« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Is A Thumb A Finger?
Electricity production is up. The yellow cake is gone. Condi Rice is still proud of deposing Saddam Hussein. McCain is still willing to hang on in the Middle East as long as American casualities are below some undefined acceptable level, i.e., a level that won't turn people out into the streets and turn every last Republican out of office.
And Obama is still determined to end the occupation of Iraq within sixteen months of taking office.
The price of oil is going up, and the supply of oil is running out. Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda. Israel. Palestine. Gaza. The Middle East.
And Bush finally gets something right. The Olympic Games is a sporting event. And it occurs to me this morning that the games finished Carter off. More than Iran, more than gasoline shortages, the Olympics finished Carter off, because we understand the Olympics. And we understand when someone has crossed the line between symbolic gestures and real action, between rhetoric and results.
So what do we want to happen in the Middle East?
What's our goal? Where do we want to end up? If international relations is like a chess game, do we have a winning plan, or are we living move to move? Do we have a vision of what we want the Middle East and our position in the Middle East to look like four years from now? Eight years from now?
The players? Looking at my labled map, I see Iran and Iraq. Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran share borders with Iraq. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt share borders with Israel. On the other side of Iran, Afghanistan. Is Afghanistan in the Middle East? Is a thumb a finger?
Does anyone have a vision of what the Middle East should look like in four years, or are we just hoping to get our share of the oil as it's running out? Every day I'm feeling more and more like the great Durante. Stay? Go? I've got a hat, but I can't sing or dance.
Somehow, I think we should stay.
Comments (151)
You clearly misunderstand the question, which is not whether we stay or go. The proper question is, presuming we stay, what are our policies and practices? (In our heavily internationalized world, there is no "go" other than a wonderful Japanese board game.)
July 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your vision? That's the question.
July 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turning it about, what is the intuition behind your "Somehow, I think we should stay."
Can you flesh that out a little?
July 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The invasion was ideological folly. The Iraqis don't want us there. The Islamic world doesn't want us there. The expense of remaining is barbarous in treasure, in blood, in the way the rest of the world perceives us. We go. We leave in as sensible a manner as possible. We do our best to shift our sources of energy. We muddle through.
July 6, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha.
July 7, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever seen the Mad Max movies?
That's how I picture the U.S. in 8 years.
July 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disagree. I think it will take a generation or two to get to that level. OTOH, if conditions are right, I think it could actually be uglier than Mad Max by 2016.
July 6, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't entirely serious. :-)
July 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was.
July 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know.
July 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't.
July 6, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Should we go?" is a question that the United States should answer for itself. I haven't seen any indication that the country as a whole supports continuing the Iraqi debacle, so the answer to this question is "yes."
"Should we stay?" is not a question for Americans to answer. We keep forgetting that Iraq is not a colony of the United States but a sovereign country of its own. Therefore, since an overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want us to stay, the answer to this question is "no."
Keeping an army in Iraq for another 100 years, or one day for that matter, clearly runs counter to the will of the majority of people concerned on both sides of the Atlantic.
July 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Noam Chomsky agrees with you, Tankard, that government policy runs counter to public opinion. In April he did this interesting (brief) analysis of Barack's and Hillary's positions on Iraq, Israel, and Iran. This is what he says about public attitudes toward relations with Iran:
It's a good read.
July 6, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for Chomsky that he did all that fine work in structuralism and language. I'll always be impressed with that stuff.
July 6, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you after a realistic vision or a vision of idealistic fantasy?
July 6, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying for realistic.
July 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'American' realism is not conducive to obtaining alignment with Middle East culture and probably not even in their best interests. The many factions to be considered in ME are more than about oil (which seems to be the central topic of your post). The future promise of the ME should not be mired in 'how it will effect the US'.
However, a few weeks ago was a report about Iraq repaying US expenses in oil - I like that concept. Realistic? Why not?
July 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ideally, I would like to believe that President Obama will have successfully reached diplomatic agreements with Iraq's neighbors in particular (including Iran? if possible)and others to help keep the peace while the U.S. withdraws most of its troops from Iraq. I would further like to see detente, if not entente, between Israel, the Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab world. I would hope for the completion of these goals during the next 4-5 years. Realistically, we will probably have to stay in Iraq during that time while continuing to work on diplomatic solutions.
For the longer term, I would hope for an implementation of a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, and the development of an alternative energy source so that we can get the hell out of the ME.
July 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We will stay. We will get our combat troops out and will keep a contingent of support forces and likely a few bases (they may get other titles for a while) but we will not be leaving in the sense that the most rabid anti-war folk dream of.
I wonder how many people realize how similar Obama and McCain are on this subject? The only difference is Obama knows better than to say the things McCain has said.
Until the magical day our military can function without the use of petroleum, we will be there. I still argue that is why the US supported the creation of Israel. Putting a thorn in the sides of those who sat on the new found fuel of the modern army.
As for vision - it seems like a very straight forward proposition. Barracks may get a few rockets launched into them, but we will be there, ready to step in when the time comes.
July 7, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Stay? Go? I've got a hat, but I can't sing or dance.
Somehow, I think we should stay."
It depends on what your meaning of "stay go" is.
For example: on June 27th. you decided to go.Yet, here you still are. Perhaps we can do Iraq the Billy Glad way, and both Go and Stay.
"Thank you. I'm only engaging because this is the last time I'm going to do it and I wanted to say goodbye to some friends. Goodbye.
Posted by Billy Glad"
June 27, 2008 2:47 PM
July 6, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. is hardly in any position to boycott the Olympics in Beijing. In theory, the U.S. should be banned from the games for our own human rights violations (and fake democracy). In March, the Chinese government released the Human Rights Record of the United States in 2007, which is compiled using data from the U.S. State Department's annual report. (zing!) Not a pretty picture.
Hmmm. Since Americans have never heard of this report, we have yet to do any reflecting.
I'm still reflecting about the Middle East, however, Billy. Thanks for the brilliant challenge. I'm sure we'll still be there.
July 6, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the challenge is going to be breaking the ME problem down into understandable pieces, including the effects of actions we take vis a vis one relationship on all of the other relationships.
My feeling that we should stay is mainly about Israel, the only bastion of Western, i.e., European, civilization in the ME. Maybe when all of the European jews are dead and all of the Israelis are true Middle Easterners, we can leave them to their fate in the region.
July 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's stunning about your question, Billy? Democrats don't have a vision for the Middle East. We count on Republicans to have a vision for that part of the world. Amazing.
But also, there are so many crises that call for immediate attention, it's almost impossible (for me, anyway) to look ahead 8 years.
If all things stay as they are now, Iraq and Afghanistan will be the first priorities, no matter who is president. Obama says he's going to draw down troops, but Bush is moving to beat him to it before November. Also, Bush is talking about boosting troops in Afghanistan (just like Obama has proposed, which will effectively steal Obama's GE debate thunder). The EU countries have just pledged tens of millions in reconstruction aid. The US seems to want a success story there. The Afghan air force (to which the US is donating big-ticket hardware) is supposed to be trained to take control of all its bases (except for Bagram) by 2012.
We have the world's largest embassy in Iraq, and the no-bid service contracts with Exxon, Chevron, Shell, et al are expected to be signed within a year. We know that Obama is going to redeploy troops to Afghanistan and bolster contract mercenary forces in Iraq, like Blackwater.
So like it or not, we are staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 8 years, even if Obama is president.
July 6, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, it's a clash of civilizations? Europe vs. the Orient? Ugh. I suspect I don't share enough of your fundamental premises to have a productive discussion on this topic.
July 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's more like a circle: Arab vs. non-Arab vs. Arab (and circle back to the beginning).
July 6, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure it is that simple, although I think I understand how you get there.
July 7, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Discussions on Israel should start with an exposition of the various positions within that country. They have voices. Americans don't listen to them. Not they know what to do, but we start with the ideas "on the ground." Then we can fight. Then we can have a standoff without a solution.
Like it or not, they are not going to allow nukes in Iran. Right or wrong, that's the reality.
July 6, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but Iran doesn't have nukes.
July 6, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is whether Israel thinks they might get them. I'm not giving an opinion on right or wrong. I'm just recounting what I hear from Israelis. They want something settled before Bush leaves office. They are afraid that Obama won't support them. Again, I'm just repeating what I've heard from Israelis, not giving an opinion on what's right or wrong. I've had a little experience with the Iran situation, a cancelled trip actually, the political situation so fluid from one day to the next. I don't think anyone can predict what will happen in that place.
July 6, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not disagreeing with you, really. Just saying it for the record.
To me, Israel seems very restless lately. But I don't know if that's an accurate perception or if John Bolton is the one who's making me nervous. In any case, it's difficult to get accurate information in the States about Israel.
July 6, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right gasket. And with the Christian Fundamentalists flying Israeli flags at their churches and singing and dancing faux jewish stuff, and with hard core Zionists collecting money from these loonies, and I don't even want to know about the Bush Bible Study Group on the End Times--well all things Israeli seem out of focus.
The Israelis have a mind of their own on this, though they will be happy if we pay for it.
I'm not sure what works here. I wish I did. I have no answer.
July 6, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
July 7, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If geopolitics were a game of Risk, I would isolate the Saudi Peninsula by stationing my armies at the land bridges to Africa (Egypt) and Asia (Iraq). Then I would take the oil by force.
Of course, the Risk strategy is morally depraved, militarily unfeasible and counterproductive to national security in real life.
Therefore, the only acceptable strategy is to station our armies in Iraq only. Then take the oil.
Doh! Been there, done that. Nope, doesn't work.
How about we try to reinstate some stability while trying to strengthen democracy in the Middle East incrementally instead of by force? And how about we wean ourselves away from oil by whatever means seems best to us? In 10 or 20 years, the Middle East might have to modernize just to stay economically viable while demand for its chief export dropped precipitously. Then we might actually have the Arabs over a barrel for a change.
July 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing with the oil in Saudi Arabia is that even if we manage to capture it, it will be sour grapes. They will play along as they always have. We buy, they sell.
Saudi Arabia is not a real part of the question until things get real bad. And by then we will have occupied Canada and vacated the desert called the US.
July 7, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
An ill-informed geography primer.
The term "Middle East" is a holdover from British Empire days.
The Near East included Eastern Mediterranean powers like the Ottoman Empire and Egypt.
The Middle East was further east than the Near East. Perhaps there was an Arab-Persian divide in there, I forget. The Middle East went as far east as you had Muslims and not Hindus.
When you get to India, China, the Philippines, and the ASEAN states, you have reached the Far East.
I think Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan and maybe some of the former Soviet States should today be considered part of the Middle East; if you want to call this area something else, maybe call it Central Asia?
July 6, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roman. You are certainly making an important point here. The oldest cultural divide we might start with though might be the Occident/Orient divide at the pre-Muslim stage between Persia and India. The impact of Islam has made things quite hard to map.
And you make a very good point about former USSR regions. I can't figure it out at first blush. I'd point to Robert Kaplan's work here, but I'd be run out again as a neo-con sympathizer. His interest --similar to yours I'm thinking--goes beyond the more recent emergence of nation states, and looks to the older ethnic and religious divides. But one thing is clear to me. The ability of a small group of religious fanatics, and a group that has roots now of both sides of the old divide, has effectively bypassed the nation state as its goal, while using the existence of one to make their cause.
That's trouble for Israel. And for the world.
July 6, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're pretty discerning, but you probably read a little too much into my musing. Still, what you pulled from it is interesting.
I might comment further when I get a chance to read more of the thread..
July 6, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Kaplan gets to write all sorts of hoohaw because he goes places and writes about places that people do not know well. Read his book about the United States - Empire Wilderness I believe is the title. When you see how completely he misunderstands and blows it on America, you will then perhaps less uncritical while reading his writing about places he clearly knows even less well.
Considering his track record on being wrong, wrong, wrong on Iraq, China, etc, the fact that he still has a job perfectly illustrates the lack of accountability in the media. I did not renew my subscription to the Atlantic because the continue to employ one of the more consistently wrong reporters of this era as some sort of foreign policy expert.
July 6, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who comes from the left, I recognize the hit job that's landed on Kaplan over political reasons. The forces against him are so intense, well, that's because some of what he writes is getting through beyond left and right. Chomsky and crowd seem like the gospel to the left. But there's a fair amount of smoke and stylishness there.
The problems facing the world are more complicated than the old left/right thinking. I would ask you about your experiences traveling in the world, not as a tourist but as a working journalist or writer. I'd like to know that sometime in your experience you've had to face some Islamic fundamentalist, or the like. Perhaps you have. Give me a bit more that is not about theory. Kaplan is a smart guy, and he's spent a lot of times on these ancient trails through the third world. More than most.
But readers here should figure that out themselves. "The Coming Anarchy" is a fine book to start with. Because he got somethings wrong doesn't mean he isn't right about others.
Why the intense lobbying from the left to keep people reading him, to demonize him in a way to scare off people.
Always something going on when this kind of thing shows up--as I predicted it would be just bringing up his name.
July 6, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because although he can write well and persuasively (as someone who has read The Ends of the EArth, Balkan Ghosts, Eastward to Tartary and Empire Wilderness as well as his endless articles in the Atlantic, I feel amply qualified to judge his work) He does recognize symptoms of societies that are faltering under the pressures of industrialization, globalization and urbanization - but his prescription is always the same, imperialism imperialism imperialism. and he is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Being close to a problem does not always equip people to know the right solution. In fact, the fear and anxiety of proximity can cloud judgment -- and seems to have done so with Kaplan.
As to your assumptions, I am no water carrier for Chomsky et. al, but perhaps that sort of close-minded stereotyping of people who disagree with you is why you find such common ground with Kaplan who is nothing but an Anne Coulter invade their countries and convert them zealot with better camoflauge.
July 7, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, I am an atheist who studied Arabic in a mosque school that offered the language for free. It was taught by Wahabis and Sunnis. So, I have had many, many conversations with Muslim fundamentalists who good-naturedly tried as much as any Pentacostal or Baptist to convert me. Though, unlike my experience with Christian fundamentalists, the conversations never ended with a frothing screaming "You're going to burn in hell."
I also have Muslim colleagues where I work - not the most observant Muslims, but like Christians, Muslims range from whacked out fundamentalist who are fine with killing for their religion (such as the Lambs of Christ) to barely believers.
But you know, none of that really matters. What matters is common sense and Kaplan's prescriptions defy common sense. Yes, he can identify the problem - but that's worse than not seeing the problem at all if his solutions are catastrophically wrong.
And do read Empire Wilderness - where he writes about America, so you can see how completely he misreads this country, perhaps then you won't read his writing about other countries that you are less equipped to evaluate his work on with such credulity.
July 7, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't read Kaplan for his political solutions. I read him because his experience of the world isn't based in simple history, but an observation that moves deeply between times, and shows the understanding that the artist as writer may see things first before historians. More though. He is the only writer who has described exactly some of my own experiences with untamed violence and the terror at night in a third world country when what "civilized" people expect from society falls away and the real thing is left-- raw, violent and devoid of mercy. Some of his conclusions about the nature of violence-- a different matter in the human condition than politics -- match my own. So, if I were to distrust everything he sees in the world, having seen the same, I would be rejecting my own sensibilities, which have been hard won.
July 7, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
A tiny side note to a very substantive and interesting post - I agree with you about Carter and the damage his decision about the Olympics did to chances of his second term. I've always thought that privately but never heard anyone say it.
Not that the Olympics themselves were all that important to that many people, but it seemed to bring the US down to a "bickering" level and revealed the point of intransigence which has always been his weakness, even back in Georgia. It had helped him beat Ford-under-the-shadow-of-Nixon but hurt in contrast to the astonishingly nimble Reagan. (And that is said by someone who had and has a great deal of respect for Jimmy Carter and who does not buy in on the current 'spin' regarding his presidency.)
Sorry -- off the main and very significant topic, about which I wish I could even hazard a guess (or maybe I don't wish I could....)
July 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree all around. Carter looked silly and weak. Whether he was right or not is another question.
July 6, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is no Grand Plan/Vision - just a view on a single reality. The demand/option that the US should "go" from the Middle East strikes the same chord in me as that Cowboy Junkies album title, "Whites Off Earth Now!" In short, desirable or not, it ain't gonna happen. (And what with the Obesity Epidemic in America and all, I figure God's got His hands full trying to boost the tractor beam capacity required to uplift His "Rapture" clients.)
Oil & Israel set the limits on any discussion of options. Yeah, we'll likely talk about it in terms of the latter (what with that Judeo-Christian heritage we're so obviously committed to), but the real game's greasier. The World produces 85 million barrels a day. Drill the Caribbean, Alaska, anywhere you like, as fast as you're able - and that's not going above 90 million for the next 5 years. And the world uses 83-85 million bbls/day already. The world - forget the bawling about $4/gallon US gas - the WORLD has to have this stuff. Fill every train & bus to bursting, stuff 4 Rubenesque arses in every commuter-car, and we're still absolutely dependent on the Middle East and its 20 million bbls/day. That's where the great game, c. 2008, truly begins.
So.... who can afford increased disruption in the Middle East? Maybe Russia. Canada. Norway. Maybe. (Though Canada'd be annexed in about 10 minutes, if push met shove. Unless, of course, the CIC chose a Winter invasion, at which point you'd see the world's "last, best hope" being run a little French Canadian ensconced in the Maison Blanche.) But China, Europe, Japan? Not a chance. While the media has decided China is now an invincible (and perhaps inscrutable) force, their leaders still have to keep hundreds of millions of upwardly-mobile ex-farmers happy, and that "burgeoning" middle class has to have some reward at the end of every hard-workin' day. So, like everyone else, they'll pitch their pennies into that $1,000 Billion/year Middle Eastern hat.
But would these nations pay $200-$300/bbl, which is what we'd see if there was a major brawl in the ME? Not happily, that's for damn sure. The US already pays out $700 Billion a year for oil imports - anyone think that can be doubled? So while it's the US that has gone & stuck its fingers in the pie, nobody can afford for any of the ME regional players to freak out and start lobbing heavy metal. Which means the next US President is gonna have enormous leverage when engaging other nations in helping cool things out, slow walk this thing back toward "peace." Forget grand goals like "democracy" in the ME. The goal's gonna be to keep all the ethnic/religious/national/income groups calm, their elites well-rewarded and their middle & working classes fed and watered. Because any one group, suitably outraged, has the ability to land a blow into the oil exporting infrastructure.
Which means, the US stays. Whether it does that with ACTIVE AMERICAN COMBAT TROOPS & BASES on the ground is the only question. (That and whether Bush-Cheney are insane/incented enough to try to stomp Iran.) Personally, I think the presence of US troops does nothing to help. No offense, but after a coupla rounds in Iraq, a coupla more with Iran, 9/11 etc., I think everyone wants this done with as few armed & visible US boots on the ground as possible. Maybe on ships or in the air....
I donno whether that constitutes "staying" or "going" - but I'll leave it to Joe Strummer & co to provide proper treatment.
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble,
And if I stay it will be double.
So you gotta let me know,
Should I cool it or should I go?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6jCIOvsZyM
July 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should add headings in a comment as long as this. Not being a smart ass here, but you can have a certain density if thought is daunting. I'd put a smiley face here if I believed in crap-speak.
July 6, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. You know billy, he gets demanding visions & plans for the entire Middle East and Israel & Energy too, and some of us are dumb enough to start writing on it, and 1800 words later....
Stopping now. ;-) Awwww, wasn't that cute? Ark.
July 6, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
I'll champion crap-speak till the end of time if it will help Obama win. Where's that comma and the frowning thing?
July 6, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we had no business "going" in the first place, it's way past time to get the hell out.
Neither you nor John McCain (nor anyone else in the stay, "win," "victory" camp) has ever articulated exactly what the heck we're "winning", what "victory" is (and why we "need" to be victorious) and why we "need" to "stay."
When we "win," what do we get? How does "victory" look? Over whom are we victorious? When we win, who "loses?" What do they "lose?"
Iraq was a sovereign country, with a stable (even though we recently decided we didn't support it anymore) government. We had armed it, given it the WMD Bushco was supposedly searching for, supported it over Iran when those two countries were fighting -- the same way we supported the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians/Soviets.
The Iraqis never said please save us from Saddam, the dictator you Yankees have enabled. Ahmed Chalabi was looking for and got a giant payoff for telling tales about the so-called Iraqi resistance; nothing he said bore any sense of validity. So we were not "freedom fighters." We were not helping any organized resistance movement. Iraq was not a nation in turmoil until after we blew up the government. Al Queda was not in Iraq until after we opened up the borders.
So if "winning" is the motivation for staying, what do we win?
It's time to go.
That is reason enough to leave. It is high time that this sense of "European" (read that "white") superiority comes to an end. There was civilization on the African continent (where the Middle East is located for the geographically impaired) for hundreds -- thousands? -- of generations long before the "Europeans" started raping and pillaging and "discovering" lands and people which did not belong to them.
It is that continued line of thinking -- we are "European" and therefore "smarter" and "more civilized" than you "non-Europeans" -- that is at the heart of the problem. Dare one say,"Get over yourselves? Stop meddling where you do not belong?"
July 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell. I thought I was talking about those European jews dying off so the Middle Eastern jews could make peace and find a place in the ME. But I guess you know what I was really talking about. And looks like you don't have a vision of anything for the US in the ME except getting out. Except maybe we need to apologize on the way out and leave a finger or two behind. And why the "you Yankees?" I don't even play baseball anymore. We're all Americans here, aren't we?
July 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were allowed to talk to Billy, which I'm not, I'd say that health insurance is more important to me than staying. The only question is what is the impact on oil in staying or leaving. A war is going to disrupt the oil situation. No answer there.
But if McCain somehow convinces America that (1) staying helps gas prices and (2) he's ready to drill like crazy right away, he'll win the election. And that's what he's doing.
Obama ! Have another lunch with Colin Powell. And start talking about some drilling, cause if you ain't, you ain't winning.
Yes. I know that it's important that we develop new energy sources. So, 'nauts, don't overreact. Last I looked, Obama is ready for some new nuke cookers, yes?
July 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I've already made some exceptions to my new rule of never talking to anonymous posters, I sure can make an exception for my old friend donnerpass. The man in the big hat is buying. I'm seeing a future that includes the railroads laying down third rails and powering them with nuclear electricity. I see a day when we'll be supplying yellow cake to OPEC, but bombing their refineries if they try to build them. Universal health insurance would break the stranglehold corporations have on American workers. Can't let that pass. People would start moving around too much. I saw a poll said most people in one of Obama's most important demographics said A Rolling Stone gathers no moss meant keep moving or moss will gather on you. Sames ones only 20 per cent or so can find Iraq and Iran on the map, even if the countries are labeled. We have to keep those people in one place. Dumb is easier to spread than herpes and harder to get rid of.
July 6, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zappa knits stupidity & energy policy as well. "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."
That said, I'm not sure health insurance will break the stupid stranglehold. Look North, young man - 30 million Canucks, paying 1/2 as much for health care & living longer in the bargain. But dumb? Yessirree Bob. Maybe a bit better off from having fewer corporate force-feedings of Dumb Chow. But not much. Ditto Europe. Belusconi, Sarkozy, et al.
Dumb - less like herpes, more like plaque.
July 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you not realize there are Canadians reading this thread, or do you just not care? Stick to the point. I don't care whether Obama gets elected or not. What's your vision for the ME? Start with Syria and Israel. How does that part of the knot get loosened up some? Give the heights back? Cede Lebanon?
July 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I wrote below, the U.S. has squandered its diplomatic and military capital in the Mideast, to the point that other countries are forced to take up the slack.
Egypt mediates Israel-Hamas; Turkey mediates Israel-Syria; and for all I know Israel negotiates directly with Hezbollah.
One thing is clear: Israel is way out ahead of the U.S. on this concept of talking to your enemies.
Cede Lebanon? They just did, didn't they? That's how I read endorsement of a deal giving Hezbollah veto power within the Siniora-led government.
Return the Golan Heights? A draft deal to that effect is all but initialed.
This particular Israeli government seems to believe as I do that regional stability and peace are in its long-term interest.
It's in the U.S. interest, too, though folks like Cheney are blind to that.
BTW, we Canucks are too polite to easily take offence. Or maybe we're too dumb to notice.
July 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me Syria & Israel may already have their nimble fingers on the knot.
And it's a requirement, to become a Canadian citizen, to know the 100 dumbest moves your government & citizens have ever made. That way, everyone knows when to say "sorry." Which Canadians do. A lot. Think I'm joking? Bet you any Canuck coming to this site will agree 100% on the dumbest thing Canadians have ever done - the last 40 years of Toronto Maple Leaf management decisions.
July 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, Quinn. Nobody ever died because of a strategic blunder by Maple Leaf management.
July 6, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh.... I donno about that. Personally, I've died a thousand deaths with those miserable losers.
However, as my Jewish friends often say, "Next year in Toronto!"
July 6, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Riiight!
They should be real cup contenders next year without that bum Sundin dogging it all the time.
July 6, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So whaddyathink... Sundin to the Habs? He's a monster y'know. Habs woulda made the finals.... Ahh well. Next year next year.
July 7, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he still wants to play -- and judging from this year he still has a bit of fire in the belly -- I think his only choice is the Habs.
It's here or he hangs them up. Vancouver's offer is still on the table, but I doubt he'll bite.
What's $2 million less a year if you get to put on one of those rings?
Or maybe two of them, if he sticks it out for both years?
Yeah, with the base they already have, Sundin and Montreal are a perfect fit.
They would at least make the final.
July 7, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You always are the bearer of such good news.
My first concern is whether Obama can get elected. He has to make a real move to the middle on drilling, and fast. He's got to show potential swing voters that he somehow will stop the rise in prices, or at least try. I don't think anyone can, but that's not the point. If McCain makes people think that he can, he wins. Hands down. So rising prices help McCain, hurt Obama.
People out of jobs are moving around more than a bit. More than I think we hear about. If you travel rural regions, the instability is quite scary. One would think these newly displaced workers and families would go for Obama, but Im not sure. There is a lot of talk about McCain drilling in Alaska, and that the tree-huggers are responsible for the whole thing. McCain is going to look Obama look like he's hugging every tree he can find. Hopefully Obama will not be photographed with a spotted owl.
I'm sorry to say that I also suspect that Obama can't deliver on health insurance, but I hope that I'm wrong.
Yes to third rail systems, and yes, of course by nuke. No other choice. And nuke power is the fastest way to get electric cars up and running, a technology that already exists. But only a New Deal type of government will make such moves. Points to how important an Obama win is for the future, however flawed.
I'm not sure on the military moves. You suggest a balance of power based in needs and threats. That's the real world. I just don't have it worked out.
The display by Israel was also a warning to the US. They can't quite make that attack work on their own. They want some new toys and fast from Bush. I'm guessing.
July 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need some help, Billy. Looks like he's ganging up on you.
July 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! That'll be the day.
July 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to make light of things in such a serious thread, but I have a better hat than Billy does. That's a fact.
July 6, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy. Will you stop trashing my generation as a bunch of bumbling idiots? Let me just point a couple things out here:
It's 63% of Americans aged 18-24 who can't locate Iraq on a map (an unlabeled one.). Nine in 10 can't find Afghanistan. Yes, these are horribly atrocious statistics. But let's go back in time a bit. In 1988, the National Geographic Society did a similar survey, and found that 1 in 7 young adults couldn't identify The United States on a map. Lack of geographical knowledge has been a problem for longer than just a few years.
On a broader scale, it's not just geography that people are lacking knowledge of. And it's not confined to any age group. 31% of Americans don't know who the VP is. 15% know Harry Reid. To break that number down, only 6% of Americans age18-29 can identify Harry Reid. 12% of 30-49 year olds, and 18% of 50-64 year olds. I'd say those numbers are all pretty pitiful.
26% of 18-29s distinguished Sunni from Shia, 30% of 30-49s. 24% of 18-29s knew about the min. wage raise, 22% of 30-49s.
What's my point? We're all idiots. But the state of education and what to do about those statistics and the breadth of knowledge in the people coming out of our schools is a whole other discussion. However, the fact that you always feel the need to note that one of the demographics Obama has captured in large numbers are bumbling fools is clearly an attempt at painting him the wrong choice, the choice of fools. So, I will remind you, as I have before, that the generation you speak of now is the only one who Bush did not garner a majority of votes in.
July 6, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too smart, this one. Must be all that fresh air at the beach.
July 6, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love these - apparently from Stephen Prothero's book "Religious Literacy":
* Only 1/2 of Americans can name even 1 of the 4 gospels.
* The majority cannot name the 1st book of the Bible.
* Only 1/3 know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount.
* The majority don't know Easter commemorates the resurrection.
* 10% of Americans believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
And we expect people to get Shia & Sunni right? Help.
July 6, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was Noah's wife? And of great interest to me, what were the names of both the cats on that boat. 'Nauts are into cats, no?
July 6, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry about your generation. I'm sorry about all of the ignorant generations. Education is the only issue worth discussing any more. Voting for Clinton wouldn't help those people find Iraq on the globe or know the difference between Shia and Sunni. But the simple truth is you people nominated the wrong person. You are going to have to make the best of it and get used to me occasionally reminding you of the fact that in Obama you found about the only candidate who could coceivably lose to McCain. I think you have a lot of explaining to do.
July 6, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're wrong on this Billy. If you want someone to blame for the results, why don't you start with the bozos who lost the race for Hillary? She had a walk-over. What happened. Start there with the explanations. She picked them. She stayed with them. You're asking the wrong people.
July 7, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
While a win is a win, donnerpass, Obama won the nomination narrowly. The long-standing fractures within the party were (once again) revealed during the primary, but as usual, the party leaders are doing nothing about them. If those fractures continue to be ignored by the party, Obama will lose to McCain.
It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's campaign staff. It has to do with the Democratic Party itself. Go back and look at Bill Clinton's win percentages in '92 and '96 to see the still-unaddressed problem.
Obama is cleaving to Howard Dean's dissipation-among-the-50-states strategy. Sorry, but he'll need to pick Hillary as VP if he wants to win that way.
July 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you're twistin' that tail too hard. Yeah, maybe Hillary woulda been a sure thing. Maybe. But the actual positioning, chemistry & dynamics of the GE race would already be very different with HRC vs McCain. And I like our present match-up.
Just take your post's issues today. i) HRC was more poorly positioned on energy alternatives. Obama at least went to the heart of the Detroit beast & told them straight that change had to come, and fast. While HRC had a temporary tax break. Which would give her precisely zero advantage over McCain. i) Same with bomb bomb bomb Iran vs. Obliterate Iran. iii) Her Iraq vote? I just can't see, right or wrong on the substance, how this would give her any tactical advantage vs McCain.
Plus, you know as well as I do that the dynamics of a candidate change depending on who they're up against. Their positioning changes. The chemistry of their own supporters changes. I mean, imagine her campaign WITHOUT Obama arriving. That couch. The original Penn show, primaries over by Feb. No massive stimulation of her supporters, since no Obamamania to react against. No West Virginia whiskey-shots or transforming into a working class hero.
Maybe she'd be a better manager, and produce better quality work as a President - that part I admit, I donno. But by your own argument, she'd be a piss-poor candidate. Because she lost to the WORST of the Democratic candidates. So why not keep the powder dry, see if she gets VP, and then we see how that NEW chemistry - of her and Obama (& even Bill) - works out? I kinda think it's a nice RFK'esque study in political chemistry, actually.
My Uncle Pierce used to twist cattle's tails to get them into their stall. Problem was, he was also the strongest man I ever met. So one day he twisted one's tail right off, by accident. Not so good. While my Dad just called, calm and quiet, to the cattle, and they came right into place. Sometimes, no need to twist too hard.
July 7, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, all those things that quinny said.
She lost it as much as our side won it. It was so narrow a victory that clearly, from a purely political stance, she should have won it. That she could not speaks to Obama's strength and his people.
And, sadly, it points to the incompetence of her people. You know that. You've said it here. You could have run a better campaign.
I'm not asking you to "explain" how your side lost it. Working on Obama's weaknesses for me is a positive for helping him get elected. But if that turns into a blame-fest. Then fuck it. I'm out of here.
July 7, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're talking to yourself. Literally.
July 8, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant, Billy. How easy it is to simply say, my choice was the right one, when we will clearly never know the answer to that. Kind of like a claim to see the invisible. I don't doubt that you believe it to be true. I also don't doubt that had things come out differently, just as many people would believe the opposite. And as we all know, it takes more than a belief to create a truth.
“There are always two choices. Two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy.”
July 7, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you've certainly chosen the more difficult path. So if we can elect Obama, do we get extra points because it was hard? We get an extra Supreme Court appointment, kings ex on health care filibusters, and get to walk away from Iraq like it never happened? And even if nothing really changes, we get our civil rights and anti-war tickets punched? Those some to the rewards of reclaiming our government the hard way?
July 8, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Billy, that's not what I meant. I'm not talking about my path, or even the Democrats' path. I'm talking about yours.
July 8, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Donner, those're McCain's 2 main moves.
(2) On Alaska, Obama could get cornered if he keeps repeating "I wo