Thanks for the full and thoughtful response. I'll try and do it justice although I'm a bit limited on time:
On reparations, now that I realise you were actually relating this to point 10 (I didn't connect the two) - here I agree with you, history is history and however much we may regret things done to someone's ancestors by the people who ruled our country 200+ years ago, that's done. Maybe, maybe if there is direct and clear present gain to someone now, and someone else directly victimised, then there might be a case for individual restitution, but I truly don't know if that's the case in the US: it obviously isn't here AFAIK.
Still, from your own post, Obama's most leaning public positions are Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 Obama opposed reparations for slavery and After his election ... he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," which I suppose may in theory mean he might not be against other forms of reparation but sounds to me like a pretty curt dismissal of something he sees as a non-issue.
The rest is guilt by association with other congressmen, presumably the more progressive democrats who he'd naturally associate with? And some Chicago alderwoman, who certainly sounds ghastly - but, you know, I doubt she's going to have much control over a President Obama. More likely he'll drop her like a hot potato. He's a skilful politician, remember?
#8, I don't know if I can imagine Obama pressing the button to annihilate a country. Should it come to that, I can see him judging the issue, and I think he'd have the strength of character to do so - as Democrats have done before.
I can certainly see McCain or Palin pushing the button. The point is I can't see either of them thinking about it first.
I can also see Obama not being forced into that situation, whereas McCain apparently desires just such an outcome (e.g. would he have started WWIII over Georgia?).
Incidentally, Chamberlain almost certainly knew that the 'peace' he was buying wouldn't last. He sacrificed the Czechs and that is to his eternal shame. But he did so because he knew that at the time the European armies opposed to Hitler stood absolutely zero chance of stopping Germany-Austria - remember, Hitler had already spent 4 years militarising his country. Chamberlain bought 18 months during which Britain frantically re-armed. If he'd gone to war instead, Britain and France would almost certainly have been quickly defeated: and Hitler would not have needed to face Russia then (having Poland still as a buffer), so might well have won WWII...
What Chamberlain did was despicable. But smart, and possibly necessary.
On #7, Just exactly what has qualifies Obama to be CinC?
I think that's pretty much being chosen by the electoral college of the US.
He has said the surge succeeded "beyond our wildest dreams" but insists he wouldn't have pursued that strategy if he'd been President.
Because the troops would be doing the real work in Afghanistan, not splurging money on neocon wet dreams of world domination through invasion. i.e. he wouldn't have invaded Iraq, he'd have kept going after the real culprits.
He is indifferent at best to victory or defeat.
What do you call 'victory' or 'defeat' in Iraq? I don't see how either term can apply now. Oh, yay, Saddam is gone. Let's cheer because now we've got a split country with the largest part basically obeying Iran and the other bit with oil likely to destabilise Turkey, plus a load of angry Sunni in the middle. And it only cost a trillion or two.
On #6, I was sufficiently curious to go to that site, because I've never even heard of that group. Here's what they say in their most recent newsletter (there is more, I've shortened more rebuttal).
chicagodsa.org
The New Party was not established by DSA, nor was it established to be a vehicle for socialism in America. In Chicago, the New Party was largely started by ACORN. While the New Party welcomed support from groups like DSA, the New Party's concern was politics, the political economy of working people and the poor, not ideology and for this, bringing home the bacon is what counts. Not talk. Not ideas. This makes the accounts posted (for example) at
rightwingnuthouse.com or
towncriernews.blogspot.com or
newsbusters.org or
noquarterusa.net
either garbled or deliberately deceptive.
Chicago DSA did indeed endorse Obama for the State Senate, but he most certainly did not seek our endorsement. As for Obama using the New Party and the Chicago DSA endorsements, possibly, but note that he had no opposition in either the primary election or in the general election. He basically did not have a campaign in 1996. One might fairly ask which party was the real beneficiary?
Did Obama attend a half dozen or more DSA meetings? The only Chicago DSA meeting Obama attended was the 1996 Townhall Meeting documented at chicagodsa.org, and that meeting was co-sponsored by the University of Chicago University Democrats.
...
So is Obama a socialist? First you'd better tell me what you mean by "socialist". I'm not being cute. There are people who would hysterically laugh at DSA being legitimately considered a "socialist" organization, never mind Obama. So what is socialism to you? Judging by the comments posted on some of these blogs, socialism is anything involving the government that the commentator doesn't like. By this standard, I suppose he is.
Another way to consider it would be if Obama self-identifies as a "socialist" or "social democrat", just as DSA members do. Well, go ahead. Ask him. And if he says, "Yes," please let me know. Because in that case, he owes us for dues.
Back to the original point, I'd prefer someone calm and reflective rather than someone angry and reflexive. And I just don't see that he's a Marxist.
If he turns out to be an extreme ravaging leftie in power, I will come back and say that I was wrong. Have you ever admitted you were wrong to support Bush? (or do you believe he's been a good President with a successful period of conservative rule in office?)
Palin. We won't agree. I've seen reports that show and link to multiple abuses of power, including the contract for that pipeline you mention. She's unfit for office from her views and style and unready for office from her ignorance and attitude.
#2, Obama-Pelosi-Reid will have the power to make irreversible changes. Putting lots of young extremly liberal judges on the federal courts.
A nice thought. I'd doubt it, look at Obama's record of working bipartisan style - as even you admit he did in his HLR days. What I don't think he'll do is appoint extremists, of either stripe. Of course, if you're taking Palin as marking the centre, then probably you would see most people to the left of Ghengiz Khan as LWE. You may have noticed even a lot of Republicans can't stomach her as being too extreme.
#1, But the larger point is Iraq acted as an attractant for jihadi elements all over the Arab world. People who would have been fighting us elsewhere if not for Iraq.
I disagree. I think the invasion of Iraq greatly increased the number of fanatics willing to fight - and also gave them a much easier venue to reach than Afghanistan. Certainly it attracted jihadis, but I don't think they would have existed at all had we been only in Afghanistan.
And most of the other attacks elsewhere followed the invasion of Iraq, not Afghanistan.
Meanwhile the policies of the Bush government have unarguably made places like Somalia worse - they still haven't learnt that backing local warlords and foreign armies (Ethiopian in this case) is not a sound way to build a nation, especially if you use these elements to overthrow a popular local government because it's partly composed of Islamic fundamentalists.
news.bbc.co.uk |
