[Vision2020] Say What? (local and recent)
Sunil Ramalingam
sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 29 05:15:41 PDT 2011
Wayne asked,
"Would military intervention in the internal conduct and
affairs of another country ever be justifiable?"
I think generally not. I'm not sure when I'd support it; maybe genocide?
"If so, what would be the general parameters for making a
decision to intervene?"
It's not my argument, so I'm not making that case. I'm interested to read what others think.
Sunil
From: deco at moscow.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 07:21:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What? (local and recent)
Question for Sunil. In your opinion:
Would military intervention in the internal conduct and
affairs of another country ever be justifiable?
If so, what would be the general parameters for making a
decision to intervene?
w.
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sunil Ramalingam
Cc: vision 2020
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 2:24
PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What?
(local and recent)
Reggie,
I'll respond to some of your points below. I
need to work on my taxes, so I'm trying to be brief.
From: reggieholmquist at u.boisestate.edu
Date:
Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:54:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What? (local
and recent)
To: thansen at moscow.com
CC: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
On
Afghanistan: You may be aware that there are an estimated 10,000
fundamentalist militants in South Waziristan (Pakistan, on the border of
Afghanistan). Most foreign policy experts agree that failed states (see:
Afghanistan) are breeding grounds for terrorism. If America leaves
Afghanistan, those 10,000 militants will flood into Afghanistan, impose their
will upon Afghans, and grow in strength and power.
What are
we doing that makes you think we are going to succeed? What are we
doing now? We're propping up the mayor of Kabul and his corrupt government,
one that has no legitimacy outside the capital. We're pouring billions into a
failed effort. Every time we kill more civilians, we fall further behind. We
should pay some attention to the fact that outsiders have never run
Afghanistan, and we won't either (assuming we have some right to try to do
so.)
If that was the only problem, I would have less of an issue,
but Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is kind of scary. It is well-documented
that there are a significant number of fundamentalist sympathizers within the
Pakistani military. I read an article by Seymour Hersh that talked about
an actual terrorist attack (a suicide bombing I believe) that occurred in
one of the military institutions where the Pakistani holds nuclear
weapons. The scary thought to me is the idea that those
fundamentalist militants will end up with the ability to launch a Pakistani
nuclear weapon.
Then I suggest re-thinking your position on
drones: I think what you say above is the foreseeable outcome of this
policy.
I'm not saying it's an open-and-shut case in favor
of Afghanistan occupation, but I am saying that there is not an open-and-shut
case in favor of withdrawal. There are potential consequences we should
keep in mind. Personally, I am vacillating. That said, I support
the President in his decision and I don't know what I would do if i were in
his position. I'm just glad I don't have to make those sorts of
decisions.
I think he locked himself into this position in the
campaign because he thought he had to support one of the wars to avoid
appearing weak. At some point he needs to understand he is getting
nowhere.
On Drone attacks in Pakistan: Again, a
toughy. The Wikileaks docu-dump showed that Pakistan has been
essentially working with America's enemies behind her back. If Pakistan
would take care of the militants in South Waziristan, this would not be an
issue. They either can't, or don't want to. Pakistani government
"implosion" is unlikely and not really much of a concern, IMHO.
A year ago did you think Mubarak would be driven out of Egypt? He
wasn't allowing us to bomb his country. If our president were to allow Mexico
or Canada, or to make the analogy more accurate, Russia, to bomb our border
areas, would he keep his legitimacy?
And if sovereignty is such a
concern, do you think we should stay out of Libya as
well?
Yes.
On Guantanamo: Yeah, well Obama signed
an executive order to shut it down, but Congress passed a bill specifically
forbidding him from using funds to shut down Guantanamo or transfer prisoners
into America. You can't pin this one on Obama.
No, but he's
stuck with the military commissions.
"He's doing his best to
convince me he doesn't deserve my vote."
Unfortunately, in our
system an Idahoan's vote for President doesn't matter a single Iota. If
it did, I would be compelled to rant about how America's plurality voting
system turns a vote for, say, Weiner, into a vote for whatever Republican
candidate is opposing Obama. The system sucks, that is true.
However, until we can (if we can) change that system, we must work within its
confines. That means that the right thing to do is to vote for (and
convince others to vote for) the least bad of the two viable candidates every
single election.
My personal belief is that the President can only be
slightly left of the Senate Democratic Caucus (hereafter SDC). It is the
SDC that drives Democratic policy and it is the SDC that hold all the
power. The SDC is unnaturally conservative as a result of the Senate
system for many reasons (to name two: ID voters have 70 times more
representation in the Senate than CA voters; Democratic metropolitan centers
in swing/conservative states have no effective representation in the
Senate). The reason the Pres can only be slightly left of the SDC is
because to do otherwise is to put him at odds with the SDC. In that
battle, the SDC is likely to come out on top every time, not because they are
right, but because the optics of that potential situation would tend to
"normalize" the SDC while "radicalizing" Obama. If the Republicans, for
example, had a large "moderate" faction, the "moderate" faction would make the
conservative faction look radical by comparison.
For example, if Obama
had, say, vetoed the PPAFA because it didn't have a public option, two things
would have happened. First, the bill would have failed, because the SDC
would never have allowed the bill to pass with a public option. Second,
this would have set up a dichotomy between Obama and the SDC. When
Americans see internal strife within the Democratic Party, the tend to side
(however wrongly) with the faction that appears more "moderate." This is
an unfortunate reality, and it has more to do with the fact that most
Americans don't really pay that much attention than the idea that Americans
actually agree with the more "moderate" faction of the SDC.
Democrats
are at a huge disadvantage because of the SDC. Even when Democrats had
59 Senators, 16 of those were "moderates." In a lot of situations, it
doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a Democratic President to push for
progressive legislation because he won't be able to get that legislation
passed anyway, and the fight between the Pres and the SDC will only hurt
Democrats.
The only
solution I can see is for the State Parties (IDP, for example) to adopt a
strategy of ONLY running actual progressives for the Senate. Until
we can get a SDC which is more conducive to our goals, attacking the President
from the left is counter-productive to our own goals.
All that said, I
do think it is fair to criticize the President over his silence regarding the
coordinated attack on unions. Even the SDC is on the side of the
progressives on that one, and it's not national legislation anyway. This
coordinated attack on unions is mostly confined to state legislatures, but it
would be really nice to see Obama use his bully pulpit to stand up for the
rights of workers.
Regardless, all the other viable 08 (and potential
2012) candidates were (and are) much much worse than Obama. He was the
best viable candidate then and he is the best viable candidate for 2012 as
well. In America's plurality voting system, a vote for anyone other than
Obama is a vote for the Republican nominee.
I buy into this myself,
then wonder why. The only thing I get out of it is lip service. I walked into
the booth ready to vote for Nader in 2000, but voted for Gore in the end. I
certainly know how meaningless my vote for the Democratic Presidential
candidate is in Idaho. All the more reason, then, to vote my
conscience.
the real answer is for Americans to get off their
asses and vote, but that doesn't seem likely .
Rant
over.
-Reggie
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
My sentiments
exactly, Sunil.
Obama lost my respect when he started caving in to
Boehner.
I'm voting for Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York as a write-in
come election day.
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"The Pessimist
complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change and the Realist
adjusts his sails."
- Unknown
On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:29, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Does Dale say Obama represents the left (whatever that
is) because he's intellectually lazy, or ignorant, or simply because it fits
his narrative? He's not shown too much interest in facts or the truth.
Perhaps he simply refers to the fact that many on the left, like me, did
support him and vote for him. But his recent actions make it clear that if I
thought he represented me, I was mistaken.
>
> Obama is no
leftist. He's a centrist who is ever moving to the right, much like Clinton
did.
>
> Is he a warmonger? Not one like Bush, but he's
continued Bush's Iraq occupation, and is keeping his wrong-headed pledge to
wage war in Afghanistan. We will not 'win' there, or in Iraq, and belong in
neither country.
>
> He's stepped up drone attacks in Pakistan.
I don't know how any state can maintain legitimacy with its people while
allowing a foreign power to bomb its people. We should not be surprised if
that government implodes. Then of course we can pull out our hair worrying
about what will happen to its nuclear arsenal. Maybe the time to worry is
now, and we should not take these actions.
>
> He's kept
Guantanimo open, though if he was seriously interested in shutting it down,
the Republicans are dedicated to keeping it open. He lacks the guts to take
action to shut it down while they oppose it. And his recent statements about
Private Manning's treatment were shameful.
>
> I'm well to the
left of Obama. His actions above do not represent me. I wonder why he keeps
silent as a coordinated Republican plan to destroy unions and collective
bargaining is waged across the country. A leftist would say and do something
about it.
>
> He's doing his best to convince me he doesn't
deserve my vote.
>
> Sunil
>
> > Date: Sun, 27
Mar 2011 04:35:55 -0700
> > From: thansen at moscow.com
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
Subject: [Vision2020] Say What? (local and recent)
> >
> >
"Protests essentially stopped after the 2008 election. The left now
have
> > their warmonger in the White House."
> >
>
> - Dale Courtney (March 26, 2011)
> > http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2011/03/26/79725.aspx
>
>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Seeya round town, Moscow.
> >
> > Tom
Hansen
> > Moscow, Idaho
> >
> > "The Pessimist
complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
> > and
the Realist adjusts his sails."
> >
> > - Unknown
>
>
> >
> >
=======================================================
> > 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
=======================================================
--
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will
instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already
happened.
Douglas Adams
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110329/accebb52/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list