QXatFAT
Topic Author
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:13 am

President Obama was speaking in Russia and was mentioning pretty much that the future does not belong to those with big armies and those who pretty much "carry a big stick".

Is Obama handing over our top dog role to whomever wants to take it? It seems like the President has made it very clear that he wants to appologize for everything America has done and stands for, wants to keep people in office to demand more and more power, and now wants to give up major defense systems and unarm ourselves.

Sounds like Russia has a free path to world domination and the "top dog" role. Do you really think that Russia will decide to roll over like President Obama wants America to do? No! They will take every chance they can to be head hancho.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...-speech7-2009jul07,0,2715814.story
Don't Tread On Me!
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:31 am

Russia won't become top dog, NATO is perfectly positioned for purposes of encirclement of Russia...

Yes, Obama is stepping the U.S. back a bit, but Russia won't take over the world...


Blackbird
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:32 am

Dictators around the world are just laughing themselves silly over this guy. He his hell bent on polically castrating this country.

Quoting QXatFAT (Thread starter):
Is Obama handing over our top dog role to whomever wants to take it? It seems like the President has made it very clear that he wants to appologize for everything America has done and stands for, wants to keep people in office to demand more and more power, and now wants to give up major defense systems and unarm ourselves.

We're going to pay a heavy price for this guys administration. Once the Russians and the Chinese BOTH surpass us militarily, it will be up to the Republican president(the easy winner in 2012), to re-ignite a military build-up. An armed conflict with the Iranians is inevitible, not with Obama but with the next administration as Obama will appease the Iranians and every other dictator to no-end.

Quoting QXatFAT (Thread starter):
Sounds like Russia has a free path to world domination and the "top dog" role. Do you really think that Russia will decide to roll over like President Obama wants America to do? No! They will take every chance they can to be head hancho

Will they roll over? No, they'll manipulate the US at every turn.
Made from jets!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:47 am

Jetjack, what did we get it from the Bush way, which is the logical comparison? We got government by paranoia and fear; we started one war that had absolutely no justification to be fought, and ruined our reputation around the globe.

Plus, why is it that conservatives are always saying "get out of foreign conflicts, and take care of our own first", but now that this President seems to be doing that in some regard, the same people critisize him for it? You want us to be the world policeman, or don't you? Mr. Bush said we should not be. He didn't follow through, and some of it was not his doing (Iraq was, though). It's a policy MANY Americans want us to do.

I don't think we're abdicating our role in the world whatsoever, but look how thin we're stretch, fighting two conflict that aren't even as large in size as Vietnam was in it's prime? And while we need a strong military, how much can or should we really expand it in this tough economy?

As for Russia, they'll always be a world player, simply because of their size. But they have their own problems to deal with, and they won't take over the "top dog" spot now or ever. If they couldn't do it when they were the USSR, and they had huge military expenditures, they can't do it now.

The only one out there that could ever be "top dog" is China, by size alone. But, thankfully, so far for the rest of the world, China, even under the communists, have never had the zeal as the Soviets and Nazi's did, to try to conquer the world.

The U.S. will be the #1 dog for quite a long time to come.

And, besides, Jetjack, what is wrong with actually trying to get others to cooperate with us, instead of trying to dictate to them, as Bush did? Perhaps, had we done that in Iraq, we wouldn't have had the mess we've had for the last 6 years there.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
QXatFAT
Topic Author
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:41 am



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2):
Will they roll over? No, they'll manipulate the US at every turn.

 checkmark  Very true words

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Plus, why is it that conservatives are always saying "get out of foreign conflicts, and take care of our own first", but now that this President seems to be doing that in some regard, the same people critisize him for it?

But he isnt taking care of our own! If you disarm America of defense systems and say we will put away all of our nukes, you are putting our own at risk of attack. You MUST have a strong defense in order to stay a live in these times and to protect ourselves. If you think that we can survive with a disarment and massively decreased defense, you have no clue what can happen to us.

When you are a home owner, do you start implementing things to protect your family? You might put up some sensor lights to scare someone off...put in an alarm system...maybe even buy a gun to protect your family! Taking care of your own first is keeping an army that is strong and a defense system that beats the offensive of other countries.

He very much so deserves to be critizised for what he is doing. Its putting us all at risk.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
But they have their own problems to deal with, and they won't take over the "top dog" spot now or ever

Well they could just launch a few missles at the US, Britian, Germany, Israel and some others who might get in their way and they just crippled some big players. Then again, if those are nukes, we dont have Earth anymore.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
The only one out there that could ever be "top dog" is China, by size alone. But, thankfully, so far for the rest of the world, China, even under the communists, have never had the zeal as the Soviets and Nazi's did, to try to conquer the world.

Well in one respect, it seems that China has America in its little hands. It controls and buys our debt. Once they stop, America is in some deep doo doo and China can start to play puppet master.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:45 am

I think the US will remain #1 for quite some time, at least militarily.. Economically perhaps not for much longer, ads the Chinese are 'moving up' fairly swiftly. I wouldn't see China as a 'peer competitor' military for another 20+ years. They are only now getting into a blue water' navy, for example, with their recent deployment to Somalia.

As for the Russians, they'll be a power I think only about as long as the gas & oil lasts, but not much longer. It's still a resource-based economy.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:59 am



Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
But he isnt taking care of our own! If you disarm America of defense systems and say we will put away all of our nukes,

Easy there, partner. You know a well as I do, he won't get rid of ours, unless the rest of the world does the same. And he won't be reducing ours unless China, Russia, etc, do the same. There's a difference between saying "I would like this if the world could do it", and unilaterally doing it. It's not going to happen. It would be great if the world did get rid of nukes, but you've taken that one way out of context.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
When you are a home owner, do you start implementing things to protect your family? You might put up some sensor lights to scare someone off...put in an alarm system...maybe even buy a gun to protect your family!

You might, but I don't. I don't need any of those things. I'm not so frightened of the world that I need to wall myself off from it.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
Well they could just launch a few missles at the US, Britian, Germany, Israel and some others who might get in their way and they just crippled some big players.

You're smarter than that. The launch a few, you don't think we'll launch a few back? And we can do more damage to them than they can do to us, because we have a superior submarine-based program. MAD is still around. It always will be in the nuclear age.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
Well in one respect, it seems that China has America in its little hands. It controls and buys our debt. Once they stop, America is in some deep doo doo and China can start to play puppet master.

Agree with you on that. But that's a problem outside the nuclear realm. That's because of 40 years of letting our best jobs leave this nation, and allowing nations like China to steal patents of our products, without any consequences to the theives.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:05 am

The President stated today that ..the new way is a world where no nation is superior.... he raised one hand to signify one level then dropped the other to signify a lower level. He said something about countries using there military to maintain superiority ...

I cant recall all the other stuff shown , pretty much a fantasy vision...sorry. I am trying to find the transcript .. he also apologized for us being arrogant again . Just playing to the crowd again ...
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
flymia
Posts: 6839
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:07 am

Honestly I don't think even President Obama could mess up that much. (I hope) The US is just too strong to be taken over in the foreseeable future. People say what about China they have more people they have money etc.. But why would China want to be better than the US?? With out people in the US buying things China is no where near as strong. US will be top dog economically and militarily. Economics can change but since the world still revolves around the US dollar aka oil I don't see it happening. And Militarily the US is just too strong. Sure China may have more numbers but no ones Military technology is as advanced as the US's and who can forget all those nuclear weapons and having the strongest Navy and Air Force helps a bit too.

As for President Obama if I would have told half the people who voted for him in October that 6months into his term the US would have an even worse economy, would be in even more debt, more jobs gone more government take overs, there were problems in Iran, North Korea, and Latin America and to top it all off he said he might have to tax the middle class more and raise taxes for everyone I don't think he would have won? Again he is just like any other politician saying what the people wanted to here at election time. "Hope" "Change"
(But this discussion is for another thread) Hopefully in a year I will be able to look back at this post and say man I was wrong about President Obama but I don't see that happening any time soon.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:10 am



Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 8):
As for President Obama if I would have told half the people who voted for him in October that 6months into his term the US would have an even worse economy, would be in even more debt, more jobs gone more government take overs, there were problems in Iran, North Korea, and Latin America and to top it all off he said he might have to tax the middle class more and raise taxes for everyone I don't think he would have won?

Do you think the same problems would not exist had McCain won, or would have all those things magically gone away?

For all the hosannah's the right gives Reagan, his first two years in office were nothing to write h ome about. But if you want to judge a presient after less than 6 months on the job, then you're bucking history in a big way.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
flymia
Posts: 6839
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:49 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
Do you think the same problems would not exist had McCain won, or would have all those things magically gone away?

Absolutely not. The problems would still be there only difference is I think there would be more confidence in the market, people would not be worried about their taxes being raised and the government would not be on a spending spree with money they do not have.
As for Iran and North Korea president Obama has done fine dealing with those situations. I would have liked him to have a little bit of a more serious response for Iran but he handled it fine. Did I expect if McCain won problem would be gone, no way. But the thing is I think many of the people thought who voted for Obama thought that their problems would go away in a few months and that is the reason they voted for him and not who was best fit for the job.

Again hopefully in a year we will all praise President Obama his but even VP said they messed up pretty bad already.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:01 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
We got government by paranoia and fear; we started one war that had absolutely no justification to be fought, and ruined our reputation around the globe.

An old argument that is no point in arguing anymore. The degree of respect is something that can't really be guaged. I mean the public opinion around the world for US was largley skewed by negative reporting, with figures that were distorted or overblown. And the any corrections to erroneous reporting was never done or tucked nicely away on the last page where no one reads it. If you read negative reporting everyday, what's your opinion be? Oh wait, you watch CNN, MSNBC, I rest my case. And who gives a crap about how the French, the Spanish or or the Greeks view us. They'll still dislike us anyway.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Plus, why is it that conservatives are always saying "get out of foreign conflicts, and take care of our own first", but now that this President seems to be doing that in some regard, the same people critisize him for it?

Uhh, that's something I hear more out of the liberals rather than conservatives. Conservatives have always been more concerned about domestic security and foreign policy than the social cause. The social concerns have always been the battle cries of the left, or at least the pretend to care about that BS. So I don't know where you're getting that from

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
You want us to be the world policeman, or don't you? Mr. Bush said we should not be. He didn't follow through, and some of it was not his doing (Iraq was, though). It's a policy MANY Americans want us to do.

Yes, becuase I less trust the Russians and the Chinese to do it. These 2 countries are enablers of dictatorships as the Russians have proved over the last decade, in Chechnya in the 1990's and Georgia last spring. They also have been supplying the Iranians with the centrifuges to enrich uranium, bolstering the bullsh!t nuclear programme. And the Chinese refuse to do anything about North Koreans and have been a thorn in the side of us over the years in their dealings with aggressive regimes.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
I don't think we're abdicating our role in the world whatsoever, but look how thin we're stretch, fighting two conflict that aren't even as large in size as Vietnam was in it's prime?

You'd never know that by the way media protrayed it. They would have you thinking that millions died every day by there accounts. Very distortive reporting.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
And while we need a strong military, how much can or should we really expand it in this tough economy?

Enough to stay several steps ahead of our enemies, whomever they turn out to be. Cutting defense spending on missile defense which is the very thing that threatens us from rogue regimes whose weapon of choice is ICBM's that can be armed with nuclear warheads. Yes, I think that is irresponsible, grossly irresponsible.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
As for Russia, they'll always be a world player, simply because of their size. But they have their own problems to deal with, and they won't take over the "top dog" spot now or ever. If they couldn't do it when they were the USSR, and they had huge military expenditures, they can't do it now.

Don't you kid yourself Sonny Jim. They have vast oil reserves which can certainly fund defense spending, and as they sell weapons systems to nation unfriendly to the US. Just like China, who supplies the North Koreans with conventional weapons. These are our enemies by-proxy. They aren't our friends. The people under that impression need to smarten up their ideas.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
The only one out there that could ever be "top dog" is China, by size alone. But, thankfully, so far for the rest of the world, China, even under the communists, have never had the zeal as the Soviets and Nazi's did, to try to conquer the world.

One thing you forget Falcon, is that China holds most of our debt, they don't have to attack us militarily, they can just devalue our currency and send us deeper into depression. The Chinese RMB is worth more than the US dollar at this point and is on the verge of replacing the US dollar as the world currency(the Chinese are pushing to have that done). And with Barack Obama's outlandish spending, Hyper-inflation is almost a virtual certainty. Someone grab that Visa card out of his hands. Blimey.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
And, besides, Jetjack, what is wrong with actually trying to get others to cooperate with us, instead of trying to dictate to them, as Bush did? Perhaps, had we done that in Iraq, we wouldn't have had the mess we've had for the last 6 years there.

There's nothing wrong with persuading opponents to come along with us as long as there is something tangible in it for us. But selling out this country by the pound in order to get in the good graces of "other" countries is futile and we'll never get us anywhere except a lump of coal for christmas.
Made from jets!
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:51 am



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 7):
The President stated today that ..the new way is a world where no nation is superior.... he raised one hand to signify one level then dropped the other to signify a lower level. He said something about countries using there military to maintain superiority ...

That's been Obama's vision from the very beginning was take this country far to the left and make the US a European-style socialist form of gov't. He's at war with capitalism.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 7):
I cant recall all the other stuff shown , pretty much a fantasy vision...sorry. I am trying to find the transcript .. he also apologized for us being arrogant again . Just playing to the crowd again ...

He didn't in France and Egypt, why not for the Russians, make it a hat-trick.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
Do you think the same problems would not exist had McCain won, or would have all those things magically gone away?

I think there would've been a swifter response to the Iranian civil unrest and to North Koreas threats. It's hard to say since we're still in the infancy of the verbal altercations. If Obama still decides he's going to sit down with the Iranians, he will lose all credibility. The Iranians have reminded most of us that they are not a regime than can be dealt with in a diplomatic manner.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
For all the hosannah's the right gives Reagan, his first two years in office were nothing to write h ome about. But if you want to judge a presient after less than 6 months on the job, then you're bucking history in a big way.

Well, 9-11 was Bush's fault. He never got his year of a pass. That's only reserved for Democrats
Made from jets!
 
QXatFAT
Topic Author
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:56 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
Easy there, partner.

I am trying to stay easy haha. President Obama though seems to be a little too free going and also seems like he can be pushed around quite easly to make people happy. He is trying to do it with his approval ratings here in America and seems like hes doing it so far as well internationally.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
You're smarter than that.

Yes I like to think that I am but under Obama, I think things would be hesitant. Under Bush, things would have been launched of course cowboy style. Thus, the end of the world. WTF mate.

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 8):
With out people in the US buying things China is no where near as strong.

Well considering the countries I have traveled too, a whole lot of their stuff is made in China as well. Brasil, Kenya, Canada all had stuff made in China still and at large quantaties. Mexico had a lot still made there and some of the other latin countries Ive been to too. China sells to everyone.

Also, China doesnt seem to like us being the police. They constantly block things to Iran, Syria, want to hold back on North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. They are using their powers along with Russia to block America.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
Do you think the same problems would not exist had McCain won, or would have all those things magically gone away?

Under John McCain I think the economy would be heading in the right direction with not having these huge bail outs but still having a struggling economy. I think that he would want the private sector to bring America back and not creating thousands of government jobs.

Safety of America? I think we would still be in a good position but I do believe it might be the same as it was under Bush. The only thing we have going for us now is the "rock star" status of Obama overseas...although my German buddies that live there have told me they still dont really like him and dont really understand fully what he says.

So all together, most things would be the same currently but some would be heading in the right direction rather than putting our future at risk with more than half our money going to the government.

By the way, I didnt vote for Obama or McCain but voted for someone else. I thought we were kind of S.O.L. with either one going into office.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 11):
Enough to stay several steps ahead of our enemies, whomever they turn out to be.

 checkmark 

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 11):
The Chinese RMB is worth more than the US dollar at this point and is on the verge of replacing the US dollar as the world currency

Source? I hope that was just like a figurative speech because its obveusly not worth more than the American Dollar in trade but only maybe because China owns so much of us. China wants something else rather than the American Dollar but I have never read replacing it with the RMB.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:31 am



Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
You MUST have a strong defense in order to stay a live in these times and to protect ourselves.

We do. Nobody comes close to the capabilities that the US has. Russia and China may be able to be regional powerhouses, but they could never hope to project the sort of power that the US can on a global scale. Russia, for instance, would never have been able to pull off what the US did in Iraq. Nor would China.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:59 am

Quoting QXatFAT (Thread starter):
Sounds like Russia has a free path to world domination and the "top dog" role.



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2):
Once the Russians and the Chinese BOTH surpass us militarily,

Hi guys,

So nice to be Russian to read many things are above. If I'd be Russian 'conservative' cold war mind freezed chauvinist your words guys would be a sight for sore eyes - but I'm not - I'm local westernist.   However truth is very different from your understanding of Russia's perspectives. Because as Mir said:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Russia and China may be able to be regional powerhouses, but they could never hope to project the sort of power that the US can on a global scale.

Guys, could you ever imagine the time Russia passed through the last 20 years? Do you know anything about economic, scientific, military development of modern Russia? I guess - very little if not nothing. Russian Army with almost no supply of new equipment for the last 17 years, officers salaries which in 90s, ealy 00s were about 150-200USD per month - do you think it all help fot the achivement of 'top dog' position? Spare me of the need to describe how still we are week after the collapse we had at the past years. Even to became the effective regional military power we have to do a lot and it will take years to bring it all in a basic order. Regarding 'Russia and China both' - many local experts have clear inderstanding that with all current friendly status of Russia-Chine relations - China stays one of the potential threats for Russia in mid and long-term future.

Russia is no a real threat to NATO. The point is - Russia today recognises NATO as a threat. Independently of the reasons of the actions against Yougoslavia in 1999 or Iraq the major message was - if US and NATO have somethere political or economic interests - they are ready to use military power. And in practice Russia has very limited abilities for defence from global military actions except nuclear weapon. Anti-air defence was destroied after former Soviet republics became separate. Western part airports became inactive - look for the examples - 3 airports cover Saint-Petersburg - second largest Russian city:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...3849&spn=0.032489,0.07699&t=h&z=14 - not active almost completely
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=6...018&spn=0.015369,0.038495&t=h&z=15 - (sorry - just a small part at the map) Veschevo is demolished completely - even no more rwys.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=6...538&spn=0.015347,0.038495&t=h&z=15 - Gromovo, ex-MiG-31 base - active only for very limited transport operations.

Should I remind you about NATO aviation activity in East Europe including bodering states?

It is just an exapmle. We can spend hours discussing anti-missle defence, NATO enlargement etc. Actualy no wish to do it...

I'm very far from propaganda matters of current political regime but I have to say that if tomorrow I would became a Russian leader - I also would be worry about it. Indded I think I'd behave on more frandly manner   But if I'd get same reaction from West we had during the last few years - I don't know how long I'd have a chance to be friendly. Friendship is something mutual. Reducing our own military facilities (stimulated or as a good will) we in fact surrounded by military alliance very active in military achievements of its goals.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 11):
These 2 countries are enablers of dictatorships as the Russians have proved over the last decade, in Chechnya in the 1990's and Georgia last spring.

Russia is not a 'dictatorship'. It is rather complicated political case, I'm rather pessemistic on political model we have here but it is definitely not dictatorship. Regarding war in Chechnya - I can give you another example - member of NATO and US ally Turkey operates against Kurds for the years. Is it mean Turkey is dictatorship or is looking for the top dog role? Georgia is very complicated matter with deep responsibility of Georgia itself, Russia, US and governments of RSO and Abkhasia. Let me not to talk about it right now.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2):
An armed conflict with the Iranians is inevitible not with Obama but with the next administration as Obama will appease the Iranians and every other dictator to no-end

I just wonder mate there is the final point of your destination... Let me ask you one rhetorical question. Do you think US war in Iraq realy made local people life better. Do you think that you realy helped them replaced dictatorship by all charm of military occupation, endless and hopeless civil war, economic and socal infrustrucure dislocation etc. Do you think people became more free in such kind of 'freedom'. USSR was very lucky case of peaceful change of political regime from dictatorship to the kind of democracy. Even this was very tough exercise. Don't you think war is not good way to help people? As I said this is rhetorical question - no need to answer. It is more about internal values people have. Escuse me but reading you posts I see the 'man who first shooting and asking 'Who is coming&!' after'. We simply might have different basic points of view.



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 5):
As for the Russians, they'll be a power I think only about as long as the gas & oil lasts, but not much longer. It's still a resource-based economy.

Well, I think this 'no longer' is for the next 20-30 years. Good time to develop many other industries. Unfortunately current development gives us no much hopes for the fast renaissance. In many aspects we copy the Latin America way - popular and populistic leader, growing corruption, week rule of law, leftish agenda in politics etc. Not the best way to economic progress. Lets see. And also do not forget about metals, forestry (potential) and rural abilities.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
and ruined our reputation around the globe.

Mate, just +1 for you wise and openminded posts. Regarding this point I hate to agree especially. In early 90s US was very positively reconised in Russia. Indeed there were a lot of people 'contused' of the cold war, but they were not dominating. I myself worked as a lecturer (I'm an economist) with International Republican Institute (Republican party related International NGO). We had very succesful projects in Russia with very positive reaction. Nowdays reaction on US is completely different - people are scared and very disappointed. Indeed there is a huge role of official propoganda on local media but those guys have an easy task...

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
The U.S. will be the #1 dog for quite a long time to come.

No doubts. But it also very important to understand that military abilities is only part of the US global dominance and not the major one. Economic role of US is the cornerstone of its leadership. There is only one actual competitor of US - it is EU. Luckely western world seems have learned the lessons of two world war and hopefuly will never repeat old mistakes in future - this competition for the top dof place will not come to combat phase never. China has a chance to be 3rd largest player however it will need deep changes within the economy including liberalisation. Overwise China can reach the bar but will not be able keep position (as USSR was not able). There are 3 other potential runners - India, Brazil and Russia but it will take a time to come in equal role as US or EU if it ever will happen.

But we live in very unpredictable world anyway. Never say never  

[Edited 2009-07-08 05:25:13]
 
Klaus
Posts: 20648
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone

Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:42 pm

Interesting post, Fyodor!


To the americans seeing the sky falling down:

One thing which needs to be understood is that Bush's brash and ignorant behaviour never really increased the USA's power in any way, quite the contrary.

Obama has simply made clear that he doesn't talk down to Russia but instead on the same level. That gives absolutely nothing away in substance but it is a welcome and necessary demonstration of respect which takes a lot of ammunition away from the russian hardliners.

It is well understood by everybody what the real power relations actually are, but it is a sign of weakness to insists on everybody else explicitly acknowledging their supposed inferiority. That would be – and was – how you're making enemies when you could have friends or at least partners in good faith.

Both in the USA and in Russia some people still believe in saber-rattling and aggression as demonstrations of strength, but we have seen too many times how pathetic the outcome of this tactic usually is.

Russia does not respond well to intimidation either, but a positive, respectful partnership on the diplomatic level with no disruptions from the other levels could go a long way towards a more stable and benefitial situation for everyone, not least because it reduces the influence of the escalation-loving militants on both sides.
 
flymia
Posts: 6839
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:51 pm



Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 13):
Well considering the countries I have traveled too, a whole lot of their stuff is made in China as well. Brasil, Kenya, Canada all had stuff made in China still and at large quantaties. Mexico had a lot still made there and some of the other latin countries Ive been to too. China sells to everyone

Absolutely but no country in the world can compare to the US buying power just too much money in the US compared to any other country. Hence when the US economy is trouble so is the rest of the worlds.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):

That's been Obama's vision from the very beginning was take this country far to the left and make the US a European-style socialist form of gov't. He's at war with capitalism.

The last thing I would ever want in the United States and now the senate as 60 who knows what will happen. Since this economy is bad and I don't see it getting better in 2010 I would not be surprised to see Republicans gain some seats back since people will see the Democrats are not doing a great job.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):
I think there would've been a swifter response to the Iranian civil unrest and to North Koreas threats. It's hard to say since we're still in the infancy of the verbal altercations. If Obama still decides he's going to sit down with the Iranians, he will lose all credibility. The Iranians have reminded most of us that they are not a regime than can be dealt with in a diplomatic manner.

If he sits down with Iran he needs to be impeached as simple as that. Its a shame Iran has such a horrible leader it could be a great country and the economic hub of the Middle East.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 13):
Safety of America? I think we would still be in a good position but I do believe it might be the same as it was under Bush. T

There are two things President Bush did very well. Help out Africa and improve aid to the region and keep America Secure after 9/11.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:17 pm



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2):
Will they roll over? No, they'll manipulate the US at every turn.

Of course they will and we of course will manipulate them. The President did this during the summit. He took a potential rivalry between the top two Russian leaders and played it against them. The name of the game in international politics is gaining leverage wherever possible against another country and vice versa. It's the same game that has been going on since the dawn of civilization and it will continue to go on.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
 
CaliAtenza
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:38 pm



Quoting FYODOR (Reply 15):

what if they just have Russia join NATO, oh like in that Clancy book i read where Russia gets attacked by China....
 
captaink
Posts: 3987
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:43 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:58 pm



Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 10):
But the thing is I think many of the people thought who voted for Obama thought that their problems would go away in a few months and that is the reason they voted for him and not who was best fit for the job.

I think in some way it is the peoples fault for being so ignorant. Obama did promise change, and I too was skeptical about his being able to see that through. Yes has slowed down a bit on the 'change' but more importantly I remember him saying quite often that "the road to recovery would be long and hard, and that things will get worse before they get better." Or something that effect. I have heard those words from him a number of times.

So..?

I think people need to get a bit realistic in his being able to see his plans through. And whoever mentioned it is right about one thing, he has only been president 6 months of the possible 4 years of his term.
There is something special about planes....
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:13 pm



Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 19):
what if they just have Russia join NATO

Today it is a good joke but it was a chance in the past. At 90s. But as I talked to NATO people - they always were completely against. There were a lot of reasons for this position. But I have to say in general that West lost opportunity for the new Marshall Plan. In early 90-s Russian population was splited but it was not anti-Western. It could work then, there were a lot of abilities to integrate Russia to World and European community. Instead of this we were puted to the side of the road with clear message - you better dead and quite when alive. Fine - it was a choice, choice to keep out instead to have influence and it was made.

Talking about West reaction I still can't get the sense - why positive experience with Germany in 1945 was not somehow realised with Russia at 1991. I understand that situations were very different but very few things were realy done by US and EU to prevent situation of stupid and senseless opposition we have now. This opposition is worse for us but it gives no benefits for the rest of the world as well. Might be with only exeption for US military industry lobby  Wink
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:14 pm

One could argue that the the US backing down as the "muscle of the world" and with NATO moving to encircle Russia are steps in the advancing of a world government.

Blackbird
 
Klaus
Posts: 20648
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:26 pm



Quoting FYODOR (Reply 21):
It could work then, there were a lot of abilities to integrate Russia to World and European community. Instead of this we were puted to the side of the road with clear message - you better dead and quite when alive. Fine - it was a choice, choice to keep out instead to have influence and it was made.

Actually, the main problem complex at the time from a western perspective seems to have been that the western (especially american) side tried to push Russia to a market economy not least in order to gain entry to the russian market for western industries but neglected to support the development of true democratic structures beyond its more superficial aspects.

There was a widespread illusion that a market economy would somehow "automatically" bring about prosperity and democracy. As some had predicted, however, things are never that simple.

A russian NATO membership was never really in the cards, I'd say. The intra-russian resistance to such a move was too strong and NATO would have had major problems accomodating and integrating Russia, given the political developments at the time.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20648
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:40 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 22):
One could argue that the the US backing down as the "muscle of the world" and with NATO moving to encircle Russia are steps in the advancing of a world government.

One could argue that the sky was green...!

The USA aren't "backing down" in any substantial way. They are merely re-tuning the tone of their diplomatic relations with Russia.

And NATO "encircling" Russia has more to do with the mistrust and open fear of neighbouring countries towards Russia driving them to seek the aid of NATO than with any comprehensive strategy on NATO's part.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:41 pm



Quoting FYODOR (Reply 15):
Hi guys,

Fyodor, thank you for such a great post in what I thought would be another pointless thread to hide inferiorities under a guise of machismo and chest-bumping. It sometimes scares me that there are people living in the US with the right to vote who so carelessly talk about wars, armed conflict, bomb droppings, and interventions as if they were a casual occurence with no real consequences. Fortunately I know that this mentality is slowly fading, being replaced by a sense of reality and respect for the right to live of others.

Of course, Klaus always provides a refreshing element called perspective. His posts make me wish that more people in the US would appreciate the art of studying history so that we can avoid the mistakes of our predecessors.
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:47 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
There was a widespread illusion that a market economy would somehow "automatically" bring about prosperity and democracy. As some had predicted, however, things are never that simple.

Things are not simple indeed however if we would not implement market economy in 1992 we would not have achievemnts we have now. Tough reforms of 92-93 created the basis for the further growth - it was actualy started before oil price runned high. But you are right - 'blind copy' of institutions not always work.

The problem of Russia in 1991 was that we had no chance to start to build 'creeping capitalism' as they do in China. We couldn't implement market mechanisms step by step as far as as state USSR was not able to function since 1989. There were no authority able to provide such slow and well counted reforms. So we have no other solution instead to jump to the free market economy. We have learned a lot on that way (not enought anyway) and was able to improve many mistakes we made before. However we made many new ones. As like West did in relations with Russia. Seems we both were not really ready for the new world paradigma... I know why we didn't.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
A russian NATO membership was never really in the cards, I'd say. The intra-russian resistance to such a move was too strong and NATO would have had major problems accomodating and integrating Russia, given the political developments at the time.

Thats true. However it could be effective ways of cooperation. And they were (and still potentially are). But it was bombed together with Belgrade at 1999.
 
CaliAtenza
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:52 pm



Quoting FYODOR (Reply 26):

Fyodor, do u think Russia stood a better chance of being integrated with europe back in 91 then it is today?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20648
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone

Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:07 pm



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 25):
Of course, Klaus always provides a refreshing element called perspective.

Well, thank you!  Smile

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 26):
Things are not simple indeed however if we would not implement market economy in 1992 we would not have achievemnts we have now.

No doubt. It was definitely necessary, just not sufficient.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 26):
The problem of Russia in 1991 was that we had no chance to start to build 'creeping capitalism' as they do in China.

I wouldn't really use China with its corrupt ultra-capitalism and its trail of scorched earth as a shining example...

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 26):
Seems we both were not really ready for the new world paradigma... I know why we didn't.

Yeah, it wasn't an easy change. There were voices (notably from Germany, but of course also in Russia itself) who insisted that the rule of law would have to be an essential cornerstone for a successful development, but these voices were largely drowned out by domestic and foreign economic interest groups, politicians scrambling for power and real or imaginary foreign policy conflicts.

Very little room for reason or reflection, but with the still difficult integration of the GDR we know quite well how hard such a transition can be even under almost ideal circumstances.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 26):
Thats true. However it could be effective ways of cooperation. And they were (and still potentially are). But it was bombed together with Belgrade at 1999.

Russia siding with the serbian national chauvinists wasn't really helpful there (not that the west hadn't sided with brutal dictators in earlier decades). But there have been several more wasted chances since. Maybe Obama can help getting things in motion again.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9101
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:12 pm



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2):
We're going to pay a heavy price for this guys administration.

And we are not paying a heavy price for the last Administration. Talk to the families of the 4,000 KIA or the WIA. Talk to the people who have lost jobs, homes, health insurance because of the last Administration.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2):
it will be up to the Republican president(the easy winner in 2012), to re-ignite a military build-up.

We'll continue to spend a reasonable amount on the military. But there is a cost that we need to address and that is the costs of taking care of vets that have already gone to war for this country. Or is that something that the conservatives don't want to think about?

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2):
An armed conflict with the Iranians is inevitible, not with Obama but with the next administration as Obama will appease the Iranians and every other dictator to no-end.

Can the Republican's really fool the people again with some WMD BS? Maybe we'll be tired of sending kids into the meat grinder. But then I guess it is unpatriotic to want to consider the costs of war before starting one that doesn't need to be fought,

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
You might put up some sensor lights to scare someone off..

Done that.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
put in an alarm system.

And make some fear spreading salesman happy? Nope.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
.maybe even buy a gun to protect your family!

Not a chance. A friend in the 5th grade lost his 13 year old brother to a gun that wasn't loaded. A pretty painful lesson to learn, but I never forgot it.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
Its putting us all at risk.

Is he shutting down the military academies? Kicking out the experienced officers and men from all branches? Turning aircraft carriers and planes into beer cans?

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):
Once they stop, America is in some deep doo doo

Once the US stops buying all countries selling to us will be deep $hit. The potential of this market is one of the things that will protect us from countries like China. It is in their long term interests to work with us, not fight us.

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 8):
that 6months into his term the US would have an even worse economy,

Who would believe that the economy can't turn on a dime.

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 10):
The problems would still be there only difference is I think there would be more confidence in the market,



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 11):
They'll still dislike us anyway.



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):
That's been Obama's vision from the very beginning was take this country far to the left

Any movement away from the far right will be considered socialistic by conservatives. You don't have to be a hard right conservative to have valid ideal and beliefs about this country. You don't have to be a conservative to serve and love this country.

The only reason why conservatives lost the November election was because they were failures when they were in office. Live with it, but don't learn from it.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):
I think there would've been a swifter response to the Iranian civil unrest and to North Koreas threats.



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):
If Obama still decides he's going to sit down with the Iranians, he will lose all credibility.



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):
Well, 9-11 was Bush's fault.

Not really. It happened on his watch, but it coiuld have happened at any time.

What was his fault is the decision to go to war in Iraq. It was the biggest Phuck Up in my lifetime.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 13):
Under John McCain I think the economy would be heading in the right direction with not having these huge bail outs but still having a struggling economy.

No bailouts then the major banks would have failed, multiple companies in the auto industry would file for bankruptcy, things like that.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 13):
I think that he would want the private sector to bring America back and not creating thousands of government jobs.

How can he do that if he prefers to see them fail over bailing them out and getting them back to steam? With a financial sector on its knees who would be financing their growth? With increased unemployment from the above who would be buying their products?

And with Sarah Palin as VP (unless she had already quit) where would the DOW be? Every time McCain sneezed it would drop 250 points.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 13):
The only thing we have going for us now

We have a lot going for us, including efforts to improve relations with other countries - maybe even those in "Old Europe".

One of the best things that came out of my time in the Navy way back when was an appreciation of not only this country, but a lot of others as well. I discovered that we are not the only country in the world (even though some people think so), we are not the only country to have a good idea or good people or innovation or a high quality of life.

And I've learned that most people in this world are interesting and easy to get along with if you don't act like an arrogant, know it all, "must be the best" asshole.

Personally I'm happy to see some of the arrogance of old ending.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20648
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone

Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:19 pm



Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 27):
Fyodor, do u think Russia stood a better chance of being integrated with europe back in 91 then it is today?

If you're referring to a potential EU accession, that chance has always been extremely remote. If Turkey would already be very difficult, Russia would be out of the question, then as now and for russian and european reasons alike.

I don't think it's categorically impossible, but on both sides a lot of work would have to be done before such a move could even be considered.

That said, there would be many opportunities for integration below the level of an EU membership, but most of them still depend on legal and political stability in Russia, neither of which really being present at this point.
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:10 pm



Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 27):
Fyodor, do u think Russia stood a better chance of being integrated with europe back in 91 then it is today?

Thats very good but very compliccated question I have spend few hours for just a brief explanation of differenet points of view. Let me be very brief.

First, we have to clarify definitions - what we understand under integration. I do not mean integration as membership in EU and even NATO. Regarding EU - I not sure if Klaus will agree with me - agenda is very differenet and Europe today is too much regulated and socialistic for me. Such might be fine for well developed society but I not sure it somehow could help us in 1991 when the country was under the ruins of government regulation.

Indeed you may say that today when there are a lot of western investment in Russia, Russian parliament have amoung the priorities harmonization of Russian legislation with European (thanks God they are still far  Wink ), personal income is more or less comparable with the less rich West Europe countries like Portugal or Greece etc. situation is better. And you'll be partly true. But just partly.

I mean in 1992 the influence of Western countries among Russian government was tremendous. Western experts were welcomed everywere and were listened. It could be used for many positive changes but insted as Klaus said:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
but these voices were largely drowned out by domestic and foreign economic interest groups, politicians scrambling for power and real or imaginary foreign policy conflicts.

There were a lot of acitivities but very few directed for the long term development. US free food 'aid' almost killed our own agriculture (project of US rural lobby), international business were inetersted only in Russia row materials for minimal price and actual absence of taxpaying system, NATO was worry only on Soviet nuclear weapon, Europe thought only about oil and gaz supply. Can we blame them for that? That was normal capitalist's selfishness. Why US or EU taxpayers care on situation in Russia? Should anybody care if Russians are in truoble? These are tough questions actualy without obvious answers.

Anyway in 1945 Americans decided its better to think about future. In 1991 there were no any Marshall plan as I said, just current sort term interest. The chance to build the long term basis for relation with Russia was lost. Since 1993 it became obvious that Russia would get just words and very expencive loans. It was a good lesson about short term pragmatism we learned. Russia had built its own basis which many people (including me) dislike. But we had to make it ourselves - with all our mistakes - we had no friendly assistance and wise advisers. Just certain protectionist rejection insted.

Thats what I mean about lost chances for integration. Indeed there are chances for integration always. Price is different.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
There were voices (notably from Germany, but of course also in Russia itself) who insisted that the rule of law would have to be an essential cornerstone for a successful development

Bingo! That was the key mistake... We didn't provide legal system - effective courts, honest police. But could we do it in 1992? Might it was too late. Anyway you are completely right - absense of rule of law created the basis for banditism of 90s and system of corruption in present time...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
Russia siding with the serbian national chauvinists wasn't really helpful there (not that the west hadn't sided with brutal dictators in earlier decades).

Completely agree. No dobts who is Miloshevich. But the way was choosen was a world's disaster. Iraq was just continuation - if you easely can once, you can a second. What are the limits?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20648
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone

Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:07 pm



Quoting FYODOR (Reply 31):
Europe thought only about oil and gaz supply.

I don't think that that is really true – but it was the only interest which gained significant traction on the russian side.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 31):
Bingo! That was the key mistake... We didn't provide legal system - effective courts, honest police. But could we do it in 1992? Might it was too late. Anyway you are completely right - absense of rule of law created the basis for banditism of 90s and system of corruption in present time...

The problem is that the rule of law is above all in the interest of the wider population – rich individuals or corporations can in most cases take care of their interests even in a corrupt environment (or at least they believe they can!).

My impression is that the russian civil society was still too damaged and too fragmented a few short years after the end of the soviet regime to really become a power factor in their own interest, so politicians could get away with keeping corruption alive in their own interests.

Today even major corporations think about leaving Russia due to the unreliable situation they are facing with hardly any legal recourse (latest example: IKEA). And the murderers of opposition figures and critical journalists or lawyers aren't even prosecuted in any serious way.

This is a real problem, maybe even the main problem.  Sad

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 31):
Completely agree. No dobts who is Miloshevich. But the way was choosen was a world's disaster. Iraq was just continuation - if you easely can once, you can a second. What are the limits?

Yeah, this kind of thing needs to stop. And stopping the more or less open hostility between the USA and Russia might be a step in the right direction.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:35 pm



Quoting FYODOR (Reply 15):
Russia is not a 'dictatorship'.

Hrrmmm, remains to be seen whether that is true. Putin and cronies are certainly on the path to reclaim the glory of the "Mother Russia". It may not be the USSR, but it will be similar

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 15):
It is rather complicated political case, I'm rather pessemistic on political model we have here but it is definitely not dictatorship

Communistic-dreaming

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 15):
Don't you think war is not good way to help people? As I said this is rhetorical question - no need to answer. It is more about internal values people have. Escuse me but reading you posts I see the 'man who first shooting and asking 'Who is coming&!' after'. We simply might have different basic points of view.

No, war is not good, but sometimes there are some unpleasant things that transpire and there is no for for individuals to avoid it. But seriously, with the rhetoric the Iranians are throwing out there, you really think they aren't itching to bait the west into a fight like Saddam did?

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 17):
The last thing I would ever want in the United States and now the senate as 60 who knows what will happen. Since this economy is bad and I don't see it getting better in 2010 I would not be surprised to see Republicans gain some seats back since people will see the Democrats are not doing a great job.

The democrats won't hold on to the 60 seat majority very long, which is why I think the Democrats will try to push through as many big gov't programmes as possible to cram it down our throats and raise our taxes "for the good of the people". The first clue is this stupid Cap n Trade bullsh!t that is going to cost every American household more in taxes, followed by the Universal Heathcare garbage.

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 17):
If he sits down with Iran he needs to be impeached as simple as that. Its a shame Iran has such a horrible leader it could be a great country and the economic hub of the Middle East.

I put nothing past him. This guy is on a mission to apologise for America for all of our trangressions(without or consent)

Quoting Michlis (Reply 18):
Of course they will and we of course will manipulate them. The President did this during the summit. He took a potential rivalry between the top two Russian leaders and played it against them. The name of the game in international politics is gaining leverage wherever possible against another country and vice versa. It's the same game that has been going on since the dawn of civilization and it will continue to go on.

I would agree with that, excpet Obama is looking demote America from the top spot. His aim is to be the most popular politacal figure selling out the US in order to gain acceptance amongst the great poets and writers for his legacy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
And we are not paying a heavy price for the last Administration.

You haven't seen anything yet.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Talk to the families of the 4,000 KIA or the WIA.

You do know that we have an All-Volunteer service, correct? Forgive me for souding insensitve, but this is what we sign up for(i'm a reservist in the Armed Forces). It's sad and heart breaking to see how badly some of our vets have suffered since coming home, some paying the ultimate sacrifice from Iraq and Afghanistan. But no one is forcing people to sign up, if fact the Army is turning away potential recruits. But when you sign up for national service, expect to fight and expect to go to war. Plain and simple

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Talk to the people who have lost jobs,

Go out an get another one. If you look hard enough, you'll find one. I'm working 2 jobs(endangered of being laid-off from one)

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
homes,

Who is ultimately responsible for signing a contract? Who? Is it always someone else's fault? Where does the responsibillity lie? The gov't can only do so much, it comes down to people to control their own spending and reading what they're signing. For the housing crisis, we should look no further than ourselves.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
health insurance because of the last Administration.

He's a thought, buy your own healthcare. You want it, pay for it. The reason healtcare is so expensive is becuase of the insurance that doctors have to carry from medical malpractise lawsuits by personal injury attornies. Tort reform is needed, to limit the damages from these frivalous not universal. Futhermore, if people didn't go lurching into the doctors office for a sniffle, medical costs might start to drop.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
We'll continue to spend a reasonable amount on the military.

for now, but it remains to be seen how much money is diverted from defense spending.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
But there is a cost that we need to address and that is the costs of taking care of vets that have already gone to war for this country. Or is that something that the conservatives don't want to think about?

No, what conservatives don't want to deal with is liberals sticking pork-barrel spending attached to Veterans Healthcare Spending initiatives. It's a the political game that both sides play. One will attach silly initiatives to a bill for Veterans Affairs, the other side will veto it, and the then get blamed for being anti-veteran. It's a vicious circle, and a silly one.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Can the Republican's really fool the people again with some WMD BS? Maybe we'll be tired of sending kids into the meat grinder. But then I guess it is unpatriotic to want to consider the costs of war before starting one that doesn't need to be fought,

They won't have to when Iran and North Korea starts lobbing missiles into Israel, Europe, Japan and US/Canada. By that time, it'll be too late and then we can finally be the victims, and we can count on the world to come our aid, right?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Any movement away from the far right will be considered socialistic by conservatives. You don't have to be a hard right conservative to have valid ideal and beliefs about this country. You don't have to be a conservative to serve and love this country.When it goes this hard right? Yes

The only reason why conservatives lost the November election was because they were failures when they were in office. Live with it, but don't learn from it.

The only reason the conservatives lost in the last election was becuase Democrats selected the GOP nominee whose campaign was Democrat-lite. Why vote for the the Democrat-lite when you can have the genuine article at full price.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Not really. It happened on his watch, but it coiuld have happened at any time.

Surprised to hear you say that. I salute your forthright opinion.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
What was his fault is the decision to go to war in Iraq.

But when Bill Clinton said that Saddam posed a clear and present danger to US National security the year before, that was true right?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
It was the biggest Phuck Up in my lifetime.

Well, you're not dead yet, there's still time.
Made from jets!
 
QXatFAT
Topic Author
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 am



Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 17):
Secure after 9/11.

I do believe McCain would have kept us safe just as under Bush. On the other hand, we have Obama and I do not feel as safe as I felt under Bush.

Quoting Captaink (Reply 20):
Obama did promise change

And he is giving us change...just the kind of change that ruins a country.

Quoting Captaink (Reply 20):
"the road to recovery would be long and hard, and that things will get worse before they get better."



Quoting Captaink (Reply 20):
I have heard those words from him a number of times.

Or from "Batman: Dark Knight" haha!  Smile

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
And make some fear spreading salesman happy? Nope.

Well I can tell you that our home alarm has saved our family before a few times. Thank goodness we had one!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
How can he do that if he prefers to see them fail over bailing them out and getting them back to steam?

Its the great thing about America. You have the freedom to start up a buisness and the freedom to loose a buisness. But now in America you have the freedom to start one up and the government to keep it running. Oh but you have to pretty much sign it all over to the government and let them run your buisness.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 33):
Well, you're not dead yet, there's still time.

I am sure more will come in the next 3 1/2 years for this dude.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:36 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 33):
Hrrmmm, remains to be seen whether that is true. Putin and cronies are certainly on the path to reclaim the glory of the "Mother Russia". It may not be the USSR, but it will be similar

You mean Russia has no right for glory? What about the glory of UK? US? France? Have they such right? Russia will not be similar to USSR. It can be 1/6 world's land size Venesuela with nuclear weapon. In a worst case. Still we seems not like this. At least looking from inside.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 33):
Communistic-dreaming

Sure you know situation in Russia better than me   but what do you exactly mean under this words?

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 33):
you really think they aren't itching to bait the west into a fight like Saddam did?

Really I think that US oil producers lobby closed to former Administration used the stupidness of insolent dictator as a reason to solve their own interst. All rest is just a peel. But looking at the price US paid for this war - next one might be not happened. And if once it nevertheless woill happen - it will be just a good present for US ill-wishers.

And mate, Iraq case is not over. I guess you will be surprised what can be with this country after you'll leave it. Afganistan after Soviet troops left it is just a one possible example...

No doubts - Iran is dengerous. But when you are surprised why Russia in UN do not support US position - it might be because for many Russians US looks as a bigger danger than Iran?

[Edited 2009-07-09 01:39:38]
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:04 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
I don't think that that is really true – but it was the only interest which gained significant traction on the russian side.

In 1992 major traction in Russian side was food supply. Bit later - political system composition and approaches in privatising. Oil and gaz became in top agenda after. I mean offical Europe mostly was care on stability of supply than in 'Russia - quo vadis?' question.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
so politicians could get away with keeping corruption alive in their own interests.

Of cause. Systemised corruption can't exist without huge involvement of politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen. But ones been created this corruption starts rule the stae. What do I mean? Example. Couple of years ago I'd talked to road policeman in Kuban' Land. He said he would prefer to work in Saint-Petersburg but 'it was too expensive to get in there'. So, to get into system you have to bribe someone. You in corruption from the beginning. And it mean that there are no people at the system clean of corruption - they all connected. Indeed - GAI - Russian road police is a specific case and always had bad reputation. However situation in Russia is sadly developing to the side of 'one huge GAI'. They are trying to show they fight against corruprtion but at the political system with no adequate balancies and effective mechanism of critics and substitution of officials - all this attempts are just some drops in the ocean.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
Today even major corporations think about leaving Russia due to the unreliable situation they are facing with hardly any legal recourse (latest example: IKEA). And the murderers of opposition figures and critical journalists or lawyers aren't even prosecuted in any serious way.
This is a real problem, maybe even the main problem.

You right - corruption is the problem #1 for Russia. However I would not say it is totaly blocking foreign investments. IKEA case is very known but they continue their business anyway. As like as other major international companies. Corruption is much bigger problem for the local business development, for innovations and modernization.

Regarding murders - Russia is not the only country with such problem. It was obvious for recent Italian political landscape for example. From many points of view it all was predictable. The worst thing is - we have no clear positive dynamic at this field. Why? Read above.

[Edited 2009-07-09 02:06:23]
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:53 am



Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 33):
But seriously, with the rhetoric the Iranians are throwing out there, you really think they aren't itching to bait the west into a fight like Saddam did?

Normally, the smart thing to do is not to take the bait.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:27 am

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 35):
No doubts - Iran is dengerous. But when you are surprised why Russia in UN do not support US position - it might be because for many Russians US looks as a bigger danger than Iran?

Or probably because Iran is good leverage for Russia at the moment. Russia has strategic concerns about Iran and as such it probably does not want to see a nuclear armed Iran anymore than it wants to see North Korea invade and take over the South but at the moment Russia's "influence" with Iran and the issues the US has with North Korea is political leverage that it can use against the United States. Keep in mind, this is a game.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 33):
The only reason the conservatives lost in the last election was becuase Democrats selected the GOP nominee whose campaign was Democrat-lite. Why vote for the the Democrat-lite when you can have the genuine article at full price.

Well, that was not quite the reason. You have to understand that a lot of conservatives voted for the current President and like 2006 it was more a vote against Bush than a vote for the Democrats.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 33):
No, war is not good, but sometimes there are some unpleasant things that transpire and there is no for for individuals to avoid it. But seriously, with the rhetoric the Iranians are throwing out there, you really think they aren't itching to bait the west into a fight like Saddam did?

Well, they probably aren't. Personally, I think they are years away from developing a nuclear weapon (one that is deliverable anyways) and they will likely have to test the thing before they try and deliver it, which would probably be detected anyways. In reality they are getting much more political mileage out of denying they have a weapons program and driving the West nuts with the nuclear energy issue. They aren't stupid; they know if they attack Isreal with a nuke or other weapon of mass destruction that they are toast literally. As for Saddam, I doubt he was itching for a fight. He was in between a rock and a hard place strategically and we based our decisions on bad intelligence sources.

[Edited 2009-07-09 04:29:03]

[Edited 2009-07-09 04:29:32]
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:26 pm



Quoting Michlis (Reply 38):
As for Saddam, I doubt he was itching for a fight. He was in between a rock and a hard place strategically and we based our decisions on bad intelligence sources.

But Saddam wasn't making things easy on himself by interfering with the inspections. All he really had to do, if he actually had no weapons, would have been to open everything up to the UN. He would have won, and Bush would have looked like an idiot. But he didn't. One wonders why, but I guess we'll never know.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:27 pm



Quoting Michlis (Reply 38):
Keep in mind, this is a game.

This factor is also presented indeed. Always.  Smile
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:38 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 39):
But Saddam wasn't making things easy on himself by interfering with the inspections. All he really had to do, if he actually had no weapons, would have been to open everything up to the UN. He would have won, and Bush would have looked like an idiot. But he didn't. One wonders why, but I guess we'll never know.

I'm not defending Sadam in any respect, but by being belligerent he was creating the uncertainty about his possession of chemical and nerve agents that he needed to keep Iran from jumping on him after the first Gulf War. He probably could have satisfied the United States off the record, but then again his prior track record would have certainly affected his credibility.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:55 pm



Quoting Michlis (Reply 41):

I'm not defending Sadam in any respect, but by being belligerent he was creating the uncertainty about his possession of chemical and nerve agents that he needed to keep Iran from jumping on him after the first Gulf War. He probably could have satisfied the United States off the record, but then again his prior track record would have certainly affected his credibility.

I understand him being belligerent up until 2002-2003, but after that a US invasion should have been a much bigger concern than an Iranian one.

But this is a guy who once buried airplanes in sand to hide them - quite effective, both at hiding the planes and rendering them useless.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:22 pm

Those in desire of a World Government would be very keen to want to take the US out of the top-dog role. NATO would be far more desirable for such people as being the figurative "muscle" of the world, rather than the US as it is not tied down to one nation. It is international, and would make a very good force to advance such change.


Blackbird
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29917
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:34 am

Looks like Obama is trying to convince the world that he wants to restart peace efforts,but he should realise all countries are not sincere & will take it very differently.
I think USA needs to be wary of China.
regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
QXatFAT
Topic Author
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:45 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 44):
Looks like Obama is trying to convince the world that he wants to restart peace efforts,but he should realise all countries are not sincere & will take it very differently.

Part of restarting the peace efforts is taking America off of the top dog role aka make us vulnerable.

Just how stiff is Russia and China on the North Korea issue? It doesnt seem like they want them to have the full arsenal of nukes but doesnt really want to do much to stop it from happening.

Also, the United States (really just Obama) has become panseys it seems to want to check shipping containers from North Korea for weapons but doesnt want to actually do it. Why make it valuntary for the country if you want it to be a strict UN sanction?

UN = Joke
Don't Tread On Me!
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:17 pm



Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 45):
Part of restarting the peace efforts is taking America off of the top dog role aka make us vulnerable.

I disagree. Remember Teddy Roosevelt's line about speaking softly and carrying a big stick? Well, we've got a gigantic stick - thousands of nuclear warheads, a massive military-industrial complex, a highly trained and professional army, etc. Bush didn't quite get the other part of the line right. He did not know how to "speak softly" on the world stage, which built resentment towards the US. Obama has dialed back that rhetoric. We still have the stick to defend ourselves with, but because Obama is speaking more softly, other world leaders are more inclined to listen and cooperate.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20142
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:39 pm



Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 4):

But he isnt taking care of our own! If you disarm America of defense systems and say we will put away all of our nukes, you are putting our own at risk of attack. You MUST have a strong defense in order to stay a live in these times and to protect ourselves. If you think that we can survive with a disarment and massively decreased defense, you have no clue what can happen to us.

I dunno. Most European countries don't have military forces that, combined, even approach that of the U.S. And yet they're still alive.

Obama has decided to focus our military efforts on where it counts. He also knows that threats of violence rarely lead to good outcomes. Rather than self-congratulatory braying at, say, Iran about their political behavior, Obama has allowed the rest of the world to do that job. The result? We are no longer the Great Satan. England is. In other words, the best defense is to mind your own business so nobody wants to attack you. If you run around with a chip on your shoulder, someone is going to mess with you.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
QXatFAT
Topic Author
Posts: 2310
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:25 pm



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 46):
thousands of nuclear warheads,

In which Obama wants to cut.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
I dunno. Most European countries don't have military forces that, combined, even approach that of the U.S. And yet they're still alive.

But they rely on England the United States have their back and help them. Why spend a lot of money when the West will come to your aid or fight your battles? Makes sense to me why they wouldnt. Plus, you have American bases as well in some of these countries.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
In other words, the best defense is to mind your own business so nobody wants to attack you

Im in no way a massive Bush backer but just to present objective thinking...we wernt attacked by Iran during the Bush administration even though he was a "big jerk" to the rest of the world. We were attacked on 9/11 and not again after that.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Is Obama Handing Over "Top Dog" Role To Anyone?

Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:35 pm



Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 48):
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 46):
thousands of nuclear warheads,

In which Obama wants to cut.

Yeah, because being able to destroy the world three times over isn't really enough - we need to be able to do it four times over.  Yeah sure

Those things do cost money to keep in tip-top condition, you know. Which, incidentally, is money that Russia doesn't really have. So while their numbers may seem decent (though they're not nearly to the level of the US stockpile), one wonders what percentage of them are actually useful after so many years.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, B747forever, MileHighClubber, SANAV8R and 29 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos