I don’t think your wrong about Bush and his bailout, along with all the Democrats in congress. Hell, the only thing that stopped it initially were the House Republicans, until they put in an extra $ 200 billion to “buy” people. The all friggin SOBs as far as Im concerned, like I said my vote is nothing more than a speed bump, that is all.

I am glad you voted all the same.

Cheers

…Hell, Obama has even used a key phrase, “The redistribution of wealth”. Now, one can argue taxes should not be included and I am not including them with that comment. He is specifically talking about taking money from “the rich” and dolling it out to the “poor”. …

The USA, along with all industrialized democracies already does this to some degree. It is the “progressive’ tax system. Richer people of means generally pay higher income taxes than poorer people do, all things being equal. That by definition is income redistribution.

…On further note, maybe what you are trying to tell me is that the US is the last holdout for a “minimal government”, at least in the American ideal, in the western world?

I would say that it is indeed the last holdout. And I think that under a so called “Conservative” Bush Administration you have seen the largest expansion of your government into the daily lives of Americans since the days of Roosevelt and the New Deal. Socialism looks like it is already there my friend when Bush nationalizes the banks and insurance companies, of which you all now own a part.

I have to agree with Gollevainen on this one. American Democrats would by almost any universal standard be looked upon as extreme right wingers in Canada, Japan or Western Europe.

I think Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” summed it up the best. As a point of comparison Canada recently held it’s federal election and it was won by the Conservative party. Stewart called the Canadian Conservative party the “Gay Nader Fans for Peace” party if they were in the USA.

Trust me on this. The American election is between two right of center parties. Socialism is not on the ballot.

Wow.

I live in Canada and work for a large American financial services firm. I visit America regularly on business and go on road trips every year to see my favorite Soccer team (Toronto FC) play in various US cities. I served in the Canadian Military overseas and served alongside my American friends in the Balkans.

I always thought that I understood America pretty well, as much as an outsider could anyways, but this election cycle and for that matter this thread has really shattered that assumption.

A large swath of America is so opposite from the rest of the country, let alone the rest of the world, as to be unrecognizable to me. The America I thought I knew is welcoming, charitable, honest, hard working and tolerant of others. The America I thought I knew was an example to the world of a democracy that we all could aspire to.

What I see now is a divided country that has been poisoned by the politics of fear and greed. The Republicans are absolute geniuses to have been able convince such large swaths of the American working class to vote against their better interests in the name of the “culture wars” time after time. And all that hard working Americans have gotten in return is a country in decline in so many ways.

I hope and pray that Americans of any ideological stripe realize that this is the time for the entire country to come together to repudiate the politics of fear and to try and look at ways to bridge the divide between red and blue.

Conservatives in this thread seem to me to be voting against rather than voting for something. I would submit that when you are voting against someone you are voting for the wrong reason. McCain is a good man who might make a good President. I think Obama will be a good president as well. I would challenge conservatives here to tell me why they are “for” McCain rather than “against’ Obama.

No need, hopefully if someone can provide an objective answer, they can PM or mail me off-thread so it doesnt draw the discussion into verboten areas.

Other than that I would love to hear how a countries macro-economic (and geo-political) situation could fail to have a massive bearing on a military procurement of this magnitude, but, I guess that would be off topic too!. 🙂

Touche!

Stand corrected Jonesy.

Just getting a little frustrated about this thread becoming all about Russia for some reason. To me whether Ukraine is invited into NATO or not I would think that going with a western sourced option makes sense for Ukraine.

Nato or not, Ukraine will continue to have a multitude of ties to Russia. I just think that in this case it is more about Ukraine being seen as setting it’s own course rather than taking orders from Moscow. Second hand F-16 MLU’s or surplus Gripens (The Swedes have a ton of A/B models to get rid of I believe) would fit this bill and also be fairly cost effective.

However if Ukraine is planning on keeping force levels in any significant numbers I do not believe that they will be able to fully get away from MiGs or Sukhois entirely for the forseeable future even if they want to.

I think in general terms reading through this entire thread that it becomes obvious that Japan from a technical perspective can compete with just about any other nation out there when it comes to the quality of it’s indigenously designed weapons systems.

Where there are problems to me is in the way that Japan’s government does not get a cost effective return on the investments it makes. A country that effectively spends more on it’s military than almost any country outside the USA that has to continue to fly F-4E’s well into the 21st century is not getting good value for money. As well if you look at the prices the country pays to it’s “Zaibatsu” defense contractors for locally designed or license manufactured kit are far and away the most expensive in the world, by far.

Getting costs under control and rationalizing their expenditures on procurement rather than industial development would allow them to get more bang for the buck and also become potentially competitive in the world markets. Until this kind of reform happens you can forget about it.

The idea that Europe is bankrupt is, frankly, absurd. European banks are encountering many problems, but even with these problems, they are still quite strong, and certainly not bankrupt. The European economies are, in general, going into a recession, which is always painful, but they will recover. Inflation is not out of control, partly because of the recessionary pressures, and as such, comments about them ‘printing endless columns of painted paper’ are misguided. The European states are doing what is needed to help the financial sector recover, and this will likely last a couple of years, but it will end.

Overall, the idea that Europe is going to be needing to go to Russia, begging for trade, is beyond absurd. Europe has a massive collective economy, recession or not, and a lot bigger than Russia’s. With oil and gas prices coming down, Russia too will have to tighten their belt. Russia is not immune from global economic trends; if anything, due to it’s dependence on the oil and gas sector, it is more vulnerable to these trends.

Well said. I think you can expect a less belligerent Russia if their coffers are not full of petro dollars based on $150 oil.

Nato membership or not is kind of beside the point here. Ukraine, outside of Nato, wants closer ties to the west. F-16’s or Gripens do indeed lead to those kinds of ties.