How many Democratic Senators will Lose Their Seats?

Spacekiwi wrote:So, New Zealand, with a tfr of >2.0 for the last several decades on average, and a population growth rate is on a populational death spiral? yes we have had drops below 2, but our statistics show these drops tend to be part of a 5 year or so cycle, followed by a TFR rising to 2.1 or greater, While America has a TFR of 2, and has been between 1.9 and 2.1 since 1970?


The American problem as a country is laziness. You start interventions or fighting, and then dont follow through enough. An alternative history in which the USA battled the USSR right after defeating Germany, and using the tech advantage of having a Nuke and more while they didnt at that stage would probably also change history in the way you describe, without the requirement that the USA become the sulking child in the corner because others arent following its orders. But you stopped too soon. Same in the middle east. you have pulled back, after using only the stick, and allowing the local politicans to corrupt what little carrot you gave them.


As for your so called muslim problem, I would point out there are just as many dangers from christian terrorists, so your so called problem is not muslims, its religion itself.

As for irrelevance, the rest of the world is slowly turning away from the US, not the other way round. maybe thats a good thing for the world.

namelessfly wrote:
One can make a cogent argument for the moral imperative of interventionism. An alternative history in which America was alone to confront a Germany that had emerged victorious over Russia and Great Britain and a Japan that had conquered China, Malasia and Indonesia as well as Australia might not have been pleasant for the United States. However; the probability that those two powers would attack and destroy each other before attempting to attack the United States which is defended by the Pacific and Atlantic oceans suggests that isolationism combined with a powerful Navy could have saved us from fighting WW-2, the Korean war, the Vietnam War, the cold war (which so easily could have escalated to a nuclear war), the first Gulf War, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan and the "war on terror" which is turning out to be just as disastrous for civil liberties as Lincoln's totalitarian excesses during the Civil War.

I know the Colonel USMC that commanded the combat engineering battalion during the Iraq invasion. US Marines were getting shot at and killed with antitank weapons manufactured in France and promptly sold to Saddam during the final months before the invasion. Iraq would not have been perceived as so threatening if cheating on the UN sanctions by our allies had not made it seem inevitable that Iraq would get nukes. With allies like these, who the he'll needs enemies?

ON a practical level, the contributions by allies such as Australia and New Zealand are real and perhaps significant from their perspective. However; the forces that they are able and willing to deploy are inconsequential compared to what the US brings to the battlefield. More importantly, if the US had not involved itself in foreign wars, there would have been no terrorist attacks that had provoked our need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Obama has worked so diligently to snatch defeat from the jaws of Bush's victory, these wars have served no lasting purpose.

While I should not allow my piqué at the hostility and rudeness of foreign posters to motivate rash positions, the simple truth of the matter is that our allies will inevitably become either irrelevant or our enemies. The demographic reality is that all of our allies including Europe,
Australia, New Zealand and Japan are on a demographic death spiral. No society can survive below replacement level TFRs for multiple generations. It was the Spartan's nfatuation with infanticide, not the Athenian navy, that caused them to loose the Pelopenisian war. Rome fell because their population became not just indolent but too few in number and too old to raise an army against the barbarians they way they had rallied against Hannibal's invasion. Japan's population is poised for the most catastrophic decline, but their prohibition on immigration ensures that their culture will remain Japanese unless someone conquers them. Most of our European allies have attempted to offset their declining birth rates with immigrants from Africa and Asia who are overwhelmingly Muslim. Given continued immigration rates and the differential in birth rates, that 5% to 10% Muslim minority that our European allies so eagerly tolerate to demonstrate their enlightened support of diversity and tolerance are going to become the Muslim majority that is as intolerant of atheists as Daryll is of Christains.

On a practical level, US birth rates and TFRs have fallen below replacement levels thanks to Obama. However; the US has not been on a demographic death spiral for generations. We still have a large enough cohort of women of child bearing age that can sustain and expand our population as an alternative to surrendering the country to immigrants. (At least immigrants from Latin America share a cultural and religious heritage with the US and America's immigrants from Asia are extremely well educated, productive citizens who eagerly assimilate to our culture). Unlike our allies, the US can survive but only if we reject their influence in our politics and culture.

biochem wrote:@ Namelessfly

You are extremely intelligent and write well written arguments in support of your positions, which cause me significant thought even when I disagree. However, when you lose your temper and write vicious angry name calling posts, the discussion becomes not about the topic in question but about you. You are hurting your own arguments when you lose your temper.



Npw regarding foreign intervention.

Re terrorists,

I tend to be a proponent of the kill them there or you will have to kill them here school of thought. The leadership of countries which are hotbeds of terrorism use the US as a bogyman to provide an excuse for their own failures in leadership. No matter what the US does or doesn't do this will continue because those in power there need it to continue. It is much less about what we do than who we are and what we believe (freedom of religion [try substituting Muslim for Christian in some of the anti-religion posts here and if you were in Saudi Arabia your remaining life would be calculated in days not years], women's rights [can't let the property think for themselves], etc). While we certainly could do a great deal better about our international relations, even if we were perfect they still would attack us because from their point of view they need an enemy to consolidate their own power.

However, wholesale invasions don't seem to be terribly effective. They might be more effective if we had a monarchy where a single policy would be in place for 50+ years since it takes a very very long time to do a proper job of nation building. However we have a democracy which inevitably results in an extremely disjointed long term foreign policy based upon whoever is in office for any given 4 year period which is not conducive to successful long term campaigns of that type.

Special forces / CIA etc type activities seem to be much more effective in the short term. It would be nice if say Yemen could be trusted to address terrorists on their soil, the way Australia can, but they can't and we can't afford to let inaction on the part of terrorist and/or failed states to endanger security on US soil.

The only true way to reduce the attacks in the long term is to cut of the money of those who are paying for the propaganda, Wahabbist schools, training camps, safe havens etc. And the only way to do that is to find a substitute for oil. Unfortunately the science of that is not anywhere close to where it needs to be but the democratic nations of the world as a whole need to spend a lot more research $ replacing oil.

Re other nations

While I am more than willing to help other nations who have been willing to help us (Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Israel etc), we are spending huge amount of money defending Europe. With the exception of Great Britain, Europe hates our military. They remind me of an overindulged college student who despises their bourgeoise parents for being bourgeoise, but still expects them to pay for everything. They have freedom of thought and thus have every right to despise they US military, but then they can start paying to defend Europe themselves. We can move our base $$$ to Great Britain where while they disagree with our policies on individual occasions, they don't despise the military.

Re Pakistan and similar

We are sending huge amounts of military aid to Pakistan and other nation who actively hate us, act in opposition to our interests and with whom we may need to go to war in the future (I hope not, but if I had to list 10 nations with whom the US may find themselves in an armed conflict with in the next 50 years, Pakistan would be on that list).

The official state department line is a politician's version of saying that we are bribing them not to hate us more. While the bribery theory has it's merits (war isn't the only way to fix problems), the state department is doing a lousy job of it. They basically are saying "Here's a few billion $$, please tell those nasty terrorists not to be so naughty. Oh, it didn't work. Here's a few more billions, please try to speak a little more firmly." In the meantime these regimes laugh all the way to the bank as they spend US $$, transfer it to their personal Swiss bank accounts etc while ignoring any US requests. If we are going to bribe people we need to be a little more direct (and only pay after we get what we want). I.e. we'll pay you x billion to do y. If they don't want to do y, that's their prerogative as a sovereign nation but then they don't get our x billion. The money should be agreed upon annually, tied to specific performance objectives, and not paid if those objectives are not met. And of course if they don't want to do anything the US asks, that is their prerogative as a sovereign nation but they can then run their own country with their own money.

And whatever military aid we send should be things that we can easily defeat in combat if it comes to that. Something along the lines of Sollie SD.

Eyal wrote:You do realize that "alleged" allies Australia and New Zealand have both sent troops("blood and treasure", as you put it) to Afghanistan and Iraq? (as well as other US-led military actions)

Has it occurred to you that your contemptuous attitude towards anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you (and to and including wishing their slaughter) is a large part of the reason you'reheld in disdin?

namelessfly wrote:Your snip was definitely worth repeating.

I should not allow myself to be goaded especially by intentional trolling. However; it has been my experience from personal contacts with various foreigners is that they truly are hostile to Americans in general and politically conservative Americans in particular. Given the history of the US repeatedly saving their miserable asses, this bigotry and hostility is beyond unforgivable. We can not undo the mistakes of the past but we can choose to not repeat them. I can not cite any particular event that is likely to be catastrophic for Australia, but there are a number of plausible scenarios that could become a reality if the US were to renounce the treaties that obligate us to defend these ingrates.

May be the Chinese would be willing to forgive a few Trillion dollars worth of Obama's debt if the US were to declare open season on Australia and New Zealand?

namelessfly wrote:
Your comments about the US being the "sulking child in the corner" certainly illustrate the petulant arrogance that warrants the US abandoning it's entangling alliances. The US has been the anti-empire throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. We have given much blood and treasure to defend allies and defeats threats, then rather than claim the spoils of victory as the UK and France did after WW-1, the US pays to rebuild not only it's allies but it's vanquished enemies. For this we get condescending lectures about how uncivilized we are because we do not have nationalized healthcare and stringent gun control nor have all of us rejected our religious heritage which you characterize as being no less of a danger than Islamic radicalism.

Your comments about a future history in which the US invaded Russia after WW-2 are interesting. General Patton would no doubt endorse your view. There are rumors that Patton was killed because he advocated invading the Soviet Union. However; the reality is that the United States did not have nearly enough nukes to destroy Russia and WW-2 had already taught us about the limited usefulness of strategic bombing. Any attempt by the US to invade Russia with numerically inferior ground forces probably would have worked out about swell as it did for Hitler and Stalin. The US retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea certainly confirmed this point.

From reading references to Daryl's posts by others which I have not read because I put him on my "Foe" list, I understand that he buried a grandfather who had served in the Malasain crisis. Not even I am to crass to not offer my condolences.

Six years ago I attended the funeral of a mentor and surrogate father who had served in World War 2. After surviving Pearl Harbor (his ship was not out at sea where it belonged because the Admiral had snuck into port to visit his mistress and off load his Buick) he had his treaty cruiser shot out from under him off Gudalcanal. You might remember that Gudalcanal and the other islands were the bulwark that guarded Australia and New Zealand? He ssurvived floating in the water for three days with his intestines extruded out of his anus after the concussion from a Long Lance torpedo threw him overboard. The doctors predicted that he would survive only a year or two when he was finally released from the VA hospital in 1945. The fact that my friend miraculously survived and thrived for six decades was miraculous. My friend never regretted serving in the USN to protect the citizens of our allies that he had met during WW-2. However; he was dismayed to see these allies evolve into the jaded, socialized, arrogant, condescending people that they have become. Just FYI, he was not religious in spite of his heritage of being descended from five brothers who were imported by the Mormon church for breeding stock. Although he was a horn dog in his youth, he devoted most of his life to being a husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather.

Spacekiwi wrote:I dont wish it was true about america being viewed as the petulant child, but it is what the perception of america is, at an overall populational level in the rest of the western world at least. And thinking back on my previous post, laziness is the wrong word. Extreme bipolar disorder is what it is, switching every 4 to 8 years or so, with america in both diplomatic and militaristic modes refusing to believe the other half may have anything valid in their points, and so screwing up everything worse. pick a middle ground, and stick with it for a decade or two, and im sure all the problems america has at the moment, along with a large amount of the insurgencies, will begin to dissappear. But until the bipolar condition is medicated in any way, you are going to continue to have problems.

As for europe, yes it has just as many problems from my perspective as the US, but they are different problems to the US ones.

namelessfly wrote:
Your comments about the US being the "sulking child in the corner" certainly illustrate the petulant arrogance that warrants the US abandoning it's entangling alliances. The US has been the anti-empire throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. We have given much blood and treasure to defend allies and defeats threats, then rather than claim the spoils of victory as the UK and France did after WW-1, the US pays to rebuild not only it's allies but it's vanquished enemies. For this we get condescending lectures about how uncivilized we are because we do not have nationalized healthcare and stringent gun control nor have all of us rejected our religious heritage which you characterize as being no less of a danger than Islamic radicalism.

Your comments about a future history in which the US invaded Russia after WW-2 are interesting. General Patton would no doubt endorse your view. There are rumors that Patton was killed because he advocated invading the Soviet Union. However; the reality is that the United States did not have nearly enough nukes to destroy Russia and WW-2 had already taught us about the limited usefulness of strategic bombing. Any attempt by the US to invade Russia with numerically inferior ground forces probably would have worked out about swell as it did for Hitler and Stalin. The US retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea certainly confirmed this point.

From reading references to Daryl's posts by others which I have not read because I put him on my "Foe" list, I understand that he buried a grandfather who had served in the Malasain crisis. Not even I am to crass to not offer my condolences.

Six years ago I attended the funeral of a mentor and surrogate father who had served in World War 2. After surviving Pearl Harbor (his ship was not out at sea where it belonged because the Admiral had snuck into port to visit his mistress and off load his Buick) he had his treaty cruiser shot out from under him off Gudalcanal. You might remember that Gudalcanal and the other islands were the bulwark that guarded Australia and New Zealand? He ssurvived floating in the water for three days with his intestines extruded out of his anus after the concussion from a Long Lance torpedo threw him overboard. The doctors predicted that he would survive only a year or two when he was finally released from the VA hospital in 1945. The fact that my friend miraculously survived and thrived for six decades was miraculous. My friend never regretted serving in the USN to protect the citizens of our allies that he had met during WW-2. However; he was dismayed to see these allies evolve into the jaded, socialized, arrogant, condescending people that they have become. Just FYI, he was not religious in spite of his heritage of being descended from five brothers who were imported by the Mormon church for breeding stock. Although he was a horn dog in his youth, he devoted most of his life to being a husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather.

namelessfly wrote:
Neoisolationism is a policy that is likely to be supported on an ongoing basis by both Liberals and conservatives in the US. It allows a significant reduction in military budgets and reduces the need/pretext to infringe on civil liberties.

Extreme bipolar disorder is what it is, switching every 4 to 8 years or so,

And in the end, this may well cause more damage to you then the current bipolar condition. If america begins to fully ignore the world, the world will begin to fully ignore america.