What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
Glad to see some folks get it. I don't disagree with what you say. It's hard to know how helpful splitting Gaza and the West Bank is. A fundamental problem on the Palestinian side is that even if a main player like the PA signs a deal, you'll have lots of offshoots and other groups that likely won't sign on and will continue terrorist activities, and the PA isn't competent enough to put a stop to it, let alone in Gaza, where Hamas holds sway.
Click to expand...

I'd advocate a split of "Palestine" as it is first for the reason you mentioned (who exactly is in charge in which area at any given point in time), but also to tailor a peace deal more specifically to each area. So for example, Gaza shares one neighbor aside from Israel IIRC which is Egypt. If Gaza is its own entity with its own govt, its a lot simpler to work out a deal where say Gaza earns more autonomy leading up to its eventual own state provided Egypt does its part to crack down on weapons flowing through its border into Gaza that then are used to attack Israel. In the meantime the Israeli Navy can continue to search ships suspected of bringing in weapons. With a little cooperation out of the only Arab country that officially recognizes Israel I believe, perhaps an offical Palestinian homeland happens provided rocket attacks and the like stop.

On the other hand, the West Bank involves confusing land swaps and the status of Jerusalem. Hopefully that can be worked but Gazan govt objections should have no bearing on those negotiations.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Rover said:
I'd advocate a split of "Palestine" as it is first for the reason you mentioned (who exactly is in charge in which area at any given point in time), but also to tailor a peace deal more specifically to each area. So for example, Gaza shares one neighbor aside from Israel IIRC which is Egypt. If Gaza is its own entity with its own govt, its a lot simpler to work out a deal where say Gaza earns more autonomy leading up to its eventual own state provided Egypt does its part to crack down on weapons flowing through its border into Gaza that then are used to attack Israel. In the meantime the Israeli Navy can continue to search ships suspected of bringing in weapons. With a little cooperation out of the only Arab country that officially recognizes Israel I believe, perhaps an offical Palestinian homeland happens provided rocket attacks and the like stop.

On the other hand, the West Bank involves confusing land swaps and the status of Jerusalem. Hopefully that can be worked but Gazan govt objections should have no bearing on those negotiations.
Click to expand...
Interesting thoughts. But, you still have unresolved things like the Palestinians' right of return, one of the most intractable problems. Plus, a group like Hamas, whose defining characteristic is resistance to Israel, may not be interested in peace regardless of the circumstances. I thought that awhile back they were actually pretty close on land/borders in the West Bank (when Arafat walked away from a deal that gave him most of what he was asking for, maybe in Oslo?).
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
Thank you for the kind compliment. Although obviously I can not speak for others, I do think the better explanation is that the INTENSE OPPOSITION vs INTENSE SUPPORT dualism early in a pol's tenure morphs into INTENSE OPPOSITION vs INTENSE OPPOSITION TO INTENSE OPPOSITION later.

When the "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!111!" brick bats are still being thrown even after everybody in the "pro" camp has sobered up and gone home from the party, those people (who are already pretty irritated that they've been let down, after all) just aren't in the mood to be labeled as blindly partisan. Nobody sees more clearly than they the flaws in the standard bearer who failed to deliver on his promises and, often, who failed to even try. As vile as I found Dubya, I doubt I felt anything like the disgust his voters felt once they saw what he was.
Click to expand...

is this the closest you'll come to admitting how disappointed you are that the Emperor indeed is not wearing any clothes?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
As vile as I found Dubya, I doubt I felt anything like the disgust his voters felt once they saw what he was.
Click to expand...

Remember the "Miss Me Yet?" bumper stickers? I don't think the 'true believers' feel dirty at all - they still think W. was a good president. Granted, these folks probably make up 10-15% of the US population and a majority of them live in Dixie, but that's still millions of citizens.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Remember the "Miss Me Yet?" bumper stickers? I don't think the 'true believers' feel dirty at all - they still think W. was a good president. Granted, these folks probably make up 10-15% of the US population and a majority of them live in Dixie, but that's still millions of citizens.
Click to expand...

I think the True Believers and the Dead Enders are different sets with only a small intersection. The True Believers are driven by their psychological need for a utopian vision, so they cut bait as soon as a leader fails to deliver. The Dead Enders are driven by their psychological need for a messianic figure, so they stay with the leader no matter what he does.

While it's possible for both those neuroses to live inside one skull, it's likely very rare. For one thing, TBs tend to be optimistic and, in their own messed up way, brave. DEs are pessimistic and cowardly, which is why they always need a Fearless Leader's petticoats to hide under.

The "Miss Me Yets" are DEs. They actually aren't dangerous, since as soon as their pope is defrocked they fall into paralysis and nostalgia. The TBs are the ones who will keep on the target of their utopian dreams. They're the ones who are dangerous, and they're off Dubya because he failed them.

Note that obviously the TB / DE dichotomy applies on the left as well. You can see this fracture in the 60s when the left split into the remnants of the New Deal coalition (DEs looking for a new FDR, perhaps in the person of HH) and the Movement Left (TBs trying to build the New Jerusalem of a liberal utopia, perhaps under the banner of Bobby Kennedy).

There really are no DEs for Dubya -- he was just too pathetic. The right's DEs are still bowing and scraping to Reagan. We aren't making any more Reaganphiles -- they've discontinued the model -- so the TBs will eventually completely overwhelm them and take sole possession, until a new leader creates a new set of DEs. Circle of life.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Remember the "Miss Me Yet?" bumper stickers? I don't think the 'true believers' feel dirty at all - they still think W. was a good president. Granted, these folks probably make up 10-15% of the US population and a majority of them live in Dixie, but that's still millions of citizens.
Click to expand...
He spent money like a Democrat, so the fiscal conservatives certainly weren't happy with him.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
He spent money like a Democrat, so the fiscal conservatives certainly weren't happy with him.
Click to expand...

Bob, I respect and appreciate that you feel that way. However, most self-proclaimed 'fiscal conservatives' are only conservative when it comes to funding for education (because "Teachers Unions!!"), social programs (because "Welfare Queens!!"), and other things they deem 'liberal'.

When you attempt to suggest that perhaps the military needs to take some cuts as well, these people scream, "Why do you hate the troops you communist, freedom-hating bas****!" When you point out that Social Security is a form of welfare, these people scream "Why do you hate seniors! We fought a war for you kids!". When you try to suggest cuts to the transportation budget by turning more highways into toll roads, these people scream, "Why are you raising taxes, you bleeding heart libstain!"
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Bob, I respect and appreciate that you feel that way. However, most self-proclaimed 'fiscal conservatives' are only conservative when it comes to funding for education (because "Teachers Unions!!"), social programs (because "Welfare Queens!!"), and other things they deem 'liberal'.

When you attempt to suggest that perhaps the military needs to take some cuts as well, these people scream, "Why do you hate the troops you communist, freedom-hating bas****!" When you point out that Social Security is a form of welfare, these people scream "Why do you hate seniors! We fought a war for you kids!". When you try to suggest cuts to the transportation budget by turning more highways into toll roads, these people scream, "Why are you raising taxes, you bleeding heart libstain!"
Click to expand...
I agree that some people who talk of being fiscal conservatives only want to cut certain areas of the budget, while preserving their favored areas (and that goes on with both Dems and Reps). To some extent that's unavoidable, as for various reasons some parts of the budget are more "uncuttable" than others for various reasons. As I've said many times, the oxes on both sides of the aisle will need to be gored if we are to bring balance back to the federal budget. I'm ok with raising taxes in concert with cutting/restraining spending and to see defense take some hits as would social programs. That probably makes me different than a lot of other folks that talk about fiscal conservancy, but I think the system is so out of whack that everything has to be put on the table if we are to avoid fiscal catastrophe in the future.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
I'm ok with raising taxes in concert with cutting/restraining spending and to see defense take some hits as would social programs. That probably makes me different than a lot of other folks that talk about fiscal conservancy, but I think the system is so out of whack that everything has to be put on the table if we are to avoid fiscal catastrophe in the future.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in this statement to disagree with. How frustrating! :mad: ;)
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
I agree that some people who talk of being fiscal conservatives only want to cut certain areas of the budget, while preserving their favored areas (and that goes on with both Dems and Reps). To some extent that's unavoidable, as for various reasons some parts of the budget are more "uncuttable" than others for various reasons. As I've said many times, the oxes on both sides of the aisle will need to be gored if we are to bring balance back to the federal budget. I'm ok with raising taxes in concert with cutting/restraining spending and to see defense take some hits as would social programs. That probably makes me different than a lot of other folks that talk about fiscal conservancy, but I think the system is so out of whack that everything has to be put on the table if we are to avoid fiscal catastrophe in the future.
Click to expand...

Yep, you got it.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
There is nothing in this statement to disagree with. How frustrating! :mad: ;)
Click to expand...
Problem is, nobody can get elected being honest about the situation. Both sides are unrealistic about it in different ways.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
Problem is, nobody can get elected being honest about the situation. Both sides are unrealistic about it in different ways.
Click to expand...

It's the Mondale lesson. If X is hard and you say "we have to X," the only way you can win is if your opponent doesn't say "no we don't." Your opponent has the same dilemma. The voters don't reward the guy honest enough to deliver the bad news -- in fact, they punish him and hard.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
It's the Mondale lesson. If X is hard and you say "we have to X," the only way you can win is if your opponent doesn't say "no we don't." Your opponent has the same dilemma. The voters don't reward the guy honest enough to deliver the bad news -- in fact, they punish him and hard.
Click to expand...
It wasn't that simple with Mondale, but there is a vein of truth in what you say. Hey, I voted for Mondale!
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
It wasn't that simple with Mondale, but there is a vein of truth in what you say. Hey, I voted for Mondale!
Click to expand...

So did my mom. In fact, as far as I know, and with two exceptions ('96 and '04), she has voted for a loser in every Presidential election. That includes a vote for John B. Anderson in '80, and a pointless write-in for Pat Buchanan in 2000. I can never quite figure out her ballot box thinking, but I tend to believe that she's kind of a Rockefeller Republican, sans the war hawking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top