Its Super Tuesday time

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I am planning to vote for Obama in our primary, for not only is he, in my opinion, the best option

[Sand]

Walsh, why send troops end? We have missiles, bombs, and drone attack planes. Use the resources we have without losing a single life on our side. Sorry to say this but there is no grey area on this. In the elimination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban there will be sympathisers killed. We either need to do the complete job, or get our people out of harms way and fortify our borders. Leave or stay. If we stay we need to go into battle as if we are in a full war. If we leave, we need to fortify our borders and secure ourselves for these people never get in. Our next president needs to choose one or the other for our current "police action" tactics is not working all that effectively.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Sand

[Gfted1]

[Sand]

What is the problem, G1?

 

Leave or stay. Those are our options.

 

If we stay the only way we will win is to take the kid gloves off and go in full tilt fighting, and eliminate the threats.

If we leave we need to pull out fully, leave no US soldier, citizen, and equipment with in those countries, then fortify our own borders while blockading them so they cannot follow us home.

 

Leave or stay. In either case we can't afford to half-ass it.

[Gfted1]

I think a couple of things in your statement are problematic.

 

1) We are going full tilt in Iraq. Unless your idea of full tilt is razing a country to the ground ala WWII, which I agree is hight effective, however thats not supported in todays day and age.

2) How exactly would we ensure they "never get in"? Glacing at a map reveal thousands of miles of borders North and South, not even considering sea access.

[Sand]

1. War is war. If we are going to war we need to go full tilt as in WW2 style, minus the old atomic bomb. If our allies find that unacceptable then that is their problem. We can pull out completely leading to...

 

2. Close down all military bases in other countries and buld new military bases along the borders. Stop all foreign aid to other countries and use that money to fund walls between ourselves and our neighbors. Beef up the Coast Guard and have them patrol our waterways and access to the oceans. Implement anti-illegal immigration laws similar to those set in Oklahoma on a federal level. Yeah, a bit extreme, but it would make things harder for foreign terrorists getting into our country.

 

I am just sick of our government doing half assed efforts and getting no where in the end.

[Tigranes]

If our allies find that unacceptable then that is their problem.

 

Actually, it would very much be the United States' problem to have all those angry states snapping at them whenever they try to do (or not do) anything, and it would severely hamper the administration responsible's hope of getting things done, internationally or nationally.

 

Unless they pulled the price of beer down to five cents or something.

[Enoch]

I am just sick of our government doing half assed efforts and getting no where in the end.

You see, that's the thing about democracy-- you actually have to work with people who disagree with you, and alter your proposals to accommodate their objections. If you want stuf that isn't done "half-assed," you want autocracy.

 

I get to vote next Tuesday. Leaning towards Barry O. Yeah, some of his foreign policy statements have be puzzling, but unless there's a clear yes/no issue out there, you can almost never assess a candidate's foreign policy potential from the buzzwords that pass for policy statements in the election campaign. (Take a look at what W said on the subject on the '00 campaign trail...) Unless there's a candidate who has been a Secretary of State or something, nobody really has a whole lot of experience in this kind of thing.

 

Clinton alarms me a bit. From a pragmatic point of view, I think Obama would be a better candidate in the general election. The unsubstantiated, vitriolic hate for Hillary from the far right could keep the GOP base fired up (and giving money) in a race when the embarrassingly poor performance of it's incumbents would normally leave it quite dispirited. From a policy point of view, she is the most centrist of the Dems running, which normally plays well with me. But I'm not convinced that we should really be wanting to bring back the whole Clinton crowd again. Sure, the current batch of clowns has made them look brilliant by comparison, but they had more than their share of screw-ups. My fiancee swears that this is just latent sexism on my part, but even as a fairly centrist democrat, I don't have particularly good memories of the days when Bill & Hillary were leading the evening news every night.

[Hurlshort]

I like how Sand sees war like an RTS game. There is a map, and there are bad guys on the map, and we just need to kill them. Maybe we should send a memo out asking everyone who is against the US to please congregate in one area, so that we can focus our bombs.

[Sand]

I like how Sand sees war like an RTS game. There is a map, and there are bad guys on the map, and we just need to kill them. Maybe we should send a memo out asking everyone who is against the US to please congregate in one area, so that we can focus our bombs.

 

Hey, it couldn't hurt.

 

It wouldn't work, but it would be funny.

[Arkan]

Election news:

 

Romney is out

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_el_pr/romney_51

[Sand]

That is good news, Arkan.

[Walsingham]

 

I liked this reaction so much I thought I'd quote it rather than Sand.

 

1. What Sand is talking about is attrition. Define the enemy, identify the enemy, kill the enemy. Which would be cutting edge military theory if were about 400BC. The Romans tried to do it several times under - I can't stress this enough - under their most lead-crazed psychotic emperors. If you want to know what would happen now if you try to systematically mince the opposition then take a good look at ww1. A neverending slaughter without purpose. We don't fight limited wars because we're nice. We fight limited wars because its the only kind of war you can win.

 

2. The deterrent effect of overweening force is an illusion. Unless one is dealing with Belgium, for some reason. It doesn't freaking work. Sand talks bout levelling things, but the Soviets tried exactly that in 1979-1988 in Afghanistan. They bombed Herat completely flat at one stage. With the net result that it just made them more annoyed.

 

3. I have already highlighted Sand's patented 'one step' approach to system dynamics. No doubt he's right though. I'm sure the US could afford turning itself into a fortress once it had cut all ties with the outside world.

 

EDIT! STOP PRESS!

 

I just worked out how to explain second order dynamics. OK, Sando it works like this. You seem fixated on first order dynamics. Imagine if you will that you are standing next to a large metal pendulum at rest. You don't like having this big lump o'metal next to you so you give it a hard shove. In first order dynamics it moves away from you. You are happy.

 

The trouble you seem to be having is in second order dynamics. This is when the move you made plays out over time, the pendulum swings back and smacks you in the ear. You are concussed, and there is much hilarity.

[Gfted1]

 

I liked this reaction so much I thought I'd quote it rather than Sand.

 

 

Hehe, it had me literally lol-ing too but all credit must go to the esteemed Xard who I yoinked it from.

[Sand]

The problem is Walsh, we are not winning. We are dragging our heels, wasting resources on countries that can never pay it back, and all the while pissing off our long time allies with the exception of, more or less, Britain. Sure we take out an Al Qaeda cell here, a leader there but in the end they just get replaced by someone else. You might have a point, Walsh, if we were in fact winning but we aren't. Just for your information there is more to winning a war than just killing the bad guy. If we do win, with how much resources we are spending in this fiasco it will be a pyrrhic victory.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Just for your information there is more to winning a war than just killing the bad guy. If we do win, with how much resources we are spending in this fiasco it will be a pyrrhic victory.

 

On what bass do you maintain we are losing? 'Cause I hear it from the horse's mouth as friends and coleagues come back, and they say the only place we're losing is in the media.

 

But that's irrelevant, because as I said before second order dynamics dictate that the cost of losing this conflict would be a hundred times worse than any amount you could spend on the war. A big bug out would be a false economy, like refusing to spend money on firefighting when your house is ablaze because your stuff is burning and you need to economise.

[Sand]

I disagree, Walsh. Bush has put so much resources into Afganistan and Iraq that the US has to borrow money from China, thusly making us reliant on a hostile power. With that level of dependence, add to the fact that the lack of resources for taking care of problems we have domestically like Hurricane Katrina and the more recent rash of tornadoes that swept through the south is hurting the economy. While we get more and more into debt and the deficit looms larger and larger how does it make any sort of sense to spend resources we don't have and take on loans that allows nations like China have power over us?

 

Of course you don't have to worry about that. You live in Britain, but if the US government doesn't do a 180 in its foreign and domestic policies we US citizens are going to get screwed over big time. We are losing the war, Walsh.

[Pop]

In 2004 Dem turnout for the caucuses was around 15,000. This year it was 150,000. Had it been a primary we might have gotten 4 or 5 times that. We went for Obama.

[alanschu]

 

I liked this reaction so much I thought I'd quote it rather than Sand.

 

 

Hehe, it had me literally lol-ing too but all credit must go to the esteemed Xard who I yoinked it from.

 

 

 

That picture is very common on the hockey forum I frequent.

[Sand]

In 2004 Dem turnout for the caucuses was around 15,000. This year it was 150,000. Had it been a primary we might have gotten 4 or 5 times that. We went for Obama.

 

The Democrats had 48,000 Independents and Republicans register on their side in Iowa. Republicans had only 9000.

[Guard Dog]

Just for laughs!

[Guest The Architect]

I had this dream about the US election that this fat guy with glasses and short brown hair who looked like Michael Moore won and become the President to the shock of Hilary and Obama, then I remembered that Mothman wasn't running for President so the dream ended.

[Walsingham]

I disagree, Walsh. Bush has put so much resources into Afganistan and Iraq that the US has to borrow money from China, thusly making us reliant on a hostile power. With that level of dependence, add to the fact that the lack of resources for taking care of problems we have domestically like Hurricane Katrina and the more recent rash of tornadoes that swept through the south is hurting the economy. While we get more and more into debt and the deficit looms larger and larger how does it make any sort of sense to spend resources we don't have and take on loans that allows nations like China have power over us?

 

Of course you don't have to worry about that. You live in Britain, but if the US government doesn't do a 180 in its foreign and domestic policies we US citizens are going to get screwed over big time. We are losing the war, Walsh.

 

 

I'd have to rely on GD's figures, since he usually has them about his person, but my understanding was that China began buying US dollars under Clinton. The fact that they have continued to do so is nothing more complex than

 

a) They need US dollars to buy POL.

b) They buy them on the open market, hence there's no way to stop them.

 

Yet again you waffle on about losing the war! In what way are we losing the war? Violence is coming down, the economies of both countries are rising, and democratic involvement has never been so good. Moreover the opposition are showing increasing signs of isolation and desperation.

 

I remind readers who may have forgotten how we got onto this that it is a key distinguishing factor between McCain and Obama. In my opinion switching to a candidate who really means to pull out immediately would be the worst of both worlds. It won't get any of your money back, and it will certainly lead to instability, massively increased oil prices, and a humanitarian disaster. All things which my 'Boys Own Book of Things that Suck' tells me are bad.

[Sand]

How we are losing the war? The US economy has taken a major down turn because we are over stretching our resources. People are losing their homes, a strong recession is coming, and only thing our government can think of is a lame stimulus package that is like putting a band aid on a broken leg. The US is in serious economic trouble, but who cares, right Walsh. As long as our government helps everyone except its own citizens all is good. Who gives a rat's ass about the US people? The US government surely don't.

[Guard Dog]

How we are losing the war? The US economy has taken a major down turn because we are over stretching our resources. People are losing their homes, a strong recession is coming, and only thing our government can think of is a lame stimulus package that is like putting a band aid on a broken leg. The US is in serious economic trouble, but who cares, right Walsh. As long as our government helps everyone except its own citizens all is good. Who gives a rat's ass about the US people? The US government surely don't.

 

Sand.... umm.... Ok look, I usually enjoy debating with you and you are a smart guy even if you do post things that are a little nutty sometimes. But this entire post demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how the US Government works, how the US Economy works, and what the two have to do with each other. You also draw a line connecting the war in Iraq to the current economic problems when there simply is not one. I have a homework assignment for you. Pick up a current copy of US News and World Report, and The Wall Street Journal, or Forbes Magazine and the Washington Times and read both of them front to back. Then come back and reread your post. You'll realize whats wrong with it.

 

I'd post here whats wrong with it but it would be long, off topic and begin with the phrase "What is Economics?"*

 

 

 

*That is the first line of "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, one of the most brilliant men of our time. I highly reccomend reading it to anyone with a higher than room tempreture IQ.