Hot Chilly wrote:
Are you an ex-Singaporean living in Kiwi land?
MM LKY admitted his preference for McCain to stay the course in Iraq and maintain American involvement and power balance in the world. However, my fellow Singaporean friends seem to be impressed by Obama and the change he might bring. However, the question is change into what? Is change always good -- especially in areas when there's nothing wrong, and don't need to be fixed. After Obama is elected, would he be able to fulfil his promises?
I'm not sure if Hilary would lose necessarily lose to McCain as she could be a compromise between Obama and McCain.
At this point, the American electorate may not have made a firm decision on who they would vote as president.
I'm not the expert. Hopefully our forumers from America could give you a better idea of the situation.
I will be starting another thread on the Singapore presidency in the light of Minister George Yeo's question if the American system will throw up the best president. I'm sure he has Singapore's model of presidency in mind. Stay tuned.
Hi Hot Chilly,
Yes, I am a temporary resident in NZ.
You are right that LKY is trying very hard to influence the US public to vote for the Republicans making use of
the Iraq issue as the anchor point. But personally, I think that the Iraq issue cannot be the main issue to the
American voters. The masses everywhere in the world are usually very ignorant of international affairs. They
are more interested in bread and butter issues. It is the elites and the rich in any society who are afraid of the
outcome of any election because of their own selfish interests (not so much as their interests for the common
good of their people). As far as Iraq is concerned, the US has to pull out sooner or later, irrespective of whether
it is McCain or Hillary or Obama becoming the next President, otherwise the US will literally and financially bleed
to death - for Iraq has slowly become another Vietnam. It's already 5 years. How many more years can the US
continue to stay in Iraq at the cost of $200 million a day?
I can recall when the British was about to withdraw from Singapore, the argument to retain the British Forces was
because of Vietnam and the Dominoe theory that the whole of SE Asia would become Communist. Have the whole
of SE Asia become communist today? The British did not buy that argument. The British simply left because of the
overwhelming economic consideration. They British were getting broke!
Now, similar arguments have been put forth for the US to stay in Iraq. The question is: Is the US willing to see
another Vietnam? Which may turn out to be another embarrassing defeat for the US. Therefore, it is better to get
the hell out of there as fast as possible before getting sunk into the quagmire deeper and deeper. Of course, when
we say get the hell out of there, any sensible person would want to pull out systematically instead of leaving the
place in a mesh. The ground troops have to be pulled out in stages, while other non-critical elements pull out first.
This is how I see the Iraq situation can be handled: The US should adopt the "Hit and Run" strategy. When things
are going out of hands, move in the Air Force combined with a Rapid Strategic Force and whack the hell out of them
and then get out immediately. Keep repeating like this and see what happens. That is the strategy being adopted by
the Israelis as well as the anti-US militants in Iraq. This is called Guerrilla Warfare on a large scale. There is no need
to deploy military forces physically (except advisers and trainers) in Iraq itself and suffer casualties every single day,
which is bad for morale. In order to maintain the strategic balance, the US can deploy forces in friendly countries such
as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel and Turkey, plus having one of two fleets in the Gulf region.
The argument that Iraq will become the base for the Al Qaeda is unfounded because the base of the Al Qaeda has
already been re-established in Afghanistan, with the help of Pakistan.
The argument that Iran will become stronger and stronger if the US vacate Iraq is also just an excuse. Whether the US
is there in Iraq or not, Iran will continue to become stronger and stronger in the Middle East for the mere fact that among
the Arabs, the Iranians are from superior stalks and under their present leadership the inspiration to gain back past glory
is mounting day by day; and their wealth is also growing day by day because of oil and natural gas. Moreover, the US
pull out from Iraq can be used as a bargaining card with the Iranians in negotiations in other areas.
Change into what? When people talk about change, what they mean is improvement to the old ways of doing things.
Is change always good? If change to improve things, of course it is good. But the question one should ask is:
Is the old ways of doing things always good?
To ask whether Obama would be able to fulfill his promises makes one looks naive. Because all politicians make promises
that sometimes they cannot keep, irrespective of whether it is McCain, Hillary, Obama, or Bush or Singapore's leaders.
In Singapore, we were promised the Swiss Standard of Living in 1990 by our PM during Election days but till today
we have yet to get our Swiss Standard of Living, although that PM has already stepped down 4 years ago. In fact, our
standard of living has gone down and down because the cost of living has gone up frighteningly and our wages have gone
down tremendously for the majority, except our ministers who have increased their own salaries and bonuses until they
have become the world's most highly paid ministers, for a population base of only 4.5 million.
On the question of capability, every US President has a team of consultants and advisers, plus a team of capable
secretaries of state, in addition to a Think Tank who fashion and develop policies for him. So, basically a US President
is simply a figure head. They are simply actors on the world stage. That's why the cowboy actor Ronald Reagan could
be elected and function quite well as one of the US Presidents. So, there is no need to question the capability of Obama,
McCain or Hillary. I believe the key ingredient of any Head of State is whether he can inspire the masses. In this case,
who can inspire the masses to act in tandem more than the other? And to answer this question, I think I will have to take
off my hat to Obama. Have you watch how he attracted and mesmerized the crowd in Portland? It was like the people
were being swept by a tidal wave! And if the US people failed to vote him into power, then they have missed the
opportunity of a life time, and they will have to wait again for another century for the next Abraham Lincoln
or John F Kennedy to come around.
Lastly, I look forward to your new thread on the Singapore Presidency vis-a-vis George Yeo's question on whether the
US System is the best in selecting the President. Frankly speaking, George Yeo has been a Foreign Minister for quite
some time now and he was also educated in the US. Therefore, I am very surprised that he has to ask such an obvious
question. You mean to say that he can't answer the question himself? It simply reflects to me that he is either very naive
or he is pretending. So, your answer to him should be:
"What is your motive of asking such a question?"
Login
Register
Portal
Arcade
Search
