EPTSo we simply disagree. I also stand by my initial claim; as I'm sure you do as well.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1095
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
So we simply disagree. I also stand by my initial claim; as I'm sure you do as well. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 06 2014 13:09 zlefin wrote: Well, then I find your system of reading things odd and incomprehensible to me. Since we are looking at the exact same texts and seeing markedly different things, then this cannot be resolved without an extensive amount of time. So we simply disagree. I also stand by my initial claim; as I'm sure you do as well. I maintain my claim that you are a hater, and will hate on Obama regardless. He's going through a lot of time and reasoning for your abortive attempt to put him in a tidy 'hater' box. Allow me to paraphrase the flow of reasoning: First Post We disagree profoundly. Ok, it isn't a profound disagreement at all, you're just a hater and won't listen to reason. Harping on red lines is indicative of this (Even though it was the most publicized and arguably Obama's biggest foreign relations screwup in his entire presidency). Second post Your substantive reply means we still disagree, and you haven't persuaded me that his actions were weak (no explanation given). You're still, of course, a hater. Your claims are partially true, partially false, Obama's trying really hard at this, but Republicans are being sticks in the mud; Obama deserves more credit for his tries. Obama has, nonetheless, acted in the best interests of the US. And on and on, zlefin. Are you at all willing to dialogue on the merits of Obama's foreign policy without degrading yourself to calling your opponents names? The time for standing by your claims is not when the childish impulse to mark men and women as haters arises (as if that qualifies as a substantive rebuttal.) I am very interested for you to explain how the USA under Obama "has acted in the self-interest of the united states quite consistently" and specifically your thoughts on why Obama put a red line on chemical weapons and backed off. Please explain yourself like not everyone here is an irrational Obama foreign policy hater (give the other side an ounce of credit, if only out of compassion). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On June 06 2014 13:09 zlefin wrote: Well, then I find your system of reading things odd and incomprehensible to me. Since we are looking at the exact same texts and seeing markedly different things, then this cannot be resolved without an extensive amount of time. So we simply disagree. I also stand by my initial claim; as I'm sure you do as well. What I find odd is if he is actually from Sri Lanka than I think he should be a bit more focused on his own president and what's going on in his country. I guess come to think of it his position makes more sense in context of the president of Sri Lanka The UN said up to 40,000 civilians may have died in the last months of the civil war; and possibly up to 70,000, according to a 2012 UN Internal Inquiry. The majority of the killings were attributed to government forces, directly under the control of the President’s much-feared brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka’s Defence Secretary. Many say “Gota”, as he’s referred to for short, was the real brain behind the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers, not the shy, affable President. Some even question how much Mr Rajapaksa knew about what was being done in his name. But four-and-a-half-years later he has yet to hold a single person accountable for war crimes and ongoing human rights abuses, including allegations of rape and torture committed by the security forces against their opponents this year. Source I'd go to the Sri Lanka politics thread to rip on your president but... I guess when your president is willing to kill 10's of thousands of his own citizens anything America does looks pretty weak | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5082 Posts
On June 06 2014 15:08 GreenHorizons wrote: What I find odd is if he is actually from Sri Lanka than I think he should be a bit more focused on his own president and what's going on in his country. I guess come to think of it his position makes more sense in context of the president of Sri Lanka Source I'd go to the Sri Lanka politics thread to rip on your president but... I guess when your president is willing to kill 10's of thousands of his own citizens anything America does looks pretty weak It seems of kind of weak to make such a bold statement as the "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over." (thanks John Kerry!) Right or wrong, it certainly doesn't sound like a strong statement. So are the conservatives here from some foreign country as well? Besides, I take tank to be an American or at least very educated in these topics, as shown by the previous discussion, including his little timeline of American foreign policy. He knows more about that than you do about conservatism, yet we all read your insights on it. Such a great example of ad hominem and bulverism. + Show Spoiler + We make plans all the time. Did you know the United States has a plan to invade Canada? We don't make them publicly known unless it is for political reasons. He let them be publicly known and then retrenched. This is exactly what I am talking about. I have read the evidence just fine and found it flows my direction, not yours. Is it so hard to just stop labeling people and declaring victory for a few minutes? | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9183 Posts
On June 06 2014 15:08 GreenHorizons wrote: What I find odd is if he is actually from Sri Lanka than I think he should be a bit more focused on his own president and what's going on in his country. I guess come to think of it his position makes more sense in context of the president of Sri Lanka Source I'd go to the Sri Lanka politics thread to rip on your president but... I guess when your president is willing to kill 10's of thousands of his own citizens anything America does looks pretty weak I'm not from Sri Lanka. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
But then it's weird for me to even wrap my head around the medieval machinations of international politics. It is misguided to consider only "American interests," which happens to only be a euphemism for American business anyway. | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On June 06 2014 16:22 IgnE wrote: I'm just still puzzled as to why you think that the Ukraine and Syria diplomacy failures are somehow the worst thing in recent memory when just last Presidency we had a man who invaded Iraq under false pretenses, set up the legal justification for the drone war Obama expanded, turned Gitmo into a real world purgatory, embroiled us in Afghanistan for over 15 years, etc., etc. etc. Is Obama a great diplomat? Probably not. Is he worse than George Bush? Definitely not. But then it's weird for me to even wrap my head around the medieval machinations of international politics. It is misguided to consider only "American interests," which happens to only be a euphemism for American business anyway. Just out of curiosity, what would have to happen for you to say Obama is worse than Bush? Please don't just repeat your talking points. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On June 06 2014 13:09 zlefin wrote: Well, then I find your system of reading things odd and incomprehensible to me. Since we are looking at the exact same texts and seeing markedly different things, then this cannot be resolved without an extensive amount of time. So we simply disagree. I also stand by my initial claim; as I'm sure you do as well. I would point out that one key variable you're missing is public opinion. This would have been easily the least popular intervention in memory. Everyone in Washington was clearly frightened that they did not have assurances that the US could win the war quickly or cheaply. Hence Congress hesitates to pass resolutions and the White House gets spooked away from pushing forward: ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/or4phnoltuez9suofma11a.png) ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ubpjnwux_eiqpbhs54eqmq.png) Note that these numbers do not indicate partisanship. Democrats and liberals were clearly also reluctant to support the effort. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10989 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On June 06 2014 18:23 coverpunch wrote: Just out of curiosity, what would have to happen for you to say Obama is worse than Bush? Please don't just repeat your talking points. What talking points? I'm pretty sure you can guess a circumstance that would be worse than Bush. Go ahead and try. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On June 06 2014 18:33 coverpunch wrote: I would point out that one key variable you're missing is public opinion. This would have been easily the least popular intervention in memory. Everyone in Washington was clearly frightened that they did not have assurances that the US could win the war quickly or cheaply. Hence Congress hesitates to pass resolutions and the White House gets spooked away from pushing forward: Note that these numbers do not indicate partisanship. Democrats and liberals were clearly also reluctant to support the effort. Why do you think public opinion changed? Which came first? Is this a real argument by you? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18488 Posts
On June 06 2014 18:23 coverpunch wrote: Just out of curiosity, what would have to happen for you to say Obama is worse than Bush? Please don't just repeat your talking points. Him actually invading Syria and getting involved in the shitstorm that is raging there, with the most awesomest of allies lile ISIS. That would've been a clear indicator that he has even less of a clue than Bush did about what the hell is going on in the middle east. Yes, it would've been better if he had never mentioned red lines at all and been consistently hands-off, rather than trying to posture and bluff and then looking a bit foolish when he can't back it up, but it is still 1000% better to look a bit foolish than to commit to YET ANOTHER war you cannot win. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 06 2014 15:08 GreenHorizons wrote: What I find odd is if he is actually from Sri Lanka than I think he should be a bit more focused on his own president and what's going on in his country. I guess come to think of it his position makes more sense in context of the president of Sri Lanka Source I'd go to the Sri Lanka politics thread to rip on your president but... I guess when your president is willing to kill 10's of thousands of his own citizens anything America does looks pretty weak Good lord. In what way is this even remotely germane to the discussion? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On June 06 2014 21:02 Acrofales wrote: Him actually invading Syria and getting involved in the shitstorm that is raging there, with the most awesomest of allies lile ISIS. That would've been a clear indicator that he has even less of a clue than Bush did about what the hell is going on in the middle east. Yes, it would've been better if he had never mentioned red lines at all and been consistently hands-off, rather than trying to posture and bluff and then looking a bit foolish when he can't back it up, but it is still 1000% better to look a bit foolish than to commit to YET ANOTHER war you cannot win. Since today is the 70th anniversary of D-Day, I can't help but point out that somewhere, this sentiment makes Neville Chamberlain smile sadly. (I know it's a pretty unfair comparison, sorry) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 06 2014 23:55 coverpunch wrote: Since today is the 70th anniversary of D-Day, I can't help but point out that somewhere, this sentiment makes Neville Chamberlain smile sadly. (I know it's a pretty unfair comparison, sorry) I agree that committing to full blown war would have been stupid. However, given the previous error of setting the red line, Obama probably should have at least bombed something or launched some missile strikes to save face. The only hesitation that I have about that is that it's in America's best interests to foster a stalemate in Syria where America's enemies will just perpetually annihilate each other (sorry Syrian people). Inflicting too much damage upon Assad would be counterproductive. However, the other problem is that it isn't really clear who launched the chemical weapons attack in the first place. There's a lot of evidence suggesting that the attack was a ploy by others to draw America into the war for their own purposes. Of course, this just highlights how fucking stupid Obama's drawing of the red line was to begin with. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
it's in America's best interests to foster a stalemate in Syria where America's enemies will just perpetually annihilate each other (sorry Syrian people). And people wonder how American foreign policy can create more terrorists than it gets rid of... "Sorry people of the world if you want support in forming a government by the people, you have to make sure it isn't 'in our best interests' (AKA: financial interest) to watch you die instead..." Don't worry though he said 'sorry'... | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 07 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote: And people wonder how American foreign policy can create more terrorists than it gets rid of... "Sorry people of the world if you want support in forming a government by the people, you have to make sure it isn't 'in our best interests' (AKA: financial interest) to watch you die instead..." Don't worry though he said 'sorry'... Feel free to offer up a plausible alternative. We've tried democratizing them (Bush). We've tried ignoring them (Clinton). We've tried engaging them (Obama). We've tried killing them (Bush/Obama). None of these solutions has worked particularly well. The fact of the matter is that they have to sort out their own shit. If they want to butcher themselves, that's their business. Better they do that than try butchering us. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22703 Posts
And yes the current stalemate is in the best interests of the US to keep going, sad tho it might be. | ||
| ||
