Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I think Blatham is trying very hard to make a virtue of necessity. Since the effort failed, why not let this thread die quietly?

Perhaps we can all agree to meet here again in January 2006 to see how things are going. I predict a relatively good outcome in Iraq and a serious new effort at a settlement in the Mideast with at least fewer of the lies and contradictions (on both sides) that have stopped progress in the past.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

It will become increasingly clear to those of us who really do not much like Bush and team nor the interest groups and policies aligned with Bush that we are very fortunate indeed that Kerry did not win this last election.

There is very little good news ahead. That would not have changed with a Kerry win. And as things continue to fall apart (as in Iraq) it will become apparent to more that present policies and individuals are greatly responsible for what has gone wrong.

Don't lie. Try not to exaggerate. Keep yourself educated and intellectually honest. And keep yelling loudly at the ugly crap these guys are doing.

One need not lie or exaggerate to disagree with you blatham, and at the same time the educated and intellectually honest may, amazingly enough, find their way to a different world view than yours.

What is particulary interesting is the utterly partisan nature of your posting (and this from a Canadian!). "We" are lucky that Kerry did not win, because he would have been politically forced to remain on the Bushian path in Iraq. Thus, when this path led to rage and ruin, it would not besmirch a Liberal in the White House.

And what will will hear from blatham when his prediction that the center cannot hold proves false?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:
It will become increasingly clear to those of us who really do not much like Bush and team nor the interest groups and policies aligned with Bush that we are very fortunate indeed that Kerry did not win this last election.

There is very little good news ahead. That would not have changed with a Kerry win. And as things continue to fall apart (as in Iraq) it will become apparent to more that present policies and individuals are greatly responsible for what has gone wrong.

Don't lie. Try not to exaggerate. Keep yourself educated and intellectually honest. And keep yelling loudly at the ugly crap these guys are doing.

One need not lie or exaggerate to disagree with you blatham, and at the same time the educated and intellectually honest may, amazingly enough, find their way to a different world view than yours.

No, finn. The injunctions of the last paragraph were directed to the folks wishing to see this president and the folks about him gone - let's keep our integrity intact in the process.

What is particulary interesting is the utterly partisan nature of your posting (and this from a Canadian!). "We" are lucky that Kerry did not win, because he would have been politically forced to remain on the Bushian path in Iraq. Thus, when this path led to rage and ruin, it would not besmirch a Liberal in the White House.

I am not a member of any party, in canada or the US or anywhere else. I receive no newletters or electronic publications from any political party source because I don't want them. I have not (this is factual) visited the moveon.org site even once. What you interpret as partisanship is a consequence of my understanding of this particular administration. As to besmirching...the problems this administration will face are, mainly, of its own creation. Thus the besmirching ought fittingly to land squarely back upon it. Two main parties in Canada, one federal and one provincial (in BC), have self-destructed in the last two decades as a consequence of their own mistakes, arrogances, and misbehaviors. Perfect consequence.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps we can all agree to meet here again in January 2006 to see how things are going. I predict a relatively good outcome in Iraq and a serious new effort at a settlement in the Mideast with at least fewer of the lies and contradictions (on both sides) that have stopped progress in the past.

I think it's a very good idea to keep the debate honest by making some testable predictions. My own predictions are these:

1) America's GDP will grow by 3-4%. Jobs will continue to be created, but it won't be enough to keep pace with the growth of productivity and the labor force. As a consequence, payroll employment on January 2, 2006 will be lower than predicted in the 2004Economic Report of the President.

2) The budget deficit and the current account deficit will both be larger than they are today, both in absolute numbers and as a share of GDP. As a result, America will be even closer to a balance-of-payment crisis than it is today. Alas I don't know how one would objectively measure "closeness to balance of payment crises", so I'd welcome any suggestions you might have.

3) If another major source of conflict arises -- candidates include a conflict in the Taiwan street, revolutions in Iran or Saudi Arabia, or an escalation of the conflict with North Korea -- America will find that its military lacks the personnel to deal with it. In this case, the Bush administration will either forsake its allies or reintroduce the draft.

4) The situation in Iraq will deteriorate further. As an objective measure of the deterioration, the casualty rate in the fourth quarter of 2005, as measured by icasualties.org, will be higher than the casualty rate in the fourth quarter of 2004. I see a 4:1 chance that even the conservatives on A2K will acknowledge the deterioration. If so, I see a 10:1 chance that they will blame it on anything but the policies of the Bush administration. As a test of these probabilities, I invite A2K's conservatives to bet with me on these odds. (But if they do, I won't count their voice about the "acknowledge the deterioration" part.)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

[4) The situation in Iraq will deteriorate further. As an objective measure of the deterioration, the casualty rate in the fourth quarter of 2005, as measured by icasualties.org, will be higher than the casualty rate in the fourth quarter of 2004. I see a 4:1 chance that even the conservatives on A2K will acknowledge the deterioration. If so, I see a 10:1 chance that they will blame it on anything but the policies of the Bush administration. As a test of these probabilities, I invite A2K's conservatives to bet with me on these odds. (But if they do, I won't count their voice about the "acknowledge the deterioration" part.)

Thomas, if I told you that, as of this morning, 78.3% of Iraqis intend to vote in the coming election and 87.7% support military action against terrorists, would you still want to ante up?

0 Replies

You're on, Thomas. Across the board.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Thomas, if I told you that, as of this morning, 78.3% of Iraqis intend to vote in the coming election and 87.7% support military action against terrorists, would you still want to ante up?

Yes.

Timberlandko wrote:

You're on, Thomas. Across the board.

I have to admit my American Language Subtlety Processor is failing me here. Do you mean "You're on" as in "You're right on, you're precisely right", or do you mean "You're on" as in "I hereby take you on and bet against you"? If it's the latter, how do you suggest we proceed?

0 Replies

Thomas, I agree with #1 and #2. #3 is a tough one, because talk is cheaper than action for this administration. I also agree with #4 that the situation will get worse for 2005, but not sure about comparing 4th quarter numbers.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
Thomas, if I told you that, as of this morning, 78.3% of Iraqis intend to vote in the coming election and 87.7% support military action against terrorists, would you still want to ante up?

Yes.

Okay. Just didn't want to be seen as having an unfair advantage

BTW, I've just come across more good news from Iraq.

<This is going to be like taking candy from a baby>

0 Replies

Good news from Iraq? We're all ready for that!

0 Replies

Sorry for the idiomatic arrogance Thomas. That's one of those 'Murrican things, I guess.

I'll wager you're wrong on every count. If it meets with your convenience, I think it might be best were we to negotiate terms via PM.

0 Replies

I like Thomas' proposal that we meet next year and now offer testable predictions for what we might find then. However I wouldn't like to see them confined only to outcomes within the United States. We certainly shouldn't exempt the follies and challenges of other parts of the world from our consideration.

Would Thomas also offer us some predictions about (say) unemployment levels and GDP growth in Germany and France; the states of cultural tension between natives and immigrants in major European countries; trends in the evolution of the institutions of EU government (will the EU Parliament increase its powers & influence relative to the Commission?)

I'll offer the following;

1. U.S. GDP will grow as Thomas forecast, and by an at least 2% margin over those in the Major EU countries.
2. The future employment forecasts of our politicians are ALWAYS high and will remain so, however unemployment next year in the US will be below current levels
3. Our budget and curent account deficits will be larger than today's in absolute terms, but perhaps not in % of GDP.
4. Our Congress will be close to resolving Legislation for Social Security Reform submitted to it by the President.
5. The U.S. will not under any circumstances reinstitute the draft: we will, however pass legislation raising the authorized strength of the armed forces by a relatively small margin, attendant to a restructuring of missions assigned to the National Guard and Reserve.. We already have a short list of "allies" ripe for forsaking, but they are not in Asia.
6. The U.S. government will attempt to establish a set of bilateral treaty relations (and deployment bases for military forces)with select eastern European nations, will gradually reduce its participation in NATO military exercises and the force levels earmarked for NATO, and more or less eliminate what remains of the selectivity and priority it once applied in the assignment of officers to NATO staffs.
7. The situation in Iraq will be rife with internal stress and discord, but there will be an Iraqi government offering a significant degree of internal freedom and providing tolerable security in most of the country.. The stresses and discord affecting the Gulf region will be far less focused on Iraq. The internal contradictions besetting the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria will also move to the front rank of importance and international attention. Gradually people will come to see that these are all problems internal to these societies which must be solved by them, and that the specter of external "Great Satans" less and less satisfies populations increasingly aware of the failures of their own systems.
8. The U.S. government will increase the attention it pays to International Regional organizations, and correspondingly decrease the efforts it applies to the UN.
9. Another major effort at a political solution in Palestine/Israel will be underway.
.

0 Replies

"...providing tolerable security in most of the country.." is pretty general. "Tolerable" can mean many things to many people. Can you spell out what "you" mean?

0 Replies

Now.............what's that good news in Iraq, JW?

You men! Talkin about money again......filthy lucre! Money and guns and nasty stuff. The world could fall off a cliff and bounce on it's face for all you care.......you'll just be there figurin out all about the battles to be won or lost, the money to be gained or not, the GDP and the BUT and the PUD, and the RUDE........not to mention the slap-me-on-the-fanny-and-call-me-sister.............you are all "very naughty boys" Laughing

I'm in a good mood tonight!

Oh well, someone has to support the rest of us no good, totalitarian Platonic nitwits. How else will we ever be able to rule the world? Certainly not by murder and mayhem in the name of liberation.

"He doesn't understand," said John Cleese at the Sermon on the Mount, "it's the meek who are the problem!" Laughing

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Now.............what's that good news in Iraq, JW?

You won't see it in the if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead NYTimes, Lola. Some of the older and more crochety on this forum continue to compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam and although I'm not sure if you are one of them, allow me to point out one huge difference between now and then.

Bloggers. Yes, you read correctly and before you pooh-pooh that as a somewhat naive remark, consider that Americans were forced to rely on legacy media sources for news out of Vietnam almost exclusively.

Today we have the words of the GI's themselves, supplying another and altogether (in some cases) differing view. We get it all...the good news, the bad news, the sad news, but ALL the news and pretty much in real time.

There are roughly 140,000 troops serving in a country roughly the size of Califiornia. As good as the MSM is, they can't be everywhere and they can't know everything. With the bloggers, we can at least get a little better idea of what "usual" is for the American military in Iraq.

We can get unclassified CENTCOM news releases, an "on the ground" view of the military operations conducted at various points throughout the country, as well as personal human interest stories and general insights into morale.

There are those on this forum who are actively hoping for the U.S. to fail in Iraq. We can only pity them, and thank God we don't have to "be" them. They sneer at any positive information attached to the war effort, making it difficult to want to share the most intimate and personal stories emanating from these men of courage and sacrifice. The GI bloggers. May God continue to bless and keep them.

0 Replies

lol

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Bloggers. Yes, you read correctly and before you pooh-pooh that as a somewhat naive remark, consider that Americans were forced to rely on legacy media sources for news out of Vietnam almost exclusively.

Today we have the words of the GI's themselves, supplying another and altogether (in some cases) differing view. We get it all...the good news, the bad news, the sad news, but ALL the news and pretty much in real time.

Sounds interesting. Are there any specific blogs you can recommend as a news source about Iraq, written in Iraq? So far, the blogs I have seen supplied commentary, not news reporting, but I admit I haven't looked very hard yet.

0 Replies

Thomas - sorry to disappoint you, but most "blogs" are commentary -- or a combination of both news and commentary. They come in all shapes, sizes and varieties, but ALL contain commentary (I think of it more as "opinion").

Some, as you know, are excellent and some are pretty dismal. Depends on the writer, of course.

Powerline (the fellows that brought down Dan Blather, I believe) just won an award as Blogger of the Year.

Yep. They have awards for them now. LOL...looks like they'll be with us for a while Smile

0 Replies

Here are a few, Thomas, and from them are links to many, many more blogs by folks "In Country"

Mudville Gazette

Cigars In the Sand

A Day In Iraq

Lance In Iraq

0 Replies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4144511.stm

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know