Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Support Obama!
I’ve not updated in a while because of the usual end of semester madness. I’m unlikely to do much of an update in the next month and a half. There are a number of things I want to write about but I just have to KIV them for the time being.
I was asked by the Sunday Times to comment on about the Barack Obama fever. The article can be accessed here.
I’m growing more convinced that Obama is a leader unlike no other. Just check out his speech on race (a transcript of his speech is available on the New York Times). That was a moving speech without pretense. He could have played it safe but he took such a touchy issue head on. And, he dealt with the issue with great honesty and sincerity.
He’s clearly more than just another politician. He’s a leader.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 23/03/2008 at 6:14 pm, and is filed under Others. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
well said
about 2 years ago
Don’t think it’ll be inspiring at all if Obama carries out his promise of pulling out American forces from Iraq. MM Lee wrote an article to Washington Post recently on the consequences. Personally do agree with most of his views:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702429.html
Look beyond the inspirational feel-good rhetoric, which can cloud the judgement of any normal human being. Americans shoulder a heavy responsibility to the world on the leader they choose. The next US President shouldn’t be another cow-boy who likes to do things single-handedly his own way.
about 2 years ago
Read the article on Straits Times on Sunday morning and I was like “isn’t that foreign interference in domestic (US) politics”? Why is the Straits Times publishing such articles? Aren’t we applying double standards?
But I digressed.
I guess I’m not on the same stand as you when it comes to supporting which Democratic Party nominee; I support Hillary more although I do not discount that Obama is a great leader too.
From the little that I am exposed to I can tell that Obama is capable of delivering great speeches about equality and such; his judgements and visions seem very utopian, and hence, able to draw support from many people. But he doesn’t really provide substantial details on how he is going to achieve them. This frightens me because I can talk about a country where everyone is equal, where there is no poverty and famine, where there is no income/ knowledge/ technology/ whatever gap, etc, but how I want to create such a utopia is through communism. And I, for one, believe that utopia (or a true communistic society) will probably only exist in God’s kingdom.
I am hoping that the two of them will be able to work together though, whoever being the president or the vice-president doesn’t matter.
about 2 years ago
5thStarFromTheCrescent,
It seems to me that you fundamentally agree that taking out Saddam is a good thing. I have serious doubts that.
Firstly, if “dictators” are non-desirable, then why is the U.S. leaving North Korea and Cuba alone?
Secondly, it is argued if the U.S. pulled out troops now, it will cause instability in the region. Was there such a high level of instability in the very first place?
Thirdly, has the invasion of Iraq made the world a safer place? Has it stopped the attempts of “terrorist” activities? That I’m not sure, but I’m sure as hell that the invasion has made alot of people even more pissed, and this translates to easier recruitment for those with extremist agendas.
Fourthly, why should U.S.A be the country sacrificing lives? If terrorism is a global problem, then troops from all countries should be involved in Iraq. MM Lee talks about the loss of lives of 4,000 American soldier as if it were nothing. Why don’t we send in our Singapore Armed Forces and lose 40 lives?
Finally, who are the ones who are benefitting most from the invasion? You and me, or the oil firms and the defence industry? Not only has the world not been much safer, precious money that could have been used to improve lives of ordinary folks have been wasted on the war. I am of the opinion that if the money was used to improve standards of living in troubled Middle East states, folks there would be alot less susceptible to extremist ideology.
about 2 years ago
Weiye,
It is precisely because of these utopian ideals that Obama is worth supporting. There’s a difference between being idealistic and being naive. Obama is not naive to the realities of the world. He recognises there are difficulties but that should not be a reason against trying to make the world a better place.
Going by your logic, people like Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are complete idiots, aren’t they?
about 2 years ago
Hi Aaron,
Pardon me if I didn’t express myself properly. I’m not saying it’s idiotic or what to be idealistic. What I’m saying is that having a certain ideal and how you achieve it are two things altogether.
I believe Mandela, Gandhi and King are great leaders not only because they push forward for their ideals but also because they chose methods and ways that are celebrated by the majority of society to realize their ideals.
One analogy I tried to think of is that of a principal who spoke of a great school where all the students will score As for all their subjects. That is an ideal. But the methods of achieving such ideal vary; the principal can teach with his/her heart, focus on each and every single students, etc, or the principal can resort to cheating by altering the students’ answers for examination.
With Obama, although his visions are very utopian (and everyone including me will love to live in utopia), he did not provide substantial details on how he wants to achieve them (at least not from the information I received).
This is why I say it frightens me because although I appreciate his visions, I do not have a clear picture on how he wants (or feel is the best way) to achieve them. If I am a supporter, I want to make sure that not only are the ideals aligned with mine, the types of policies that he favours are aligned with me too.
Unless he can provide me with greater details on how he may propose to change the society for the better, I’ll just regard his wonderful speeches as childhood ambition.
Just my POV. No offense to his supporters meant.
about 2 years ago
Weiye,
Thanks for the clarification, although I really doubt whether the folks that we claim to be great leaders in hindsight really had the substantial details that you seek in a leader. Most of them had an inspiration and just went along with it. Was there some detailed masterplan that Gandhi followed to bring people out on the streets? Maybe there was, but at least it doesn’t seem that way to me. Having one’s heart in the right place will ensure that the best decisions in the interest of the people are made. Detailed plans are useless if the heart is in the wrong place.
And, just to remind you, for all of Hillary Clinton’s vaunted experience, she voted for the Iraq war. To authorise war when your national security is not directly threatened comes dangerously close to the days of Nazi Germany. I can understand the need to go into Afghanistan to get the Taliban dudes who were behind the Sept 11 bombings. What did Iraq do? Mas Selamat is apparently a terror threat to Singapore. Does it then mean I have to eliminate him just because he’s a “baddie”?
It really doesn’t matter to me that Hillary has all the detailed plans. It doesn’t mean she has good judgement. And if the White House phone rings at 3am in the morning, I don’t have the confidence that she can make a judgment call any better than Barack Obama.
The only redeeming thing about Hillary is that Bill Clinton comes along with her. If I ever favour Hillary, it’s because of Bill, not her.
about 2 years ago
Aaron,
I read the article in a different light. MM may not mean what he wrote. In fact, he may just have meant the direct opposite about taking out Saddam. I somehow suspect it is to make the article less inflammatory and perhaps more receptive to the American audience.
Would the situation be better had there been better(or any) pre-planning of post war matters? Would the situation had been better if the war was fought and won together with a true coalition force? Then again, if nobody could devise a solution to handle post war matters, and if Bush had been wise enough to see the consequences of lack of support from world leaders… the Iraq war might not even had taken place.
My point is, it is easy to point fingers on the hindsight. Don’t think it is necessary to take out Saddam. But it is not wrong to take him out either. I feel execution is the factor at fault.
On your first point, I personally think Iraq war came about because of a few factors : (1) Poor intelligence (2) Saddam’s bluff (3) US Economy. (1) Poor intelligence on that Saddam possessed nuclear missiles, which created much fear. A nuclear bomb on US soil can potentially cause more loses than waging a war. There aren’t much counter-balance or countries around Iraq that can reign in Saddam. For N Korea, there is Japan, China, S Korea jointly neutralising Kim Jong Il. For Cuba, no way can they win US. (2) Saddam’s bluff backfired on him. Made Bush too insecured. He’s already a dumb ass. Insecurity made him dumber. (3) US Economy dependent on oil, not on kim chi or cigars. Enough said. The media had a field day focusing on this point. I don’t think this is the main reason though.
On your second point about the instability in the region. The war has been waged. It’s too late to change things. My question to you is if the troops pull out now, do you feel the middle east region has a greater potential of becoming more instable? No?
On your third point, I don’t think this invasion of Iraq has made the world a safer place. But if the execution had been better, there had been proper plans to manage Iraq after the war, there was a true coalition force, the situation might be very different. It’s very true though and I feel the same way that the invasion has encouraged more people to turn extremist. And because of this, it will be more dangerous to pull back troops, unless there are proper systems are in place for Iraqis to manage Iraq themselves. The equation is complex. I don’t think I know the middle east enough to suggest any plausible solutions.
On your fourth point, US started the war. So they expect us to wipe their arse after they shit? I guess that’s the point MM want to point out. The only way out now is to realise that mistakes had been committed. What is needed now is a joint effort. US’s foreign policy will need to be shaped well to gain the necessary support all over the world. It shouldn’t be another 8yrs of I-say-you-follow-if-you-don’t-follow-I-still-do…
On your last point, agree totally. But Bush has already waged the war. So this is a case of LPPL.
about 2 years ago
I am with you Aaron. At first, I was in favour of Hillary but after
watching her performance in comparison with that of Obama,
I changed my mind. Now, Obama is THE MAN for me.
The Republicans, whoever be the contender for the US Presidency,
is out of the question totally for me. In order to make an
effective change, the US people must not go back to the
Republicans again. Those people will continue to uphold their
own agenda and selfish interests, and nothing much will be
changed. For one, the situation in Iraq will remain the status quo
as far as US involvement is concerned.
As for the obvious support MM Lee was trying to put forth for
the Republicans, I totally don’t buy what he said. He was
simply flogging a dead horse. To me, he whole thing looks like
there is an agenda behind. Perhaps, it is for the selfish interest of
Singapore, but definitely not in the interest of the American people.
.
The argument that the US is responsible to the world, to me, is
simply a childish dream. I believe the US is only responsible
to her own people, like any other country, but if her national
interests coincide with global interests then and only then
should she assume responsibility for the matter.
.
Three cheers for Obama!
.
Standing Ovation ………. clap, clap, clap ……….
.
about 2 years ago
That’s exactly my point. It is easier to say who’s right or wrong, who’s good or evil in hindsight but it is difficult to reach a conclusion before anything happens. Wouldn’t it be safer to err on the side of caution by at least asking for greater details on how he seeks to achieve his visions rather than just supporting him for his visions?
If you look at WWII, Hitler had a wonderful vision too, of a united and strong Germany. Watching Triumph des Willens, it will be hard not to support his visions especially given the context that Germany was in at that time after WWI. And I will argue that if he had chosen humane ways to achieve his visions, he would be a legendary leader too. But we condemn him now for the atrocities he committed in retrospect. Likewise, if Gandhi had chosen the ways of terrorism to fight for his ideals, he would be condemn by people now.
While these are rather extreme examples, and Obama has definitely showed us a positive glimpse of how he may want to achieve his ideals, I think it is only good for the voters to demand more information and knowledge before they cast their votes.
With the situation now, I still think it will be best for both of them to work together. This will give voters a greater sense of security.
about 2 years ago
Hi Aaron,
“I am of the opinion that if the money was used to improve standards of living in troubled Middle East states, folks there would be alot less susceptible to extremist ideology.”
I think so, too.
At the same time, I do think that the issue of not pulling troops out does not contradict that sentiment.
There’s been a change in war strategy in Iraq following Gen. Petraeus’ team.
At present, the issue in Iraq is one of whether the domestic situations can be stabilised so that domestic weaknesses (and as well, anti-US sentiments) will not be exploited for further terrorism.
Even if there’s slightly more stability in Iraq now, it does not mean that domestic social, economic and political structures are sufficiently well-buttressed.
about 2 years ago
Obama is indeed charasmatic. Whether he can live up to other great leaders like Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King… that remains to be seen. I’m not saying he can’t but there’s a chance that he may fail to deliver. Likewise for Bush, didn’t know what a dumbass he is until he came into power.
I feel it will be irresponsible for Obama if he gets elected and withdraws troops from Iraq and Afghan. Like it or not, the mess has been created. So do you think that the situation will improve after the withdrawal of troops?
There are two possibilities if the troops are withdrawn.
1. Lesser people will become terrorist. Terrorist wannabes go back home and get back their normal lives.
2. Terrorist camps gain advantage to grow and plot more terrorist attacks.
Think possibility of pt 1 happening is low. Their economies are down, their countries are poor, a large part of their population do not receive secular education. Personally feel that pt 2 is quite likely. After all, US has already sparked off their hatred towards anything pro-US. They will take advantage of US’s absence to grow their camps (since the local defence forces are poorly equiped and poorly trained).
So hence, don’t think MM is flogging a dead horse. This matter is far more serious than you may think it is. It will not only affect Singapore, but the entire world.
This leads me to my next point. Should US be held accountable? I think so, since they created this mess. I wouldn’t give a heck if they hadn’t. They don’t own the world. They do not have the right to command the world. Like all other nations, their main responsibility should be over their own citizens. However, please clean up the mess first…
about 2 years ago
It’s basically a question of PR.
Good PR (in the form of a charismatic prez) can get you some influence in terms of negotiation and mediation.
I don’t know how US politics work, so it’s difficult in that sense to grasp just how much influence the prez has over the bureaucracy, vice-versa.
The net effect of the result of the US elections to the world, as is perceived thus far, seems more or less to be fixated on the Iraq issue.
Everything else is pretty much just domestic US. (And a healthy US economy is of course, good for the world.)
The problem with Obama is basically: we don’t know if he’s just pure PR or he’s got some good brains for policy or he can have substantial influence (and persuasive influence) over the bureaucracy.
The good thing about Hillary is, like Aaron put it, her husband. It’s a good thing to have a husband who’ll know the ins and outs of the bureaucracy.
about 2 years ago
Obama is charismatic and in difficult economic and social times it is hard to not find him inspiring. That said, while idealism is good, America is hardly a nascent Third World nation in dire need of a brand new national compass.
Mandela, Gandhi and MLK were all inspirational… that doesn’t mean they are best suited to make key national decisions. If anything their ideals would likely have been highly socialist/nationalist in nature, which has its role and place in lesser-developed or strife-riven environments, but not necessarily in other more stable situations.
The hope for Obama is that he is able to pick a solid team around him – unlike Bush II. In that regard, he is somewhat untested and unknown.
If you don’t want McCain to win, then Obama probably presents the better opponent, otherwise Hillary seems like the safer Democratic nominee.
about 2 years ago
For Singaporeans, it will be interesting to see what kind of foreign policy each candidate will pursue relative to Singapore/Asia.
McCain will likely carry on the status quo agenda. Hillary’s position, if similar to that of Bill’s, is also realistic. Obama is somewhat unknown.
All three of course will go thru their rounds of playing hardball, especially wrt to China during the elections phase. Bill Clinton was pretty critical for the electoral/domestic audience when he was campaigning but became friendly and pragmatic with his foreign policies when he entered the White House.
Of the three, Obama may be the one who could end up potentially antagonizing relations with Asia and the Mideast the most. That may not be good for Singapore.
about 2 years ago
Ah, interesting.
Thanks, Francis. (No, I don’t follow US politics at all.)
about 2 years ago
As a side note:
While I do agree that Obama is in some sense charismatic – watched some of his speeches on YouTube – I also must opine that he’s very well-scripted.
And (maybe) as well, he feels a bit hollow to me. He wasn’t as scripted for his non-prez election speeches. Those were clearly more from the heart.
about 2 years ago
Weiye,
Yup, I fully agree with you, especially your last point. That’s my dream but it remains a dream (at least for now).
about 2 years ago
5thStarFromTheCrescent,
I don’t think pulling troops out will destabilise the region, unless they pulled out without any other action. I think first of all America owes Iraqis an apology for being an aggressor. The war is clearly not in self-defense and, to make things worse, it was based on phony evidence. Then, America should be committed to restoring the economy that was devastated by the war WITHOUT preconditions. Stop dangling economic aid with the precondition of “democracy”. Why can’t people have the choice of living the way they want? The neo-imperialist motives simply irk me.
I am of the opinion that people hate the U.S. because the neo-cons in power are forcing their ideas of what an ideal government should be, i.e. a democracy. Why bully people into another way of life? If anything at all, it’s not troop withdrawal that will destabilise the Middle East. It is the neo-imperialist perception that is destabilising and the U.S. government has to address those sentiments. Military force will only make things worse.
about 2 years ago
Aaron is Labor!
Yikes!
about 2 years ago
I think that for the Democrats to beat the Republicans hands-down,
Obama is the Man to choose.
Senator Hillary has made too many mistakes and is solely dependent upon her husband Bill to garner support for her. The thought of Bill Clinton always bring to my mind the sexual misconduct as a President, the Commander-in-Chief, involving Monica Lewinsky.
:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/
.
As Singapore leaders believe in Asian values and Confucian ethics, such sexual demeanor of a Head of State is unacceptable (as examplified in your dismissal/resignation of our ex-President Devan Nair).
.
Moreover, lately, could be owing to her desperation to gain back lost momentum in her presidential race, Hillary has embarked upon un-gentleman or un-lady like tactics of hitting below the belt and trying to smear the Fore Runner of the Presidential Race.
.
Her sincerity has been brought into question in a number of occasions. Here is an example reported by Bloomberg:
:
Clinton Says Account of Sniper Fire Was `Mistake’
:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ap5lq52KkZRk
.
As to those who wish Obama to give more details on what he is going to do, the same should be applied to all the other Presidential candidates. Why only single out Obama, just because some people think that he is an “unknown”? Seriously, how many of you really know your own leaders very well before you elect them? How about your Mr Wee Siew Kim, the father of a “Get out of my elite uncaring face” daughter? Still can remember?
.
Now, as for the point about being irresponsible if there is a withdrawal of US military from Iraq, I would like to ask:
Irresponsible to who? To the World? To the Iraqi? or To the Americans?
.
If I were an American, knowing that the invasion of Iraq was wrong because it was undemocratic and against human rights, and again wrong because I was deceived into believing that the aim was to destroy the WMDs in Iraq, and now my fellow Americans and my loved-ones are now getting hurt (45,000+) and dying (4000+) everyday in Iraq because of this outrageous deception, would I want my President to place his responsibility first and foremost to the people of America, or the people of Iraq, or what the LKY of Singpore thinks, or the opinions of the rest of the World? Why did Singapore pulled out her meagre military force (medical team) from Iraq in 2005? Why not send in more combatants and help?
.
If I were an American, knowing that the US is bleeding to death by spending US$6 billion a month, or $200 million a day, amounting in total so far to US$1 trillion in the direct monetary cost alone (without taking into consider the weaken US$, interest costs on war loans, opportunity costs, etc.) for the Iraq War, while in the mean time US citizens are suffering under a servere economic down-turn, the subprime crisis, the retirement and pension crisis, and the possible collapse of more and more prominent banks, would I be concerned about what kind of responsibility my next President has to place himself upon the World stage? Why don’t Singapore help to pay part of the cost? Let say, just 10% will do, okay?
.
Talk is cheap! No, in fact, its not even worth a single cent!
.
Baarak Obama is OUR MAN, our ONE AND ONLY MAN!
.
Stand Up for America!
.
about 2 years ago
A US pullout of Iraq or the mideast quickly suddenly tips the region very heavily towards an Iran/Shiite counterbalance. Recall that Iraq has a large Shiite majority which had been surpressed by the Sunni minority under Saddam. A quick withdrawal of American forces allows Iran to achieve what it couldn’t for 20 years in fighting with Iraq under Saddam – create a massive Shiite regional consortium/power dominated by Iran.
That will definitiely destabilize a region where many states are Sunni in nature. And many of these same states are also oil producing nations which magnifies a regional conundrum globally.
The US cannot responsibly or easily disengage militarily from Iraq or the mideast at the snap of a finger. Yes, the invasion was a mistake and made under false/incorrect pretenses, but jumping out may create more problems in the longer term. I am no fan of the current Republican led Administration, but if the Democratic view on Iraq were to be implemented the fear is that more damage will be done.
Iraq/mideast at this point in time is not Korea, Vietnam (per US engagements) or Afghanistan (circa USSR invasion)… the ramifications are too costly and global in nature to put everything on the line with irreversible decisions.
about 2 years ago
hello aaron! i have been following your blog for quite some time now; your insights are always refreshingly honest! i completely agree with you that obama is indeed the leader america needs. and to those who knock him for his ‘inexperience’ and ‘lack of substance,’ please take the time to read his policy proposals (which are available in extensive detail at his website). and think about this: apart from obama, has any other candidate been as candid yet nuanced as he is on the issues? he’s not perfect, but he is far and away the best choice for america today.
about 2 years ago
I agree with Francis. The only thing that I’m against is the pulling out of troops without other concrete plans to stabilise the country. Obama doesn’t give any concrete proposal on this… which is pretty frightening, don’t you think?
Aaron,
I agree on your points that it’s not right of the US to bully others into another way of life. However, how long do you think it will take to change this neo-imperialist perception of US? Could it possibly take a generation… way past Obama(if he gets elected)? If Obama isn’t able to change this perception within a short period, will he pull out the troops? If Obama doesn’t pull out the troops, does it mean he is not carrying out his promise? And if he is not carrying out his promise, isn’t he just spouting rhetoric without proper thought? To me, it sounds frightening… I suppose the entire world shouldn’t suffer because of US’s irresponsibility of not cleaning up the mess from their mistake. That will be an even greater mistake.
Americanos,
And because of this, the entire world shouldn’t be dragged in further or suffer. The next US president is caught in a LPPL situation. Bush made the mistake. Bringing back the troops without any concrete plans to stabilise the region doesn’t undo this mistake.
about 2 years ago
Talk is cheap. Let’s see whether Singapore is really commited to
world peace.
Answer my questions:
1. Why not Singapore send some troops to help to stabilise the region? Just one brigade will do.
2. Why not Singapore contribute to the cost of war? Just 1% will do.
about 2 years ago
1. Singapore did not start, instigate or push for the war.
2. See above.
Not contributing to either of the above does not constitute a lack of commitment to ‘world peace’.
Talk is indeed cheap. But more importantly, the lack of logic is costly.
about 2 years ago
Coyotebear,
To different people, I am different things. It’s interesting that I am a liberal, pro-government dog, mental patient and now, Labour. It never ceases to amuse me the labels people slap on each other. Well, I guess I’m just a reflection of the various tensions that exist in society. It’s usually discomforting to consider multiple dialectics at the same time but for some reason, it’s not that difficult for me to hold different contradictory ideas at the same time. So, I am whoever you want me to be!
about 2 years ago
Francis,
Implicit in your reply that a Shiite bloc will destablize the Middle East is the assumption that the status quo where Sunnis are dominant is something that is justified and worth keeping. Now, we can say that easily because we are not Shiites. If you were in their shoes, probably you won’t think that way.
Having said that, it is also difficult for me to argue for another viable strategy to control the growth of a Shiite bloc such that it does not result in blood-letting. The failure of appeasement policy from WWII came to my mind straightaway. I do hope that somewhere a brain smarter than mine can come up with a strategy that allows for U.S. troop withdrawal with minimal repercussions.
And, I’m intrigued by your assertion that the lack of logic is costly. Whose logic are you talking about? Is logic really something that logical?
about 2 years ago
paulo,
I’m glad my candour has found a connoisseur in you!
about 2 years ago
Francis,
Just for this once, I would like to humor you:
Yes, the lack of logic is costly. It shows so clearly in your reply to my questions: It was simply a non-reply.
My exchange with you need not go any further. PERIOD!
Americanos.
about 2 years ago
Aaron,
On your comment: “I do hope that somewhere a brain smarter than mine can come up with a strategy that allows for U.S. troop withdrawal with minimal repercussions.”
Don’t think Obama is proposing any strategy yet. If he does propose a good strategy, I personally feel that he may be a better choice as a US president. Not that I’m a racist but I feel that the extremists hate whites more than blacks. But up till now, it’s just rhetoric and well written scripts from the strategists. Same goes to the other contendors.
about 2 years ago
Aaron,
The lack of logic comment was directed at the questions posed by Americanos who posited that Singapore’s commitment to global peace is predicated strictly upon either sending a brigade to Iraq or contributing 1% of the cost of a war started by the U.S. How this has suddenly directly become Singapore’s duty and problem is illogical… in fact, it’s downright idiotic. And how these are the only two options to commit to ‘global peace’ is also narrow minded and frankly, stupid.
And back to Barack… I actually like him. I hope he does become the next President. I think the realities of American politics and Presidency will ultimately temper a lot of the broad promises which do concern me… like a quick withdrawal from Iraq. He seems like someone who can draw a good set of people around him, thus he seems like the kind who will likely take the advice of generals and strategists who actually deal with the logistics and details on-the-ground in Iraq, and willl have to disengage in a more moderate way.
Remember, there’s a frequently a large difference between what candidates say in the election trail and what they’ll do when they are in office. Bill Clinton called for sanctions and trade restrictions against China when he was campaigning, but when he came to office he changed his tune to become one of the friendliest trade partners across the Pacific. Remember Bush Snr’s “read my lips… no new taxes!” comment?
And finally, the comment on ‘talk is cheap’ is ironically not to be tossed around lightly by Barack supporters. Since that’s a lot of what he can do right now, talk and promise.
about 2 years ago
Aaron,
“Implicit in your reply that a Shiite bloc will destablize the Middle East is the assumption that the status quo where Sunnis are dominant is something that is justified and worth keeping. Now, we can say that easily because we are not Shiites.”
Yes. You noted correctly. I do think the mideast will be thrown into instability and that cannot be good politically or economically. There is no question that there is real religious, cultural and political enmity between Iran/Shiites and the Sunni nations. Throw in a hit-first-justify-later Israel as a potential whipping boy in the region, and the party really becomes wild.
If you think oil at US$100 is high? Well, be prepared for a lot higher levels if the mideast suddenly gets into equilibrium. If you think the global economy is already teetering, you may very well be prepared to see mass unemployment and economic stagnation from the US, to China and Singapore for awhile. If you think too many innocent lives have already been lost in Iraq… you probably haven’t seen the worst of sectarian, tribal, religious toll on civilians that a sudden US troop withdrawal would create in vacuum.
At the end of the day, the US can probably weather such a scenario somewhat ok. It is an economic, political and military superpower. I suspect Singapore will actually feel the negative repercussions a lot greater even if in an indirect manner.
about 2 years ago
Americanos,
You are right that the same should be applied to all presidential candidates. It’s just so that from what I’ve read or seen on the news, the other candidates have provided more details compared to Obama. I didn’t really see him as being relatively ‘unknown’ until you mentioned it.
I hope my replies did not make you feel that I’m applying double standards when it comes to asking Obama to disclose more details, although I think that it might just be oversensitivity on my part.
Regarding Bill Clinton, I think it’s rather unfair to overlook all his contributions for his sexual misconduct. Likewise, I think it’s too sweeping to state that Hillary is solely dependent on him to garner support; she has her own abilities and appeals too.
Asian values and confucian ethics are nothing more than social constructs and stereotypes to me. Not all Singaporeans subscribe to them. Even if some do, it will definitely be to varying degrees.
Doubts on Hillary’s sincerity are definitely founded. It’s good that people scrutinize their potential president to vote wisely.
As for the responsibility issue, I agree that the president should first and foremost be responsible to his/her citizens; they are the ones who voted for him/her.
Having said that, it will be irresponsible of the citizens to demand that the government pull out the troops immediately without any concern for consequences. After all, they (not all but at least 1/2 of them) voted for the president to represent them, not only once but twice i.e. to say, 1/2 the voters supported the Iraq war; they should be responsible enough to see though it, and not just abruptly change their mind just because they now feel that it’s detrimental to them. (Again, this points to my point that voters should demand information to decide appropriately; it’s their rights and responsibility.)
While I agree that everyone (every country) should be committed to world peace, the initiator of the war should hold greater responsibility, especially since they waged it without approval from the United Nations.
I only sympathize with all the innocent soldiers and families who have to fight a causeless war, and all the war victims.
God bless the world.
about 2 years ago
Americanos sounds so… Singaporean…
Must be a Singaporean who listens often, to hip-hop – always trying too hard.
about 2 years ago
I’m not sure if the moral obligation of the US to stay in Iraq has been discussed but I’ll touch on it anyway. If I come to your house uninvited and trash it should I leave and expect you to clean up my mess. I think not. Likewise the US does has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq and fix it. Morally at the very least Iraq has to be rebuilt to its original condition before the war. The question of whether this requires a US military presence is a separate issue. While I empathize with the plight of the Iraqis as a Singaporean my first concern is that Iraq does not become a haven for terrorist groups. That has a greater potential to harm Singapore. A destabilized country, which is also at civil war, is an attractive home for a terrorist group. Hence Al Qaeda flourished in Afghanistan. Clearly there are no good solutions available to the next US President. He/She will be damned either way. Finally on Obama, I think healthy scepticism is needed. Yes he speaks well and inspires but does his policy positions represent yours. On that point I prefer Obama over Hillary. His positions and advisers are generally less hawkish than hers (let’s not even discuss McCain). I think its interesting that people in your straw poll would vote for Obama over LKY, especially when one has a non existent track record to the other. No matter how much strongly you believe in one, you have to admit you’re taking a leap of faith whereas the other at least you have proven results. On that point I think more context needs to be given in the poll (ie what are we electing the person for?)
about 2 years ago
Singapore did not withdraw from Iraq. We’re still having an LPD as a coalition command ship and staging point off Basra.
Why should we send combat brigades into a nation when our contribution would be not of any CBA to anyone including ourselves?
about 2 years ago
have you noticed obama’s voting record in the senate? for almost anything that smells remotely controversial, he’s chosen to cast a NV (Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present) vote rather than a yea or nay.
so if we vote him in based on the premise that this-is-a-nice-guy-outside-of-washington, he-can-do-it, and he pulls a GWB on us (compassionate conservative ahahahaahhaah), then how? another 4-8 more years of incompetence.
about 2 years ago
I just want to add on that the more i learn about Obama, the less I like about him. This guy is a socialist in disguise, relying on some election blitzreig with feel-good messages of “hope” and “change”, hoping nobody would notice.
Look at his “Blueprint for Change.” It is a blueprint: It’s Socialism 301.
Aside from his demagogic “I will” promises, it is clear that he sees government not as a “last responder,” but as a “first provider.” Do you want to have a child and raise him or her as a member of your family? Forget it: Obama says “I will” provide “education and health care for infants.” You can read his agenda for yourself, but you might want to take a seat before you do.
If, as seems likely, Obama is the Democratic nominee, he is not going to be able to sugar-coat his agenda. He will either have to explain it himself or it will be explained for him. In the light of day, his agenda is about as close to a socialist one as a generic drug is to a branded one.
Some of Obama’s supporters seem to like his ideology even though they realize his promises are largely a result of some hallucinations he has experienced from time to time. Those “supporters” probably think they can capture the essence of his philosophy without having to worry about the backlash that would result if he even had a chance to implement his programs.
Obama is a dreamer. And a very dishonest one at that.
If someone believes in and promotes socialist ideals and ideas but won’t stand up and admit that he is at least a far-left liberal, he’s obviously afraid of the reaction he would get. But he will get that reaction when his true colors are shown.
Obama is the ultra-liberal who has been able to attract support by being both charismatic and engaging in calculated manipulation.
Lol and perhaps this might even be a textbook example on the impact of youtube and viral marketing in gathering grassroots support.
about 1 year ago
This advice is really going to help, thanks.