Big Ol' Smitty

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...npoll06.art.htm

Hey, that Mike guy sucks I hear.

good thread

n/t (see sig)

So, we talk a lot about domestic and economic policy here and, frankly, that's boring to me. I want to discuss foreign policy and national security. Let's start with Russia. They've recently invaded Georgia, engaged in naval exercises with Venezuela, sent bombers to Cuba, bribed the Kyrgyz government to shut down a US airbase, and announced plans for significantly modernizing their military. The Obama Administrations has pushed for a "reset" of US-Russian relations and tried to get Russia to cooperate on the Iranian nuclear issue by holding out the possibility of removing missile defense installations from the Czech Republic and Poland (which the administration probably doesn't even care about anyway). Is Russia a potential threat to US security? How should the US respond to these seemingly aggressive actions by the Ruskies, if at all? How gangsta is Vlad Putin?

Finland really messed them up. Simo Hayha ftw.

It's looking less likely.

Another problem in this thread is that most of us are arguing about whether gay marriage should or should not be legal white Atticus Chaos is arguing about a strategy for making it so.

Your privateers are at it again, XC. http://warisboring.com/?p=1839

I wasn't actually advocating for either of these things, btw. I apologize if it came off like that. Isolationism is, to my mind, just as wrong-headed and pernicious as imperialism. Both of them ultimately grow out of the injurious Us vs. Them line of thinking, and it's that line of thinking that I'm ultimately opposed to. I fully agree that America has a huge role to play in combating those threats I mentioned, and with our resources it's only logical that we lead the charge. The problem comes when we equate "leading the charge" with "telling other countries what to do." We need to engage the globe on its own terms, not just on ours Completely agree here.

I think so, yeah. It would take a massive ideological realignment in the country, and a concerted effort to understand the world in a fundamentally different manner than we do now. But I think it's possible. The fact is, we really cannot keep going the way we're going. As long as we stay on this path the threats that are already manifesting themselves (terrorism, climate change, economic collapse) are only going to intensify and newer, more dangerous threats are certain to arise. I think the problems you're referring to actually require strong US leadership a la Bush I and Clinton (in grand strategy parlance, engagement). A Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich type turn by the US would be antithetical to solving the three problems that you've mentioned. Again, I have to disagree. I think most of George HW Bush's & Clinton's foreign policies were pretty successful, from stopping Iraqi aggression against Kuwait to stopping genocide in the Balkans. I don't want to go into list mode again and tick off gtd, but I don't think your statement is accurate with respect to those two presidencies. Bush II and Reagan, yep. I guess you're referring to the drone strikes in Pakistan here? I agree that these are problematic and are pissing off Pakistanis. But it seems pretty clear that Zardari wants the strikes and just criticizes them for show. These areas are being used as a haven for terrorists, and the drone strikes are a much better option that sending in US troops. The Pakistani military or intelligence services obviously aren't going to anything about it, so I think right now it's the best of many bad options we have.

One small quibble for Nightwing: I'm pretty sure we did back the coup against Venezuela in '02.

The Economist is really damn expensive, but it's weekly and fat.

Come on, friend. 1. There was that whole 258-years-of-trading-millions-of-African-slaves thing. 2. Before the Spanish-American War, the US conquered the Native Americans, Mexicans, and Hawaiians. The slave trade ended by the early 1800s in the US. I guess American attacks on the Native Americans could be considered acting internationally, but in nothing more than a regional role--same with Mexico. The Hawaiian overthrow and annexation was around the time period I mentioned. But I agree that all those things were bad. I think my point pretty much stands.

Hey, you didn't have to [sic] me, you can spell the word for the principles and practices of the National Socialist Workers’ party under Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945 both ways, you jerk!

Hey, just wanted to say good points all around, King.

Montell Jordan- "This Is How We Do It" Snoop Doggy Dogg- "Gin and Juice" Tough decision on that one. Warren G. (ft. Nate Dogg)- "Regulate" Fiona Apple- "Criminal" Very easy decision on that one. Nirvana- "Heart Shaped Box" Smashing Pumpkins- "1979" Battle of the "mehs." R.E.M.- "Losing My Religion" Blind Melon- "No Rain" Skee-Lo- "I Wish" 2Pac- "California Love" I'm all about Skee-Lo's cinderella run. Dr. Dre (ft. Snoop Doggy Dogg)- "Nuthin But a G Thang" Red Hot Chili Peppers- "Under the Bridge" New Radicals- "You Get What You Give" Faith No More- "Epic" Lisa Loeb & Nine Stories- "Stay" Meat Loaf- "I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)"

Another man's BUTT in your cock?

I don't think there's really a historical consensus that this is the case. http://www.ncesa.org/html/hiroshima.html The whole thing's worth reading.

I think so--he talks about them in The Fog of War, which is a pretty interesting documentary. Curtis LeMay was the main honcho behind them, though.

We blew up way more than one city. One thing that I learned recently was that the firebombing of Tokyo was the single deadliest episode in human history as far as deaths/time.

I'm talking about policy that persisted throughout the Cold War. Which ended not that long ago.

The first part is right, the second part really isn't. By the 50s and 60s we pretty much knew all the horrible stuff about nukes. And that didn't really change policy. In fact, they became even more integrated into national and global defense strategies, to the point that we even let the Soviets pass us in ground forces and decided to rely on a nuclear trump card in the event of aggression in Western Europe. Ike even specifically stated that he didn't want a stigma or taboo to develop around using nukes because, well, we might want to use them. The US also never took a "no first strike" pledge, while the USSR did.

I hate to keep beating this drum, but I'm pretty sure it freaked people out to see interracial couples on TV or read about them back in the day, like in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Most people got over it. What's so bad about acknowledging that gay people exist? Someone being uncomfortable or finding something icky just isn't a strong enough argument to marginalize a class of people.

This is, frankly, absurd. The US outspends Russia militarily greater than 10 to 1. Let me say that again, TEN TO ONE. We also have have more active duty troops and close to as many total troops, not to mention that our troops have superior training and are way better equipped. I could go into our staggering naval and airpower advantages, but I believe I've made my point. With respect to Russia's meddling in the Western hemisphere and military buildup, I basically consider them a gnat on America's ass. They've been hit as hard as anyone by the global economic crisis and low gas & oil prices. I basically see all of this as posturing designed to distract from their serious domestic problems.