Korean War

d

I found this interesting:

The administration regards the new level of Chinese support as a "green light" for more aggressive military planning, the report said.

take care

agreed.

But this administration has been color blind to red lights on agressiveness for some time.
The good news is they have badly overplayed their hand politically here. There is talk of a huge loss for them next Tuesday, the "off year" congressional elections. stay tuned. cheers.

And what would it happen if the republicans would lose the congress? would this necesarily mean a shift of foreign policy?

Yes.

The Dems have a plan to deal with the worrisome economic competition from the E.U. AND an increasingly assertive (energy rich) Russia. AND one that would take the wind out of NK's sails. (trying stay ontopic)

Their new foreign policy would extend offers of U.S. statehood to select European countries, with particular emphasis on Eastern Europe. Thus Moldova, or Romania for example, could become the 51st United State. (The latter would have to bail out of the EU first).

There is some precedent for this; e.g. the French have a department (The island ofMartinigue) in U.S. frontyard,and the Russians (used to) have Cuba...so......why not?

As you know, we just reached 300 million population, so an additional benefit of this policy would be to afford them some lebensraum
(oops..sorry..... somebody already tried that..)


(jk, of course.... real answer tomorrow, if anyone interested, but still, definitely yes. Barring a last minute Karl Rove "surprise", we are oncourse for one of the most dramatic reversals in U.S. political history!!!! cheers, cnfb)

Not that i would enjoy it, but i can bet the republicans will keep control of both houses...

Hope you are not a betting man; you would be against the odds on this one....but yes, who knows? e.g. in Ro, Basescu was not supposed to have much chance!
(Talk of luck; I happened to be in Buch that nite; the post election street scene around Univerisitate was amazing and I'll never forget it!!)

This is what makes politics interesting imo; the risk element.

I'd love to expand on this.....but not the place/thread to, I guess.

I'll just say that this morning here there has been some small last minute poll movement in the Republican direction, but the latter are mostly glum..they expect to lose seats, only question is if it will be more than 15 (the magic number to keep control of House).

I'm in the streets here, myself, somewhat different than Buch, but interestingly same emotions.

My (volunteer) job is to go door to door, in a VERY wealthy Very Republican suburb and try to talk to people... it's kind of like hand to hand combat, lol. haven't got shot yet, lol but close, lol.
I'm sure the after election party tomorrow nite won't be half as much fun as Bucharest was tho..

cheers, cnfb

(apologies in advance for off topic...but this whole thing WILL influence North Korea relations, in fact already HAS!)

Suparatu,

Let me give you an alternate answer to the one Flyboy provided.

No, contrary to flyboy's opinion, the truth is that there would be no shift in foreign policy. Foreign policy is dictated exclusively by the Executive branch (the President), not by Congress. The only possible change would be the introduction of a timetable to withdraw troops from Irak, and this is because troops operations that last longer than 6 months need to have the approval of Congress. Even so, however, there probably will not be a change because there are still some moderate Democrats (such as Lieberman, for instance), who will not vote with their party.

Now, on to the elections themselves. Our friend Flyboy, who I genuinely like as a person, said that we are on the eve of one of the "most dramatic reversals" in US politics. I understand his enthusiasm, given that he's a Party Activist volunteering for the Democratic Party. But the changes will be far from dramatic. The Republicans are expected the lose control of the House by a few seats (3 to 5 out of 435), but they will probably keep control of the Senate by a narrow margin.

This is hardly dramatic, and in fact it's expected. Typically, the country elects a Congress of the opposite party from the president. Clinton, for instance, had a Republican congress for most of his tenure, if I remember correctly. And Bush the elder had a Democratic Congress for most of his term (once again, if I remember correctly).

If you want to hear something dramatic, it's that in the last 6 years, the country has consistently and repeatedly elected both a Republican president and a Republican Congress. This is indeed historical.
Why has this happened, you may ask? It's because the Democrats have absolutely no concrete alternatives to offer. All they do is criticize - and they're very good at it - but they don't have any answers, or at least any practical, realistic answers.

Examples? Try these from our friend Flyboy:

Ok, what exactly is the plan? Could you please elaborate?

Or try this:

I hope this is a joke, right? Does this sound like a realistic, feasible plan? This is what they're trying to get elected on?


I don't agree with all the Republicans are doing, just like I don't disagree with everything the Democrats are doing. But the Democrats really have no answers, especially on foreign policy.

So what does it all mean? Well, come Wednesday, the US will still have a Republican president, a 51% majority in the Senate, a 49% minority in the House of Representatives, and a moderately conservative Supreme Court. Rumsfeld and Rice and all others will still be there (they're appointed by the president).

Does that sound like a "historical reversal"? I would argue it does not.

Take care.

No, contrary to flyboy's opinion, the truth is that there would be no shift in foreign policy. Foreign policy is dictated exclusively by the Executive branch (the President), not by Congress. The only possible change would be the introduction of a timetable to withdraw troops from Irak, and this is because troops operations that last longer than 6 months need to have the approval of Congress. Even so, however, there probably will not be a change because there are still some moderate Democrats (such as Lieberman, for instance), who will not vote with their party.

Now, on to the elections themselves. Our friend Flyboy, who I genuinely like as a person, said that we are on the eve of one of the "most dramatic reversals" in US politics. I understand his enthusiasm, given that he's a Party Activist volunteering for the Democratic Party. But the changes will be far from dramatic. The Republicans are expected the lose control of the House by a few seats (3 to 5 out of 435), but they will probably keep control of the Senate by a narrow margin.

This is hardly dramatic, and in fact it's expected. Typically, the country elects a Congress of the opposite party from the president. Clinton, for instance, had a Republican congress for most of his tenure, if I remember correctly. And Bush the elder had a Democratic Congress for most of his term (once again, if I remember correctly).

If you want to hear something dramatic, it's that in the last 6 years, the country has consistently and repeatedly elected both a Republican president and a Republican Congress. This is indeed historical.
Why has this happened, you may ask? It's because the Democrats have absolutely no concrete alternatives to offer. All they do is criticize - and they're very good at it - but they don't have any answers, or at least any practical, realistic answers.

Examples? Try these from our friend Flyboy:

Ok, what exactly is the plan? Could you please elaborate?

Or try this:

I hope this is a joke, right? Does this sound like a realistic, feasible plan? This is what they're trying to get elected on?


I don't agree with all the Republicans are doing, just like I don't disagree with everything the Democrats are doing. But the Democrats really have no answers, especially on foreign policy.

So what does it all mean? Well, come Wednesday, the US will still have a Republican president, a 51% majority in the Senate, a 49% minority in the House of Representatives, and a moderately conservative Supreme Court. Rumsfeld and Rice and all others will still be there (they're appointed by the president).

Does that sound like a "historical reversal"? I would argue it does not.

Take care.

Yes, of course it was a joke...maybe not a very good one...sorry if I missed the target.

TY I like u 2. This is all about friendly exchange of views.

Since this is so offtopic, I was trying to keep my comments brief..I doubt I did a good job of saying why and how this political sea change is occuring, has occured.
There are very few Republicans, save in the reddest of the red states who even want to be SEEN with Bush. Fewer still who will defend his foreign policy, let alone run on it. THat is a BIG change from only a few weeks ago...but it's been building....I knew sth was up when I started to hear even my more died in the wool republican friends put and his inept, incompetent policies down.

Sorry, but the U.S. Congress does have quite a lot of influence on foreign policy; the House and Senate committees on foreign affairs are very powerful, always have been....it's not just the "power of the purse" which Congress has too of course. Because Bush had such a docile majority, congress has only seemed powerless. The Republicans' plan was to continue one party rule...they overreached, it now seems. that's why this is dramatic.

Secondly, military operations are only a part of Foreign Policy (usually the part that comes in when all else has failed). This "Imperial Presidency" has only made it SEEM like Congress is powerless. He is about to find out the the executive branch powers are in fact constitutionally limited. He will no longer (it seems) have a rubber stamp Congress.

Finally, the mood of the electorate counts for a lot in our system; look at the way the administration is backpedaling, (e.g' no more "stay the course" talk, e.g., no more "defeatocrats" name calling) in the face of almost overwhelming dissatisfaction with Iraq, from members of BOTH parties......and some formerly very hawkish Republicans included. That's why I say it already HAS changed.

At times, it seems like Bush is the only one left standing to defend this disaster. (Iraq...maybe the biggest strategic mistake in U.S. history). The neoconservatives have lost their grip on U.S. policy...and mostly gone back into the woodwork (except for Cheney and Rumsfeld) some time ago, actually...this is a major change.

The U.S. Military is largely aginst the policy....yesterday ALL 3 service newspapers came out against Bush....unheard of in time of war.....

I agree with you regarding the way power shifts in the off year...but imo, this political shift is major......a few weeks ago, the Republicans were counting on a majority for the next generation, and acting liked they owned the country. That is up in smoke. and they are plenty worried they will lose (presidency) in 08, as well.

I also agree neither party has cornered the market on stupidity, bad planning, greed, mistakes screwups and shameless self interest.

cheers. cnfb

aplogies for offtopic....(again)

I doubt the democrats would have a major impact on foreign policy. Once an empire, it's hard to steer like it's something else.
I also think the democrats will do that because they dont want to take missteps that would give ammo to the republicans in 2008.

"We’re going to continue to give the troops everything they need”

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...raqfunding.html

take care

Thanks for your reply Cfb. You're absolutely right, this is a friendly exchange of views and I appreciate that we can have a political conversation without the namecalling typical of both political parties.

Just a couple of points:

I agree that Congress can influence foreign policy, but it does not dictate it, especially not to a 2nd term lame duck president who doesn't have to worry about reelection. Let's just say Congress has moderate influence at most.

I disagree with you on this one. Maybe that's just what it looks like from the other side of the political fence. Sure, a lot of running politicians are avoiding Bush during their campaigns, but it doesn't mean they disagree with him. Also, I don't think this is anything new. It's been building over the past two years or so. Same thing happened to Clinton in his mid-term elections, if you remember.

Sorry, but I don't see any backpedaling for the majority of republicans. Backpedaling would be to withdraw our troops, or to plan doing it. The policy line has been and continues to be - we'll stay there until Irak can take care of itself, withdrawing would be equal to losing (which it would be). The generals will have as many troops as they ask for - no more, no less.
The people who are saying that more troops are needed are not aware that Generals on the ground have not been asking for more troops even though they have been told it would be their decision. But I digress...

Now this is completely false and you know it. The 3 service newspapers are owned by a private, non-military company. The military has no connection to the content in these 3 newspapers.
What is unheard of in time of war are people like Kerry saying to a bunch of college students that if they don't study they'll end up stuck in Irak (yeah, sure, botched joke). What's unheard of are protests against our troops - not against the war, mind you, but against our soldiers. Soldiers coming home from Irak and getting spit on or insulted by Americans. True, these are radicals, extremists, but guess what: they're all radicals of the Democrat Party.

Once again, maybe that's the view from the other side of the fence, but Republicans have known for quite some time that they were going to lose seats and possibly control of Congress. In the last year, with Irak not improving, it became even more certain that it would happen. That's nothing new, nothing dramatic in my opinion. There is no imperialism, as you imply, and the fact that they've been able to maintain control of both Houses and the White House for 6 years is remarkable. Actually, I think this is the only historic part - it hasn't happened in decades.

Well, you certainly ended your message with a statement I agree with 100% - both parties have lots of room for improvement in all aspects.

Take care.

Since we're all frinds and this thread has just turned into a hug fest, let me just give my friendly opinion about this.

i think no matter who wins, america wil lose. if the republicans win, well, i do not even need to explain anymore. if the democrats win, we will probably see a rise by about 1000 degrees fahrenheit of the hate level concerning political attacks. remember the clinton years? poor guy could not eat a sandwich without being a baby cow killer or an environmental assassin.

the republicans get away with most in the press because america has a bad case of god. if you say god and jesus every two minutes, you are a good american. this is of course the Middle America view of things. i bet these guys would vote binladen for president if the turned baptist and confessed publicly he has found jesus.

and unfortunatly, this is the part that matters in america right now. not theliberals of the north east or the rich oil magntes and their horde, it is the dirt poor trailertrash, sister-marrying godloving middle america.

i just dare hillary clinton to run for president in 2008.

as what concerns these election, i maintain my position. republicans WILL keep control of both houses, despite all the "we are sure kerry will win - just looks at the polls" wishful thinking.

god help us

right. good points. (not that i agree totally with your view of the electorate here))

but this is SO far offtopic now, we really should take it offline, imo.

cheers.

Suparatu,

From the way you describe America (in such a confident manner, no less), you must have learned about it from watching too many Hollywood movies or from reading too many liberal newspapers.

How close have you actually gotten to "Middle America" that you know it so well?

Trust me, the Midwest has no more dirt poor sister-marying trailer trash than your own hometown, the glorious city of Galatzi, or wherever you may hail from.

By the way, I find it quite ironic that you, of all people, accuse others of being hateful. You?


P.S. Shhh, don't tell anyone, but I'll let you in on a secret. You got your stereotypes mixed. When you wrote about trailer trash baptists, you should have been referring to the "Deep South", not "Middle America". It's the Deep South (MS, LA, AL, etc.) that liberals like flyboy like to label as "baptist country", and "trailer trash" - not Middle America.

Just goes to show how much you know about the American society and its politics.

Take care.

excuse me????

I personally would not use those terms, thank you. We were on a good vibe here...why u want to make presumptive personal comments mystifies me.
Did I (or anyone) say something nasty? This is really uncalled for.

nevermind him. he was just hating me for being hateful.

i just heard the democrats won the house of representatives. i do not even know what this means, besides the fact that i was wrong in my prediction. here in romania the election has been an issue on television only these last few days.

only thing i know is that a woman is now head of the house of representatives. still the results for the senate have not been published, aparently now the republicans are only one seat away from victory, while the democrats need three.

maybe the mods should make this a separate thread since it is wayy offtopic from the original north korea one.

It means the democrats are back in the game.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/house/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/

In the Senate race a democrat won Virginia but a recount is scheduled, Montana is too close to call, votes still to be counted with polls giving the democrat an advantage. If the democrats win these 2, they win the Senate majority. But it would be a slim majority and the republicans have Cheney there to weigh in if ties occur in the Senate.

take care

edit - oh, and the democrats also won 6 governor seats, having 28 vs. 20 for the republicans

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 08, 2006 09:48 am