[akwoo]

There seems to be an undercurrent in some parts of the Republican party that the proper role of government is to organize (white, male) Americans into a gang to beat up on everyone else and share the spoils, and the best country is the one most capable of beating up on everyone else. (Note: This is not at all a solely American phenomenon; the European far right, which controls a few Central European countries, believes this to a much larger degree.)

From this point of view, people who are trying to make America into a just nation are in fact trying to change this country for the worse.

[mike777]

 akwoo, on 2016-February-08, 22:02, said:

There seems to be an undercurrent in some parts of the Republican party that the proper role of government is to organize (white, male) Americans into a gang to beat up on everyone else and share the spoils, and the best country is the one most capable of beating up on everyone else. (Note: This is not at all a solely American phenomenon; the European far right, which controls a few Central European countries, believes this to a much larger degree.)

From this point of view, people who are trying to make America into a just nation are in fact trying to change this country for the worse.

wow the republican party is a gang bent on beating up everyone else...and share the spoils

thank goodness we have the democratic party who do not want to beat on anyone and share the spoils

do you understand how partisan you come across

[helene_t]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-08, 13:23, said:

Economic issues are complex, foreign policy issues even harder, but here we see a simple issue of judgment. Hillary is not looking good.

Agree. But who is looking good on foreign policies? Sanders doesn't know anything about foreign politics. That he voted against the Iraq war means he has good judgment, at least sometimes, but he doesn't really seem to have a plan for the Middle East. At least he acknowledges that he will need to rely on his team (this is a lot better than Trump and Cruz who are at least as clueless but seem not to acknowledge this so they might actually try to implement their ridicolous plans).

But it does mean that if you consider voting for Sanders and if foreign politics is your top priority, you really want to know who will be his VP and who will be his secretary of state.

[kenberg]

 helene_t, on 2016-February-09, 03:23, said:

Agree. But who is looking good on foreign policies? Sanders doesn't know anything about foreign politics. That he voted against the Iraq war means he has good judgment, at least sometimes, but he doesn't really seem to have a plan for the Middle East. At least he acknowledges that he will need to rely on his team (this is a lot better than Trump and Cruz who are at least as clueless but seem not to acknowledge this so they might actually try to implement their ridiculous plans).

But it does mean that if you consider voting for Sanders and if foreign politics is your top priority, you really want to know who will be his VP and who will be his secretary of state.

When Sanders speaks of his vote against the Iraq war I think of Jeanette Rankin. She voted against American entry into both WW1 and WW2. I don't know much of Sanders' history. When Iraq invaded Kuwait there were many prominent people who thought nothing could be done about that, it just had to be accepted. GHWB said we could reverse this and we did. Does Sanders view this as a mistake? A little internet browsing suggests that the answer is yes, or at least he thought so at the time. Now if he thinks that the use of military force is always a mistake, that is a respectable position. But speaking only of his vote against the GWB Irag war is a little too cute for me.

When GWB was first running for president some newscaster asked him about which military interventions in the past he would have favored. GWB went thorough a brief historical list. Those that had worked out well he said he favored, those that had gone badly he said he opposed. Very wise, very wise.

I do think a guy who wants to brag about his wisdom in voting against our entry into Iraq under GWB owes us a more complete description of how he sees the use of military force in the world. What are we to confront, what are we to accept?

I have grown weary of much of this campaign so perhaps he has done this and I just haven't gotten/got around to reading it.

[gwnn]

Sanders voted for intervention in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan after 9/11. This "article" seems to imply he's some kind of warmonger (I haven't really read it but there you go):

http://www.alternet....violence-abroad

[hrothgar]

 hrothgar, on 2016-January-29, 16:25, said:

So, only a few days left before the Iowa caucus.

I am expecting a bad night for Sanders and Trump.

From what I understand, Sanders voters are packed into a relatively small number of districts. There is a very real chance that a lot of his votes are going to be wasted. I've heard several stories saying that Trump's ground game is near non-existent and that his get out the vote efforts are extremely inefficient.

The most interesting outcome for the night would be if either

1. Trump wins which would be a crippling defeat for Cruz - If Cruz can't win the nut job "lane" in evangelical Iowa he's going to lose a lot of momentum
2. Trump comes in third which would cast real doubt into his organizational model and overall competence

So, here we are! The NH primary! And no one actually cares who wins on the Republican slate, rather, the key question would appear to be who comes in third and how much separation is between them and the rest of the pack.

Really a fun year to be watching politics. (No sure I have ever seen a campaign rise and fall as fast as Rubio over the last week)

[kenberg]

 gwnn, on 2016-February-09, 07:12, said:

Sanders voted for intervention in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan after 9/11. This "article" seems to imply he's some kind of warmonger (I haven't really read it but there you go):

http://www.alternet....violence-abroad

Thanks for the reference. It certainly places Sanders outside of the Jeanette Rankin category.

Discussing foreign policy is a tricky business for candidates. In the recent Republican debate Jeb! spoke favorably of a possible preemptive strike against North Korea. This level of detail about a developing problem is an error I think. But it is fair to expect a candidate to explain whether s/he thinks that North Korea's nuclear weapons development and missile development is something that must be forcefully addressed, forcefully enough to be successful, or whether we should just stand aside and let whatever happens happen. I imagine the people of South Korea are pretty uneasy about either choice.

My view of the world is pretty pessimistic. There seems to be a constant drift toward war, and we are developing ever more efficient ways of killing people. I simply do not know the best way to contend with this. Myself, I have never had any interest in killing anyone. Except in self-defense. But that's the problem, there is always the "except".

Going back to the article for a moment, Sanders is criticized for voting to fund the Iraq war even though he voted against the war. I don't agree with this criticism. I think it is reasonable to say, in effect " I think the war is a mistake but I was outvoted so I am supporting the funding".

For example, if the Republicans could bring themselves to say "I opposed the ACA but it passed anyway so now I will support implementing it effectively", this would be very good. A crazy dream in today's political climate.

[helene_t]

 gwnn, on 2016-February-09, 07:12, said:

Sanders voted for intervention in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan after 9/11. This "article" seems to imply he's some kind of warmonger (I haven't really read it but there you go):

http://www.alternet....violence-abroad

Don't you think that Kosova, Bosnia and Afghanistan count as interventions that, if not quite "success" stories, at least could be counted as interventions that may have worked better than a pacifist attitude would have worked?

[gwnn]

 helene_t, on 2016-February-09, 08:09, said:

Don't you think that Kosova, Bosnia and Afghanistan count as interventions that, if not quite "success" stories, at least could be counted as interventions that may have worked better than a pacifist attitude would have worked?

Yes. I forgot to add a smiley to my post, I just added scarequotes around article to show that I disagree with it. I think it's quite absurd to call Bernie a warmonger, but wanted to show that there exist people who believe he is.

[kenberg]

 gwnn, on 2016-February-09, 08:17, said:

Yes. I forgot to add a smiley to my post, I just added scarequotes around article to show that I disagree with it. I think it's quite absurd to call Bernie a warmonger, but wanted to show that there exist people who believe he is.

The article, or "article", is definitely written from a viewpoint. As I said above, regarding all use of military force as wrong is a respectable position. It is not my position, and I think it is not realistic. It does appear to be the place where the writers of the article hang their hat.

The article's main usefulness for me is to clarify some of Sanders' history. Pretty clearly, Sanders views military action to be reasonable in some instances, Most agree with this general view, some don't.

[Winstonm]

Two quotes I particularly like from Andrew Bacevich:

Quote

“Rather than offering an antidote to problems, the military system centered on the all-volunteer force bred and exacerbated them. It underwrote recklessness in the formulation of policy and thereby resulted in needless, costly, and ill-managed wars. At home, the perpetuation of this system violated simple standards of fairness and undermined authentic democratic practice. The way a nation wages war—the role allotted to the people in defending the country and the purposes for which it fights—testifies to the actual character of its political system. Designed to serve as an instrument of global interventionism (or imperial policing), America’s professional army has proven to be astonishingly durable, if also astonishingly expensive. Yet when dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan, it has proven incapable of winning. With victory beyond reach, the ostensible imperatives of U.S. security have consigned the nation’s warrior elite to something akin to perpetual war.”
― Andrew J. Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country

Quote

“The folly and hubris of the policy makers who heedlessly thrust the nation into an ill-defined and open-ended 'global war on terror' without the foggiest notion of what victory would look like, how it would be won, and what it might cost approached standards hitherto achieved only by slightly mad German warlords.”
― Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War

It is this latter area where I think Obama has been most successful, i.e., in altering U.S. strategy from invasion to more precise, targeted strikes. In other words, away from a classical military intervention toward a more police-like and precise action against terrorism.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-08, 13:23, said:

Suggestions that we should vote for her because of historical importance do not sit well with us.

And wouldn't it be almost as historical to elect a Jew? Not quite as radical as a woman or black man (BTDT), but close enough that the "historical importance" factor isn't so significant.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2016-February-09, 09:24, said:

It is this latter area where I think Obama has been most successful, i.e., in altering U.S. strategy from invasion to more precise, targeted strikes. In other words, away from a classical military intervention toward a more police-like and precise action against terrorism.

There's quite a stark contrast between what Bush 41 did in Iraq and what Bush 43 did. Bush 41 had a specific objective, accomplished it, and got out.

Like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, Bush 43 got the US into the military quagmire that everyone with an ounce of sense knew was going to be the inevitable result. Obama has been working on cleaning that up, but it's going to take a long time to recover--a lot longer than his term in office. And clearly a lot of idiots want to repeat the whole Kennedy, Johnson, Bush 43 stupidity yet again.

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2016-February-09, 09:53, said:

There's quite a stark contrast between what Bush 41 did in Iraq and what Bush 43 did. Bush 41 had a specific objective, accomplished it, and got out.

Like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, Bush 43 got the US into the military quagmire that everyone with an ounce of sense knew was going to be the inevitable result. Obama has been working on cleaning that up, but it's going to take a long time to recover--a lot longer than his term in office. And clearly a lot of idiots want to repeat the whole Kennedy, Johnson, Bush 43 stupidity yet again.

Certainly a major difference between the two Iraq wars is that Bush 1 left the government of Iraq intact. It is not entirely clear, to put it mildly, that Obama sees the significance of this difference. It is not enough to say that someone must go.

Perhaps history, as well as you, will judge me to be wrong but I see Obama as being very unsuccessful in foreign policy. I wish I could see it differently, but I don't.

At any rate, his time in office is coming to an end so we must choose who is to follow him. I am uneasy about all of the candidates. I will do my best to choose..

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-February-09, 09:53, said:

There's quite a stark contrast between what Bush 41 did in Iraq and what Bush 43 did. Bush 41 had a specific objective, accomplished it, and got out.

Like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, Bush 43 got the US into the military quagmire that everyone with an ounce of sense knew was going to be the inevitable result. Obama has been working on cleaning that up, but it's going to take a long time to recover--a lot longer than his term in office. And clearly a lot of idiots want to repeat the whole Kennedy, Johnson, Bush 43 stupidity yet again.

Yes, and again I refer to Andrew Bacevich as much more of an expert than me on military matters, and (I paraphrase) he said in "The Limits of Power" that successfully utilizing the military is a matter of having precise goals, both military and political.

I view the military as task-centric. "Go stop terrorism" is too vague. I think Obama gets this. I hope the next President does, as well.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 10:44, said:

Certainly a major difference between the two Iraq wars is that Bush 1 left the government of Iraq intact. It is not entirely clear, to put it mildly, that Obama sees the significance of this difference. It is not enough to say that someone must go.

Perhaps history, as well as you, will judge me to be wrong but I see Obama as being very unsuccessful in foreign policy. I wish I could see it differently, but I don't.

At any rate, his time in office is coming to an end so we must choose who is to follow him. I am uneasy about all of the candidates. I will do my best to choose..

I find it odd that you don't find the Obama administration's negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear programs and open them up to oversight incredibly significant - that a U.S. President would negotiate with an enemy in order to avoid warfare is as radical as John Kennedy's ideas of detente with Soviet Russia. Also, the fact that Obama was wise enough to keep the U.S. out of the Arab Spring uprisings will turn out, IMO, to be on of the wisest courses ever undertaken by the U.S. and will go a long way toward easing tensions between the US and North Africa and the Middle East.

I do think Obama was not so wise in his first 4 years - probably due to inexperience and too much trust of long-established advisers. Once he no longer had to concern himself with re-elections, he started to make, IMO, quite brave and quite radical foreign policy choices.

And it is precisely in foreign policy matters where I most question whether Clinton is the right choice - she comes across as quite hawkish and too uncritical of Netenyahu for my taste.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 10:44, said:

Perhaps history, as well as you, will judge me to be wrong but I see Obama as being very unsuccessful in foreign policy.

In what ways? What would success have been?

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2016-February-09, 11:13, said:

In what ways? What would success have been?

We have refugees flooding Europe, ISIS expanding its reach, total chaos in Syria. It would not be difficult to expand this list. A grand slam doubled off twelve tricks might have been redoubled and off thirteen, but it is hard to look at it as a success.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 14:07, said:

We have refugees flooding Europe, ISIS expanding its reach, total chaos in Syria. It would not be difficult to expand this list.

Okay. If a successful US foreign policy means nothing bad happening around the world, you are right. But I don't see it that way.

Obama has resisted the droolers who are constantly calling for more US "boots on the ground." He has stopped the US from engaging in torture. He has insisted that the rules of engagement for the conflicts he inherited be structured to try to reduce civilian casualties.

I recognize that there's lots of support for the notion that we should bomb the hell out of people until they start to like us: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

Certainly Obama is not perfect, and we're never going to get a perfect leader. But I like that Obama does not subscribe to the idea that, "Real men don't think things through." Conservative David Brooks put it this way:

Quote

Many of the traits of character and leadership that Obama possesses, and that maybe we have taken too much for granted, have suddenly gone missing or are in short supply.

The first and most important of these is basic integrity. The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free. Think of the way Iran-contra or the Lewinsky scandals swallowed years from Reagan and Clinton.

We’ve had very little of that from Obama. He and his staff have generally behaved with basic rectitude. Hillary Clinton is constantly having to hold these defensive press conferences when she’s trying to explain away some vaguely shady shortcut she’s taken, or decision she has made, but Obama has not had to do that.

He and his wife have not only displayed superior integrity themselves, they have mostly attracted and hired people with high personal standards. There are all sorts of unsightly characters floating around politics, including in the Clinton camp and in Gov. Chris Christie’s administration. This sort has been blocked from team Obama.

Second, a sense of basic humanity. Donald Trump has spent much of this campaign vowing to block Muslim immigration. You can only say that if you treat Muslim Americans as an abstraction. President Obama, meanwhile, went to a mosque, looked into people’s eyes and gave a wonderful speech reasserting their place as Americans.

He’s exuded this basic care and respect for the dignity of others time and time again. Let’s put it this way: Imagine if Barack and Michelle Obama joined the board of a charity you’re involved in. You’d be happy to have such people in your community. Could you say that comfortably about Ted Cruz? The quality of a president’s humanity flows out in the unexpected but important moments.

Third, a soundness in his decision-making process. Over the years I have spoken to many members of this administration who were disappointed that the president didn’t take their advice. But those disappointed staffers almost always felt that their views had been considered in depth.

Obama’s basic approach is to promote his values as much as he can within the limits of the situation.

The goal of the US cannot be to fix everything wrong in the world, and especially not by blowing stuff up. Yes, we do need to defend ourselves, particularly since we've already gone out of our way to enrage so many folks by blowing stuff up.

But our policy goal must be to avoid making things worse, and to join with other countries to fix what we can. And, beyond that, to work on becoming the best country that we can be.

[kenberg]

"Nothing bad happened" would be too much to expect. I doubt any president could meet that standard. That was not the standard I was applying.