rickyp wrote:I think the Egyptian army is devolving power. They've certainly made both the noises and moves that suggest they are hastening rather than slowing their exit from hands on government.
This may take a couple of years to play out completely. In the course of the history of Egypt it will seem like it happened over night. But, historic changes are never simple and never really happen over night. Be patient.

Really? Did you see the proposed government document they put out that said the army would be the final say in any and all election results? Or the fact their Prime Minister candidate is just another Mubarack flunky.

I could be wrong though. Let's see how the elections turn out.

geojanes wrote:Or worse:

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

Interestingly at the time, most people blamed the student's for what happened at Kent State. From the Wikipedia entry on the topic

A Gallup Poll taken immediately after the shootings showed that 58 percent of respondents blamed the students, 11 percent blamed the National Guard and 31 percent expressed no opinion.[38]

Archduke Russell John wrote:Interestingly at the time, most people blamed the student's for what happened at Kent State.

I wonder if you were to replace #occupy with Hippies if the arguments from 40 years ago would be the same today. At the time the hippies were so outside the mainstream, no one wanted to be associated with them. As the Duke points out, they were even blamed for being shot! I think you have enough old hippies among us so that #occupy isn't quite as marginal, but mainstream politicians don't want anything to do with them, (and I guess the feeling is mutual.)

danivon wrote:Ricky, I think he was talking about the quality of life, including level of repression, for the inhabitants. Not the effect / cost as far as the USA is concerned.

Also, he was not claiming 'paragon' status for any of the three. Just that they are less hellish than before.

At least that's how I read it.

I may not agree with Ray Jay on what he said, but I would at least want to be clear on that rather than going off at a tangent just to score a 'gotcha'.

Yes, that's right. Thanks for reading carefully. I also found Ricky's question to be disingenuous (and largely rhetorical) since he subsequently spouted out his own opinion as if he already knew what I would say or at least could care less.

There's no gotcha here. I've said before that II think that Iraq was terrible from a US perspective. In addition to the reason that Ricky mentioned, the cost in lives, money, injured, domestic discontent, and foreign strained relations with our allies, and motivating additional terrorists was substantial. Iraq also overwhelmed the Bush administration so there was a huge opportunity cost involved. For example, we didn't focus sufficiently on Afghanistan; perhaps if we didn't spend so much on Iraq we would have dealt more effectively with Iran, or done something about the genocide in Darfur. Finally, to get support for his war on Iraq, Bush had to bribe Congress by essentially spending more domestically to win over certain Congressman to pursue the war, which we are paying for now.

Getting back to the topic at hand I think that Obama's foreign policy has generally been successful. (reduce ground troops, speak nicely; use drones) GHW Bush also had a very successful foreign policy but did not do well on the economic front. I suspect the result will be similar.

geojanes wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:Interestingly at the time, most people blamed the student's for what happened at Kent State.

I wonder if you were to replace #occupy with Hippies if the arguments from 40 years ago would be the same today. At the time the hippies were so outside the mainstream, no one wanted to be associated with them. As the Duke points out, they were even blamed for being shot! I think you have enough old hippies among us so that #occupy isn't quite as marginal, but mainstream politicians don't want anything to do with them, (and I guess the feeling is mutual.)

I've thought about that a bit myself. I think there are a few key differences. The first is that the objectives of the left in the 60's were different. First and foremost, they wanted to end the war and end the draft. They wanted civil rights and women's rights. They wanted a cultural revolution. I still don't fully get what OWS wants. Perhaps, to paraphrase Jethro Tull, I am too young to be a hippie, and too old for OWS.

Ray Jay wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand I think that Obama's foreign policy has generally been successful. (reduce ground troops, speak nicely; use drones) GHW Bush also had a very successful foreign policy but did not do well on the economic front. I suspect the result will be similar.

I disagree with you that Obama's foreign policy has been "generally successful." He has been "generally successful" in the War on Terror, a war that he denies exists. However, if you look at our relationships with Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan, to name a few, I think our policy/his policy has been disastrous. He gave up the missile shield in Europe for nothing. Now the Russians are saying if we don't go further, there will be severe consequences. Obama has never convinced the Russians and Chinese to cooperate with us vis-a-vis Iran. The reset button with Russia was a joke. Our relations with China have not improved. This could be about 5 or 6 threads, but I don't see the "success."

As for your second point, I think you're spot on. Obama has focused on secondary and tertiary issues. I don't know how he gets around that, except by trying to paint the Congress as obstructionist (and hoping the public fails to notice the ineptitude of the Democratically-controlled Senate) and the GOP nominee as more extreme than he is.

Good luck Mr. President!

Ray Jay wrote: I still don't fully get what OWS wants. Perhaps, to paraphrase Jethro Tull, I am too young to be a hippie, and too old for OWS.

I've thought about starting a thread about this. I really think this is a movement to define the American dream as free medical care, free college, free, free, free . . . everything should be free, or available at minimum effort.

For example, what is "income equality?"

I'm not really sure, but I know it's not capitalism.

If they could embrace free love like the hippies, then maybe they could build a movement ...

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand I think that Obama's foreign policy has generally been successful. (reduce ground troops, speak nicely; use drones) GHW Bush also had a very successful foreign policy but did not do well on the economic front. I suspect the result will be similar.

I disagree with you that Obama's foreign policy has been "generally successful." He has been "generally successful" in the War on Terror, a war that he denies exists. However, if you look at our relationships with Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan, to name a few, I think our policy/his policy has been disastrous. He gave up the missile shield in Europe for nothing. Now the Russians are saying if we don't go further, there will be severe consequences. Obama has never convinced the Russians and Chinese to cooperate with us vis-a-vis Iran. The reset button with Russia was a joke. Our relations with China have not improved. This could be about 5 or 6 threads, but I don't see the "success."

I agree this is the subject of many threads. A quick thought on China, and maybe much of the credit here goes to Clinton: the US has quietly improved its relations with its neighbors including Australia, India, Vietnam, and other southeast Asian nations. These countries need the US to prevent hegemony, including territorial disputes.

Re Pakistan, I think Gates said something like this: This is a bad marriage, but divorce is unthinkable. We've just have to keep working at it.

I don't think that the US can demand that the world change to meet its needs by simply rattling the sabre. We have limited resources. The world runs by its own rules and needs. What we can do is partner, use soft power, build alliances with similar western and other democracies, not squander our military resources on land wars, and use drones when we have to.

Ray Jay wrote:Re Pakistan, I think Gates said something like this: This is a bad marriage, but divorce is unthinkable. We've just have to keep working at it.

I am not convinced.

I don't think that the US can demand that the world change to meet its needs by simply rattling the sabre. We have limited resources.

Agreed on both counts.

The world runs by its own rules and needs. What we can do is partner, use soft power, build alliances with similar western and other democracies, not squander our military resources on land wars, and use drones when we have to.

This is basically what Obama has been trying. I think the problem is that "soft power" often amounts to "perceived weakness." No one will listen to someone who apologizes for, and insults, his own country. Worse, Obama has been so focused on creating a multi-polar world that our adversaries have little reason to listen to him.

Ricky, I think he was talking about the quality of life, including level of repression, for the inhabitants. Not the effect / cost as far as the USA is concerned.
Also, he was not claiming 'paragon' status for any of the three. Just that they are less hellish than before.
At least that's how I read it

.
Oh. Never mind then...

Although when you reflect on life in Iraq or afghanistan and life in either country 20 years ago...it pretty much depends on who's life?
The Sunnis had a pretty good life in Iraq with Sadddam. And as long as you kept your head down, the sectarian violence wasn't anywhere near what it is...(My Iraqis Christian friend tells me for his relatives they descended into hell after the invasion..) No fun being a shiite who didn't accept Saddam of course. and many of them left to Iran or Jordan...
But the level of violence in iraq today, where bombings still occur every week killing scores, is probably greater than most of the Arab nations where changes have recently occurred. Including Libya.

And in Afghanistan, security for farmers is still not great. Typically they are caught between two forces, and one is not permanent. And although the foreigners may offer a better life in many ways, survival may depend on accepting the Taliban.

geojanes wrote:I wonder if you were to replace #occupy with Hippies if the arguments from 40 years ago would be the same today. At the time the hippies were so outside the mainstream, no one wanted to be associated with them. As the Duke points out, they were even blamed for being shot! I think you have enough old hippies among us so that #occupy isn't quite as marginal, but mainstream politicians don't want anything to do with them, (and I guess the feeling is mutual.)

Geo, what you are perhaps missing is that the Kent State student's were not shot in a vacuum. There were actually 2 or 3 days of riotous or near riotous behaviors in Kent, Ohio prior to the shootings. The night before there had been riots and bon fires in the city streets and when the ONG arrived on campus, the college ROTC building was occupied and on fire. When the Kent State students were told to disperse they responded by throwing rocks and other stuff at the police and guardsmen.

Now I am not saying this to excuse the ONG's shooting. Honestly, I think it was a matter of a bunch of young men who were illtrained and illequiped for large crowd control. Rather I want to show the shooting didn't happen in a vacuum. Further, I think if the Occupy protesters act in the same manner when told to disperse, I think you will get the same basic public reaction.

Getting back on point, Gingrich is surging in the polls, which I think means he will be knocked down soon enough. I personally have mixed feelings about the guy. Here's a YouTube video courtesy of Mr. Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP4 ... r_embedded

Ray Jay wrote:Getting back on point, Gingrich is surging in the polls, which I think means he will be knocked down soon enough. I personally have mixed feelings about the guy. Here's a YouTube video courtesy of Mr. Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP4 ... r_embedded

He isn't just surging, he is going ballistic. One Florida poll has him at 50% in the State. Rassmussen has him 21 points up nationally on Romney. A Gallup poll (iirc) showed him ahead of Obama yesterday, 45-43.

If I could have Newt in a vacuum, fine. However, he's got personal baggage, political baggage, baggage that has baby baggage. Dude has baggage!

He is the smartest guy to run for President from the right since . . . well, honestly, I can't remember a more intelligent candidate. However, he has, at various times, taken positions all over the map.

To put the best spin on it: he ought to appeal to the middle as he has so much personal baggage that no one can think he's a theocrat. He has shown a lot of thoughtfulness on a variety of issues. He has a ton of ideas.

On the downside, he appears to have been a lobbyist. He had a jewelry credit line that most people can't earn in 5 years. He has had several documented affairs (not the ersatz, theoretical problems Cain has been alleged to have). If I thought 5 minutes more, I could probably come up with 8 more problems.

I want Obama to lose--no shock there. If I thought Americans actually paid attention to the Presidential debates and voted on that basis, I would send Newt my money today. However, I think TV ads will shape public opinion a whole lot more than the debates. If intelligence and grasp of the issues is enough, Newt will rock Obama. If age, persona, and baggage are all factored . . . it's going to be real tight.

I know what you're saying about Newt getting hit and falling in the polls. I just don't know if there is time for that. If there is, the only not-Romney candidate left is Santorum (not counting Paul).

Btw, I heard Newt missed some state deadline in NH to pick a slate of delegates should he win. That speaks volumes about his lack of organization. I think Iowa will be determinative for whoever the not-Romney guy or gal is going to be. If you aren't first or close second in Iowa, you're out. Newt's lack of ground game could kill him in Iowa, where it's all about enthusiasm and organization.

And, there's still the slight chance Romney wins Iowa. In that case, I think it's going to be tough to beat him, no matter what the national polls are now.