|
On August 30 2011 16:29 macil222 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 30 2011 15:35 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 14:57 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:13 Probulous wrote:On August 30 2011 14:02 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 12:33 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 12:31 Falling wrote:
What would Obama's best strategy be to exploit? It's going to be hard because he had some pretty sweeping statements at the beginning (one of the reasons I was initially cheering for Biden- he sticks his foot in his mouth, but a lot of his promises were quite measured based on what could or could not be accomplished.)
Probably he's going to have to key in on his partial successes and point out how the Republicans have been blocking further efforts. On security issues, he's got the bin Ladin thing to show how he get's things done vs 8 years of Republicans with nothing to show. Libya will be tricky- but it'll be the juggle of assisting democratic initiatives without committing to many American boots to the ground. That could really blow up in his face if Libya finds some real rubbish leader.
As much as he likes to go for the non-partisan approach, he might have to point some fingers on issues of healthcare and finances. Even if it's probably what America needs, a tax hike is going to be a big dead weight for his campaign.
If the main issue turns out to be the economy (and not ridiculous stuff like birth certificates and grade 1 report cards), then he's going to have to pull a Steven Harper (our PM) and show that while the US did go further in debt, he's managed well, has a plan to slowly move forward and you don't want to rock the boat with a Republican. Obama is much stronger than Republicans on military issues. Bush used to capture and torture terrorists, Obama just assassinates them with special forces and Predator drone strikes while constantly stepping up spending. That probably won't stop Republicans for hammering him for being weak on defense because he is a Democrat, though. This is the garbage I was talking about earlier. Bush was a horrible president with foreign policy and national security and the liberals hated him. Now Obama is in office and instead of expecting him to behave he gets a pass because afterall ... Bush got away it so why shouldn't he.. Granted a lot of republicans who call him out are hypocrites but that is reality, probably most democrats and republicans are hypocrites. Instead of worrying about whether or not the people who are calling him out are hypocrites lets start worrying about the shit he is doing and put a stop to it. Such as... He pulled troops out of Iraq in a relatively safe manner. He sent more troops to Afghanistan for the surge based on the advice of his military commanders on the condition that there is a definite withdrawal timetable which is rapidly approaching. He saw the opportunity in supporting the UN regarding Libya and did so in the smallest way possible. A very much push from behind manner. His approach to foreign policy particulary with regards to arab nations has been subtle and in keeping with the feeling on the ground. This alone is a security success, when the arab world is in revolt you want a calm leader. What exactly is the "shit he is doing" so we can "put a stop to it."? Alright, thanks for replying and outlining exactly what you think the “shit” is. I will do the same with your post. Show nested quote +The shit he is doing is sending another 30k troops to that useless wasteland when he should have pulled them all out immediately. The notion that it would take so long to "safely" withdraw is bogus. Safe for who?..they are not talking about American's whose lives are the only ones I'm concerned with. We should just wave and say "goodbye" and "sorry for the mess, have whatever government you want but if you harbor terrorists who attack us we will blow you up, that is all ktxbye". It seems timely given the 10th anniversary is approaching to re-examine exactly why Bin Laden attacked the US. His hatred of the US and his main resource for recruitments was the US support of Israel and the abandonment of the mujahedeen after the soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. The US trained him and his fighters to fight a proxy war against the soviets. When the US abandoned them because the soviets withdrawal, the loss of support created resentment to the US (see Senate report on 9/11). If the US just pulls out right now in exactly the same manner, what is there to stop the same thing happening with someone else? A relatively stable Afghanistan is the best form of fighting terrorism. Besides, you don’t barge into a country destroy it and then leave when you feel like it. The US is paying the price for not having a coherent strategy to begin with. Show nested quote +Seriously the whole reason given for invading them was because they were supposedly harboring Al Qaeda. If Bush was being sincere then if they had handed over the terrorists we wouldn't have attacked them at all. Which they didn’t. In addition the failing of Bush have been listed many many times. Finally after the tragedy of 9/11 the public was baying for blood. Oh and relevance? Show nested quote +So how do we suddenly become responsible for them having a democracy that they neither want nor have the capability of maintaining? See above. Show nested quote +Obama just picked up Bush's football and ran with it, nothing changed and yet the liberals are silent because their team is in power. Same goes for the republicans who are suddenly mad, its only because its the other team in office that they are upset. Actually a lot changed. A hell of a lot. The US pulled out of Iraq and upped the anti in Afghanistan. Isn’t that what you’re upset about? Show nested quote +Obama is flying drones over sovereign nations, dropping bombs on people, killing civilians. True, but at least he isn’t invading countries. I don’t like it either but if the Pakistani government isn’t going to cooperate how do you achieve your target? Show nested quote +And don't kid yourself, we are absolutely 100% still torturing terrorists. You would have to be so naive to think they would actually stop that practice. Speculation at best. How exactly does one prove or disprove this statement? Show nested quote +Have we closed any of our bases in the middle east?...you know the thing that the warlords and dictators use to scape goat us and rally their people behind them..people who can now blame their misfortunes on us rather than their own leaders who are responsible. Nope Obama changed nothing. True. He has not lowered the number of military bases in the Middle East. I would argue that people are not blaming Obama for their misfortunes, rather their leaders. See the ex-leaders of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Sure he could close them down but this hardly game changing when compared to the other military commitments. Show nested quote +Libya...we have no right to go there, just like we had no right to mess with Kosovo is the 90's...yet again a liberal in power so the anti war leftists were no where to be found and the republicans were yelling and screaming. Well the fact that the Arab league and the UN supported the action and you didn’t actually “go there” I would say you are wrong. The choice was simple, support an action by the people who are advocating the principles by which the US is governed, or support a tyrant. The US is much better served by a democratic Libya then a Khadaffi lead one. Show nested quote +Are you foolish enough to actually think we did a good deed by interfering in Libya. Does the fact that it was handled by NATO (which is really just the USA don't kid yourself) make intervention ok? In a word, yes. Show nested quote +All we hear are stupid emotional buzzwords like democracy. Democracy is only what people make of it, That is the point. Show nested quote +I personally hate democracy because it is just a vehicle for tyranny of the majority. As opposed to the tyranny of the few? Show nested quote +Maybe in another 10 or 20 years we will be going to Libya to take out the evil government that will arise from this mess... And what if they democratically vote for a government which will keep women as second class citizens, and maybe christians, jews and atheists as well. Is that still good just because its "democracy". WTF  Show nested quote +Obama took the patriot act and ran with it. How about the TSA? and didn't Obama defend FISA once he became president? Fair point, I don’t agree with that either. Show nested quote +This administration is still rattling sabers at Iran and Syria just like the last... Hardly the same situation. Obama criticizes Syria because it is slaughtering its own people. Obama has been much quieter on Iran than Bush was. Show nested quote +Think about it, you actually affirmed everything Bush did in office with respect to national security. You claimed Obama is actually stronger than Bush on national security and compared his actions to Bush's. He did what Bush did and took things a step further with the drone attacks. Your premise was basically that Bush was strong on national security and so republicans can't legitimately criticize Obama since he is along the same lines as Bush. I did nothing of the sort. Read again my friend. Show nested quote +I would say that both Bush and Obama are weak on national security. Both are making us less safe in the world. Both are bankrupting us with their foreign policy. Both are wasting the lives of our young men in places where it would become more valuable after you shit on it. Nice opinion, can I have one too? Show nested quote +If we had a president who wanted to make us more secure he would tell the U.K., France, Germany, Australia and frankly all of Europe that they can cut their social programs and pay for their military if they want to police the world. We will use ours for defense and for the defense of them if they are ever attacked which is all the alliance requires. We can also assist with diplomacy and logistics. Then we can start a gradual and long term process of closing our overseas bases. Fair nuff. I would argue that Obama at least went part of the way by requiring the ONE action he chose to enter (Libya), be run first and foremost by other nations. Sure there was military support, but very very very limited. I can see you are angry at Obama, but given the circumstances he has certainly been less aggressive than his predecessor and has a much better way of dealing with foreign nations. He isn’t perfect but he isn’t the antichrist either. Finally this is way  The Afghan stuff is relevent because it would be far cheaper in terms of money, American lives and Afghan lives if we just destroyed the taliban and left. I don't care what kind of government they have. It could be an islamic oriented dictatorship, a western democracy, anarchy, they could kill each other and leave the country uninhabited. It is their nation and it is their problem, not ours. I believe aggression is only permitted for self defense. I like the slogan walk softly and carry a big stick. Our only business and only legitimate goal in Afghanistan was destroying the Taliban who was supposedly harboring terrorists who attacked us. If they remake the Taliban and start harboring terrorists again then we can just destroy it again. Then we are only being reactionary and not aggressive. If it happens over and over eventually the people there will befearing for their own lives and well being and will implement a government that will not harbor terrorists. but if they do so what, we can just destroy them again. It would be far cheaper than occupying them for so long. Bin Laden has also stated that he is opposed to our overall presence in the middle east, and Saudi Arabia in particular. So its more than just our activity with respect to Israel and Afghanistan. Iran is now using our presence as propaganda to churn up ill will against us. Consider yourself being an arab or persian. You probably haven't been well educated and you just want to live your life in peace and comfort like everyone else on the planet. You have a government that is corrupt and unjust which prevents you from being happy. It also happens that the United States is surrounding your country with its massive military. Your leaders tell you that they are repsonsible for your plight. If only we could destroy them we would be wealthy and happy and have peace and prosperity. Eventually you will consider the U.S. as the enemy and when you see your kid's with no future you will hate the United States and you might even consider sacrificing yourself in the name of destroying this great enemy. I firmly believe that our presence over there is what lead to 9/11, and it is and will continue to result in them hating us and blaming us for their problems. Yes there are uprisings going on now but that isn't going to make those people like us even if we help them now. New leaders will gain power, and their countries will still be garbage, and power will still corrupt, and so they will have the perfect opportunity to either ask us for permanent aid or else blame our abandonment of them on their countries' never ending miserable state.. We have no idea what will turn out in Libya or Egypt, and we had no right to intervene. If they revolt and create a western style democracy that is great but it probably wont happen anyways. Risking blow back, violence, future enemy regimes...all in the name of spreading democracy and acting like an empire trying to push our way of doing things onto others. Yes tyranny of the minority is bad, tyranny of the majority is bad....I don't care what they have as long as we aren't involved. I would like to know every human in the world is doing great but my only concern is American lives and our allies. The reason I pointed out the potential flaws of democracy is not to compare it to dictatorship but to show that it is stupid to interfere just for the sake of promoting a system of government which may or may not promote freedom which is what the west really values, not democracy which we don't even have. The brilliance of the founders of the United States was to recognize the dangers of democracy and shun it in favor of a republican form of government. You responded to my comments about possibly needing to take out the Libyan and Egyptian governments in 20 years with "WTF" as if this isn't what we have been dealing with for 60 years now. Why is Iran our enemy..because we replace one leader with another for our convenience and we create the next generation's enemy regime. I would not be surprised at all if the Libyan government is opposed to us 10 years from now. Maybe it will be because we helped them out and then decided to leave and they will get resentful, maybe they will not like us right off the bat, who knows. Unless of course we stay involved in their politics for eternity which would mean the don't even have sovereignty at all. Like when we applaud the phony elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. We act like they have democracy now and are ruling themselves and yet we forced a constitution on them which flies in the face of their religious and cultural values. And women have to make up a certain % of positions in government..well what if the people there don't want that? They have no rights and their voting is just for show so we can feel good about ourselves and pretend we did something nice. We have no right to interfere in Syria regardless of what they are doing to their own people. I don't like the idea of them killing their people but it is their concern and not ours. Why is it western countries were able to engage in self determination and create their governments and law and order and yet these countries can't manage to do it? Then at the same time to be politically correct we have to pretend that our culture is not superior to theirs, no no no...its global politics that is keeping them down...we need to interfere and help them. Bullcrap. Let them control their own government and take care of themselves. And why does going into a another nation under the flag of the United States vs the U.N. or NATO make so much difference to liberals? It is an unjust war of aggression on our part. We are the defacto leaders of the U.N. and NATO. Take all of NATO and then take the United States out..what is left? Stop pretending it was an international effort. It was the United States providing the munitions and firepower while others lobbed a few missiles here and there. It is as if our same involvement under United States leadership would be bad but we put our men and gear under the leadership of a European and suddenly its all ok. I think it is even worse. These alliances should be for mutual defense, not to give up our national sovereignty to foreigners so they can use our blood and money to police the world.
The problem with isolation is the world is much smaller these days. I thought 9/11 would have made that clear. Iran and the Syrian regime would find another reason to blame to US. The US could pull out of the middle-east completely and they would still be blamed. Tyrants are not rational, that much is clear.
There is also a difference between actively spreading democracy and supporting it. If nations take it upon themselves to change to a style of government more in tune with your own, why would you not support it. There is a difference between NATO leading military support and a US lead invasion. The fact that the arab league and the supporters on the ground called for support makes this a very different conflict to others.
I understand the desire to keep to yourself. The hope is that you can focus on domestic issues and not create problems in the world, then you will be left alone. This does not happen. It didn't happen in WWII and it didn't happen on 911. Your only choice is how to engage. The ironic thing about bin Laden was, at least in part, that by trying to get out other people's problems the US brought them to its door. There are also economic realities about Suadi Arabia that cannot be ignored. Without a friendly ally in that region the world would be hosage to the demands of OPEC.
I am all for the US taking a more subtle approach to foreign affairs. As you say carry a big stick. I believe that Obama has certainly taken the nation towards that goal.
And am I very angry at Obama? I don't know if I would say angry. Disappointed in some ways and eager to replace him for sure. I was hoping he would not continue the Bush foreign policy or the domestic national security nonsense. That was a bust. I knew I wouldn't like his domestic policy so I'm not angry. I didn't like Bush's either. He expanded government like crazy, then Obama took that crazy and quadrupled it...it is just amazing how the 2 party system works.
Anyways I genuinely enjoy debating these types of things but I can't respond anymore. It is after 3 am and I need to sleep. I'll see which rail this thread has gone down by tomorrow lol.
gn.
Yeah I think people in general are disappointed in Obama but that is the reality of governing. Like I said I don't like his domestic national security stance either. The problem is that his compromise approach was easily exploited to make him agree to stuff that doesn't fit with what people were expecting. Arguably he has achieved some major reforms but these are exactly what people are upset about. Anyway, I believe this has probably gone far enough. Thanks for your reasoned reply. It is not often the case with these threads.
|
Sigh, I guess as usual politics is all about money when you have a guy like Rick Perry who was literally talking about succession as the governor of Texas now running for president. Should anyone listen to anything else this guy has to say?
|
People in the Middle East are not gullible enough to want Iran over the United States. Whatever ambivalence about America they may have, it's not the hatred that marks the Taliban.
What's happening in the Middle East, Libya and co., is only about the United States in a tertiary sense, but helping Libya and co. will pay greater dividends than whatever happened under Bush. If budgets allowed, the States should be helping all the rebels in all the countries. Mentoring pluralist revolution, the Arab Spring, is a far better means of combating terrorism than any strategy heretofore employed.
Absolutely astounding people aren't giving Obama credit for what was a smart humanitarian policy tactic that, unlike Bush's wars, won't commit the States to an occupation for nearly a decade.
|
It's because he/they aren't claiming "Mission Accomplished," and using something that needed to be done as a sticking point for a campaign.
Ol' Barry just gets shit done and doesn't rally speak up until he's attacked or campaigning. He doesn't go over his authority for the most part and he keeps the people in the loop, or at least tries to.
Did he do everything he promised? Hell no. I think he's tried, but politics means sometimes you open your mouth and cram your foot in it because dickbag A wouldn't see eye to eye with asshat B and you really thought that two adults could get along.
I really don't understand how anyone who has actually read anything, seen anything or been in this country for the last few years can vote for any of these people.
Half of them are insane caricatures, the other half are realistic but not TV friendly and at least one of them is a complete tool.
This is exactly why we need a multi party system. We need to be able to vote and have other options between two rigid ideals.
|
On August 30 2011 23:41 jon arbuckle wrote:
People in the Middle East are not gullible enough to want Iran over the United States. Whatever ambivalence about America they may have, it's not the hatred that marks the Taliban.
What's happening in the Middle East, Libya and co., is only about the United States in a tertiary sense, but helping Libya and co. will pay greater dividends than whatever happened under Bush. If budgets allowed, the States should be helping all the rebels in all the countries. Mentoring pluralist revolution, the Arab Spring, is a far better means of combating terrorism than any strategy heretofore employed.
Absolutely astounding people aren't giving Obama credit for what was a smart humanitarian policy tactic that, unlike Bush's wars, won't commit the States to an occupation for nearly a decade.
So now we bomb countries that pose no threat to us and call it "smart humanitarian policy". I wonder how many civilians were killed by our bombs vs how many were killed by col. Qaddafi?
And talking about using this "arab spring" (more terms of propaganda) to fight terrorism is absolutely silly. It is treating the symptoms without curing the disease. They hate us because we are over there. If we weren't over there they would not be coming over here to harm us.
This may buy us temporary good will but what happens when their government ends up corrupt and the people who take over power don't want to give it up? Or what happens if we keep their new government supported but then decide we want them off of our tit? Then their leaders simply blame our involvement for their problems and then comes resentment and hatred. If we don't support them enough then any problems they face will be because we didn't do enough and we abandoned them. They will say we used them for our purposes and then forgot about them. (sounds familiar right?) If we do too much then they will say we are an empire and we just want their oil. Groups who don't have power but want it will take every issue they have with the regime in power and accuse them of being corrupt and accuse the United States of supporting a corrupt regime because it suits our own selfish needs. (Sounds familiar right?)
We can build good will by staying out of their business and being peaceful and diplomatic with whoever happens to be in charge while not trying to control them.
And you say "pluralistic revolution" as if that is automatically something we should support. It makes no sense.
|
I think the biggest problem with foreign policy in the world in general is that everything is either left or right, up or down, white or black, right or wrong. The position of neutrality is always ignored. Why must we take a side and pick winners and losers in every conflict when it would serve our own interests to remain neutral?
I'm not talking about being an isolationist or a pacifist. We can have the strongest military in the world with nuclear submarines, missile defense systems and carriers. We can maintain alliances for mutual defense with our friends. We can engage in diplomacy with everyone.
Yet if you don't pick a side in some far off conflict that doesn't concern us then you get called an "isolationist".
|
On August 31 2011 03:15 macil222 wrote:
I think the biggest problem with foreign policy in the world in general is that everything is either left or right, up or down, white or black, right or wrong. The position of neutrality is always ignored. Why must we take a side and pick winners and losers in every conflict when it would serve our own interests to remain neutral?
I'm not talking about being an isolationist or a pacifist. We can have the strongest military in the world with nuclear submarines, missile defense systems and carriers. We can maintain alliances for mutual defense with our friends. We can engage in diplomacy with everyone.
Yet if you don't pick a side in some far off conflict that doesn't concern us then you get called an "isolationist".
That's how the republican rhetoric tend to view the world. And they've now dragged everyone else down to their level by claiming everyone that doesn't follow the combined agenda/ideology of:
1) Christian with 'family values'
2) Anti-gay
3) Anti-abortion
4) Pro-war (GO USA!)
5) Laissez-faire Free market
6) No government involvement in anything (except when people aren't doing what we want them to - see #1, #2 and #3 above)
(did I miss anything?)
... is a dirty liberal. If you literally don't follow that strict agenda, you're classified as an outsider and it scares me how they've managed to gather and cultivate such a large following with their inflammatory rhetoric.
I might be all for reduced spending and reduced government involvement, but if that comes tacked on with Creationism in schools and an agenda of suppressing anything deemed 'unchristian' in this country, they can get GTFO as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
|
On August 31 2011 03:22 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:15 macil222 wrote:
I think the biggest problem with foreign policy in the world in general is that everything is either left or right, up or down, white or black, right or wrong. The position of neutrality is always ignored. Why must we take a side and pick winners and losers in every conflict when it would serve our own interests to remain neutral?
I'm not talking about being an isolationist or a pacifist. We can have the strongest military in the world with nuclear submarines, missile defense systems and carriers. We can maintain alliances for mutual defense with our friends. We can engage in diplomacy with everyone.
Yet if you don't pick a side in some far off conflict that doesn't concern us then you get called an "isolationist". That's how the republican rhetoric tend to view the world. And they've now dragged everyone else down to their level by claiming everyone that doesn't follow the combined agenda/ideology of: 1) Christian with 'family values' 2) Anti-gay 3) Anti-abortion 4) Pro-war (GO USA!) 5) Laissez-faire Free market 6) No government involvement in anything (except when people aren't doing what we want them to - see #1, #2 and #3 above) (did I miss anything?) ... is a dirty liberal. If you literally don't follow that strict agenda, you're classified as an outsider and it scares me how they've managed to gather and cultivate such a large following with their inflammatory rhetoric. I might be all for reduced spending and reduced government involvement, but if that comes tacked on with Creationism in schools and an agenda of suppressing anything deemed 'unchristian' in this country, they can get GTFO as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
You are partly right but wrong on some things.
The social conservative part you are right about. This is because they have conservative social values but not a conservative philosophy of government. But yes they claim they want limited government except when they want to enforce their social values on people. They are hypocrites.
on 4) you are simply wrong. Historically Bush was an aberration and Obama is the norm. We just have short memories and now people associate republicans with being pro war. Then you have the issue that Bush and his dad are just progressive liberals anyways. That is what a neocon is. They put the word "conservative" in the label to make people who don't know better support them. The vast majority of people who support either party have no clue, it is based on a combination of family tradition, region, and maybe a few single issues that sway voters. Abortion is the big one. Neocons appeal to the emotion of social conservatives to win their support by throwing the word god out here and there claiming to be pro life. They've done almost nothing to advance the social conservative agenda. It is just politics. Be careful not to confuse politics with political philosophy.
Now you can ask why did republicans support Bush if he was an abberation? It is a good question. It comes down to what we've been talking about. The corrupting nature of power and politics obviously overrides any loyalty to political philosophy.
|
On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
So now we bomb countries that pose no threat to us and call it "smart humanitarian policy".
Western meddling produced many of the problems that have dogged the Middle East since the end of the first World War, and continued involvement from the United States (chiefly) has only exacerbated these issues. Fallout from the Nixon administration's Middle Eastern policy lingers into the present, Qaddafi included. The United States is tied whether they want to be or aren't, and so the best alternative is to back the right people. In Libya, you have an uprising against a corrupt, tyrannical government that is not taking the same theocratic tone that the Iranian Revolution did. Therefore, Obama wisely backed the rebels: the problems in Libya now are larger than the States, but once tertiary concerns like the United States become the items for debate, Libya will be better disposed to their Western allies, and Libya are a country in a region where America needs trustworthy allies.
It is absolutely ludicrous that you can see this issue as one-dimensionally as you do. Do you literally think the States can issue a statement saying, "sorry, bros, we ain't about that no mo" and all discontent will cease? Response from the Taliban: "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: That's cool, mayn"?
On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
They hate us because we are over there. If we weren't over there they would not be coming over here to harm us.
Are over there, have been over there for years, have been responsible for swindles and betrayals that have dogged many peoples there for decades. The States has economic relations with these countries it needs to sustain (which an Arab Spring, as a concept, would ameliorate, because it means overthrowing despots and bringing a younger, better educated generation into the political sphere), but moreover, I repeat, you can't literally believe that just leaving the Middle East, pulling back all support for Israel, etc. will dissolve Al-Qaeda. Those who regard the States with contempt still have more power, while a more receptive younger generation needs support to take control.
There is no immediate cure (not even the good news from Libya can clear up the issue), but it certainly isn't isolationism.
On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
Then their leaders simply blame our involvement for their problems and then comes resentment and hatred. If we don't support them enough then any problems they face will be because we didn't do enough and we abandoned them. They will say we used them for our purposes and then forgot about them. (sounds familiar right?) If we do too much then they will say we are an empire and we just want their oil. Groups who don't have power but want it will take every issue they have with the regime in power and accuse them of being corrupt and accuse the United States of supporting a corrupt regime because it suits our own selfish needs. (Sounds familiar right?)
Yes, it sounds familiar: it sounds like everyone who doesn't know the first fucking thing about the Middle East.
Do you literally believe this is what goes on from Pakistan to Sudan, Turkey to Yemen?
On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
We can build good will by staying out of their business and being peaceful and diplomatic with whoever happens to be in charge while not trying to control them.
Oh, okay, you've convinced me. You're on some beautiful mind shit. Send that shit here.
|
On August 31 2011 03:36 macil222 wrote:
Now you can ask why did republicans support Bush if he was an abberation? It is a good question. It comes down to what we've been talking about. The corrupting nature of power and politics obviously overrides any loyalty to political philosophy.
You need look no further than the alternatives to see why Republicans/conservatives embraced Bush. In 2000, the alternatives were McCain and Gore. In 2004, the alternative was Kerry. Bush, despite all of his flaws, was still the most ideologically acceptable choice available.
|
@ jon arbuckle
The Iranian Revolution back then had many faces and it's not true to say that it only had religious fundamentalist positions from the start. Khomenei took power after internal struggles. It was a peoples revolution like you see now. There were also many liberal positions within the revolution.
|
I think this graph sort of speaks for itself. Republicans like a country filled with violent crime, that way, they can justify having the death penalty around. Everything makes SO MUCH more sense now, with how their positions tie in together.
I previously stated in this thread that being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty was a hypocritical position, and implied therefore that Republicans were hypocrites for espousing this view. I stand corrected, I was gravely wrong. I apologize.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8MEsX.png)
|
On August 31 2011 04:14 BlackFlag wrote:
@ jon arbuckle
The Iranian Revolution back then had many faces and it's not true to say that it only had religious fundamentalist positions from the start. Khomenei took power after internal struggles. It was a peoples revolution like you see now. There were also many liberal positions within the revolution.
I know that there was a wide variety of ideological, philosophic, political, etc. positions that participated in the revolution - this was the root of Foucault's optimism for the whole project - but they all had to rally behind Khomeini, who maintained unity on anti-Shah grounds and then swindled anyone who wasn't explicitly pro-Ayatollah. He was the face of the Iranian Revolution in a way that nobody or nothing has represented the revolutions we've seen in 2011.
|
On August 31 2011 03:56 jon arbuckle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
So now we bomb countries that pose no threat to us and call it "smart humanitarian policy". Western meddling produced many of the problems that have dogged the Middle East since the end of the first World War, and continued involvement from the United States (chiefly) has only exacerbated these issues. Fallout from the Nixon administration's Middle Eastern policy lingers into the present, Qaddafi included. The United States is tied whether they want to be or aren't, and so the best alternative is to back the right people. In Libya, you have an uprising against a corrupt, tyrannical government that is not taking the same theocratic tone that the Iranian Revolution did. Therefore, Obama wisely backed the rebels: the problems in Libya now are larger than the States, but once tertiary concerns like the United States become the items for debate, Libya will be better disposed to their Western allies, and Libya are a country in a region where America needs trustworthy allies. It is absolutely ludicrous that you can see this issue as one-dimensionally as you do. Do you literally think the States can issue a statement saying, "sorry, bros, we ain't about that no mo" and all discontent will cease? Response from the Taliban: "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: That's cool, mayn"? Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
They hate us because we are over there. If we weren't over there they would not be coming over here to harm us. Are over there, have been over there for years, have been responsible for swindles and betrayals that have dogged many peoples there for decades. The States has economic relations with these countries it needs to sustain (which an Arab Spring, as a concept, would ameliorate, because it means overthrowing despots and bringing a younger, better educated generation into the political sphere), but moreover, I repeat, you can't literally believe that just leaving the Middle East, pulling back all support for Israel, etc. will dissolve Al-Qaeda. Those who regard the States with contempt still have more power, while a more receptive younger generation needs support to take control. There is no immediate cure (not even the good news from Libya can clear up the issue), but it certainly isn't isolationism. Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
Then their leaders simply blame our involvement for their problems and then comes resentment and hatred. If we don't support them enough then any problems they face will be because we didn't do enough and we abandoned them. They will say we used them for our purposes and then forgot about them. (sounds familiar right?) If we do too much then they will say we are an empire and we just want their oil. Groups who don't have power but want it will take every issue they have with the regime in power and accuse them of being corrupt and accuse the United States of supporting a corrupt regime because it suits our own selfish needs. (Sounds familiar right?) Yes, it sounds familiar: it sounds like everyone who doesn't know the first fucking thing about the Middle East. Do you literally believe this is what goes on from Pakistan to Sudan, Turkey to Yemen? Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
We can build good will by staying out of their business and being peaceful and diplomatic with whoever happens to be in charge while not trying to control them. Oh, okay, you've convinced me. You're on some beautiful mind shit. Send that shit here.
It is not so much shit as wishful thinking. You can't change the past and the US has to pay the penalty for such a meddlesome foreign policy. Which is exactly why Obama's approach is the best one. If you have take a position, choose it wisely. Support those that can bring the change that benefits you, with as little actual risk as possible.
My reading of this whole thing, is that the biggest gripe that the arab nations have is the US support for Israel which in seen to be unfair. That position will never change and so talk about closing military bases is a piss in the ocean. A more even-keel approach to the palestine problem would certainly help the US image but given the political power of the jewish lobby in the US, will never happen.
With this in mind it absolutely critical that Obama build as much goodwill as possible. As I mentioned previously, you cannot just disengage and not expect any negative consequences.
|
http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/new-texas-traffic-laws-scheduled-to-hit-the-road-in-september-231471.php
In fact, a bill that was also set to take effect in September would have banned text messaging while driving for all Texans. While the anti-texting bill passed in both houses of the state legislature, it was killed by Governor Rick Perry's veto on June 17.
Safe driving, of course, is intolerable. Given how many times drivers dicking around with their phones around here have tried to kill me, I wouldn't mind having this law in place. Call it what you will, most people can't manage driving and texting at the same time.
It's also one of those things that can endanger children, since people may have their eyes off the road and both hands on their full qwerty keyboard...
|
On August 31 2011 03:56 jon arbuckle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
So now we bomb countries that pose no threat to us and call it "smart humanitarian policy". Western meddling produced many of the problems that have dogged the Middle East since the end of the first World War, and continued involvement from the United States (chiefly) has only exacerbated these issues. Fallout from the Nixon administration's Middle Eastern policy lingers into the present, Qaddafi included. The United States is tied whether they want to be or aren't, and so the best alternative is to back the right people. In Libya, you have an uprising against a corrupt, tyrannical government that is not taking the same theocratic tone that the Iranian Revolution did. Therefore, Obama wisely backed the rebels: the problems in Libya now are larger than the States, but once tertiary concerns like the United States become the items for debate, Libya will be better disposed to their Western allies, and Libya are a country in a region where America needs trustworthy allies. It is absolutely ludicrous that you can see this issue as one-dimensionally as you do. Do you literally think the States can issue a statement saying, "sorry, bros, we ain't about that no mo" and all discontent will cease? Response from the Taliban: "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: That's cool, mayn"? Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
They hate us because we are over there. If we weren't over there they would not be coming over here to harm us. Are over there, have been over there for years, have been responsible for swindles and betrayals that have dogged many peoples there for decades. The States has economic relations with these countries it needs to sustain (which an Arab Spring, as a concept, would ameliorate, because it means overthrowing despots and bringing a younger, better educated generation into the political sphere), but moreover, I repeat, you can't literally believe that just leaving the Middle East, pulling back all support for Israel, etc. will dissolve Al-Qaeda. Those who regard the States with contempt still have more power, while a more receptive younger generation needs support to take control. There is no immediate cure (not even the good news from Libya can clear up the issue), but it certainly isn't isolationism. Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
Then their leaders simply blame our involvement for their problems and then comes resentment and hatred. If we don't support them enough then any problems they face will be because we didn't do enough and we abandoned them. They will say we used them for our purposes and then forgot about them. (sounds familiar right?) If we do too much then they will say we are an empire and we just want their oil. Groups who don't have power but want it will take every issue they have with the regime in power and accuse them of being corrupt and accuse the United States of supporting a corrupt regime because it suits our own selfish needs. (Sounds familiar right?) Yes, it sounds familiar: it sounds like everyone who doesn't know the first fucking thing about the Middle East. Do you literally believe this is what goes on from Pakistan to Sudan, Turkey to Yemen? Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:10 macil222 wrote:
We can build good will by staying out of their business and being peaceful and diplomatic with whoever happens to be in charge while not trying to control them. Oh, okay, you've convinced me. You're on some beautiful mind shit. Send that shit here.
It is absolutely ludicrous that you can see this issue as one-dimensionally as you do. Do you literally think the States can issue a statement saying, "sorry, bros, we ain't about that no mo" and all discontent will cease? Response from the Taliban: "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: That's cool, mayn"?
No we leave and say do what you want. Like us or not thats fine, and oh yeah btw if you either attack us or support terrorists who do then we will nuke your major cities. If not nuke then we bomb the shit out of their infrastructure.
The suicide bombers aren't scared to die because they got brain washed with their religious crap but the leaders don't give a damn about Islam or anything else except for power. They will not cause problems when the alternative is annihilation.
Now at first that probably sounds harsh extreme but in practice it would lead to less war, less death and less destruction. Imagine if that was our standard before going to war in Iraq? They wouldn't have lied out of their asses to start the war because then they would have been forced to annihilate Iraq. Bush wanted to ride in and be the hero who is spreading democracy and freeing the middle east so he made up the bull shit about WMDs to use national defense as an excuse to go in. The guy was chasing his potential legacy. if the options were either "leave them alone" or "kill them" then we would have left them alone.
But at least with Bush we still had the pretense of national defense before going to war. They lied about it sure, but at least the acknowledged the need for our security to be threatened as a justification. Clinton with Kosovo and Obama with Libya, they don't even give a shit.
And I see you are apparently from Canada? How convenient for you. It's too bad Canadians and Europeans can't invest in their military like we do, so we can cut ours. Then when you guys go broke and can't afford your nice social programs anymore you can come back and talk about how important it is to spends trillions on a foreign policy built around intervening in the squabbling that goes on in third world slums.
|
Democrats are sexist. They make laws that take away mans rights. An only give financial assistance to women
|
On August 31 2011 03:22 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 03:15 macil222 wrote:
I think the biggest problem with foreign policy in the world in general is that everything is either left or right, up or down, white or black, right or wrong. The position of neutrality is always ignored. Why must we take a side and pick winners and losers in every conflict when it would serve our own interests to remain neutral?
I'm not talking about being an isolationist or a pacifist. We can have the strongest military in the world with nuclear submarines, missile defense systems and carriers. We can maintain alliances for mutual defense with our friends. We can engage in diplomacy with everyone.
Yet if you don't pick a side in some far off conflict that doesn't concern us then you get called an "isolationist". That's how the republican rhetoric tend to view the world. And they've now dragged everyone else down to their level by claiming everyone that doesn't follow the combined agenda/ideology of: 1) Christian with 'family values' 2) Anti-gay 3) Anti-abortion 4) Pro-war (GO USA!) 5) Laissez-faire Free market 6) No government involvement in anything (except when people aren't doing what we want them to - see #1, #2 and #3 above) (did I miss anything?) ... is a dirty liberal. If you literally don't follow that strict agenda, you're classified as an outsider and it scares me how they've managed to gather and cultivate such a large following with their inflammatory rhetoric. I might be all for reduced spending and reduced government involvement, but if that comes tacked on with Creationism in schools and an agenda of suppressing anything deemed 'unchristian' in this country, they can get GTFO as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Not sure about 4... historically they always try to have the country stay out of wars.
|
On August 31 2011 09:49 JingleHell wrote:http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/new-texas-traffic-laws-scheduled-to-hit-the-road-in-september-231471.phpShow nested quote +In fact, a bill that was also set to take effect in September would have banned text messaging while driving for all Texans. While the anti-texting bill passed in both houses of the state legislature, it was killed by Governor Rick Perry's veto on June 17. Safe driving, of course, is intolerable. Given how many times drivers dicking around with their phones around here have tried to kill me, I wouldn't mind having this law in place. Call it what you will, most people can't manage driving and texting at the same time. It's also one of those things that can endanger children, since people may have their eyes off the road and both hands on their full qwerty keyboard...
To be fair, his reasoning for it is sound:
http://www.kltv.com/story/14944611/texting-and-driving-gov-rick-perry-vetoed-bill
"Governor Perry said the bill was an overreach and it was a government effort to micro manage the behavior of adults.
Governor Perry said in his veto statement that he recommends additional education on the issue of texting and driving in driving safety and driver's education courses, public ads, and announcements."
You won't get rid of texting and driving just from a state law, and it's not exactly easy to pick up who's texting and who isn't. The "Insert Children's Name" laws aren't always the best reaction to a tragedy, and I think he made the right call on this one.
I just wish he would stop acting like such a bigot.
On August 31 2011 12:56 nukeazerg wrote:
Democrats are sexist. They make laws that take away mans rights. An only give financial assistance to women
Go back to Stormfront.
|
On August 31 2011 13:38 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 09:49 JingleHell wrote:http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/new-texas-traffic-laws-scheduled-to-hit-the-road-in-september-231471.phpIn fact, a bill that was also set to take effect in September would have banned text messaging while driving for all Texans. While the anti-texting bill passed in both houses of the state legislature, it was killed by Governor Rick Perry's veto on June 17. Safe driving, of course, is intolerable. Given how many times drivers dicking around with their phones around here have tried to kill me, I wouldn't mind having this law in place. Call it what you will, most people can't manage driving and texting at the same time. It's also one of those things that can endanger children, since people may have their eyes off the road and both hands on their full qwerty keyboard... To be fair, his reasoning for it is sound: http://www.kltv.com/story/14944611/texting-and-driving-gov-rick-perry-vetoed-bill"Governor Perry said the bill was an overreach and it was a government effort to micro manage the behavior of adults. Governor Perry said in his veto statement that he recommends additional education on the issue of texting and driving in driving safety and driver's education courses, public ads, and announcements." You won't get rid of texting and driving just from a state law, and it's not exactly easy to pick up who's texting and who isn't. The "Insert Children's Name" laws aren't always the best reaction to a tragedy, and I think he made the right call on this one. I just wish he would stop acting like such a bigot. Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 12:56 nukeazerg wrote:
Democrats are sexist. They make laws that take away mans rights. An only give financial assistance to women Go back to Stormfront.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd say some things need to be laws. If he's willing to let the ban on people under 18 using cell phones while driving pass, what's the difference? Don't say experience, not everyone has a license before 18. Don't say maturity or responsibility, those don't handily line up with chronological markers.
The laws we need are laws that protect people from other people. Driving and texting is dangerous, with the capacity to harm people besides the offender. That's the sort of laws we should have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
