Saudi Arabia and the Iraqi sanctions, originated in UN mandates.

(Yes, I meant 1990; edited.)

~250

Apparently what you'd do is mobilize thousands of American "boys" (many of whom are just a bit older than boys and who are full of testosterone), mobilize hundreds of millions dollars of American equipment, and go off on another crusade to save the Kuwait monarchy and nobility.

Admirable.

Tell me, in your ideal world would there be an American tank on every corner in every country, just in case them there fereigners weren't running their affairs like good 'mericans would want?

Enough about what s/he'd do - what would you? It's fairly impressive how much you criticize without actually presenting your idea of an alternative.

> 252

I was not one of the six who red flagged this post but I do object to the profanity.

>256 JGL53:: "but I do object to the profanity"

I didn't realize you knew how to be ironic.

#244--abolish the service. Start from scratch if you have to. We're supposed to be--at least that's what people here seem to assume--a free and open society. Why not try to live up to that ideal and not worry about what these other countries are doing? There's a parallel between these secret services and repressive societies.

#250--George H.W. Bush had no choice but to attack Iraq over Kuwait? Have you ever asked yourself why we're the self appointed global policeman?

#252--profane or not Lunar is right.

As an addendum--George W. Bush's Shock and awe and takeover of Iraq did not show us to be the mighty nation that many Americans even today believe. Saddam's Iraq was hardly a major power but over the course of the intervening years it strained our military in logistical terms (whether we're talking troops, equipment etc.) pretty close to the max. What it showed is we're not that strong at all--which is okay by the way. Having the world's greatest military capability is not the be all and end all and Iraq and Afghanistan are both great examples of that as the insurgencies in these places have pretty much run us around in circles since 2003.

The real point of all this nation building has been about capturing energy resources--our leading politicians kowtowing to the whims of multinationals and banking interests. These interests have made a mint out of these conflicts. Those soldiers and civilians unfortunate to be caught in the middle of the conflagration they've caused mean nothing to them. They created a narrative so that the public will think it's all on the up and up.

258> the USA could just outsource intelligence gathering activities to Wikileaks.

The invasion of Kuwait could have been ignored by us, and at the time I was strongly opposed to war with Iraq. However, in hindsight, it was the right thing to do and done the right way(unlike the second Bush's invasion of Iraq). I do think that encouraging the people to rise up against Saddam, only to sit back and watch them go down to massive defeat was wrong.

I have to admit I am shocked by the naiveté of some of this discussion. Get rid of the CIA? And what, have NO foreign intelligence? (I was once recruited by the CIA, after college. I figured they would send me to some backwater place to read newspapers and make daily reports, which is what a friend of mine ended up doing.)

>258 lriley:: "George H.W. Bush had no choice but to attack Iraq over Kuwait? Have you ever asked yourself why we're the self appointed global policeman? "

Oh right, I forgot. We're not supposed to care about anybody other than Americans. If Americans are attacked, we should protect them. But if other people are being oppressed? Sorry, we don't care about you. You're not Americans, so you don't matter.

Part of being human is having a moral responsibility to care for other humans, even if they do live half-way around the world and worship a different God. If they are suffering, I should care. And if there's something I can do to help alleviate their suffering, I should do it.

But you can go crawl back into your isolationist hole with the Americans for Chamberlain committee and pretend that the lives lost to evil around the world aren't worth getting involved with.

There is a middle ground. Amerika as incessent interventionist is not a good idea. The 1960s were not a good time for Latin America, vis a vis their northern American neighbor. (There is a great book on that--The Hovering Giant by Cole Blasier.)

This is one of those areas where it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Sit back and watch 800,000 Rwandans die, or get involved, lose one helicopter, and pay the political price for years to come. Let the Balkans implode, and suffer the consequences (WWI) or get involved in an intractable mess.

On the whole I don't favor intervention by the US, but there are times when sitting back and doing nothing is dangerous or immoral or both.

262> I remember going to a rally at the UN the night the USA intervened in Kuwait. I came away with the view that the "left" had no coherent theory of the appropriate use of American military force or of the position of the USA in the international order of states.

>262 Arctic-Stranger:: I pretty much agree with you. But then, my criterion for intervention is the righting of injustice and alleviation of suffering, not the selfish imposition of "American national interests" by whatever Realpolitik is deemed necessary.

The "appropriate" time to intervene is when it works. The "inappropriate" time is when it blows up in your face.

I don't really believe that's the full description, but I do find a bit of truth in it.

265> That works after the fact :)

#266 by @theoria> Aye, there's the rub. In just about every situation, they'll be people telling you there's a logical argument that demands you must intervene/not intervene beforehand.

It's always a bit of a crapshoot.

Great Presidents put their Presidencies, not to mention their legacies, on the line to do what they believe in their hearts is right.

Carter did that and he lost.

Obama did that and he won.

Obama has always been lucky like that. It's almost like he has a charmed life. That's why I can't believe he is a secret muslim who hates America. Doesn't make sense.

>268 JGL53:: "Great Presidents put their Presidencies, not to mention their legacies, on the line to do what they believe in their hearts is right."

By that criterion, George W. Bush was a great president. He believed in his heart that toppling the murderous and brutal dictator Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, his legacy be damned. Say what you will about whether it was a good decision or not: there was an honesty in his face and in his voice when he spoke about helping others to achieve freedom from tyranny -- an honesty that one rarely sees from politicians of any stripe.

#261--our way of caring about other people is through our clandestine intelligence services? We cared about Chileans so much that we overthrew their democratically elected government (it was socialist!) and gave them a brutal dictator (he was a right wing jerk but not a socialist). We overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala during Eisenhower's time because he had the temerity to take away land the United Fruit company had no intention of ever using and giving it to dirt poor peasants. We cared about them a lot. We helped overthrow the Mossadegh Iraqi govt. over oil--installed a dictator who's intelligence/Secret Service SAVAK was as brutal as any on the face of the earth. We sent Dan Mitrione to Uruguay to teach the police and military how to get information from terrorist (or not) suspects. For lack of guinea pigs they were kidnapping the homeless off the streets--rather than return them to the same streets to tell their tales it was figured to be wiser just to finish them off. They were usually well on their way anyway. Mitrione by the way is a real American hero. Ever hear of the MK Ultra project? Don't bother (and if you do don't dig deep)--it's not pleasant. Viet Nam I'm sure you have heard of--all kinds of nefarious activities there . Helping Bin Laden's 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan in their war against those no good Russians. It goes on and on and on and on and on. The gathering of so-called information is the least of it. Overthrowing governments, assassinations, black ops, drug dealing and weapons peddling, mind control experimentation. That's the CIA. If you agree with all that--that's just great but I'm not a fan. I'm #260 just naive.

>270 lriley:: I'm not sure where you got the idea that I support the CIA using any and every clandestine means possible to achieve its own cynical imposition of Realpolitik upon the world. That's why I wrote what I wrote in post 264: "My criterion for intervention is the righting of injustice and alleviation of suffering, not the selfish imposition of "American national interests" by whatever Realpolitik is deemed necessary."

But you seem to believe that there are only two paths: absolute non-intervention in the world or CIA despotism. I'm sorry that you can't see the middle way of compassionate intervention to right injustice.

> 269

If he hadn't been a filthy liar who believed the ends justified the means that would have been great.

Too bad.

#271--But 'using any and every clandestine means possilbe to achieve its own cynical imposition of Realpolitik upon the world' is what they are doing and what they've always done and a good part of the reason for that is there are no controls--no overriding authority that is going to impose its will on it. In any case the matter of keeping things secret--the state security argument that protects it beyond reason is readily accepted by the vast majority of the American public--and there are very few amongst that vast majority who have any clue what that organization gets up to. It's easier to think we're just the good guys--so when we're fed a narrative such as the one G.W. gave on the need to invade Iraq we accept that it must be true.

Going a little further--part of the argument Lunar makes is the lack of historical perspective so many of us have. It's all about the moment or what's happening now--what lies people are buying. They don't want to look back to see how their opinion may have been manipulated to achieve an end. And G.W.'s and Cheney's Iraq invasion is an excellent example of that. Both should at the least be sitting in a prison right now. Instead Cheney and his friends are so much wealthier for the dead and maimed American servicemen and thousand upon thousands of dead and maimed civilians.

> 273

"...It's all about the moment or what's happening now--what lies people are buying. They don't want to look back to see how their opinion may have been manipulated to achieve an end. And G.W.'s and Cheney's Iraq invasion is an excellent example of that. Both should at the least be sitting in a prison right now. Instead Cheney and his friends are so much wealthier for the dead and maimed American servicemen and thousand upon thousands of dead and maimed civilians."

No truer words have ever been spoken.

Nat and the late Christopher Hitchens agreed against us though.

Politics makes strange bedfellows?

>256 JGL53:
You haven't noticed before ?
I did not flag it either as I have the poster on ignore but reading his posts is much like reading the comments on Yahoo or many of the other sites. Bad language, veiled name calling and disgusting comparisons. I like LibraryThing because there isn't all that much of that and I suppose Lunar has the "right to free speech" but he does insult the notion of what constitutes a discussion. Getting frustrated and crossing a line is one thing consistant garbage is another. What ever......we can disagree without being disagreeable...or maybe some of us can't ? Sad thing about the internet is the lack of respect for those who you really do not know all that well. What gives someone the right ? Not sure, but I was taught better than that. I don't hate people......maybe that helps as well.

#275 by @faceinbook> I suppose Lunar has the "right to free speech"

No, Lunar (or anyone else) does not have any "right" to free speech or anything else on LibraryThing. Check the Bill of Rights again.

>269 nathanielcampbell:
It strikes me that George Bush was easy to convince that outside ideas were indeed his own. He also made the mistake of having "magical thinking". We would be welcomed with open arms ? Right ! No infrastructure left in Iraq and they should be happy ? It is not possible to "create" a different country with people who do not know or understand how to take care of a different type of society. They will not nor can they understand. "Helping" is educating the people.....NOT smashing the country to bits and telling people they are now "better off" than they were before. Much like changing governments anywhere....when it changes life goes on as before for most people. If changes do happen, it takes a long to to affect the masses. I suspect a "free" Iraq will not last long enough for any affects to be felt at all. They do not think like we do and haven't since, well, forever......
Are we the thought police ? Are American's responsible for changing the thought processes of the world ? I don't agree with cruelty but I do know one thing.....the person who is on the other end of that cruelty has a responsibility in making it stop.....if they do not take part, they will go right back to what they are accustomed to. Fear of change is universal.

Those who believe you can have a modern society without some kinds of coercion, and without some injustices done are also guilty of magical thinking. If they think, it will be so. NOT.

~255

I thought by now it was rather apparent what I would do. I would transform the Defense Department into a DEFENSE Department for the U.S. Not for the Kuwait monarchy, not for the poor oppressed people of Iraq, etc. but for the U.S. I know that the notion is absurd, that a government bureau would be what it is labelled, but just think about it for a moment and put away that volume of "the world according to Bismarck."

~256

You object to the profanity. YOU object to the profanity. You, (giggle, snort, wheeze), object to the profanity. When did you absorb JGL and when are the rest of you plant people invading?

#279 by @lawecon> In other words, total isolationism?

Second question - what would you have done in 1940? Would you have supplied arms the Allies powers through Lend-Lease, thus leading to Japan attacking? Or would you have said, "This ain't our fight - we're totally neutral and Germany and Japan are free to do whatever they want. Leave us out!"?

Ah well, on to the personal attacks stage already? I guess never mind on having an actual intellectual discussion. Did you come here to have an actual two-way conversation or just to hear yourself speak?

It's easier to lob insults than actually answer the question.

There were many people who were loudly opposed to the US entering into WWII in any capacity. lawecon agrees with them. He's allowed to. I think his position could more accurately be called non-interventionist rather than isolationist, as he rather ardently and inarticulately points out that he is not anti-immigration.

#258: Saddam's Iraq was hardly a major power but over the course of the intervening years it strained our military in logistical terms (whether we're talking troops, equipment etc.) pretty close to the max.

I think that's counterfactual. Saddam's Iraq was pretty trivial. If we had hung Saddam and gone home, it wouldn't have strained anything. In conventional warfare, we can annihilate almost any force short of the Chinese (sheer manpower) or the Russians (Baba Yaga and her winter). It's the aftermath that was hard.

#273: But 'using any and every clandestine means possilbe to achieve its own cynical imposition of Realpolitik upon the world' is what they are doing and what they've always done and a good part of the reason for that is there are no controls--no overriding authority that is going to impose its will on it.

Stop telling us what we know. Are you arguing that espionage is not a proper role of the government? All this history is moot; we know it, we don't approve of their actions. Is it acceptable for you to say that we shouldn't have foreign intelligence, or can we get on to discussing how we should reform it?

#279: I thought by now it was rather apparent what I would do.

Then why would I have asked you the direct question?

Not for the Kuwait monarchy, not for the poor oppressed people of Iraq, etc. but for the U.S.

I don't understand why you think that will make everyone in the world happier. "The rich US sitting by exploiting the world economically and not lifting a finger against oppression" is already a bitter story told in many places; abandoning an ally would not help the case.

#284: There were many people who were loudly opposed to the US entering into WWII in any capacity.

We have a historical perspective on this they didn't, though. Not entering the European front of the war would have caused serious harm to the people of Europe and ultimately the US. It would have left the Soviet Union in control of more, possibly all, of continental Europe. The Soviet Union would have been the first to have the atomic bomb and unless we took that seriously, likely would have used it to extend their control around the world. That's almost a realistic story behind Red Dawn

I would like to point out that I was not, in any way, defending lawecon's position. I was just articulating it, as he was unable to do so.

There's an argument for humanitarian intervention, and a strong one. Our intervention in the former Yugoslavia was a good thing.

~286

Yes, indeed. Humanitarian interventions like this one http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq. But think of how many people would have died if "we" hadn't intervened! I mean, as we all know, Saddam Hussein had his weapons of mass destruction, as exemplified by the tubes of yellow cake uranium that he had received from Al Qaeda.

Yes, indeed, "we" as examples of an advanced civilization with practices like these http://www.aclu.org/national-security/guantanamo-numbers have a moral duty to "step in" when inferior and barbaric Peoples just can't get along with each other. We need to set things right. Noblesse oblige, you know.

#287 by @lawecon> Got it.

Glad to hear we're on the same page.

~289

Yes, truly we are. A pinch of snuff, my Lord? Then we can have the servants pull out the folding chairs and watch the boys thrash the wogs into submission.

290> Well, you've certainly answered one of the questions I put to you. Perhaps the most important one.

~291

You mean the one about your considered views on foreign policy as interpreted through science fiction?

#285--one of the problems here is you see the force--you don't care about the results. The USA went into Iraq with a big bang. The media awed and gushing about Shock and Awe. The public sucks it up. 'America is strong. This is what happens when someone fucks with us.' The collateral stuff you don't see--women, children, the elderly getting blown to bits. These people may not have been living in a great country but were still human beings--the vast majority of whom had a not a thing to do with Saddam's regime. They disappear from history--leaving holes in the hearts of their families who survive. The media is leading the hurrahs and is not empathetic and so the public isn't either. Blind leading the blind being manipulated by the Bush/Cheney administration.

And a little later from the aircraft carrier--the president says the war is over--we won and the occupation begins. And for the next 7-8 years we're losing soldiers here and there--left and right--dead and maimed--they're playing policemen and committing all kinds of brutalities as well--frustrated at chasing shadows from hither to yon not knowing who is a friend and who is not and in those kinds of situations everybody is suspicious. The language is different, the culture, the main religion. Meanwhile billions of $ are pouring in and much of that money disappearing into thin air. Someone far away is getting rich. Multiple someones getting rich who have the political power to pull strings. This is in essence what Iraq and Afghanistan are to me. And Iraq's oil and the natural gas pipeline running through Afghanistan are a major part of this as well.

To reiterate the Iraqi and Afghanistan occupations have stretched us logistically (in military terms) to the breaking point. We do not have the money, resources, military manpower, equipment to sustain these campaigns forever and that's basically fighting insurgents not an organized land army with naval or air support. I don't know how else to tell you this but apart from nuclear weapons (a last resort/sake of survival kind of option) we are not as powerful as most of the public seem to think. We have our hands full just chasing these shadows.

~287

I think I'm going to start using the term neanderthal more frequently. It is apparent that none of you know enough about political discourse to know what it means in that context, and I'm starting a red flag collection.

I still do think it is rather cowardly for the red flags to come without names, but I guess that is the nature of these discussions. After all, it is a chat room, or a kindergarten playground (either description works).

#294: one of the problems here is you see the force--you don't care about the results.

Don't tell me what I do and don't care about.

We do not have the money, resources, military manpower, equipment to sustain these campaigns forever and that's basically fighting insurgents not an organized land army with naval or air support.

That's ass-backwards. Organized armies are easy. We could blow up any organized army in the world. Insurgents are way harder to fight then organized armies.

Actual neanderthals should be the only ones handing out red flags here for the defamation they are suffering.

~297

Well, while I agree that it is anthropologically unjust to use the term "neanderthal" to refer to those who still believe in natural aristocracy and the pervasive use of overwhelming military force to create "justice," the term has been used in that manner for sometime in political discourse. Hence, one presumes that others know what is meant in a political discussion. But, apparently not - either that or the kindergarten playground mob is restless, yet again.

And besides which, your factual presumption appears to be mistaken. I would be willing to bet that it IS the neanderthals who are handing out the red flags.

I'll take that anachronistic bet! Everyone is hereby required to attend the anthropometric ministry for brow-ridge measurements and classification.

293> Nope. It was the one about why you post. And your following messages only reinforce it.

292> So when some and asks for the magical instant libertarian solution to the invasion of Kuwait with abject disregard for that event's growth out of Saddam Hussein's feeling that he deserved a reward for his loyalty to the US during the Iran-Iraq War...

The question was regardless of how the mess arose, what should Bush have done about it. And not every problem in the world was caused by the US. Did the US do right by not intervening in the massacre in Rwanda? Is the US just supposed to ignore what goes on beyond its borders?

And Iriley, we were talking about the first Bush and the first Gulf War.

#301--do I need to get permission from you to move on to the second?

#292: the magical instant libertarian solution to the invasion of Kuwait with abject disregard for that event's growth out of Saddam Hussein's feeling that he deserved a reward for his loyalty to the US during the Iran-Iraq War and even put out diplomatic feelers about whether the US would be OK with such an invasion before proceeding, he is engaging in magical thinking.

Hussein's loyalty to the US in the Iran-Iraq War? I see no reason to think he was so deluded. And it would have been delusion; he attacked on his own initiative for his own power and glory. It's unfortunate that our ambassador didn't understand what she was being asked, and that Hussein didn't understand what she meant when she told him the US would not get involved in Arab-Arab politics. I'm not sure why the latter matters; if he was flat told that the US would not get involved in an Iraq-Kuwait war (which is what lawecon says we should have done) it surely wouldn't have discouraged him.

And I'm not asking for a magical instant solution. I'm asking for what the president should have done. Things always have complex causes and lack magical instant solutions; the problem is to figure out what to do given what's going on now on,as best as can be done.

Yes, Bush could curse Reagan's handling of Iraq, and Reagan could curse Carter's handling of Iran, and all three of them could curse Eisenhower (who probably had a few choice words for some of his predecessors). And yet none of that solved the problems put before them.

I suspect this attitude has something to do with libertarian's lack of political success. Had a libertarian won the 1988 US presidential election, he would have the issue dumped in his lap, just like a democrat, republican, socialism, communist or monarchist. All the bitching and whining about other people doesn't negate the fact that libertarians would have to deal with the problems their predecessors left them. Republicans and democrats do their share of finger-pointing, but spend most of their time talking about what they're going to do going forward.

#302: It's obfuscatory. The first Iraq war was chosen because it's more key to the issue of isolationism and because it was part of the factors that were asserted by bin Laden as a cause of 9/11; it's a harder problem. Switching to the easy problem is not convincing of your philosophy's ability to handle the hard problems.

John Qunicy Adams:

"America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom."

Sadly, the short-term gain outweighed the words of wisdom.

"The Holocaust was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory"

-- wikipedia

I could shout 'Godwin!', but...

And what did the United States do about the above act of Germany? (Or, for that matter, prior acts of genocide?) Nothing; we didn't go to war until December 1941, and had Hitler broken his Axis at that time, condemning the Japanese for their act of treachery, it might have been difficult to get Congress to declare war on Germany. (Hitler was still counting on the Japanese going to war with the Soviets, which didn't happen, and wasn't likely to.)

So, the United States chose to follow its interests, rather than what might have been morally right. Just like every other country. (Such as, say, Great Britain and France, which could have successfully intervened much earlier.)

JQA understood that once you intervene, even on the side of the angels, you are now involved in a morass of issues and grievances, many of which you were not aware of or don't understand. That there are unintended consequences, many of them unpleasant, for even the best-intentioned and most justifiable interventions.

~304

And then of course there are many similar passages from Washington's Farewell Address. But, of course, all those old dead punks were isolationists.

~306

Actually, despite impassioned pleas by American Jewish groups that Roosevelt order the bombing of the killing camps and the railroad lines leading to them, Roosevelt not only did not comply, but turned away hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from American shores - some with the effect that they were returned to Germany.

But, of course, he and his were good Bismarchian interventionists doing what he believed was in "American interests". Just like certain of the posters above.

#306 by @BruceCoulson> You've missed the entire point. The point is that there are countries that will do things like this. There are countries that will do things that are also awful and lower down on that scale. Some will argue that other countries have done things even worse.

So there you have proof of things like that existing, rather than them being an unrealistic boogeyman that people trot out. The question is then, given those things existing, do you think you can ever "do good through the muzzle of a gun"?

If not, I point back to the above situation. Other than inventing a world in which no one on any side uses a gun, do you agree that that situation could be solved through the muzzle of a gun? Should it just be allowed to continue in the pursuit of "minding your own business and not imposing your values on other parts of the world and other Peoples".

And if you say, "okay, so there are some situations where just minding your own business breaks down", aren't we just haggling over which ones are the "good" interventions and which are the "bad" ones?

The funny thing is that once you look past all the namecalling, most of the people on this thread actually agree on interventions in general. Is there even a single neocon/hawk in this conversation? I'm generally against them and think that most often the situation is simply manipulated/propagandized to engineer a false need to intervene.

I'm not sure I think there's a single US military campaign (shadow or otherwise) since WWII that I've actually felt was "good". Perhaps Bosnia. But had that all blown up in our face like Iraq has, I could have easily went the other way. Thus the joking statement I made earlier that whether it's "good" or "bad" depends on what the outcome is.

Hell, I don't even particularly care if Iran gets nukes. If Pakistan, India and Israel have them and we've managed to survive, Iran is really not a shock. Not nearly as worrying as when the US and the USSR had their fingers on the world-ending triggers.

But at the same time, I recognize that we don't live in a world where absolutes hold up. There are always special circumstances. Exceptions. Context.

Some people are pacifists with the caveat that if someone is pointing a gun at them or their family, they will fight back. Others extend that to someone pointing a gun at their neighbor. Others to the gun being pointed at otherwise helpless people.

The world has always been a dangerous place. Before the 20th century technology was so primitive that we couldn't destroy each other from half a world away. Today, of course, we can because technology makes it possible -- even easy.

The real pisser about technology, though, is that when we learn how to do a thing, what we learn next is how to do it better and cheaper. In 1945, nuclear weapons were high-tech, expensive items. Only a handful of filthy rich, industrially advanced societies could afford them. Today, 70 years later, any piss-ant, third-world dictatorship can find enough jack to buy at least ONE nuke. And there's probably at least ONE nuclear power in the world that's prepared to sell one. If there isn't already, there soon will be.

It's a process, you see. Scientists, futurists and those disgusting, hand-wringing liberals that America hates so much, were warning about the consequences of nuclear proliferation when I was a small child. I remember them doing so, and I was born in 1948. Today their predictions begin to come true, though their predictions are not yet fully realized. When comes the time that Radio Shack sells components at prices that make Predator drones as cheap as model airplanes, when nuclear missiles are the size of fountain pens, THEN the worm will have fully turned.

Somebody, earlier on this thread, casually dismissed reprisals as being "inevitable -- like rain." Such people casually assume that reprisals don't go beyond torture and bullets and bombs. Such people also think they could never be hungry enough to fight over a dead rat. They think they can work to repeal the Second Amendment (or the First or the Fifth) without putting all the others at risk. They think they can take away the liberties of some people without putting their own liberties at risk.

If Americans keep doing as they presently do and if things keep going as they are, the next two or three decades will tell who is right. But -- as we all know -- being right doesn't necessarily make the righteous happy.

#309

The only time the 'muzzle of a gun' is justifiable without further concern is in national self-defense. Resisting actual armed invasion.

Yes, there are countries that have done terrible things. The United States, when you go down that route, has done and supported terrible things. If it is acceptable for the United States to invade other countries in order to prevent ecgrious violations of personal liberty, would it be equally acceptable for other countries to invade the United States for the same reasons? Once you establish that precedent, there's no real going back.

In reality, countries do 'mind their own business'. It's just that in many cases, that 'business' involves other countries' sovreignty and people. The Soviet Union had a vested interest in maintaining a set of buffer states to make sure they were not invaded again after World War II. Does that 'business' justify the parceling out of Eastern Europe and the brutal suppression of liberties in those countries? After all the USSR was preventing another Nazi Party; isn't that reason enough for a few lapses?

By the same token, the United States toppled several regimes on the grounds of preventing the horrible event of a Communist take-over. Given how badly Communist governments treated their populations, was this an acceptable intervention?

So, we can see that 'minding your own business' already breaks down, given how that 'business' is interpreted. This is the ground you're advocating.

The only exception I could possibly see is if the national government volutarily, without coercion, asked for intervention by a foreign power.

~309

The problem you seem to be having, brightcopy, is that you think that the US government is you. It isn't you. It isn't me. It is a government. Now you and I may have an ethical duty to go about assisting other human beings that are in trouble - and since we'll probably find out that they are in trouble through our personal connections, we'll also know whether or not they want our help. A national government, however, has no moral duty toward the citizens of another country, other than, perhaps, the duty not to exterminate them. You are one entity. The government of the nation in which you reside is another entity. Try to keep them straight and separate in your mind.

312> So, we can see that 'minding your own business' already breaks down, given how that 'business' is interpreted. This is the ground you're advocating.

What's really funny is that you think I'm advocating that. There's a reason it was in quotes in my message 306. It's because I was quoting lawecon in 282. S/he didn't like the term "isolationist" and (after the namecalling because apparently I was supposed to say "non-interventionalist", a mortal sin) and instead said, "In other words, minding your own business and not imposing your values on other parts of the world and other Peoples". That was right before calling me an "isolationist" (among other things).

It's funny because I'm not an isolationist or a non-interventionalist. But just because I argue that the world is full of gray area instead of absolutes, and that like prosfilaes I realize if you get elected to office you can't rewrite history to avoid the hard questions, you've both decided I'm for something I'm not.

And for the record, yes, I want my country to be held to the same standards and would want someone else to intervene if we started gassing a few million of our own inhabitants. Unfortunately, I think that's about as likely as someone intervening in China and probably for good reason. As I said earlier, intervention is a tough issue. If you intervene and make things worse (in this case because the militaries of each would put up such a strong fight), then I'm not sure it was a "good" intervention.

I'm not putting labels on your stance; I'm basing my statements on your (provocative) statement pro-intervention. I have no idea if you're isolationist, non-interventialist, Democrat, Republican, or Green. Nor am I sure what difference it would make.

Yes, there are few absolutes in human affairs (as opposed to natural law). But intervention boils down to "We know what is better for your citizens and country than you do". It's paternalistic. It also presumes that the citizens of that country are incapable of removing their government from power, and that they wish to do so; a dubious assumption at best.

A 'good' intervention is, (imho) an oxymoron. Although it would be possible for a situation to occur which required intervention for the benefit of both the invader and the target (let's not mince words here) such an intervention means innocent people WILL die; others will suffer financial, emotional, and other losses. This is inevitable, and hardly the definition of 'good'.

Intervention also means unintended consequences for all parties; again many of them less than desirable.

The reasons JQA gave against the United States from intervening in foreign conflicts still apply. Every time the U.S. has intervened, people have suffered, and very little good has been accomplished. Various parties have used that intervention to obtain great riches, always at the expense of others. (Granted, they may have done so anyway; but that's not a reason to provide such opportunities.)

Consider the legacy of our past history of intervention (as opposed to defense when attacked). Iraq? Afghanistan?
Iran? Vietnam? Thailand? Are any of these places better off because we intervened?

Countries share much with corporations. They pursue their own interests, regardless of how that might affect others. Only adverse consequences (either short or long term) deter them.

As for the U.S. to be held to the same standards: it's a nice thought, and it would be good if this happened. But it's not going to.

It is absurd to try to apply 18th century foreign policy to the problems of the 21st century. It's not as though foreign policy positions are moral absolutes applicable in all time and all places.

Hell, I don't even particularly care if Iran gets nukes.

Then goodbye Israel. Among others.

Why, have people changed that substantially since the 19th Century?

I think not; nor have nations, for that matter. The technology has changed, along with the availability of weapons and a substantial increase in lethality; but the reasons WHY people choose to fight haven't changed all that much.

Yes, people have changed, nations have changed, technology has changed, geopolitics has changed, geography has changed, world commerce has changed, alliances have changed...nukes, terrorism...etc.

Yes, there have been changes since the 18th century. Don't be an ideologue by trying to fit your foreign policy absolutes to every situation that arises.

#306: And what did the United States do about the above act of Germany?

We gave ships to the UK under the Lend-Lease plan. We started a peacetime draft.

JQA understood that once you intervene, even on the side of the angels, you are now involved in a morass of issues and grievances, many of which you were not aware of or don't understand. That there are unintended consequences, many of them unpleasant, for even the best-intentioned and most justifiable interventions.

There are unintended consequences, many of them unpleasant, for even the best-intentioned and most justifiable noninterventions. A nonintervention is still an action with consequences.

And, more closely, just because we don't militarily intervene doesn't mean we aren't involved. There are many cases where we've sold weapons to one side or the other, and selling to both sides or neither can have dramatic impacts. If Russia threatens Georgia, does the State Department tell tourists to absolutely avoid Georgia based on risk of war? If North Korea and Japan go to war, do we move ships into the region to protect American vessels? Do we sternly remind both combatants of the Lusitania incident? Or do we tell American vessels that should they get sunk or captured in those waters, it was their own damn fault for being there.

Even outside military action of any sort, there's lots of questions. If bootleg DVDs are being made in South Sudan and being sold in richer countries, do we turn a blind eye? Do we have our ambassador send a formal complaint? Or do we threaten a full economic embargo until they follow their treaty obligations?

(And screw the government; you don't think Nike opening a new factory somewhere is the US being involved? you don't think Hollywood rewriting history and selling it to a new generation in some foreign land is not an intervention in their culture?)

(Edit: To which the point is, we're always involved. Even if we never militarily intervene, our presence will still be felt, one way or the other, and will have consequences we can't predict and often don't like.)

#311: Somebody, earlier on this thread, casually dismissed reprisals as being "inevitable -- like rain."

I have come to the conclusion that global warming is inevitable, and will not buy property in any place I figure is going to be underwater in my lifetime. Is that casually dismissing global warming, or simply accepting the reality of what's going to come in the future?

If Americans keep doing as they presently do and if things keep going as they are, the next two or three decades will tell who is right. But -- as we all know -- being right doesn't necessarily make the righteous happy.

Need I remind you of the book of Job? Or the success of the Native American genocide? Success and moral rectitude do not always go along together. You still haven't established why people who are upset about the invasion of American culture will suddenly be happy when we drop our military and use economic pressure instead. You still haven't established why we could do anything about Israel that won't leave someone pissed enough to kill. If we continue to support Israel, an Iranian nuke may find its ways to American shores; we let Israel get overrun, an Israeli nuke may find its way to American shores.

Doing the right thing sometimes hurts, and the fact that something hurts is not proof that it was the wrong thing. Worse yet, the fact that something hurts doesn't mean that you have alternatives that will hurt less.

#312: Yes, there are countries that have done terrible things. The United States, when you go down that route, has done and supported terrible things. If it is acceptable for the United States to invade other countries in order to prevent ecgrious violations of personal liberty, would it be equally acceptable for other countries to invade the United States for the same reasons? Once you establish that precedent, there's no real going back.

Why? What's the problem with saying that there is moral behavior such that, if the US behaves in said behavior, invasion is an appropriate response? If we invade Mexico, countries have the right to respond on behalf of Mexico. If we start a genocide, then other nations have a right to intervene to stop it.

~314

You know, you are really a confused puppy. You repeatedly asked me to explain my position. I did so and you immediately labelled it "isolationism" in your post 281. That is not a neutral term, as you seem to now seem to realize. It is an emotionally loaded mischaracterization of the position opposed to "interventionism."

When you started calling names and employing false labels, I responded that my position was, in fact, one of total freedom for individuals, not isolationism, and that, in fact, your position was isolationist and regressive. For which, I, of course, "earned" numerous red flags. When I pointed out the hypocrisy, more red flags.

Now I understand that there are many people in these forums that are apparently unable to do more than spout slogans to which they are deeply emotionally attached, but REALLY.

AS FOR YOU, IT IS TRULY AMUSING THAT YOU ARE NOW WHINING ABOUT BEING CALLED AN ISOLATIONIST WHEN IT WAS YOUR USE OF THAT TERM THAT STARTED THIS EXCHANGE.

Hell, I don't even particularly care if Iran gets nukes. If Pakistan, India and Israel have them and we've managed to survive, Iran is really not a shock. Not nearly as worrying as when the US and the USSR had their fingers on the world-ending triggers.

First, just because India and Pakistan haven't blown themselves up does not mean that there was and is no chance they will. After all, we're talking about two countries that have been in multiple hot wars together, are involved in an ongoing proxy war, and have outstanding territorial disputes. Further, Pakistan is something of a mess, with a not-inconsequential possibility of a coup or other major internal instability. Just become one drunk teenager has managed to drive halfway home does not mean that we should "not particularly care" about whether teenagers drink and drive.

Second, I think there's good reason to believe Israel is different. India and Pakistan have serious disagreements, but they are on the margin--over marginal land, for example. Neither is opposed to the very existence of the other. Iran is opposed to the existence of Israel, and has been for decades now, and increasingly so. Further, while cool heads may prevail once Iran gets the bomb, they have a disturbing record of acting irrationally and violently. Israel, meanwhile, has almost no strategic depth, a history of going it alone, and a deep commitment to never allowing the existence of their people and state to be in question again. It's a very dangerous situation!

Third, just because the world almost ended in the 60s, doesn't mean the current situation isn't dangerous. Sure, it doesn't compare to worldwide holocaust, but, well, I don't drive carelessly just because I never experienced The Day After first hand.

Well, I'm out. This kind of nastiness is why I typically avoid this group. It's like trying to have a mature discussion with Rush Limbaugh. Tip of the hat to Bruce, prosfilaes and Tim for actually discussing rather than just ranting.

#324--don't think you quite get that there are some people who are sick and tired of American military adventurism. This idea that we should be a force for good either as referee or world policeman whenever some conflict arises comes back to us in multiple adverse ways--and behind the adventurism more often than not comes an economic program to force feed the recalcitrant. I wonder who appointed us or elected us to be the global superman? We have military bases all around the globe the costs of which come out of the pockets of the taxpayers--it's not that we don't have domestic problems of our own being neglected. Our own bridges could collapse--roads fall apart for lack of $ yet we can't and won't shut down any of those overseas bases. Our economy hasn't exactly been firing on all cylinders yet we can maintain a force in Iraq meanwhile fight an insurgency in Afghanistan that promises (and has since the first boot went on the ground always promised) no satisfactory end. The flexing of military muscle might give some people a hard on but IMO it takes stupidity past the point of ridiculousness. There are an influential few though who make huge fortunes out of all this death and destruction--that shouldn't be forgotten. For those few it isn't stupid at all--to them the American public are the stupid ones.

BTW you only tip your hat to people who more or less agree with your position which pretty much makes the case that you're not listening to other points of views either.

#325: don't think you quite get that there are some people who are sick and tired of American military adventurism.

I don't think you get that we are tired of American military adventurism.

we can maintain a force in Iraq meanwhile fight an insurgency in Afghanistan that promises (and has since the first boot went on the ground always promised) no satisfactory end.

And if you'd listen to us, you might understand that most of us don't support that. As I said above, your harping on the easy cases does nothing to further your argument.

I wonder who appointed us or elected us to be the global superman?

With great power comes great responsibility. I don't see how we can refuse to be referee; if two sides in bloody conflict will let us bring them to the table of peace, I don't see how any moral person could refuse. Military-wise, in many of these cases we are joined in an international effort; in the first Gulf War, we were joined by various Arab nations, the UK, Canada and France. The Yugoslavian bombing we did as part of NATO.

don't think you quite get that there are some people who are sick and tired of American military adventurism.

And yet it seems like its the same people (not necessarily you) that hate America because of its military adventurism that also hate America because they didn't do anything to stop the slaughter in Rwanda. Actually, I was one of those people who hated America's military adventures, but Rwanda made me think that perhaps there are things worth stopping, with our military or otherwise. Your position reminds me of China which is always opposing efforts in the UN because they don't think that its right to interfere in the affairs of other countries, even when thousands are being slaughtered.

325> Your lament is understandable. However, to your rhetorical question "I wonder who appointed us or elected us to be the global superman?", there is a non-rhetorical, historical answer. No one did and no one has to have done so. Nation States are notorious bad actors on the international stage. The USA is no different in this regard than China or the old CCCP or Bismarck's Prussia or Napoleon's Armies of the Enlightenment. No Presidential election will change this state of affairs, which lies outside the direct control of electoral politics. The best one can hope for within the logic of international relations is for less adventurism on all sides and for more rational decision-making when it comes to intervention. If States and non-State military formations would pay even the most minimal lip-service to the guiding principles behind the international legal regime that grew out of the rubble of WWII, the world would be less dangerous and there would be a reduction in the loss of civilian lives. But desire for the warm cocoon of isolation -- the idyll of the Shire -- will not deter the logic of international relations. It only instills the false sense of having clean hands.

>327 jjwilson61:: "China which is always opposing efforts in the UN because they don't think that its right to interfere in the affairs of other countries"

Not really. China opposes those efforts in the UN that it feels are not in its national interests. Meanwhile, it is pouring money and resources into many African and Islamic-belt countries it beef up its oil interests. China interferes in the affairs of other countries all the time, but for economic rather than humanitarian reasons.

Military intervention means that people will be killed. On both sides. I think everyone is agreed this is a bad thing.

What those in favor of intervention are arguing is that the bad of the above is outweighed by the good of preventing further harm. On the surface, this seems straighforward; cause some injury in order to prevent greater harm.

But it's still paternalistic ('you can't resolve your own problems, so we're going to do it for you') and again presumes that the general population actually opposes what their government is doing, but lack the power to do anything about it. This is almost never the case.

The fact is, people tolerate bad governments because (to them) the cost of opposing those governments is too high. This is a decision on their part; neither I, nor most of the posters (I suspect) are in a position to truly judge the merits of that decision. (There's also the frightening (to some) prospect that people actually willingly and openly support what are considered 'bad' governments, and won't care for efforts to overthrow them.)

But if you topple their government for them, even if this is something they wished for...they won't thank you for it. No, you've just stated (without speaking) that they were children, cowards, and morally bereft. That you had to come in and do their job for them. People don't like being told that, especially if there's some grains of truth in the statement. They will resent their 'liberators'.

And as any street cop would tell you, sometimes the ONLY way to stop an action is through force. Force that will be resented, not only by those to whom force is applied, but by those for whom (alledgedly) force was being applied for.

'Involvement' is not 'intervention'. Global trade and multinational corporations, not to mention the allocation of natural resources, ensures that any country with a thriving economy will be involved in world affairs. But there's a difference between bargaining, negotiating, and even boycotts/sanctions...and actual force. Nothing stops a country from continuing what it's doing in the former situations. They may be unhappy, and they may not like the consequences...but they're still free actors. This is not true when force is used.

"I don't see how we can refuse to be referee; if two sides in bloody conflict will let us bring them to the table of peace, I don't see how any moral person could refuse."

This is fine when both sides are willing (or at least accepting) of the need to negotiate. But if they aren't, you seem to favor forcing them to negotiate. Which brings us back to military intervention. Which neither side will truly accept, as the agreements will be made under duress.

#319

None of your examples point to any fundamenal change in human nature, psychology, etc. How people do things changes in response to available resources; Why they do those things remains very much the same.

#330: Military intervention means that people will be killed. On both sides. I think everyone is agreed this is a bad thing.

What those in favor of intervention are arguing is that the bad of the above is outweighed by the good of preventing further harm. On the surface, this seems straighforward; cause some injury in order to prevent greater harm.

But it's still paternalistic ('you can't resolve your own problems, so we're going to do it for you') and again presumes that the general population actually opposes what their government is doing, but lack the power to do anything about it. This is almost never the case.

Military intervention may or may not increase the number of people that are killed. In the cases of genocide, it almost certainly will reduce the number of people who are killed. Ultimately, discouraging petty tyrants from attacking their neighbors should reduce the number of people killed.

Is it paternalistic to have police? Police are saying that a 7/11 clerk and a robber with a gun can't resolve their own problems; should they get out of that business?

Force that will be resented, not only by those to whom force is applied, but by those for whom (alledgedly) force was being applied for.

That's frequently not true at all. Kuwait was thrilled to be liberated by the Coalition forces. People in Eastern Europe were still hoping for American intervention until 1950, IIRC. I seriously doubt that most would be victims of genocide are all that unhappy about not being murdered.

The fact is, people tolerate bad governments because (to them) the cost of opposing those governments is too high.

You remember the Hungarian revolution? The fact that the cost of opposing those governments is too high doesn't mean that they're in love with their governments. How about the Libyan revolution; should we have let the Libyans get slaughtered, because if they weren't willing to face the full force of Qaddafi's forces, they obviously weren't interested in overthrowing the government?

Most of your post seems focused on us overthrowing a government. Many military interventions are not based on that, and often overthrowing a government has been done without military intervention.

#331--which is to say that you have no problem with the US being the world's policeman nor any problem with our soldiers being used as policemen in foreign countries--whether they're familiar with language, customs, culture?

This is kind of like the death penalty for me. I am not opposed to it in principle, and there are people, IMHO, who have forfeited their time here on earth because of their behavior. However, in practice the death penalty is biased against the poor, against minorities, and in certain places, you cannot guarantee a fair trial. So I don't like seeing it practiced very often.

Often our intervention tactics are hamhanded. Not always. (Obama's handling of Libya during the Arab Spring for example, or WWII, or the first Gulf War for example.) Iraq, not so much. In principle I am not jerking my knee for or against interventions, but I think we should be incredibly aware of what we are doing and why.

#332: Which is to say that you have no problem with Americans watching someone being raped and murdered ten feet away in Canada and not getting involved because that's a foreign country and we're not the world's policemen?

I believe that we should use military intervention sometimes, including cases like responding to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. I haven't elaborated much more then that, and would appreciate you not trying to put words in my mouth.

#334: I haven't elaborated much more then that, and would appreciate you not trying to put words in my mouth.

Oh, ree-leez?

#326: Military-wise, in many of these cases we are joined in an international effort; in the first Gulf War, we were joined by various Arab nations, the UK, Canada and France. The Yugoslavian bombing we did as part of NATO.

#331: Ultimately, discouraging petty tyrants from attacking their neighbors should reduce the number of people killed.

Kuwait was thrilled to be liberated by the Coalition forces.

I guess this is the point where I stop using the word "neocon" to describe such "coalition of the willing" horseshit. It just wouldn't be very illuminating to assign such nonsense to a particular wing of politics except to say that after a successful election is when the Democratic party apparatchiks feel free enough to show their true neocon colors. But no, bullshit has it's own color. And the bullshit party is going to keep playing their stupid games across the world with regimes and rebels as their game pieces and the next time the shit hits the fan they'll reset the history button to that future date ignoring all the crap they did building up to that point and and say , "Gee, it's not like we have much choice!"

I mean, how hard is it to drop the pretense and just admit you'll pull any excuse from the mouths of any politician, Republican or Democrat, to justify all the crap your ilk will continue purveying? You don't believe your own bullshit and to carry on as if you did is just more bullshit for me to call out on. If you were honest and admitted that the only justification you needed was that your wing of the Repocrats won the election and you don't give a fuck about any dissent for the next four years, then what else would I have to say about that? Otherwise, if you can't refrain from spewing your bullshit, you might as well say nothing at all.

#334--I'm sure you don't appreciate it but maybe then you should edit out the remark you made in #331 when you argue for intervention and use 'Is it paternalistic to have police' etc., etc.--as an example to make your argument and keeping in mind at the same time that many if not every single one of these post WWII adventures or ours are framed as police actions by our so-called leaders and quite often because they want to do an end run around congress even when more often that not congress more than less is supportive of the action taken. And why do they not want to declare war when they invade another country? And to go further we do see our soldiers taking on police roles--we've seen it Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc. etc. What's more sometimes even turned into corrections officers such as in Abu Graibh. What is all this about? What you see on the surface--what the public sees is obviously not everything especially when much of what our country does is cloaked in secrecy for 'security' reasons. Both Bush's loved the secrecy stuff. Obama told us he was going to give us a transparent govt.--well anyone who believes that anymore...

~323

What, prosfilaes is in the Oval Office??
Damn, we're in more trouble than I thought we were.

~324

Another hit, whine and run.

It's a pattern you've seen a lot of.

Policing is something that happens with the consent of the people.

You can't be absolutist about it. It's been said that politics is the art of the possible, an art more than a science, a realm full of messiness, complication, and compromise. You can't say you are always for intervention or always against it, because every situation is different.

~340

Yept.

#341: Toyama Koichi 2016!

Only half-joking, of course. Occupation without representation probably isn't too funny to the people who are actually affected by it. We should first give the vote to all those Pakistani kids unable to go to school for fear that such a gathering of people would make for an appealing playground for drones. We could let the sickos discuss the merits of roasting brown people after that, but I'm not feeling that generous.

#331

If we accept the idea of national sovreignty, then yes, interfering with that country's administration is paternalistic. As opposed to police forces within a country, who are tasked to protect their citizens from predators. They are hired and paid to do a job.

But let's take the extreme case, shall we? A foreign government (pick one) or, rather, many of its citizens decide to engage in a campaign of genocide. The local government either can't intervene or, (more likely) doesn't care/approves of the campaign. Another government decides to intervene (which is a fancy term for invasion; after all, people set on genocide aren't going to stop just because a group of foreigners comes in and asks them to stop).

First, the foreign government is going to resist this military incursion. They HAVE to; if you can't defend yourself from a foreign invasion, why are your own citizens going to listen to you when you order them to do something? Not to mention the message of letting foreigners invades sends to other countries; that you're an easy target.

Second, the people attempting genocide are going to resist foreign efforts to make them stop, at least for a little while.

But, let's say you stop the killing. Yay you. Except...now what? The feelings, the state of mind, that led to the genocide in the first place probably haven't gone away. Are you planning on staying for a generation, until you've conditioned the populace that mass killing isn't nice? Are you prepared to simply abandon the minority to its fate once you leave? Are you forcibly evacuating the minority? Are you partioning the country and arming the minority? What provisions are you making to ensure that the original act doesn't take place again? And what preparations have you made for these (and many other) problems?

This is what intervention leads to; suddenly being involved in a host of problems. The impulse to intervene might stem from purely altruistic motives; but that impulse will lead you into basically taking over another country, with a whole set of problems you're unfamiliar with.

>345 BruceCoulson:: What's the alternative? Yes, intervening to bring genocide to an end is a messy action that comes with "a whole set of problems you're unfamiliar with." But what's the alternative?

Simply doing nothing? Letting the genocide run its course?

If Hitler had played nice and stuck with continental Europe, rather than roping Britain and then the U.S. and, on the other side, Russia, into his mess: should we have let it go? Go ahead and slaughter the Jews and gypsies and Catholics and homosexuals -- just don't attack our national security interests.

That's exactly what happened with the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire (Hitler's justification for his policies, btw).

Countries are not going to sign international agreements allowing for military interventions in their territory to prevent criminal actions (especially criminal actions sanctioned by that government; do you think Stalin would have agreed to any interference in his country or the countries he controlled, for instance?)

So, the current stance is 'we'll intervene if it doesn't cost us too much'. Which, I submit, is actually worse than not interfering at all; 'we'll only help you if you're lucky enough to be victims in a country that can't fight back'. If you're in a country with a major military (e.g. China) well, sucks to be you.

This is not a question that has good answers. Are you willing to sacrifice the lives of your young people in order to save other people? Whatever your answer, there will be bad results.

The problem I have with these hypothetical situations and their solutions is the assumption that everything is out in the open and can be taken at face value so people starting thinking in terms of armchair world leader. When Bush 1 hits back at Iraq because of Kuwait--was that his only motivation? I don't think so. And I definitely don't think so about his son either. It's as if American energy needs aren't even in the mix? or the mideast style geo-politics of one upmanship?--where we're always of course going to come down on the side of the good guys. What and who is good can usually use some defining as well. Generally speaking even the genocidal tend to think that they're not really the bad guys. Afterwards the history will be written by the someones who clearly come out on top of the shit pile. He/she/they now have the right to explain all the whys and wherefores.

I have to say that there may be occasions when the selfish urge is best--spilling American blood on foreign soil just for the notion that the world will be a better place for it afterwards is fucking ridiculous. You want to send a message to a bunch of homicidal maniacs? Cut off trade. Freeze their bank accounts if they're using your banks. Neither Bush went into Iraq just to teach Saddam a lesson--they sent troops, money and corporations there for other reasons. Saddam was a fall guy. He had to go for them to accomplish all that. As a human being his dying was no great loss but I don't for a second buy the idea that it was done for 'good' reason.

#348

No intervention is ever sold to its people as being for such crass purposes as 'gaining control of resources' or 'extending our political power to ensure our continued rule, no matter who gets hurt by it'. Not even in totalitarian countries, which could dispense with such euphemisms.

No, intervention is always put forward as 'liberating the oppressed', 'stopping genocide', 'preserving our nation against aggressors'. And the best ones have a grain of truth in those motivations. Hussein WAS a ruthless dictator who oppressed his people and shed the blood of thousands soley to preserve and extend his power (fruitlessly in the Iran-Iraq War, in which we supported Hussein...). But national leaders rarely invade other countries solely for the benefit of the oppressed population.

#349--all I'm saying is the reasons given and the real reasons rarely coincide.

#348: When Bush 1 hits back at Iraq because of Kuwait--was that his only motivation?

Who cares? I fail to see how the motivations of one human being matter in the least. It doesn't matter if the Good Samaritan was a travelling salesman who figured it was worth it to earn name recognition in the area. When it comes down to the question of whether my nation should do something, the motivation of the president is not relevant.

Also, Kosovo had no oil.

spilling American blood

Because American blood is a different color, more valuable then other blood.

spilling American blood on foreign soil just for the notion that the world will be a better place for it afterwards is fucking ridiculous. You want to send a message to a bunch of homicidal maniacs? Cut off trade. Freeze their bank accounts if they're using your banks.

The fact that we did that to Iraq was part of the stated reasons for 9/11. It also killed more civilians then the Gulf war did. It did stop Saddam's warmachine, but not Saddam. Economic sanctions don't necessarily save life (other than American) and it don't necessarily stop reprisals. I'm not bashing them, but they're no more a panacea then a military response, and they do in fact invite reprisals.

Seriously; the world was unambiguously a better place for the Gulf War. The Iraqi sanctions were hell of a lot more morally questionable. Just because you don't use bullets doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the deaths.

#347: So, the current stance is 'we'll intervene if it doesn't cost us too much'. Which, I submit, is actually worse than not interfering at all; 'we'll only help you if you're lucky enough to be victims in a country that can't fight back'. If you're in a country with a major military (e.g. China) well, sucks to be you.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Reminds me of a Law & Order: SVU episode where they were legally stopped from helping the neglected daughter of a rich pop star. Does that mean they should stop trying to help neglected children? What does a Rwandan who's about to be killed care about the plight of the Chinese? Has it ever comforted the afflicted to be told "we're not going to help you, but other people have it much worse"?

~351

"Who cares? I fail to see how the motivations of one human being matter in the least. It doesn't matter if the Good Samaritan was a travelling salesman who figured it was worth it to earn name recognition in the area. When it comes down to the question of whether my nation should do something, the motivation of the president is not relevant."

This has got to be one of the strangest paragraphs in the history of Librarything.

Guy walks up to you on a vacant street with a drawn gun, points the gun at you and says "I'm going to blow your brains out." You say "Well, your motivation doesn't matter. All that matters is whether my brains should be blown out."

ROTFL

#352--or for ability to stun. Have to admit I didn't see this one coming.

#351--Bush 1 was only the POTUS at the time and his motivations do/did not matter? If they did not matter or matter any more than anyone else's then maybe I could have called the generals and admirals and told them to turn around the boats and planes and come home before they dropped bomb #1. I guess it's all my fault for not knowing. Of course--then Bush 2 comes along with the idea of finishing the whole shebang like Daddy didn't do--meanwhile letting anyone who was in doubt know that he was the decision maker. So I'm a bit confused now.

On the question of shedding blood--selfish as it may seem when American soldiers are being shot and blown up in foreign places (in policing actions more than military) it should concern other Americans and more especially when the situations they find themselves in are rather controversial (lacking language, culture, customs skills with an almost 98% alien religious experience and wearing all kinds of protective equipment on blazing sunny days tends to make them stick out like sore thumbs)--when the reasons they've been sent in as an invasion force are much more than less eventually found to be nothing but a pack of lies by all but the most partisan political sycophants. That took some time for some people back here in the States to get but most people have got there finally--apparently not you. And this isn't to minimize the tragedy of innocent civilians killed and maimed--they don't suffer any less and there are greater numbers of them and a good number of them have been killed, hurt and traumatized by our own soldiers who are caught between being a trained soldier and being an untrained policeman. And I don't how you can construe a success out of this (though you seem to be trying hard enough). We made some people really, really wealthy. We've given great powers to some that they probably shouldn't have and can't handle. The 'free' 'democratic' Iraq-Afghanistan governments we've nation built are rife with corruption. It's caused untold misery and just to go back to our own dead and maimed soldiers--to be fair you might as well add the 1000's upon 1000's of cases of PTSD and a whole bunch of suicides of our returned 'heroes'. And you want more of this in the future?

I am basically opposed to hate crimes legislation because I am not comfortable with making motivation a crime. If someone is trying to kill me, the why is somewhat important, but only in so far as I can stop them. If I am dead, punishing their motivation is hardly the kind of justice I would want. I want them to be punished for their crime.

On the other hand, motivations can (but not always will) stimulate actions. In he context of this discussion, the motivation to see the world a better place may lead to one using military might to make it so. (And the Inner Kirk usually wins out over the Inner Picard.)

Again it seems we are making blanket statements about ALL interventions. Iraq II was an unmitigated disaster. We had no business going, and when we did, we did it all wrong. The earlier Gulf war had far fewer disaster areas.

People can make blanket statements about all interventions, but they are only useful for defining one's ideology, not for living in the world we actually inhabit. this thread has centered on whether we should be the world's policeman, but when people actually talk about it, they are saying we are wanting to be the world's saviour. That is impossible and an unfair characterization of the role of intervention. If the goal is that no one gets hurt, and the results are perfect justice, good luck with that! You don't have that in your own families, much less a nation. If the goal is to prevent harm, even if, in the process it means some will get harmed, but far fewer than if there were no intervention, that is something I can (ocassionally) defend.

#354--fair enough but then there is the danger of always being the righter of wrongs which IMO is a dangerous place to inhabit because it always leads to arrogance. And unremarked upon underlying motivations were clearly behind the Bush 2 invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam. Ordinary citizens might think our actions are making this a better world but the information they're working off of provided through the media by the deciders of things is often skewed. It's difficult for me to believe that ending Saddam's regime is worth the price that has been paid all around. That people connected to the previous administration have got fabulously wealthy off all the misery caused and continue to do so under this administration is outrageous. AFAIC Cheney--Bush 2 and numerous others deserve not the firing squad but the same penalty Saddam faced--hanging.

#354

The problem is that foreign intervention differs from policing. Police are hired by the community to protect citizens from (two-legged) predators. This is part of the understanding of living in a given community; I will have to obey the laws (which are enforced), but so does everyone else. (This, at least, is the theory.) So, there is a positive benefit to me to have my freedom of action restricted.

Foreign interventions, even the most benevolent kind, are efforts to impose a set of laws on someone(s). The members of that community may not agree with these foreign laws. The leaders of that community certainly won't. So, what justifications can be offered for such actions?

Self-defense clearly is one; every person, certainly every nation, has the right to resist armed aggression. (Which automatically puts them at odds against any military intervention...) Defending someone else, at their behest, would also qualify ("Hey, we're being invaded! Give us a hand!").

)We will leave aside the problem that the vast majority of interventions were in pursuit of crass commercial ventures or sheer political power, with humanitarian concerns being a justification, not the actual reason, especially when judged by what was done after the intervention.)

So, what other concerns could justify a nation's right to invade another nation and impose the first nation's legal standards?

Genocide has put forward as a reason to justify an invasion. Again, we have to ignore what actually happened in prior exterminations (which was a lot of hand-waving and tsk-tsking, with no force). So, is attempted genocide sufficient reason to invade a foreign country and impose a foreign set of beliefs? (Note I state 'beliefs'. The vast majority of genocides take place with not only the consent, but willing participation of the general populace. Simply removing the 'evil' leadership clearly will not suffice.) And if so, then what does one do about genocides that take place in countries that can put up substantial resistance to any invasion? It doesn't do to simply say, 'Well, they're just too powerful; that country can do as it pleases.' We don't accept that standard for laws within a country; certainly it should not pass muster for laws that are to applied to all nations.

I also object to the weasely term 'intervention'. What is being proposed is an invasion of other countries, in order to impose laws upon them. Police do not 'intervene' when laws are being broken; they break in, and use violence to arrest people. Let's be honest here.

My general objections to such invasions, even those with the purest of motives, is that our hypothetical nation is taking upon itself the power, the right, to unilaterally impose what laws it feels are correct. There's no oversight, no defense other than military, and only a pretense of a trial. This is not 'the law of nations'; this is a nation deciding it can re-make the world in its image.

I believe that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a disaster on a few levels. First, we knocked out one of the few secular states in that region. Saddam hated religious fundamentalists. Second, we tried to administer a country that had three major religious minorities, where one of the smaller minorities was in power over the largest one, and where each minority was large enough to cause real damage to the state, but none large enough to run it by themselves. And third, we had no real end in mind, except some kind of utopia, pro-American Iraqi oasis or sanity in the middle east. Good luck with that.

Oh, and add to it that the country had never really been successfully run by a foreign power, and that we working on faulty intelligence at best, and probably rigged intelligence, and that the invasion was based on ideological convictions and not actual political reality...

All a recipe for disaster.

My general objections to such invasions, even those with the purest of motives, is that our hypothetical nation is taking upon itself the power, the right, to unilaterally impose what laws it feels are correct.

I am curious. What objective standard of morality do you have that leads you to make this moral objection?

>356 BruceCoulson:: How dare you take upon yourself the power, the right, to unilaterally impose upon the rest of us your objections to such invasions!

#358

Let's use an analogy. A LEO observes an action that (to them) meet the elements of a crime. They arrest (after some scuffling) the suspect. Does the officer have the legal right to impose judgement and penalties for the action they observed?

They do not. Instead, the suspect is charged, offered a chance to defend themselves, given a chance to review the evidence supporting the allegation. If they choose to contest the charge, they are given an opportunity to respond to the charges in a neutral arena. If they establish their innocence, they are released, and the arresting officer is expected to take no further action or reprisals for that charge.

This is where the analogy begins to break down. Even if the officer wished to defy the court and keep the offender in jail (and often they might)... they can't. However, a powerful invading nation (the only kind capable of this) certainly could. Furthermore, what sanctions could be taken against a nation which invaded another for 'humanitarian' reasons and when told they have to un-invade, refuse?

If there could actually be an international 'rule of law', where offenders could receive a fair trial, punishments were even-handed, and military interventions were subject to formal review and possible reparations should the 'arrest' turn out to be erroneous, then the international community designating a nation to enforce those laws would make sense and be correct. But this isn't the case, and is unlikely to be for a long time.

Instead, we have a nation that claims to have taken on such a mantle, without any formal (or even informal) authority granted to it. Letting a single nation be the arresting officer, the prosecutor, and the judge of international crimes strikes me as tyrannical... even presuming that every intervention was from pure, altruistic motives. (Which we have seen is not the case.)

The United States has always proudly proclaimed itself to be a nation of 'laws, not men'. And, despite many stumbles, it has a reasonably good record in that regard. But on the international stage, we become a nation that far too often is a nation of 'national interests, not law'. Now, it's silly to say that the United States (or any other country) shouldn't pursue their national interests; or that those interests won't collide with other nations' interests from time to time. But trying to make the pursuit of our national interests nobler and purer than it really is, is wrong.

I really appreciated your post. Just as I was going, “Wait a minute,” you raised the objections yourself. You correctly point out that in a nation of laws, it behooves the best interest of all people for all people to follow the laws, especially those who are in charge of maintaining adherence to the law.
But you also correctly point out that while that is desirable at an international level, there is no over arching governing body to enforce things.

In the absence of such an over-arching body, what is the responsibility of nation-states?

The first responsibility (as much as theorists may wish to disagree) is for their own survival. A nation which ceases to exist can provide nothing for its citizens.

Its gets complicated after that. If we follow Jefferson, then all power a government has is derived from the people, who can choose to withdraw it at any time. Although this is rare, it does happen, so I think we can accept Jefferson's statement...but it doesn't answer what a government should do.

So, following the first law, a government should make sure that its citizens do NOT take the drastic step of withdrawing all support. This generally (in governments that survive) means making some provisions for the welfare of its citiznes...at least a majority of them. Even totalitarian governments have to provide something, even if it's as basic as infrastructure and a viable economy.

By the same token, a government should avoid taking action that will arouse the ire of its neighbors.

Other than that, there isn't much a government HAS to do.

#356: Foreign interventions, even the most benevolent kind, are efforts to impose a set of laws on someone(s). The members of that community may not agree with these foreign laws. The leaders of that community certainly won't. So, what justifications can be offered for such actions?

Which strikes me as true of many cases in the US. School integration, for one very graphic example. Every single time a state or city law is overturned as being unconstitutional, you're imposing laws on a community that they don't agree with.

'Well, they're just too powerful; that country can do as it pleases.' We don't accept that standard for laws within a country; certainly it should not pass muster for laws that are to applied to all nations.

I think that confuses idealism with reality. It took 11 years to bring known murderer Al Capone to trial, and even then he was tried on tax evasion, not murder. Bugsy Siegel only got tried once, and was acquitted. Whitey Bulger ran around for 21 years, most of it protected by the police.

On a bigger level, the people of Transnistra don't worry about the laws of Moldova, even though they are a part of Moldova. That's certainly problematic, but that doesn't Moldova should disband all laws for everyone.

My general objections to such invasions, even those with the purest of motives, is that our hypothetical nation is taking upon itself the power, the right, to unilaterally impose what laws it feels are correct. There's no oversight, no defense other than military, and only a pretense of a trial. This is not 'the law of nations'; this is a nation deciding it can re-make the world in its image.

It's not at all unilateral. The United Nations condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In pretty much all of the more justifiable invasions, it's not one nation unilaterally imposing laws on another. And Iraq had ambassadors at the UN and many nations; it had a defense, it could have argued against the actions. Had one major nation being willing to commit forces on Iraq's side, then the Coalition would have had to reanalyze what they were going to do and the costs of doing it.

You say that national sovereignty matters; I say that it only matters if someone is responding to Iraq's invasions of Kuwait. If nobody responds, then obviously the law of nations is not that national sovereignty matters; it's that biggest guy on the block rules.

#363: You say that national sovereignty matters; I say that it only matters if someone is responding to Iraq's invasions of Kuwait.

So who is there to respond to the US when it props up regimes and supports militant rebels creating the problems you pretend to want to deal with? All these American policies that led up the invasion of Kuwait and any other number of international conflicts continue today in various forms sowing the seeds for the next conflict and you don't give a shit. When your mess boils over again you'll jump up and pretend to give a shit, but even then you're lying your face off. Don't tell me you want to save the world when all you do is fuck it.

364> If you're saying that actions usually have unintended consequences, yes they do. But your forgetting that non-action will also have unintended consequences.

#363

"Which strikes me as true of many cases in the US. School integration, for one very graphic example. Every single time a state or city law is overturned as being unconstitutional, you're imposing laws on a community that they don't agree with."

No, they don't agree with THAT INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Even the losing parties will generally agree that they like most of the provisions of the Constitution; they just don't agree with this one ruling. So, it's not a 'foreign' intervention; it's a legal proceeding that they happened to have lost. When a client loses a case, they don't claim the law is wrong; they say it shouldn't have applied in their case. Cities in the U.S. are under the Constitution, bad and good; it's not 'foreign'.

Interesting that you should bring up those criminal cases. You are correct in the raw facts; but consider that it's the rules of evidence that forbade convictions in those cases, not a feeling that the criminals were 'too powerful'. Authorities at no time accepted that Capone and Siegel were too powerful to prosecute for criminal actions; they simply were unable to prove those cases. Evading the law doesn't equate to being above the law.

"If nobody responds, then obviously the law of nations is not that national sovereignty matters; it's that biggest guy on the block rules." Which is indeed the case; but don't try to pretend that you're somehow being moral and lawful when you are the big dog. If the law of nations is the law of the jungle, then there's no reason to use euphemisms.

Try and relax everyone. This link re: the Iraq war might be of some interest.

http://qando.net/archives/002062.htm

and

http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/11/i-cannot-believe-we-are-still-having-this-dis...

#367

Interesting links, but they overlook some key facts.

1. Congress did not exercise its Constitutional duty to declare war against Iraq. Weaselling around, and declaring that they'd really like the President to do something, is very political...but not Constitutional. So, despite the links' facts, neither invasion was truly 'legal' under the U.S. Constitution, especially as the 'imminent danger' excuse hardly applied.

2. This is a prosecution case. "We have all these witnesses and evidence indicating that this procedure was legal and necessary." Nicely laid out, but I'd like to see an equally reasoned defence statement seeking to refute the prosecution's case.

#366: When a client loses a case, they don't claim the law is wrong; they say it shouldn't have applied in their case.

People say the law is wrong all the time. With school segregation, I don't think there was a lot of love for the 14th Amendment.

consider that it's the rules of evidence that forbade convictions in those cases, not a feeling that the criminals were 'too powerful'.

Then Transnistra; does the fact that Transnistra is too powerful for Moldova to deal with mean that Moldova should not enforce its law elsewhere?

"If nobody responds, then obviously the law of nations is not that national sovereignty matters; it's that biggest guy on the block rules." Which is indeed the case; but don't try to pretend that you're somehow being moral and lawful when you are the big dog. If the law of nations is the law of the jungle, then there's no reason to use euphemisms.

Stop claiming we're being immoral and unlawful. You've denied that national sovereignty means anything; therefore there's nothing illegal about us invading another nation. Just because you're in the metaphorical jungle, doesn't mean you've left morality behind. The oldest thing in the book is to find the big dog and make the deal that you will serve the big dog so long as he takes care of those who serve him. The big dog abandoning those who made that deal, explicitly or implicitly, is not a moral figure. The big dog dealing with the other big dogs who abuse their position is not particularly immoral, either.

Why? We don't declare wars when we invade other countries (which is un-Constitutional); that's a violation of the law. We claim the right to assassinate not only foreign nationals, but American citizens abroad (which is against the law). We are in violation of our own laws; not those of the United Nations or the international community. So, yes, there most certainly IS something illegal with our invasion of another country absent a formal declaration of war.

And yes, when you revert to the jungle, morality no longer exists. The task is to survive, by any means necessary. This is not a moral, but pragmatic stance. There's nothing wrong with that stance; but it's not any human-defined morality, either.

368 -- Vincent Bugliosi (the prosecutor who put Charles Manson in prison) has written and published a book-length indictment of George W. Bush. I haven't read it but Bugliosi is known to be smart and thorough. Considering events of the last four years, I'd guess that with a few adjustments, Bugliosi's case would probably work to send the Big O up, too.

>371 dekesolomon: Vincent Bugliosi (the prosecutor who put Charles Manson in prison) has written and published a book-length indictment of George W. Bush. I haven't read it but Bugliosi is known to be smart and thorough. Considering events of the last four years, I'd guess that with a few adjustments, Bugliosi's case would probably work to send the Big O up, too

I always find that my opinion of a book is most confident when I am not distracted by actually reading it.

> 372 -- "I always find that my opinion of a book is most confident when I am not distracted by actually reading it."

I don't doubt you for a minute.

#370: And yes, when you revert to the jungle, morality no longer exists. The task is to survive, by any means necessary.

That's an opinion, and not an uncontroversial one. I think most of us would condemn a man who raped his opponent's daughter to gain control, even in a life or death situation in the jungle. Human morality did not come into sudden existence with Homo sapiens; a lot of our most basic morality can be seen in chimpanzees or even any tribal animal.

#365: If you're saying that actions usually have unintended consequences, yes they do. But your forgetting that non-action will also have unintended consequences.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "non-action." If non-action includes propping up Saddam Hussein throughout the Eighties and then acting like his invasion of Kuwait came out of left field, then I guess Obama's drone terror from the skies over various countries is also "non-action."

>373 dekesolomon: I guess I should have included the sarcasm tags in my post.

375> No, I mean non-action as in your idea of what we should do.

> 373 -- southernbooklady -- no need for the "sarcasm tags," whatever those are. I understood you perfectly the first time. The real trick is to understand the limits of written communication. The written message necessarily lacks hand gestures, facial expressions, and tonal inflections, so it's usually better not to write things that can be turned around and thrown back in your face.

It's also better not to be nasty to people who have never done you any hurt.

If nobody else has been paying attention, I say it's long past time to put an end to this topic. It's all over but the shouting anyway.

Deacon

#378: I understood you perfectly the first time. The real trick is to understand the limits of written communication.

I don't see any evidence she misunderstood the limits of written communication. She communicated just fine.

It's also better not to be nasty to people who have never done you any hurt.

You consider mild sarcasm to be nasty? She mildly pointed out that your message was a comment on a book you hadn't read and thus wasn't terribly pointful. How should she have expressed that message? It was a silly message; own up to that and go on, instead of shooting the messenger.

Suggestion for Thanksgiving: relax, everybody.

> 380 -- "I don't see any evidence that she misunderstood. . . ."

You don't seem to see much evidence of anything at all. If she and thee were better readers, you'd have noted the phrase "I'd guess" in my message. What is a guess but a shot in the dark? You wanna take a statement like that and tell the world I delivered a verdict on a book I haven't read? My suggestion is that you take your opinion and pee in it.

Notice it's not a thinly veiled insult. It's merely an emphatic rejection.

#382: What is a guess but a shot in the dark?

And what's a shot in the dark but a chance to kill someone without being sure who they are? I haven't read a book, but I'm sure it can be used to indict someone it doesn't mention is one of the stupider things to say.

You wanna take a statement like that and tell the world I delivered a verdict on a book I haven't read?

If I were telling anyone not on this thread who couldn't read the statement, I'd post the statement itself and let you be hoist on your own petard.