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."

getting more disillusioned with chomsky - 10/10/08

From Buck on October 10th, 2008:

I gotta say, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with Noam Chomsky. So much of what he says seems so one sided. It would take a very big time commitment for me to research the whole Israel/Palestine issue, including, like I said in the previous e-mail, to simply find out more on the history of "palestine" which is more specifically a name for a general area in the middle east, literally. It seems to me the more apocalyptic image he can create and horrific situations he can describe the more he'll be believed because he's an MIT professor. There's a lot to be said about this strategy, sometimes you need to exaggerate a situation to get the necessary amount of attention in order to help form a solution, sort of over shoot things in the hopes of reaching a middle ground. However, at least in my eyes, he's losing some credibility. Like I said, I'd need A LOT of time to look into the history of the Israel/Palestine issue, but what I am aware of is that Israel did agree to grant Palestine sovereignty if Hamas took out those sections of their constitution, they refused. I also know that Israel started evacuating the settlements which constitute a significant point of contention within this conflict, not to mention that Hamas has recently fired rockets at an Israeli school. Chomsky says Israel uses the West Bank as target practice, and doesn't mention that Palestine does the same thing. C'mon, this is so one sided! This is against the founding principle of our party, the thing that the two of us are in total agreement, there are two sides to a story, and usually, both sides are to blame. Chomsky, in his role as one of the most influential intellectuals in the world, should make it a priority to tell the whole story. Given his status in the academic word, the simple act of ommision communicates a tremondous amount. The impression I got from this excerpt is that the state of Israel should be dissolved (not to say that that's what he believes, but that is the honest impression I got from the language he was using).

On to the next thing:

That is fair, but I did say that this was a superficial point and that I didn't agree with it for those reasons. I don't think either candidate will bring about any major change, but the appearance to the rest of the world of a democrat of mixed race as president after 8 years of bush comes as no surprise to be popular. Its too bad for McCain because the deck is already stacked against him, just being an old, white, republican following eight years of the very unpopular Bush.

The point I was trying to make about this, wasn't quite that it's a superficial reason to vote for him but that the opinion polls themselves and peoples reasons for saying he would be better for the U.S. or that they would vote for Obama are superficial. What I mean by this is that there does not seem to be any legitimate, solid foundation for why the international world would prefer Obama (other than "he said..."). The initial boost to U.S. favorability as a result of Americans voting for a black man would wear off after a few months and return back to regular levels. The same would happen after any drop as a result of McCain winning because again peoples reasons for not wanting him are purely superficial. So when faced with the reality of McCain and his pro-green environmental policies, favoring diplomacy, better leadership for the economy, the drop would be offset and return back to regular levels, and most likely better than Bush. What it seems like you think I meant by it being superficial is the same way people would vote Liberal in Canada just so Conservatives won't be in power, sort of like that's not a good reason to vote for a guy just because people have irrational desires to have Obama as next president of the U.S. But the reason i think it's superficial is because beyond possibly 6 months it won't really be any more of a boost to international opinion than McCain winning.

And third, the Space race.

A few things I take issue on with the Chomsky quote. First of all, he says:

"Nobody really believes that the US is trying to protect itself from North Korea. That's not serious"

Well I agree that that's not the reason we're developing our space program, but to dismiss N. Korea so easily is almost just as foolish. They have spent time working on missiles that could reach the western U.S., Hawaii and the coastal areas. That is pretty serious, and should not be so easily dismissed. Next, is his comparison to the development of Navy technology, which is an extremely good example:

You know, the development of space technology, including space warfare today, is similar in its technological-industrial significance to the development of navies a hundred years ago. If you look at say, England and Germany a century ago, which had the most advanced navies then, they were dealing with extremely tricky technological problems. Putting a huge gun on a moving platform and ensuring that it could hit another moving target was one of the hardest technical problems of the early twentieth century.

In fact, Clinton-era publications of the US Space Command describe control over space as a parallel to control over the oceans a century ago. Then, countries built navies to protect and enhance their power in commercial and strategic interests. Today, the militarization of space is intended to protect US investments and commercial interest and US hegemony around the world.

So what is Chomsky saying here? What I can gather is that since he believes the U.S. should abandon its ambitions for space and he is making this comparison, then he similarly believes England, which is the closest parallel to the U.S. today, should have abandoned their naval ambitions. Seriously? Do you think that would've been a good idea? Do you think the Germans would have abandoned their naval development if England did? Aside from the civilian benefits that come from military research, this is a ridiculous idea. It would have been terrible for England to stop developing their navy, and silly to think that Germany would have stopped if England did. In fact the best proof of this is the exact example that Chomsky himself uses about the U.S. and the militarization of space:

We're looking at the dawn of a new arms race. For example, Germany technically opposes the US space militarization program, but is bound to get involved. Otherwise it will be left behind in the development of advanced technology. Germany understands that very well. The US understands it too, and they fully expect that Germany and other countries that they want on board will go along with the program. The Bush Administration recognizes that US power is so overwhelming that it can't really be opposed, even if countries object to US actions.

So in the case of Germany, they would've been happy to continue developing their navy, including their devastating U-boats used during WWII, if England had stopped. It just means that they get a bit of time to get ahead while England watches on, until they realize they might as well hop on the bandwagon. That brings me to my third point, that none of this addressed what I said about China, that China would be happy to continue their space research even if the U.S. were to stop theirs. They don't pursue militarizing space just to make sure they keep up with the U.S. They also do it because there is a strong Chinese belief that not only should they keep up with the West but also that China is the center of everything and the most important, and they have the right to supremacy, see their central belief of "The Mandate of Heaven" which parallels very nicely to "Manifest Destiny." Again, all you have to do is look at their treatment of Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong. They believe they have every right in the world to those sovereign states, they historically "belong" to China, and so it is one of their central goals to bring that forward.

Finally, there's this point:

"Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it's exactly what you're taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you're taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market."

This is another example of Chomsky looking at only one part of the picture, and the more apocalyptic he sounds the more authority he seems to have, because why would you exaggerate the "destruction of the species"? What Chomsky failed to mention here is that what we're also taught in economics are theories of externalities and the "tragedy of the commons." Basically they outline how to deal with the environment etc... that we actually are better off, from an economics perspective, caring for the environment etc... and not exhausting resources and all this. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, but I can write more about it in another e-mail if you want.

Anyway, you're up!

p.s. How beautiful has the weather been/going to be this weekend?? It's awesome, definitely wanna go for some motorcycle rides... stupid homework...

an incredibly optimistic view of the world - 9/10/08

From Buck on October 9th, 2008


So first off, I think it's an incredibly optimistic view of the world to think that China is only going after the weaponization of space in reaction to the U.S. Granted that is part of it, but I can tell you from my experience with China, the Chinese, and studying its people and culture (especially in modern times), there is a very good chance, almost guaranteed, that China would pursue it regardless. China is extremely nationalistic and has had a kind of inferiority complex ever since about the mid 19th century as a result of the west not only having surpassed them technologically and economically but also having effectively colonizing. Ever since, there's a very strong effort to define what is China and to ensure that what is China is the best or among the best in the world. You can see this with Tibet, the huge exhibitions of pride when they gained control of Hong Kong, their relations and threats toward Taiwan, their total disregard for the environment (another kind of Chicken race), and the whole mind set of their olympic games. And that's where the game of chicken comes in. The U.S. is not willing to take the risk that China will end their space race if they do it first.

As for the polls, it's true that the poll is straight forward but I would argue that its significance is not so much. First, like I said I believe that those opinion polls would only be reflected within the first few months after the election, if Obama were to win it would jump initially with McCain it would drop or stay flat. Then it would come back to an equilibrium, because as we seem to agree, there seems to be little actual difference between the two in terms of actual policy which is what ultimately will have the largest impact on opinion. Also it seems that there is a general optimism about both candidates, and for myself I'm pretty happy with the choices we have (at least with regard to foreign policy and world opinion). The real way to see how they would affect international opinion in the long run is to see their record in foreign policy. McCain has a very strong record, he's had good associations with foreign leaders for example, and is generally seen in a favorable light. He is also in favor of diplomatic strategies and would like to begin pulling out of Iraq because of the stabilization that has been happening there, not to mention what I said about his nuclear policy.

Second, in terms of the international polls, I think it's a really bad idea to base a decision based on those polls. Like I said there are other things that would determine long term public opinion. Second, as much as the international community may have invested in this election, the U.S. and American citizens have much much more. For example and most importantly at the moment, the economy, which I think Obama would not be very good for. It is especially not a good idea to be looking at international (particularly european) choices in this election just by looking at the point they're in. They're financial situation and political situation is a mess, a complete mess. Nobody knows what to do or is putting forward any ideas. There was a big summit called yesterday I believe, and Germany, the biggest economy in the EU didn't even show up! Not only that, but you have to look at what effects public opinion. The U.S. itself has a generally very left leaning media not to mention an entire entertainment industry that literally is in love with Obama. A good example to see how controlled the information is, I had a friend in San Diego that had just spent 4 months in Europe, and you know she said that most Europeans she met thought the election for president was between Obama and Clinton?? Even you, as a Canadian that is extremely interested in american politics, wasn't aware of Obama's blatant refusal to have any kind of debates or town hall meetings prior to the conventions, or McCain's desire for Nuclear disarmament, and I don't think you knew much about McCain's green ambitions either (McCain-Lieberman for cap and trade). So how straightforward really is the significance of the foreign polls, when people are so ill-informed?

Now I'm slacking from lunch! I'm starving and gotta head off to work soon. Stayed up til 5:30 last night too writing a paper, jeesh. But political e-mail debates always come first!

the weaponization of space: the U.S. and China - 9/10/08

From Brent on October 9th, 2008

Polls are a funny thing. They can be manipulated to serve a specific purpose as
well as the meaning of the results skewed accordingly.

Granted. But surely not all polls are so biased, especially when the question is as simple as: "Who is your prefered candidate in the US Presidential Election?"

Of 22 countries polled, the overwhelming answer (4 to 1) was Obama. The options given were: Obama, McCain, Either/Neither/No Difference, Other, and Don't Know. Again, relating this to what I said yesterday, this doesn't ask who would bring the best change but re-affirms my argument that he would be best to improve global relations.

Actually, that was also one of the questions: "The poll also explored the expected impact of the US election. In 17 of the 22 countries surveyed the most common view is that, if Barack Obama is elected president, America's relations with the rest of the world are likely to get better. ... On average 46 per cent think that US relations with the world would get better with Obama, 22 per cent that relations would stay the same, and 7 per cent that they would get worse. However only 20 per cent think relations would get better under McCain. The largest number - 37 per cent - think relations under a McCain presidency would stay the same and 16 per cent think they would get worse." http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/533.php?lb=brglm&pnt=533&nid=&id=

Also did you know that McCain has supported dismantling our nuclear arsenal. Getting rid of em all in like 10 years (can't remember exactly what it was).

I was unaware that McCain had that policy. I'll look it up!

The trouble with the space race and nukes is it's like a game of chicken where
both sides would disarm but no one wants to risk being the first. Anyway, I
better get back to class!

I can understand that argument regarding nuclear weapons, but don't think it applies to the space race. With little currently in place, it is hard trying to argue that one wouldn't want to be first to disarm. Currently, the US is investing the most in the weaponization of space. This will CREATE an arms race, for other powers' fears of being targeted. Thus the Chinese test to blow an orbiting satellite out of space... Just my lefty input!

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/05/content_6298849.htm

re: global polls - 9/10/08

From Buck on October 9th, 2008

Polls are a funny thing. They can be manipulated to serve a specific purpose and the meaning of the results skewed accordingly. I think if the questions were posed like "Do you think our country should eliminate nuclear weapons even if this country still keeps them?" or "Should our government pursue nuclear weapons while these countries still have them?" or "Should our country still have them if this country that has relations with and a history of supporting terrorists is developing them?"

In fact I've seen such polls, and there are very different results (unfortunately I can't remember where I saw them).

The thing with Iran is no one really has a problem with them creating the tech for power. But there are much smaller amounts of fuel needed for energy than weapons. Iran was processing much more than would be necessary for energy alone, and this is what the concern is.

Also did you know that McCain has supported dismantling our nuclear arsenal, dismantling in something like 10 years (can't remember exactly what it was)? The trouble with the space race and nukes is it's like a game of chicken where both sides would disarm but no one wants to risk being the first. Anyway, I better get back to class!

global polls and nuclear proliferation -9/10/08

From Brent on October 9th, 2008

Some global polls:

One of my greatest fears is nuclear weapons (not energy). We both know the NNPT is being flagrantly violated by most nuclear powers. But what does the public think?

-The goal of eliminating nuclear weapons is supported by 73% of Americans and 63% of Russian populations.

-Most Russians (72%) and Americans (80%) also favor a new treaty banning all weapons in space.

There is a lot of talk about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and how different nations side. What does the global public think?

-Most publics oppose taking sides in Israel-Palestine conflict. Three side with Palestine (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey), none side with Israel (including the USA). Most favor UN playing robust role in peace enforcement.

And always, talks about Iran developing nuclear weapons (which I don't think they would EXCEPT as deterrent, and even then ...). Again, what does the Iranian population think?

-Iranians oppose producing nuclear weapons (58% against, with 23% thinking it is permissible), but 81% agree producing nuclear energy is "very important" for Iran.

Its a really interesting site. What do you think?