A thread for the discussion of the American elections, now a little less than eight weeks away.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
Palin ……“In what respect, Charlie?”……….Our Pauline “Please explain”…….both like bunnies in the headlights 🙂
[That is falso , under International law a Country can do so anyway What Bush changed was th basis of that methodiogy]
Well what Bush really tried to do is play word games. He tried to say that the U.S. would take “preventative action”, not “preemptive action”, because “preventative action” is not defined in any international law. But that just opens a can of worms; if you think you need to take “preventative action”, why couldn’t you first inform the U.N. that you think a country is about to attack you? If you have enough evidence, the security council will pass a resolution allowing you to attack anyway.
Bush’s second step was to tie this into terrorism, and say that a State may not KNOW who is going to attack them. But this doesn’t make much sense, because how do you know which country to start bombing if you don’t first know who planned the attack? If you know who is planning to attack, then you can take that information to the U.N.
GP, if we needed any more confirmation that the MSM in the US will do all it can to help elect McCain (much like ours with Howard), the reporting of the Palin interview does that. She didnt know about the Bush doctrine, she thought Georgia was part of NATO, she said being able to see Russia from Alaska somehow gives her experience, and said her national security credentials were about oil.
Yet the MSM reports that she’s ready, she’s tough/firm on Russia etc.
McCain/Palin may well be lipstick on a pig but my bet/fear is that the good folk of the US cant see anything but the lipstick. After all they elected GWB twice
No 102
The UN should be abolished. The United States has every right to exercise its rights as a sovereign nation.
[Just watched the ABC exclusive with Palin. Average performance. She has much work still to do.]
Thank you for being honest. If Obama made such a blundering interview on foreign policy his chances of being president would be over.
[Is the basis of the doctrine rooted in 9/11 or a more institutional paranoia
(eg their isolationism pre ww2)]
It came out of 9/11. Remember, Bush’s foreign policy at the 2000 election was almost completely anti-interventionist. Bush attacked “Clinton and Gore’s adventurism” and of trying to go around the world fixing up all sorts of problems that Bush and the Republicans couldn’t give a crap about. Bush was trying to take the U.S. foreign policy back to its state before Pearl Harbor. But then 9/11 changed everything…
“If you have enough evidence, the security council will pass a resolution allowing you to attack anyway.”
Not sure this logically follows. The security council is not some kind of pure of motive, utterly objective court.
[The UN should be abolished. The United States has every right to exercise its rights as a sovereign nation.]
How does the UN stop the U.S. from “exercising its rights as a sovereign nation”?
Plus, the U.S. stops other countries from exercising “their rights” all the time. Like how it worked to stop North Korea from building more nuclear weapons for example.
If you say that sovereign states can do whatever they like, then that means you would end up endorsing the foreign policy ambitions of a lot of the world’s foremost nutcases.
Max , I work purely from memory so may be incorrect but there was a ‘Max’ desirory of Amigos , who was a consevative i think , who then just disappeared when Gilligans started , and if it is not you I appologise
Your point on conventions is what I also posted a week ago , there is always a ‘bounce’ from Conventions especialy given Lady’s exposure , test is when Polls settle then debates then still think Polls ar badly guestimating both oiliness and probably th Lady’s support re turnout
Shows
was pearl harbour (from the point of view of japan),an earlier example of such a doctrine?
What Bush pointed out was that the UN lacks credibility. Which is true enough, although not necessarily a good reason for everyone to start doing their own thing.
Trying to demonstrate the US could and should act outside of the UN by invading Iraq, on the basis of er, non-existent evidence, has to be one the of the dumbest things anyone has ever done.
No 103
Sorry Andrew, but even Fox News was critical, maybe not exceptionally so, but critical:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/palin-abc-ready/
The interview linked by ShowsOn is an edited version and some parts were excluded. According to the Fox article, she called for Georgia to be included in NATO, which would explain why she started babbling “perhaps so” in respect of the possibility of attacking Russia.
Either way, the GOP will need to get Palin heavily up to speed if she’s going to stand a chance against Biden. She was unconvincing in the ABC interview. She is strong on energy policy, but she seemingly has little grasp of foreign affairs.
[Not sure this logically follows. The security council is not some kind of pure of motive, utterly objective court.]
I didn’t mean to imply it was. But Bush’s implication for “preventative attack” always implied that there was overwhelming evidence in support of such an attack in order to make it justified.
That’s the problem he created when he started playing prevention v preemption word games. He had to pretend that the U.S. would only act in the most obvious circumstances so they wouldn’t be seen as being a bunch of nutcases, but as soon as you make the case that attacking is obvious, then you are actually talking preemption anyway.
If Obama wants to retake the lead, he’ll have to stop acting like a Harvard-educated professor, and start acting like a populist local politician. Fortunately for McCain, neither Obama’s background or past actions make that plausible…
No 110
The UN is not a global government and nor should it be perceived as such. The US can invade anyone it chooses, as can any other nation.
Ron,
Yes that still is me, always nice to know I am remembered, even if perhaps not for the right reasons. At least, I have always been ‘Max’ am pretty sure there are none others out there within this group of people (William would have spotted it quick enough I imagine) and have been told that I have conservative tendencies. So I presume it is me.
You’re going to have to help me out here, I’m not familiar with the lingo. Is ‘Gilligans’ the sibling PBUS-turned-Politic101 site? If that is what you are referring to then no I didn’t migrate there other then to post a few times near its founding. Just never worked for me I guess.
I did disappear from my totally unimportant and generally boring commenting when William stopped his US threads because I avoid commenting on federal politic threads, but never stopped visiting. Hence I’m here commenting now.
/personal explanation. While I’m here, how the hell do I change my avatar? Or am I in the wrong thread for that? I have no idea how I got the one I currently have!
If you say that sovereign states can do whatever they like, then that means you would end up endorsing the foreign policy ambitions of a lot of the world’s foremost nutcases.”
That is reality right now ! Thats why th “left” Intellegentsia’s anti american views ar not only ill founded but plain dangerous USA by th prescence of its military strengh does preclude such Despots & nuts and has therefore been more a power of good for World , despite some FA “errors”
So Diogenes get our of that pleasure machine of Nozick , join pro USA with criticism , & join informals For first Iraq War then USA could not attack Saddamm under International Law (no threat to USA) , so UN resolution needed But with second Iraq war “theoretically” based on intell USA had every right to attack Iraq
Playing word games with preventative vs pre emtive does not change basis on which th Law applies
[Shows
was pearl harbour (from the point of view of japan),an earlier example of such a doctrine?]
I don’t think you can say Japan was employing any rational thought out foreign policy doctrine at that stage. The military was run by a bunch of nutcases who felt the only way Japan could progress as a nation was if a heap of young Japanese men killed themselves. They were literally taught in their Field Code, that they should commit suicide rather than being taken prisoner.
Of course now the Yasukuni Shrine features an explanation that says it was the U.S. who acted aggressively, and that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was an act of self defense! But the shrine also pays homage to a dozen or so war criminals, so I’m not sure we should take the Japanese version too seriously.
Max, if you don’t have a gravatar it assigns you a nice pattern – note stylistic similarity of yours with a lot of other people’s. To replace it with your own, try here.
[The UN is not a global government and nor should it be perceived as such. The US can invade anyone it chooses, as can any other nation.]
You do realise this is essentially a summary of Adolf Hitler’s foreign policy?
Moreover, if you honestly believe this, then you must accept Russia invading Georgia, or Indonesia invading Australia for that matter. Oh hell, why not let everyone invade everyone!
The League of Nations, and then the United Nations, were set up to stop countries from thinking they could invade each other whenever they liked. Because when countries think they can do this, we have things called World Wars.
Shows
quite a few japanese i have met over the years were very aware of the “inferior status’ that went back to ww1 and the resultant treatment at versailles (btw not many people realise japan was our ally).
from their POV pearl harbour was pre-emptive as opposed to aggressive.
I was more interested in the rationale that creates and supports a doctrine,rather than the mechanics of the administration(s) that employed said doctrine.
McCain’s lipstick bounce still keeping on.
48/45
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Ron @ 116,
Yes the point is that US power (generally) prevents more mischief than it causes. However it is critical for US credibility, and the future of the world, that we don’t have another Iraq.
As for the UN, in practice it sucks! But you need something like it. Bush, by going off on his own to start what turned out to be a completely unnecssary war, has really made it much harder for America to lead the reform of the UN that would be needed for it to be a credible body.
#113 – i am at a lost here with Obama’s narrative or messages. he seems to just waffle on and on every time that I see him being interview. he does not seem to care whether he cuts through or not.
[I was more interested in the rationale that creates and supports a doctrine,rather than the mechanics of the administration(s) that employed said doctrine.]
I don’t see how you can divide the two. The fact is, Japan wanted the U.S. to join the war, because they felt it would bring forward their ‘inevitable victory’. So they went out of their way to initiate the conflict.
I’m sure after the fact they called it preemptive, but that is just absurd. The U.S. congress and population were still deeply divided about the war, even though FDR was secretly supporting it.
TP,
Interesting to see Washington coming into play.
Goes back to my earlier comment, if McCain gets more than a couple of points ahead, even if Obama can hold on in the “key” States, there’ll be other States for Obama to worry about, that we haven’t even been thinking of.
Give it another week. If McCain is still winning then, then Obama is in a fair bit of you-know-what.
No 122
Whilst the grounds for Iraq were eventually proven false, I still support the right of the US to invade other nations unilaterally and independent of the UN.
Washington state that is
Ahhh very fancy. Cheers William!
GP,
I might support their right to do so, but I’d equally support the right of those invaded to fight back. In practice it’s all going to lead to disaster if everyone decides to assert their right to act independently of the UN (though I acknowledge the UN is grossly defective).
Where we’re at now is, Russia can do stuff to its neighbours, and the West has great difficulty getting to the high moral ground (quite apart from whether we can do anything in practice).
[As for the UN, in practice it sucks! But you need something like it. ]
I agree on both points. Of course it sucks, but if you didn’t have it then international relations would be much simpler, but much more unfair.
You’d have powerful countries invading weak countries, without anyway for the weak countries to stop this from happening.
Then maybe you’d have other powerful countries retaliating to defend the invaded weak countries, which would just produce more conflict, which I propose, would end up in another World War. Which is exactly the thing the League of Nations and U.N. was designed to stop. Now say what you will about how bad the U.N. is, but we haven’t had a World War for over 60 years. So on that basis alone, the U.N. has succeeded, even if in other ways it is a hopeless joke.
[Whilst the grounds for Iraq were eventually proven false, I still support the right of the US to invade other nations unilaterally and independent of the UN.]
Do you think you may want to add just a little bit of qualification to this point?
I mean even Bush came up with WMD. Surely you could think of something.
Max
Welcome back anyway Having so few supporters , its easy for me to remember th rest Although you were a ‘special’ case to remeber , here I was in a den of about 30 far left Intellegentsia who swooned for oilines with no “left” policys , and I was arguing for Hillary (would hav preferred Gore) who does DID hav ‘left’ policys like Kyoto , universal healthcare , tax scales adj , so am getting attacked from far left …and out of woodwork comes a consevative with dems from opposite direction !
However Max as I recall you were not harsh like th “left” Elitists , so no hard feelings at all and also you should re engage oz’ site as well , because your previous attackers there probably were more likely far left fringe so ignore them unlike me , and also there’s consevative Glen , Generic , ESJ and a few others as well
ShowsOn,
Of course we don’t know (and it’s impossible to ever find out) whether the lack of a WW for 60 years is down to the UN, or nuclear deterrence/threat, or other factors such as changing attitudes to war in the richest and most powerful countries.
But nevertheless, you make a good point.
Sorry, just on Washington state, as it is “close” to Alaska is Palin a drawcard there?
No 131
1. Where there is material evidence that another sovereign nation or terrorist group threatens the energy supply of the United States and other countries.
2. Where the sovereignty of Israel is existentially threatened.
3. Where there is material evidence that an imminent attack on American home soil.
Shows
“I’m sure after the fact they called it preemptive, but that is just absurd. The iraq. congress and population were still deeply divided about the war, even though saddam was secretly supporting it.”
The winner writes the history
No 130
And to the best of my knowledge, prior to the 20th century there were no world wars.
“If Obama wants to retake the lead, he’ll have to stop acting like a Harvard-educated professor, and start acting like a populist local politician. Fortunately for McCain, neither Obama’s background or past actions make that plausible…”
Exactly, Mary Hannah Wade. That could be fatal for Obama.
If it’s a contest about who’s more angry with GWB, McCain will win. Firstly because McCain is more angry with George Bush (after all, Bush has given Obama the chance of a lifetime, so why would he hate Bush?). Secondly because McCain just seems more angry about life in general.
If Americans want someone to “fight for America” (a phrase of political genius that McCain used at the convention), Obama’s stuffed.
[1. Where there is material evidence that another sovereign nation or terrorist group threatens the energy supply of the United States and other countries.]
Well, this already happens. The price of oil is regulated by OPEC. Should the U.S. invade every OPEC country?
[2. Where the sovereignty of Israel is existentially threatened.]
The President of Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. So this has already happened, should the U.S. invade Iran right now?
Sounds like your foreign policy is actually a load of rubbish.
[Shows
“I’m sure after the fact they called it preemptive, but that is just absurd. The iraq. congress and population were still deeply divided about the war, even though saddam was secretly supporting it.”
The winner writes the history]
This doesn’t make any sense. Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship, it didn’t have a democratically elected parliament, and the opinion of the general public didn’t account for anything.
[And to the best of my knowledge, prior to the 20th century there were no world wars.]
No, there were just wars between states that lasted for decades. You seem to think that war is a good thing.
SNIP
Something that we as Aussies probably have to keep reminding ourselves of is, that Americans are, on the whole, extremely patriotic. We, on the other hand, have the admirable trait of being cynical about patriotism (except in sport, which is pretty harmless).
Another way in which Obama will be stuffed is if this turns into a “who’s the most patriotic” contest.
No 139
Yes, the United States should bomb Iran with several tactical air strikes.
“And to the best of my knowledge, prior to the 20th century there were no world wars.”
Don’t want to get too caught up on names. For example the Napoleonic wars were on a vast scale.
No 140
Obama isn’t that stupid. Even McCain (IIRC) said in his RNC speech that it was not appropriate to question the patriotism of either himself or Obama.
No 142
They weren’t world wars.
[Yes, the United States should bomb Iran with several tactical air strikes.]
Let me guess, you and the rest of your Young Liberal mates got pissed one night and worked the plan of attack out over a game of scrabble?
No 145
ShowsOn, Iran cannot be more explicit when it says it wants Israel wiped off the map. Israel and the United States should therefore launch a full scale airborne pre-emptive strike on Iran in order to destroy all military and nuclear installations.
Comment deleted and more to follow, I fear.
Shows
I think i am not expressing myself fully.
basically the bush doctrine has been used by all types of regimes to justify war/aggression
It was the rationale behind such a doctrine that intrigues me.
we’ll leave it at that.
William on what basis are you deleting posts?
Abusiveness.