[Kosh]

Ok since no one else has posted this yet, I might as well.


Obama and Huckabee won in Iowa, any thoughts?

[Turambar]

Huckabee is a religious nut, and is unfit to be holding any office, not just the Big one.  Obama seems ok, but he's a front runner candidate which means he's pre-approved by big business and the media, and as such probably isn't 'ok'.

overall I'm pessimistic cause the idea election for me is Paul vs Kucinich (i'd vote for Kucinich)

[Polpolion]

Paul. FTW.

EDIT: But I've never heard of Kucinich...

EDIT2: Yeah, Paul vs. Kucinich would be win... Too bad it won't happen...

[Unknown Target]

I like Paul's attitude, hate almost all of his policies. Dissolving our overseas bases and all government institutions, including the IRS? How does he expect us to pay off our debt? Or protect key allies like Japan?

I want Mike Gravel to win, but it ain't gonna happen, so I'm putting my vote in for Obama.

EDIT: Although looking at Kucinich, he looks promising. He won't win, though - did he even place in Iowa? He does, however, encourage his voters to back Obama, so maybe an Obama-Kucinich team in the future?

[Rictor]

Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and has good relations with all of its neighbors. Why in God's name would it need protecting?

But yeah, let's face it - Paul doesn't stand a chance. I still support the guy, just as I did before his campaign and as I will after it, but the mindset of empire, both domestic and foreign, is by now too engrained in the American consciousness to simply do and about-face. Which is too bad for you guys, because a gradual draw-down would have been less painful than the collapse which is now inevitable.

edit: Obama seems like a nice enough guy, but his fundamental view of America's place in the world doesn't seem to differ much from, say, Romney or Hilary Clinton or McCain. It's just that he would hold a few more conferences and conduct a few less bombing sorties, which I suppose counts for something.

[Goober5000]

overall I'm pessimistic

Too bad it won't happen...

but it ain't gonna happen

He won't win, though

See, aren't those just self-reinforcing attitudes?  If everyone keeps saying "he can't win", regardless of who they're referring to, he won't.  That's why people are complaining about Fox shutting out Ron Paul.  You need to vote for who you want to win, whatever his supposed chances of success.

...including the IRS? How does he expect us to pay off our debt?

The US has more sources of income than the IRS.  In fact, taxes don't even supply the majority of the nation's income.

[Polpolion]

See, aren't those just self-reinforcing attitudes?  If everyone keeps saying "he can't win", regardless of who they're referring to, he won't.  That's why people are complaining about Fox shutting out Ron Paul.  You need to vote for who you want to win, whatever his supposed chances of success.

I never said I wouldn't vote for him, it's just that I doubt he'd have a chance even with my vote. I'd have every intention to vote for Paul, provided I was old enough to vote.

[Unknown Target]

Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and has good relations with all of its neighbors. Why in God's name would it need protecting?

North Korea? Maybe China at some future date?

See, aren't those just self-reinforcing attitudes?  If everyone keeps saying "he can't win", regardless of who they're referring to, he won't.  That's why people are complaining about Fox shutting out Ron Paul.  You need to vote for who you want to win, whatever his supposed chances of success.

Yea, that sounds good in theory, the problem is changing people's mind sets. They don't want to vote for people they think won't win and waste their vote, so they vote for someone else, thus dooming them to lose, and the cycle keeps repeating itself. You're going to need a breakout candidate to break that cycle - Paul's the closest so far, but he's not gonna be able to do it.

The US has more sources of income than the IRS.  In fact, taxes don't even supply the majority of the nation's income.

Ok, fair point, but I still don't think dissolving all of our nation's institutions is gonna fix our problems. For instance, he wants to dissolve FEMA - who's gonna be there the next time a major catastrophe happens? Yes, FEMA sucked during Katrina - but that's because Bush staffed it with cronies who didn't know how to do their job. When crisis has struck in the past, FEMA has performed admirably.

Basically I think Paul has adopted a policy of throwing out the baby with the water, and instead of reforming institutions to make them faster, more efficient, and more cost effective, he wants to get rid of them completely - which is not what we need right now IMO. Dissolving those institutions would also mean reduced aid for the poor and middle class, which is definitely going to spread the rich/poor divide.

Paul has a good attitude and a good heart, but I don't see his policies as being the best for the country right now, at least economically and stability-wise. Plus most of his supporters just annoy me - they're completely ravenously in this guy's pocket, and don't have any doubts whatsoever - when I expressed my concerns to one fan, he simply stated that "Ron won't do anything that's not for the good of the country, he has no ulterior motives". I don't know about you, but I think that's a dangerous attitude to have towards a politician.

[Rictor]

North Korea? Maybe China at some future date?

 

C'mon, tell me you're kidding. China wants to do business, not attack anyone. Their economy is so inter-dependent with Japan's (and more importantly the US's) that I can guarantee that war is the last thing on their mind. And North Korea is incapable of even feeding its citizens. It is one of the most backward-ass, destitute, non-functional nations in the world. Their entire industrial capacity could be leveled by the JASDF within a day.

Maybe if Tom Clancy were President of the World...but otherwise, no.

Dissolving those institutions would also mean reduced aid for the poor and middle class, which is definitely going to spread the rich/poor divide.

How about the extra $10,000 it would put in their pocket each year? Who knows best how to spend my money  -the government or I?

[Unknown Target]

C'mon, tell me you're kidding. China wants to do business, not attack anyone. Their economy is so inter-dependent with Japan's (and more importantly the US's) that I can guarantee that war is the last thing on their mind. And North Korea is incapable of even feeding its citizens. It is one of the most backward-ass, destitute, non-functional nations in the world. Their entire industrial capacity could be leveled by the JASDF within a day.

Maybe if Tom Clancy were President of the World...but otherwise, no.

Hm. Well, your argument is persuasive, however, with increased global tensions with Russia and in the Middle East, I think that the US needs to retain some forward deployment capabilities - it can dissolve it's bases in non-key areas, however I still think it should keep it in areas where the force projection either enhances stability or where vital US interests (read: oil) are at stake. Now, I'm all for that "No blood for oil" crap, but really, those protesters are driving their cars to those rallies, and where do you think they get it from?

No, what we don't need is all of our institutions (like the EPA) being shut down. We need better management, incentives (and even force through laws) to make companies develop alternative fuel sources.

How about the extra $10,000 it would put in their pocket each year? Who knows best how to spend my money  -the government or I?

That assumes that they're even making enough to get that extra ten grand - and even then, it's not like they get a check for it - the most they'd see is probably $20 more on each of their paychecks. Meanwhile, we have inner city kids living like they were in Somalia.

[Rictor]

Hm. Well, your argument is persuasive, however, with increased global tensions with Russia and in the Middle East, I think that the US needs to retain some forward deployment capabilities - it can dissolve it's bases in non-key areas, however I still think it should keep it in areas where the force projection either enhances stability or where vital US interests (read: oil) are at stake. Now, I'm all for that "No blood for oil" crap, but really, those protesters are driving their cars to those rallies, and where do you think they get it from?
I?

I don't want to go too far off topic, but I have to ask: what gives the US the right, unique among 192 nations of the world, to have "force projection" capabilities and maintain overseas "interests"? As I see it, and as the vast majority of people in the world see it, the United States has no special right or duty to police the world or guarantee stability or any of that crap. They are entitled to the same thing as everyone else: to protect their territorial intergrity from foreign attack. Nothing more. That's why I like Ron Paul - his position on foreign policy is essentially "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". How would you respond if China suddenly decided to station 100,000 troops in Venezuela to "protect their interests"?

That assumes that they're even making enough to get that extra ten grand - and even then, it's not like they get a check for it - the most they'd see is probably $20 more on each of their paychecks. Meanwhile, we have inner city kids living like they were in Somalia.

Actually, it works out to about $400 per paycheck, assuming a very modest family income of $30k. And who's to say that they wouldn't save it or invest it? It brings up the fundamental question: should people be trusted with their money? I say yes. And if they screw up, it's their own fault. If the government were not relied upon for charity, private charity groups would blossom to fill the gap. There are already hundreds of such groups making sure that everyone who needs it is taken care of.

[Kosh]

Quote
Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and has good relations with all of its neighbors. Why in God's name would it need protecting?

North Korea? Maybe China at some future date?

Japan is not on good terms with its neighbors, there are plenty of east asian states that don't like them. the dislike isn't nearly strong enough to push them into war.

Japan actually has a pretty good army and would be a pretty tough nut to crack. North Korea is going to attack them with what? Hordes of hungry refugees? And even then how would they get there? The North Korean navy is a terrible joke.

Dissolving our overseas bases and all government institutions, including the IRS? How does he expect us to pay off our debt?

The personal income tax doesn't go towards paying the debt per se, it goes to paying the interest on the debt. As was mentioned earlier, the Federal Reserve holds 40% of the government debt, do you really think that comes without a price tag attached?

[Unknown Target]

Hm. Well, your argument is persuasive, however, with increased global tensions with Russia and in the Middle East, I think that the US needs to retain some forward deployment capabilities - it can dissolve it's bases in non-key areas, however I still think it should keep it in areas where the force projection either enhances stability or where vital US interests (read: oil) are at stake. Now, I'm all for that "No blood for oil" crap, but really, those protesters are driving their cars to those rallies, and where do you think they get it from?
I?

I don't want to go too far off topic, but I have to ask: what gives the US the right, unique among 192 nations of the world, to have "force projection" capabilities and maintain overseas "interests"? As I see it, and as the vast majority of people in the world see it, the United States has no special right or duty to police the world or guarantee stability or any of that crap. They are entitled to the same thing as everyone else: to protect their territorial intergrity from foreign attack. Nothing more. That's why I like Ron Paul - his position on foreign policy is essentially "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". How would you respond if China suddenly decided to station 100,000 troops in Venezuela to "protect their interests"?

I didn't say it was the most pleasant thing, nor did I say it was the most desirable - and I didn't say the US was the only country with that right. If memory serves me, the UK has overseas bases in or around Argentina?

Anyway, the point is that the US's overseas bases are a remnant of the Cold War, and with the second Cold War that's brewing (yes, it's there), I don't see them going away any time soon. While I do see the need for their existence, I don't desire them - which is why I want a compromise - closing down half or 3/4ths of the bases, and halving the strength of the remaining bases.

Japan actually has a pretty good army and would be a pretty tough nut to crack. North Korea is going to attack them with what? Hordes of hungry refugees? And even then how would they get there? The North Korean navy is a terrible joke.

Nukes?

And regardless of fact, I will not vote for a man that basically advocates a return to a laissez-faire (spelling?) economy. The abolishment of the EPA, standards boards, etc, would do more harm than good.

[Kosh]

How functional their "nuke" is is up for debate.

[Unknown Target]

How functional their "nuke" is is up for debate.

It's still a valid threat, do you want to take that risk? I sure don't. Besides, 10,000 US troops is more than enough to keep most aggressors at bay, and that's not a sizable base by any stretch of the imagination.

[Rictor]

Beside which - to do so would be to invite instant national suicide. And while Kimmy Boy might be nuts enough to do it, detonating nukes is by no means a one-man affair. In the end, sanity would prevail and the NK brass wouldn't allow it.

And in any case, I don't see how US forces in Okinawa could deter such an attack. Japan already has PAC-3s itself. If the point is to defend against incoming missiles, the US presence doesn't even come into the equation. It's not as if the Marines can put on their helmets and go shoot down a nuclear weapon.

[Kosh]

How functional their "nuke" is is up for debate.

It's still a valid threat, do you want to take that risk? I sure don't. Besides, 10,000 US troops is more than enough to keep most aggressors at bay, and that's not a sizable base by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually lot of Japanese people themselves don't want the base.

[Unknown Target]

Beside which - to do so would be to invite instant national suicide. And while Kimmy Boy might be nuts enough to do it, detonating nukes is by no means a one-man affair. In the end, sanity would prevail and the NK brass wouldn't allow it.

And in any case, I don't see how US forces in Okinawa could deter such an attack. Japan already has PAC-3s itself. If the point is to defend against incoming missiles, the US presence doesn't even come into the equation. It's not as if the Marines can put on their helmets and go shoot down a nuclear weapon.

They don't deter the attack with physical force, they deter it with their presence - if anyone attacks a country that has a US base, then they know the US is going to just come in and hit them back.

Actually lot of Japanese people themselves don't want the base.

I didn't know that. Maybe they should take a vote, if the majority agree, then we really don't have any business being there.

[Goober5000]

We can hit any location on Earth with a missile in the space of an hour, and we can land troops on any shore on Earth in the space of a month.  That rather lessens the need for bases anywhere but here.

[Unknown Target]

As to the missiles, yes, as to the troops - that month is only secured when we have bases to supply them and bases to fly them out of. With neither we have no way of getting out there.

And again, I'm not advocating keeping what we have now, I'm advocating a radical reduction.


EDIT: Besides, haven't you been arrested?