Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (446873)	1/12/2009 12:39:15 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573689

"I love the righteous indignation over a few typewriter keys..." They were computer keyboards. Which, apparently, the Bush people were unable to replace themselves. So, they had a technician from the IT department doing it...

To: Road Walker who wrote (446873)	1/12/2009 12:58:37 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1573689

CALLING BARACK "The 111th Congress is less than a week old, and already the first tax increase has been put on the table," complains Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), referring to a proposed 156 percent increase (61 cents) per-pack federal excise tax on cigarettes to fund a $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. "Remember the quote? 'If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up' (President-elect Barack Obama in the October 7 presidential debate)." As many as 55 percent of American smokers are "working poor," according to ATR, with 1 in 4 living below the poverty line.

To: Road Walker who wrote (446873)	1/12/2009 2:07:43 PM
From: tejek	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1573689

'We Americans Have a Wonderful but Frightening Innocence' Former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk talks to SPIEGEL about how the US's Middle East policy will be different under Barack Obama and why the US needs to reach out to countries such as China and Russia. When United States President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20, he will have a tougher to-do list than any incoming American president has faced in decades. Among his biggest foreign policy challenges will be the newly inflamed Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran's nuclear ambitions, not to mention the ongoing struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Speaking in an interview with ABC News' "This Week," which aired on Sunday, Obama repeated that "Iran is going to be one of our biggest challenges" and expressed concern over Tehran's nuclear ambitions and its support for radical Islamic groups Hezbollah and Hamas. "We have a situation in which not only is Iran exporting terrorism through Hamas, through Hezbollah, but they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," he said. The West suspects Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, although Tehran insists it is only interested in peaceful uses of nuclear power. Hopes are high that the incoming president can bring a new impetus to dealing with the Middle East's problems. In the interview, Obama signaled he would take a different tack with Iran than his predecessor, George W. Bush. "We are going to have to take a new approach," he said. "And I've outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start." He promised a "new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk," but also said there would be "a clarity about what our bottom lines are." FROM THE MAGAZINE Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication. Obama also said he planned to set up a new team which would focus on addressing conflicts in the Middle East. "What I am doing right now is putting together the team so that on Jan. 20, starting on day one, we have the best possible people who are going to be immediately engaged in the Middle East peace process as a whole," he said. Obama has so far, however, been conspicuously silent on the ongoing Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. "I will continue to insist that when it comes to foreign affairs, it is particularly important to adhere to the principle of one president at a time," he told reporters recently. SPIEGEL talked to former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk about what Obama can realistically achieve in the Middle East and the importance of getting other countries on board. SPIEGEL: Mr. Indyk, President-elect Obama has so far refused to comment on the Israeli attacks in Gaza. Is that a mistake? Martin Indyk: Before he assumes the presidency, he can only talk but has no authority to act. Therefore, it is wise to remain silent. SPIEGEL: What kind of Middle East policy do you expect from him? Indyk: He will reach out to both sides. America is Israel's closest ally and will remain so. But Obama has the potential to develop much more influence in the region than his predecessors. His narrative as the son of a Kenyan father, his childhood in Muslim Indonesia, his middle name Hussein, his rise to power as the first African-American president on his own merits without wealth or a famous name behind him -- all that deeply impresses the Arabs. ABOUT MARTIN INDYK Martin H. SimonMartin Indyk, 57, was US ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration and is considered an expert on Middle East issues. His latest book is "Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East" (Simon & Schuster, 2009). SPIEGEL: But so far, neither Hamas nor Hezbollah seem to give him any credit for this. Indyk: Their message for many years has been: We establish justice and dignity for the Arab people by resistance, by violence and defiance of the West. They want to quickly brand Obama as being the same as Bush. But immediately upon assumption of the presidency I think he will take the initiative on the Palestinian issue, in part to show that he is not a second Bush. SPIEGEL: Is he a second Bill Clinton, who tried to mediate between the conflict parties in the Middle East -- but ultimately failed? Indyk: Bill Clinton was a very empathic president which helped him to become popular in the Arab world and Israel at the same time. He managed to communicate to the Arab people that he felt their pain. In this regard, Obama is very similar to Clinton. SPIEGEL: Peace in this region of the world still seems very far away, however. Many in the West are tired of these conflicts. America too? Indyk: There are three reasons why the United States cannot walk away. That part of the world generates the oil that fuels the industries of the West and increasingly China and India as well. America has commitments to the survival and well-being of the Jewish state on one side and the security of our Arab allies on the other. SPIEGEL: To what extent can Obama change course at all? Indyk: We Americans have this wonderful but frightening innocence, a belief that we have a mission to transform troubled parts of the world. Even more troubling is that we not only think it is our responsibility but that we can actually remake the Middle East in our own image as a peaceful, democratic place. It is that instinct which George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared in the Middle East, even though they pursued the objective of transformation in two very different ways -- one by peace-making, one by war making. But they shared that basic naïvety and they both failed. Now we have to be less naïve and more humble. I am sure Obama has understood that. SPIEGEL: What impact will such new modesty have on US policy? Indyk: The goal to transform a whole region is wishful thinking. We can't do it. Part of our new humility has to be the understanding that we also cannot do it on our own, that it is not "our way or the highway." If we want to work with like-minded members of the international community, we have to look out for a common objective and take their interests into account. SPIEGEL: Does that mean the Europeans should get more involved and they are more welcome to do so? Indyk: The Europeans will have a role in everything that America tries under Obama, even more than during the Clinton years. SPIEGEL: Why are you so sure about that? Indyk: The situation is very different. We are no longer the dominant power in that region. We face a challenge from Iran, which is making a claim to dominate the region. We have seriously reduced our hard power capabilities because our military is tied up in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our soft power has been tarnished as a result of the Bush years. SPIEGEL: Is America's heyday over? Indyk: Our influence in the region has been reduced significantly. America needs friends and must work with them. And our friends have to include not just the Europeans, but the Russians and the Chinese as well. NEWSLETTER Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday. SPIEGEL: And what is the price Obama will need to pay? Indyk: If the Middle East should be a priority -- and I am convinced it will be -- the US needs to be more considerate of the interests of potential allies. SPIEGEL: You mean: concessions. Indyk: I don't like the word concessions. But we need to understand something George W. Bush never grasped: We can't have it both ways. Obama quickly needs to sit down with the Russian leadership and try to get a better understanding of their interests. If we want Russian support in the Middle East, we need to reconsider our current strategy on NATO expansion or the missile shield in Eastern Europe. We can't have Russian cooperation on a strategy to prevent Iran's nuclear program and the missile shield at the same time. Interview conducted by Gregor Peter Schmitz and Gabor Steingart. spiegel.de