Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I suspect you're comforted by the concept of a top-dog. Am I correct in this assumption? Do you feel that a more parliamentary-style of rule would make you less comfortable?
|
Comfort is probably not the best word, but I accept the concept of "top-dog". I don't really understand the inner workings of parliamentary-style of rule - in my experience when put in that style environment someone generally takes a lead role. The lead role may change based on the dynamics of the group and the issue at hand but I have often found a "leader" is needed to drive the group to decisive action. When a leader does not emerge, the group flounders accomplishing little. My experience and knowledge is limited here.
Quote:
Oh, that kinda answers my questions. Still, Europe often acts as a whole, each country acting as a state. It's served them fairly well in recent history.
Comon, think bigger. There's no way in hell population restrictions will ever work which means eventually, even if we go through several collapses, we will reach a peak production of resources on the planet and will have to expand. Do you really think petty disputes between countries on earth will matter when we've colonized the solar system? Of course not. Eventually the planet will likely operate the way Europe does now. They will remain sovereign, but collectively will have governmental systems in place to deal with global or even multi-global issues. On these issues, there will need to be a consensus in order to get something done, and the odds are this will be done democratically.
|
I simply think that it is the nature of man to need to belong to something. As long as there is that need - man will break into "tribes". At best I think all man kind would unify, only under a real threat to the existence of all mankind - and that would be temporary.
Quote:
|
Admittedly, this is getting really far off the track of the thread topic. If you want to continue this line, I'd be glad to make a thread.
|
I don't have anything to add, I think I understand your point of view and I think you understand mine. And this is fundamental to understanding the real or perceived Iranian threat. At this time it is more important to know how world leaders view these issues - their views will determine the outcome. I think Obama is more in line with you, Iranians are more in line with me. I have heard some reports that Sarkozy, France, wants to be more aggressive on the Iranian threat than Obama and may be more in-line with the way I see this. Imagine that - France more aggressive than the US!
Quote:
|
Scott Ritter correctly determined that we would not find any WMDs in Iraq because he did the inspecting himself. How could you not characterize that as a success on his part?
|
He currently has a vested interest in being correct. Given that interest I have to take what he says and put into perspective. He may be correct, but he could be wrong - it would be embarrassing if he is proved to be wrong. We would need multiple independent sources arriving at the same conclusion to make me conclude "success".
Quote:
|
His ideology is one of moderate progressivism, generally speaking. He knows torture is wrong, but is anxious to compromise with hard-liners. In fact, I'd say a better description of his ideology would be the that of compromised progressivism. Still, he's not a conservative. You're a conservative. I'm a progressive. Imagine I were elected, but every decision I made was done bearing in mind that I have to earn your vote. It'd be a mess of contradictions and half-measures, right?
|
"Compromised progressivism"??? In other words he has no core values, everything is up for give and take?
---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Given that many conservatives/libertairians here are of the firm belief that Obama's national security policies are a "Bush third term" and others think he is a "weak on security" liberal as opposed to the previous "chicken hawks"...perhaps he is doing something right.
|
As he faces the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan he has to pick a side and stay with it. I thought his strategy was already defined, he said that Afgahnistan was the right war. If that is true he should not have been surprised by the request for more troops, he would have already been in the process of and on top of assessing our military strategy. The Mcchrystal interview on 60 Minutes was an embarrassment to the administration. this is related to Iran because they perceive weakness, they perceive a lack of focus, they perceive a lack of discipline. I will say it again - Obama needs to start acting like he is the President. He needs to act like we are a nation at war.
---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm sure he seems like an extremists from the far, far right, but you're looking at his positions way too relatively.
If I were president, the first day in office I would have ordered my commanders to start evacuating troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they need to be completely finished in no more than 3 months. I would have put my people to work drafting single-payer healthcare instantly and would want it in the House within maybe a week. And I'd decimate anyone that stood in the way of that legislation. I'd have appointed an independent investigator with unprecedented access to find out everyone that was involved with stolen elections, the lies leading up to the war, rendition, torture, eavesdropping, and any other criminal activity in the previous administration. Then I'd appoint the most blood-thirsty prosecutor in history to go after anyone implicated. I'd undo the shitty deregulation started during the Reagan administration so that we have better control over the ignorant gamblers in the banking and investment markets. I'd stop the war on terror completely and set a new agenda to bring economic stability to countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan so that their middle class can be a stronger force for peace and stability. I'd push the FCC to put the fairness doctrine back in place.
Then on day 2, I'd get to work on reforming and growing important social programs as well as ending the failed wars on drugs and crime.
Do you see how incredibly different this is than what President Obama is doing? I'd have people at Fox News hanging themselves within 24 hours of being sworn in and I'd be assassinated probably in my first week. Because I'm a progressive.
|
The above is an example of leadership. It doesn't matter if I agree or not, if you ran for President, won, and then acted in accordance with what you ran on, I would still make my case but I would defer to your leadership. At the end of the day, on many issues we face I think we need to be "all in" or "out".