[Vision2020] Candidate issues - Foreign Policy

[No Weatherman]

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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
>