Economist Article
Quote:But he [Obama] also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
This encapsulates perfectly my view on why America
must remain globally involved, but it does so more succinctly than I ever manage to do.
I'd be particularly interested in hearing what our board's non-interventionists think of the above quote.
(09-02-2010 12:49 PM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Economist Article
Quote:But he [Obama] also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
This encapsulates perfectly my view on why America must remain globally involved, but it does so more succinctly than I ever manage to do.
I'd be particularly interested in hearing what our board's non-interventionists think of the above quote.
How do you plan on paying for it?
^ What he said.
To expand a little, I'm all for expanding freedom and opportunity, but we're not in the position to keep giving huge sums in this respect. The greatest gift we can probably give humanity now is to focus our resources on empowering the brightest Americans (born here and those who 'got here as quick as they could') to find solutions to the pressing problems the planet faces. I'm pretty leery of the 'American Exceptionalism' school of thought, but the record seems pretty clear that the U.S. has a model under which science moves forward fast (count Nobels). We and the rest of the world need that in the worst way right now.
(09-02-2010 08:15 PM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2010 12:49 PM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Economist Article
Quote:But he [Obama] also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
This encapsulates perfectly my view on why America must remain globally involved, but it does so more succinctly than I ever manage to do.
I'd be particularly interested in hearing what our board's non-interventionists think of the above quote.
How do you plan on paying for it?
We'll pay one way or the other. I'd rather ante up now than pay the exponentially higher cost later of hiding our heads in the sand and pretending the rest of the world will go away.
For better or worse, the U.S. is in by far the best position of any country to play the role of global leader. Think of the alternatives.
(09-03-2010 08:52 AM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2010 08:15 PM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2010 12:49 PM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Economist Article
Quote:But he [Obama] also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
This encapsulates perfectly my view on why America must remain globally involved, but it does so more succinctly than I ever manage to do.
I'd be particularly interested in hearing what our board's non-interventionists think of the above quote.
How do you plan on paying for it?
We'll pay one way or the other. I'd rather ante up now than pay the exponentially higher cost later of hiding our heads in the sand and pretending the rest of the world will go away.
For better or worse, the U.S. is in by far the best position of any country to play the role of global leader. Think of the alternatives.
Not good enough. How are you going to pay for it? Continue to borrow from the Chinese, have the Fed continue to monetize debt? Are you willing to sacrifice an all out currency crisis to do so?
(09-03-2010 09:08 AM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2010 08:52 AM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2010 08:15 PM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2010 12:49 PM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Economist Article
Quote:But he [Obama] also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
This encapsulates perfectly my view on why America must remain globally involved, but it does so more succinctly than I ever manage to do.
I'd be particularly interested in hearing what our board's non-interventionists think of the above quote.
How do you plan on paying for it?
We'll pay one way or the other. I'd rather ante up now than pay the exponentially higher cost later of hiding our heads in the sand and pretending the rest of the world will go away.
For better or worse, the U.S. is in by far the best position of any country to play the role of global leader. Think of the alternatives.
Not good enough. How are you going to pay for it? Continue to borrow from the Chinese, have the Fed continue to monetize debt? Are you willing to sacrifice an all out currency crisis to do so?
I'm no budget expert, but I'm sure we can cut the military budget somewhat and still maintain a global presence, especially since Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. Fighting two protracted regional wars is not the normal state of affairs, though it may seem so.
Now it's your turn: what would you do about the global repercussions of a U.S. pullback? Do you not think a blowup in Asia or a nuclear arms race in the Middle East will cost us more in the long run than maintaining a global presence?
(09-02-2010 08:15 PM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ]How do you plan on paying for it?
By getting rid of the USDA, NEA, DHS, EPA, DOE and several dozen more departments and agencies in the US government, consolidating and/or scaling back most of the rest and cutting waste, redundancy and duplication of effort in whatever's left.
(09-03-2010 09:08 AM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ]Are you willing to sacrifice an all out currency crisis to do so?
What currency crisis are you speaking of?
(09-03-2010 11:19 AM)jws Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2010 08:15 PM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ]How do you plan on paying for it?
By getting rid of the USDA, NEA, DHS, EPA, DOE and several dozen more departments and agencies in the US government, consolidating and/or scaling back most of the rest and cutting waste, redundancy and duplication of effort in whatever's left.
Good start ...and when is this going to happen? So we can start paying for that trillion dollar a year expenditure as opposed to the "We'll pay one way or the other" or "run up the credit and worry about it tomorrow" mentality.
(09-03-2010 11:24 AM)jws Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2010 09:08 AM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ]Are you willing to sacrifice an all out currency crisis to do so?
What currency crisis are you speaking of?
Well you tell me what's going to happen to the dollar if this outta control Federal spending is not significantly drawn down? Do you still believe it's "Indefinitely Sustainable"?
(09-03-2010 11:39 AM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ]Well you tell me what's going to happen to the dollar if this outta control Federal spending is not significantly drawn down? Do you still believe it's "Indefinitely Sustainable"?
What do you mean "still believe"?
If you want to discuss currency, I'll be happy to oblige, but stop making stuff up and attributing it to me.
(09-03-2010 11:44 AM)jws Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2010 11:39 AM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ]Well you tell me what's going to happen to the dollar if this outta control Federal spending is not significantly drawn down? Do you still believe it's "Indefinitely Sustainable"?
What do you mean "still believe"?
If you want to discuss currency, I'll be happy to oblige, but stop making stuff up and attributing it to me.
Not making a single line of it up. Several months ago when you and Mars tangled over this you clearly stated that the military expenditure was "Indefinitely Sustainable". Now is it or is it Not "Indefinitely Sustainable"?
Furthermore I will ask again...
Good start ...and when is this going to happen? So we can start paying for that trillion dollar a year expenditure as opposed to the "We'll pay one way or the other" or "run up the credit and worry about it tomorrow" mentality.
(09-03-2010 11:47 AM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ]Not making a single line of it up. Several months ago when you and Mars tangled over this you clearly stated that the military expenditure was "Indefinitely Sustainable". Now is it or is it Not "Indefinitely Sustainable"?
You are indeed making it up. Either that or you're unable to tell the difference between total federal spending and current military spending.
Stop acting like a juvenile. Address what is actually said and discuss the issue like an adult.
Quote:Furthermore I will ask again...
Good start ...and when is this going to happen? So we can start paying for that trillion dollar a year expenditure as opposed to the "We'll pay one way or the other" or "run up the credit and worry about it tomorrow" mentality.
Could you please rephrase this, in english this time?
(09-03-2010 12:07 PM)Salty Dog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2010 12:00 PM)jws Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Salty Dog' pid='242523' dateline='1283528858']
Not making a single line of it up. Several months ago when you and Mars tangled over this you clearly stated that the military expenditure was "Indefinitely Sustainable". Now is it or is it Not "Indefinitely Sustainable"?
You are indeed making it up. Either that or you're unable to tell the difference between total federal spending and current military spending.
Stop acting like a juvenile. Address what is actually said and discuss the issue like an adult.
Quote:Furthermore I will ask again...
Good start ...and when is this going to happen? So we can start paying for that trillion dollar a year expenditure as opposed to the "We'll pay one way or the other" or "run up the credit and worry about it tomorrow" mentality.
Could you please rephrase this, in english this time?
pot kettle homie.
(09-02-2010 12:49 PM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Economist Article
Quote:But he [Obama] also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
This encapsulates perfectly my view on why America must remain globally involved, but it does so more succinctly than I ever manage to do.
I'd be particularly interested in hearing what our board's non-interventionists think of the above quote.
I agree with every thing in the above quote EXCEPT that "
Obama plainly believes." Can we have some input as to how we know Obama believes this and is competent enough to act appropriately on that belief. I am a doubter!
(09-03-2010 09:57 AM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Now it's your turn: what would you do about the global repercussions of a U.S. pullback? Do you not think a blowup in Asia or a nuclear arms race in the Middle East will cost us more in the long run than maintaining a global presence?
Salty Dog, you still haven't answered my question...
(09-03-2010 03:33 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2010 12:49 PM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Economist Article
Quote:But he [Obama] also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
This encapsulates perfectly my view on why America must remain globally involved, but it does so more succinctly than I ever manage to do.
I'd be particularly interested in hearing what our board's non-interventionists think of the above quote.
I agree with every thing in the above quote EXCEPT that "Obama plainly believes." Can we have some input as to how we know Obama believes this and is competent enough to act appropriately on that belief. I am a doubter!
TAG, the linked article explains why
the Economist believes what's in the quote. I'm not 100% convinced personally, but I do think that Obama has proved in many respects to be much more pragmatic and engaged WRT foreign affairs as a president than his rhetoric as a candidate would have led us to believe. Reluctantly engaged, no doubt, but engaged nevertheless.
(09-04-2010 10:04 AM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2010 03:33 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2010 12:49 PM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Economist Article
Quote:But he [Obama] also plainly believes, and is right to do so, that there are some global jobs that America alone has the mix of military, economic and diplomatic muscle to undertake. At a minimum these include leading the fight against al-Qaeda, holding the ring in Asia, averting war between Israel and its neighbours and preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb and sparking a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.
This encapsulates perfectly my view on why America must remain globally involved, but it does so more succinctly than I ever manage to do.
I'd be particularly interested in hearing what our board's non-interventionists think of the above quote.
I agree with every thing in the above quote EXCEPT that "Obama plainly believes." Can we have some input as to how we know Obama believes this and is competent enough to act appropriately on that belief. I am a doubter!
TAG, the linked article explains why the Economist believes what's in the quote. I'm not 100% convinced personally, but I do think that Obama has proved in many respects to be much more pragmatic and engaged WRT foreign affairs as a president than his rhetoric as a candidate would have led us to believe. Reluctantly engaged, no doubt, but engaged nevertheless.
By basically leaving in place the Bush foreign policy while speaking in less bellicose rhetoric, one could believe that he understands. Unfortunately this approach comes with a price tag, and Obama's domestic economic policies will never generate the necessary funds required to successfully implement such an expensive global policy. In fact I believe Obama's domestic policies will not only require substantially reduced funding of the military, but many other programs which to date have avoided spending cuts.
I think we need a strong economy first and foremost to undertake any foreign thrust as described. We now do not have that healthy economy, and I am concerned that we can ever recover any robustness at all.
You non-interventionists disappoint me. I was expecting a vigorous argument as to why things would be just fine in Asia and the Middle East without the projection of U.S. power into those regions - or, perhaps, that trouble in those regions would not affect U.S. national security. Surely you have something?
The Boogeymen already have us where they want us. Over extended and broke.
Spent into ruin.
(09-06-2010 09:44 AM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]You non-interventionists disappoint me. I was expecting a vigorous argument as to why things would be just fine in Asia and the Middle East without the projection of U.S. power into those regions - or, perhaps, that trouble in those regions would not affect U.S. national security. Surely you have something?
Nope.
Once you get past his one-liner talking points, Salty Dog's got nothin'.
(09-06-2010 09:44 AM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]You non-interventionists disappoint me. I was expecting a vigorous argument as to why things would be just fine in Asia and the Middle East without the projection of U.S. power into those regions - or, perhaps, that trouble in those regions would not affect U.S. national security. Surely you have something?
the questions are when to intervene and on whose behalf. intervening on the behalf of the US tangible interests, such as we did to stop Hitler or Saddam (both times), was prudent. intervening to save OBL was merely ideological and served no practical purpose for the US, and the price has been subsequently severe
(09-02-2010 12:49 PM)psychot Wrote: [ -> ]Economist Article
How do you plan on paying for it?
Cut taxes for the top 5% so they can trickle-down on us. We'll buy like mad increasing tax collections. Sound familiar?
(09-07-2010 08:33 PM)tarheelbillie Wrote: [ -> ]Cut taxes for the top 5% so they can trickle-down on us. We'll buy like mad increasing tax collections. Sound familiar?
Now that is an excellent idea!
In recent decades our "tax cuts" have just been deficit spending by another name, chiefly for the benefit of the financially comfortable. This farce has been sold to voters so that America can continue to finance welfare at home, and play world policeman overseas. Both of which are highly questionable ways to spend money.