McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

[Starving Steve]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Yes of course Krakknisse. I appreciate the time you took to discuss this issue, and even more your sportsmanlike conclusion, which wins my admiration. That is one of the very best attributes of all the most free thinking iTulip contributors. Not all contributors necessarily adhere to it in full measure, but when we do this place is functioning at it's best!

I fully understand it's difficult for many well informed readers here who disagree with my expressed viewpoints (probably percieved as merely "pro-American" which would be simplistic) it's difficult for them to look beyond the questionably forceful US intervention in Iraq and notice that the sabotaging efforts of other players have played a major part in the US efforts having come to such a heavily compromised end.

There are some extremely cynical other players actively sabotaging the best intentions in the region. They have a tremendous amount of blood on their hands, and that blood was shed a great deal more cynically than it has been by any US military. The occasional scandals of war crimes are found in every single war in history. To single out those committed by US troops is merely seizing on single issues to sharpen the axe of a preconceived agenda.

Without a full acknowledgement that there are other players in the region who's notions of the value of human life in the pursuit of their regional aims make the US troops on the ground look exemplary in comparison, there can be no rational or even fully ethical "meeting of the minds" to discuss the US's full culpability for the present mess. True objectivity heals a great deal in disagreements, and when employed in discussions such as this one, objectivity vaults the quality of Itulip discussions about "politics" (that's the "electrified deathly third rail" of all topics here) to a high and admirably constructive level.

We'll certainly pick it up again in a year and follow up conclusions will be interesting.

I don't want to keep this thread going longer than it has to go, but I can't help but notice that much of the objection to U.S. foreign policy is coming from E.U, even the U.K.--- especially the UK.... And this seems odd to me after all that the Americans did in WWII and the years since to help re-build Europe and to keep Europe secure.

OK, understood that the U.S. benefited by keeping Europe secure, but the people of America sacrificed in terms of treasure and even lives to keep Europe secure. What have the Europeans done to provide for their own security, especially in the post-war years?

Not to deny that Europe hasn't been a part of NATO, nor to deny that Europe hasn't spent on its security, but the Americans have bourne the brunt of that spending in the post-war years. Meanwhile, Europe now has this odd smug attitude toward the U.S. It is like the attitude of a spoiled adolescent against his or her parents.

I watch BBC News on TV here in Canada, and I am taken-aback by their anti-Isreal and anti-U.S. bias displayed in their coverage of the events in the Middle East. It would seem that BBC sympathizes with Hamas and Hesbollah.

Am I wrong? And if I am right, why is this? How could this be?

Oh, I don't like Bush and the neo-cons in Washington anymore than the people in Europe do. But my anger against the Bush Administration has more to do with this administration's rightwing politics and their weak dollar (pro-inflation) policy. I also do NOT like the Bush Administration's education policy.

My anger against the Bush Administration does NOT centre around its Middle East policy, but the anger in Europe does indeed focus on Middle East policy. And why is that?

When it comes to M.E. policy, my only quarrel with the Bush Administration is that they haven't gone far enough to hit back against the Islamo-fascists.

[Slimprofits]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

The meat of McCain's League of Democracies speech called for Russia to be booted from the G8, to be replaced by India and Brazil.

The purpose of the speech was to demonstrate that his foreign policy aims (well, whomever he ultimately represents) are to break up the BRIC and ASEAN alliances, while simultaneously securing the oil and gas resources in the caspian sea.

I’m trying to figure out how he could possibly accomplish any of this…McInsane indeed.

[Starving Steve]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

I don't want to keep this thread going longer than it has to go, but I can't help but notice that much of the objection to U.S. foreign policy is coming from E.U, even the U.K.--- especially the UK.... And this seems odd to me after all that the Americans did in WWII and the years since to help re-build Europe and to keep Europe secure.

OK, understood that the U.S. benefited by keeping Europe secure, but the people of America sacrificed in terms of treasure and even lives to keep Europe secure. What have the Europeans done to provide for their own security, especially in the post-war years?

Not to deny that Europe hasn't been a part of NATO, nor to deny that Europe hasn't spent on its security, but the Americans have bourne the brunt of that spending in the post-war years. Meanwhile, Europe now has this odd smug attitude toward the U.S. It is like the attitude of a spoiled adolescent against his or her parents.

I watch BBC News on TV here in Canada, and I am taken-aback by their anti-Isreal and anti-U.S. bias displayed in their coverage of the events in the Middle East. It would seem that BBC sympathizes with Hamas and Hesbollah.

Am I wrong? And if I am right, why is this? How could this be?

Oh, I don't like Bush and the neo-cons in Washington anymore than the people in Europe do. But my anger against the Bush Administration has more to do with this administration's rightwing politics and their weak dollar (pro-inflation) policy. I also do NOT like the Bush Administration's education policy.

My anger against the Bush Administration does NOT centre around its Middle East policy, but the anger in Europe does indeed focus on Middle East policy. And why is that?

When it comes to M.E. policy, my only quarrel with the Bush Administration is that they haven't gone far enough to hit back against the Islamo-fascists.

This post was not posted. It went to La-La Land. But hopefully, by quoting the post, the post may get posted.

[western]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

"The beat of a butterfly's wing, can, at a critical moment, create a disturbance that will result in the occurrence of a hurricane on the far side of the ocean"

I cannot speak for the views of others but I am a European, from a place that has been on the receiving end of far more foreign policy decisions than has ever formulated.
The geo political landscape of the ME is so incredibly complicated with so much history (An information source I don't always trust) that it would be ill advised of me to think I knew what was the right course of action to take regarding the less palatable nations that operate here. What I do know is that every intervention that has ever taken place by another power be it western or otherwise changes the relationship and structure of the situation forever which then makes decoding the problem and finding a solution all the more difficult.

The issues of resources are going to dominate the political and economic agenda for the next phase of our experience on this planet.
I suppose that the current feeling of skepticism towards the US that seems to be comming from some parts of Europe has to do with peoples perceptions on a range of issues like lack of political will to attempt to reduce energy use eg Kyoto and a perceived aggressive foreign policy to further self interest. Perceptions have obvious contradictions on many levels but people are like that. Many European countries have been in dominant positions over history and have conducted themselves in a less than cordial way in pursuit of their aims, which can be said of the less dominant players too for that matter.

Personally I have no beef with the US or any other country. Many of my family reside there. There are serious changes comming down the road for us all with unknown consequences and I for one am going to hold tight, worry about my own patch and see what happens.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

The meat of McCain's League of Democracies speech called for Russia to be booted from the G8, to be replaced by India and Brazil. The purpose of the speech was to demonstrate that his foreign policy aims ... are to break up the BRIC and ASEAN alliances, while simultaneously securing the oil and gas resources in the caspian sea. ... McInsane indeed.

Babbitd -

I have a great deal of respect for all your contributions here, and it's evident you are a very smart and well informed contributor. I am not necessarily "pro McCain" which it appears is what you read as the primary message from my posts. I'm "neutral" on much of McCain's posture, but it seems his general posture inflames you and others.

If I may suggest it however, you need to be careful distinguishing between observations of material fact and conjecture here -

In McCain's speech regarding replacement of Russia by Brazil and India in the G8, you assert as a "statement of fact" that this is a manifest "attempt to break up BRIC and ASEAN alliances [ your underlying reason not specified ] while "simultaneously securing oil and gas resources in the Caspian".

In other words what you are attributing here is a conscious "shadow government policy of "geopolitical acquisition" of assets on McCain's part, which I find frankly a stretch, given he's campaigning here for the job, and not drafting a cynical blueprint of "acquisition of assets" which we may more typically observe is what incumbent Presidents are tempted to do. While campaigning for the job, Presidential aspirants are far more commonly driven by ideological platform definitions, as they attempt to position for a popular response from voteres, as well as to pull their general stance into focus.

In other words, my instinct here is that you are "projecting" your fears and concerns about the most venal manifestations of Western governments - where the consciously unscrupulous calculation of rank material gain to the exclusion of even a figh-leaf of principled political stance occurs - and I belive that more venal aspect exists, but it only tends to seep into government leaders well into their terms of office.

What I'm trying to say here is that when you hold up the Russian Federation, India and Brazil to scrutiny, one startling factor jumps out at you - the Russian Federation bears all the hallmarks of a country with a long history of totalitarianism, now manifestly sliding right back into that syndrome, with a "fig-leaf" of democratic institutions overlain, and a Presidency manifestly totally unchecked by the legislative branch of government. The Russian Federation economy is also hollow - driven primarily by it's natural resource exports, with a still rigid centralisation of all the major industries.

When you look at India and Brazil what's immediately striking is that you see two of the most robust emerging economic giants, and also, two of the most robust and promising giant nation democracies in the world today. By their massive potential economic size, and also by their manifest surging private sectors and well entrenched potential for opening up to free trade from the bottom up, rather than top down, these two countries actually are perhaps the world's most promising examples of the extension of liberal economies in the world today. India and Brazil are clearly two of the leading candidates for taking the 21st century forward with the same liberal democratic economies which typified the second half of the 20th Century.

Your observation that the "manifest purpose" of McCain's speech was "to break up the BRIC and ASEAN alliances, while simultaneously securing the oil and gas resources in the Caspian sea" therefore arrives at a narrow set of conclusions about the potential meanings of McCain's speech, while summarily overlooking the striking differences between the Russian Federation's potential for leading the world into a prosperous and economically free 21st Century, as compared to the quite manifest potential of India and Brazil to do so quite robustly.

In light of those considerations I must conclude you are analysing McCain's statements here through what may be at least potentially an "ideologically exasperated" lens. It should be quite clear that the composition of the G8 is not a trivial matter - this group can exert a very large influence on the shape and color of the future global economy. By including Brazil and India into that group, and at least theoretically reducing the Russian Federation's clout on the future global economic direction - you would greatly alter the complexion of a future global direction in political economy. I for one would find McCain's described composition of a new G8 or G9 with India and Brazil a very healthy development, while I regard the Russian Federation's evolution with increasing misgivings.

My conclusion therefore is that your analysis is one-sided on this question, and potentially misses an entire aspect of McCain's worldview entirely in it's perhaps too relentless attempts to unearth more venal aspects to the man. Please be assured however I regard the great majority of your posts here with great respect. I have no idea of your political persuasion. Mine is guided by the principle that reading Politician's platform comments, I will first look for logic and plausibility in their "overt" commentary, and only if I am unable to find logic there will I resort to looking for "occult" reasons. You seem to be following the "occult" reasoning a-priori here, which I don't agree with, as India and Brazil are quite clearly two of the most promising deocracies in the world today.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Sorry I'm late to this discussion but there will be no long term continuation of the war in Iraq, regardless of who is elected President.

Two reasons: 1) The main strategic goal of the war has been accomplished i.e. to change ME psychology, re-establish Iraq as a peaceful counterweight to Iran and show the US was not a paper tiger, willing to commit money, lives and political capital to affect change. We are now in consolidation phase preparing for withdrawal.
2)The US Army and Marine Corps are over extended. If any other crisis occurs elsewhere in the world the Air Force and Navy could fill in as a stop gap measure but the US is in no position to commit large numbers of ground troops anywhere else in the world. This is an untenable position.

The old alliances like NATO and the UN were formed with old European colonial paradigms in mind. I think there is nothing wrong with encouraging new alliances with 21st Century realities in mind. A League of Democracies is fine. But China, India and Brazil will do just fine with or without any new alliances.

It is Russia that is odd man out and must be nurtured. The US & Russians should be running into each others embrace. Both need each other and US insistence on old Cold War policies like containment and bringing Ukraine into NATO, just make Russia paranoid and further embolden Russia to meddle in US affairs. Russia has reason enough to be paranoid given the political and cultural differences it has with its' neighbors to the south and east. Russia should see the west as its natural ally and simpatico friend. Anything we can do to encourage that would be of major importance. I think McCain knows enough to withdraw from Iraq but I think he is an old Cold Warrior and would have a harder time thawing new Cold War tensions.

As for continued US engagement in the world, like it or hate it, the world would be a significantly different (worse) place without Anglo-American influence.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

As for continued US engagement in the world, like it or hate it, the world would be a significantly different (worse) place without Anglo-American influence.

I agree with Biscayne. There is the "bad", but then there is also the "good deal worse" available (we'll possibly get a taste of "good deal worse" as the "low grade sawdust and gristle democracy sausage" that is the Chinese Politburo method of good government casts an ever longer shadow on the world in a scant fifteen years, when they've become the world's newest hyperpower.

What will the "world flavor" be like to all you eager proponents of radical change, when criticizing the world's leading economy fifteen years from now results in smaller nation loss of critical "most favored trading nation" status with China? Will the global press's ability to publish any really harsh indictments get summarily neutered in a world where "there is China, and then there is everyone else"? Think that can't happen, eh? :rolleyes:

If you are not a big believer in a "perfect world government", you may prefer the "merely bad' in the near future, to the "good deal worse". Personally I don't enjoy the proponents of radical world regime change carrying out their highly experimental future by tearing a strip out of my own hide. Meanwhile, a G8, or G10 enlarged to nations like India and Brazil sounds very constructive to me. Balanced controlled change, rescuing the many good components out of the legacy of liberal democracies for perpetuation in the 21st Century. Monolithic world government Politburo style, where "there is China and then there are all the Pilot Fish surrounding it" - that notion gives me the creepy crawlies.

[Slimprofits]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

This is another instance of where I rushed through reading something and didn't grasp it fully. I saw Black Sea, Baltic Sea and thought 'Caspian'.

My conclusion therefore is that your analysis is one-sided on this question, and potentially misses an entire aspect of McCain's worldview entirely in it's perhaps too relentless attempts to unearth more venal aspects to the man. Please be assured however I regard the great majority of your posts here with great respect. I have no idea of your political persuasion. Mine is guided by the principle that reading Politician's platform comments, I will first look for logic and plausibility in their "overt" commentary, and only if I am unable to find logic there will I resort to looking for "occult" reasons. You seem to be following the "occult" reasoning a-priori here, which I don't agree with, as India and Brazil are quite clearly two of the most promising deocracies in the world today.

As for the bolded part, you are probably right.

And I don't disagree with your comments on India, Brazil and the history of Russia. That is really not the issue I was hitting at.

We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible...

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but it sounds as if McCain is campaigning to pick up where Dubya will have left off in terms of mussing around with the colored revolutions in the former Soviet republics. And secondarily, if I am right about that the question becomes, are those interventions good or bad for the long-term of the U.S. from the viewpoint of J6P. That is where I'm left stumped.

[World Traveler]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Not good from the point of Joe 6Pack. He's having trouble paying his own bills and cannot afford to subsudize foreign adventures at this time.

From a recent article on a depressed town in middle of Oregon, where many go to Food Pantries:

"Of the nearly 40 million who fear going hungry, an estimated 11 million-plus Americans occasionally miss meals, according to the USDA."

"A generation ago, at the high watermark of USDA subsidies for food banks, 90 percent of the food these organizations received came from the federal government...These days a food bank ... receives only 12 percent of its food from the feds."

Headline articles yesterday said that recent polls said 81% of Americans think country is headed in wrong direction.

Do these sound like people who will support more costly, foreign adventures?

WT

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

... recent polls said 81% of Americans think country is headed in wrong direction.

Well, we sure as hell ain't headed in the right direction.

[Slimprofits]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Highlights from the final Bush-Putin summit:

• Bush wants to repeal Jackson-Vanik and supports Russia's entry into the WTO and the OECD. Don't know about Obama, but I can't imagine a President Clinton or Congressional Democrats supporting the first part. And the second part is the complete opposite of McCain's recent comments as discussed here...
• new START negotiations will continue...
• They both spoke in friendly terms, but appear to still be far apart on the issue of U.S. missle defense sites. Russia has proposed an alternative(s?) to the sites in Poland and Checkloslavakia. Technical negotiations will continue...

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to the draft

Some big happing a la the fake "Gulf of Tonkin resolution". Ta-da, drum roll, bugles, flags waving. Wait for the draft to come back:
Military.com: Do You Feel a Draft?

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, asked Gates and Mullen the question he said no one wants to ask: "Is the cost of maintaining an all-volunteer force becoming unsustainable and, secondly, do we need to consider reinstituting the draft."

[Verrocchio]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to the draft

America should return to the wisdom of Tom Paine, George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. They thought it (in Washington's words) "unwise to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe's] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." Jefferson was for ""peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, [but] entangling alliances with none." These views could be taken as a fair representation of the sentiments of the American people, who have historically been disinterested in foreign engagement and suspicious of those who have tried to inveigle them into joining one side of a cause or the other.

[Shakespear]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

I find it funny that another "super" organization is needed.

We have the UN, NATO etc. and they all seems just a bunch of talk shops. They are usefully when those with power get what they want. When they become an obstruction they are ignored. Example: Iraq.

Was Hans Blix listened to? Was the UN listened to? NO. So what the heck do we need another organization as McCain suggests. Because it is new it will work better. It will work until someone finds it inconvenience.

US is not perceived as an honest broker in the World and no new alliances will solve this.

This thread sailed straight into an issue of US-Israeli relations. I would argue that the ONLY reason US finds the time and is willing to "invest" so much on in this relation is that the Middle East has oil and Israel can be useful in the game to control it.

No oil and you would not see the US there no matter what.

Take the case of North Korea. It poses a real threat of WMD usage and what happens, we invade Iraq based on some lies. My conclusion from this was that WMD is not what is feared, otherwise NK would be dust. WMD was ignored and Iraq was hit because Iraq HAS oil.

IMHO WMD is an argument of convenience. US has so much firepower that it is insane for some little nation to think that it can challenge the US on this level and come out OK.

However IF threatened such a nation would probable use it. I have no doubt about that. But the key condition here is the threat to attack. In the case of Korea the threat was probable delivered from the Bush administration and Korea responed by testing a missile to show that if this was done it would dirty Japan. End result N. Korea has been left alone ONLY because it has the bomb. If it was some country such as Philippine's far away from any of its allies the Marines would be sent in and the problem sorted out.

The nuks are a deterrent. If I was Iran I would try to get this ASAP, there can be no doubt about this. Iran WANTS THIS. Why? It knows what can happen. Example: Shah Pahlavi. Who put him in power and how? Who was in power before he was installed? How about the example of Chili? The message is clear, don't play the game of the big boys and you will get hit on the head.

Russia is no friend to anyone unless it gets something in return. China is no friend unless it gets something. Are we trading with China because it is a Democracy? Was BP, Shell, Exxon etc going into Russia because it was a democracy? Why no trade with Cuba?

We do not see the US in Somalia, US was not in Cambodia when genocide was happening there, US did not enter South Africa when that brutal regime was oppressing the rightful owners of that land. Geopolitics is dirty and nothing will change it. Machiavelli got that right.

However today's world is in serious trouble and cool heads are needed to navigate through it. McCain in my opinion is not the man for the job. Obama, I give him the plus that he is new on the stage perhaps he may offer something better. Hillary, God only knows what she will do.

Fate will resolve this in the end, lets hope it will be kind.