US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2017

On June 02 2015 00:56 zlefin wrote:
Obama isn't doing global disengagement, he's been quite engaged from what I've seen.

On June 02 2015 01:37 Gorsameth wrote:

Is America willing to occupy the middle east for several decades? If not then his option might be the realistic one.

While I am deeply sympathetic to the president’s impulse to avoid the mistakes of the Bush years, it is now clear that unilateralism, multilateralism, interventionism and/or strategic withdrawal all share one common reality — the trick is in the implementation. Too little is as bad as too much. Too cautious is as bad as too reckless.Too little is as bad as too much. Too cautious is as bad as too reckless. It may not feel that way at first, but if, for example, the Middle East descends into a major region-wide war and our long-term interests are at risk or we are drawn in at a more dangerous moment, we will recognize just how costly mismanaged restraint can be. Indeed, one of the risks of relying on other people’s armies is that while we may be wise to exercise caution, they may not be — and we may still pay the price either through economic costs, threats to allies, spread of unrest, or other factors.

...

For these reasons, for all the amity and good will engendered at Camp David, for all the good intentions of the Obama administration which is dedicated to fulfill its commitment to reverse the errors of the Bush years, questions clearly remain about whether the Obama approach reflects applied wisdom or over-learned lessons, prudence or punting today’s problems until tomorrow.

Relying on other people’s armies is a great idea if you can make it work, but the past few years has once again shown that it is easier said than done. And while their victories might come at a lower cost than our own would have, we may end up having to cover the tab for the worst of their failures or defeats. That should be food for thought for the candidates now lining up to replace Obama … because one of them will be the one in office when that tab comes due, as it almost certainly will.

On June 02 2015 01:20 xDaunt wrote:

He's hugely disengaged globally compared to all of his predecessors since WW2.

On June 02 2015 06:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

imo guest on the left doesn't know how to talk to his audience. He sounds like he's speaking to other activists who know the language and already agree with his sentiment. But to someone that isn't already in the club he isn't persuasive and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic.

The opposite with the guest on the right. He seemed level headed and make Hannity look too rough.

On June 02 2015 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


That's one difference between a politician and an activist. They were essentially saying the same thing, just one was saying it in the language that audience is more familiar with.

As for Hannity... goodness. Could of talked about anything with those gentlemen but it was abundantly clear his intention was to get the guests into some sort of 'gotcha' with them saying everything is individual emotional racism (a common dismissal of the issues they wanted to discuss).

Hannity intentionally wanted to make them look 'antagonistic' (hence the drilling on things like "Do you know the names of all of the victims?!?" "Is all the violence because racism?!?" "There are black cops" like wtf is that? I know the point he's trying to make but it was tactless to say the least.)

The entire interview should of been focused on what the councilman said after he got Hannity to actually let him speak @0:50

The fact that Hannity went on to completely ignore it, in order to keep drilling his preconceived points, is exactly why people are so fed up with people like Hannity and their rhetoric that is disconnected from reality and betrays a clear disingenuous position.

On June 02 2015 01:46 xDaunt wrote:

There's a lot of middle ground between occupation and nigh total disengagement. As Foreign Policy recently wrote:



Source.