On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
Looks like Romney has drawn up the battle lines for the coming foreign policy debates. Here are some excerpts:
The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.
The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West. .... This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.
I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama. .... And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.
The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West. .... This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.
I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama. .... And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
I seriously cannot read this with a strait face. Do you actualy believe that the size of your navy keeps terrorists from bombing your embassy's? Do you believe forcing Nato to spend 2% of there budget during a depression will do you any favours? You will sooner see countries leaving that old and largely useless intitution rather then give in to the fear mongering of a Russian or Chinese invasion. Get your head strait. The time of actual country warfare has long since paste. Instead of having the largest and most useless military in the world maybe you should spend the money instead to find and stop terrorists rather then re-ignite the cold war.
The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.
The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West. .... This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.
I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama. .... And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
this is not a serious policy framing presentation. it's well designed to appeal to voters' instincts with convenient narrative. the desire to manipulate is clear as day.
waving the bloody shirt kind of manipulation based on a bureaucratic mangling.
On October 09 2012 01:22 Souma wrote: The only thing I'm worried about for Obama in the foreign policy debate is how he's going to get around the whole, 'Libya was spontaneous' thing.
Here's a more critical take on Romney's foreign policy and how at this moment, its identity is up in the air.
But beyond his critique of Mr. Obama as failing to project American strength abroad, Mr. Romney has yet to fill in many of the details of how he would conduct policy toward the rest of the world, or to resolve deep ideological rifts within the Republican Party and his own foreign policy team. It is a disparate and politely fractious team of advisers that includes warring tribes of neoconservatives, traditional strong-defense conservatives and a band of self-described “realists” who believe there are limits to the degree the United States can impose its will.
Each group is vying to shape Mr. Romney’s views, usually through policy papers that many of the advisers wonder if he is reading. Indeed, in a campaign that has been so intensely focused on economic issues, some of these advisers, in interviews over the past two weeks in which most insisted on anonymity, say they have engaged with him so little on issues of national security that they are uncertain what camp he would fall into, and are uncertain themselves about how he would govern.
“Would he take the lead in bombing Iran if the mullahs were getting too close to a bomb, or just back up the Israelis?” one of his senior advisers asked last week. “Would he push for peace with the Palestinians, or just live with the status quo? He’s left himself a lot of wiggle room.”
In his remarks, Mr. Romney addressed the Palestinian issue, saying, “I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.” And he faulted Mr. Obama for failing to deliver on that front.
But while the theme Mr. Romney hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by “weakness” and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran’s nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama’s approach.
On October 09 2012 01:22 Souma wrote: The only thing I'm worried about for Obama in the foreign policy debate is how he's going to get around the whole, 'Libya was spontaneous' thing.
Information changes.
That excuse isn't going to work for Obama. There clearly was conclusive intel within 24 hours that it wasn't "spontaneous," yet Obama's administration peddled that lie for over a week. He's going to eat shit on that one at the foreign policy debate.
Here's my take on Romney's Middle East foreign policy. I think his instincts are correct, but I'm not sure that he'll do what he is saying if elected because of things that he simply cannot know yet. The basic thrust of Romney's argument is that Obama's Mid East policy has failed because the Obama administration has left a power vacuum in the Mid East by failing to assert US influence as these various regimes have fallen during the Arab Spring. Instead, Romney argues, the US should be actively working with and supporting this dissident groups such that they are friendly to the US.
This all sounds nice in theory, but it may not work in practice. It may be that there is nothing that the US can do to prevent anti-American groups from taking control of these Mid East countries short of full-scale military intervention. Romney is not going to be privy to the intelligence information that would so inform him until after he is elected president.
I don't think anyone can dispute that the Obama administration has been very hands off with regards to Mid East policy. Basically, what I am saying is that I'm not sure that it's the wrong move.
On October 09 2012 03:12 xDaunt wrote: Here's my take on Romney's Middle East foreign policy. I think his instincts are correct, but I'm not sure that he'll do what he is saying if elected because of things that he simply cannot know yet. The basic thrust of Romney's argument is that Obama's Mid East policy has failed because the Obama administration has left a power vacuum in the Mid East by failing to assert US influence as these various regimes have fallen during the Arab Spring. Instead, Romney argues, the US should be actively working with and supporting this dissident groups such that they are friendly to the US.
This all sounds nice in theory, but it may not work in practice. It may be that there is nothing that the US can do to prevent anti-American groups from taking control of these Mid East countries short of full-scale military intervention. Romney is not going to be privy to the intelligence information that would so inform him until after he is elected president.
I don't think anyone can dispute that the Obama administration has been very hands off with regards to Mid East policy. Basically, what I am saying is that I'm not sure that it's the wrong move.
Dear God xDaunt, how dare you utter something so.....so......bipartisan. I agree, only I think Obama flexed more policy muscle with how he handled the fall of Gaddafi than you'd want to admit.
Considering what's been happening in Libya, I'd say that was a massive victory for U.S. foreign policy. For once, we are the good guys. For once, the populace is driving out armed militants/terrorist organizations. And for once, the Libyan people are fighting for better representation of their country, as exemplified by the group that forced the new PM to reconsider his cabinet choices. If we keep close ties with Libya and make sure they receive the aid they need to make a smooth transition, bar any externalities, it will be a huge step in the right direction.
Best part is we did not have to commit tens of thousands of troops to the endeavor.
On October 09 2012 03:12 xDaunt wrote: Here's my take on Romney's Middle East foreign policy. I think his instincts are correct, but I'm not sure that he'll do what he is saying if elected because of things that he simply cannot know yet. The basic thrust of Romney's argument is that Obama's Mid East policy has failed because the Obama administration has left a power vacuum in the Mid East by failing to assert US influence as these various regimes have fallen during the Arab Spring. Instead, Romney argues, the US should be actively working with and supporting this dissident groups such that they are friendly to the US.
This all sounds nice in theory, but it may not work in practice. It may be that there is nothing that the US can do to prevent anti-American groups from taking control of these Mid East countries short of full-scale military intervention. Romney is not going to be privy to the intelligence information that would so inform him until after he is elected president.
I don't think anyone can dispute that the Obama administration has been very hands off with regards to Mid East policy. Basically, what I am saying is that I'm not sure that it's the wrong move.
Dear God xDaunt, how dare you utter something so.....so......bipartisan. I agree, only I think Obama flexed more policy muscle with how he handled the fall of Gaddafi than you'd want to admit.
Nobody wants to admit it, but he pulled an all out Andrew Jackson on that one.
On October 09 2012 03:12 xDaunt wrote: Here's my take on Romney's Middle East foreign policy. I think his instincts are correct, but I'm not sure that he'll do what he is saying if elected because of things that he simply cannot know yet. The basic thrust of Romney's argument is that Obama's Mid East policy has failed because the Obama administration has left a power vacuum in the Mid East by failing to assert US influence as these various regimes have fallen during the Arab Spring. Instead, Romney argues, the US should be actively working with and supporting this dissident groups such that they are friendly to the US.
This all sounds nice in theory, but it may not work in practice. It may be that there is nothing that the US can do to prevent anti-American groups from taking control of these Mid East countries short of full-scale military intervention. Romney is not going to be privy to the intelligence information that would so inform him until after he is elected president.
I don't think anyone can dispute that the Obama administration has been very hands off with regards to Mid East policy. Basically, what I am saying is that I'm not sure that it's the wrong move.
Dear God xDaunt, how dare you utter something so.....so......bipartisan. I agree, only I think Obama flexed more policy muscle with how he handled the fall of Gaddafi than you'd want to admit.
Nobody wants to admit it, but he pulled an all out Andrew Jackson on that one.
What does it mean to "pull an Andrew Jackson" in this case?
On October 09 2012 03:24 Souma wrote: Considering what's been happening in Libya, I'd say that was a massive victory for U.S. foreign policy. For once, we are the good guys. For once, the populace is driving out armed militants/terrorist organizations. And for once, the Libyan people are fighting for better representation of their country, as exemplified by the group that forced the new PM to reconsider his cabinet choices. If we keep close ties with Libya and make sure they receive the aid they need to make a smooth transition, bar any externalities, it will be a huge step in the right direction.
Best part is we did not have to commit tens of thousands of troops to the endeavor.
It is way too early to be popping any champagne for our accomplishments in Libya. The country is basically in a state of anarchy, with many factions -- including many radical Muslim factions -- competing for power. There is no guarantee that Libya will turn out well for us.
On October 09 2012 03:24 Souma wrote: Considering what's been happening in Libya, I'd say that was a massive victory for U.S. foreign policy. For once, we are the good guys. For once, the populace is driving out armed militants/terrorist organizations. And for once, the Libyan people are fighting for better representation of their country, as exemplified by the group that forced the new PM to reconsider his cabinet choices. If we keep close ties with Libya and make sure they receive the aid they need to make a smooth transition, bar any externalities, it will be a huge step in the right direction.
Best part is we did not have to commit tens of thousands of troops to the endeavor.
It is way too early to be popping any champagne for our accomplishments in Libya. The country is basically in a state of anarchy, with many factions -- including many radical Muslim factions -- competing for power. There is no guarantee that Libya will turn out well for us.
Regardless of what may or may not happen the events that have transpired thus far are pointing only to good signs, much more than we can say for Iraq/Afghanistan. Actually, it seems like their temporarily-elected PM was sacked today for failure to create a representative cabinet (his first cabinet was full of Muslim Brotherhood members/unknowns/incompetents/etc.). The Libyans are obviously serious about this.
On October 09 2012 03:12 xDaunt wrote: Here's my take on Romney's Middle East foreign policy. I think his instincts are correct, but I'm not sure that he'll do what he is saying if elected because of things that he simply cannot know yet. The basic thrust of Romney's argument is that Obama's Mid East policy has failed because the Obama administration has left a power vacuum in the Mid East by failing to assert US influence as these various regimes have fallen during the Arab Spring. Instead, Romney argues, the US should be actively working with and supporting this dissident groups such that they are friendly to the US.
This all sounds nice in theory, but it may not work in practice. It may be that there is nothing that the US can do to prevent anti-American groups from taking control of these Mid East countries short of full-scale military intervention. Romney is not going to be privy to the intelligence information that would so inform him until after he is elected president.
I don't think anyone can dispute that the Obama administration has been very hands off with regards to Mid East policy. Basically, what I am saying is that I'm not sure that it's the wrong move.
Dear God xDaunt, how dare you utter something so.....so......bipartisan. I agree, only I think Obama flexed more policy muscle with how he handled the fall of Gaddafi than you'd want to admit.
Nobody wants to admit it, but he pulled an all out Andrew Jackson on that one.
What does it mean to "pull an Andrew Jackson" in this case?
He acted without any legal authorization because he controlled the military, and Congress doesn't have its own army to stop him. In this case I'm not sure Congress really cared that he waged illegal war since they surely would have simply authorized the continuation of force if Obama were Republican or maybe even a white Democrat. Notice how nobody from either side of the aisle brings it up.
EPT![[image loading]](http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/files/2012/10/mike100712.jpg)
