[Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy

[No Weatherman]

Paul:

Please tell us why you think chit chatting with Ahmadinejad could
possibly accomplish anything and tell us why you think he's a
trustworthy fellow.



On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Correction.  There's only one way to deal with them if that's the only
> option you leave open for yourself.  If you can save the lives of who knows
> how many US troops and innocent Irani civilians through negotiations, why
> not try?  That's assuming our fears of their having nuclear weapons are
> indeed well-founded, and their threats of attacking another sovereign nation
> are real and imminent.
>
> Paul
>
> No Weatherman wrote:
>>
>> It's not unreasonable to require a terrorist state that is armed to
>> the teeth to take a sedative before discussions.
>>
>> It is completely absurd to ask a global leader to abandon its foreign
>> policy as well as its international friends before discussions begin.
>>
>> Ahmadinejad is a lunatic who should not be allowed to host nukes. Iran
>> would destroy Israel as fast as they'd hang a homosexual.
>>
>> There's only one way to deal effectively with terrorist leaders. It's
>> not pleasant and the world community will frown on it but in the end
>> terrorists understand only one kind of language — physical violence.
>>
>> The Neville Chamberlains and Barack Obamas of the world think they can
>> reason with terrorists, but they cannot. Having tea with Adolf or
>> talking shop with Ahmadinejad will only prolong the inevitable.
>>
>> The minute someone threatens to take another person's life, whether
>> individually or nationally, all negotiations should cease and
>> reasonable people must begin contemplating the very thing that Neville
>> and Barack think they can avoid.
>>
>> Sooner or later someone is going to have to make the decision to take
>> out Iran's nukes. It will probably be Israel, like they took out
>> Iraq's in 81, and I hope they have the complete support of the US.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Iran is doing the exact same thing Bush is.  They are attempting to get
>>> the
>>> other party to commit to exactly the outcome they want from the talks
>>> before
>>> they begin.  It's the perfect way to look like you want to negotiate when
>>> what you really want is your way or the highway.
>>>
>>> The fact that we do the same thing embarrasses me.  This is not "higher
>>> standards", it's on the level of what third-graders would do.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> No Weatherman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just when I thought we had the fixin's for an interesting subject to
>>>> discuss, Iran had to go and set two preconditions before they'd meet
>>>> with the US:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/10/13/iran-refuses-meet-us-without-preconditions
>>>>
>>>> IOW, the president of a terrorist state has higher standards for
>>>> negotiation than Barack Obama.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/08, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm happy that Obama has some experience with Islam and Muslims."  In
>>>>> addition, he argues that open discussion without conditions among those
>>>>> that
>>>>> disagree is generally desirable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't agree strongly enough with the second sentiment.  While
>>>>> discussion
>>>>> may not always lead to conflict resolution, having no discussion never
>>>>> does.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With regard to his first point:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it a very big mistake to think there is heterogeneity within
>>>>> the
>>>>> so-called Islamic community and within the so-called Christian
>>>>> Community.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two major Islamic sects between which there is very little
>>>>> harmony, theological or otherwise.  In fact, active news readers will
>>>>> know
>>>>> that the division between the two sects is so great that it frequently
>>>>> provokes murderous acts and other atrocities.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to The Encyclopedia of American Religion there are at least
>>>>> 280
>>>>> identifiable Christian sects of some noteworthy size in the US each
>>>>> with
>>>>> significant but differing sub-sects.  In addition, pick a major ethical
>>>>> issue -- abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, gun control,
>>>>> environmental
>>>>> stewardship, etc -- and it is easy to find major Christian sects on the
>>>>> opposite sides of the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody speaks for either the so-called Islamic community or so-called
>>>>> Christian community, and in reality rather than artificial semantic
>>>>> classification, there are no such communities.  Things are far more
>>>>> complex
>>>>> ,and to some extent, much more fluid than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Discussion is very important.  But it is important to know with whom
>>>>> you
>>>>> are
>>>>> having a discussion, who they may or may not represent, and what power
>>>>> or
>>>>> influence they may yield over those they may claim to represent.  This
>>>>> is
>>>>> especially true on the national and international level.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> W.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Paul Rumelhart
>>>>> To: No Weatherman
>>>>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 4:03 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Candidate issues — Foreign Policy
>>>>>
>>>>> I was planning on starting other issues threads, anyway.  I guess I'd
>>>>> like to start with the implication that simply sitting down to talk
>>>>> with
>>>>> someone without preconditions is somehow the wrong thing to do.  If we
>>>>> don't start a dialogue, how are we supposed to get anywhere?
>>>>>
>>>>> Diplomacy used to be this country's strong suit, before our current
>>>>> President trashed out international reputation.  Sit down, discuss,
>>>>> look
>>>>> for points of potential compromise, stand firm on issues we have no
>>>>> room
>>>>> for compromise on.  It's an art that our country seems to have lost.
>>>>>  We
>>>>> have a lot more weapons in our arsenal than tanks and automatic rifles,
>>>>> if we'd just use them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, sitting down and discussing issues with bad people, even
>>>>> terrorists, does not transfer those ideas automatically like some kind
>>>>> of virus.  Besides, today's terrorist is yesterday's CIA trainee.  It's
>>>>> a crazy world we live in, and uncompromising positions based on fear
>>>>> doesn't serve us too well in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy that Obama has some experience with Islam and Muslims.  He
>>>>> might be able to get past this country's prejudices and find a solution
>>>>> to Iraq that is workable for everyone.  That is, if he doesn't get shot
>>>>> because some idiot thinks he's an "Ayrab".
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> No Weatherman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't be offended but I'd rather not participate in the economic part
>>>>>> of the conversation because I don't believe any candidate can "fix"
>>>>>> the economy and in the end both men offer loser plans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you're ready, I'd like to address foreign policy and Barack
>>>>>> Obama's willingness to sit down with rogue world leaders, without
>>>>>> precoditions, like Iran's president who believes Israel should be
>>>>>> "wiped off the map."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The irony with this position is that while some of Obama's LOUD and
>>>>>> dishonest supporters in this forum refuse to engage me at all, their
>>>>>> homeboy Barack Obama wants to sit down with leaders of
>>>>>> terrorist-sponsoring countries without any preconditions that would
>>>>>> hold those countries responsible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know the reason for Obama's naive approach to foreign policy
>>>>>> but the best explanation for this policy is that Obama has spent a the
>>>>>> vast majority of his adult life palling around with terrorists, both
>>>>>> international and domestic, and so his foreign policy would be no
>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now, because the money has to come from somewhere and I'd
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> not be on the backs of the middle class, I'd say I'm for shifting
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the tax burden to the corporations instead.  I wouldn't call it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "penalizing"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> them, but the money has to come from somewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Getting out of Iraq would also help the economy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No Weatherman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apologies. My bad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So where are you on the issue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Penalize corporations or relieve their burden?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Paul Rumelhart
>>>>>>>> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but the hell they do.  I'm not saying that no
>>>>>>>>> corporations
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> make a profit.  That would be silly.  I'm saying that no _specific_
>>>>>>>>> corporation has a right to a profit.  They only have a right to be
>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> compete on a level playing field.
>>>>>>>>> If Corporation X goes broke because Uncle Sam raised their taxes,
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> Corporation Y (who has found a way to work a little leaner) will
>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> take over their customers.  Likewise, if Corporation X pulls up
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> stakes
>>>>>>>>> in the US and moves it's headquarters to China, then Corporation Y
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> might
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> just step up to the plate with a "made in America" ad campaign.
>>>>>>>>>  It's
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> not
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like we're going to run every corporation into the ground because
>>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>>> raising taxes on them.  Like you said, they'll just pass it on to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> customer anyway.  But now said customer has a choice - should they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> spend
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> their extra paycheck money on shoes for the kids, or on a widget
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> Company X?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No Weatherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Comrade Paul:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Corporations absolutely have a right to make a profit and it's
>>>>>>>>>> possible to tax them right out of existence or out of the country.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And if they go broke or abandon the US, how where will the
>>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>>> get its tax revenues?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't we worry about where people are going to find their next
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> meal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> before we worry about how corporations are supposed to make their
>>>>>>>>>> profits?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you raise the gas prices, the transportation costs are sent on
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> consumer.  If you raise the price of some component they need,
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> sent on to the consumer.  If you raise the minimum wage, the
>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sent
>>>>>>>>>>> on to the consumer.  What Obama wants to do is relieve some of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> burden
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the "consumer", by lowering their personal tax burden.  With all
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> these
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>> being passed on to them, lowering their tax burden might actually
>>>>>>>>>>> convince
>>>>>>>>>>> them that they can still buy their product.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Corporations don't have a right to make a profit.  If economic
>>>>>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> tough, we should be focusing on the individual, not on how well
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Company
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> X
>>>>>>>>>>> can sell widgets to people that probably don't even need them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a bunch of yahoos making more money than they know
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> with, why overly tax the person that's living on ramen noodles
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> Koolaid?Why don't we worry about where people are going to find
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> next meal
>>>>>>>>>>> before we worry about how corporations are supposed to make their
>>>>>>>>>>> profits?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just my two cents.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No Weatherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you raise taxes on corporations so that you can lower taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> one
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> sector of the population, how do you think those corporations
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> recover the money they lost by the tax increase?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THEY WILL RAISE PRICES ON THEIR PRODUCT TO RECOUP THEIR LOSSES.
>>>>>>>>>>>> THEREFORE, ANY MONEY GAINED BY TAX RELIEF WILL BE LOST AT THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CHECKOUT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> STAND.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Punitive tax hikes on corporations do not take place in a black
>>>>>>>>>>>> hole
>>>>>>>>>>>> and neither does redistribution of wealth. These companies are
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> business to make money, not pay taxes, and they will make their
>>>>>>>>>>>> profit, taxes or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Paul Rumelhart
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an attempt to get a discussion started on the issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> instead
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the threads on who associates with who and who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> encouraging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> most emotional responses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are links to the sections on the economy from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republican candidates for office:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John McCain:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barack Obama:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest difference between the two, in my opinion, from my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that John McCain is focusing on helping corporations through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaks to help the economy whereas Barack Obama is focusing on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaks for the middle class instead.  Both plans have a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provisions I like - both are looking at different ways that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work/family balance can be strengthened, for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of information there to go through.  Please let
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> know
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your thoughts, so we can all become more educated on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> positions.  Also, if others want to tackle third-party
>>>>>>>>>>>>> positions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> topics, please do.  I'm not educated enough about them this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to even know who they all are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>          http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>   =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
>>>>>>>>>> img20081013055300181communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>   =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
>>>>>>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>   mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>  =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
>>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>                             mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net
>>                              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
>