The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Third party would likely have to be a moderate to win. You'd have to get both parties to nominate someone to the extreme and someone in the middle can get that in-between vote.

As opposed to two as close to the middle as either party will allow?

SI

[Grover]

Maine Governor Just Can’t Stop Comparing ‘Obamacare’ To The Holocaust | TPM2012

I can't wait to vote this dumbfuck out of office.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Grover

Maine Governor Just Can’t Stop Comparing ‘Obamacare’ To The Holocaust | TPM2012

I can't wait to vote this dumbfuck out of office.

WOW....homeboy has been out in the backcountry a little too long

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Grover

Maine Governor Just Can’t Stop Comparing ‘Obamacare’ To The Holocaust | TPM2012

I can't wait to vote this dumbfuck out of office.

Because just about anything that you disagree with can be compared to the Holocaust.

Purposely slaughtering 6 million jews = raising taxes, allowing gay marriage & now health care reform.

Why does this always seem to be the default counter argument for these people? Keep Godwin'ing yourself out of any coherent arguments, please. Makes it real easy to know who to not vote for.

[Edward64]

Interesting choice, could help with some of the minority votes but have to believe her abortion stance is a non-starter.

Romney's Condi Rice Trial Balloon

The political world was abuzz last night after the Drudge Report reported that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a frontrunner for Romney's running mate spot. The leak was immediately treated with a healthy dose of skepticism from the political class: Rice has said she's not interested in the job, she has no political experience, she supports abortion rights in a party that regards that as a near-litmus test, and hawks don't have fond memories of her foreign policy record in the Bush administration. Many went a stop further, mocking Drudge's track record in predicting the veepstakes (he hyped Frank Keating in 2000, Dick Gephardt in 2004, and Evan Bayh in 2008). And pundits noted the suspicious timing of the leaked news, right after Romney faced tough new questions about the timing of his tenure at Bain Capital.

But the floating of Rice sounds a lot more like a trial balloon from the Romney campaign than deliberately bad information that Drudge cooked up. Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades is famously close to Drudge, suggesting there's a deliberate strategy at play here for the campaign.

[Edward64]

Caught an interesting Time article on the plane.

Congressman Rigell's 20% Budget Solution - TIME

In Virginia beach a few weeks ago, at the start of my recent road trip, I was staggered by an unexpected blast of political sanity. It came in the person of Scott Rigell, a freshman House Republican. Rigell had signed the ghastly Grover Norquist no-tax pledge when he ran for office in 2010. Once elected, Rigell began to wonder about his vow never to vote for a tax increase. He did some research into the past 50 years of taxing and spending--and then he publicly reneged on the pledge, receiving a squalid earful from Norquist in the process. Rigell's calculations form the basis of what should be a new slogan for the sane center: 20/20
:
:
Two staggered rows of numbers:

20 21 22 23 24
17 18 19 20

The top line was the range of spending numbers. The second line was the revenue numbers. Rigell ran on 18% spending, he said, would hope for a balance of 19% spending and revenue, but could be dragged kicking and screaming to 20%. (Buffett was in the 19%-to-20% range for revenue and 21% for spending; I'd be a bit higher.) Now, obviously, this was a broad-brush calculation--and it elided a major philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives: whether government should increase spending to goose a dormant economy during a recession. But 20/20 did seem to be the basis for a reasonable discussion of a long-term deficit deal. The trouble, of course, is that there is a yawning void of reasonable discussers in the House of Representatives.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Interesting choice, could help with some of the minority votes but have to believe her abortion stance is a non-starter.

Romney's Condi Rice Trial Balloon

This was nothing more than something to push the Bain thing off the front page.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

Not that I think that the Bain thing needed pushing. That's just not the kind of story about which anyone cares come November.

Political Junkie: "Did you hear about what's going down with Bain's filings with the SEC??!!?!"

Normal Voter: "What does the new Batman movie have to do with college football?"

[RendeR]

See I think that ought to be the Dem's leading line at every opportunity.

Picture of Romney signing something
"Don't let Bain's Profiteer put America out of Business"
Obama 2012

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

Not that I think that the Bain thing needed pushing. That's just not the kind of story about which anyone cares come November.

Political Junkie: "Did you hear about what's going down with Bain's filings with the SEC??!!?!"

Normal Voter: "What does the new Batman movie have to do with college football?"

None of the specifics matter, but if they can define Romney as a lying, out of touch, rich prick that idea will stick with a lot of undecided voters. It's very much out of the 2004 Rove playbook. Take the opponent's strength and make it a weakness.

[Edward64]

I really don't think there is a story here.

John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012? - CNN.com

But first, is there anything other than the SEC filings to suggest a hands-on Romney role at Bain post-February 1999?

No is the word from four sources who communicated with CNN on Thursday -- all of whom have firsthand knowledge of Bain's operations at the time in question. Three of the four are Democrats, and two of the four are active Obama supporters in Campaign 2012.

All four told me Romney is telling the truth.

Only one, Bain Managing Director Steve Pagliuca, would talk on the record. The others spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing either Bain's low-key culture or the desire not to anger friends in the Obama campaign.

Pagliuca, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2010, told CNN: "Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."
:
:
"Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. He was just gone. And it happened very suddenly. ... After that, he was not on calls or writing memos. He was gone."

To be clear, all four of the sources voiced professional loyalty and personal respect for Romney. And all four have a vested interest in defending the work of Bain. But they were consistent in describing Romney's departure as abrupt and in saying they could not recall him around the office in the months that followed.

Two highly reputable arbiters of political debate -- The Washington Post's fact-checking arm and FactCheck.org -- also on Thursday stood by their earlier findings that Romney stepped away from any active role at Bain when he accepted the Olympics post. And Fortune reported that it obtained private Bain documents that support the Romney account.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I really don't think there is a story here.

Sure there is: Obama's campaign is running major ads, calling him a liar, and some are suggesting Romney is a felon, all over one tiny piece of data they didn't bother to dig into.

What was all that talk about "change" again?

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Sure there is: Obama's campaign is running major ads, calling him a liar, and some are suggesting Romney is a felon, all over one tiny piece of data they didn't bother to dig into.

What was all that talk about "change" again?

"Data point"? SEC filings listed Romney as involved in Bain. And he testified in 2002 he held meetings and had contact with Bain officials after 1999, too. Either Romney is lying to the American public now, or Bain filed misleading securities documents--typically frowned upon under our legal regime--and Romney lied to the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission in 2002.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

"Data point"? SEC filings listed Romney as involved in Bain. And he testified in 2002 he held meetings and had contact with Bain officials after 1999, too. Either Romney is lying to the American public now, or Bain filed misleading securities documents--typically frowned upon under our legal regime--and Romney lied to the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission in 2002.

Well, if you call owning the firm and remaining its top corporate officer "a quirk in the law," then I guess it's a quirk, all right. But it's the kind of quirk that completely undermines the campaign's and the candidate's claim to have been completely severed from Bain as of Feb. 11, 1999.
And now there's more.

It turns out that in June of 2002, Mitt Romney testified before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission in order to prove that he met residency requirements to run for governor. During that testimony, Romney said that while he was working on the Olympics, he served on three corporate boards of directors. And yes, you guessed it, two of those companies were affiliated with Bain: Staples and LifeLike, a doll manufacturer in which Bain held a stake.

So despite Romneyland's claim that he had nothing to do with any Bain entity after February of 1999, Romney clearly did. Moreover, the notion that Romney would sit on LifeLike's board and would have nothing to do with Bain's decision to sell its shares in 2001 defies credulity.

If Romneyland were just saying that Mitt wasn't the guy running Bain on a daily basis, I guess that would be fair enough. But that's not what they are saying. They are saying he had absolutely nothing to do with Bain whatsoever in any capacity at all. They are saying he had no responsibility for anything that took place at Bain or at any entity related to Bain after Feb. 11, 1999.

Not to mention that he's still being paid a retroactive severence agreement (which he signed in 2002 - gee that sure sounds like having something to do with Bain even right there), and is receiving payouts on that still.

Not a surprise to those of us here in MA, or really most anybody else out there at this point I'd assume, but the guy seems to be a compulsive liar.

[Edward64]

Here's another POV on Bain. Yes, I do want to know about Romney's tax return and the (likely) tax avoidance strategies he used.

Bained | Swampland | TIME.com

The current controversy over whether Romney was or was not running Bain capital during the years 1999-2002 is a relatively minor nail–the functional equivalent of the Pledge of Allegiance. Bain was involved in the global economy during those years. This meant outsourcing jobs to places like Mexico and China, which meant the creative destruction of obsolete jobs here at home. Whether Romney was directing them or not, these activities were perfectly legal. That doesn’t matter, though: there is confusion about why he was still listed as the boss if he wasn’t really the boss, which seems shifty. And there’s the question of why he was making tons of money if he wasn’t the boss, which is what this is really all about.

Indeed, that’s the Willie Horton argument building against Romney. Democrats were appalled by the Horton ads (the most devastating was produced by an “independent” committee, “unrelated” to the Bush campaign). They were, allegedly, racist. Horton was black. But they cut to the heart of a significant problem the Democratic Party had at the time: it was sort of soft on crime, in the midst of the post-Vietnam left’s “they’re depraved because they’re deprived” delusion. And Mitt Romney’s Willie Horton? His tax returns. He has only released one–for 2010, with estimates for 2011. Standard operating procedure for 21st century presidential candidates is: you release everything, more or less. And Romney will be plagued by this issue until he does.

And when he does we’re likely to find that he made a lot of money and paid very little taxes. It’s possible that the 14% was his high water mark. It’s possible that there were years when he paid much less. And this will make the Obama campaign’s larger point: the Republicans are defending an economy that has been distorted by financial games-playing over the past 30 years, in which the rich make deals, not products, and pay very little taxes on their curiously-gotten gains.

[Grover]

14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever

Good read, but I'm a fan of Ezra Klein's work.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'll think you'll find a lot (if not all) of those countries would be very happy to see the back of the US military bases; you make it sound like they 'requested' the presence of the US military there which for some countries simply isn't the case ...

Those countries are just giving back to us after we gave them protection/rebuilding instead of allowing their destruction/occupation by their enemies. I'm sure most unselfish people understand that.

The US has some military bases in the UK because its strategically useful to the US it has no advantage to the UK at all ... in fact it makes the country more of a target from anyone anti-US (so don't expect any European country to be crying out in pain if the US wanted to withdraw their bases tomorrow).

Did the bases in the UK have any value to the UK from 1942-1990? Of course. Now we need a favor and the UK is helping us out now.

But yes, you're are right, turning your back on your friends, particularly when they need your help, does open up opportunities with your friend's enemies. I'm not sure what strategic benefits you get teaming up with the "anti-US" crowd is though once you "unfriend" us.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Those countries are just giving back to us after we gave them protection/rebuilding instead of allowing their destruction/occupation by their enemies. I'm sure most unselfish people understand that.

Not done for any US interest whatsoever, right?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not done for any US interest whatsoever, right?

Are you saying it's wrong? No nation on Earth works in one-way support roles where one side always go to help others and never receives any assistance in return. The short-term non-UK interest (to pick an example) might be true, but the long-term strategic interest far outweighs those short-sighted concerns.

The US Interest in Germany, Italy, and Japan was to create long-term strong economic allies. We formed new alliances with those nations after we helped rebuild them (which was a 180 from the way we handled our victories after WWI). The key word there is "allies". They are no longer our foes in large part because of the way we built a two-way committment to them. Part of that two-way committment is sometimes the US will be in need, and we'll go to them for help.

I thought this went without saying with the USA/UK alliance which is one of the strongest alliances we have.

[Edward64]

I understand that Romney has/will meet the min requirements for tax returns but IMO the below is a mistake. He's going to take a hit either way, better to do it now which will give him some time to recover.

Romney blasts 'dishonest' Obama ads; president continues attacks - CNN.com

Mitt Romney described assertions by President Barack Obama's campaign as "deceptive," demanding an apology and rejecting calls to release more than two years of tax returns.

Here's How Many Years Of Tax Returns Obama Has Released... - Business Insider

In response for my call for Mitt Romney to release a decade of tax returns, I received the following response:

Read your article re Romney's tax returns. How about asking Obama to release the past ten years of his returns.

This is actually exactly the point.

Obama has now released 11 years of returns, not just 10.

And all other recent Presidents and Presidential candidates have released multiple years of returns.

And Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, also a Presidential candidate, released 12 years of returns, while saying that releasing a single year, as Mitt Romney has done, is meaningless.

Effectively, what Mitt Romney is saying by not releasing his returns is that he should be entitled to some special privilege that no other Presidents and Presidential candidates have enjoyed--just because he's made a lot of money.

That's ridiculous.

The sooner Romney releases his returns, the sooner we can make sure that he's not hiding something and move on to the economy and other critical issues facing this country.

In the meantime, we'll just have to assume that he is hiding something.

(And, obviously, he is trying to hide something--though presumably not something illegal. What he's hiding, presumably, is how fantastically much money he has made and how startlingly low a rate of taxes he has paid, by virtue of some creative tax loopholes and the absurd "carried interest" tax rate on private-equity fees and so forth. Now, if Mitt Romney really believes that low taxes are good, he should stand behind the low tax rate he has paid. But, instead, he's trying to hide it).

[Edward64]

Here's the list/years of Presidential tax returns.
Tax History Project: Presidential Tax Returns

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Here's the list/years of Presidential tax returns.
Tax History Project: Presidential Tax Returns

I like how the President can just list his address as "The White House"

[DaddyTorgo]

I like how Romney released more years of tax returns (wasn't it like 20+) to McCain in his VP-vetting then he will to the public.

That's fucked up.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Those countries are just giving back to us after we gave them protection/rebuilding instead of allowing their destruction/occupation by their enemies. I'm sure most unselfish people understand that.

I'm not looking down on the US assistance during World War 2 at all, it was vital to the repatriation of Europe.

It is however worth looking in context - if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour its likely the US would have been happy to let Europe fall, once involved in the conflict it was in the best interest of the US to ensure the war was fought abroad rather than wait for it to 'come home'.

Did the bases in the UK have any value to the UK from 1942-1990? Of course. Now we need a favor and the UK is helping us out now.

Out of interest what 'value' to the UK do you percieve them as having had? - the UK during that period had quite a significant standing army and a decent navy and of course nuclear deterrants (as do various other European nations).

So allowing US troops to be stationed on the island brought in marginal economic help (not much because most US bases sell their own items UK tax free internally so its only their sporadic off-site purchases).

The main 'advantage' during the cold war that those bases gave the UK was that we then became the main immediate first target for Soviet missiles because we were closer than the US and thus liable to be able to commit a first strike against them than other locations ...

But yes, you're are right, turning your back on your friends, particularly when they need your help, does open up opportunities with your friend's enemies. I'm not sure what strategic benefits you get teaming up with the "anti-US" crowd is though once you "unfriend" us.

I don't think the UK (or Europe) has turned their back on the US ... however I see part of friendship as telling that friend hard truths at times.

The majority of English people (according to surveys when the wars began) don't at all agree with the fact that we followed the US into illegal wars which were based largely on lies, I'm one of those people and am not ashamed to indicate it.

This however doesn't mean that I don't wish the best for the troops of both the US and UK in those conflicts, its just that I disagree with the premises that sent them there.

PS - If you look around Europe you'll find that most countries are partially winding down their militaries because they accept they're largely out dated and unrequired for modern conflict - the US hasn't accepted this and the cost of that military is likely (in the long term) to cause serious problems with the balancing of the budget imho.

(the UK navy famously now 'shares' its only Aircraft Carrier with france if you weren't aware - quite a change from the days where the British Navy 'ruled the waves' )

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

It is however worth looking in context - if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour its likely the US would have been happy to let Europe fall, once involved in the conflict it was in the best interest of the US to ensure the war was fought abroad rather than wait for it to 'come home'.

You may be right about the US population as a whole, but the US government was actively engaged prior to Pearl Harbour.
Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, Free France, and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939 but nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941. Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States' pretense of neutrality.
:
:
This program was a decisive step away from non-interventionist policy, which had dominated United States foreign relations since the end of World War I, towards international involvement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You may be right about the US population as a whole, but the US government was actively engaged prior to Pearl Harbour.
Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You beat me to it ... apparently it's just a minor detail easily forgotten.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Out of interest what 'value' to the UK do you percieve them as having had?

They kept you from speaking Russian as a first language.

- the UK during that period had quite a significant standing army and a decent navy and of course nuclear deterrants (as do various other European nations).

You'd have been a fucking speed bump, and that's being generous.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They kept you from speaking Russian as a first language.
You'd have been a fucking speed bump, and that's being generous.

LOL

Bought into the paranoia of the cold war a little much there haven't you?

But enjoy your paranoia while you sit in your bunker

(England already posessed enough nukes to seriously damage the entire globe, I doubt the American arsenal made much difference - you can only destroy the planet so many times after all )

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Here's the list/years of Presidential tax returns.
Tax History Project: Presidential Tax Returns

I like that Romney had $112 withheld on his W2 while owing $3 million in taxes, lol. Someone should take him to take more exemptions!

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You may be right about the US population as a whole, but the US government was actively engaged prior to Pearl Harbour.
Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The lend lease program was a huge help definitely - but there is a big difference from offering a discount on purchases and actively being involved in a conflict imho.

(its a bit like the countries that some in the US look down on today - who will posture and send financial aid to help in some modern day conflicts but refuse to actually commit troops to the cause)

The lend lease while a substantial assistance simply wouldn't have been enough to retake Europe or indeed have kept the UK independant in the long term (simply put there would have been a point at which we'd have run out of people to fight, come the Battle of Britain the training many of the pilots involved had recieved before flying was already farcically inadequate*).

*This lead to very inflexible flying formations - or as the German pilots referred to them ... "rows of idiots"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Bought into the paranoia of the cold war a little much there haven't you?

The Russians didn't fear you, no reason to when they could have sunk your little island in about 15 minutes.

But, judging from the worthless tripe you post here so frequently, that's a disappointment must be a disappointment of sorts. You seem wounded to the core that you didn't find a proper socialist to fully throw in with.

Our very own token arrogant p.o.s. who doesn't seem to have gotten over the fact that you got your asses royally kicked by a third rate fighting force 200+ years back AND then had to have your asses saved by those very same folks or else you'd have been speaking German before you could have gotten the chance to speak Russian. Instead, you're free to come here & speak fluent bullshit on a far too frequent basis.

You're nothing more than a miserable ungrateful cocksucking bastard and I wish to hell you'd vanish into the depths from whence you came. At the very least, I wish you'd shut your fucking kidney piehole instead of giving me heartburn every time I look at FM because it grieves me to think about what an unbearably pompous braindead horse's arse they employed.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The Russians didn't fear you, no reason to when they could have sunk your little island in about 15 minutes.

Thats like saying that Israel is defenseless because they're surrounded by antagonistic states with superior manpower ...

Warfare isn't simply two sides slugging it out until there is a winner - especially if one side has access to nuclear weaponry ... the fact they had more makes no difference at all, as I said little point destroying the planet 5 times, once is more than enough

But, judging from the worthless tripe you post here so frequently, that's a disappointment must be a disappointment of sorts. You seem wounded to the core that you didn't find a proper socialist to fully throw in with.

Not at all - like yourself I have my viewpoints and stand by them, regardless of other peoples opinions.

Our very own token arrogant p.o.s. who doesn't seem to have gotten over the fact that you got your asses royally kicked by a third rate fighting force 200+ years back AND then had to have your asses saved by those very same folks or else you'd have been speaking German before you could have gotten the chance to speak Russian. Instead, you're free to come here & speak fluent bullshit on a far too frequent basis.

LOL - England (and the English) don't really tend to think much about the American war of independance any more than we do India or other countries which were once part of the empire ... its all distant history tbh (as is WW2 today imho, its reduced in Europe largely to a few mocking songs to wind up specific countries during Football matches rather than something to get excited about).

You're nothing more than a miserable ungrateful cocksucking bastard and I wish to hell you'd vanish into the depths from whence you came. At the very least, I wish you'd shut your fucking kidney piehole instead of giving me heartburn every time I look at FM because it grieves me to think about what an unbearably pompous braindead horse's arse they employed.

That you for your kind words - I'm not entirely certain why you're jumping up and down and swearing.

I'm not going to apologise for not approving of all of America's actions ever, nor for the fact that I don't approve of all of the actions of England ever.

I've acknowledged that without US assistance Europe would be very different today and that England would not be an independant country ...

It wasn't my intention to get anyone worked up to the extent that they swore in the thread. I fully realize that intelligent people can often have different points of views and do my best to respect them, if this outburst was caused by my comment about 'cold war paranoia' apologies - it wasn't meant harshly at all.

[Dreghorn2]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I fully realize that intelligent people can often have different points of views and do my best to respect them, if this outburst was caused by my comment about 'cold war paranoia' apologies - it wasn't meant harshly at all.

Why on earth are you apologizing?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're nothing more than a miserable ungrateful cocksucking bastard and I wish to hell you'd vanish into the depths from whence you came. At the very least, I wish you'd shut your fucking kidney piehole instead of giving me heartburn every time I look at FM because it grieves me to think about what an unbearably pompous braindead horse's arse they employed.

Seriously?

It's one thing to disagree with someone respectfully. It's another thing entirely to insult them as a person.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dreghorn2

Why on earth are you apologizing?

This. You do realize don't you Marc that this is just par for the course for Jon, and that nobody on here feels compelled to apologize to him anymore, as he displays a remarkable lack of civility and manners on a regular basis.

Please rescind your apology - it makes you look weak, and I can assure you that Jon viewed it in that same way and probably actually laughed because he got you to apologize.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Out of interest what 'value' to the UK do you percieve them as having had? - the UK during that period had quite a significant standing army and a decent navy and of course nuclear deterrants

The arms race was purely a USA vs USSR battle. The value add of course was during the Cold War, Europe was devastated while the USSR was just getting warmed up. At any time from 1945 until about 1970, the USSR could have demolished Europe without even a fight HAD IT NOT BEEN for the USA contantly reminding the Soviet Union that if they attacked you, it was going down. We risked the lives of OUR citizens for Europe's citizens, everyday during that "cold war". During the Cuban Missile Crisis, we went to Defcon 5...people thought we were going to have a nuclear war with the Soviets. It wasn't a joke, Marc.

FWIW, I agree with you, the UK didn't really need the economic boost that Europe proper did. You won the war. The value add to the UK was that had the USSR taken over Europe, you would have stood alone. The UK honestly wouldn't have lasted very long on their own without us. It was clear then but it's getting muddier as we move that period of time futher into history.

It's nice that "we" won and we can joke about those doomsday what-if scenario's now, but the reality is that the Soviets were no joke and their intentions of expansion were clear.

[RainMaker]

Things get heated here but that stuff is over-the-line. Really no place for the personal attacks because you don't believe with someone's political views.

[Shkspr]

Oh, it's not a personal attack when Jon does it. He's never going to get banned no matter how much vile shit he spews.

[panerd]

Yeah that was pretty over the top. I've always thought the developers like Jim, Gary, and Marc were given a little more leeway in this community from flaming (even when they are wrong ) I also thought Jon had toned it down recently but I guess the old Jon decided to make an appearance.

EDIT: The part in the parentheses is a joke I don't agree with JIMGA at all on his rant.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We risked the lives of OUR citizens for Europe's citizens, everyday during that "cold war". During the Cuban Missile Crisis, we went to Defcon 5...people thought we were going to have a nuclear war with the Soviets. It wasn't a joke, Marc.

Wasn't intending it to be a 'joke' ... however ....

Its hard for me to assess the situation and mentality from before my birth (for obvious reasons); however during my life time there was little serious thought given to the risk of soviet invasion.

My father (who served in the RAF) never considered it a large risk purely on the basis of nuclear deterrents (which various European countries held) and long range missiles - which is undoubtably where I get my perspective on this situation from*.

There was real fear over a nuclear war when I was younger (pre-teen) largely based upon tensions between the US and Russia - but most people within the UK felt somewhat 'surplus' to this situation (i.e. we were in a 'shit happens' situation where it would unfold with us as affected and potentially bombed spectators to the ultimate decision making - its this aspect which is why the US bases in England were the subject of numerous protests etc. during this period).

Again thought I was largely too young to fully appreciate this at the time and only really realized it because of "When the Wind Blows" which was a cartoon about a nuclear attack on England (quite harrowing for a young kid to read tbh) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Wind_Blows_(film)

*in a similar manner I expect most people on this forum similarly post-date this time period and get their perspectives from their culture or relatives who lived through it?

[Marc Vaughan]

Please rescind your apology - it makes you look weak, and I can assure you that Jon viewed it in that same way and probably actually laughed because he got you to apologize.

I try and be polite as a matter of practice, I apologized in case it hit a nerve which I didn't know about; its easy to under-estimate peoples sensitivities especially online when we often know, but don't know them in the widened manner which we might if they lived in our community irl.

I have somewhat pacifistic views, it might interest Jon to know they're based largely on the fact I come from a somewhat militaristic family (to the extent that mine is the first generation which haven't been in the military) and have listened to the accounts that previous generations of relatives have given of wars and also seen the effect of conflicts upon them both physically and mentally.

Its for this reason that I decided to apologize to Jon - for all I know he might have lost relatives during one of the conflicts in the cold war in which case I can fully understand why he reacted why he did.

(if that makes me 'weak' so be it - to me its doing the right thing ...)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah that was pretty over the top. I've always thought the developers like Jim, Gary, and Marc were given a little more leeway in this community from flaming (even when they are wrong ) I also thought Jon had toned it down recently but I guess the old Jon decided to make an appearance.

I've never seen Marc flame anyone and we haven't agreed on some political issues. He's always come across respectful to me.

[PilotMan]

Seriously Jon, wtf? I don't see how that isn't deserving of some time off. It's totally uncalled for.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Seriously Jon, wtf? I don't see how that isn't deserving of some time off. It's totally uncalled for.

+1. Marc has always been very gracious on this board and simply didn't deserve that.

[Crapshoot]

+1. That was ridiculous from Jon, especially given the suspensions around here.

[cartman]

When you've got nothing to fall back on to support your views, you go where Jon went.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Are you saying it's wrong? No nation on Earth works in one-way support roles where one side always go to help others and never receives any assistance in return. The short-term non-UK interest (to pick an example) might be true, but the long-term strategic interest far outweighs those short-sighted concerns.

The US Interest in Germany, Italy, and Japan was to create long-term strong economic allies. We formed new alliances with those nations after we helped rebuild them (which was a 180 from the way we handled our victories after WWI). The key word there is "allies". They are no longer our foes in large part because of the way we built a two-way committment to them. Part of that two-way committment is sometimes the US will be in need, and we'll go to them for help.

I thought this went without saying with the USA/UK alliance which is one of the strongest alliances we have.

Alliances don't mean they do whatever you say no questions asked. I think that Americans have this silly idea that because of rebuilding countries they are indebted forever and thus have to follow the US into whatever ridiculous wars we decide.

Strong alliances doesn't mean a blank check. We'd be smart to learn that.

[Edward64]

An interesting article on the Obama Middle East inner workings. Interesting but same old stuff ... no progress.

Obama searches for Middle East peace - The Washington Post

“The president’s view now is that this is about the Israelis and the Palestinians,” said Rhodes, his deputy national security adviser. “These really are their choices to make.”

During the meeting last month, Rabbi *Shmuel Goldin, president of the Rabbinical Council of America, asked Obama for his assessment of the past three years.

Those in the room had their opinions — on the “kishkes question,” on the need for a close relationship with Israel, and on Palestinian will. Now it was Obama’s turn to explain his view of the work he had done to secure an elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace.

“Mr. President, what lessons have you learned?” Goldin asked.

“That it’s really hard,” Obama said.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Alliances don't mean they do whatever you say no questions asked. I think that Americans have this silly idea that because of rebuilding countries they are indebted forever and thus have to follow the US into whatever ridiculous wars we decide.

Strong alliances doesn't mean a blank check. We'd be smart to learn that.

You mean, like the "blank check alliances" from WWI where England and France mobilized against Germany because Germany mobilized against Russia because Russia mobilized against Serbia? And then millions of people were slaughtered for no reason? I haven't seen that sort of alliance from the USA and the UK or others.

And certainly you aren't suggesting we go back to the strategy of segregated isolation like when France and England obliterated the Germans economically in post WWI and abandoned those people to the hatred of the Nazi ideology? Causing a whole new war where 60 to 80 million people died?

I think we've come a long way in our alliance development, no? Relatively speaking, the alliances of the last 60 years have been EXTREMELY advantageous to our allies. I'd say the USA has learned a thing or two about how to work with others, not the other way around.

We have nothing even remotely close to a "blank check" that you speak of. Our effort in Iraq drew up only token support from anyone. How does that translate into a blank check?

But history has proven that the lesson isn't to choose between a "blank check alliance" and the 180 reversed segregated isolation. Both of those have led to disaster. The US has done an extraordinary job of balancing the liberties of all (including our former enemies) while leading the industrialized world through decades of relative calm. To me, the US efforts after WWII of reorganizing the worlds diplomacy has been nothing short of brilliant and the effects are still enjoyed to this day.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Alliances don't mean they do whatever you say no questions asked. I think that Americans have this silly idea that because of rebuilding countries they are indebted forever and thus have to follow the US into whatever ridiculous wars we decide.

My favorite annoyance with Europe and alliances was the mid-80s strike on Lybia. I loved the fact that France refused to let us fly over their airspace for the strike, depsite the fact that they were in a shooting war with Lybia in Chad at the time...