|
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. |
On September 04 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote: That's nice, but it's paywalled. The summary doesn't seem too groundbreaking anyway. If you have access to a university library you may be able to get it that way.
I don't think there will be anything groundbreaking or exciting on the topic, I'm afraid.
|
In an effort to address congressional qualms about the prospect of air strikes on Syria turning into a far broader, open-ended military operation, Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) on Tuesday said they were drafting a resolution that would put sharp limits on the scope and authority that lawmakers would give President Obama to conduct the attack.
The two lawmakers said they were hoping to present their version of the resolution to colleagues as soon as late Tuesday.
It is far narrower than the language that the White House submitted to Congress on Saturday, and the two congressmen hope it will become part of the negotiations for an agreement on a new version of the resolution.
Source
|
On September 04 2013 04:58 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 04:47 Danglars wrote:On September 04 2013 04:04 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2013 10:54 Funnytoss wrote: The "Obama as lame duck if this vote fails" narrative amuses me. I mean, the Republican party is *already* voting no to pretty much *anything* he proposes, so what's the difference? It's also pretty clear that Obama doesn't care all that much about attacking, since if he did, he'd do it without asking Congress in the first place. He painted himself into a corner with the red line comment and had to hastily pull back from that. I could if I wanted to, but I'm not going to do that. He heaped derision on his predecessor Bush for unilateral action in campaign speech after campaign speech if you'll recall. He's coming off as weak and inexperienced--willing to talk tough, but hesitant to follow through. Just contrast this to Libya, though, where not only did he act, but he actually went all Nixon and acted without congressional approval or the War Powers Act. The difference of course is that Syria is going to be a huge mess that he doesn't want to get into, though I still don't understand why he didn't just order a few token strikes, Bill Clinton-style. At least Clinton didn't look like a buffoon when he was ramping up to do some cruise missile strikes. All Obama's rhetoric on this issue makes me think he'd be better off keeping his mouth shut and sending off Power to the UN and Kerry to summits.
Libya wasn't without its own messes. His administration failed to act when a certain compound came under terrorist attack. Given his conduct as well in Egypt (Who does he support, again? How is he supporting them?), I think Syria will be just a little bigger mess in a trail of messes.
|
On September 03 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 03 2013 10:47 DoubleReed wrote: Eh, I'm pretty sure anyone who works in diplomacy that long is going to be buddy-buddy with lots of psychos. Like I don't think there's another option. Realistically, is he not supposed to have dinner with hitler-esque figures? I think this is kind of the liberal left approach to diplomacy. Try to be friends with everybody, and then when you need it you can get your way with "soft power". I can see the logic to this, but the results in the last 5 years aren't anything to write home about. The other approach is to stand up for democratic principles, even when it alienates some of our allies. "It's more important to be right than to be popular". I was a huge fan of George Bush talking about the "axis of evil", because the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea really were evil. The latter two still are. I think we have too many diplomats running around having dinners with murderers and not enough people standing up for what's right. Just my opinion though. Edit: John Kerry imho is standing up for what's right in Syria. For once. The right wing and Bush has been buddy buddy with plenty of brutal dictators over the years. The attempt to paint this as a partisan or left v right thing is not sensible at all. It's more of a "How the laymen think diplomacy should work" v "How diplomacy actually works." It's more about how we don't want to see how the sausage gets made. Btw, you might actually want to look at Kerry's service record before taking dumb potshots like "for once." No doubt that republicans have also been buddy buddy with dictators for years. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. And really, I'm not suggesting that the US should only be friends with liberal democracies. Obviously working with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc is a necessary evil.
On the other hand, I do think most liberals have a different outlook on this kind of issue than conservatives -- or at least than neoconservatives. Remember how Obama was going to run use "smart diplomacy"? And how his presidency was going to restore America's moral standing in the world? Remember how he launched himself on a whirlwind tour of the world apologizing for the "arrogance" and "derision" of the Bush administration? One of the criticisms of Bush was that he was too blunt, that he was a cowboy, that he wasn't nuanced enough in his approach to diplomacy.
Certainly there are conservatives who thought the same thing about Bush. There are a few different schools of thought on international affairs amongst conservatives. And liberals too, I suppose -- you sometimes see liberals arguing that Obama should stop being so friendly with evil people. But not that often.
I do disagree with you that having dinner with genocidal murderers is just "How diplomacy actually works". It doesn't have to be that way. I think that during the cold war, especially in the 50s, 60s, and 70s America cozied up with all kinds of horrific dictatorships, purely in an effort to get more allies against the Soviet Union. These actions are widely recognized as mistakes nowadays.
|
On September 04 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote: That's nice, but it's paywalled. The summary doesn't seem too groundbreaking anyway. If you have access to a university library you may be able to get it that way. I don't think there will be anything groundbreaking or exciting on the topic, I'm afraid. I sent it to you both via message.
|
On September 04 2013 04:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 04:04 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2013 10:54 Funnytoss wrote: The "Obama as lame duck if this vote fails" narrative amuses me. I mean, the Republican party is *already* voting no to pretty much *anything* he proposes, so what's the difference? It's also pretty clear that Obama doesn't care all that much about attacking, since if he did, he'd do it without asking Congress in the first place. He painted himself into a corner with the red line comment and had to hastily pull back from that. I could if I wanted to, but I'm not going to do that. He heaped derision on his predecessor Bush for unilateral action in campaign speech after campaign speech if you'll recall. He's coming off as weak and inexperienced--willing to talk tough, but hesitant to follow through.
I don't see how it looks weak and inexperienced to do what a very large swath of the country actually wants the executive branch to do; consult Congress about going to war, something explicitly talked about in the Constitution.
|
On September 04 2013 07:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 04:47 Danglars wrote:On September 04 2013 04:04 HunterX11 wrote:On September 03 2013 10:54 Funnytoss wrote: The "Obama as lame duck if this vote fails" narrative amuses me. I mean, the Republican party is *already* voting no to pretty much *anything* he proposes, so what's the difference? It's also pretty clear that Obama doesn't care all that much about attacking, since if he did, he'd do it without asking Congress in the first place. He painted himself into a corner with the red line comment and had to hastily pull back from that. I could if I wanted to, but I'm not going to do that. He heaped derision on his predecessor Bush for unilateral action in campaign speech after campaign speech if you'll recall. He's coming off as weak and inexperienced--willing to talk tough, but hesitant to follow through. I don't see how it looks weak and inexperienced to do what a very large swath of the country actually wants the executive branch to do; consult Congress about going to war, something explicitly talked about in the Constitution. As if any of that actually matters to the Tea Party....
|
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the most outspoken opponents of military action in Syria, wouldn’t rule out the possibility Tuesday of launching a standing filibuster over the issue in the Senate.
“I can’t imagine that we won’t require 60 votes on this,” Paul told reporters on an afternoon conference call. “Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster — I’ve got to check my shoes and check my ability to hold my water. And we will see. I haven’t made a decision on that.”
Paul attracted widespread attention in March when he launched a marathon filibuster over the Obama administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones, winning support from some GOP colleagues and prompting criticism from others.
When it comes to Syria, Paul said he believes the best hope for defeating a resolution to authorize military action will come in the House. He reiterated his view that an attack on Syria would create more turbulence and danger in the region, and may not even disable the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical attacks.
“At this point, I think it’s a bad idea,” Paul said.
While Paul said he was pleased President Obama asked for congressional authority before acting, he added that he finds the possibility that the president may launch a strike even in the face of rejection from Congress “insulting.”
The senator said the reception from his constituents back home in Kentucky has been overwhelmingly negative toward the prospect of military action.
Source
|
*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country:
Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg)
Source
|
On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Show nested quote +Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source why, McCain already knows the way he is going to vote, the same as always, MORE BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
|
I'm not confused, you're just being a condescending dick for no reason.
no it's pretty clear you're confused
and you deserve to get a little tongue-lashing because of stuff like this:
All I was saying is that the U.S. has never stood up for anything simply "because it is right". In fact, no regime has in the history of humanity. It's a fairy tale and a pretty pathetic one at that to say that America is a bunch of "good guys". Sure, we've done many things that are "good", but they pretty much always serve our self-interest in a major way. The U.S. is not a white knight that rides out into the world to do justice. We act in our self interest and, hopefully, while we do that, we also do it in a morally acceptable way.
all you're saying is that doing good things doesn't make you a good guy because of some really poor reasoning. there are no good guys and never were and never will be if we take what you say as the standard.
again, so fucking what? pure altruism (which does not exist and never has) is the only true moral good, is that a standard you really hold consistently in life?
I don't expect us to do what is "right" simply to be the world's police because that is a ridiculous and absurd notion, and the fact that you got so bent out of shape about my comment speaks volumes about your attitude and how you can't take any criticism of the U.S. My statement was specifically pointed at who I quoted; he mentioned that he liked Bush's slant with the whole "Axis of Evil" thing, and I was essentially pointing out that it was all B.S., because this country never goes to war simply for morally sound or altruistic reasons.
your criticism of the US is unfair and stupid. find a criticism of the US that is not unfair and stupid and don't bring up unfair and stupid defenses that dodge the issue and instead make it personal.
it speaks volumes about your attitude that you apparently sincerely and deeply hold such fantastical pretzel positions as serious reasons to say very harsh things about a country. you have essentially cast the US (and every other country as well) as strictly amoral and selfish and said that there is no way a country can ever actually do real good in your eyes because self-interest is apparently the devil. seriously do you have an argument that is better than what you've been giving, if you want to portray the US so harshly, "the good you do wasn't solely out of the goodness of your heart" is the best you can come up with? methinks there's more emotion in reason in your attitude towards the United States.
|
On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Show nested quote +Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source I'm not excusing McCain (don't like him much anyway tbh), but I've tuned into hearings on C-SPAN before and found them to be insanely boring. It would be nice if that wasn't so much the case.
On September 04 2013 10:05 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source why, McCain already knows the way he is going to vote, the same as always, MORE BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! Can we not bomb Syria and reinvest the savings into awesome power armor research?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not that the U.S. has always been sincere in its good intentions, but it is indeed one of the places in which good intentions have at least nominal value. trade U.S.'s place with say a russia or china, the syrian situation would not matter at all, however many people are dead.
america world police is a self mocking image for all but the most zealous nationalist. but there's a bit of america, the world crusader here. that's not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
|
On September 04 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source I'm not excusing McCain (don't like him much anyway tbh), but I've tuned into hearings on C-SPAN before and found them to be insanely boring. It would be nice if that wasn't so much the case. Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 10:05 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source why, McCain already knows the way he is going to vote, the same as always, MORE BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! Can we not bomb Syria and reinvest the savings into awesome power armor research?
If they're too boring for mccain to pay attention to, maybe he should have picked a different job? Absolutely ridiculous that someone in his power, in a meeting thats so important, could just sit there and fucking play a game. This is an issue that deals with human lives and his actions are completely inexcusable. Just another disgusting thing in politics that will go completely unpunished / noticed.
|
On September 04 2013 10:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:no it's pretty clear you're confused and you deserve to get a little tongue-lashing because of stuff like this: Show nested quote +All I was saying is that the U.S. has never stood up for anything simply "because it is right". In fact, no regime has in the history of humanity. It's a fairy tale and a pretty pathetic one at that to say that America is a bunch of "good guys". Sure, we've done many things that are "good", but they pretty much always serve our self-interest in a major way. The U.S. is not a white knight that rides out into the world to do justice. We act in our self interest and, hopefully, while we do that, we also do it in a morally acceptable way. all you're saying is that doing good things doesn't make you a good guy because of some really poor reasoning. there are no good guys and never were and never will be if we take what you say as the standard. again, so fucking what? pure altruism (which does not exist and never has) is the only true moral good, is that a standard you really hold consistently in life? Show nested quote +I don't expect us to do what is "right" simply to be the world's police because that is a ridiculous and absurd notion, and the fact that you got so bent out of shape about my comment speaks volumes about your attitude and how you can't take any criticism of the U.S. My statement was specifically pointed at who I quoted; he mentioned that he liked Bush's slant with the whole "Axis of Evil" thing, and I was essentially pointing out that it was all B.S., because this country never goes to war simply for morally sound or altruistic reasons. your criticism of the US is unfair and stupid. find a criticism of the US that is not unfair and stupid and don't bring up unfair and stupid defenses that dodge the issue and instead make it personal. it speaks volumes about your attitude that you apparently sincerely and deeply hold such fantastical pretzel positions as serious reasons to say very harsh things about a country. you have essentially cast the US (and every other country as well) as strictly amoral and selfish and said that there is no way a country can ever actually do real good in your eyes because self-interest is apparently the devil. seriously do you have an argument that is better than what you've been giving, if you want to portray the US so harshly, "the good you do wasn't solely out of the goodness of your heart" is the best you can come up with? methinks there's more emotion in reason in your attitude towards the United States.
My criticism is fine. The problem is you. You're so arrogant and your head is so far up your ass that you don't even understand the criticism.
It is childish to think that, as a country, we go around the world simply "standing up for the values of democracy/freedom/insert platitude here". That is blatantly false and there are several historical examples from the past 50 years alone to prove otherwise. I'm not saying that everyone is the bad guy, that we're in a horrible, incredibly selfish world where everyone only acts in their self interest. However, the reality of international relations is that no country acts solely in the interests of these platitudes. If we did, we wouldn't put up with regimes like North Korea and, if we didn't have alternative motives in Syria and we were simply fighting because Syria is using chemical weapons, we would've stopped Iraq from using them on Iran in the 80's. Also, if we did, we'd be a fucking smoldering ruin because everyone would hate us far more than they supposedly do and we would never be at peace.
Do we care about other people, about human rights, democracy, and all of those "good" things? As a culture, of course, but the fact of the world is that you can't just go to war for democracy, freedom, or proper treatment of people on a whim; war costs a country massive resources and this country has learned a lot from all of the wasted time, effort, and resources in Iraq.
You need to grow the fuck up. Stop running around here like a typical pseudo-intellectual conservative asshole that has to try to put anyone in their place whenever they don't like what the U.S. is doing. I'm in the military so I know first hand how this shit works. If you want to step up and serve and then have a grown-up discussion on this topic, then be my guest; but don't think for a fucking second that you have any kind of intellectual superiority on this topic, because you don't, and your attitude is insulting and completely uncalled for.
I'm out there, experiencing the consequences of our foreign policy every day. What have you done to deserve such a smug, insulting attitude?
|
“I’m proud to be from Louisiana, but I don’t want people to laugh at me when I go out of state. ‘Oh that’s the guy from the stupid state with the creationism law,’ ” Mr. Kopplin said.
In Britain in March, Esha Marwaha, a 16-year-old from Hounslow, West London, started an online petition calling for Education Secretary Michael Gove to abandon a plan to remove references to climate change from the geography curriculum for students under 14. The petition got more than 30,000 signatures, and in July, Mr. Gove changed course.
Ms. Marwaha, a self-described geography fanatic, said lessons about climate change — whether it is caused by people or not — are crucial to keeping future students engaged in evidence-based science.
“We do need to come out with an actual well-rounded education,” she said.
Then there is Katelyn Campbell, 18, whose objection to a factually dubious sex-education assembly at her high school bubbled over into a confrontation with her principal, which bubbled over onto the Internet.
As a senior at George Washington High School in Charleston, W.Va., Ms. Campbell complained to the American Civil Liberties Union about an April assembly featuring an abstinence advocate, Pam Stenzel. Among the lessons Ms. Stenzel shared with the school that day, according to a friend of Ms. Campbell’s who taped the assembly, was that condoms provide no protection from sexually transmitted diseases. “She called out any woman who had sexual contact,” said Ms. Campbell, who boycotted the assembly. “I saw people crying when they came out.”
Source
|
On September 04 2013 12:24 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source I'm not excusing McCain (don't like him much anyway tbh), but I've tuned into hearings on C-SPAN before and found them to be insanely boring. It would be nice if that wasn't so much the case. On September 04 2013 10:05 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source why, McCain already knows the way he is going to vote, the same as always, MORE BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! Can we not bomb Syria and reinvest the savings into awesome power armor research? If they're too boring for mccain to pay attention to, maybe he should have picked a different job? Absolutely ridiculous that someone in his power, in a meeting thats so important, could just sit there and fucking play a game. This is an issue that deals with human lives and his actions are completely inexcusable. Just another disgusting thing in politics that will go completely unpunished / noticed. Yeah, like I said I'm not excusing what he did.
Boring is bad though. If your setup is boring people won't be as engaged as they should or need to be. Hopefully within a century we'll see something change
|
On September 04 2013 12:24 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 10:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source I'm not excusing McCain (don't like him much anyway tbh), but I've tuned into hearings on C-SPAN before and found them to be insanely boring. It would be nice if that wasn't so much the case. On September 04 2013 10:05 Sub40APM wrote:On September 04 2013 09:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:*sigh* this is when I get angry over the apathy of this country: Congress held its first public hearing about U.S. plans for military intervention in Syria on Tuesday. At some point during the conversation, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has been skeptical about President Barack Obama's proposal for "limited" action in Syria -- was taking a break to play poker on his phone: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTRS-yDIQAIdPCB.jpg) Source why, McCain already knows the way he is going to vote, the same as always, MORE BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! Can we not bomb Syria and reinvest the savings into awesome power armor research? If they're too boring for mccain to pay attention to, maybe he should have picked a different job? Absolutely ridiculous that someone in his power, in a meeting thats so important, could just sit there and fucking play a game. This is an issue that deals with human lives and his actions are completely inexcusable. Just another disgusting thing in politics that will go completely unpunished / noticed. Those things last forever, in his defense. The only shock here is that he was spectacularly unsuccessful in hiding it this time. This isn't his first carnival ride hearing or committee meeting. If he did it in a hearing on agricultural developments, it'd still be news these days for callous indifference to the plight of farmers, the environment, or technology.
There is a lot disgusting in politics. I'll save my outrage for nappers and pocket gamers that can't pay attention through an hour of summary. I already consider McCain's behavior contemptible in substance on a range of issues, but this hardly comes close.
|
|
|
|