Can Obama beat McCain?

[Football16]

This is politics...what one says and what one believes can be vastly different. McCain is a republican and can ill afford to be very critical of the current position. That would mean that they were wrong...

In any case, the US is in a huge mess that they can't possibly get out gracefully in Iraq. If they get out and all hell breaks loose with a civil war and a fundamentalist regime takes over, they'll take the blame. If they stay, they are wasting huge amounts of money when the economy is in a severe downturn and with no likely end in sight. I wouldn't want to have to make that call but they made their bed.

My guess is that republicans would try to get out slowly claiming victory and the establishment of democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq. Whether anyone believes that is irrelevant, it's called spin.

Don't forget how they finally had to leave Vietnam- and what a dark day and time it was for the American people and their vets.

Just a small aside- mortgage foreclosures in military towns in the United States are four times higher than other comparable cities so not much has changed when it comes to sending Americans to war.

Granted they can say one thing and do another but I think this is McCain's true belief. Real leadership of the American people will call it what it is in the new book by Bush's former press secretary - misguided and wrong!!! Nixon had the guts to do it.

Obama was caught on that recently when in a moment of campaign rhetoric suggested that the free trade agreement with Canada needed to re-assessed. It got leaked that the Obama forces told Canadian diplomatic officials it was just that - campaign statements.

[Claire ex-ax]

For a country that has a part of a salad recipe as its motto and has a national anthem set to a famus bawdy 18th century drinking song, the US needs to take itself a little less seriously.

The US was a great country. During its 'century' it brought much to the world: rule of law, democracy, cars, photography, computers, trains, the English language ... apparently (but India disputes a few of these ).

But the American century is drawing to an end. Its influence is dimming and the world is less accepting of its "do as we say, not as we do" attitude. Much in this world is cyclical. Look at how easily history repeats itself. Once China was great, it faded only to emerge once again.

The US will be great again. Probably not in our lifetimes. But it will rise again, better than ever.

Till then, let it rest in the dying rays of its imperial sun, remembering its glory days.


Back back to the topic. Obama and McCain have yet to pander to the religious right. OK, McCain has shown his deference to Israel, but neither have been out there courting those specific multitudes. Too early? Or is something else going on?

[aussiegal]

The US will be great again. Probably not in our lifetimes. But it will rise again, better than ever.

The US is still the biggest economy in the world. The shine has dimmed a little in light of China's rise but the US ain't going anywhere soon.

I'm perplexed by the insistance of so many people on this thread that the US is the big bad wolf. The US behaves no differently to any other nation protecting their own , it just happens to be the biggest economy so it's more obvious and the consequences are further reaching. Australia is no different it's just such a small economy no one really gives a crap. We were right in there with Bush as he sent men off to Iraq as were many other nations looking after their own interests.

Someone, tell me one country who puts its needs and the needs of its people second to another? This is life kids, not a game.

[gilleshk]

I also think that the US will continue to dominate for many years to come and I believe I won't see another power rise above it in my lifetime.

As to the US behaving no differently, I agree that every nation acts in its own interest(which often includes pandering to the US because they have no choice) which is inevitable. Part of the problem stems with the fact that the US puts itself front and center, interferes and claims the moral high ground and paints the opposition as evil. How many terrorist acts have Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France and Germany sustained in the last 10 years? Who claimed to go to Iraq to liberate the people and bring democracy while standing by whole genocide or was it "acts of genocide" happened in Rwanda and Darfur. At least if they had the guts to admit that it has to do with self interest...

In my opinion, they make themselves a target and I can't say I feel surprised when something like 9/11 happens. You reap what you sow... There has to be a price to pay when you keep playing in other people's backyards and not accepting responsibility for this and painting the other side as evil puts them on the same footing. The Axis of Evil vs the Great Satan. Kind of funny when you're not standing on the World Trade Centre.

[aussiegal]

"At least if they had the guts to admit that it has to do with self interest..."

I'm not sure who you would like them to admit that to? Is there a higher people that everyone is accountable to?

[Football16]

In foreign policy, self-interest for nations has traditionally been at the heart of it. However, under the Bush administration and the "Project for a New American Century", they are defining America's interests more along the lines of an imperialist power than traditional self-interest.

What has served as self interest for most western nations has been more narrowly defined than by Bush or Blair when he chose to put UK into Iraq. Self interest by nations used to mean their security including supply of food, resources and freedom to trade around the globe. It didn't mean - hey you piss me off so we'll bomb you or take you out like occurred with Iraq.

Even Vietnam was deemed to be in America's self-interest based on the mistaken belief that if that nation fell to communism then like dominoes the whole of SE Asia would in the communist sphere of influence thus threatening America's interests. However, Ho Chi Minh was no more of a Russian communist than he was a Chinese communist. He even modelled his independence statement on that of the USA!

The USA is no longer the strongest nation on earth unless you mean weapons alone. Yes, they have more weapons but they are geared up for traditional battles not this stateless terrorism fueled by religious fanatics which is going on now. What is equally sad is that the USA has had to become Fortress America and no longer where the politicians to get elected have to keep the people in fear of terrorists and their nation at war even if it wastes US$9 billion a month. What's a trillion dollars US to get rid of Saddam and then be saddled with a mess in that country that could spill over and cause a full scale war in the oil rich Middle East?

What is sad about the USA is that it is lost its way as a leader who can claim the moral high ground. It is laughable when you read that talks with Beijing have re-opened since closed down by Bush and one of the agenda items - human rights. What a frigging joke. How about Guatanamo Bay??? Yikes!!!

It would be a great day for America if its leadership and its people revisited its foreign policy objectives and ended this hostile, rogue approach including not signing international treaties and ripping up others.

[gilleshk]

US isn't the most powerful or influential nation? Then who is?

[Football16]

US isn't the most powerful or influential nation? Then who is?

I think you are referencing my post above where I said that

"The USA is no longer the strongest nation on earth unless you mean weapons alone. Yes, they have more weapons but they are geared up for traditional battles not this stateless terrorism fueled by religious fanatics which is going on now."

The USA is indisputable the most weapon heavy nation on earth and I am sure this surpasses China and other country today.

If you consider power to be economic, military or political then you have to recognize that the times they are a changing when it comes to US superiority.

The supreme military power cannot fight an enemy that is not an identifiable country. Stateless terrorists are just that. People not doing it from an identifiable state so all the bombs and weapons will do nothing to prevent or retaliate when that stuff happens as it did so very sadly in 2001 in NY. I think the hi-jackers had knives or something.

Look at the 911 terrorists and their countries of origin. Most were Saudis and the USA sure as heck didn't blame the Saudi government for this. In fact, Bush, when all planes in the USA were grounded allowed many Saudis including IIRC members of Bin Laden's own family to board their private jets and scurry back home.

If the Chinese government stopped buying US Treasury Bills, the sub-prime disaster in the USA would like a bit of rain at a picnic. Granted the Chinese can't do that if they continue to want a market for their goods so that is not about to take place but lets' face it - China is going to be the next great world power and they are still a developing nation now.

The European Union is the equal of the US in trade and investment now and a common currency in that region over time will further detract from the US economic and political power.

Having the biggest weapon arsenal means squat when ideaologically driven whack jobs decide to start blowing crap up or heading planes into buildings.

When the US is attacked abroad like the two Black Hawks downed, others damaged and 18 US troops who died were treated savagely led to the US withdrawing from Mogadishu leaving it to the Indian army to deal with. I am not criticizing the USA for that - what can you do when it is not a traditional fight with planes, armies and navies but rebels and renegades. That was the worst battle since Vietnam and we all know what happened in that instance.

In terms of political influence, yes, the USA has lots of that as power is power. However, they are running the risk of losing even more credibility with nations of the world unless they re-tune their imperialistic foreign policy and start promoting trade and democracy instead of their current arrogance and belligerence.

[gilleshk]

What you seem to argue is that the US can't stand against the world and isn't invincible but you failed to make a point that one nation surpasses the US in terms of power and influence. The EU isn't a nation either...

As for weapon, the military budget of the US surpasses the next 10 countries combined. You talk of stateless terrorism which seems irrelevant in a discussion of the most influential nation on earth.

While China's influence is growing. It's not even remotely close to the US in any shape or form. Can they hurt the US? Sure, many nations could strike a blow if the did something crazy but it doesn't mean that they wield the same kind of influence globally that the US does.

China the next world power? Maybe but not this century... As you said, it's still a developing nation. It has neither the military power nor the money to match the US. All it has is a billion people.

All your arguments could easily be turned around any other country that you would put as most influential. What nation is safe against terrorism? What nation is better geared for non traditional military response? What nation has more money to spend than the US?

Yes, the US can't dictate what's going to happen in the world though they certainly try. Yes they often bite more than they can chew and of the reason why they are the main target of terrorism is precisely because they are the biggest bully around.

[aussiegal]

I'm with Gilleshk. China has a billion people but that's as far as it goes for now, it has not overtaken, nor is it close to overtaking the US in terms of economic power.

Nor do i believe the US is going anywhere anytime soon. The US will continue to be the powerhouse for innovation that it already is and that will keep it safely at the top of the food chain for a long, long time to come. China meanwhile is still trying to work out how it is going to feed it's people.