2020 US Election (Part One)

[cardgame]

You realize all those administrators work in for-profit systems, right?

 

[Dekker]

That's right, this is the attempt to look at the context of history to glean why things are now with the hope that maybe we can understand what options are available in shaping the future.

The way things are with Iran right now is shaped in the light of how we acted with Libya. What we did there is written. Iran faces a similar decision to what Gaddafi did. To develop and possess its own nuclear arsenal, or not. The world's interest is in fewer players having them, as more players having them increases likelihood of use, either through intent or losing control of them, so says the doctrine of non-proliferation. Iran will have to act in what it perceives to be Iran's interest. Gaddafi negotiated a cessation in his attempts. Whether or not he would/could have gotten them is almost besides the point. It was an agreement. We waited until enough time had passed that most people didn't bother remembering that anymore and when faced with a tough decision allowed the Europeans to convince us to hold him down with a non-declared conventional war while other people killed him. So let's look forward:

We have a situation where Iran agreed to a deal with major European powers that slowed, but did not stop their nuclear development. Wise, they watched what European powers did. The US never ratified a treaty with Iran, since we can't get verifiable indefinite military nuclear cessation out of them. Wise, they watched what we did at Europe's behest. So what's that leave as an option? The basic model of the only success we've had at non-proliferation has been the one the Canadians/Germans/Australians/South Africans use. A major nuclear power promises alliance and total devastation to any overpowering aggressor, particularly one that might use nuclear weapons on them. So Europe and the US are off the table. Russia had its moment with the Ukraine. It's off the table. That leaves... China? Whatever China controls, China has always controlled. Of all options, it's the hungriest for expanded reach vs status quo upcoming. So maybe, but I doubt it. It's theoretically possible. That leaves North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel. I don't think they're going to work. So now we're to the situation everyone just seems to be figuring out. Iran appears to be willing to endure economic punishment for weapons development. That leaves two options. A nuclear armed Iran capable of obliterating (at least parts of) Europe in the short term and the US in the intermediate term, or a big nasty hot war now. Them's the breaks. The window on NK already passed. It's in the missile refinement stage to extend reach. Non-proliferation is either dead or a new era of war is upon us. Those, at least to me, seem to be the options to try and learn to address.

Edit; Just to lighten the mood a bit -

Spoiler :

So we should kill some half a million Iranians because they don't bow to our lordship over Nuclear power, fearing what that when acquired their own they would be obliterating Israel and attacking the US and Europe? To what end? So they could be wiped out of existence and the world thrown into devastation?

 

[El_Machinae]

Have you ever spoken to a European, even once, at any point in your life?

I think that the United States, at the Federal level, is probably incapable of replicating the previous successes of Medicare or Medicade.

 

[Farm Boy]

So we should kill some half a million Iranians because they don't bow to our lordship over Nuclear power, fearing what that when acquired their own they would be obliterating Israel and attacking the US and Europe? To what end? So they could be wiped out of existence and the world thrown into devastation?

Shhh. We're not on chan or twitface for a reason.

Great clip!

So, If our choices are only a hot war now or a nuclear Iran and a nuclear NK sooner, you would choose the hot wars? Would you send your kids to fight in them? Would you go? If war is the best choice regarding Iran, then the obvious target should step up and engage. That being Israel. I see little point in Americans dying for Israel. Now,we know the only way for Israel to win such a war is to use nukes. MAD rears its ugly head. The NK problem can be solved much more easily since it resides in a single person.

Oh, has any else read about this weapons improvement:

Spoiler :

The U.S. military and the CIA reportedly have a new tool in their arsenal: a bomb that doesn't explode, but deploys sword-like blades to kill or maim its human targets.

The R9X Hellfire Missile, which The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday has been used at least twice—once by the Pentagon and once by the CIA—is a new weapon that is intended to reduce civilian casualties. The missile does not have an explosive warhead, but rather uses its weight and "a halo of six long blades" that deploy before impact to shred through whatever is in its path.

"To the targeted person, it is as if a speeding anvil fell from the sky," said the newspaper, citing an official familiar with the missile.

Nick Waters, an award-winning journalist and researcher, noted that while previous suspected drone strikes by U.S. forces overseas had produced mysterious results, perhaps the R9X—"a Hellfire missile with ******* swords attached to it," he said—provided a possible explanation.

Well, two parts. What should be done and what should we do?

What should be done? I've no clue. It definitely favors avoiding war but for the devil calling his due. If/when that happens, and it grows more likely by the year(it's a technology that was fired in anger 74 years ago), the cost is likely to be severe enough to make our quibbles just seem r-t4rd3d.

What should we do? I've no faith the US really wants to pay any of the costs necessary for trying to do it right. And even less faith in our friends on that regard. So war is categoricaly stupid above and beyond even the vast necessary stupidity in the base concept. But what, really, do I know?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, two parts. What should be done and what should we do?

What should be done? I've no clue. It definitely favors avoiding war but for the devil calling his due. If/when that happens, and it grows more likely by the year(it's a technology that was fired in anger 74 years ago), the cost is likely to be severe enough to make our quibbles just seem r-t4rd3d.

What should we do? I've no faith the US really wants to pay any of the costs necessary for trying to do it right. And even less faith in our friends on that regard. So war is categoricaly stupid above and beyond even the vast necessary stupidity in the base concept. But what, really, do I know?

The puzzling question for me is this: Will any ME nation risk MAD and attack Israel in a way that threatens its survival? If they do, I have no doubt Israel will launch/bomb. I think they all would prefer the current, terrible status quo. Even if Iran had a nuclear bomb, would they be willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy Israel? I would hope not. For me, a real shooting war now is less desirable now that a maybe war later.

 

[Tristan_C]

You realize all those administrators work in for-profit systems, right?

rtfp maybe

 

[mitsho]

Why does peoples' cynicism about the vicious ulterior motives and general incompetence of the government go away once they start talking about things like single payer health care, or regulating business?

And it shouldn't be beyond you. That's the essence of my complaint about this. In military matters people assume bad faith, and in domestic matters people assume good faith.

Yes, but more importantly, I have listened to them. Thus my question.

Why does all this cynicism get channeled selectively to the military industrial complex and not to the government's other bureacracies? What makes people think that governments have their best interests at heart and can manage their lives better than they can?

I didn't initially respond to you when you quoted my post first since I was in a hurry and didn't understand what you wanted to say. Since it apparently sparked some discussion and I got time now, here's my take:

There are bad actors in all different fields. I never said that and I wouldn't presume. The terms "bad" and "good faith" however irk me, since that is totally dependent on your viewpoint. And what the agency in charge has been tasked to do by the political process, government, laws, treaties, etc. . The major distinction I however see is that the army (and foreign policy in general) is an integral part of the government. It is controlled directly. Whereas in most other areas, the government is the regulator. Universities are not owned by the national government, hospitals neither. Some may belong to cities, but they are actors in a market. In short, it's much easier to be a regulator than an active participant.

So that would be my answer to your first question. To the last one: the democratic process tasking and controlling these bureaucracies. Isn't that logical? And if it doesn't work anymore, you should switch out the government or reform your constitution.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think that the United States, at the Federal level, is probably incapable of replicating the previous successes of Medicare or Medicade.

My point was not so much that Europeans have managed to institute socialised healthcare despite all the inefficiencies and bad faith of government, but that they are keenly aware of those obstacles and spend a lot of their time yelling about it.

 

[Mouthwash]

Or they suspect that the economic punishment is the point, and the nuclear stuff is a pretext. The US has been applying sanctions to Iran since 1979, but has only cited its nuclear programs as grounds since 2005.

Sure it doesn't have anything to do with their (usually sectarian and destabilizing) power grabs in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Gaza, and even Morocco? Their ideology isn't too far off from Islamic neoconservatism.

 

[Takhisis]

Why does peoples' cynicism about the vicious ulterior motives and general incompetence of the government go away once they start talking about things like single payer health care, or regulating business?

Oh no, we are also quite cynical and not idealistic at all about those who want to turn healthcare into a market.

Sure it doesn't have anything to do with their (usually sectarian and destabilizing) power grabs in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Gaza, and even Morocco? Their ideology isn't too far off from Islamic neoconservatism.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, etc. have all done their power grabs and instead of economic punishment they get financial aid and advanced weaponry supplied to them.

 

[Mouthwash]

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, etc. have all done their power grabs and instead of economic punishment they get financial aid and advacned weaponry supplied to them.

What has Egypt done? Iraq has certainly had 'economic punishment' and much more besides. I agree that we should be doing a lot more to pressure the Saudis, but hypocrisy doesn't mean the American attitude towards Iran is wrong (the Saudis are a lot less internally secure than the Iranian regime, so there's a risk of bringing down the state rather than creating reform).

 

[Takhisis]

Egypt? Well, unlike Iran they've actually invaded Israel.

Iraq actually did, well, invade Iran.

And it shouldn't be about ‘pressuring’ the Saudi dynasty. Without the weapons they are given they would not have the capacity to perpetrate the crimes they do.

 

[Mouthwash]

Egypt? Well, unlike Iran they've actually invaded Israel.

And have been pretty friendly for the past few decades. Iran doesn't even share a border with us, yet is responsible for or has sponsored four wars against Israel since 2006.

Iraq actually did, well, invade Iran.

Iraq isn't in a position to be a threat to anyone anymore.

And it shouldn't be about ‘pressuring’ the Saudi dynasty. Without the weapons they are given they would not have the capacity to perpetrate the crimes they do.

Do you think that a better regime would emerge if they fell? The Saudis, unfortunately, have to be armed. I just think we should demand more control over their actions (especially their funding of Wahhabi/Salafist madrassas, which are the biggest promoters of terror in the world).

 

[Tristan_C]

I think that the United States, at the Federal level, is probably incapable of replicating the previous successes of Medicare or Medicade.

I am absolutely confident that expanding these programs would build upon their resounding historical success in raising the unit price of medicine. Eventually, perhaps there will be so much monopoly money pumped daily into the demand side, and the administrative workload of compliance will rise high enough, that virtually the whole US population will rely on government assistance in meeting their medical costs. Mmm, power.

The major distinction I however see is that the army (and foreign policy in general) is an integral part of the government. It is controlled directly. Whereas in most other areas, the government is the regulator. Universities are not owned by the national government, hospitals neither. Some may belong to cities, but they are actors in a market. In short, it's much easier to be a regulator than an active participant.

I understand this distinction, but it doesn't hold for the current state of the government and health care, let alone for the direction people want to take it. The existence of Medicare and Medicaid makes the government more than a regulator. It's redirecting gigantic amounts of money from one sector (income of all workers, via FICA et al.) to the demand side of health care.

So that would be my answer to your first question. To the last one: the democratic process tasking and controlling these bureaucracies. Isn't that logical? And if it doesn't work anymore, you should switch out the government or reform your constitution.

The same democratic process is behind both the military and medicare. My issue was peoples' seeming blind faith that the government is up to the task of handling things they want the government to handle. The health care industry is but one prime example. Meanwhile they are realistic, or downright cynical, about the military, which as it happens is constitutionally authorized. National defense, particularly with the kind of hardware we have now, is the sort of thing that only the federal government can and should do. Pills aren't. Medicare isn't.

We actually have zero historical evidence that the US government is "good" at regulating health care, let alone providing it to hundreds of millions. Its track record on this is pure garbage. And people kick their cynicism and want more of it. It's just astounding.

 

[cardgame]

[The federal government doing anything at all is overreach]

"Provide for the Common Welfare"

 

[onejayhawk]

"Provide for the Common Welfare"

It's, "provide for the common defence." You can try, "promote the general welfare.

This is a good thing to quote whole on Memorial Day.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

It is an interesting juxtaposition. The government is to provide defense (spelling has changed in 200 years) but promote welfare. Defense is the stronger imperative.

J

 

[Takhisis]

And have been pretty friendly for the past few decades. Iran doesn't even share a border with us, yet is responsible for or has sponsored four wars against Israel since 2006.

OK, I think we both agree on Iran sponsoring those wars being a Bad Thing™ so the question is: how do we change that?

Iraq isn't in a position to be a threat to anyone anymore.

Iraq as a state, no, but it certainly has been an enabling cause for the increase in terrorism in the US and elsewhere.

Do you think that a better regime would emerge if they fell? The Saudis, unfortunately, have to be armed. I just think we should demand more control over their actions (especially their funding of Wahhabi/Salafist madrassas, which are the biggest promoters of terror in the world).

I honestly don't know the answer to that first question is, but if we go by your earlier statement that seems to imply that Iraq's current state is desirable (correct me if I am wrong) then the Saudis have to be disarmed as fast as possible.

We actually have zero historical evidence that the US government is "good" at regulating health care, let alone providing it to hundreds of millions.

Your statement is partially and disingenuously true, but my answer still is ‘Then change the US government’.

"Provide for the Common Welfare"

It's, "provide for the common defence." You can try, "promote the general welfare.

This is a good thing to quote whole on Memorial Day.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Thanks for proving cardgame's point.

 

[Old Hippy]

Your statement is partially and disingenuously true, but my answer still is ‘Then change the US government’.

'Then change the US government’.
I just can not restrain myself... hasn't that just happened in 2016...

 

[Takhisis]

That really is proof that you are capable of not restraining yourself. The answer is ‘not really, no’. Governors, legislatures, judges… also, the institutions that shape US policy but aren't strictly speaking part of the US government, such as think tanks, industry lobbies, religious organisations, PACs, etc. are still out there and in strength. And many of the things that have changed have not done so for the better.

 

[onejayhawk]

Thanks for proving cardgame's point.

If you think that you have badly misunderstood cardgame's previous posts.

'Then change the US government’.
I just can not restrain myself... hasn't that just happened in 2016...

Beat me to it. They have been trying to undo that election ever since.

That really is proof that you are capable of not restraining yourself. The answer is ‘not really, no’. Governors, legislatures, judges… also, the institutions that shape US policy but aren't strictly speaking part of the US government, such as think tanks, industry lobbies, religious organisations, PACs, etc. are still out there and in strength. And many of the things that have changed have not done so for the better.

He just skinned a kill and nailed the hide to the wall.

J