Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 397 Comments
WALKBACK COMPLETE: US RECOGNIZES WINNER IN HONDURAN ELECTION
I would not necessarily characterize the behavior of the Obama Administration as "amateurish." There was really nothing the United States could do in the situation but reverse course. I'm sure it was assumed that Mr. Chavez would back up his man, sending in his military forces, if need be. Venezuela has built up an impressive military under Hugo Chavez. Presumably they plan to use it for something.
When Venezuela did not act to back up their man, there was nothing the United States could do but reverse course. While I doubt this is Mr. Chavez's "waterloo", I think this definitely does not help him. Some of his supporters in Central and South America have to be asking themselves if he will come to their aid should they face a situation simillar to the one faced by Zelaya.
Also, Mr. Chavez's military forces have to be asking themselves what the point is. It is confusing. Why build a massive military force that is clearly out of proportion to any threats faced from your neighbors if you are not going to use it to meet your interests. I think this shows Mr. Chavez to be a coward.
You ask how often has the United States staked out a clear and unequivocal position on a major foreign policy and slowly backtracked. I'm sure this has happened quite often in the histroy of the country. If one wanted to research it, there are probably a large number of such instances. When the facts of a given situation change, the decisions that are made should also change.
To recap, the Obama Administration probably assumed Mr. Chavez was going to back his man even to the point of using military force if necessary. When Mr. Chavez did not back his man, the United States was left with really no other option but to change the underlying policy.
Should Mr. Chavez decide to back his man by military force if need be or if he should use his oil weapon against America to get it to do his bidding we might see American policy change yet again.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.11.2009 @ 13:17
THE GRAHAM-DeMINT AXIS OF THE GOP
Right now it is the "Graham axis" that leads the GOP. If this is "100% the way to victory", it sure didn't work in the 2006 elections or in the 2008 elections. Since them, the "Graham axis" has aquired even more influence over the direction of the party. Maybe the results will be different in 2010. Time will tell.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.11.2009 @ 14:09
'IQ OF A CELERY STALK?' WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT ONE?
Exxon is not extremely powerful. We can't even open up all of our own oil and gas reserves for drilling. Presumably this would help ExxonMobil tremednously if we could yet they can't make this happen.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.11.2009 @ 23:26
Matt certainly nails it to a point. We argue among ourselves about trivial issues.
We do this while the Russians are preparing for war and we are wholly unprepared to stop them yet we continue to argue among ourselves. This will need to change.
As I said Matt nails it to a point but he does not totally get it. Why obsess with Sarah Palin. She is the former governor of Alaska. She holds no public office and she hold no position of influence within the RNC. Her following is small but somewhat vocal. Furrthermore most of the voting public neither likes her nor her followers and neither does the RNC.
She quit in mid stream as governor of Alaska. The voting public will rightly ask will she quit again should the going get tough? Any opponent in either the primary or a general election will have a field day with this. In addition, Republican party leaders do not like her. Given these factors, she has no chance of being nominated for any office nor can she be elected. Its puzzling why we waste so much time discussing such an insigficant indivual.
Of course it does increase web traffic and it increases readership for those who critcize her. After all, she has more critics among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents than sdhe has supporters. We can't miss an opportunity to gain readership or web traffic now can we. Palin bashing costs us nothing and it has huge financial benefits. I'm assuming increased web traffic and increased readership positivley affects the bottom line.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.11.2009 @ 23:00
COULD WE WIN IF WE HAD TO FIGHT WORLD WAR II TODAY?
Could we win WWII if we had to fight it today? I'm not sure. We would need a much larger military than the one we have today, however, the next world war will not be like WWII was. A betterquestion to ask is can we win the next world war.
In the next world war, nuclear weapons are likely to be used on a massive scale. This means the massive troop and equipment build ups as well as the industrial factories that won WWII are unlikely to survive very long. The most likely adversaries that the United States faces in the 21st century are Russia and China in this order. In order to ensure an American victory, our nuclear arsenal needs to be upgraded. Unfortunately it has been allowed to degrade. In addition to this, our intellegence needs to be improved. As it stands right now, our intellegence and our military are not oriented as well as it could be. The primary threats of the 21st century stem not from Islamic terrorists but from Russia and China.
While Islamic terrorists and the states who support them such as Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are fully capable of beating America in a military conflict, it is unlikely they could destroy America or take it over. This is not the case with Russia or China, especially Russia. The military needs to be reconfigured to win a military conflict with Russia and China or both of them. We need to recognize these as the primary threats and plan accordingly. The best place to start is by improving the nuclear arsenal and by improving our HUMMIT.
Finally, with regards to the current war with Islamic terrorists we would do far better to build more refineries and develop all of our own oil and gas reserves than any thing we are currently doing. Doing this would deprive our enemies of a major source of funding and would make them much easier to defeat. In addition, it would free up military resources to be focused on the primary threats of the 21st century which are Russia and China in that order.
In summary, in answer to the question, yes we can win the next world war but we will have to focus our forces properly. Right now we are not as well focused as we should be. Hopefully this will change soon.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 20.11.2009 @ 20:01
PALIN AND HER SUPPORTERS IN A TIME WARP
While tax cuts are definitely needed, there are other areas that need to be looked at. There are probably a number of ways we can streamline government programs and make them more efficient. There are likely many cost savings that could be recognized here to. This way we can still get the much needed tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Ms. Palin is correct on this, however, she and her supporters should focus more on how we can make our current government programs more efficient.
As such, I would not necessarily say her supporters are in a "time warp." Tax cuts are clearly a good place to start, however, we need to look closely at how we can make government more efficient.
A good place to start would likely be with Defense. We should focus more on "smart defense." To start with all troops should be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as our transport vehicles can get them out. These should be redeployed along the borders. There would be tremendous savings here.
Also, we should upgrade the nuclear arsenal and spend less on some of our conventional forces. Still more savings. Nuclear weapons are much more effective and are likely less expensive. Also, most of our conventional items would not be expected to last very long in a war with our most likely adversaries in the 21st century, which are Russia and China. Having an improved muclear capability is less expensive and it gives us a better chance of winning than with what we currently have. While countries like Iran and Venezuela are certainly capable of winning a war with America it is unlikely that they could actually conquer America, at this time. An improved nuclear capacity helps us realize cost savings and it helps us to be in a better position to actually fight and win the likely conflicts of the 21st century.
How many government departments are involved in education? At least 10 I think. This could be streamlined to one or two departments and the cost savings would likely be enormous. There are likely a number of examples of where greater effieceny could be utilized across the government. This combined with tax cuts would be extremely helpful.
In any event, national health care should be out of the question right now. We simply cannot afford it.
While Ms. Palin is certainly correct about tax cuts, the proposal is far from complete. It needs more detail. For example, it needs to focus on how we can make current government programs more efficient. If we can do this, we may not need to cut out anyone's "entitlement" or government services as some would call them.
While we're looking at how we can do this, no new government progams should be added. This means national health care should be shelved for the foreseeable future. It's going to take some time to analyze each government program to make it more effiecent. Since Ms. Palin is not a part of the government right now, there would likely be no way she would be in a position to know which government programs can be made more efficient or how to do it. As such, she is only able to go into detail on the starting point right now which is tax cuts.
Finally, Ms. Palin is not as influential as either her supporters or her detractors give her credit for. She is simply a political pundit right now. She holds no office nor does she hold a position of influence within the RNC. Right now she has no chance of being elected to any office any where and it is unlikely she will have a chance in the foreseeable future. She quit her job as Governor in Alaska right in the middle of her term. The voting public would rightly want to know if she will quit again should the going get tough furthermore any potential opponent either in the genral election or the primary will have a field day with it. At this time, I see no way for her to overcome the fact that she quit in midstream.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 20.11.2009 @ 11:00
IS THERE ANY WAY SARAH PALIN CAN RECOVER?
Is there any way Sarah Palin can "recover?" I think this depends upon what we mean by recover. If "recover" means run for public office then probably not. After all she quit as Governor of Alaska right in the middle of her term. The voting public may rightly ask will she quit again should the going get tough. Any opponent either in the primaries or the general election will have a field day with this one.
So, if she plans on running for office again, she probably cannot recover but it is hard to be certain at this point as the 2012 elections are a long way off at this point. If she does plan to run and she handles herself well as a speaker and does well on the book tour and can find venues where she can get her message accross she may well be able to recover but at this point I'm not sure how she gets around the fact that she quit as Governor of Alaska right in the middle of her term. This does not look good.
If by "recover" we mean make alot of money selling books to her small but vocal following and giving the occasional high dollar speech to her small but vocal following she should be able to "recover." At this point, my best guess is this is what she wants to do and has no interest in running for office again what so ever.
At this point, she has no real power within the RNC and she holds no political office. She has a small but vocal following but that's about it. Her current power is nominal at best. Rick correctly points out now, as I did at the time, Ms. Palin's "death panel" remark had zero impact on the health care bill.
Ms. Palin's opponents attribute to her more power than she actually has. It's probably much easier to vilify her that way. Her supporters attribute more power to her than she actually has. Perhaps it is easy for her small group of vocal followers to worship her.
Finally, 2012 is a long way off. Rick correctly points out that her treatment by some in the media has not been fair. IF she plans to run for office again, she will need to focus on speaking in venues where she will be able to get her message out and if she has a good one she may be able to improve her ratings and she may be able to make a comeback. While I think its unlikely she can run for public office and I think its even less likely that she actually wants to, I think it is too early at this point to write anyone off or to even ask the question of can they "recover" or not at this early juncture.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.11.2009 @ 22:06
I'm thinking there will be formal charges brought against Dick Cheney very soon. He's held in utter contempt by most Americans and he's the media despises him even more than most Americans do. I can't imagine any top legal talent being willing to take his case. Assuming he's as guilty as the his detractors claim he is, getting a conviction should be fairly easy.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 31.10.2009 @ 01:34
I would say Obama has until about March of 2010 or so to clean up the mess. Unlike the Republicans, he and the Democrats have pretty much absolute power over the government right now. Bush and his team, while incompetent, never had this kind of power. If team Obama fails, will this translate into real gains for Republicans? That depends upon whether the Republicans can offer a viable alternative.
What does seem clear is that massive entitlements are not the way to go. We can't afford them. They were wrong when Bush was doing them and they are wrong now. For example, while the health care system does need improvements, most people are quite happy with their coverage. Bigger problems to be handled are the massive national debt, fixing the economy, and rebuilding and upgrading the military.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 31.10.2009 @ 01:19
The right decision is withdrawl and it should be done immediately as soon as our transport vehicles can move our people out. The military is worn down and it is getting more so with each passing moment. There aren't enough well trained troops to be able to pacify the country or to leave a government in place that can "fend for itself" that would be any thing remotely allied to America. Once ALL of the troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan are withdrawn, they should be redeployed to America's borders. This withdrawl should be begun now and it should be completed as soon as our transport vehicles can get them out of both countries. It is not worth one more American life or any more money. This will be the test for Obama. Is he decisive enough to do the right thing. Bush was not. Hopefully Obama will be.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.10.2009 @ 09:40
