Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Ksyrup]

I don't know why the discrepancy in numbers, but ABC News is actually saying he's taken the lead, 267-266.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't know why the discrepancy in numbers, but ABC News is actually saying he's taken the lead, 267-266.

I think the difference is that at least some sources are now reporting as many as 9 switches today ... but now I notice that those numbers are actually a lower total than the earlier one, not just a different distribution.

Maybe different news organizations are using different sources for their count?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

So then why for the love of God are we starting shit with Iran?

Events don't occur in a vacuum. The government of Iran has the same underlying ideology now that it did in the 1980's. The current tension with Iran is not anything new. It's been in place since the Shah was overthrown. I'm not even sure what you mean by "starting shit with Iran", so perhaps you could provide some examples.

What do peacekeeping and embassies have to do with anything? Way to keep the conversation focused. If two people can't agree on 1% of something, they're not trying.

For this, I'm gonna have to quote you.

We used to have a miltary base in Lebanon. Whatever terrorist group it was didn't want us there and they bombed our barracks. Reagan ordered us out. No more attacks.

We did not have a military base in Lebanon. We were part of a multi-national peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Months before the barracks that housed our Marines were attacked, our U.S. Embassy in Beirut was also attacked, which also was part of the decision to remove our forces from Lebanon.

If you're going to argue, at least argue from some position based in fact. Otherwise I'm going to start introducing unicorns and ogres to the mix.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That would be a great campaign event, "The Swiss militia system and the self-defense aspects of the 2nd amendment." That'll get the donations pouring in!

JPhillips: This won't get us anywhere, so why don't we just end it here. You know full well that's not at all what I said, but you're going to do your best to get in as many shots as possible. If you want to... hang on... got a little sand in my vagina...

*scratch scratch*

Ah, that's better.

Seriously, to indulge in my digression for a moment, Obama's done a heckuva job talking about the 2nd Amendment rights of hunters, sport shooters, even gun collectors. But because of Chicago's handgun ban, he's never ONCE mentioned the self-defensive aspect of the 2nd Amendment. He's never given an opinion on the Washington, D.C. gun ban case. He's said he hasn't read the briefs, and he told the Chicago Sun-Times that he doesn't like taking a stand on pending cases before the Supreme Court. Of course that didn't stop him from signing onto a Supreme Court amicus brief in the Indiana voter ID case...

I don't believe Iran is that great a threat. They're certainly behind a resurgent Russia and China in relation of long-term threats. Iran is more of a nuisance than an actual strategic threat. Even if they develop a nuke, which we should work to curtail, they still won't have anywhere near the power of the dominant military force in the region, Israel. I believe that we're focused to tightly on Iraq/Iran while allowing greater threats the freedom of unopposed actions.

I'd disagree with you regarding a resurgent Russia. I think we're far more likely to see the implosion of Russia within the next two decades, and the fracturing long before that.

I also don't buy Steyn's idea that we're almost besieged by radical Islam. His worldview leaves only military action as a way to achieve our goals and doesn't take into account the reality that our actions have consequences. Perhaps in fifty or one-hundred years things will be different, but it's foolish to argue that right now we can't count on European allies because of the influence of radical Islam on those nation's leaders.

You might want to talk to Jose Aznar and see how he feels about your position. Granted, he might be more concerned about the influence of radical Islam on voters in a country that just suffered a terrorist attack.

It's more than just radical Islam, btw. As I said before, not every Christian American thinks Pat Robertson speaks for him. But you can't argue that Robertson and the religious right have an influence in this country's political system, even though they only reflect the views of a select part of one demographic.

I think it's human nature that the same holds true in Europe. The most popular baby name in Belgium right now is Mohammed. It's the second most popular name in England (if you count all the variations of the name). In Amsterdam, 24% of the population is Muslim. In Stockholm, it's 20%. London, 17%. In other words, the Muslim population is large enough that politicians would be stupid to ignore them. Throw in the fact that moderate or liberal Muslim voices are often drowned out by extremists and it's not illogical to see how this demographic is already influencing foreign and domestic policy in many European nations.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Events don't occur in a vacuum. The government of Iran has the same underlying ideology now that it did in the 1980's. The current tension with Iran is not anything new. It's been in place since the Shah was overthrown. I'm not even sure what you mean by "starting shit with Iran", so perhaps you could provide some examples.

We did not have a military base in Lebanon. We were part of a multi-national peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Months before the barracks that housed our Marines were attacked, our U.S. Embassy in Beirut was also attacked, which also was part of the decision to remove our forces from Lebanon.

If you're going to argue, at least argue from some position based in fact. Otherwise I'm going to start introducing unicorns and ogres to the mix.

By starting hit with Iran I'm referring to the Kyl Lieberman resolution and all of the pols saying, "all options are on the table." You know this.

As far as Lebanon, I have no interest in semantics. We were over there. You know this too.

If you're going to argue, do so. If not, have fun with your unicorns.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Actually, I really wasn't trying to "get in a shot". I'm honestly trying to figure out what you mean by a renunciation of the doctrine of preemptive war. "Threats" and "U.S. interests" will mean different things to different people, and ultimately it won't matter what I think constitutes a threat to a U.S. interest. It's up to the president, and I'm not in the running.

So having a debate over that seems pointless, but trying to figure out what Obama's policy actually means doesn't seem pointless, if that makes sense.

I think this is an excellent question, really, and I expect it will be asked of him in one of his debates against McCain. It sure as heck should be, at least. Both candidates should be required to express what kinds of threats may lead them to engage the military.

The same kind of question should be asked of McCain as well. Since he has expressed support of preemptive military action, and voted for it in Iraq, voters should have some idea whether he would do so again and under what circumstances.

I happen to believe that this works out strongly in Obama's favor, but I respect that others will think differently.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I see. So basically Obama's stance is "You get the first punch, but we'll hit you back"?

I also meant to point out that, before Bush II, you could argue that this has been the fundamental foreign policy of the United States for 225 years. No policy is 100 percent perfect, but I gotta say that not seeking fights and being tough enough to take a punch has served our nation very well for a long time.

[ISiddiqui]

You might want to talk to Jose Aznar and see how he feels about your position. Granted, he might be more concerned about the influence of radical Islam on voters in a country that just suffered a terrorist attack.

Actually you may wish to talk to Aznar about what happens when you blatently lie about things. The reason he was voted out wasn't because of the Madrid bombings, but because he blamed them on ETA, even though he KNEW they didn't do it. When that got out, he was done. He blatantly lied about a terrorist attack for political gain.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I also meant to point out that, before Bush II, you could argue that this has been the fundamental foreign policy of the United States for 225 years. No policy is 100 percent perfect, but I gotta say that not seeking fights and being tough enough to take a punch has served our nation very well for a long time.

Well, to be fair, the Taliban "punched" us first. And Saddam ignored the 1991 cease-fire agreement*, under Clinton and Bush. Saddam did so almost daily before we finally "punched" back.

Western planes patrol two "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq and regularly come under fire from Iraqi defences.

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1511540.stm

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I also meant to point out that, before Bush II, you could argue that this has been the fundamental foreign policy of the United States for 225 years. No policy is 100 percent perfect, but I gotta say that not seeking fights and being tough enough to take a punch has served our nation very well for a long time.

To be fair, it's become a helluva lot easier to throw a punch in the past 225 years. Isolationism's easy when it's actually possible to be isolated.

There's also a difference between picking fights and using preemptive force. Do we require our police officers to shoot everyone they stop for a traffic violation? Of course not. But we also don't insist that they take a bullet before they can shoot at someone who poses a threat to them.

If we wouldn't expect it to be a good policy for the individual police officer or soldier, why on earth would it be a good policy for a military?

[ISiddiqui]

The no-fly zones, however, were NOT listed under the cease-fire agreement. So one can argue that countries that did those flyovers were violating the cease-fire agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger[1][2].

[JPhillips]

Cam: But we wouldn't find it acceptable if police officers started shooting people because they believed they had the capacity to get a gun and fire it.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cam: But we wouldn't find it acceptable if police officers started shooting people because they believed they had the capacity to get a gun and fire it.

That's true, and it wasn't what I was suggesting. I have a feeling we're mere sentences away from my metaphor awkwardly breaking down, but I'll give it a go regardless.

We know there's a gun. Let's (for the sake of the increasingly strained metaphor) say that the gun is on a table in the room with the police officer and the individual. The gun may even be in another room. Regardless, we know there's a gun. We know it's not a good thing for the individual to get the gun.

The officer may not shoot the suspect, but he most certainly doesn't allow him to saunter over to the table and pick up the gun, all the while telling the officer he's not going to do anything bad with it. Remember, this is a guy with a rap sheet (is the metaphor getting ridiculous yet?). We know he's responsible for violent crimes in the past. You don't let him get the gun, and yes, at some point that means you will have to physically use the tools at your disposal to prevent him from doing so.

[JPhillips]

But the problem is we don't know whether or not the gun is there.

Of course if the gun were really an extremely dangerous badger...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But the problem is we don't know whether or not the gun is there.

Of course if the gun were really an extremely dangerous badger...

LOL.

I started to continue the analogy, but it's just getting silly. I don't know if I'll have time to visit this thread again until Monday, but thanks for the fun debate today.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The no-fly zones, however, were NOT listed under the cease-fire agreement. So one can argue that countries that did those flyovers were violating the cease-fire agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

The United Nations violated the cease-fire agreement by flying humanitarian air coverage? That's funny coming from somebody that insists the UN governs all wars.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I don't have a link handy, but will continue to look for one, but on Tuesday night E.J. Dionne was on NPR talking about the exit poll results for Indiana and North Carolina.

Probably All Things Considered on Tuesday night. Unfortunately, NPR doesn't do transcripts a lot (for free), but they usually post ATC on the website in streaming format, broken down by section. The usual Q&A with David Brooks & A.J. Dionne is probably its own section.

According to him, Obama's support went up the further left you went on the political spectrum. In other words, self-described "very liberal" voters were Obama's biggest supporters. Dionne himself called this a (paraphrase) troubling development or something like that.

Again, let's wait until the nomination is resolved. Right now the makeup of Obama's support is skewed due to Clinton.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But Obama's a man of his word, and not a typical politician... right? So I'm sure he'll stick with his promise to use the public financing system if his opponent agrees to do the same. Since McCain's already agreed to do so, that should negate his financial advantage, right?

Likewise I'd expect McCain to follow the rules laid out in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, but he hasn't done that either.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

England, where the Archbishop of Canterbury says England should embrace sharia law?

Here's what he actually said:

Williams, speaking to the BBC, said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their laws in Britain and he called for a "constructive accommodation" with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes.

And here's what Gordon Brown said:

In response, Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said: "There are instances where the government has made changes in regulations, for example to include sharia-compliant mortgage products, but in general terms, sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor can the principle of sharia law be used in a civilian court."

If that's what "embrace" means to you, then I submit that you "embrace" gun control laws merely because of the fact of their existence.

In "enlightened democracies" we tend to kowtow to those on the fringe.

I don't agree with this. We perhaps allow them to get more media coverage than they should, and their surrogates in Congress often get them money they shouldn't, but we don't direct our policy efforts specifically to address their views.

And this doesn't happen in Europe, either.

Look at Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, etc. on the left and Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc. on the right. You won't find Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson in Europe. You'll find Mullah Chaudri, Mullah Krekar, and Dyab Abou Jahjah.

You'll also find that European politics are influenced by a wide array of non-Muslim radicals, be they separatists, religious fundamentalists, far right-wingers, far left-wingers, etc.... Why do you only mention the Muslims, Cam? Does your argument lack weight without the presence of the Muslim Bogeyman?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The United Nations violated the cease-fire agreement by flying humanitarian air coverage? That's funny coming from somebody that insists the UN governs all wars.

Huh? How many strawmen can we count here?

The United Nations, if approved under the Security Council can violate state soveriegnty. Hence approval to invade Iraq to get them out of Kuwait. On the other hand, declaring that a state cannot fly aircraft in its own country without any basis in a cease fire agreement or a SC resolution can't really be legally justified (it can be power justified, and that's what we basically used... if we really wanted it, should have put in the cease fire agreement).

The no fly zones were not enforced by the UN... but by the US, UK, and France.

Now, if China decided that they should fly over parts of the US for "humanitarian reasons" without UN approval or in a treaty agreement, we'd be crying bloody murder.

[flere-imsaho]

The idea that the U.S. should engage in extremely unilateral foreign policy simply because we can't trust any other countries is the lazy man's foreign policy. Just because it's easy to soundbite and plays well on talk radio doesn't mean it's a great solution.

We used to have diplomats and statesmen in this country who worked long and hard to navigate the international diplomatic waters to put our nation in the best possible positions on any number of fronts (military, economic, political, etc...). We've now been reduced to these organizations being led by a bunch of zero-sum neocons who want the world remade in the U.S.'s image, or otherwise blown up.

This is exactly where we got the facile "you're either with us, or against us" explanation of U.S. foreign policy - a concept which neglects to recognize that the world is not black-and-white, it is gray. A policy which does nothing but a) make enemies and b) paint us into corners.

It limits our options, but it does allow neocon administration officials to take long lunches and get home from work early. After all, they've pushed the real work resulting from this policy to the military, which now has to deal with all of our new enemies.

Some of you need to realize that this experiment is over. It failed. It's now time to get back to work, man the phones, press the flesh, and start building relations, alliances and bridges in the world again - a multi-faced foreign policy that seeks to promote our interests in any way that's viable, makes use of all the tools at our disposal, and can work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It failed.

Perhaps.

But given the lack of resolve, character, intelligence, judgement, and common sense in the U.S. at large today, it seems it (and virtually any policy really) was doomed through no fault endemic to the policy itself. We seem to lack the ability to avoid sabotaging pretty much anything we try to do at this point, simply through the weaknesses within.

[st.cronin]

Flere,

The failures of the administration are failures of execution, not necessarily failures of philosophy. At any rate, I don't think anybody thinks diplomacy is useless or a bad idea. I also confess that McCain's foreign policy philosophy is not particularly articulated or well understood. But the international community simply is not capable of working in a collective, communal way - there is a need for leadership, and that need will be filled by somebody. Because of the US's peculiar qualities (governed by a document which emphasizes individual freedom and individual happiness, for example), I believe the world (and, of course, the US) is better off if the US takes a strong leadership position in the international community.

This is not the same point of view which you are describing and condemning in your post. It may be that McCain doesn't have the vision and ability to execute this vision, but the fact that Obama seems to reject it is extremely troubling to me.

[Brian Swartz]

Some of you need to realize that this experiment is over. It failed. It's now time to get back to work, man the phones, press the flesh, and start building relations, alliances and bridges in the world again - a multi-faced foreign policy that seeks to promote our interests in any way that's viable, makes use of all the tools at our disposal, and can work.

I sympathize with part of this point of view. It's sure a heck of a lot easier to think we should just try to get along with other nations, but the fact of the matter is that public opinion worldwide is basically pacifistic on the subject of terrorism. I'm all for trying to have more effective diplomatic measures, but the fact of the matter is that due to economic self-interest and the misguided views of their own constitutents those nations which are sometimes comically referred to as our 'allies' are not interested in meaningful action against terrorism in the long-term. It's the world we live in, and in that world we can either act or we can surrender to a future where people like OBL can blackmail us with nuclear threats.

Terrorism is by its very nature the enemy of civilization, and in dealing with nations who refuse to recognize that there is only so far that diplomacy is going to be able to go. There is a fundamental difference of worldview. If we act in an appropriately aggressive way to stamp out terrorism we are going to make a lot of enemies. The question is whether that is an appropriate thing to do and whether or not it is better than the alternative -- I say yes on both counts simply because I've never heard any reasonable alternative(and this is an important enough issue that I considered voting for Kerry in '04, but couldn't because of what I saw as the absolute bankruptcy of his position on the matter).

As has been mentioned there have been failures of execution. The Iraq War was sold horribly, and for some of the wrong reasons. It was executed even worse in some aspects after the initial invasion. As a result we have a mess, but not IMO a worse mess than we would have had if we hadn't done it to begin with and certainly not a worse mess than hiding in America and pretending a modern free society can depend on the oceans to protect us.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I sympathize with part of this point of view. It's sure a heck of a lot easier to think we should just try to get along with other nations, but the fact of the matter is that public opinion worldwide is basically pacifistic on the subject of terrorism. I'm all for trying to have more effective diplomatic measures, but the fact of the matter is that due to economic self-interest and the misguided views of their own constitutents those nations which are sometimes comically referred to as our 'allies' are not interested in meaningful action against terrorism in the long-term. It's the world we live in, and in that world we can either act or we can surrender to a future where people like OBL can blackmail us with nuclear threats.

Terrorism is by its very nature the enemy of civilization, and in dealing with nations who refuse to recognize that there is only so far that diplomacy is going to be able to go. There is a fundamental difference of worldview. If we act in an appropriately aggressive way to stamp out terrorism we are going to make a lot of enemies. The question is whether that is an appropriate thing to do and whether or not it is better than the alternative -- I say yes on both counts simply because I've never heard any reasonable alternative(and this is an important enough issue that I considered voting for Kerry in '04, but couldn't because of what I saw as the absolute bankruptcy of his position on the matter).

As has been mentioned there have been failures of execution. The Iraq War was sold horribly, and for some of the wrong reasons. It was executed even worse in some aspects after the initial invasion. As a result we have a mess, but not IMO a worse mess than we would have had if we hadn't done it to begin with and certainly not a worse mess than hiding in America and pretending a modern free society can depend on the oceans to protect us.

the motherfuckin iraq war wasn't about motherfucking terrorism. Saddam was as much an enemy of muslim fundamentalists like bin ladin as we are. Either you are overlooking this for the sake of making your point, or you are TBH (and there's not really a way to sugarcoat this so I apologize in advance - it's just one of those things that really push my buttons) ignorant.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What constitutes a threat and what constitutes US interests? Any President will respond aggressively to an attack on the US, but the whole point is that we shouldn't be attacking threats unless it's our last option. It's a renunciation of the doctrine of preventive war.

Now left-leaning time.com is advocating invading Myanmar wihout provocation so we can get relief supplies there?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The failures of the administration are failures of execution, not necessarily failures of philosophy.

I think it's pretty clear that it's a failure of philosophy as well. The neocon idea that it is correct to use pre-emptive military action unilaterally has been shown to do little but create more enemies and distribute terrorist sympathizers to more and more locales.

Furthermore, the neocon idea that one should sow Western Democracy at the point of a gun, and that once sown, it will spread in any region, including the Middle East, is fanciful at best.

At any rate, I don't think anybody thinks diplomacy is useless or a bad idea.

I disagree. When you send John Bolton to the United Nations that's exactly what you think.

But the international community simply is not capable of working in a collective, communal way - there is a need for leadership, and that need will be filled by somebody. Because of the US's peculiar qualities (governed by a document which emphasizes individual freedom and individual happiness, for example), I believe the world (and, of course, the US) is better off if the US takes a strong leadership position in the international community.

I don't disagree with any of this. My point is that there's a difference between the U.S. acting as a dumb bully and as a benevolent older brother. We've been the former for the past 8 years and to me, this is the path upon which McCain wants to keep us.

[JPhillips]

Buc: Left-leaning? Who exactly is left-leaning at Time? As for Burma I'd like to encourage the French to act and we can support with naval/air forces if necessary. As long as we stay within 50 miles or so of the coast I don't think the ruling junta will risk a shooting war.

Brian: What constitutes dealing with terrorism? Our adventure i Iraq has been acknowledged by nearly everyone to have increased the rolls of Al Queada. In Afghanistan we've been supported by our NATO allies, but we chose to pull forces from there to fight in Iraq.

Part of the problem with neo-con foreign policy is the seeming belief that any military action in the ME is a good thing. I believe that events have shown us that military intervention can sometimes leave us weaker than no intervention. The issue isn't intervention or isolation, it's about the judgment necessary to determine good intervention from bad intervention.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I sympathize with part of this point of view. It's sure a heck of a lot easier to think we should just try to get along with other nations, but the fact of the matter is that public opinion worldwide is basically pacifistic on the subject of terrorism. I'm all for trying to have more effective diplomatic measures, but the fact of the matter is that due to economic self-interest and the misguided views of their own constitutents those nations which are sometimes comically referred to as our 'allies' are not interested in meaningful action against terrorism in the long-term. It's the world we live in, and in that world we can either act or we can surrender to a future where people like OBL can blackmail us with nuclear threats.

This is an overly simplistic view.

Public opinion is not "basically pacificistic" on the subject of terrorism worldwide, it is very conflicted.

We do not have only the choices of "acting" or "surrendering".

This is exactly the problem we have in this country.

The War on Terror is a propaganda war. The Islamic Terrorists (and let's not kid ourselves, that's the only kind of terrorist we're talking about here) rely upon their constituents, from financiers to suicide bombers, to believe that they are fighting the good fight against evil and corrupt regimes. If we act in a manner that can be construed to be evil or corrupt (and sadly the history of the invasion of Iraq is now full of examples), we're just doing their job for them.

Ever since the U.S. stopped overtly messing with Middle East politics in 1979 with the fall of the Shah, anyone who has studied the region (and been there) will tell you that slowly but surely moderate elements have sprung up, and interest in, and adoption of, Western and free market ideas and ideals gradually increased. Until 2002.

Since 2002 all of these moderate elements have suffered setbacks. Regimes in the Middle East that were formerly good allies of the U.S. have had to get more radical to appease their radicalized populaces. This is the result of an overt, unilateral and aggressive foreign policy.

We need to get back to what won us the propaganda war against Communism. Let backwards regimes flounder. Give back-channel help to moderate and modernizing regimes. Give behind-the-scenes help to moderate elements in opposing client states. Work diplomatically to open up cracks in opposition states through which our free market tendrils can work.

This was working. The bin laden family used to help the U.S. Government keep tabs on their estranged family member. Now he's probably in Pakistan where no one's inclined to turn him in. Moderate elements used to be gaining some representation in various ME countries (notably Iran). Now they're mostly on the run.

This is what we need to be doing and this is what our foreign policy needs to be able. Always-changing, always-adapting. Not a 21st century crusade, because we'll just lose that battle, like every empire before us has.

[Brian Swartz]

the motherfuckin iraq war wasn't about motherfucking terrorism. Saddam was as much an enemy of muslim fundamentalists like bin ladin as we are. Either you are overlooking this for the sake of making your point, or you are TBH (and there's not really a way to sugarcoat this so I apologize in advance - it's just one of those things that really push my buttons) ignorant.

I'm overlooking nothing, and I'm not ignorant, so you're 0-for-2 there. It's a lot more complicated than simply asking whether Islamic terrorism and Saddam Hussein were allies. He was funding Palestinian suicide bombers against an American ally(Israel, war by proxy). He was flaunting the UN inspections regime. Iraq was a source of instability in the region of the world where Islamic terrorism flourishes. It's not difficult to imagine how the impact of allowing a regime like that to continue to exist promotes terrorism, and how removing it can diminish it.

I think it's pretty clear that it's a failure of philosophy as well. The neocon idea that it is correct to use pre-emptive military action unilaterally has been shown to do little but create more enemies and distribute terrorist sympathizers to more and more locales.

I wouldn't say that's the least bit clear. Moreover, I would say that the fact that most civilized nations of the world today stand openly against the idea that states who sponsor terrorism should be confronted by whatever means necessary indicates that unilateral action will often be the only reasonable course of action. The other alternatives are to (1) Deny that we have been in a state of war against Islamic terrorism for quite some time now(decades), or (2) Pre-emptively adopt a policy of surrender in that war on any front in which the world community is not willing to act.

I disagree. When you send John Bolton to the United Nations that's exactly what you think.

Ridiculous. Bolton was plenty qualified for the job and had experience dealing with the UN. Who do you think should have been sent instead?

My point is that there's a difference between the U.S. acting as a dumb bully and as a benevolent older brother. We've been the former for the past 8 years

An appropriate stance lies in between those two extremes. Being a 'benevolent older brother' does not have enough teeth. Willingness to act unilaterally if necessary is essential to any nation's defense, not just ours. The characterization of the last 8 years is not entirely accurate either.

[Brian Swartz]

Public opinion is not "basically pacificistic" on the subject of terrorism worldwide, it is very conflicted.

Really? Then why is it that poll after poll before the Iraq War in England, France, Germany etc. indicated that the public in those countries did not support the war no matter what -- i.e., even if Saddam was doing everything we thought he might be doing?

If we act in a manner that can be construed to be evil or corrupt (and sadly the history of the invasion of Iraq is now full of examples), we're just doing their job for them.

There is only one course of action that satisfies this condition. Total withdrawal from any involvement in international affairs. Anything else can and will be construed as such by many elements. And if we did that, it would be construed as a de facto surrender, an assessment that wouldn't be far off the mark by the way, with disastrous consequences.

We need to get back to what won us the propaganda war against Communism. Let backwards regimes flounder. Give back-channel help to moderate and modernizing regimes. Give behind-the-scenes help to moderate elements in opposing client states. Work diplomatically to open up cracks in opposition states through which our free market tendrils can work.

This was working.

No it wasn't. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were continuously escalating, not decreasing in the time period prior to 2002. This was happening precisely because we were treating it as a criminal issue, and you can issue as many indictments and convictions as you want, but when you are at war the enemy isn't going to care. Acceptance of that as a continuing pattern was, is, and always will be a de facto position of pre-emptive surrender, no matter how you want to dress it up otherwhise.

[Brian Swartz]

What constitutes dealing with terrorism? Our adventure i Iraq has been acknowledged by nearly everyone to have increased the rolls of Al Queada. In Afghanistan we've been supported by our NATO allies, but we chose to pull forces from there to fight in Iraq.

Part of the problem with neo-con foreign policy is the seeming belief that any military action in the ME is a good thing. I believe that events have shown us that military intervention can sometimes leave us weaker than no intervention. The issue isn't intervention or isolation, it's about the judgment necessary to determine good intervention from bad intervention.

A lot of things constitute dealing with terrorism, but certainly a definition of that must include confronting it wherever it is found. I think it's clear that the rolls of Al Qaida would have increased regardless of our involvement in Iraq. They certainly weren't going away if we'd stopped at Afghanistan.

I don't think hardly anybody believes that ANY military attack in the ME is a good thing. Certainly there can be substantive reasons to be against the Iraq War but the question then becomes how do we deal with Islamic terrorism? Every idea I've heard has boiled down to either taking action to deprive them of safe havens or acting only when the world community is on our side, and I've already expressed what I think about that one.

[JPhillips]

Brian: If you see Iraq as a great success story we'll never be able to agree. Have fun.

[Brian Swartz]

I think I've made it pretty clear in my posts that I don't see it that way. I see it as a mixed bag.

[st.cronin]

Back on topic: I think Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. Now, who's the veep?

[DaddyTorgo]

i'd love to see Joe Biden as V.P. I think he's probably one of the most intelligent and well-spoken potential V.P.'s, and he would also bring a wealth of foreign policy experience to counter the republicans trying to point out Obama's relative foreign policy inexperience.

[ISiddiqui]

Richardson definitely brings something to the ticket. He can get Hispanics on board the Obama campaign, whereas, they are more likely to be McCain supporters. Throw states like New Mexico to Obama's side.

[st.cronin]

There are a LOT of skeletons in Richardson's closet, or actually his living room. I don't think he would be a good choice, although its true he would help with hispanics and the west. On the other hand, Obama-Richardson would be weak in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan.

[st.cronin]

dola

I think Obama-Clinton would be a very strong ticket.

[JPhillips]

I think the unity ticket is a bad idea. During th campaign it will be hard for Hillary to be subservient to Obama and if he wins having the Clinton team around is a recipe for competing agendas. She may help with some demographic sets, but overall I think it will hurt more than it will help.

For Hillary, I don't see why she'd want the job. I think she'll get a leadership position in the Senate as part of the negotiations for her to drop out and she's far more powerful there than she'll be as Obama's #2.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'd love to see Joe Biden as V.P. I think he's probably one of the most intelligent and well-spoken potential V.P.'s, and he would also bring a wealth of foreign policy experience to counter the republicans trying to point out Obama's relative foreign policy inexperience.

Plus he's already spoken highly of Obama, calling him (as I recall) "nice and clean."

I think pretty highly of Biden overall, but in the modern campaign setting, I think he's a liability. He talks too much, and too frequently off the cuff, and just by his nature he's bound to be a complete font of material for those who play the gotcha-style sound bite game. I think Obama is too scarred from that sort of thing (in the very immediate past) to see past this serious liability for Biden.

[ISiddiqui]

Really? Then why is it that poll after poll before the Iraq War in England, France, Germany etc. indicated that the public in those countries did not support the war no matter what -- i.e., even if Saddam was doing everything we thought he might be doing?

They were against the war no matter what, because even if Saddam was developing WMD, it didn't have anything to do with Islamic terrorism. If anything, it'd probably be used against terrorist groups. And no one believed he had ties with Al Queda. And paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers isn't "funding terrorism", it is providing payment to offset the loss of a potential wage earner. I mean, really... no one is going to be persuaded to blow themselves up because Saddam is paying their families if they do!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the unity ticket is a bad idea. During th campaign it will be hard for Hillary to be subservient to Obama and if he wins having the Clinton team around is a recipe for competing agendas. She may help with some demographic sets, but overall I think it will hurt more than it will help.

For Hillary, I don't see why she'd want the job. I think she'll get a leadership position in the Senate as part of the negotiations for her to drop out and she's far more powerful there than she'll be as Obama's #2.

These are good points, but I just can't think of a better name. Ted Strickland, maybe? Bob Casey?

[JPhillips]

I've heard Bayh as a way to connect to the Clinton's. I don't think he offers much, but who knows. Other names I've heard are Napolitano or Sibelius as women governors who would be strong with the same demos as Clinton. Contrary to four or eight years ago the Democratic governor field is pretty deep. Jim Webb is also a possibility.

I love Ted Strickland as he's an old family friend, but he's not great on the stump. He's as honest a politician as I've met ad he's done great things for southern Ohio as a Representative, however, I like him more as the governor of Ohio than the VP. I'm not even sure how strong his support in Ohio is as he was lucky enough to run for governor the year the Ohio Republicans proved themselves both corrupt and incompetent.

[Brian Swartz]

They were against the war no matter what, because even if Saddam was developing WMD, it didn't have anything to do with Islamic terrorism. If anything, it'd probably be used against terrorist groups. And no one believed he had ties with Al Queda. And paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers isn't "funding terrorism", it is providing payment to offset the loss of a potential wage earner. I mean, really... no one is going to be persuaded to blow themselves up because Saddam is paying their families if they do!

I fail to see the substantive difference between 'providing paymenet to offset the loss of a potential wage earner' and say, buying weapons or providing training or anything else that would be considered funding terrorism.

On world, opinion, Gallup conducted a poll shortly after 9-11 that is on point. It dealt directly with terrorism. A couple of the questions were extremely enlightening.

The first one dealt with what the U.S. should do in the event they identify the terrorists responsible. Options were attempt to extradite, military force against the countries harboring them, or don't know/no answer. Despite the well-documented failure of using the criminal track to deal with terrorism, it was the overwhelming choice in 34 of the 36 countries polled. Other than the U.S. and Israel, it was almost 3:1 or more against military action in almost every country except for Korea(38 for military action, 54 for extradition). Keep in mind this was at the high point of the groundswell of support for the US. Is it even remotely reasonable to think this attitude has become MORE militaristic in the interim?

On the subject of Obama's running mate, I frankly don't think it matters much. McCain's choice will be far more important.

[ISiddiqui]

I fail to see the substantive difference between 'providing paymenet to offset the loss of a potential wage earner' and say, buying weapons or providing training or anything else that would be considered funding terrorism.

Then I don't think we have common ground here, because I see an extremely vast difference between the two.

Other than the U.S. and Israel, it was almost 3:1 or more against military action in almost every country except for Korea(38 for military action, 54 for extradition).

Did they ask a follow up on what if the attempt to extradite failed? Other countries tend to be far less militaristic than the US or Isreal, and would rather exhaust the diplomatic angle first. After all, they weren't in nearly such vast opposition to removing Iraq from Kuwait. It's because all the channels had been gone through.

[Buccaneer]

The issue isn't intervention or isolation, it's about the judgment necessary to determine good intervention from bad intervention.

I agree with this.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think pretty highly of Biden overall, but in the modern campaign setting, I think he's a liability. He talks too much, and too frequently off the cuff, and just by his nature he's bound to be a complete font of material for those who play the gotcha-style sound bite game.

Hey, it works in St. McCain's favor. Biden would basically be McCain-lite, just without the history of flip-flopping and the fawning adulation of the MSM.

[st.cronin]

What about Russ Feingold for veep? Too liberal?

[Swaggs]

I think Bob Kerrey would be a good choice for Obama.