youngdan wrote:

If Obama gets in we will see some real wars, not the skirmishs that we have seen thus far.. The lad pulling the strings for Obama is Zigniev Brezinsky. Authur of The Grand Chessboard and a hawk against Russia and China. The strategy is already forming to lead to a breakup of Pakistan to remove it as a Chinese ally. Another Chinese client that would be getting the shaft is Sudan. Some of the Obama fans are so lame brained to think anyone gives a bollix about a few lads getting killed in Dhafur so it will be sold as a humanitarian mission. Obama is dangerous because he seriously misunderstands the mindsets of the Russians and Chinese.

It is by no means a given that he will be elected even though he is running against a senile fool. He has a bill in the Senate now about global poverty and when the Americans read it they should realise that this lad is a fruitcake like never before seen in politics here. If he was running against even Romney he would be a joke.

However, the old saying in politics is You can not beat somebody with nobody. McCain is nobody

This requires some elaboration. First, who has a bill in the senate, Obama or McCain? It's not really clear from your post, but I'll make a wild guess and go for McCain.

How and why would anyone go about breaking up Pakistan. They're our ally too, which I think most Americans will notice. And replace it with what? And what do you mean by the mindsets of the Chinese and the Russians?

905 wrote:

First, who has a bill in the senate, Obama or McCain? It's not really clear from your post, but I'll make a wild guess and go for McCain.?

Obama I suppose- The Global Poverty Act 2007.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

905 wrote:

How and why would anyone go about breaking up Pakistan. They're our ally too, which I think most Americans will notice. And replace it with what?

Pakistan is one of those places where central government is a triumph of hope over expectation. I think you'd find that while Musharraf the pragmatist is a US ally, Pakistanis most definitely are not.

Lestat. You are operating on the understanding that Obama is going to be deciding who he is going to be listening to. That is not the way things work. Brezinsky is not an eighty year old man that has nothing better to do than advise a politician. He tells Obama what to do and if he dosn't do it then the limo driver turns up tomorrow morning and verifies Larry Sinclairs story. The media runs the story and Obama is gone by noon. The vast majority of politicians are blackmailed.

Look what happened to David Vitter when he helped defeat the immigration bill. One week later his was the only phone number out of 53000 in the DC Madams book of clients that was traced. Then Hannitty came out and demanded his resignation even though he never wanted Barney Franks resignation when his stud boy toy was running a brothel for queeer lads out of Frank's apartment.

One of the hookers working for the DC Madam hung herself and the tin foil hat brigade were convinced she was murdered to shut her up. The DC Madam herself was then prosecuted and she was very stupid. Instead of naming everyone including Cheney she THREATENED to name everyone. So she was asked on radio by someone who had a brain if she was considering suicide and she said never. Any guesses on what happened next. Geraldo Revera tells the tale http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6622594982713318616&q=geraldo+dc+madam+alex+jones&ei=sImKSNSSKpDuqwKnv5G2CA

905. The point I was making above is important and will get back to Pakistan later. The entire Afghan war is over a pipeline. A company called Bridas won the contract and Unocal lost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal
Anyway many bombs later and Karzai is the president of Afghanistan. Plenty of interesting fun and frolics here, not least of which is the fact that according to Le Monde Karzai was a unocal consultant in the 90s http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

I have heard some say that they wonder that Sinclair still lives, but what use is he dead? Blackmail is a very powerful lever. This is a weird story that never really took hold, and you think well it is just some attention seeking nut job, but as time moves on you find others confirming the tale and still no real coverage.

It is not just Sinclair, (which may or may not be a load of nonsense), Obama seems to walk on water, nothing seems to stick, nothing gets proper scrutiny and I find that not only slightly weird but disturbing.

With regards Afghanistan there is no reason to go into that country other than access to the Asian states of the former USSR, but the fools that decided this course didn't pay enough attention to their geography and history lessons at school. Afghanistan is basically a federation of fiefdoms and because of the geography it is difficult to maintain control.

Our position in that country is totally dependant on support from Pakistan. Musharraf is certainly a 'pragmatist'. He suspended the constitution, jailed members of the supreme court, arrest of political dissidents and human rights activists, shut down all private television channels and called a state of emergency before his re-election was confirmed.

Most of the population are strongly anti American and you have to ask how long can Musharraf hold sway? If he fails then what?

To understand China and Russia you enter into concepts such as affordable loss and perceptions of threat. Our policies towards Russia are currently anything but clever. We in Europe need to distance ourselves from what America is doing and try to foster better relations with mother Russia. A better balance is needed.

youngdan wrote:

Lestat. You are operating on the understanding that Obama is going to be deciding who he is going to be listening to. .....

Interesting system you've got there. Perhaps Carter has told Obama where some of Brzezinski's bodies are buried though.

Squire wrote:

We in Europe need to distance ourselves from what America is doing and try to foster better relations with mother Russia. A better balance is needed.

Not sure about that. Russia is responsible for the disaster that is Afghanistan after it's little imperial adventure there in the 80s. It was that war that created the likes of the Taliban and turned Osama Bin Laden into a jihadist. And let's not mention Chechnya. Russia is the US without moral restraints. Why should Western Europe have to be in one camp or another anyway? We should create our own camp and leave Russia and the US come courting us.

Or, since an Islmaic fundamentalist takeover seems certain from Lebanon to Pakistan we could foster better relations with whoever will be running that show (Iran?). So all you women get your burqas on I'm off to Clonmel to open a madrassah. While I'm gone chuck all that ham and bacon out of the fridge.

Lestat wrote:

Not sure about that. Russia is responsible for the disaster that is Afghanistan after it's little imperial adventure there in the 80s. It was that war that created the likes of the Taliban and turned Osama Bin Laden into a jihadist. And let's not mention Chechnya. Russia is the US without moral restraints. Why should Western Europe have to be in one camp or another anyway? We should create our own camp and leave Russia and the US come courting us.

I think you have that on its head. Afghanistan was used to bleed the USSR. It was America that funded Osama & Co. There has been a systematic attempt to break up Russian influence in order to gain access to resources. Moral restraints have nothing to do with foreign policy as Iraq demonstrates.

There is every reason to believe that if it wasn't for the intervention of Britain and the US Iran and quite possibly Iraq would be secular democratic states like Turkey.

There was the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953 (BP a main player)
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/06/books/bk-keddie6

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/1395,features,how-we-overthrew-irans-democracy

Less known was the Iraqi democracy of 1905 - also crushed by Britain and Russia.

The arming of Saddam by the UK and US throughout the Iran - Iraq war (by then radical Shiite state), is also worth mentioning.

Iraq's 20th century history could be accurately summarised as a long national struggle for democracy relentlessly pushed back by the World Powers. In the course of this a country much more developed than Ireland 20 years ago is now back in the middle ages.

The emergence of a radical and backward-looking form of Islam out of this is tragic but not surprising: it is less easy to crush than a young democracy.

On the pipelines -
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/22/9805

There is a fundamental driver that used to be understood but that seems now to be overlooked that the Middle East is the ground for an economic power struggle between the US and European States (France and the UK in particular). The Iran Chamber site has a good article on this that I can't find just now but this is also interesting:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/iran_iraq_war_american_interest.php

Lestat - what is this US morality that you mentioned?

Squire wrote:

I think you have that on its head. Afghanistan was used to bleed the USSR. It was America that funded Osama & Co. There has been a systematic attempt to break up Russian influence in order to gain access to resources..

Granted, but you are aware that Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, aren't you? The following decade saw the US arming and training anyone in Afghanistan who would fight the Soviets, including the Taliban. Without the Soviet invasion there would be no Taliban.

cactus flower wrote:

There is every reason to believe that if it wasn't for the intervention of Britain and the US Iran and quite possibly Iraq would be secular democratic states like Turkey.

I'd be inclined to say that is wishful thinking but I don't know enough about the history of these places. I might get back to you later on the subject.

Squire wrote:

Moral restraints have nothing to do with foreign policy as Iraq demonstrates.

cactus flower wrote:

Lestat - what is this US morality that you mentioned?

A little irony there folks. However Chechyna makes Afghanistan and Iraq look like a Saturday night fist fight outside McDonalds. It's just that CNN doesn't go to Chechyna.

cactus flower wrote:

There is a fundamental driver that used to be understood but that seems now to be overlooked that the Middle East is the ground for an economic power struggle between the US and European States (France and the UK in particular). The Iran Chamber site has a good article on this that I can't find just now but this is also interesting:

Cactus flower good post and an important point.

I once had an interesting conversation with a venerable family acquaintance who worked in the diplomatic service in Iraq, for a certain European country. All very unsavoury! I would agree that but for interference both Iran and Iraq would be secular democracies and probably pro western. We have managed to screw up the entire region and in Europe we need to carefully consider how we positively frame our relations with these countries and in the short term with Turkey in particular. We need to distance ourselves from US foreign policy which has become increasingly ill considered and arrogant.

We tend to forget that we are in direct competition with the USA and that we do not necessarily have common objectives. If we look at American actions post WW2 it is clear that they sought to maximise their gain at the direct cost of their former allies. This idea that America is our friend and that we have a special relationship with is one that needs to be constantly questioned. Yes we may often have common purpose but we serve different vested interests.

Lestat wrote:

Granted, but you are aware that Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, aren't you? The following decade saw the US arming and training anyone in Afghanistan who would fight the Soviets, including the Taliban. Without the Soviet invasion there would be no Taliban.

I thought the Afghan government invited them in? I think you need to look at this in the wider context of the cold war, power struggle and the decline of Russian influence in Egypt and paradoxically Iraq. There is no moral high ground in any of this. Foreign policy is always about vested interests.

Lestat. If you knew what goes on even when a person is running for city council you would know that if The Wise Guys(mob) are against you you have got a big problem. What do you think of when you hear about the Mafia turning out THE CHICAGO MACHINE to help Kennedy. Here in South Boston you had a textbook example of how it works. Whitey Bulger controled the mob on the South Shore. His brother Billy decided to go into politics. Funnily enough many able politicians decided not to run against him. A 38 pressed to your ear tends to make many reconsider their political asperations.

Like to guess how Billy's political career went? Not only did he get elected in time to the State Senate but then the other 39 Senators decided that Billy was the best man to be Senate President and as powerfull as the governor himself.

Make him an offer he cant refuse.

If they refuse there is always the plane crash treatment

Squire wrote:

I thought the Afghan government invited them in?.

The Afghan government had invited in Soviet military assistance from early 1978. The PM, Hafizullah Amin, overthrew President Taraki in September 1979. He was suspected by the USSR of starting to move away from the Soviets and of making overtures towards the US and Pakistan. In any case he was assassinated by Soviet troops on 27th December 1979. Sounds like an invasion to me.

So - its Obama and Biden. This seems to be a very careful choice in terms of age, experience and 'blue collar' connection. Obama seems as willing to compromise and as unpredictable as every other Democratic leader.

Does this look like a winning ticket ?

Whilst Biden brings with him experience and knowledge on foreign policy he also has a not so flattering view of Obama and conversely a respect for McCain. Being a Washington insider puts an end to the change nonsense and his background is Liberal so no widening of the base on that front.

Foreign policy may have been the talk of last month, but in the coming months, bar more war, the economy is more likely to top concerns.

I am not so sure that the choice of the VP makes that much difference unless it is someone truely outstanding, a major surprise or departure from convention. Picking Binen is in a way admitting to lack of experience and knowledge of foreign policy. Some of Obama's statements on foreign policy have been decidedly unnerving, but there again many of his positions seem to change with the rising of the sun.

Let us imagine that some crisis involving Israel (or anywhere) arises are the electorate going to compare McCain with Biden? I don't think so, it is Obama who is running for President.

The election is about Obama and if he is suitable? Has he the values, judgment, experience necessary? Who is he? What does he believe in? The Liberals in the Democratic Party, in a year where they should be coasting in, have decided on an unknown. This election is truly the Democrats' to lose.

In McCains case the VP choice is more important as there is greater possibility of him becoming the next President.

After Bush you would like to see the Republicans out. All politicians tend to be tarred with an unflattering brush, but from a general point of view I think the McCain - Obama choice is dire.

McCain we know all about, his record and temper. The alternative is a complete leap of faith, but with no substantive reason given to jump. To me everything about him reeks of insincerity, his very body language is all wrong, and his constant redefining of policy simply highlights the problem. What does he actually believe in, and what wouldn't he do to be President? What are his priorities other than being elected? Who exactly is supporting this Chicago politician?

To me such people are dangerous and should never be in positions of responsibility. At best if elected Obama will be yet another disappointment.

Sadly people like Nader are totally sidelined. Now he and some of the other outsiders really would mean change and some of them would probably make excellent Presidents. Sad really.

Will anybody be watching the convention over the next few days? I'm looking forward to Billary's speech I must say.

Youngdan, I see you're getting the Bill Clinton treatment over on P.ie. Should I call Kate Snow?

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

They're putting a 5 second delay on Bill Clinton's speech because they are worried he might go craaaaaaaaaaazzzzyyyy.

johnfás wrote:

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

They're putting a 5 second delay on Bill Clinton's speech because they are worried he might go craaaaaaaaaaazzzzyyyy.

Thank you for that johnfás.

Saw a bit of Nancy Pelosi last night. Seemed a bit boring really.

johnfás wrote:

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

They're putting a 5 second delay on Bill Clinton's speech because they are worried he might go craaaaaaaaaaazzzzyyyy.

Hmmm. I don't think thats very smart. Its not the poitburo, and if they edit the live feed of the speech the dems will be torn apart. It's a real shame that Bill isn't on board, he is an incredible speaker when he's fired up. I presume he'll use the speech to rip on John McCain and defend his own legacy. His bitterness towards Obama still seems very raw so I wonder how far he will go in talking him up?

Anyone got a timetable for the main speeches ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Saw a bit of Nancy Pelosi last night. Seemed a bit boring really.

I'd say that was deliberate. I don't think she's very well liked and the Obama team were probably eager to keep her on a short leash.

TUESDAY

Senator Hillary Clinton will be the headline prime-time speaker and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner will deliver the keynote address on Tuesday night. Pay Equity pioneer Lilly Ledbetter will also address the Convention on Tuesday.

Other Tuesday speakers will include:
Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana; Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts; Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona; Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia; Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin; Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania; Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio; Governor David Paterson of New York; Governor Chet Culver of Iowa; Senator Bob Casey, Jr., of Pennsylvania; Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont; former Secretary of Energy and Transportation Federico Peña; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel; Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Assistant to the Speaker of the House; and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair Chris Van Hollen, who will use his time to showcase his top candidates for change.

Representatives Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Mike Honda (D-CA), California Controller John Chiang, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, Change To Win’s Anna Burger, and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney will also speak.

WEDNESDAY

The headline prime-time speaker on Wednesday will be Vice Presidential Nominee Senator Joe Biden.

Featured speakers will include:
Former President Bill Clinton; former Senator Tom Daschle; Governor Bill Richardson and Senators Evan Bayh, John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Convention home state Senator Ken Salazar, House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, and Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) along with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth will lead a tribute honoring those who give so much to secure our nation’s future – veterans, active duty military and their families.

THURSDAY

On Thursday night, the DNCC will throw open the doors of the Convention and move to INVESCO Field at Mile High so that more Americans can be a part of the fourth night of the Convention as Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination. Obama will communicate the urgency of the moment, highlight the struggles Americans are facing and call on Americans to come together to change the course of our nation.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, Jr. will address the Convention on Thursday night.

Additional details of the program to precede Barack Obama’s acceptance speech will be announced later this week.

Cheers unaligned.

johnfás wrote:

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

They're putting a 5 second delay on Bill Clinton's speech because they are worried he might go craaaaaaaaaaazzzzyyyy.

In a party that is allegidly trying to unite that is utterly stupid. If he does let rip and they cut it it will be worse than broadcasting, because whatever he says will be reported anyway. This is clearly telling us that the party is being run by control freaks with poor judgement and that there are serious divisions.

The election is the Democrats to lose and they are doing their utmost.

He isn't going to let rip anyway. He is more intelligent than that. Whatever about going mad on the campaign trail it is not going to happen at the convention. Despite his anger at how his wife was treated I am quite sure he prefers Obama to McCain so he won't compromise it. Also he knows it would lower his standing both nationally and internationally no end.

It is just rather funny that they are doing it and that it got reported.