mccain would be the oldest president to take office during his first term - 23/10/08

From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

McCain would be the oldest president to take office during his first term. Reagan was 78 when he left his second term as president, McCain is now 72. If you're reading about his survival expectancy from the New York Times, the newspaper that made false, unsubstantiated claims about an affair he was having and about his involvement in the Keating 5 incident, I'd be interested to know how they made those calculations without his medical records...

Didn't know about the money being from the party. I certainly don't support that She's clearly trying to play up the attractive, successful, woman card, which, honestly, is a strategy that has been working for her. My mistake on the haircut... but still, $400... I'd be interested to see more details on the Iraqi oil because there are people (like Obama) upset at Iraq's not using their newly found oil wealth. If the U.S. is getting 87% of the oil, that wouldn't be such a big deal, and at the price oil has been at, if we were getting Iraqi oil, the war probably wouldn't be costing us very much at all. The China thing I believe was a contract to build pipelines or drills or something. Still more proof that the U.S. isn't controlling everything.

"And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the
instability was brought on by US presence."

How is that relevant now? It's something to keep in mind next time we're thinking about invading a country, true. And it shows that it was a mistake to go in (or at least our strategy and optimism was flawed), but still the instability being as a result of our invasion is more reason why we should stay in until things are stable. The instability is mainly not from insurgents attacking U.S. soldiers, a lot is Shiite vs. Sunni and the risk of civil war. It's all the militia groups that would like to gain power through force. Granted this instability is because the U.S. led a poorly organized invasion but that's all the more reason to insure that we fix the mess we made. Now on to your next e-mail... can't keep up here.


From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:

If you're reading about his survival expectancy from the New York Times, the
newspaper that made false, unsubstantiated claims about an affair he was having
and about his involvement in the Keating 5 incident, I'd be interested to know
how they made those calculations without his medical records...

The article was critical of all candidates not giving FULL disclosure of their health records, and was written by a physician who has covered the health of presidential candidates for the past 36 years:

"If Mr. McCain's 2000 left-temple melanoma was a metastasis, as the Armed Forces
pathologists' report suggested, it would be classified as Stage III. The
reclassification would change his statistical odds for survival at 10 years from
about 60 percent to 36 percent, according to a published study." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20health.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&sq=doctor&st=cse&scp=2

I'd be interested to see more details on the Iraqi oil because there are
people (like Obama) upset at Iraq's not using their newly found oil wealth.

Yeah, I wish I could remember where I read that ... I'll find it eventually. Also I was reading about the falling prices of oil affecting oil rich countries:

"Now, plummeting oil prices are raising questions about whether the countries
can sustain their spending — and their bids to challenge United States
hegemony." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/world/21petro.html?scp=1&sq=oil%20rich&st=cse

"And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the
instability was brought on by US presence." How is that relevant now?

It's relevant now because some people present US presence like it is a selfless act without recognizing that it was one of the main causes to instability in Iraq. And I agree that the US should not leave until they have righted that.


From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

What people also forget is what was there before the U.S., someone guilty of genocide. The problem was not that something was done, it's what was done and how it was done. Just saying something else that's often overlooked and forgotten.

john edwards' haircut was $400, not $4000 - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:

I was reading the articles you posted on facebook, although trying to give the appearance i'm working at the same time lol.

John Edwards' haircut was $400, not $4000.

And it wasn't Palin's "own , hard earned money", it came out of the pockets of the National Republican Party.

I recently read an article saying that the us had negotiated something like 87% of Iraqi oil for itself and the other 13% for Iraq to do what it would with it. Hardly seems like a sovereign governments idea of independence. And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the instability was brought on by US presence.

lol, the pumpkins are hilarious. i know what i'm carving up this hallowe'en!

"Good news is that McCain will not hit the average U.S. life expectancy during
his first term, nor will he even be the oldest president in his first term (that
would hit during his second term when he would pass Reagan). Not only that, but
the life expectancy isn't totally applicable as he will probably have access to
the best doctors in the world."

I was just reading an article in the NYtimes yesterday about the lack of full disclosure of medical data from all candidates, but that McCain would be the oldest president to take the office, and that his survival expectancy for his first term was 60%. And if he was lying about one of his melanoma's, which a military biopsy suggested, that it would drop to 36%.

Also, if we're going to question McCain's judgement, what about Obama's? He's
associated himself with people like Rezko, Ayers, and Wright for many many years
and now has taken council from people like the former C.E.O. Fannie Mae. I'm
just saying, "let's focus on the issues that the American people really care
about, like the Economy."

I agree 100%.

the U.S. doesn't really believe that the situation in Iraq is fully stable yet - 10/23/08

From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

But the U.S. doesn't really believe that the situation in Iraq is fully stable yet. They don't want a timeline for withdrawal but a withdrawal with preconditions that can be reversed if things get bad and unstable again. Thus since they don't believe the country is stable enough for their own standards, they want to make sure that if things go wrong in the country, at least the embassy and its residents will be safe and with power.

I don't think it seems like the U.S. is trying to secure resources for themselves. This can be seen in the fact that first, there were free elections in Iraq and someone was voted in who is now trying to negotiate the withdrawal of U.S. troops. More evidence of U.S. not only being in it for themselves is the fact that there are contracts and agreements being made with Chinese oil companies. Granted the U.S. does hold a lot of influence and steers more deals towards themselves, but this sort of does make sense since for a large part of the past few years, Iraqi stability has been hinging on U.S. presence and intervention. But still, I don't see how one large embassy is being built to ensure political dominance over resources, money, the country etc... when the gov. that was voted in that has been doing things that don't necessarily benefit the U.S. but rather that it shows U.S. lack of faith in Iraqi stability as well as wanting to maintain an influential presence in a country that we hope to maintain as a strong ally in the region.

Oh, and those pumpkins are nauseating.

And as for the Palin stories...Did you know John Edwards got a 4,000 dollar haircut??? His whole platform and stump speech was about fighting for the poor and class equality and all that. How do you spend 4000 dollars on just a haircut??? That's ridiculous. It does seem a little hypocritical of Palin, but at the same time, she's a self-made woman. Owned her own business, built herself up in politics, and had 5 kids all at the same time. She has the right to indulge herself with her own hard earned money. I don't see the Republican party as so much "looking out for the little guy" but more the party of "we want to make this possible for the little guy to one day achieve, and once you achieve it you can do whatever you want with your hard earned money." Of course that doesn't come off as sympathetic/empathetic. Unfortunately though, it is going to hurt her with the public because that how the public is and politics has to react appropriately: the guy who can mold his image the best is going to win, not who's honest.

Also, I do question McCain's judgement a bit about Palin. Initially, it proved to be a brilliant pick. He pulled way ahead after the announcement. Unfortunately that's wearing down now. It's true though, that I don't think I'd like Palin as president but for the same reasons as I wouldn't want Obama as president. She's got ties to an extreme pastor, she's inexperienced in many areas (still more experienced than Obama though), and she's a bit too far right in the spectrum (where as Obama is left). Good news is that McCain will not hit the average U.S. life expectancy during his first term, nor will he even be the oldest president in his first term (that would hit during his second term when he would pass Reagan). Not only that, but the life expectancy isn't totally applicable as he will probably have access to the best doctors in the world.

Also, if we're going to question McCain's judgement, what about Obama's? He's associated himself with people like Rezko, Ayers, and Wright for many many years and now has taken council from people like the former C.E.O. Fannie Mae. I'm just saying, "let's focus on the issues that the American people really care about, like the Economy."

P.S. you should check out the articles I posted on facebook last night. I got a bit of an urge to get some stuff out there all of a sudden. One is the Kennedy article I sent you. The other is a pretty non-partisan article on how foreign policy rhetoric has changed for the two candidates, and the third is about Obama's tax policy.

we should work towards global disarmament - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008

"To your point about why it has to be the case that there is a game of chicken
is that there is a large amount of distrust. It seems to be a part of human
nature to not only be distrustful but also deceitful which just keeps the cycle
going. This is the case most of all when looking at extremist Muslim ideology.
Eventhough it is held by a very small minority, there is the thought that your
and others sacrifice are worth the cause of jihad. That's something that makes
the thought of Iran and north Korea with nukes so scary because they are known
to fund and supply jihadist groups."

Fair enough. Obviously Iran and N Korea with nukes is scary and must not be allowed to happen, but I feel the same way about any nation. I think we should work towards global disarmament of nuclear weapons.

"The embassy is another issue. Lots of countries have embassies in other
countries, granted the size is an issue. In Peru the US embassy is bigger than
any other Peruvian government building but no one is protesting the US military
presence in Peru... It does however give a bad impression of US egos."

True. But the size is an issue, and does show the ego of the US. It's like a "remember, we are the strongest and most dominant".

"It sounds like a lot of the size of the embassy is as a result of it wanting to
be self sufficient which would reflect the lack of faith in Iraqi stability in
the near future which would make sense and also of the US being a target of
violence for still some time. But there is nothing wrong with an embassy."

Absolutely nothing wrong with an embassy, but just because you call a structure an embassy doesn't make it so. This is a lot more like a military compound than an embassy. And it does show lack of faith in Iraqi stability, which would make you wonder how they can conceivably withdraw when they obviously don't think the country is stable enough for their own standards. And this ties back to the point you made about, rather than competing for economic dominance, the CIA incites revolts and props up US-favorable regimes. The same appears to be happening in Iraq - it appears as if they want to secure resources for themselves.

Obviously this is debatable and only time will tell, but I'm not ruling anything out. Probably will have to save euchre night as Pam is working Saturday and unsure when she is getting off. You let me know when and where is best for you and I'll be there!

And on a lighter note: http://yeswecarve.com/ lol!

there is a large amount of distrust - 23/10/08

From Buck on October 23rd, 2008

To your point about why it has to be the case that there is a game of chicken is that there is a large amount of distrust. It seems to be a part of human nature to not only be distrustful but also deceitful which just keeps the cycle going. This is the case most of all when looking at extremist Muslim ideology. Even though it is held by a very small minority, there is the thought that your and others' sacrifice are worth the cause of jihad. That's something that makes the thought of Iran and north Korea with nukes so scary because they are known to fund and supply jihadist groups.

The US is currently negotiating a withdrawal of forces agreement. As of now, it looks like troops will be totally out by 2011 including bases. US troops will also be subject to Iraqi law when off duty.

The embassy is another issue. Lots of countries have embassies in other countries, granted the size is an issue. In Peru the US embassy is bigger than any other Peruvian government building but no one is protesting the US military presence in Peru... It does however give a bad impression of US egos. It sounds like a lot of the size of the embassy is as a result of it wanting to be self sufficient which would reflect the lack of faith in Iraqi stability in the near future which would make sense and also of the US being a target of violence for still some time. But there is nothing wrong with an embassy.

As for drinks I work tomorrow night but get off around 9 and then the rest of the weekend I'm free as well. Saturday night works for me. Should we merge this with eucher night or save that for another time?

it is true of the vast majority of nations - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008

1) About the anti-American propaganda: I got the impression that it was
meant more as Krushschev more personally engaging in the anti-American
propaganda, which would indicate him as being a difficult figure to
negotiate
with (which proved to be true).

Ah, I didn't read it that way, but I can understand it now being true. Although I would venture to say that Kennedy (and/or his predecessor, Nixon) personally engaged in anti-Soviet propaganda. I don't know for certain and can't look it up right now while at work lol...

It's dangerous and possibly detrimental to engage in negotiations at such a high
level with someone who clearly and publicly has a very negative perception of
you and your country. The advice that he was getting indicates at a more gradual
strategy, to improve relations from the bottom up before engaging in such high
level meetings.

Makes sense.

2) I totally agree about the hypocrisy of American foreign policy. It's
something that I am pretty embarrassed about my country and have no defense for.

I wouldn't be embarassed, as it is true of the vast majority of nations. The US just happens to be the global superpower so can flaunt it more and is targeted more because of it. Because then it becomes a show of dominance rather than a negotiation. That is true. This hardly sounds like a negotiation at all ... what was the goal of the negotiations? This is something the article glazed over ... There were plenty of things to bring up about Soviet Union hypocrisy, human rights violations, etc...

To be the leader of a country and be lectured by someone else (from another
country) on your own nations policies has a very demeaning effect.

Very true.

So the way I see it is it's a game of a chicken and without very skillful,
delicate, and gradual negotiation will any side back down.

I know this is the way it is, but I don't understand WHY. We all share this planet, we don't have any other, but we are content to rush to its and our mutual destruction in a "game of chicken". Doesn't seem right, and there are alternatives.

I don't know a great deal about the Cold War, but at this time, there were no
satellite states. They were recent results of the collapse of the Soviet Union
when they broke off. I don't think there were any missile bases as close to
Russia as Cuba, but I don't really know too much so if you have some information
on that, feel free.

I'd be interested to research that, and I will, but can't while at work :(

Also, the Cuban missile crisis is pretty widely believed to have been the
closest to an all out nuclear war between the two superpowers.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. There was a great doc with McNamara called "The Fog of War". If you haven't seen it I highly reccommend checking it out.

4) True, the rivalry between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. and
extremist Islam is different, but in terms of duration not so much. You can date
this back to the 70's under Carter who had to deal with the holding hostage of
the U.S. embassy in Iran. Then, closer to the present, you have the three
bombings previous to 9-11 by Al-Qaeda: the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy in Kenya,
and the truck bombing of the world trade center in the early 90's. So this is a
very long term situation.

Agreed. But duration is a nominal connection to make in this case. The Cold War stand off was the first of its kind (in terms of the mutual potential for widespread - truly global - destruction), and while the US/Extremist Islam could be debatedly as potentially destructive, there is no doubt of that level during the Cold War.

The difference between the two situations, though it does present different
kinds of threats and may require different strategies, doesn't change the nature
of the argument that rushing into high level negotiations, being relatively
inexperienced, couldn't result in a worsening of the situation rather than an
improvement. If Obama proves himself as impotent as it seems Kennedy did, maybe
Iran will increase nuclear weapons research, funding anti-american terrorists.

It is true the nature of the argument stands. I would agree that negotiations between lower level diplomats is necessary before any high level meetings, the table needs to be set, and much preparation on the part of the US president (whether it be McCain or Obama) would be mandatory.

(whether you like the U.S. or not, a lot of their targets/victims are Iraqis in
a strategy to maintain Iraqi instability, and as is clear by the recent
negotiations b/w Iraq and the U.S. if there is stability, we are willing to
fully withdraw)

I'm sorry, but the US is not going to withdraw from Iraq anytime in the near future. They are currently in the process of building an "embassy" in Baghdad - the likes of which have never been seen before. "The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River will be the largest of its kind in the world — the size of Vatican City, or 80 football fields, or six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York — on about 104 acres. With the population of a small town, it is designed to be entirely self-sufficient; it will have its own defense force and self-contained power and water plants. The high-tech compound will have 21 buildings reinforced to 2.5 times usual standards. Some walls as said to be 15 feet thick or more. State Department spokesman Justin Higgins defended the size of the embassy, saying it is indicative of the work facing the United States here. "It's somewhat self-evident that there's going to be a fairly sizable commitment to Iraq by the US government in all forms for several years," he recently told journalists.This huge American contingent at the center of power has drawn criticism. "The presence of a massive US embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country," the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq."Clearly, the US has no intention of "fully withdrawing" at any point in our lifetime. There are many more articles and essays written on this subject I'd be happy to send along if you so wish...

5) Love letters are awesome!

Indeed! So when are we going to go for some drinks? I'm free all weekend, so let me know. Been having a problem with my front brakes on my motorcycle. The right side brake disc has shifted a quarter-inch or so over and is now rubbing against one of the brake pads. Basically, the front brake is somewhat permanently engaged. Have to get that fixed ...

no offense taken - 22/10/08

From Buck on October 22nd, 2008

No worries, no offense taken. I already knew your thoughts on those particular issues which you mentioned and, in terms of American hypocrisy and nuclear weapons positions, to pretty much all of it I agree. The real point of the article though is inexperience going into negotiations. I'll respond point by point.

1) About the anti-American propaganda: I got the impression that it was meant more as Krushschev more personally engaging in the anti-American propaganda, which would indicate him as being a difficult figure to negotiate with (which proved to be true). Also, you're right to point out that both countries engaged in the negative propaganda, which would mean that Khrushchev shouldn't have engaged in direct negotiations either... unless he felt that he was more experienced and could probably out match the other. It's dangerous and possibly detrimental to engage in negotiations at such a high level with someone who clearly and publicly has a very negative perception of you and your country. The advice that he was getting suggests a more gradual strategy, to improve relations from the bottom up before engaging in such high level meetings.

2) I totally agree about the hypocrisy of American foreign policy. It's something that I occasionally feel disappointed in my country over and I can put forward no defense of substance. I see that much is done to advance U.S. economic interests which helps American businesses and the American people. But as a believer in the free market, I believe that we should compete for our economic dominance, for example giving better economic incentives to trade with a latin american country for coffee... rather than use the C.I.A. to incite a revolt in favor of a U.S. friendly government. In the long run, I think this would help U.S. international business as it gives less of a platform for anti-american governments to run on (like many democrats strategies being something along the lines of "well hey, it doesn't really matter what I propose, it couldn't be worse than Bush...") like Chavez for example. Anyway, the main point I get from that quote is not "the hypocrisy of American foreign policy" but "Khrushchev lectured him" because when you go into negotiations you can't get pushed around or "get the hell beat out of" you. Because then it becomes a show of dominance rather than a negotiation. And as the following events showed, poorly held negotiations can result in the furthering and increasing of problems rather than at the very least a stalemate. The lecturing probably would not have occurred in negotiations at a lower level, or at least could not have been used as such powerful leverage because the pushing around of a low level diplomat has a much smaller impact than of those negotations held at the highest level. Kennedy should not have allowed it to become a lecture but rather a back and forth dialogue. There were plenty of things to bring up about Soviet Union hypocrisy, human rights violations, etc... To be the leader of a country and be lectured by someone else (from another country) on your own nations policies has a very demeaning effect.

3) Like I said, I totally agree with you on the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign and nuclear weapon policy. It's a really sad situation and ultimately self-defeating. But the point of this is that this was a negotiation that turned into not only a lecture but a "beating." This goes back to the problem that I said a while back about situations with arms races is that it's a game of chicken where you don't want to stop because you don't know if the other will stop too. For Kennedy to be negotiating, propositions have to at least be put forward and discussed, propositions where, presumably, both sides will have to make sacrifices. Simultaneously, the leaders respectively have to show clout in that if conditions are not met by one side, there will be repercussions. If the negotiator is not only unable to give off that impression but is even unable to put him/herself in a position to give off that impression then there are serious problems. As Kennedy admitted, "I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.” Thus you lose any opportunity to engage in negotiations because 1) the person who is doing the beating will sense a gaining of momentum and will not want to give that up as the situation could prove as vital in gaining ground even for positioning in future negotiations since in this game of chicken, since you can't be sure the other side will slow down if you slow down you need to take advantage of any opportunity to get ahead and 2) because perceived influence in enforcing agreements declines so why not try and win the arms race by out-gunning the other if it seems like you can. That's what the U.S. eventually did, and even though in terms of the world it's not preferable, we did end up as the only superpower. So the way I see it is it's a game of a chicken and without very skillful, delicate, and gradual negotiation will any side back down. I don't know a great deal about the Cold War, but at this time, there were no satellite states. They were recent results of the collapse of the Soviet Union when they broke off. I don't think there were any missile bases as close to Russia as Cuba, but I don't really know too much so if you have some information on that, feel free. Also, the Cuban missile crisis is pretty widely believed to have been the closest to an all out nuclear war between the two superpowers. It was a situation very similar to in Watchman, a sort of first strike scenario, where the U.S. thinks the Russians could fire so we should fire first and vice versa. The point the article was making is that this was almost a direct result of the disaster of a negotiation session, not so much: well it doesn't matter if we have nuclear weapons or not but you're not allowed. Poor negotiating can lead to things coming to a head much more quickly rather than improving things or a continuation of a stalemate. It would be a totally different article to focus on the rights of nations to have nukes, thus the author wouldn't want to focus on that. I actually didn't get much of an impression that the author favored one side or the other. It seemed pretty unbiased in describing the lack of judgement in rushing into high-level negotiations.

4) True, the rivalry between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. and extremist Islam is different, but in terms of duration not so much. You can date this back to the 70's under Carter who had to deal with the holding hostage of the U.S. embassy in Iran. Then, closer to the present, you have the three bombings previous to 9-11 by Al-Qaeda: the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy in Kenya, and the truck bombing of the world trade center in the early 90's. So this is a very long term situation. Iran, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, etc... may not have the all out fire power that the Soviets had and that does change the nature of the conflict. There won't be the kind of Cold War style stand off but that doesn't mean there aren't serious threats. The difference between the two situations, though it does present different kinds of threats and may require different strategies, doesn't change the nature of the argument that rushing into high level negotiations, being relatively inexperienced, couldn't result in a worsening of the situation rather than an improvement. If Obama proves himself as impotent as it seems Kennedy did, maybe Iran will increase nuclear weapons research, funding anti-american terrorists (whether you like the U.S. or not, a lot of their targets/victims are Iraqis in a strategy to maintain Iraqi instability, and as is clear by the recent negotiations b/w Iraq and the U.S. if there is stability, we are willing to fully withdraw), etc... It's a lesson on being prudent, and that making hasty decisions, whether they are well intentioned or not, can have detrimental effects.

5) Love letters are awesome!

Kennedy talked, Khruschev triumphed - 21/10/08

From Buck on October 21st, 2008

Kennedy Talked, Khruschev Triumphed - NYTimes Oped.


From Brent on October 22nd, 2008

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php

Part of my argument that our priorities are skewered. I would like to see the average/median salaries of our politicians...

Funny, but very very sad.

From Buck on October 22nd, 2008

Haha, that is funny.


From Brent on October 22nd, 2008

Hmm.

I don't want to offend you in rebuttal of that article, so I'm forewarning you that:
a) the arguments I present are not necessarily my own, but rather are for the purpose of debate, and
b) you are probably going to take offense to what follows, but I assure you it is unintentional.

"Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda..."

Both sides "engaged" in propaganda aimed at their adversaries, so this argument is irrelevant.

"...as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, ..."

As he should. American foreign policy is notoriously hypocritical. Since the days it was founded and right up to today, it is and always has been a self serving policy disguised as a selfless one. I have no problem with people looking out for themselves, just don't tell me your doing something for my benefit, then rape me for your own gain, and then continue saying you are helping. And I am aware why they have to present it that way, otherwise their own population (hopefully) would resist such blatant aggression. But I digress ...

"Khrushchev's aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed "very inexperienced, even immature." Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was "too intelligent and too weak." The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy's assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the "roughest thing in my life." Kennedy went on: "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."

So what I am understanding here is that Kennedy sucked as a diplomat (at least in comparison to Krushchev) and that because of this the Soviet leader started testing the limits of the Kennedy administration, by building the Berlin Wall and putting nuclear missiles in Cuba.

The flip side to this is that the US had plenty of nuclear missiles dispersed throughout the globe, if not under their own control then under satellite states, that were very close to Russia. Of course, no mention of this in the article. It's dangerous if the enemy moves near us, but it is necessary for us to be near them.

Also, the Soviet Union was a rival for global super power at the time, and it would be ridiculous to even compare Iran or Pakistan, or any Middle Eastern country for that matter, to the USSR. No comparison. And the US /USSR rivalry had been on going for a couple decades at this point and both sides were hardened.

And Pam just asked if I was writing you a love note.

To which I said, "Hells yeah."

the view of the people can be manipulated - 8/10/08

From Buck on October 8th, 2008

Pretty interesting to me. I think it is a trend that might spread...

A trend of countries using similar currencies to strengthen political ties? It even says in the article that the motivation is not that they think the U.S. dollar is weak (in fact it's actually been continuing to get stronger against foreign currencies throughout the financial crisis) and that they think the U.S. dollar is still more stable than their own. It's just as a way to strengthen political ties.

I agree about Obama having a better impact on foreign perception. However, I believe that that kind of thing can be fleeting.

It'll last a few months, maybe a year, and that's about it since Obama probably won't take a radically new direction. Also since I believe McCain would be very strong in foreign policy, and would rely much more on diplomacy than Bush and more than what Obama and his supporters would lead you to believe.

You say you have a problem with the foreign policy of the U.S. If you haven't yet, you really should read that article I sent you from the Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24467159-5013460,00.html) But here's the quote that pertains to how you think Obama will be better for foreign policy:

"Obama is, formally at least, now terrifically hawkish on the use of force. Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. No military option will be taken off the table. The UN cannot have veto power over US action. He will support Israel, one of America's closest allies in the world. He will attack in Pakistan if there is solid evidence of the presence of an important terrorist. Hunting down and destroying al-Qa'ida must be America's No.1 national security priority. Every time genocide or ethnic cleansing occurs and the US doesn't intervene militarily, it is diminished.Good grief. If George W. Bush were still saying things like that there would be a warrant issued for his arrest at The Hague. In response to Obama's alpha-dog swagger on national security, McCain read him a little lecture on the limits of US power and the need to intervene only when it can clearly do some good. Presumably Obama wanted to look tougher and McCain less threatening."

You really should read the article, it's pretty short and it's fantastic.

Yeah, unfortunately I don't really have time even to watch the 14 minute clip right now. I will get to it by this weekend though. It's true that government should represent the view of the people, that's the great thing about democracy. The problem with that though is that the view of the people can be manipulated (as I believe it is in the case of Obama). Also, it's not just the president that doesn't represent the view of the people, congress in the U.S. also has the lowest approval rating in history.