![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Question: So, more troops needed in Afghanistan?
O: yes, more troops, and quick. AlQaeda is on the offensive. Afghanistan is linked to Iraq. 2 brigades more need to be sent to Afghanistan, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but we have 4 times more troops. AQ is greatest threat, the place is Afghanistan and Pakistan. Press Afghanistan govt. Deal with poppy trade. Deal with Pakistan. Bush gave them 10bn, they didn't do enough.
M: we made a mistake, after driving Russia from Afghanistan we washed our hands and Taliban and AQ took over. If you aim a gun, be ready to shoot - and I'm not ready to cut aid to Pakistan, so I won't threaten it. We need support of Pakistan people, and O said we'd attack Pakistan. You don't say it loud, you work with the government. Pakistan doesn't control these territories, nobody does since Alexander Great. I've been there and saw how hard the terrain is. O says more troops but doesn't understand it needs new strategy, as in Iraq that he condemned. We need to win over people. Pakistan's have to understand that Islamabad bombing was signal from terrorists. I believe in Petreus. We added 20 thousands troops, but we need also strategy. I will work with them and not talk about attacking them.
O: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. I said we will attack AQ in Pakistan. (that's true, though it's not the best way to win over Pakistanis either) M sang songs about bombing Iran. (cheap shot, but it was inevitable) M is right it's tough. Troops are attacked from Pakistan, we cuddled Musharaf, we were antidemocratic, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan, and they weren't going after AQ. That's gonna change. (what? nation building? enforcing democracy? I thought it's bad in for Iraq, how comes it's good in Pakistan?)
M: Pakistan state was failed state before Musharaf. About bombing Iran: in 83 Reagan who I admire wanted to send Marines to Lebanon, I voted against. I supported going into Bosnia & Kosovo, I have a record, I opposed turning peacekeeping to peacemaking in Somalia. I have a bracelet from fallen soldier's mother, and military families say to me they don't want defeat, I know how hard it is for the military to recover from it. We won't come back in defeat and dishonor, and if we fail now we'd have to come back.
O: I have bracelet too (now the question is whose bracelet is bigger?), and the mother asked me to make sure no mother ever goes through what he went through anymore (and you plan to do it how?). Nobody dies in vain. We honor all troops, they performed brilliantly (though your party said they would fail miserably). Sending military in battle is enormous step, judgment needed. Nobody talks defeat in Iraq, but we have problems in Afghanistan because of it. Afghanistan need to be taken seriously.
M: One would think O would have gone to Afghanistan. (hm? didn't he visit Afghanistan?) I visited Afghanistan, Vaziristan and I know what is needed. We will win, we need new strategy. If we adopt O strategy, we loose Iraq and it would also hurt Afghanistan. O doesn't understand there's a connection.
Question: What is the threat from Iran?
M: Iran nukes is existential threat to Israel and other countries, others will want nukes too. We can not allow another Holocaust. Russians prevent UN action. I proposed major economic powers to impose sanctions on Iran. Iran govt is lousy and so is their economy. With French, Brits, Germans etc. we can affect Iran. (good luck getting French into it) Iran wants nukes and it is global threat. Iran supplies IEDs and training and republican guard in Iraq. Sen. Kyle had an amendment to declare them sponsors of terror, which O opposed, said it's provocative.
O: I believe republican guard is terrorist organization, M talked about proposal that would broaden Iraq mandate to deal with Iran. War in Iraq strengthened Iran, as Iraq was their enemy, their gone from 0 to 4000 centrifuges to develop nuke, (wtf? like if not the Iraq war Saddam Hussein would make them not to pursue nuclear weapons?) so policy in last 4 years didn't work. Can't tolerate nuclear Iran. (and you'll do what about it? big scary speach?) We need tough sanctions, can't do without Russia and Chine (they are not democracies), also engage in tough direct dimplomacy with Iran. (wtf is tough diplomacy? Asking them in very scary voice to stop developing nukes?) Isolation doesn't work, it would be changed when I'm president. (and talking obviously works - if only one could find the right words, said in the right tone they'll make Ahmadinejad to convert nuclear program into solar cell research)
M: O will sit with Ahmadinejad, Castro and Chavez without precondition. This legitimizes and gives them propaganda platform (not that they lack one even in US right now), gives them world creds. Reagan wouldn't sit with Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko until Gorbachev & perestrojka. Nixon trip to China was preceded by Kissinger. There have to be preconditions.
O: Ahmadinejad maybe not the most powerful person in Iran. (erm, ok, so who is?) When I'm president, I meet whoever I want, if it keeps America safe. (sure, drink a little water and calm down) Kissinger said should meet with Iran without preconditions. It means not saying "do what we say or we won't talk". We must do preparations, and it may not work. In North Korea we cut talks, they quadrupled nuke capacity, tested nuke & missiles and sent nuclear secrets maybe to Syria. (maybe they wanted to do this and that's why talks were cut?) Bush administration & M advisers say it's important, he said he wouldn't meet even Prime Minister of Spain.
M: I'm not gonna set visitor schedule - I'm not the president yet. Kissinger didn't say meeting between presidents, he said secretary level - I encouraged that. O doesn't understand that sitting across table with person that called Israel stinking corpse and wants to wipe it off the map - you legitimize these comments and it's dangerous. North Korea is most oppressive regime in the world, South Koreans on average 3 inches taller. We don't know what Dear Leader's health is but we know they broke all agreements. we have to go back to Reagan's trust-n-verify.
O: nobody talks no preparation, but contacts without preconditions, do not expect to solve every problem before talks. We won't be silent on Ahmadinejad comments.
M: so he says "we gonna wipe Israel" and you sit there and say "no, you not?". Please!. (that's well done) I know Kissinger for 35 years, he wouldn't say top-level contacts, just low-level. precondition = preparation is parsing words. (O: no it's not). (what is missing here is that the problem is not who talks to who, but if there's something to talk about. If position are so far apart or sides aren't going to follow agreements, talks are useless. That's what Obama seems to be missing, but McCain doesn't do good job explaining it either)
Question: What about Russia?
O: given last weeks/months, entire approach has to be reevaluated. Russia is threat and aggressive, actions in Georgia are not warranted. Remove Russia from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Say to Russia you can't be 21th century superpower and act like 20th century dictatorship. We have to support Baltic countries, Poland, Ukraine etc. and they are free to join NATO and we have to make membership plans. We can't return to the Cold War. They have a lot of nukes and some could get to AQ. Deal on base of security interests. (deal how? if their interest is to help Iran and yours are not, what you gonna do?)
M: O's first reaction on Russia vs Georgia was "both sides have to show restraint". Naive. Russia committed serious aggression, become KGB-run petro-nation. Don't believe we will go back to Cold War. We need to bolster our friends and allies. Russians control energy running to Europe. Russia's neighbors are concerned by Russia's imperial ambitions. We will support Georgia & Ukraine into NATO. Russia violated ceasefire agreements. I was in Abkhazia and seen huge poster saying "Vladimir Putin - our president" - Russian intentions were clear, they just waited for the opportunity. Ukraine has to do a lot with Krimea and Russian fleet in Sebastopol, watch Ukraine. We are allies of Ukraine.
O: I agree mostly. I immediately said Russia's actions are objectionable and must stop. We will give 1bn dollars to Georgia. Have to anticipate these problems. I warned Bush about Russia peacekeepers (did he? I don't remember that) - needed replacement with international ones (that'd be kind of hard to do...). Putin feels power because of petrodollars, we have to have energy strategy, increase domestic drilling and offshore drilling (I can't believe my ears), but we have only 3% of world oil reserves (is that a fact?) and use 25% of world's oil. We can't drill out of the problem, we need other technologies. I have a plan to invest for 10 years in alternative. M voted against alternative energy. (not clear - voted how? against alternative energy at all or specific subsidies etc.? Too bad McCain didn't address it)
M: O against processing & storing nuclear waste. Drilling offshore will relieve our oil requirements.
O: I didn't object to nuclear waste, I said we have to store it safely. (surely, who would object to safety? Devil's in the details - and he voted against nuclear waste projects)
Queston: What is the likelihood of another 9/11 attack?
(not a very good question, anybody would answer the same)
M: much less than then, we are safer but not safe yet. We wanted to investigate why 9/11 happened but administration didn't. We passed that law and it was bipartisan work. I'm against torture. We have to ensure technology dominance, work with allies. We are safer, but there's still way to go. Also need to protect borders.
O: we put billions into airport security, we are safer, but still way to go. Ports, chemical sites. Nuclear proliferation and terrorists getting nukes is a threat. We spend a lot on missile defense, and it's important (if it's important and we spend a lot and it's ok - why mention it?), but spending too little on proliferation control is mistake. AlQaeda should be priority. We lost our leading position in the world - partly because of torure issue - and should restore it. (I don't see how torture has anything to do with it)
Дальше было еще пару минут, которые у меня вначале не записались, потом я их досмотрел - в общем, повторение уже сказаного.
Общее впечатление - по нынешней экономической ситуации оба явно не знают толком, что делать, по бюджету/налогам МакКейн явно привлекательнее, Обама собирается вполне явно сильно увеличивать расходы, что при нынешнем положении с долгом и грозящим попадаловом на 700 млрд совсем не радует. Оба, по-видимому, поддерживают bailout в том или ином виде, что тоже не радует.
По внешней политике Обама выглядит так, как будто он заучил talking points, но не совсем четко себе представляет, почему надо говорить именно это - иначе понять, почему он считает самой-самой главной задачей победить Аль-Каеду и в то же время его совершенно не волнует Аль-Каеда в Ираке - непонятно. Позиция МакКейна выглядит более основательной. Насчет России оба, по-моему, не очень знают, что с этим медведем делать, кроме поддержки соседей.
В целом по ряду вопросов позиции, которые они высказывали, довольно схожие были. МакКейну удалось столько раз сказать "I have a record", что если бы я каждый раз выпивал по глотку вина, я бы до конца не досмотрел, наверное.
Следующие дебаты, 2-го, между Палин и Биденом. Надеюсь, будет интересное что-то.
O: yes, more troops, and quick. AlQaeda is on the offensive. Afghanistan is linked to Iraq. 2 brigades more need to be sent to Afghanistan, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but we have 4 times more troops. AQ is greatest threat, the place is Afghanistan and Pakistan. Press Afghanistan govt. Deal with poppy trade. Deal with Pakistan. Bush gave them 10bn, they didn't do enough.
M: we made a mistake, after driving Russia from Afghanistan we washed our hands and Taliban and AQ took over. If you aim a gun, be ready to shoot - and I'm not ready to cut aid to Pakistan, so I won't threaten it. We need support of Pakistan people, and O said we'd attack Pakistan. You don't say it loud, you work with the government. Pakistan doesn't control these territories, nobody does since Alexander Great. I've been there and saw how hard the terrain is. O says more troops but doesn't understand it needs new strategy, as in Iraq that he condemned. We need to win over people. Pakistan's have to understand that Islamabad bombing was signal from terrorists. I believe in Petreus. We added 20 thousands troops, but we need also strategy. I will work with them and not talk about attacking them.
O: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. I said we will attack AQ in Pakistan. (that's true, though it's not the best way to win over Pakistanis either) M sang songs about bombing Iran. (cheap shot, but it was inevitable) M is right it's tough. Troops are attacked from Pakistan, we cuddled Musharaf, we were antidemocratic, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan, and they weren't going after AQ. That's gonna change. (what? nation building? enforcing democracy? I thought it's bad in for Iraq, how comes it's good in Pakistan?)
M: Pakistan state was failed state before Musharaf. About bombing Iran: in 83 Reagan who I admire wanted to send Marines to Lebanon, I voted against. I supported going into Bosnia & Kosovo, I have a record, I opposed turning peacekeeping to peacemaking in Somalia. I have a bracelet from fallen soldier's mother, and military families say to me they don't want defeat, I know how hard it is for the military to recover from it. We won't come back in defeat and dishonor, and if we fail now we'd have to come back.
O: I have bracelet too (now the question is whose bracelet is bigger?), and the mother asked me to make sure no mother ever goes through what he went through anymore (and you plan to do it how?). Nobody dies in vain. We honor all troops, they performed brilliantly (though your party said they would fail miserably). Sending military in battle is enormous step, judgment needed. Nobody talks defeat in Iraq, but we have problems in Afghanistan because of it. Afghanistan need to be taken seriously.
M: One would think O would have gone to Afghanistan. (hm? didn't he visit Afghanistan?) I visited Afghanistan, Vaziristan and I know what is needed. We will win, we need new strategy. If we adopt O strategy, we loose Iraq and it would also hurt Afghanistan. O doesn't understand there's a connection.
Question: What is the threat from Iran?
M: Iran nukes is existential threat to Israel and other countries, others will want nukes too. We can not allow another Holocaust. Russians prevent UN action. I proposed major economic powers to impose sanctions on Iran. Iran govt is lousy and so is their economy. With French, Brits, Germans etc. we can affect Iran. (good luck getting French into it) Iran wants nukes and it is global threat. Iran supplies IEDs and training and republican guard in Iraq. Sen. Kyle had an amendment to declare them sponsors of terror, which O opposed, said it's provocative.
O: I believe republican guard is terrorist organization, M talked about proposal that would broaden Iraq mandate to deal with Iran. War in Iraq strengthened Iran, as Iraq was their enemy, their gone from 0 to 4000 centrifuges to develop nuke, (wtf? like if not the Iraq war Saddam Hussein would make them not to pursue nuclear weapons?) so policy in last 4 years didn't work. Can't tolerate nuclear Iran. (and you'll do what about it? big scary speach?) We need tough sanctions, can't do without Russia and Chine (they are not democracies), also engage in tough direct dimplomacy with Iran. (wtf is tough diplomacy? Asking them in very scary voice to stop developing nukes?) Isolation doesn't work, it would be changed when I'm president. (and talking obviously works - if only one could find the right words, said in the right tone they'll make Ahmadinejad to convert nuclear program into solar cell research)
M: O will sit with Ahmadinejad, Castro and Chavez without precondition. This legitimizes and gives them propaganda platform (not that they lack one even in US right now), gives them world creds. Reagan wouldn't sit with Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko until Gorbachev & perestrojka. Nixon trip to China was preceded by Kissinger. There have to be preconditions.
O: Ahmadinejad maybe not the most powerful person in Iran. (erm, ok, so who is?) When I'm president, I meet whoever I want, if it keeps America safe. (sure, drink a little water and calm down) Kissinger said should meet with Iran without preconditions. It means not saying "do what we say or we won't talk". We must do preparations, and it may not work. In North Korea we cut talks, they quadrupled nuke capacity, tested nuke & missiles and sent nuclear secrets maybe to Syria. (maybe they wanted to do this and that's why talks were cut?) Bush administration & M advisers say it's important, he said he wouldn't meet even Prime Minister of Spain.
M: I'm not gonna set visitor schedule - I'm not the president yet. Kissinger didn't say meeting between presidents, he said secretary level - I encouraged that. O doesn't understand that sitting across table with person that called Israel stinking corpse and wants to wipe it off the map - you legitimize these comments and it's dangerous. North Korea is most oppressive regime in the world, South Koreans on average 3 inches taller. We don't know what Dear Leader's health is but we know they broke all agreements. we have to go back to Reagan's trust-n-verify.
O: nobody talks no preparation, but contacts without preconditions, do not expect to solve every problem before talks. We won't be silent on Ahmadinejad comments.
M: so he says "we gonna wipe Israel" and you sit there and say "no, you not?". Please!. (that's well done) I know Kissinger for 35 years, he wouldn't say top-level contacts, just low-level. precondition = preparation is parsing words. (O: no it's not). (what is missing here is that the problem is not who talks to who, but if there's something to talk about. If position are so far apart or sides aren't going to follow agreements, talks are useless. That's what Obama seems to be missing, but McCain doesn't do good job explaining it either)
Question: What about Russia?
O: given last weeks/months, entire approach has to be reevaluated. Russia is threat and aggressive, actions in Georgia are not warranted. Remove Russia from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Say to Russia you can't be 21th century superpower and act like 20th century dictatorship. We have to support Baltic countries, Poland, Ukraine etc. and they are free to join NATO and we have to make membership plans. We can't return to the Cold War. They have a lot of nukes and some could get to AQ. Deal on base of security interests. (deal how? if their interest is to help Iran and yours are not, what you gonna do?)
M: O's first reaction on Russia vs Georgia was "both sides have to show restraint". Naive. Russia committed serious aggression, become KGB-run petro-nation. Don't believe we will go back to Cold War. We need to bolster our friends and allies. Russians control energy running to Europe. Russia's neighbors are concerned by Russia's imperial ambitions. We will support Georgia & Ukraine into NATO. Russia violated ceasefire agreements. I was in Abkhazia and seen huge poster saying "Vladimir Putin - our president" - Russian intentions were clear, they just waited for the opportunity. Ukraine has to do a lot with Krimea and Russian fleet in Sebastopol, watch Ukraine. We are allies of Ukraine.
O: I agree mostly. I immediately said Russia's actions are objectionable and must stop. We will give 1bn dollars to Georgia. Have to anticipate these problems. I warned Bush about Russia peacekeepers (did he? I don't remember that) - needed replacement with international ones (that'd be kind of hard to do...). Putin feels power because of petrodollars, we have to have energy strategy, increase domestic drilling and offshore drilling (I can't believe my ears), but we have only 3% of world oil reserves (is that a fact?) and use 25% of world's oil. We can't drill out of the problem, we need other technologies. I have a plan to invest for 10 years in alternative. M voted against alternative energy. (not clear - voted how? against alternative energy at all or specific subsidies etc.? Too bad McCain didn't address it)
M: O against processing & storing nuclear waste. Drilling offshore will relieve our oil requirements.
O: I didn't object to nuclear waste, I said we have to store it safely. (surely, who would object to safety? Devil's in the details - and he voted against nuclear waste projects)
Queston: What is the likelihood of another 9/11 attack?
(not a very good question, anybody would answer the same)
M: much less than then, we are safer but not safe yet. We wanted to investigate why 9/11 happened but administration didn't. We passed that law and it was bipartisan work. I'm against torture. We have to ensure technology dominance, work with allies. We are safer, but there's still way to go. Also need to protect borders.
O: we put billions into airport security, we are safer, but still way to go. Ports, chemical sites. Nuclear proliferation and terrorists getting nukes is a threat. We spend a lot on missile defense, and it's important (if it's important and we spend a lot and it's ok - why mention it?), but spending too little on proliferation control is mistake. AlQaeda should be priority. We lost our leading position in the world - partly because of torure issue - and should restore it. (I don't see how torture has anything to do with it)
Дальше было еще пару минут, которые у меня вначале не записались, потом я их досмотрел - в общем, повторение уже сказаного.
Общее впечатление - по нынешней экономической ситуации оба явно не знают толком, что делать, по бюджету/налогам МакКейн явно привлекательнее, Обама собирается вполне явно сильно увеличивать расходы, что при нынешнем положении с долгом и грозящим попадаловом на 700 млрд совсем не радует. Оба, по-видимому, поддерживают bailout в том или ином виде, что тоже не радует.
По внешней политике Обама выглядит так, как будто он заучил talking points, но не совсем четко себе представляет, почему надо говорить именно это - иначе понять, почему он считает самой-самой главной задачей победить Аль-Каеду и в то же время его совершенно не волнует Аль-Каеда в Ираке - непонятно. Позиция МакКейна выглядит более основательной. Насчет России оба, по-моему, не очень знают, что с этим медведем делать, кроме поддержки соседей.
В целом по ряду вопросов позиции, которые они высказывали, довольно схожие были. МакКейну удалось столько раз сказать "I have a record", что если бы я каждый раз выпивал по глотку вина, я бы до конца не досмотрел, наверное.
Следующие дебаты, 2-го, между Палин и Биденом. Надеюсь, будет интересное что-то.