A Big Win for Obama - but what's the prize?

[Oakman]

I wonder how many people under the age of forty have read 1984 - or even seen the movie.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[_Damian S_]

I've done both. As always, the book is better. (Of course, I'm not that far under 40 either.)

Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!! Booger Mobile - Camp Quality esCarpade 2010

[Tim Craig]

Oakman wrote:

Which one?

Stan? :suss:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

And, with the exception of the Iron Lady, the man who did it was vilified by the European press and leaders as "Ronnie Raygun," and everyone on "the" continent mourned the untimely retirment of Jimmy Carter.

The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its economic failures. Reagan happened to be president at the time.

John Carson

[John Carson]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Obama's policies are indistinquishable from what we were doing before 9/11 - except for being even more timidly subservient.

Of course, in your other posts you will claim that Obama's policies are indistinguishable from Bush's but the left is giving him a free pass.

Stan Shannon wrote:

All that got us was 9/11. It will do so again. And the blood, once again, will be on the hands of people like you, John.

Blood is not completely avoidable. There has been some spilled in Iraq I believe.

John Carson

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

But your comment has me wondering - why when Russia or China acts in a way that can be considered detrimental to world harmony, are they not expected to apologize and spend two years crawling back into France's good graces?

I don't seem to recall that Russia got troop support from France et al. when it was fighting in Afghanistan. How one behaves should be guided in part by what one wants from others.

Oakman wrote:

i.e no help in Afghanistan; no help on the economy, but lots and lots of photo ops during the next two years?

By taking diplomacy seriously, Bush I was considerably more successful in getting support from allies than was Bush II. If Obama can do as well as Bush I, it will be an improvement over Bush II. I think there is just a chance he might do even better. Optimum decision making gives the best possible outcome. It does not give magic. I would have liked to see agreement on stimulus and more troop support coming out of the G20 summit. But I find it hard to believe that any alternative US president pursuing any alternative diplomatic strategy would have got a better outcome.

John Carson

[Rob Graham]

I think I'm quoting Bin Ladin and friends. Anyone who thinks the movement they represent is limited to a few nuts on the Pakistan border is not paying attention.

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its economic failures. Reagan happened to be president at the time.

As I remember it, Reagan bankrupted them by upping the ante in the space weapons race, and I was a full grown adult by then, not dependent on revisionist text books that explain away "inconvenient truths." Of course it was their mistakes that set up the situation Reagan took advantage of, but claiming that he did nothing is like claiming that Saddam Hussein, once owner of the 4th largest army in the world, was not defeated on the battlefield by the US - twice. I am afraid I don't find it surprising that the USA gets no credit for the collapse of the USSR but it is a little sad. And it points to why immitating Mary Poppins will not help the US in the long run, at all.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

I don't seem to recall that Russia got troop support from France et al. when it was fighting in Afghanistan.

Nor has the U.S. the French and German support troops aren't even allowed off base at night because it's too dangerous for them. But we saw how quickly Europe abandoned its new found friends when Russia threatened to cut off the oil, didn't we?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

Anyone who thinks the movement they represent is limited to a few nuts on the Pakistan border is not paying attention.

Amazing how many people prefer to filter out anything that doesn't agree with their p.o.v. I suppose I do it, too, somewhere along the line. But at least, not as often as some - unfortunately the "some" I'm thinking of have been tasked with making decisions for the country I live in.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

As I remember it, Reagan bankrupted them by upping the ante in the space weapons race, and I was a full grown adult by then, not dependent on revisionist text books that explain away "inconvenient truths."

I was an adult too, and I think that this "Reagan bankrupted the Soviets via an arms race" story is revisionist Republican myth-making. The Soviet economy had been getting steadily more arthritic for 40 years prior to the collapse in public support for the system. Central planning sort of worked for basic industrialisation, but was hopeless for the task of a consumer economy. The support for the system collapsed as a result of increasing public dissatisfaction with years of economic stagnation and an increasing realisation on the part of the leadership that the Soviet system was falling behind Western economies and that radical reform was needed. Soviet defence spending barely changed through the 1980s. Shortly after Star Wars was launched (in 1984), Reagan began arms reduction negotiations with Gorbachev (in 1986) and they signed a treaty the following year. Star Wars caused some concern (though it was widely considered to not be feasible), but did not precipitate an actual arms race. There are suggestions that the Soviets, already worried about their badly performing economy, saw responding to Star Wars as just too difficult and that this encouraged reform. There may be a grain of truth to this, but what is more accurate is that there was a superpower rivalry that lasted for more than 40 years and the Soviets realised that they couldn't sustain this rivalry with a failing economy. That realisation would have occurred whoever was the US president. If any leader deserves credit for the ending of the Soviet Union, it is Gorbachev. He saw the writing on the wall for the Soviet economy. Reagan offered him moral and political support. Ironically, Reagan was pretty much a dove when it came to dealing with Gorbachev (he even talked of sharing the SDI technology with the Soviets). That was Reagan's main contribution.

Oakman wrote:

I am afraid I don't find it surprising that the USA gets no credit for the collapse of the USSR but it is a little sad.

Giving the US credit is something quite different from saying Reagan basically won the cold war himself. A 40 year superpower rivalry unquestionably accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union. That process, however, didn't star

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

Nor has the U.S. the French and German support troops aren't even allowed off base at night because it's too dangerous for them.

That is Bush's legacy. We'll have to wait a while before we know what Obama's legacy is. I'm no great fan of France or Germany but I suspect that Obama will eventually get more out of them than Bush managed.

John Carson

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

That is Bush's legacy

France was refusing to fight long before George Bush's father met his mother. But why then was not Bush the beneficiary of Clinton's legacy? Instead, less than nine months after taking office - a period during which he focused almost totally on domestic policy - we were attacked and 3,000 innocents were killed, including friends and acquaintances of mine. Speaking of whom, Clinton, in spite of a more engaging manner, had great trouble getting NATO to do anything in Bosnia even though the genocide was happening in their own back yard. Meanwhile, even though Clinton went to war three times to defend Muslims from Christian oppressors, the U.S. was attacked over and over again, both in this country and overseas by religious zealots from the group he was attempting to protect. Can you name one Muslim leader who has ever acknowledged, let alone exprssed gratitude for the US being willing to protect their coreligionists? Can you name one third world country - or second world for that matter - that has said, 'Holy shit - look what the Americans are doing to wipe out AIDS in Africa!'? Like it or not, the facts are that making nice with Europe and or Islam got Clinton nothing more than Bush got, except armed attacks against us. John, the U.S. is always about to be, but never blessed with the respect of Europe. It was that way at the turn on the turn of the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st centuries. Obama will discover he is not an exception. Any more than Wilson was in spite of what he did for Europe. Any more than Roosevelt was, in spite of what he did for Europe.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[John Carson]

As in previous posts, you seem to want diplomacy to produce great results in order to justify itself. It only has to produce better results than the alternative. We live in a bad, bad world. Nothing produces great results.

Oakman wrote:

But why then was not Bush the beneficiary of Clinton's legacy? Instead, less than nine months after taking office - a period during which he focused almost totally on domestic policy - we were attacked and 3,000 innocents were killed, including friends and acquaintances of mine.

According to reports, the thing that particularly ticked Osama bin Laden off was US troups stationed in Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying that the response was reasonable; plainly it was not. But in some sense Bush did reap what Clinton sowed, given OBL's pathology.

Oakman wrote:

Speaking of whom, Clinton, in spite of a more engaging manner, had great trouble getting NATO to do anything in Bosnia even though the genocide was happening in their own back yard.

Over both Bosnia and Kosovo, he had more success than Bush II.

Oakman wrote:

Meanwhile, even though Clinton went to war three times to defend Muslims from Christian oppressors, the U.S. was attacked over and over again, both in this country and overseas by religious zealots from the group he was attempting to protect. Can you name one Muslim leader who has ever acknowledged, let alone exprssed gratitude for the US being willing to protect their coreligionists? Can you name one third world country - or second world for that matter - that has said, 'Holy sh*t - look what the Americans are doing to wipe out AIDS in Africa!'?

I don't have a Muslim leader monitoring service and such leaders are reported in a very limited way in the West. I would be prepared to bet a lot of money that plenty of Muslim leaders expressed gratitude to the US. However, you don't have to persuade me of the existence of unreasonable, homicidal Muslims. The question is one of how best to minimise their influence.

Oakman wrote:

John, the U.S. is always about to be, but never blessed with the respect of Europe. It was that way at the turn on the turn of the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st centuries. Obama will discover he is not an exception. Any more than Wilson was in spite of what he did for Europe. Any more than Roosevelt was, in spite of

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

As in previous posts, you seem to want diplomacy to produce great results in order to justify itself

Glad you put "seem" in there. ;) Truth to tell: A: I expect better results when effort is expended than when it isn't. Otherwise, I believe the technical terminology to be used is, "Waste of time and energy." B: When Bush used to claim that his big achievement was no attacks, I thought it pretty piss-poor justification for his course of action in the middle east - because there was no good way of judging the liklihood of the alternative. I am not suddenly going to buy the same sort of argument just because we're talking about Obama.

John Carson wrote:

I think that foreign countries will never offer the gratitude/esteem/respect to the US that you think is warranted.

That's a safe bet. You could have put a period after "the US" and it would still have been a safe bet.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

John Carson wrote:

Of course, in your other posts you will claim that Obama's policies are indistinguishable from Bush's but the left is giving him a free pass.

Obama is getting credit for precisely the same things Bush was demonized for. All while dismantaling an affective means of dealing with terrorism and returning to a pre 9/11 military and diplomatic posture.

John Carson wrote:

Blood is not completely avoidable. There has been some spilled in Iraq I believe.

Indeed, just as it was spilled in Germany and Japan. Good guys fighting bad guys.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

When Bush used to claim that his big achievement was no attacks, I thought it pretty piss-poor justification for his course of action in the middle east - because there was no good way of judging the liklihood of the alternative. I am not suddenly going to buy the same sort of argument just because we're talking about Obama.

I think that in time you will see concrete evidence of greater cooperation from other countries. Even the Soviets would negotiate deals. But we will have to wait and see.

John Carson

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

I think that in time you will see concrete evidence of greater cooperation from other countries.

'Twould be nice. But I shan't hold my breath. ;)

John Carson wrote:

Even the Soviets would negotiate deals.

Based on what I know of Putin's rise to power, I doubt me he translates "negotiate" the same way we do.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface