Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Dec 6, 2012 - 6:16am
sirdroseph wrote:
Kurt, with as much dialogue as you have had with Richard and Schlabby I would have thought by now you would know that neither is a big fan of Obama and has probably posted as many critical post regarding him as you have. I really don't think that you are enlightening any of us by pointing your finger and saying I told you so to those that clearly do not and have never drank any kool aid in the first place. It is quite unbecoming and unproductive. As a matter of fact, I don't think that most here are learning anything new regarding Obama's foreign policy failings from what I have seen posted over the years. Even those that voted for him expressed dissatisfaction with his hard core foreign policy stances that seemed to be more in line with Neo cons. Without speaking for others, I would guess that most people that participate in these threads that voted for Obama, much like you were not voting for him but against the untenable Republicans just as you were voting against "the socialists monster" Obama.
Edit: And besides, just what exactly different would you have expected Romney to do? I think during the Jingoistic love fest of a the foreign policy "debate?" both candidates made it quite clear they would continue the same path of American Imperialism we have always been on, supporting whatever du jour faction will get us what we want at any given time.
I thought that they were fair remarks. Schlabby has presented uber disgust with Romney openly and repeatedly over the course of the election. He has only expressed mild objections to Obama. One could say fairly that I have acted in the opposite fashion. I will not speculate on why he voted for Obama and put words in his mouth. I will admit that my vote for Romney was a vote against Obama, but it was also a vote for Romney in as much as I did support many of his positions. I can't say that I support very many of Obama's.
I think that I can safely infer ( in a broadbrushed way ) that anyone who voted for Obama did so for two reasons. A) they supported Obama and his positions which are very well known and / or B) they feared what Romney might be / do if he became POTUS. There is a third possiblity that it was just a plain hatred of anything Republican that was a motivating factor.
Conversely, a vote for Romney can be construed as a vote against Obama's very well known policies, or a hope for something different with a new POTUS and / or a vote against anything Democrat in some cases as well.
The debates ? Well IMO the turning point was when Candy Crowley got up and injected herself and defended Obama on Benghazi. She was wrong to do it as well as wrong on the events she cited in her defense of Obama. Reading the lack of any real objections to Crowley's actions in the electorate and the rest of the MSM, Romney was DOA from that point on. The third debate could have centered on Benghazi, but it was already apparent that there was too much apathy to overcome and Romney would simply appear to be beating a dead horse. The apathy over Benghazi is still unbelievable. Romney was simply reduced to a me too status in a quest to appear to be presidential versus confrontational. It sealed the deal for Romney. Romney could have rightly gone off on Benghazi, but it would have fallen on deaf ears and done more harm than good at that point.
What would be different with Syria under Romney versus Obama ? We will never know. One thing is highly likely, there would be some reservations towards acting hastily because he would be newly elected. Obama on the other hand is already up to his neck and commited to a course of action already, despite any appearances otherwise. He has to be simply because he is already in charge and must have plans of action already in place. Beyond that, anything else about Syria regarding Romney is uber speculation.
Maybe I am wrong, but voting in a state where the outcome of the electoral votes is not in question, an opposing vote to the predicted winner can be interpreted as a endorsement of the person and their policies being voted for. That would be true for any candidate, be it one of the two main candidates or an unlikely 3rd P candidate. There is more than one issue to vote on the ballot. Simply not voting for an issue / candidate and voting on other issues where no write ins are available makes more sense to me than casting a vote for someone just to vote against someone else.
As for Richard, he just appears to be attacking anything American with his poly posts. With Beaker for example, we knew where he stood on American politics. He was for someone / something and made it clear. Richard just wants to be against everything and for nothing. My motivation is simply to get Richard to declare what he is for. I know that will never happen. Like his occupation says on his profile, Meme distributor. 'Nuff said.
Yep. your preference for POTUS is sleeping with the enemy.
Doing the same thing with his guy Morsi in Egypt, too.
Are you happy with the unrest in the Middle East and Northeastern Africa ?
Kurt, with as much dialogue as you have had with Richard and Schlabby I would have thought by now you would know that neither is a big fan of Obama and has probably posted as many critical post regarding him as you have. I really don't think that you are enlightening any of us by pointing your finger and saying I told you so to those that clearly do not and have never drank any kool aid in the first place. It is quite unbecoming and unproductive. As a matter of fact, I don't think that most here are learning anything new regarding Obama's foreign policy failings from what I have seen posted over the years. Even those that voted for him expressed dissatisfaction with his hard core foreign policy stances that seemed to be more in line with Neo cons. Without speaking for others, I would guess that most people that participate in these threads that voted for Obama, much like you were not voting for him but against the untenable Republicans just as you were voting against "the socialists monster" Obama.
Edit: And besides, just what exactly different would you have expected Romney to do? I think during the Jingoistic love fest of a the foreign policy "debate?" both candidates made it quite clear they would continue the same path of American Imperialism we have always been on, supporting whatever du jour faction will get us what we want at any given time.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Dec 5, 2012 - 6:40pm
oldslabsides wrote:
What exactly does the president plan to do if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against the rebels? Tactically, eliminating the weapons would be very similar to the largely unsuccessful campaign during the gulf war to eliminate Iraq's Scud missiles. Besides, once again we'd be playing World Cop in a situation that is none of our damn business.
What do you want the prez to do about Syria ?
Didn't he make his plans for Syria clear during the campaign ?
What exactly does the president plan to do if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against the rebels? Tactically, eliminating the weapons would be very similar to the largely unsuccessful campaign during the gulf war to eliminate Iraq's Scud missiles. Besides, once again we'd be playing World Cop in a situation that is none of our damn business.
How does a world power that practices non-aggression help the people of Syria that are being slaughtered by their own government? Sanctions don't seem to work. Do we arm them? Doesn't sound "non-aggression" to me. Boots on the ground are obviously out of the question? Do we just sit back and watch and hope for the best?
a couple of things
a non-aggression policy would prohibit the initiation of violence, but not the response
boots on the ground as a means of defense (likely a last resort) could be acceptable if there was an agreement between two people/parties
if you and i have an agreement to help defend our property in a case where someone is initiating violence aggression that's morally acceptable
in the case of another country the first thing(s) our representatives should do is bring it up in a major way (like 24/7 non-stop coverage and our president addressing this directly) to the rest of the world what's happening and present the best evidence that we have and demand an immediate cease fire
point out who is killing/arming who and demand immediate accountability
the big problem we have is that we're involved and are basically engaged in the same shameful behavior which means we have very little or no credibility when it come to this type of situation
arming one gang to replace another with their brand of force/violence will never get the results needed (exchanging one bad regime for another)
we really should stop killing innocent and peaceful people and violating their human rights, it would go a long way to help our credibility and would be a giant step in the right direction
obviously we've got the presence and the capability but the leadership is lacking (we should demand a change in foreign policy - it's difficult to negotiate with someone when you're actively trying to kill or threaten them)
non-aggression is a philosophy, it will take time to spread, but people have an affinity for it (voluntarism, peaceful negotiation, etc.)
currently the vast majority of individuals don't use force and violence to achieve moral and ethical goals on a personal level and we need to extend that into our public/social lives as well
How does a world power that practices non-aggression help the people of Syria that are being slaughtered by their own government? Sanctions don't seem to work. Do we arm them? Doesn't sound "non-aggression" to me. Boots on the ground are obviously out of the question? Do we just sit back and watch and hope for the best?
A country like the US that had arming the Taliban with Stinger missiles come back to bite us in the @$$ probably should keep out of the arms business. Like it or not, but unmanned drones and Hellfire missiles is the least objectionable option. Note that I'm including doing nothing on my list of options. Standing by and watching a massacre is as unacceptable as boots on the ground IMHO.
mzpro5
A cat can have kittens in the oven but that doesn't make them biscuits
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Aug 24, 2012 - 7:27am
buzz wrote:
How does a world power that practices non-aggression help the people of Syria that are being slaughtered by their own government? Sanctions don't seem to work. Do we arm them? Doesn't sound "non-aggression" to me. Boots on the ground are obviously out of the question? Do we just sit back and watch and hope for the best?
Unfortunately we do sit back and watch what happens. Revolution is messy.
We lost thousands of lives in our own. And it was only after we proved we could have a decent chance of beating the Brits we started to receive aid from other countries.
As horrific as it may be we cannot solve all the world's problems and this is one we should not get involved in at this time.
How does a world power that practices non-aggression help the people of Syria that are being slaughtered by their own government? Sanctions don't seem to work. Do we arm them? Doesn't sound "non-aggression" to me. Boots on the ground are obviously out of the question? Do we just sit back and watch and hope for the best?
Depends on who you ask and whether the individual supports the party of the sitting President and that goes for always, anytime forever and ever amen.
these are worth watching (and "The Real News" in general, and imho, should resonate with the vast majority of people here, check it out) YouTube channel & the website
How does a world power that practices non-aggression help the people of Syria that are being slaughtered by their own government? Sanctions don't seem to work. Do we arm them? Doesn't sound "non-aggression" to me. Boots on the ground are obviously out of the question? Do we just sit back and watch and hope for the best?
these are worth watching (and "The Real News" in general, and imho, should resonate with the vast majority of people here, check it out) YouTube channel & the website
Location: Condo in Gaza needs remodeling. Still, I Thank TFSM I saw the divot where the landmine was placed. Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Aug 7, 2012 - 1:37am
The good intentions as well as realpolitik, are writ large in the latest Administration statement on Syria.
Many of the problems in the Mideast (and other parts of the world), are the result of the west drawing and imposing boundaries creating "states" out of incompatible "nations". Iraq & Syria are poster children for this short sighted approach. Somalia too (really at least two nations). To deny a "state" to a very large "nation", and successful, segment of humanity—The Kurds—is to ignore the longer range, and perhaps unintended consequences that such political expediencies produce. The civil war in Syria, as that is what it is now,, will claim the lives of many combatants. But as usual in war, it is the civilians, just going about their lives and trying to live, who suffer most.
Honestly, I don't know... what I really find most interesting is that the data came from WikiLeaks, and the article is from TheKansas City Star... most of my information comes from sources in New York, California, etc... I don't find much international data from the middle of the USA...
Monkeysdad
Ceiling fans and coasters...distribute them equitably today.....
Location: Simi Valley, CA Gender:
Posted:
Aug 4, 2011 - 8:06pm
Huh.
I work in aerospace and I've been prohibited from doing anything business-wise with Syria, Iran, Iraq & No. Korea for over 20 years. How many more sanctions would've made a difference?
Talabani Opposes Military Action against Syria Admits Helplessness By Juan Cole
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said Tuesday before the United Nations: "I categorically refuse the use of Iraqi soil to launch a military strike against Syria or any other Arab country . . . "But at the end of the day my ability to confront the US military is limited and I cannot impose on them my will."
So let's get this straight. The president of Iraq elected six months after the US "turned over sovereignty" on June 28, 2004 is saying before the United Nations that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld decide whether his country can be used as a base to attack other countries, and he is unable to influence such decisions-- even though he categorically rejects any such action.
For all those "Bush's Iraq" boosters who laud the "democratic" elections of January 30 and the recent constitutional referendum, this clear admission that Iraq remains under American military occupation, and that its government is helpless before American decisions about the fate of Iraq, is a rather strong refutation. After all, no country is a "democracy" where the military calls the shots, overruling the civilian president-- how much less so if it is a foreign military! Talabani is saying that Iraq is more like Burma, Pakistan or the Sudan than it is like democracies such as India or Brazil.
Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari asked the UN to extend the mandate for coalition troops in Iraq for up to another year. But the Iraqi government wants the UN to review the resolution 8 months from now, and at any time that the Iraqi government requests a review. Jaafari also wants to reserve the right of the Iraqi government to ask foreign troops to leave before the end of 2006 if it so decides. That is, the Iraqi government wants US troops for the time being, it just doesn't want to be stuck with them. It is not a very gracious invitation; but then, see above.
Al-Hayat: The Iraqi Islamic Party complained Tuesday about the practice of the new Iraqi security forces, of taking women hostage in order to put pressure on their husbands that are suspected of being part of the guerrilla movement. The communique said that Iraqi security forces on Sunday evening invaded a home in the area of Latifiyah in search of its owner. "When they did not find hi, the group attempted to kidnap one of the women of the household. When she resisted, they fired at her and wounded her in the foot." The IIP called on the government to stop such practices.
There have been several incidents where US or Iraq troops have taken women hostage as a way of pressuring their male relatives, producing local protests-- some of which have been effective.
Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan - Visit his website www.juancole.com
