>> ^Psychologic:
Even though Palin says some funny (and inaccurate) things, you can't really fault her on not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is. It has meant multiple things throughout the years, so no one can really claim that it only means one specific idea.

I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine

As you can see, there have been numerous doctrines throughout the years, i.e. the Monroe Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, and Bush Doctrine. It is fairly obvious that Gibson is referring to this definition of doctrine, and Palin should know what is meant by "Bush Doctrine" as a candidate for 2nd in command of a superpower. She doesn't, just going by her response, "In what respect, Charlie?"

I agree that Bush has all kinds of retarded ideas, beliefs, and policies, but using the word "doctrine" really only specifies foreign policy. And I know of no other foreign policy of Bush other than minimal diplomacy and maximum warmongering.

Thats my point.
Bully is probably too soft a word to describe these disgusting excuses for human beings, but neither war nor embargo / diplomacy is effective in making things better.

>> ^NetRunner:
> I'd also point out, Obama's policy on Iran is essentially what you describe, even if his rhetoric on the topic has started sounding "tough"... He's still saying diplomacy is the answer...

yeah, i did generally get that vibe, so i didn't hold it against him. among the easiest ways to get the right fired up, is by implying your opponent is a pansy. so, their debate is 7 guys trying to out-butch eachother about how many more gitmo's they'd open, and doing their best to drown out paul.
sounded to me like obama was just trying to preempt some of that nonsense, by saying yes, there are circumstances under which i'd use force, but only as a last resort. and only in a decisive action, that gets the job done and gets the fuck out.

> I'm curious, is there a split amongst Libertarians over abortion?

very little. the vast majority consider it just like any other social issue, and are liberals. pro-choice.
here's the official platform of the libertarian party: http://www.lp.org/platform

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

>> ^my15minutes:

I like your answers, and I'm all for that set of policies.

I'd also point out, Obama's policy on Iran is essentially what you describe, even if his rhetoric on the topic has started sounding "tough" in the last 6 months, since he was getting beaten up for wanting to "just talk" with a "terrorist regime committed to acquiring a nuclear weapon".

He's still saying diplomacy is the answer, even if he spends more time talking about an absolute resolve to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

I think the grassroots/netroots of the Democratic party are in sync with the Libertarian grassroots on foreign policy. The Democrats are currently preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, but I've often wondered why NATO wasn't dissolved in the 90's too, and I know the grassroots was always against Reagan's weapons buildup, and Bush's anti-missile buildup.

@wazant, Libertarians can justify making abortion illegal by granting human rights at conception, the way Republicans do. Then it's a straightforward case of upholding prohibitions on taking a life.

I'm curious, is there a split amongst Libertarians over abortion?

While Competition is for the most part shunned by the Aikido community, "Tomiki" Aikido was developed to introduce Aikido to Japanese School systems and to replace existing Judo programs by adapting it to a competitive setting.

Basically, Tomiki Aikido competition is performed with one competitor wielding a wooden dagger (a Tanto), while his opponent attempts to disarm him. Points are scored to the wielder for successful attacks with the dagger, and to the unarmed for performing successful takeaways - the dagger is then placed on the ground and he retreats to neutral territory to await the next attack. Halfway through the round, they switch roles.

As NordlichReiter pointed out, Aikido-ka are trained first and foremost to avoid confrontation. We are trained to diffuse situations with diplomacy to let cooler heads prevail.

Chilax, you would be VERY surprised to see just how effective these techniques are in "street" settings, and as I said before, these Aikidoka are very skilled. The techniques they demonstrate are based on concepts that are centuries old, and have survived the test of time. Not to mention that Aikidoka are trained to take falls and throws with control and grace. Most Yudansha (that is, those who have attained a first-degree black belt or higher, usually requiring 5+ years of dedicated training) gain not only the requisite toughness through ukemi (safe-falling), but the confidence to tap into their knowledge at a moment's notice. Irimi-nage, and Kote-Gaeshi, as well as the perennial hip-throw technique, Koshi-nage, are all swift techniques that use your opponents energy against them while exposing the user to very minimal risk, and Aikidoka are trained to initiate these techniques from a wide variety of attacks.

You can divide basic hand-to-hand attacks into two basic categories: grabs, and strikes. Strikes can be further subdivided into at least three deliveries - from a tsuki, or thrusting attack (like a punch), shomen-uchi (a vertical-motion attack, like a hammer swinging downward), and yokomen-uchi (a horizontal-slashing attack, like a slash with a dagger or sword). Grabs are more numerous: same-side grabs to your wrist, cross-side wrist grabs, both wrists grabbed at the same time, two-hands grabbing one wrist, lapel grabs, chokes, grabs from behind like sleeper-holds... the list goes on. Aikidoka learn the basic techniques, such as Ikkyo, from simple grabs and shomen-uchi strikes in the beginning, and move on the more advanced techniques from stronger attacks as they progress.

You don't start by teaching a white belt hip-throws before they know the basic concepts of ma-ai (literally "distance harmony" or your basic attack range - I'm 6'1", so my ma-ai is going to be wider than someone say 5'5"), the importance of being centered and grounded (you're going to be supporting the weight of your attacker on your hip, if you don't know how to keep your feet and knees, you'll buckle under their weight), or the ukemi to take the fall without injuring yourself.

^ Two things: first, I disagree with your prediction about Obama's diplomacy (and I'll leave it at that).

Second, do you think he would invade Pakistan for purposes of regime change, or simply follow through with his now-famous debate comment: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." (substituting in whoever becomes President of Pakistan now)

I'd protest the former, and reluctantly support the latter.

^I will hold you two guys to that. Because I believe he will most likely invade Pakistan. I also believe his "diplomacy" will be a photo-op where you'll see him waving and smiling and being all chummy with [insert middle eastern president here]. But, I really do believe his idea of diplomacy will simply be a showier version of McCain's: an ultimatum. Where McCain will be itchier to go to war, I do think Obama will be a bit more reserved, and therefore he has the edge over McCain, however.

It really is like picking between a douchebag and a turd. I've decided to vote for neither and vote Libertarian this year. You may now downvote my comment, DFT.

I've not seen Obama state that we need to give more support to Georgia. In fact, the charge was made that Obama's response wasn't forceful enough because, as Lieberman put it, it had a "moral ambiguity" as far as placing blame on either country (since Georgia isn't blameless).

I've also seen a lot of statements from the Obama campaign that "there's only one President", referring to a tradition of, well, not trying to undermine the President's authority in the midst of a crisis.

To the larger charge of their policy being the same, I think that's inaccurate -- they're similar in their view that America has a role to play on the world stage, and that our national interests involve places like Georgia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

The way they choose to deal with those challenges differs wildly.

Grampy McSame John McCain wants to forego diplomacy, and move straight into the military response phase with all of those guys (except Pakistan, oddly). Obama thinks diplomacy is in order, with military action being a last resort, not a first resort.

McCain believes in the right of the United States to act with total disregard of the international community, Obama seeks to work within the International community first, while reserving the right for unilateralism as a last resort.

It's true that both have a huge difference from Ron Paul's policy of total non-intervention, but I'm not sold on the concept that America should try to change instantly from it's current level of involvement to Switzerland in one go.

Obama moves us several steps towards Switzerland, McCain moves us closer to a Roman Empire model.

Much as I wish Ron Paul, or Bob Barr, or Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney had a shot at winning, they do not. Either Obama or McCain will be our 44th President.

If you believe in what Paul has to say about foreign policy, Obama's your guy.

Since we're scrutinizing Fox's motivations, I'll say that I think the "time limitations" are suspicious. Either it was the worst-planned segment ever, or they were cut off for going off-script.

Given that his introduction & first question took a full minute, they cut to commercial after only 2 minutes, then return for only 30 seconds before the end of the show? Seems like something they'd give the standard 6-8 minutes to ordinarily.

I also agree with rougy about what Fox had brought these guests on for -- likely to tell an eyewitness account of Russian brutality.

I think there's a larger issue we should be worried about here though. American media scarcely mentions that what these guests said is the typical response of Ossetians.

How many other reports have even mentioned the fact that Ossetia wanted independence from Georgia?

I'm not excusing what Russia's doing, but this story is filled with layer after layer of shades of grey, and American media reports it as "Russia bad, Georgia friend", and talks about how agressively we should respond to Russia's violation of Georgia's sovreignty.

The groundwork is being laid here for military action, not diplomacy, and it is not just Fox News doing it.

^ Yep, no difference.

One talks about timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, and turning over the country's defense to local security, and the other wants permanent bases for 100 years.

When Russia invades Georgia, one is just a hair short of demanding we send troops to Georgia, while the other stresses the need for diplomacy.

When Iran has no nuclear program, one says we have to attack now to prevent them from getting one, the other just says we need to work with the U.N. with diplomacy and possibly economic sanctions to prevent it.

I can see why you can't tell the difference, they're like totally identical in that they both have different responses to all three foreign policy questions in the U.S., because one responds all-military all the time, and the other is pretty close to all-diplomacy all the time.

People who try to encourage this "they're both the same" meme, knowingly or not, is aiding this warmongering moron get elected. I want more from Obama than he's promising too, but he's better than anyone else who's going to be on the ballot.

After all, the same kind of fool pushed the "they're both the same" meme with Bush and Gore, and I don't think anyone thinks they'd have been the same today.

Yeah Powell was screwed into that position. A biography on him states that Wolfowitz hated Powell and never wanted him around Bush because he was always for diplomacy before force. The belief is that he always wanted Powell to be the fall guy because then there would be no one in the way. He was given info before going in front of the UN and told by his colleges that it was absolutely true. Why would he assume they were full of shit since at that time no one knew just how full of shit they were. Powell is the ONLY member of the Bush administration that i might believe the "plausible deniability" excuse from.

Farhad, I agree that Russia's not the good guy here, and did this to increase their own influence, not to help Ossetia. But I'm a little softer in my support of what Georgia was doing. One article I read said Ossetia had a referendum on independence, and >90% voted for independence.

I don't see any good guys involved in this, though it appears France gets bonus points for doing the diplomacy the U.S. was unable or unwilling to do.

>> ^NetRunner:
@GeeSussFreeK, you sure sound like a Bush fan.
I think that he probably should've come home from China sooner.
I think that he probably shouldn't have made assurances to Georgia that we would protect them from Russia before fighting broke out.
I think he should at least mention that Georgia started the fight.
I think he shouldn't start off with accusations of a potential escalation that didn't happen, and then instead of using the usual "The United States condemns the actions of Russia", says "Invading a sovreign country is unacceptable in the 21st Century".
I think rather than letting Condi finish out her vacation, he should tell her that her country needs her to be in Moscow, ASAP.
He doesn't mention it in this video, but I think we should stop pushing the idea of Georgia joining NATO for the moment (something Bush/McCain express a need for in other statements).
Toothless outrage followed by a mumbling of diplomacy is exactly the wrong message to be sending. It should be diplomacy first, with a mumbling about standing for our allies if necessary.
Bush isn't Clinton. Setting my bar as low as it will go, I will say at least Clinton avoided committing human rights violations during his 8 years, while Bush seems to have gotten rolling with them in 2002, and hasn't looked back since.
If you meant to compare George H.W. Bush with Clinton, I think that's pretty fair, since they were both pretty moderate and capable (while still managing to piss off people from the other political party).


Let me more precise then. I dislike bush and his bending of the constitution to the highest degree. Of all the presedents of my life time, no one has expanded the policing powers of the government more than he. With that bias in the clear, let me retort some of these things, and agree with you on others.

I also think he should of come home from China sooner. Even more so since he pleagded support. However, in that, NATO does not accept members with territorial disputes, and as long as this still has the PR of a territorial despute, his hands are tied.

The jury is still out on who fired first, and you will never really know who it was. Why are Russia claims more valid than Georgian ones?

Invading a sov sovreign country was the grounds of the first gulf war with had support from the UN and a large portions of the nations of the world united and fought against, this being the same kind of situation would tend to suggest the same kind of action could be warrented.

Yes, I also agree that condi should be in moscow ASAP. It is his call, he knows more about the details then we do, so I can't be to desisive on my own opinion.

I don't see why he should stop talking about them joining NATO. It would seem they need protection from large powers more than ever? Why do you think they should take this off the table, and don't you think that would undermine our position of loyalty to the Georgians in their minds of us?

I think the leasons from the cold war need to be explained again. Always come out bold, then digress later. Even Kenedy knew the most ancient rule of nation states, never apear weak or your enimies will take advantage. Taking a strong stand by your allies IS a diplomatic method of resolution that workd for 50 years in the cold war till Russia evaporated.

Your right, bush isn't Clinton, that was a poor analagy as to the president can't stop doing his job because of something. And I would say I hate bush's evaporation of the rights of america far more than lusting after the ladies.

However, I don't see this as a mistake or any kind for the prez to react in this way. In fact, I was hoping it would happen sooner than it did.


edit: BTW. I hope none of this comes off as condicending, I always appriticate anothers point of view.

@GeeSussFreeK, you sure sound like a Bush fan.

I think that he probably should've come home from China sooner.

I think that he probably shouldn't have made assurances to Georgia that we would protect them from Russia before fighting broke out.

I think he should at least mention that Georgia started the fight.

I think he shouldn't start off with accusations of a potential escalation that didn't happen, and then instead of using the usual "The United States condemns the actions of Russia", says "Invading a sovreign country is unacceptable in the 21st Century".

I think rather than letting Condi finish out her vacation, he should tell her that her country needs her to be in Moscow, ASAP.

He doesn't mention it in this video, but I think we should stop pushing the idea of Georgia joining NATO for the moment (something Bush/McCain express a need for in other statements).

Toothless outrage followed by a mumbling of diplomacy is exactly the wrong message to be sending. It should be diplomacy first, with a mumbling about standing for our allies if necessary.

Bush isn't Clinton. Setting my bar as low as it will go, I will say at least Clinton avoided committing human rights violations during his 8 years, while Bush seems to have gotten rolling with them in 2002, and hasn't looked back since.

If you meant to compare George H.W. Bush with Clinton, I think that's pretty fair, since they were both pretty moderate and capable (while still managing to piss off people from the other political party).

Cheney's response is being reported, he has told Russia that their actions "can not go unpunished"

Obama and McCain aren't calling any shots, nor do either of them have any experience in foreign diplomacy.