Democrats and bombing

[Ibrahim]

Good piece of how most professional Democrats fell into line on the ongoing civilian murdering campaign:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... terAccount

Rachel Maddow and conservatism, the new liberalism
The 'prominent liberal' misses the point that it is not politicians, but the system itself, which is corrupt.

Washington, DC - Once upon a time - say, three years ago - your average Democrat appeared to care about issues of war and peace. When the man dropping the bombs spoke with an affected Texas twang, the moral and fiscal costs of empire were the subject of numerous protests and earnest panel discussions, the issue not just a banal matter of policy upon which reasonable people could disagree, but a matter of the nation's very soul.

Then the guy in the White House changed.

Now, if the Democratic rank and file haven't necessarily learned to love the bomb - though many certainly have - they have at least learned to stop worrying about it. Barack Obama may have dramatically expanded the war in Afghanistan, launched twice as many drone strikes in Pakistan as his predecessor and dropped women-and-children killing cluster bombs in Yemen, but peruse a liberal magazine or blog and you're more likely to find a strongly worded denunciation of Rush Limbaugh than the president. War isn't over, but one could be forgiven for thinking that it is.

This part is a precious/wrong though.

To be fair, America was indeed once a more peaceful place, the idea of permanent war once as foreign as the European colonisers who landed there.

[Enki]

This is precisely why old Democrats need to be replaced.

[Mr. Perfect]

They won't be though. Because nearly all the people protesting the war were lying.

[Carbizene]

To me this represents a disturbing acceptance of eternal war, we have exactly the same thing in Australia. A few years ago when Bush the younger came to visit, Bob Brown, recent leader of the third party, severly broke protocol during a Parliamentry session which Bush was addressing to harangue Bush about Gitmo, recently when Obama was here, Brown made no mention of Gitmo. Such political opportunism represents a serious flaw in the system as it is.

[Mr. Perfect]

Carbs, Brown was lying in this first instance. It's not a systemic flaw, it's just human behavior.

[cdgt]

This is precisely why old Democrats need to be replaced.

(Slow day in the guns thread... )

You gotta replace the Democrat electorate first. They put them in there, and most don't care about bombing one way or another. Outside of their interests.

Same goes for the other side. Romney is what he is and where he is because the GOP electorate is what it is.

Replacing the "old ..." isn't gonna do squat. The replacements for the "old ..." will be just as feckless. An electorate-ectomy is required.

The politicians mirror the electrorate. Let's not blame the mirror if we don't like what it reveals.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yes and no CD, in the case of the GOP we suffer from the institutional problem of conservative candidates splitting the vote of conservatives and allowing the moderates to win by attrition. So Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush 41 etc don't reflect in the way you might think.

In the case of the Democrats they are mostly just liars.

[cdgt]

Yes and no CD, in the case of the GOP we suffer from the institutional problem of conservative candidates splitting the vote of conservatives and allowing the moderates to win by attrition. So Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush 41 etc don't reflect in the way you might think.

In the case of the Democrats they are mostly just liars.

I don't wholly disagree in terms of the Dems.

The situation with the "institutional problem" is, however, still an electorate problem, in this case the conservative electorate.

Take yourself and moi. (A more perfect and upstanding set of conservatives couldn't possibly be imagined, naturally. ) Even we did not agree on who the best conservative candidate would be. We did agree on contenders for the worst candidate, including sir Newt.

But I never found Paul to be a serious candidate, though admittedly and in principle, his principles are the closest to mine and yours. And we, like the conservative electorate, split over a bunch of flawed, fractious candidates.

The conservative electorate has a "institutional problem" wherein it lacks the lemming-like, lock-step solidarity of the moderate GOP wing. Rallying the conservative electorate is rather like herding cats. Moderates and liberals are far more easily kept in straight, neat lines.

A proper and robust conservative candidate would be a marvelous thing to behold, but it could be argued that Paul has sucked a critical mass of conservative oxygen out of the room for the last several turns.

I'm hopeful that there are such candidates are waiting in the wings, and that this is Paul's last "lone voice calling in the wilderness" personal ego-fest. But I think we'll crash and burn before then. But on the off-chance I'm wrong about the crash and burn thingy, I'm interested to see what happens in 2016 in the unlikely event we make it that far.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well the thing is...

We're almost identical on the issues and indeed we did not necessarily agree on the candidates, but my point is that we should have a regionally based run off system where candidates get cut as the process moves along, ending in a national vote between the last two. We would have two conservatives or a moderate vs a conservative, and the outcome would be fair. The current thing is ridiculous. Now is that an electorate problem or a structural problem? Whichever, it is a big big problem.

[Ibrahim]

Aside from Ron Paul, who had no real support from Republican voters as a whole, what Republican candidate ever had a different stance on defense and foreign policy than the status quo?

The point of the article, and this has also been my point for some time, is that whoever is President the US indiscriminately bombs people, including huge numbers of civilians, for reasons that are obscure. The Democrats have adopted this status quo as much as the Republicans. As bad as Obama is on this account, every GOP candidate except Paul (who nobody voted for) claims Obama is not doing enough and pledged to do more.

Republican voters are overwhelmingly soldier-lovers and hawks, and the GOP's fake shadow budget didn't touch a dime of defense spending. Theoretically the Democrats would have to be the dove party, if only by default. Except they aren't. If you are American and you think spending a fortune pointlessly murdering people in other countries is a bad idea then you have no candidate to vote for.

[Mr. Perfect]

Sounds like that sucks for you. What are you going to do about it?

[Demon of Undoing]

Sounds like that sucks for you. What are you going to do about it?

Personally, I'm just waiting for the bullshit to sink the barge. Not much else to do.

[cdgt]

Well the thing is...

We're almost identical on the issues and indeed we did not necessarily agree on the candidates, but my point is that we should have a regionally based run off system where candidates get cut as the process moves along, ending in a national vote between the last two. We would have two conservatives or a moderate vs a conservative, and the outcome would be fair. The current thing is ridiculous. Now is that an electorate problem or a structural problem? Whichever, it is a big big problem.

Ah, the primary system. Yes, it is indeed flawed. But in theory we already have a regional thingy, which means ethanol interests get their butts kissed first, then NE moderates, and by the time SC gets a shot, its largely over. The risk adverse weenies (read: moderates) just naturally coalesce around whatever moderate dreck exists. The moderates like this. Minimal period of uncertainty is so much more comforting. I suppose.

If Romney wins, it will be with tepid, but critical, tea party (essentially--really lots of different elements, libertarians, social conservatives, just using tea party as a quick shorthand here) support. It will be interesting to see how long before he betrays that support--or if indeed it proves so critical that he dare not betray them, lest he provoke a primary challenger and/or party split. My cynical guess is that he'll do a partial betrayal, but hold the SCOTUS nominations hostage as a bone to keep the tea party in the party, albeit unhapplily. Party loyalty will muzzle some of the more vocal tea party types, and that will hurt the formation of a decent tea party oriented electorate that could force its will on the GOP moderates--or even effectively split off.

Any way this goes, the us senate needs reform more than the primary system, but again, that speaks to a feckless electorate being ... feckless.

But in any event, an entire party of Ron Paul clones with serious intent, a majority in the house, a supermajority in the us senate, and even a majority of SCOTUS seats probably can't avert the forthcoming crash and burn. It is what it is. I'll dutifully play my insignificant part...

[Ibrahim]

Personally, I'm just waiting for the bullshit to sink the barge. Not much else to do.

This is my view. The US is going broke and wants to blow trillions on failed occupations of third world countries? There is a limit to how long that is going to work.


I wish something bad would happen to all the individuals in the defense and lobbying industry who got rich off of all this murder, but those people always get away. In this life anyway. One of the benefits of believing in an afterlife, I guess.

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't know, this drone business is getting high death per dollar ratios, I don't see anything stopping it for our lifetimes.

I must imagine Ibs, watching a nation you consider so murderous toward people you care about and being so helpless, I wonder how you can so calmly shrug your shoulders and resign yourself to doing nothing. I know if it was me I would be considering options, things like maybe joining up with certain organizations who are really committed to stopping such a nation. Seems like a really moral, even manly thing to do. I mean mass murder, it would be hard to live with that and just do nothing.

Have you thought about that sort of thing? Maybe finding some like minded who are really committed to stopping such atrocities? Really willing to stopping mass murder? Do what it takes? Seems if you had the courage of your convictions you would do that.

[cdgt]

When the US goes broke and no longer supports free trade on the seas, and withdraws contribution to the security of any neighbors, say, to the north, their associated discomforture will probably limit their dancing on our graves.

[Ibrahim]

When the US goes broke and no longer supports free trade on the seas, and withdraws contribution to the security of any neighbors, say, to the north, their associated discomforture will probably limit their dancing on our graves.

Rather, the fantasy of US-provided international security will be exposed for what it is. Your navy is a giant boondoggle that turns your tax dollars into private wealth. A smaller number of patrol vessels, combined with modern communications technology, will more than hamper piracy, most of which is conducted by people with outboard motors and shoes made out of old tires.

You're just repeating a fairy tale.

[Demon of Undoing]

At worst, navies go to long range light patrol craft, like our cutters, and go back to escorts and convoys. No pirate ship afloat can take on anything like what even second and third rate navies can field. As Alph used to say, transport is so cheap it is a rounding error in final costs. The demise of the USN would raise costs and a certain level of violence. But not catastrophically, though. Other nations, however...

The real question is how many people will global conditions force into similar piracy as the Somali fisherman. It's no picnic in the third world in the 21st century.

[Mr. Perfect]

When the US goes broke and no longer supports free trade on the seas, and withdraws contribution to the security of any neighbors, say, to the north, their associated discomforture will probably limit their dancing on our graves.

Rather, the fantasy of US-provided international security will be exposed for what it is. Your navy is a giant boondoggle that turns your tax dollars into private wealth.

I love it when tax dollars make it back into the private economy. I absolutely love it.

A smaller number of patrol vessels, combined with modern communications technology, will more than hamper piracy, most of which is conducted by people with outboard motors and shoes made out of old tires.

You're just repeating a fairy tale.

I imagine if you really felt that way you would keep quiet about it. I think in reality you probably view it as an integral part of the murder machine.

[noddy]

When the US goes broke and no longer supports free trade on the seas, and withdraws contribution to the security of any neighbors, say, to the north, their associated discomforture will probably limit their dancing on our graves.

Rather, the fantasy of US-provided international security will be exposed for what it is. Your navy is a giant boondoggle that turns your tax dollars into private wealth.

I love it when tax dollars make it back into the private economy. I absolutely love it.
.

blink

[Ibrahim]

At worst, navies go to long range light patrol craft, like our cutters, and go back to escorts and convoys. No pirate ship afloat can take on anything like what even second and third rate navies can field. As Alph used to say, transport is so cheap it is a rounding error in final costs. The demise of the USN would raise costs and a certain level of violence. But not catastrophically, though. Other nations, however...

The real question is how many people will global conditions force into similar piracy as the Somali fisherman. It's no picnic in the third world in the 21st century.

Imagine you were given carte blanche to design and commission an entire fleet to replace the current USN, with suppressing piracy as it's core mandate. How much cheaper do you think you could do it than the present USN budget? Could the combined navies of the world (excluding the USN) perform the same tasks?


The scariest part of CD's warning is the idea of that US wouldn't be around to protect Canada anymore. Iceland could strike at any moment. Without allies who just withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan, the polar bears might unite and march on Ottawa.

[Demon of Undoing]

I have personal knowledge of a Finn- based, moose- borne threat of Canadian invasion. Mr Perkele is out there, Ibrahim. Don't be so flippant.

As to replacing the USN, antipiracy efforts between nations could be arranged for pennies on the dollar of the cost incurred. No missiles, aircraft, subs, high energy weapons, etc. It could be done. Probably will have to be.

[cdgt]

Seems like a small number of patrol vessels and communications technology are ... old school. Think this through a bit further, Ibby, replace those patrol vessels with some more technology and, presto!, you'll also be a convert to drone-based bombing.

Combined navies of the world? Imagine that! A navy by committee with all the inherent efficiencies and effectiveness of the UN! Where do we sign up?

Good thing that Canada is so pathetically devoid of access to resources that no one anywhere could have any possible interest in that area of the world.

[Ibrahim]

Seems like a small number of patrol vessels and communications technology are ... old school. Think this through a bit further, Ibby, replace those patrol vessels with some more technology and, presto!, you'll also be a convert to drone-based bombing.

I'm talking about presently existing technology, just used to protect shipping lanes instead of murdering Afghan bridesmaids. I'm thinking outside the GTOW box here, I admit.

Combined navies of the world? Imagine that! A navy by committee with all the inherent efficiencies and effectiveness of the UN! Where do we sign up?

It won't matter, you will be broke at that point. We're going to have to rely on Norwegians and Portuguese to protect us from roving flotillas of Somali pirates bringing international shipping to its knees.

Good thing that Canada is so pathetically devoid of access to resources that no one anywhere could have any possible interest in that area of the world.

Well, I just watched the most expensive military in history lose two wars to third world hill people and pious street punks, not to mention turn into a proxy army for Saudi oil princes. Given that Canada has plenty of inhospitable terrain stuffed with armed rednecks, plus petrodollars to bribe foreign congressmen with, I feel pretty safe and secure here.

[Ibrahim]

I have personal knowledge of a Finn- based, moose- borne threat of Canadian invasion. Mr Perkele is out there, Ibrahim. Don't be so flippant.

Our Mounties are training in moose-jousting as we speak.

As to replacing the USN, antipiracy efforts between nations could be arranged for pennies on the dollar of the cost incurred. No missiles, aircraft, subs, high energy weapons, etc. It could be done. Probably will have to be.

I often cite the example of the Indian navy torching a bunch of Somalian pirates in the Indian Ocean. I think the "task force" they used was one destroyer and some Zodiacs. The USN should have radically readjusted it's procurement and deployment strategy when the Soviets collapsed and the Baltic fleet was left to rot in harbor.