Some good news at last - Obama is back in front

[Solomon1 10]

(arranges pom-poms into an M)

 

OBAA-MA!! OBAA-MA!! OBAA-MA!! OBAA-MA!!

 

 

[mr contrite 10]

..funny, that's Bin Laden's approach to dispute resolution. The US, under a God fearing, gun toting administration have been in the Middle East for a long time now, isn't it time to seek a fresh approach, since people are still killing each other?

 

Ten years ago no one could have imagined peace in Northern Ireland, this came about largely due to the diplomatic efforts of John Major initially and Tony Blair and Bill Clinton latterly and involved compromise on both sides..the Republicans weren't bombed or intimidated to the discussion table.

 

Lets not kid ourselves about NI, the underlying resentment is still there between some, but for many, the reality was simply that they could make more money from going legit, something similar to what has happened with the mafia.

[boyfriday 21]

Lets not kid ourselves about NI, the underlying resentment is still there between some, but for many, the reality was simply that they could make more money from going legit, something similar to what has happened with the mafia.

 

Yes, I agree, I'm not naive enough to believe there's some cultural panacea in Northern Ireland yet, BUT look where they are now compared to 10, 20 years ago,

 

Thatcher's hardline mixed with ignore them and they'll go away, just didn't work.

 

Remember the voiced over images of Adams & McGuiness on news bulletins? The bullish intrasigence of English politicians? What do you think moderate Loyalists and Republicans thought about that?

 

Now we have Adams & Paisley sitting round the same table cracking jokes, Ireland might not be there yet, but it's on its way, thanks to diplomacy rather than the military action.

[mr contrite 10]

Yes, I agree, I'm not naive enough to believe there's some cultural panacea in Northern Ireland yet, BUT look where they are now compared to 10, 20 years ago,

 

Thatcher's hardline mixed with ignore them and they'll go away, just didn't work.

 

Remember the voiced over images of Adams & McGuiness on news bulletins? The bullish intrasigence of English politicians? What do you think moderate Loyalists and Republicans thought about that?

 

Now we have Adams & Paisley sitting round the same table cracking jokes, Ireland might not be there yet, but it's on its way, thanks to diplomacy rather than the military action.

 

Personally i believe it was a mixture of military and diplomacy, mixed with a realisation that there was no way out for anybody involved, that caused the cessation of hostilities, coupled with a realisation that the "troubles" were bad for business for all concerned, diplomacy gave them an easy out, now the image of Adams and Paisley cracking jokes is one that im sure many in NI thought they would never see, but if you think that we are likely to see anything similar with Bush, McCain or Obama sharing afternoon tea with Bin Laden, then you have grossly underestimated the strength of feeling from Bin Laden and his followers, the only end to this will be when Bin Laden and his ilk are eradicated from the face of this earth, and even then there will still be a significant risk from others, the only diplomacy Bin Laden wants is when the west gets down on its knees and prays to mecca.

[boyfriday 21]

but if you think that we are likely to see anything similar with Bush, McCain or Obama sharing afternoon tea with Bin Laden, then you have grossly underestimated the strength of feeling from Bin Laden and his followers, the only end to this will be when Bin Laden and his ilk are eradicated from the face of this earth, and even then there will still be a significant risk from others, the only diplomacy Bin Laden wants is when the west gets down on its knees and prays to mecca.

 

No, I don't think we'll see it from any of them, but that's down to the narrow thinking styles of American politicians generally, such intrasigence is certainly not a quality to be applauded.

 

Whatever Bin Laden's motives might be, they're irrelevant, whilst ever the West is seen as punishing Muslims, then he will have a fertile recruiting ground..the converse to what you propose would happen if his ilk 'are eradicated from the face of the earth'.

 

Although I agree a judiciously placed bullet, between his ears, without an escalation of civilian casualties might be beneficial.

 

A diplomatic settlement would certainly be a long winded process, and may well fail, but at least the rank & file citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq would see that demonstrably, the West's objectives were honourable.

[Wildcat 10]

No, I don't think we'll see it from any of them, but that's down to the narrow thinking styles of American politicians generally, such intrasigence is certainly not a quality to be applauded.

 

Whatever Bin Laden's motives might be, they're irrelevant, whilst ever the West is seen as punishing Muslims, then he will have a fertile recruiting ground..the converse to what you propose would happen if his ilk 'are eradicated from the face of the earth'.

 

Although I agree a judiciously placed bullet, between his ears, without an escalation of civilian casualties might be beneficial.

 

A diplomatic settlement would certainly be a long winded process, and may well fail, but at least the rank & file citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq would see that demonstrably, the West's objectives were honourable.

 

I don't think there is any need to do deals or compromise with Al Qaeda. What is dangerous about them is what they say not the few people that run the organisation. Take away their mouthpiece and they are nothing more than a few grumpy old gangsters.

 

I think objectionable though they are, some sort of deal or talks with the Taliban are necessary and they might even be able to hand over Osama Bin Laden, they offered to do so before the war if the US gave them evidence that he was implicated. So it is possible. And also in defence of talking to them, it is worth considering our Northern Alliance chums are not that much better (and are in some cases worse).

 

There are better ways to win against a guerilla army than fighting them and endangering innocent civilians, it is much easier to win people's hearts and minds through generosity than fighting.

[mr contrite 10]

No, I don't think we'll see it from any of them, but that's down to the narrow thinking styles of American politicians generally, such intrasigence is certainly not a quality to be applauded.

 

Whatever Bin Laden's motives might be, they're irrelevant, whilst ever the West is seen as punishing Muslims, then he will have a fertile recruiting ground..the converse to what you propose would happen if his ilk 'are eradicated from the face of the earth'.

 

Although I agree a judiciously placed bullet, between his ears, without an escalation of civilian casualties might be beneficial.

 

A diplomatic settlement would certainly be a long winded process, and may well fail, but at least the rank & file citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq would see that demonstrably, the West's objectives were honourable.

 

I applaud your optimism, but fear you are sadly wrong, i cannot see any diplomatic end to this conflict, only force will be the answer to this, and once the likes of Bin Laden sees any cracks in the resolve of those opposed to him, he will exploit it with a vengeance, seeing it as a weakness.

 

Do you think the troops pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would see an end to hostilities?, hardly, it would simply be handing power to the extremists, allowing the destabilising of the region.

[boyfriday 21]

Do you think the troops pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would see an end to hostilities?, hardly, it would simply be handing power to the extremists, allowing the destabilising of the region.

 

..I agree, there are no easy answers, but I think whoever enters the White House should have an idea as to how long troops will remain there, after all they could be there forever at this rate.

 

Some proposals for a diplomatically negotiated reduction in hostilities and a medium/long term programme of phased withdrawal, should at least be on the agenda.

[callippo 10]

Obama’s key demographics are young people, black people and well educated white people.. groups who the Bradley effect really isn’t going to work for.

 

yes that's his base that enthuse about him. That's why there was no 'Badley effect' in the primaries either. But with the rest of electorate, the big majority, those that voted for Bush last time and who Obama needs now may behave differently.

 

McCain is going to need more than any Bradley effect

 

I agree, in fact that's what I said. Even if there is a 'Bradley effect' McCain is still in big trouble. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if Obama drops one or two points nationwide in the vote from the last polls on the Monday night, maybe even the exit polls - but not enough for him to lose because it's looking like he's at least five points clear now. We'll see. It's just totally new territory like I said, there's never been a national Presidential black candidate before. You can't really compare it to a Senate race.

[Harleyman 12]

As the election draws ever nearer and the candidates views become even more clearer it's becoming more and more obvious that this election is the "election from hell".

 

On the one hand we have Obama's agenda for some sort of new socialist society which means higher taxes for the "well off" but not rich middle class (like me) and nothing in return for our higher taxes that would benefit myself, children or grandchildren and then we have McCain and his "take care of the rich only" agenda.

 

Ross Perot why did you ever leave us?

[plekhanov 10]

On what grounds do you make this claim? Thatcher was a highly intelligent woman (she won a scholarship to Oxford)

 

in chemistry, a subject she later admitted was totally the wrong thing for her to take, which is why she retrained as a barrister (and in which career, like Blair, she made absolutely no impression).

So what if she later thought Chemistry was a mistake? The point is that she was capable enough to get a scholarship to one of the best universities in the world where she got a masters in a very difficult subject.

 

In contrast Palin went to 4 different colleagues in 5 years none of which were exactly difficult to get into in the end she got a ‘degree’ in ‘communications and journalism’ and yet she still couldn’t name a newspaper when asked the other week.

 

Thatcher’s scholarship is just an obvious signifier of her intellectual abilities which were on display for the many years in which she more than held her own in the Commons. In contrast Palin’s feeblemindedness is painfully obvious every time she opens her mouth without being able to read from a script someone else has written for her. This is a woman who was humiliated by childishly simply questions like ‘what newspapers do you read’ are you seriously suggesting that someone anything like on a par with Thatcher would have been stumped by that?

 

Also, like Blair, at no point in her time at Oxford did she shine academically, or make any impression in student politics - unlike legions of her Ministers in the 80s such as Fowler, Clarke, Gummer, Lamont, et al

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Mafia

No impression on student politics? She became President of the Uni Conservative Association that’s no mean feet at a place as crawling with Tories as Oxford. As for not ‘shining academically’ getting a scholarship to Oxbridge in the 1st place is a considerable achievement (and one far beyond the reach of a mental midget like Palin) regardless of whether or not she lit up the place once she was there. Do you have any evidence that Palin ‘shone’ at any of the 4 no name colleagues she attended?

 

no other Tory PM has had less ministerial experience than Thatcher. She won the 1975 leadership election as a total outsider, and knew next to nothing about even economics, never mind foreign affairs at the time she became party leader. Not that any of this mattered, because she had the one capability that Prime Ministers and Presidents need over anything else - executive ability.

 

Palin is the only one of either Obama, McCain, or Biden that has got any executive experience at all. None of those have ever governed anything.

Thatcher still had way more executive experience than Palin she was Education Minister in a country of 60,000,000 people for 4 years in contrast Palin has been governor of a state with a population of under 700,000 for less than 2 years.

 

As for her knowing nothing ‘next to nothing about even economics, never mind foreign affairs at the time she became party leader’ she served on the Shadow treasury team in the 60s and was a monetarist before she became leader she just had to move slowly to take the party with her. As for you claim that was ignorant on foreign policy your evidence for this is what exactly?

 

Your and poppins attempts to equate Palin with Thatcher are just pathetic the only similarity is that they are both female an argument as facile as arguing that any politician with dodgy legs will automatically be another FDR. Regardless of whether or not you like Thatcher (and I don’t coming from a mining town) it’s clear that she is head and shoulders above Palin.

[plekhanov 10]

As the election draws ever nearer and the candidates views become even more clearer it's becoming more and more obvious that this election is the "election from hell".

 

On the one hand we have Obama's agenda for some sort of new socialist society which means higher taxes for the "well off" but not rich middle class (like me) and nothing in return for our higher taxes that would benefit myself, children or grandchildren and then we have McCain and his "take care of the rich only" agenda.

 

Ross Perot why did you ever leave us?

Oh please, Obama 'socialist'? In what conceivable way is he a socialist? He's not even a social democrat.