American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I don't have too much to comment on the specifics of the effectiveness of the two missle systems. I don't think any of us really know enough about the real details to know, but I can understand people having an opinion on it based on what both "sides" have published.

What I find interesting in the last few posts though, is a position that you, Roberto, have taken over Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, et al. I'm not saying that the White House decision was wrong or right, but the position that you have taken seems to me to be a little simplistic and flawed and what I often see as a problem with people who consider themselves "do-gooders" as opposed to the "evil conservatives" and the "warhawks" et al. (who have their own set of problems, to be sure!)

You make mention of the Cold War, and that it's supposedly over and the Conservatives are taking a contradictory position now, having in the past extolled Ronald Reagan as being one who stood firm in the face of the last dying gasps of the old Soviet Union (instead of just giving in and treating them like equals because they made a little noise about democracy as the old skin sloughed off) After all, if Reagan won the cold war, how could we still need all of this political clout in the region? Of course, the easiest comparison to that, I think, would be what happened between the First World War (The War to End All Wars) and the Second World War? The Allies won the first against Germany? Why was there a second?

To me, it seems that you cavalierly dismiss one thing that IS good about keeping the plan the way it was under Bush; that is, to make our allies in Eastern Europe feel safe and to help ensure they remain our allies (and not Russia's, for example) against WHATEVER threat may arise from that region.

THEY remember the Soviet Union. THEY remember what it means to live next to that rumbling giant and to be affected directly.

Okay, so maybe the "people" who make up the population have in large parts forgotten, or think that the threat is minimal, or what have you. The fact is, though, I don't think the governments, or the people who run the governments, have forgotten.

Earlier, you castigate those of us who really do not like the government to take our own money out of our hands to pay for things that we feel are moving the US towards socialism, things that "redistribute wealth" from the rich to the poor by force (and there are A LOT of us) using the argument that the government has the power (explicit in law or implicit in the Constitution) to tell us that it is for our own good, so shut up and do it, like it or lump it (as my mother used to say)

But now, you use as one the items of your argument over moving the planned missle bases out of Eastern Europe the "fact" that polls in Poland and the Czech Republic show that the people over there favor that very thing and can't we see that that is the best course of action because it's what the people there want?

Should we worry about what the people of Poland and the Czech Reublic think if their governments are happy with the protection and money that we are giving them in return for their support against whatever bad may happen in the region? After all, their government has the same power over their poeple that our government has over our people. Shouldn't we be worried about government-to-government relations, or is it ok to ignore a large portion of our people here on some things, and listen to a large number of their people over there on some things?

And why is it that we are supposed to ignore political realities for what are supposed to be "good" things (thought so by the "do-gooders") The point that Sidney was trying to make (I think) about the dictator not honoring contracts was that so we do something "good" - we expect the other side to do something "good" in return? And be honest about it? Why? They are more likely to think that we are naive for believing they would to begin with I think, and then take advantage of our apparent weakness.

Did Gorbachev's Perestroika come about because the US, out of the goodness of its heart, talked to the good people of the USSR and made them see that being friends was better than being enemies (something the government of Russia still has not learned completely, and therefore should be treated with suspicion in my opinion) or did Gorbachev and Perestroika emerge as a result of the pressure that the US kept on the USSR over DECADES?

Is that all the "do-gooders" in this country remember is Gorbachev and his Perestroika? Do they not remember the (relative to Gorbachev, at least) hardliners that followed and the anti-American sentiment that has started to resurface in Russia? Have they forgotten about the large number of nuclear weapons that have fallen into the hands of military leaders and possibly sold on the black market as the USSR fell and broke up? Have they forgotten a lot of what has gone on since the late 80s early 90s? Should we treat Russia as a friend, or more like an old enemy who may still have a few tricks up their sleeve?

Again, I am not arguing whether or not we should be removing those bases and the money we promised the Polish and Czech governments; I honestly don't know enough to make such an opinion, at least strongly.

I am saying that your argument that we should be nice guys, play "fair" with Russia to make them like us, and ignore the Polish and Czech government and listen to their people is flawed.

In fact, using even the "saving money" argument is a little futile in my opinion - did you see that link that someone posted related to how much saving is $100 million dollars? How much are we really saving in moving these systems out of these countries and is it worth some possible hard feelings on the part of our allies?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question either, but I think it's worth asking.

[QUOTE=El Queso] "I can understand people having an opinion on it based on what both "sides" have published."

EXACTLY AND LOTS OF WHAT IS BEING WRITTEN IS OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS, NOT SPIN.

"Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, et al. The position that you have taken seems to me to be a little simplistic and flawed and what I often see as a problem with people who consider themselves "do-gooders"

ALTHOUGH I LIKE TO DO GOOD, CALLING ME A "DO GOODER" – AS SOME FELLOW POSTERS DO – IS A MEANS OF INDICATING MY "SOFT" SENTIMENTS TAINT MY ANALYSIS.

I CONSIDER MYSELF A REALIST WHO FINDS IDEOLOGY DANGEROUS AND TIRESOME.

PROPOSING THAT PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENTS SHOULD WORK TO MINIMIZE CONFLICT AND MAXIMIZE COOPERATION WHILE KEEPING THEIR EYES OPEN IS GOOD, PLAIN OLD COMMON SENSE.

MY VIEWS ON THE RUSSIA, POLAND, CZECH RELATIONSHIP ARE SHARED AMONG FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS FROM COLIN POWELL, ZBIG BREZINSKI, SCOWCROFT, ETC. THEY KNOW FAR MORE THAN I DO, SO I WOULD SAY "SIMPLISTIC" ISN'T A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION, "FLAWED" IS A MATTER OF OPINION.

"You make mention of the Cold War"

YES, AND I HAVE SOME FUN AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO CLAIM REAGAN'S POLICIES WON IT. THAT CLAIM IGNORES SO MUCH OF WHAT HAPPENED TO CAUSE THE IMPLOSION OF THE SOVIET UNION THAT IS CAN CORRECTLY BE CALLED "SIMPLISTIC" AND "FLAWED."

WHAT WAS THE MAIN CAUSE WAS THAT THE COMMUNIST SYSTEM OF ECONOMIC CONTROL SELF-IMPLODED. THE INTERNAL DYSFUNCTIONALITY OF THE SYSTEM FINALLY CAUGHT UP WITH REALITY. REAGAN WAS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME TO GET SOME UNDESERVED CREDIT.

THE ONLY INFLUENCE OF THE US THAT PUSHED THE SOVIETS TOWARD COLLAPSE WAS THE INSANE MILITARY SPENDING BY BOTH ADVERSARIES. FOR EXAMPLE, EVER EXPANDING NUCLEAR ARSENALS ON EACH SIDE WHILE EACH ALREADY HAD ENOUGH BOMBS TO EVAPORATE THE WORLD SEVERAL TIMES OVER. THE SOVIETS DIDN'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO KEEP UP.

NOW OSAMA BIN LADEN IS USING A SIMILAR STRATEGY AGAINST US. HIS DISCOUNT MARKET TERRORISM THREAT HAS GUARANTEED THAT THE US NOW SPENDS MORE ON DEFENSE THAN THE COMBINED SPENDING BY ALL OUR ALLIES AND ADVERSARIES. THE FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE CAN BE MEASURED IN THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS.

THE US HAS BEEN ON THE ROAD THAT BROUGHT THE SOVIETS TO THEIR KNEES – CHOKING ON WASTEFUL MILITARY SPENDING, PURSUING AN EMPIRE IT DOESN'T NEED AND CAN'T AFFORD.

THE NEVER-ENDING DRAIN ON THE US ECONOMY IS A BIG PART OF WHY DEFICITS ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND MONEY FOR CRITICAL NON-MILITARY EXPENSES ARE DWINDLING RAPIDLY.

A LOOK BACK AT WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON ON OUR SIDE AS THE SOVIET UNION SELF-DESTRUCTED IS VERY REVEALING. RECENTLY UNCOVERED DOCUMENTS PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT, ALTHOUGH REAGAN HAD CRIED "TEAR DOWN THAT WALL" IN PUBLIC - IN SECRET MARGARET THATCHER AND GEORGE H. W. BUSH, TRIED TO GET GORBIE TO KEEP THE BERLIN WALL STANDING.

SO MUCH FOR WANTING TO DESTROY THE EVIL EMPIRE. THE FUCKING HYPOCRITES. WHAT THEY WANTED WAS TO KEEP THEIR RESPECTIVE MILITARY MACHINES HUMMING, GENERATING POLITICAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL BACKING. THE LAST THING WAR HAWKS WANT IS PEACE.

"The Allies won the first against Germany? Why was there a second?

MOST HISTORIANS SAY THE MAJOR CAUSE WAS THE PEACE AGREEMENTS AFTER WWI WERE SO DAMAGING TO GERMANY, THAT THE RESENTMENT GAVE AN OPENING FOR HITLER TO COME ALONG AND APPEAL TO GERMAN NATIONALISM AND CREATE HIS FASCIST STATE.

"To me, it seems that you cavalierly dismiss one thing that IS good about keeping the plan the way it was under Bush; that is, to make our allies in Eastern Europe feel safe and to help ensure they remain our allies (and not Russia's, for example) against WHATEVER threat may arise from that region."

IF YOU READ ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUSH PLAN IT DID NOT MAKE OUR ALLIES FEEL SAFE, JUST THE OPPOSITE. IT WAS OPPOSED BY EVERY MAJOR NATO MEMBER. THEY FELT IT MADE RELATIONS BETWEEN THEM AND RUSSIA MORE DANGEROUS. THEY DON'T SHARE THE US HYSTERIA ON IRAN AND NOTE IRAN NEVER INVADED A NEIGHBOR (UNLIKE THE US)

THE RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS IN POLAND AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC BOUGHT INTO THE PLAN FOR FINANCIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL REASONS. THE CZECH PARTY WHO SUPPORTED THE BUSH DEAL LOST RECENT LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS.

WE SHOULDN'T SPEND BILLIONS TO MAKE ANYONE 'FEEL' SAFE. WE CAN'T AFFORD POLICIES BASED ON FEELINGS. THE NEW OBAMA PLAN USING PROVEN TECHNOLOGY WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS SAFER. PEOPLE WILL NOW HAVE REAL REASON TO FEEL SAFE.

"THEY remember the Soviet Union. THEY remember what it means to live next to that rumbling giant and to be affected directly. I don't think the governments, or the people who run the governments, have forgotten."

MOST OF EUROPE HAS MOVED PAST WWII. VIRTUALLY EVERY EU GOVERNMENT IS DOING MORE AND MORE BUSINESS WITH RUSSIA – ESPECIALLY SEEING AS RUSSIA'S ENERGY SUPPLIES ARE CRITICAL TO THE EU ECONOMY.

POLAND IS A BIT OF AN EXCEPTION FOR OBVIOUS HISTORICAL REASONS. RUSSIA AND POLAND GET ALONG LIKE ARGENTINA AND URUGUAY ON STEROIDS!

ALSO, BUSH SAID FROM DAY ONE ON THAT THE MISSILES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA.

"You castigate those of us who really do not like the government to take our own money. To "redistribute wealth" from the rich to the poor by force."

I DON'T MEAN TO 'CASTIGATE' ANYONE, BUT I DO POINT OUT THAT AS CITIZENS OF A DEMOCRACY ALL OF US HAVE IMPLICITLY AGREED TO GIVE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY OVER US IN A RANGE OF AREAS, INCLUDING THE POWER TO TAX US. I LIKE TO PAY TAXES AS MUCH OR AS LITTLE AS THE NEXT GUY.

THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T TAKING OUR MONEY BY "FORCE." AS A CITIZEN YOU "VOLUNTEER" TO PAY TAXES. THE LEVEL YOU PAY IS DETERMINED AS ELECTED OFFICIALS GOVERN, BASED ON WHAT THEY BELIEVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT.

ELECTIONS ARE HOW THOSE OFFICIALS ARE CHOSEN. IF A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE DECISIONS THEY CAN REMOVE THEM AT THE NEXT ELECTION. IF THEY GET RE-ELECTED THAT MEANS THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THEIR DECISIONS.

SINCE THE 1930'S THE US TAX SYSTEM HAS BEEN PROGRESSIVE – MEANING THE WEALTHY SUPPOSEDLY PAY MORE THAN THE POOR (ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY ALL THE TIME) AGAIN IF THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT, THEY NEED TO VOTE AND CHANGE THE LEADERS.

PEOPLE CAN ALWAYS MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY IF THEY TRULY ARE UNHAPPY AND THE ELECTORATE CONTINUES TO SUPPORT POLITICIANS WHO MAKE DECISIONS THEY DON'T LIKE.

MY PROBLEM IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO IGNORE THE LAST ELECTION WHERE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS WERE CHOSEN BY A LARGE PROPORTION OF AMERICANS. ELECTIONS HAVE WINNERS AND LOSERS. THIS TIME THE LOSERS ARE BEHAVING LIKE SOMEHOW THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN STOLEN.

I ASSURE YOU THE KIND OF ATTACKS THAT ARE BEING USED ON OBAMA ARE NOT GOING TO GET MODERATES AND INDEPENDENTS TO GO WITH THE EXTREMISTS IN 2010 OR 2012.

THE D'S MAY LOSE IF THE ECONOMY IS NOT MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT THE R'S CAN BLOW IT IF THEY SERVE UP THE UGLY STUFF THAT THE VOTERS REJECTED IN 2006 AND 2008.

"Poland and the Czech Republic. Shouldn't we be worried about government-to-government relations."

GOVERNMENTS HAVE SHORT MEMORIES. US / POLISH / CZECH RELATIONS WILL BE FINE BEFORE YOUR COFFEE GETS COLD.

"Did Gorbachev and Perestroika emerge as a result of the pressure that the US kept on the USSR over DECADES?"

ADDRESSED ABOVE.

Your argument that we should be nice guys, play "fair" with Russia to make them like us, and ignore the Polish and Czech government and listen to their people is flawed.

How much are we really saving in moving these systems out of these countries and is it worth some possible hard feelings on the part of our allies?"

I DON'T ARGUE WE SHOULD BE NICE GUYS, I COULD GIVE A FUCK IF RUSSIA LIKES US. GOVERNMENTS DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER. THEY ARE NOT TENNIS PARTNERS.

BUT WE SHOULD BE SMART GUYS. A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR MISSILE SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T WORK IS DUMB - PLAIN AND SIMPLE. DUMPING IT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH RUSSIA ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IF WE GET SOMETHING IN RETURN FROM THEM, THAT IS ICING ON THE CAKE.

IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED HOW THE POLISH AND CZECH GOVERNMENTS WERE BROUGHT INTO THE BUSH DEAL, YOU WOULD SEE THAT THEY REALLY WENT ALONG FOR FINANCIAL REASONS. THEY KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY IS DUBIOUS AT BEST, BUT FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS THEY SAW BILLIONS OF YOUR AND MY DOLLARS BEING SPREAD AROUND GETTING THEM VOTES (AND DACHAS TOO PROBABLY)

WE WILL SAVE AT LEAST $4 BILLION AS A START BY KILLING THE PLAN. WE WILL SPEND SOME MORE MONEY IN BOTH COUNTRIES ON LESS STUPID THINGS TO BUY OFF THEIR POLITICIANS AND EVERYONE WILL BE LOVEY DOVEY IN NO TIME. YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK – THEY WILL![/QUOTE] THE FIRST RULE OF FOREIGN POLICY WAS STATED BY MICHAEL CORLEONE - "IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL, IT'S ONLY BUSINESS!"

HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED HOW THE US IS CHAVEZ' NUMBER ONE OIL CUSTOMER TODAY AND HAS BEEN SINCE HE CAME TO POWER. NO AMERICAN I KNOW SAYS WE SHOULD TELL THE VENEZUELAN DUFFOS TO KEEP HIS OIL AND GO FUCK OFF.

[QUOTE=Sidney]My friend, how naive are you?[/QUOTE]With such in depth analysis and cogent discussion points as well!

[QUOTE=Sidney]''What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose''

[url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm[/url]

===========================================

Under the current administration, it is increasingly difficult to know who the enemy is, but what is certain is that the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is a brilliantly executed psychological warfare by way of misinformation.

[url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18837.htm[/url][/QUOTE]They seem like the intellectual equivalents of the fun-house mirrors of our youth!

[QUOTE=Sidney]My friend, how naive are you?[/QUOTE]Time for new reading glasses, Sid!

Looking over my post to Queso I will guess you refer to the revelations about Thatcher and Bush wanting the Berlin Wall to stand.

I guess you wish to cast doubt on the newly discovered contemporaneous minutes from the Russian archives of the meetings and discussions I referred to, where Maggie expressed opposition to the unification of Germany to Gorbie.

The notes do not stand alone. They reinforce and are consistent with prior revelations, documents and material from German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, French President Mitterand and her own private Secretary Charles Powell.

The Russian documents provide missing details that reflect her secret attempt to derail a unified Germany that she thought was not in Britain's best interests.

Kohl and Mitterand have addressed her intransigence in their memoirs, as has Powell whose notes from that time period reflect her strong opinions.

I know that the Iron Lady is apparently suffering from Alzhiemer's Disease. Still, that doesn't fully explain the lack of any disclaimer from her people of the veracity of the archive documents. George Bush Senior hasn't issued a denial of their veracity. He still has his faculties, as far as I know.

It is not necessary to believe the Russian material, but there seems to be no reason to dismiss it, seeing as it is consistent with other verified information.

The role of historians is not to ignore documents based on one's prejudices, but to put together pieces of a puzzle to create a coherent picture based on all the information available. In that vein, the Russian documents have been accepted at face value by the British media and commentariat.

Maybe I should ask: "Please explain why you would believe anything from Bush / Cheney"?"

If the Russkies made up the Thatcher notes (putting aside why they didn't use them to discredit her before) they would be like the CIA-connected "yellow cake" guys who in 2002 doctored Nigerian official paperwork trying to make it look like Saddam bought it to make nukes.

The counterfeit documents were so poorly forged that Italian experts immediately figured it out and informed US intelligence. But that didn't stop the fraudulent information from being used by Bush / Cheney / Rice et al to sell the American public their WMD bullshit, so we could go to war against Iraq.

I again ask - Why would you or any half way sentient person believe anything from Bush / Cheney"?"

Now if Putin announces tomorrow that the sun rises in the east, should we take that as a false, ethnocentric boast?

And be careful defending Maggie here in BA, you may never get laid again!

Here are the line-ups for the Sunday talk shows this weekend:

• ABC, This Week: President Barack Obama.

• CBS, Face The Nation: President Barack Obama.

• CNN, State Of The Union: President Barack Obama; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

• Fox News Sunday: ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA); FedEx CEO Fred Smith, and Moody's Economy. Com chief economist Mark Zandi.

• NBC, Meet The Press: President Barack Obama; House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

[QUOTE=Sidney]I believed nothing Bush / Cheney said. I fail to see the relevance of Thatcher. Putin is the typical Russian dictato liar![/QUOTE]We could have double teamed the opposition on the forum.

I agree Putin sucks (to be analytical)

My Thatcher reference was in response to Queso comments on the Cold War. I noted how the conservative leaders of the west were always (to be kind) schizophrenic on the Soviet challenge - they rode the fear of the Reds to power. Then they lined the pockets of their pals in the military industrial complex. Finally, their rhetoric notwithstanding, they pursued policies that were more designed to maintain the status quo than to conquer the evil adversaries. Few liberal leaders were much better.

Today, US Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) one of the most conservative members of Congress, admitted that President Obama is not a socialist!

On Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Boehner whether he agreed with RNC Chair Steele that health care reform represents a "socialist power grab" by the Democrats.

"Do you really think the president is a socialist?" Gregory asked Boehner.

"Listen, you can call it whatever you want," Boehner responded.

Gregory persisted: "Do you think the president is a socialist?"

"No!" the Ohio House representative exclaimed.

"But the head of the Republican Party is calling him that," Gregory insisted.

"I didn't call him that," Boehner responded. "I won't call him that."

Obviously Boehner doesn't read the posts on Argentina Private!

Big news here. 3.9B is not a figure I see in the news every day.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_innovation[/url]

Another Obama speech.

This is definitely going our way.

I'm seeing deals made closer to 100 million and in the billions. The Russians sued bank Carnegie for 22 Billion. The worst one is Nathan M Rothschild & Sons. They should get rid of it.

They are offering amnesty to international tax dodgers.

2 men charged in NY with $80 million Ponzi scheme.

Jobs will pick up in 2010 they're saying.