Flash: OBAMA IS PRESIDENT!!!

[Christopher Snow]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

So Obama has won, and big time at that. Can't say I am dissapointed, even though it will get more rough in Europe now considering Afghanistan. But that's something I am more then willing to take if it means the US comes back into the club of nations respecting human rights and global rules.

Voting Obama alone raised the US reputation by a big margin practically overnight. You guys voted a black president. Big kudos to that, I did not see that coming. Basicly threw a ot of clichés out of the window into the faces of those thinking the US was still too racist. That alone was worth it already, if not anything else.

If I were you, and that includes republicans, I'd be grateful for this already. And that Obama, unlike Bush, also embraces the other party. From an outsiders view, national unity is more then needed in the US right now to tackle the problems. I personally want to see the US come to it's former glory again, it's moreal authority and it's leadership role in the west. For sure better then Russia or China as an alternative. And now that Bush is gone, there is a real possibility of this beeing achieved. McCain was a good man, I respect him, even if he got sucked into his partys habits lately, which ultimately was his downfall. For this reason he would simply be seen as Bush 2.0 abroad.

For what it's worth, americas self healing still works. That was the case after the McCarthy years, and I am very positive this is in effect now. Good times ahead.

Gratulations to Obama.

If Obama takes and holds office for more than a few months (lawsuits notwithstanding), I think you will have cause to regret your enthusiasm this night.

I think you in the EU will very quickly come to realize the AMERICAN SECURITY RUG has been pulled right out from under you.

It won't be long before the Russians realize it too (and begin to press westward.)

Here's a hint for you (oh too late to DO anything about it, but that's the way the real world works I suppose: A SOCIALIST US will NOT be able to support it's end of NATO.

Which means you in the EU are SCREWED. We will no longer have the actual economic strength (let alone the willingness) to support you..and you will not have planned (or put aside savings) in the eventuality of our "failure to provide for your safety."

So the Russians can march right in...and we can't do anything about it (moreover, Obama wouldn't, even if he could--it would be too unpopular for a new President, don't you know...)

...or....

you can hope the Russians aren't feeling their oats.

Do you feel lucky? Do ya?


CS

Originally Posted by Christopher Snow

If Obama takes and holds office for more than a few months (lawsuits notwithstanding), I think you will have cause to regret your enthusiasm this night.

I think you in the EU will very quickly come to realize the AMERICAN SECURITY RUG has been pulled right out from under you.

It won't be long before the Russians realize it too (and begin to press westward.)

Here's a hint for you (oh too late to DO anything about it, but that's the way the real world works I suppose: A SOCIALIST US will NOT be able to support it's end of NATO.

Which means you in the EU are SCREWED. We will no longer have the actual economic strength (let alone the willingness) to support you..and you will not have planned (or put aside savings) in the eventuality of our "failure to provide for your safety."

So the Russians can march right in...and we can't do anything about it (moreover, Obama wouldn't, even if he could--it would be too unpopular for a new President, don't you know...)

...or....

you can hope the Russians aren't feeling their oats.

Do you feel lucky? Do ya?

CS

Right, let's tackle this with a bit more common sense, kay?

First of all, in case of the US, it is not so much about US support for Europe against Russia. Russia has a gross domestic budget comparable to Portugal. They are big with sabre rattling, just like in the cold war era, but there is not much substance behind it to pose a real threat, especially with Russia's number 1 money maker, oil, going to the bottom right now and the country's economy beeing in big big trouble thanks to their Georgia adventure, which caused investors to leave the country, amplified by the financial crisis. Russia has some very basic and deep running domestic problems and is in no state to pose a serious threat within the next 10 years minimum as long no madman with a twitchy finger comes to power. But in such a case it really does not matter what a state the US is in anyways.

What is going to happen is that Obama will ask the Europeans for more support in Afghanistan. And given the current and ongoing debates in Germany about the Afghanistan deployment, and I think ppl here are slowly becoming aware we are fighting a real war there, I expect german and european policy to change to a more agressive stance there, which should help the US quite a bit. As you can see, it is not so much about support from the US to Europe, but vice versa. The US currently is in no condition, from a military POV, to make annother commitment anyways.

What you need to realize is the following. The US lost big time in the last 8 years. I do not know how much this got to the US population, but the world has seen the US becoming a ruthless, almost criminal country from its former status as a beacon of light for the west. Bush utterly corruped and destroyed the picture the world has had of the United States, and this plays a huge role in actual politics, how well the US is recieved and how open other nations are to US leadership and proposals. This does not go for it's allies alone, but to all of the world. The US simply lost respect and authority big time, to a degree much worse then any military debacle in Iraq or Afghanistan could have achieved alone. To regain this morale authority, a capital not as obvious as purely economic or military might, should be the US highest priority. It's more subtle then raw power, but in the end so much more effective in making a country's interest succesfull when it comes to behind the door talks and more importantly, acceptance of the population of any given country.

Now, I am not into US domestic politics too much. I have my personal stances which I am more then willing to make clear, but I seriously do not care "that" much if the US is socialist, social democratic or purely capitalistic. It's your choice what a country you want to live in and it's system. But, from an international POV, voting Obama into Office propably was the biggest gain in international respect the US ever got in one night. You got a huge bonus here after the Bush years, and the world will be willing to listen once again. Bush practically played no role anymore on the international stage. Nobody took him even remotely serious. That to change should even be in the interest of republicans.

[Skybird]

I think major parts of the german population already are aware of a war happening in Afghanistan, Bewolf, and just politicians are trying to hide the truth that already has escaped into the open. And yet most Germans, 75-90%, are against any military engagement there at all. I can't see politicians stopping soon to weasel around, and I think the question of increased military engagement in Afghanistan is set to become a very hot issue over here - politicians do not worry about Afghanistan being lost so much, they are concerned about losing their voters. Obama or MacCain, it does not matter, on the Afghanistan issue Germany and America are set on collision course. Obama probably will make higher demands than the german are wqilling to accept, and the Germans are willing to engage a birt more, but not to the level Obama demands. even more so when it was said in campaigning that a higher increase of european engagement over there would allow america to withdraw troops and save it's ressources for being spend at home. Remember that that was taken very queer over here, some months ago?

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think major parts of the german population already are aware of a war happening in Afghanistan, Bewolf, and just politicians are trying to hide the truth that already has escaped into the open. And yet most Germans, 75-90%, are against any military engagement there at all. I can't see politicians stopping soon to weasel around, and I think the question of increased military engagement in Afghanistan is set to become a very hot issue over here - politicians do not worry about Afghanistan being lost so much, they are concerned about losing their voters. Obama or MacCain, it does not matter, on the Afghanistan issue Germany and America are set on collision course. Obama probably will make higher demands than the german are wqilling to accept, and the Germans are willing to engage a birt more, but not to the level Obama demands. even more so when it was said in campaigning that a higher increase of european engagement over there would allow america to withdraw troops and save it's ressources for being spend at home. Remember that that was taken very queer over here, some months ago?

I don't know. It's a question of cause and effect, I think. First of all, the question is why most folks here are opposed to the war. Digging into the topic it should be quite obvious why it is so important to win this war, not just for the immidiate future, but in the long run, for Germany's and the whole western worlds stance in the region and ultimately for ideals the west claims to have. It is not about saving a few farmers or making Al Quaida run away, but to keep a promise made to the world when we entered that country. Losing out of this may further undermine western values and ultimately ourselves.

I am optimistc more ppl are aware of that then obvious at first glance, on a concious or subconcious level. The problem are the polititans themselves, who are not able to cope with the issue in a mature and proffessional way, dealing with the german population not on an eye to eye level, but as you said, fearing for their votes. I do not think they are aware it may not be the war itself bringing ppl to such an opposition, but their treatment of the subject matter, their dishonesty and escapism, coupled with the fact they treat killed german soldiers there not as young men that died for principles, but merely accidents.

Nevertheless, reading newspapers and magazines, forums and having real life discussions bout it, I think this stance is about to change. I read more and more about that little pesky german word "Krieg". It's named for what it is finally, and that I consider a first step into the right direction. What happens next will be seen. But it is a fact we can't go on as we did before in the future. Either we pull out, with all the consequences negative or positive, or we make a real comitment, with all the hardship and sacrifices that may mean. The world is a rough place, and Germany and Europe as a whole better wake up from their self chosen isolation and ignorance. With that I mean the ppl themselves who take their lives and privileges as a granted birthright. At least in this agree to the US.

[Skybird]

I would keep two things separate, the (now dead) beacon of democracy project of the (now dead neocon) US, and the far more modest goals proclaimed by the europeans going into Afghanistan initially, and separately from the US operations. And last but not least it lies in american repsonsibility that the situation nafter the initial kick-out of the Taleban detoriated again, for the US left Afghanistan to itself again too soon, and too weak. That crippled all goals the europeans intiially had, by encouraging the Taleban to come back in strength.

I always called it a mistake of NATO to goi into Afghanistan. I alwys called it a mistake for Germany to go into afguhnaistan, for those idiotic historic reasons they have given, concering WWI and how close the history of Germany and Afghanistan always has been tied, bullsh!t.

The political establishement has no realsitic vision for Afghnaistan, and it planlessly stumbles around in blindness, hopiung for some fair cleaning the situation for them. Either

a.) the principle of absolute reaslism takles over the poltical decision-making and there is a clear willingness to call this a war and defining clear conditions for what is considered to be a win, and under what conditions bare being brought hokme again, then eventually, dspite the folly of the whole operation I am willing to accept an unlimited effort of doing what is needed to wage that war (but I doubt that Germany has the logistical capacity and that the BW is financed well-enough to maintain such a huge mission: we talk of clear and open war on almost the other side of the planet), and then still I am notz sure the war can be won, for a war in Afghnaistan in my view necessarily includes more or less war in and with Pakistan as well;

or b.) the troops pull out and are brought home. Since the current german psoitions is a mixture of refusing to see reality and dancing on eggs, I demand the immediate and complete withdrawal of the BW forces. I am not willing to risk the lives of men and women in the Bundeswehr for nothing more than this crappy political conception - better the absence of any realistic conception - that currently form thiscarricature of a government's posture on the Afghan issue.

How schizophrenic the german view of things is you can see in their absurd, hilarious rules of engagement. A symptom the naval operation at the Somali coats alöso is suffering from, pirates are quoted with saying that they laugh when they see the germans on patrol, becasue they are being forbidden to take action of any kind that goes beyond observing and writing a report. You can assault a ship right under their eyes, and the germans will watch and write a report, that's all. Great.

One thing I do not accept: to vaguely refer to alleged German responsibilities towards a follish NATO mission, or a vague idea of an alleged "shared history" we should have with Afghanistan. This latter stuff get'S blown up beyond realistic scale, and since Afghnaistan (and even more: its corruopt leaders) wanted something from Germany, Karzai did his best to hammer this history thing home, and many philantropists in Germany even were not too stupid not to believe it.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I would keep two things separate, the (now dead) beacon of democracy project of the (now dead neocon) US, and the far more modest goals proclaimed by the europeans going into Afghanistan initially, and separately from the US operations. And last but not least it lies in american repsonsibility that the situation nafter the initial kick-out of the Taleban detoriated again, for the US left Afghanistan to itself again too soon, and too weak. That crippled all goals the europeans intiially had, by encouraging the Taleban to come back in strength.

I always called it a mistake of NATO to goi into Afghanistan. I alwys called it a mistake for Germany to go into afguhnaistan, for those idiotic historic reasons they have given, concering WWI and how close the history of Germany and Afghanistan always has been tied, bullsh!t.

The political establishement has no realsitic vision for Afghnaistan, and it planlessly stumbles around in blindness, hopiung for some fair cleaning the situation for them. Either

a.) the principle of absolute reaslism takles over the poltical decision-making and there is a clear willingness to call this a war and defining clear conditions for what is considered to be a win, and under what conditions bare being brought hokme again, then eventually, dspite the folly of the whole operation I am willing to accept an unlimited effort of doing what is needed to wage that war (but I doubt that Germany has the logistical capacity and that the BW is financed well-enough to maintain such a huge mission: we talk of clear and open war on almost the other side of the planet), and then still I am notz sure the war can be won, for a war in Afghnaistan in my view necessarily includes more or less war in and with Pakistan as well;

or b.) the troops pull out and are brought home. Since the current german psoitions is a mixture of refusing to see reality and dancing on eggs, I demand the immediate and complete withdrawal of the BW forces. I am not willing to risk the lives of men and women in the Bundeswehr for nothing more than this crappy political conception - better the absence of any realistic conception - that currently form thiscarricature of a government's posture on the Afghan issue.

How schizophrenic the german view of things is you can see in their absurd, hilarious rules of engagement. A symptom the naval operation at the Somali coats alöso is suffering from, pirates are quoted with saying that they laugh when they see the germans on patrol, becasue they are being forbidden to take action of any kind that goes beyond observing and writing a report. You can assault a ship right under their eyes, and the germans will watch and write a report, that's all. Great.

One thing I do not accept: to vaguely refer to alleged German responsibilities towards a follish NATO mission, or a vague idea of an alleged "shared history" we should have with Afghanistan. This latter stuff get'S blown up beyond realistic scale, and since Afghnaistan (and even more: its corruopt leaders) wanted something from Germany, Karzai did his best to hammer this history thing home, and many philantropists in Germany even were not too stupid not to believe it.

I'd like to agree to you in that Europe follows another route then the US. The problem though, as far as I can see this, is that other parts of the world regard to the US and Europe, practically all of NATO, as one block, not much seperated from each other. That means, whatever the US does, it will have an effect for Europe purely by association, american hypocrisis becomes western hypocrisis and eventually...german hypocrisis, even if we ourselves know the differences.

Another problem, as far as my understanding for the situation goes, is the following. European countries as they are now do not have a big stance on the international stage where giants like Russia, the US, India or China try to put through their interests. This situation will become worse with the gradual decline of the US and the raise of China and the far east in general. Now I do not believe the world will become a better place. The situation as it is reminds me more of the europea nation states close to the 20ths century. Bickering, nationalism and the continuation of diplomatic politics with military means will once again become the norm. The world has been in kind of a slumber after the end of the cold war and now reemerges in a shape known from before WW2. Europe needs to get its act together as a whole to play a role in that. So far the population more or less reminds me of the US before WW1, isolisationist, the worlds problems are not ours, let others take care of it.

This simply does not fly, that is one lesson history proved already. I am not pro war, far from it. But I consider war a sad reality in this world, one that should be avoided whereever possible, but not at all costs.

Now to your points, I agree to all of them, especially the last one. We don't do this just for NATO, even though we do have a certain responsebility in this regard. I am not a fan of another german "Sonderweg". We had that, it didn't work out. But beeing in an alliance may force us to commit even if we do not like it. This is the basis of cooperation everyhwere.

Nevertheless, a real war should be very carefully considered. For good or worse, Germany chose to participate in this war. We can't pull out now just so with a "Eh, sorry, we tried, didn't work, cheerio" and leave the ppl there behind to get once again killed and opressed by the Taliban. And that does not just apply to Karzai and his crowies. One thing is for sure, should we leave, and the Taliban come back, a lot of common folks there will bite the dust, if not worse. And I am not sure this is a path Germany should go. Especially in light of the stance our troops down there have, which basicly comes down to "Let us just do the job". A much more mature view then either the polititans nor the population here has. From my POV we don't have another option but to name the child by it's name and get the job done the right way. Anything else will mean: more deaths, more terror, more hypocrisis on the human level, less influence, tainted values and a loss of direction on a western nationwide level. It will have a very negative psychological impact on all sides. The chance to not get involved passed a long time ago. Debating that is wasted energy, I fear, but should serve as good example for future issues.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I'd like to agree to you in that Europe follows another route then the US. The problem though, as far as I can see this, is that other parts of the world regard to the US and Europe, practically all of NATO, as one block, not much seperated from each other. That means, whatever the US does, it will have an effect for Europe purely by association, american hypocrisis becomes western hypocrisis and eventually...german hypocrisis, even if we ourselves know the differences.

Another problem, as far as my understanding for the situation goes, is the following. European countries as they are now do not have a big stance on the international stage where giants like Russia, the US, India or China try to put through their interests. This situation will become worse with the gradual decline of the US and the raise of China and the far east in general. Now I do not believe the world will become a better place. The situation as it is reminds me more of the europea nation states close to the 20ths century. Bickering, nationalism and the continuation of diplomatic politics with military means will once again become the norm. The world has been in kind of a slumber after the end of the cold war and now reemerges in a shape known from before WW2. Europe needs to get its act together as a whole to play a role in that. So far the population more or less reminds me of the US before WW1, isolisationist, the worlds problems are not ours, let others take care of it.

This simply does not fly, that is one lesson history proved already. I am not pro war, far from it. But I consider war a sad reality in this world, one that should be avoided whereever possible, but not at all costs.

Now to your points, I agree to all of them, especially the last one. We don't do this just for NATO, even though we do have a certain responsebility in this regard. I am not a fan of another german "Sonderweg". We had that, it didn't work out. But beeing in an alliance may force us to commit even if we do not like it. This is the basis of cooperation everyhwere.

Nevertheless, a real war should be very carefully considered. For good or worse, Germany chose to participate in this war. We can't pull out now just so with a "Eh, sorry, we tried, didn't work, cheerio" and leave the ppl there behind to get once again killed and opressed by the Taliban. And that does not just apply to Karzai and his crowies. One thing is for sure, should we leave, and the Taliban come back, a lot of common folks there will bite the dust, if not worse. And I am not sure this is a path Germany should go. Especially in light of the stance our troops down there have, which basicly comes down to "Let us just do the job". A much more mature view then either the polititans nor the population here has. From my POV we don't have another option but to name the child by it's name and get the job done the right way. Anything else will mean: more deaths, more terror, more hypocrisis on the human level, less influence, tainted values and a loss of direction on a western nationwide level. It will have a very negative psychological impact on all sides. The chance to not get involved passed a long time ago. Debating that is wasted energy, I fear, but should serve as good example for future issues.

The alternative then would be to go to real war. just to carry on with this german schizophrenia we have right now, is unacceptable for me, the worst of all options. Either wage war, then behave accordingly and support it as that, or let it be. The German government tries to dance at several parties at the same time, trying to please every host by that - and right that is the reason why it fails at each of them. so: war, or pull out. the status quo is unacceptable for me.

But if you vote for war, then do it in strength. and then find out how to pay for that without taking new debts (obviously you cannot buy more than you can afford by your income), and how to swing thousands of troops over there without being in vulnerable dependance on good will and logistical dependance of over a doizen clans and nations both NATO members and non-mmebers. Finally secure the supply line without being that dependant, last but not least on Russia

I have tremedous probpems with imaging all that. the BW is not designed to be a war-solid global intervention force, like the US wants to understand NATO after 1989. It's structures are not meant for that. So, while I understand your way of reasoning, I am still not willing to follow your thoughts, but want the troops out of that maze over there.

[jbt308]

Doesn't it frighten anyone in the least that he doesn't even qualify for security clearance? He is such a liability, he couldn't qualify to be his own Secret Service Agent!

I'll tell you what, if you can refrain from gloating today, I won't tell you I told you so for the next 4 years.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jbt308

Doesn't it frighten anyone in the least that he doesn't even qualify for security clearance? He is such a liability, he couldn't qualify to be his own Secret Service Agent!

I'll tell you what, if you can refrain from gloating today, I won't tell you I told you so for the next 4 years.

This is part of the orchastrated point that I have been making. Some very influencial people wanted this to happen. They had power enough to squelch all but one news media station (fox). Squelch others in Washington and specifically squelching Hillary Clinton. Let's face it, she was not the stalwart Obama supported she said she would be. What, two stump speechs after his nomination. This election seemed very contrived. As I have stated before, we knew more about Joe the Plumber in under two weeks than we did about Obama in two years. If you look at the squelching of everything about Obama, it is utterly amazing how the glazing over took place with the media. Personally, I blame the media for poor coverage and accurate reporting concerning Obama. The election was almost to perfect. In hindsight, Obama's campaign would probably screamed racism if the media went after him like others who ran for president. Just another bye for Obama.

I suggest Brag write a book on what looks to me like a conspiracy.

[Christopher Snow]

... see next post

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Sorry, double post.

Originally Posted by Christopher Snow

... see next post

You edited your posts. Didn't you see the button under 'Edit' that says 'Delete'?

[Christopher Snow]

This is part of the orchastrated point that I have been making. Some very influencial people wanted this to happen. They had power enough to squelch all but one news media station (fox).

Ok, I'll disagree right off the bat with this.

FWIW, I spent the last month ghosting (guesting) a the "hillaryclintonforum.net", where I learned a LOT of things. Those PUMA's were all passionate about HRC. And yet....

....sqelching of any of the media was a complete NON issue (in fact, the general complaint was "why can't we shut down MSNBC?", etc, or "why can't we shut down Huffpo (the Huffington Post?)"

The ONLY positive suggestion I ever heard in this regard was "well....just boycott them.!"

Usually something done on the part of individual memembers only, and not as part of an organized effort (in fact, I cannot think of even ONE organized effort.)


Squelch others in Washington and specifically squelching Hillary Clinton. Let's face it, she was not the stalwart Obama supported she said she would be. What, two stump speechs after his nomination. This election seemed very contrived. As I have stated before, we knew more about Joe the Plumber in under two weeks than we did about Obama in two years. If you look at the squelching of everything about Obama, it is utterly amazing how the glazing over took place with the media. Personally, I blame the media for poor coverage and accurate reporting concerning Obama. The election was almost to perfect. In hindsight, Obama's campaign would probably screamed racism if the media went after him like others who ran for president. Just another bye for Obama.

I suggest Brag write a book on what looks to me like a conspiracy.[/quote]


I would beg to differ as regards the perception of HRC in that same forum. In fact there were a couple of threads offered up after election was clinched which went: This might get me banned (from the forum) but I'm ANGRY with Hillary and Bill for supporting him (Obama).

By their count HRC gave 67 (I think) speeches for BHO, while Bill gave 41.

I'm not kidding.

I was never anything more than a guest in that forum, but I'm quite sure this is true.

My numbers are at least close if not exact. So I suggest you check them there before writing that book (lest either of you be sued for malfeasance).

The HRCF, btw, were strong for McCain/Palin, but were also very disgusted with the MSM.

They did agree that the MSM was generally unfair in its' reporting, btw.

So maybe we ALL have that in common.


CS

[Sea Demon]

Christopher. This is just part of the cycle. Don't let it affect you. What Obama has proposed as change in his campaign will not work. Simply put, his brand of government is incompatible with a free nation. I'm willing to give this guy a chance, and watch very vigilantly. But I expect the worst actually. Obama's campaign was a completely fraudulent display. I watched some of the people last night in the crowd and just stood back and shook my head. They have alot of expectations. Expectations Obama cannot fill. If he does what his voters want.....he will most assuredly fail. The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that this may be the start of a painful Carter era. And look what was brought on the scene after that.

[Konovalov]

Indeed Mik.

[Christopher Snow]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Tip of the day : fearmongering is useful BEFORE the election, not after.

I have'nt the slightest interest in what's "useful."

Even if the EU all woke up an and realized I was 100% right today... ....it would still be far too late to be "useful"...or to make them (even if they were all suddenly willling) into an "ontensible ally"

I'm just telling them "I told you so, you dorks" in advance for the sake of saying so. I'm recording my meaningless "expertise" before history overtakes all of us and sweeps us underneath the wave of it's carpet.

That's ALL I can possibly hope to gain from it, unless you think realizing uh-oh....maybe you were right after all, Snow" would have some sort of defensive value (I don't. It might be amusing, but it would also be a complete waste of time to hope for it--we would still all be smashed.)

I'll take it further: A SOCIALIST US is entirely doomed--it cannot defend itself without a strong, CAPITALIST country to back it up (and the Chinese will only laugh).

I plan to liqudate my US assets ASAP. After which I will move to Canada.

Not that it will do me much good either.


CS