dagblog - Comments for "Incurable Romantics"

Tokyo has a tiny number of

HSG — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:59:00 +0000

In reply to I have about as many examples

Tokyo has a tiny number of homeless people. Its rate is 1/67 that of New York's. The reasons include much less income inequality and a much tighter safety net. I do not insist higher taxes on the rich is the sole way to reduce income inequality and fund a tight safety net. But it's the most obvious. Perhaps, you have other suggestions. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/10/27/3583324/tokyo-homeless/

I have about as many examples

Jeff Linder — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:44:02 +0000

In reply to Thanks Jeff for a suggestion

I have about as many examples as you do supporting your belief that higher taxes on somebody else can solve homelessness and guarantee a unicorn in every back yard.

It is true that being in the

moat — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:10:03 +0000

In reply to Staying with foreign policy,

barefooted,

It is true that being in the hot seat of emerging events shows character and intent in a way that no other method can. But my lack of enthusiasm for choosing between Clinton and Sanders on the basis of foreign policy is that both candidates do not go beyond the parameters of character and intention when speaking about such matters.

I brought up the inheritance of issues element not as a general condition but as a background that reveals what having a new idea about how to proceed would look like. Obama continued the Bush Doctrine because that was the instrument that was handed him. His decisions can be seen as good or bad in the context of that instrument but his legacy will not be including an attempt to transform it into something else. What is the drone program but an exquisite refinement of the idea: We decide who is the enemy no matter where they are on Earth and accept no abridgement to our power to Smite Them. Given such a joystick, it is obviously a matter of concern who gets to hold it but that discussion is light years away from a discussion about the joystick itself.

What Dr. Cleveland said about the GOP being stuck in an elevator with George W. Bush entangles the Democratic Party as well. The instrument of the "neocons" is not something that stops by itself when brought into enough disrepute. When Powell cited the Pottery Barn rule of "You break it, you buy it", he was only considering Iraq. It turns out that we are the plate on the floor. No broom to be found, far and wide.

I think it would be a bit of

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:23:27 +0000

In reply to I do not, would not, suggest

I think it would be a bit of an overstretch for McCain and completely accurate for Cheney and inapropos for Clinton. You can use it relativistic, to say she's more hawkish on foreign policy than Bernie, but as an absolute? Silliness. But the internet is built on silliness - cat pictures and what-not. Hillary is a regular cottage industry for misleading or downright false information.

How many articles that say she doesn't drink her own pee or hang dildos on the White House Christmas Tree or didn't kill Vince Foster? So I guess if the internet says overwhelmingly she does all these things, it must be true - strength in numbers, they say.

I do not, would not, suggest

Anonymous — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 14:01:11 +0000

In reply to I squinted and stuck out my

I do not, would not, suggest that when the term “hawk” is applied to a person that it describes their positions past, present, and future in totality and with nuance. But, do you suggest that the term has no meaning at all. It is a term that has been applied to individuals, usually politicians, for our country’s entire history. It is a term that I believe could be properly used to describe McCain or Graham or Chaney, for instance, even if there are some or many differences in the way they would demonstrate that fact. I believe that if you asked any professor of political science whether or not Hillary is a Hawk they would answer that yes, she is a hawk. The fact that she is a hawk may not be a negative to you, it certainly isn’t to many, but to pretend that the term has no meaning or that it does not apply to her, or that a long public life of being a hawk is not indicative that she will be a hawk in the future makes no sense at all if the expected attitude of a potential CiC is considered to be important. Obviously, opinions of importance differ and you will have the opportunity to express your different opinions with your vote.

I don’t know why the right hand side of the screenshot was cut off but you are correct, I googled Hillary Clinton war hawk and got 167,000 hits, but what the hell, it is the internet after all. Almost anything can be found on the internet except, apparently, a claim that Hillary is not a hawk.

Clinton's probably the worst

HSG — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:41:22 +0000

In reply to Such an interventionist hawk

Clinton's probably the worst of all worlds. She supports bombing and drones without (too many) boots on the ground. Result chaos, anarchy, terrorist training grounds - Afghanistan, Northern Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen. On the other hand, boots on the ground suck too. Obviously, Clinton realpolitik has been an unmitigated foreign policy disaster. Time to move on.

Such an interventionist hawk

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 07:21:50 +0000

In reply to Again I cannot agree. The

Such an interventionist hawk who opposed Bush' surge. Why didn't Hillary put boots on the ground in Libya if such an interventionist, and why does she oppose it in Syria? You've got the hawks in the Republican party who want to make the desert glow - presumably nuclear attack - has she ever espoused that?

Did she pour fire on the revolt in Egypt, or help arrange a peaceful transition? [we can argue about more-or-less supporting the status quo, though that's now gone, but then we'd have to debate the threat about the Muslim Brotherhood seriously - probably something neither of us is qualified for in depth]

Here's The Nation giving Bernie Sanders shit in Feb/Mar 2003 for railing against Bush's invasion - and then voting for it. Bet you won't see that mild contradiction pop out of the rabbit hole. He voted against pushing Iraq out of Kuwait, but then supported the war against Kosovo. Frankly I was for both actions, but I'm also not going to define Sanders based on 1 or 2 votes for the rest of his life. [please note I think The Nation was way over-impressed with the amount that Hussein was complying with inspections, and it was only when the US started sending troops and materiel in November that their urgency picked up. (also note that the November 2002 election was a disaster for Democrats - there's something to say for Americans getting the government they deserve).

During the 2008 debates Hillary was given such grief over her hawk-like comments about Iran, but unlike Joe Lieberman's continued pressing for invasion of Iran, hers were specifically to ward off Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and attacking Israel, drawing a line in the sand - hardly encouraging regime overthrow (see below).

I'm much more critical of Hillary on foreign policy than anything domestic, but most of her left-wing critics pull stuff out of context and have no appreciation for how diplomacy plays out. (and frankly, her more nuanced approach to foreign policy was rejected by the Democrats in 2008, so either she played Obama's way or would stay part of the opposition - she chose the former. I'm sure she would have gotten much more criticism if she had played a Senate critic these last 8 years).

BTW - I'm still waiting for that WWIII in Ukraine over Crimea and Donbas - from what I see, our little bit if intervention prevented a much larger spreading of a problem and preserved Ukraine's sovereignty even if it's still dealing with corruption and not quite ready for the EU.

Hillary on Iran, 2008:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

The United Nations on Iraq, Nov 2002 (a month after the AUMF vote in Congress):

08 November 2002
The UN Security Council adopted a revised US draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament. Security Council Resolution 1441 contains no hidden triggers and no automaticity with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions. The Bush administration claimed a major diplomatic victory the unanimous Security Council resolution to send UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq. But the process required nearly eight weeks of painstaking negotiations and entailed some concessions by Washington.
The resolution adopted by the Security Council on 08 November 2002 gave Iraq seven days, until 15 November, to accept the resolution. The resolution called on Iraq to declare its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles within 30 days, giving Iraq until 09 December 2002 to declare what weapons of mass destruction and related materials it has in its possession. The resolution gave UN inspectors 45 days to resume their work in Iraq, or until 24 December 2002. The chief UN inspector Hans Blix said he intended to go to Baghdad within little more than a week, about 19 November, to begin the task of restoring the inspections mission, with some inspectors expected to arrive a week thereafter. The inspectors have 60 days to report on their progress to the Security Council, though it was not immediately clear from the draft resolution when this period started. However, at any point the inspectors can decide that their work is being obstructed. Assuming that the inspectors would report 60 days after the the 45 day inspection deadline, the inspectors could report back to the Security Council as late as about 22 February 2003. Assuming that initial inspections began on 25 November, soon after the arrival of some inspectors, the inspectors might report back to the Security Council by 24 January 2003. Although the US would consult the Council if inspectors reported Iraq had failed to cooperate to discuss the consequences Baghdad whould face, the US would not have to wait for UN approval before taking military action.

I squinted and stuck out my

barefooted — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 06:11:15 +0000

In reply to Again I cannot agree. The

I squinted and stuck out my tongue, but couldn't quite tell what your search criteria was ... oh, there ... "Hillary Clinton War Hawk?" Come on, Lulu.

That nonsense aside, you've twice missed my point. No one is static. No one is always less than one degree from where they start unless they aren't willing to realize that degrees shift. Frankly? Hate Hillary Clinton all you like for her policy positions. But don't expect me to consider Bernie Sanders as a capable CIC just because he'd prefer to ignore the hardest, ugliest and arguably most consequential part of the job.

Again I cannot agree. The

LULU — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 04:20:05 +0000

In reply to Compared to whom? As is

Again I cannot agree. The words "good", "bad", "hawk", and "dove" actually have quite different meanings. A "hawk", as I and everyone else uses the term when speaking of a politicians inclination towards use of the military is certainly different from a "dove". Does the term "hawk" fit Hillary? Can you find a link to someone who thinks she is a "dove"?

I also think the world is

ocean-kat — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 03:25:25 +0000

In reply to Compared to whom? As is

I also think the world is more complex than Lulu and Hal see it. They paint in black and white, hawk and dove. There's a lot of greys between those extremes. I'd like to see a little bit more robust foreign policy than we've seen with Obama. Bush created this mess in the middle east and we can't just walk away from it. We can't let Europe be inundated with refugees from America's mistake. I think Hillary is a bit more hawkish than Obama and a lot less hawkish than the republicans. I hope she can strike the right balance.