US Election

[carl r]

I'm not a US citizen, but like all Brits I'm affected by what happens 'cross the pond. The list of casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan is piling up, the effects of war ripple around like a sewer draining into a river - across the economy, government, the ex-servicemen who you see sleeping on the streets. As the Afghan war is unwinnable, I want it to end... and our troops to come home. Neither candidate promised this, but I guess its possible that the US can come up with a face-saving formula and get the hell out of there.

[the captain]

In fact, Obama has promised to increase our commitment in Afghanistan. And to be honest, his exit strategy from Iraq isn't all that different than McCain's: the bigger differences were terminology. It will be a controlled pull-out from Iraq and a build-up in Afghanistan, both militarily and with civil leadership in an attempt to boost their economy away from poppies (opium), which is their biggest cash crop. But that's no easy war, either, considering our "ally" Pakistan has plenty of official and unofficial support going to our Taliban enemies, and we're forbidden from engaging in military operations in Pakistan territory. And Afghanistan itself isn't exactly helping, with the current government rife with cronyism. Like it or not, the U.S. is going to have to realize that the Middle East isn't some monolithic place where the brown people are enemies: their politics are every bit as complex as ours, if not more so. Taliban isn't the same as Northern "Alliance" fighters, which isn't isn't the same as Al Quaeda, which isn't the same as Sunni insurgents, which isn't the same as Shiite extremists, and so on. (And there are multiple groups of each of those, anyway.) We go in and act as if bombs on some city and a new, U.S.-backed government solves everything. I don't like the idea of leaving with a vacuum there to be filled by whatever strongman-led group can fill it, but neither do I like the idea of us continuing to stick our noses where they don't belong without any perceivable progress toward a probably unattainable goal.

[lance]

Well, George Bush and the Iraqi government have legally locked the USA there till 2011. Obama's plan has already been set in stone, but interestingly, he called it a month or two before the plan was announced earlier this year(but it wasn't agreed until last week, I think.) McCaine, I think, was saying we would be there for 20 years, or at least til 2016. And in fact, he pretty much seemed to refuse to outline any plan--other than "We're going to win." Now, of course, his point was that such a plan was information too sensitive to be broadcast to our enemies.

As far as Afghanistan goes, I actually think that Obama will use his popularity to convince more NATO allies to join in the real stuff.

I don't know how I feel about Afghanistan, to be honest. I am personally categorically against all wars--I would have been against the US' involvement in WWII, at the time(in retrospect, I guess I would have changed my mind.) As far as Afghanistan goes, it's clear it's getting worse--and it's never going to be that great, no matter what. I'm torn and wondering if I should give a crap one way or the other. One thing is for sure in my mind: Afghanistan is a NATO operation, and there are only four countries that have taken the brunt of it--the UK, The Netherlands, Canada and the USA. If anything, Afghanistan is showing major cracks in NATO(that probably have always been there).

I think that there are elements in the US government that do understand the complexity of political situations in the Middle East--there are  plenty of foreign policy experts--unfortunately they were more or less silenced by GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld, who seemed to have a naive idealistic view, one that seems uniquely American, especially in retrospect.

Definitely, I think that the USA might have a chance for a new kind of dialogue with Iran, and that could indeed be a big plus.

[the captain]

You're mistaken about Iraq. While the Bush administration and the president of Iraq came to an agreement to keep troops there till 2011, the Iraqi parliament has to vote on it, and there is significant opposition (not to mention a disagreement as to whether a simple or super-majority is required to make the agreement official). Al-Sadr and his contingent actually insist that the treaty is illegal as long as we continue to occupy, and he's still a major political as well as religious and military force there. The McCain talk of how long we'd be there was spun by Dems, just as the Obama "get out" talk was spun by Republicans. The fact is, both wanted to strengthen the Iraqi government as much as possible and remove combat troops as quickly as possible. The primary disagreement was over whether to impose deadlines, which (as the first few sentences here hint at) may be a moot point: we're not there in an official capacity as an occupying or attacking force anymore, we're there at the pleasure of the purportedly sovereign government of Iraq. If they say we have to leave, our choices are to be there illegally as an occupier or leave. That would have been true whether under McCain or Obama.

[lance]

Aha, thanks for the correction.

[the captain]

No problem: easy mistake. You hear an agreement has been reached, you assume it is going to be implemented! I only got the bulk of the story regarding the Iraqi end of it on national public radio yesterday.

[grillo]

Luther, you said that societal changes take forever, yet right now, as I write this, massive upheavals in our economies are occuring. The very banks that manufactured the current credit crisis are busy stealing 3.5 trillion dollars, and probably closer to 10 trillion with absolutely no oversight. They take our money and buy up healthy banks to, supposedly, loan us back that very money which we gave them, with interest! Hah, what a scam. We are moving towards a depression very quickly. Society is about to change in a big way, and it doesn't look good for those of us near the bottom. If you don't currently own a bank or a large energy conglomerate you can expect extreme change very soon. But I doubt it's the change many of you were hoping for. Like I said in an earlier post, keep your eyes open, and please ignore all of the corporate media's lies. Remember who owns them.  Watch the film Network to remind yourself of this self-evident conflict of interest. and once again, best of luck to ALL of us!

[the captain]

It's really no change: the rich remain in charge, and continue to try to maintain or increase their power. That's not a change in the slightest. The only changes are the sways back and forth as to when, how and how much they occasionally crumble under their mistakes. I know being middle or lower class during a depression feels like a change, and to any individual or family, it is. But in the grand scheme, poor is poor and powerless. Rich is rich and powerful. And rarely the twain shall meet...

[lance]

Well, I agree with you, though I dont have that much of a problem with it--I am no Communist. But how the current crisis is dealt with to some extent does depend on the government.

Now, the cynic in me says that Obama is playing for the same team as the Republicans, anyway, but I don't really believe it--

His plans seem good to me and I think will help Americans now and in the future. I certainly don't think the Republicans would handle it the same way(rebuilding the infrastructure, investing into energy technologies...)

[the captain]

I'm no communist, either, but I think that's irrelevant. All political systems ideally try to do the most good possible for the most people, but have different ideas on how to get there. I don't think small-D and -R democrats and republicans, or capitalists (to throw an economic theory into the political world) believe that it's good for the rich to remain the sole power, either. It just works out that way--both in communist and democratic nations--because the powerful tend not to be very interested in giving away their power. Human nature corrupts any system of government. As for Obama being on the same team as the Republican party, I'd say in a way he is. He isn't nearly the far-left liberal the Republican party painted him during the campaign, and his appointments so far prove that. But I do think his differences from the past administration are positive. Like I said, I'm hopeful, just not optimistic. I WANT some of the things he's talked about to happen; I just don't believe they necessarily will.

[grillo]

It's really no change: the rich remain in charge, and continue to try to maintain or increase their power. That's not a change in the slightest.

Indeed! The change I refer to is the standard of living which we, or at least I, have become accustomed to. I've seen it slowly lower in the 20 years I've been working, but this is the bottom falling out.

His plans seem good to me and I think will help Americans now and in the future. I certainly don't think the Republicans would handle it the same way(rebuilding the infrastructure, investing into energy technologies...)

As far as I can tell his plans are to create more war and some strange snitch culture/green brigade larger, he says, than the US armed forces. Yikes! Also, please see who he's picked for his cabinet positions. Another huge Yikes! Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are no better. The point is that both of these 'choices' are obviously bought and controlled by interests which I (and likely, you) don't agree with and who's aims are far different than whatever election-year speeches might lead one to believe.

[lance]

Well, Luther, I can't argue with you there; he is going to have a tough time.

[the captain]

strange snitch culture

What do you mean here?

[grillo]

Please see this extremely short Obama video.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

[the captain]

Dont recall having seen that before. I can't imagine that was anything very well thought through or something in the works. I'd want to know a lot more about what he means by it, but it's something I'd be wholly against, most likely. If there is one trait I share with Republicans, it's the desire to be left alone by my government.

[grillo]

Dont recall having seen that before. I can't imagine that was anything very well thought through or something in the works. I'd want to know a lot more about what he means by it, but it's something I'd be wholly against, most likely. If there is one trait I share with Republicans, it's the desire to be left alone by my government.

Well you might want to read up on Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. He's sorta into compulsory service and all that. Wrote a book about it even. They definitely do not plan to leave us alone.

[the captain]

I can understand compulsory service (if not necessarily be thrilled by it). But that is different than some sort of civilian security force.

[grillo]

Like I said, just look into it. It seems kinda scary. I'd rather you were right but it looks bad...

[Alex]

I can understand compulsory service (if not necessarily be thrilled by it). But that is different than some sort of civilian security force.

There better not be compulsory service enacted anytime soon, or ever for that matter. The anti-war movement would probably swell in numbers if another draft were to ever happen.

[the captain]

I can understand compulsory service (if not necessarily be thrilled by it). But that is different than some sort of civilian security force.

There better not be compulsory service enacted anytime soon, or ever for that matter. The anti-war movement would probably swell in numbers if another draft were to ever happen.

I wasn't referring to military service (nor was Obama, from what I've gathered). Many countries have some form of compulsory service, be it military or community. I don't know if that is such a terrible idea (although again, I'm not thrilled personally by it). But as to your comment, of course anti-war movements would swell if a draft happened. That's the bulk of the reason there are anti-war movements in the first place. The past six or so years have been nothing compared to draft-era protests. For each of the "leave those far-off civilians alone," protesters, I'd guess there are a few hundred more "don't send me to die in your war." And that is a sentiment to which I can entirely relate.

[lance]

I dont think it is a bad idea either, necessarily, unless there is a war of course. It doesnt have to be military, it could be hospital work or something--it is not that unusual a concept; I would love for it to be there if it meant cheaper university without joining the military.

[grillo]

I believe, in that clip, he said he wanted a civilian SECURITY FORCE. That doesn't sound like changing bed pans or feeding the poor. Sounds more like the stasi from east germany. But I'm sure he 'didn't really mean that'. Ha!