Export thread
Rand Paul presidential hopeful and shameless plagiarist?
#1
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
I don't know if any of you have been following the small story that keeps on getting worse and worse for Presidential hopeful and all around terrible person Rand Paul where it began with him being caught quoting directly from Wikipedia about the plot to the movie Gattaca and now has shown that he took whole passages from heritage foundation reports and put them directly into his book.
Rand Paul as his defense has taken a fairly odd tack laughing that he has never claimed that he wrote Gattaca so obviously he isn't a plagiarist and that he wishes he could challege all the "haters" to a duel.
Is this a big deal now adays? When a guy who is considered to be a rising star in the GOP and a definite contender in the next GOP presidential primary season can lift whole sections of other peoples words and pass them off as the result of his own knowledge on the situation. Should this be a bigger story?
New York Times article on it
Buzzfeed article on some of the plagiarism
Racheal Maddow's original video on the palgiarism
Rand Paul as his defense has taken a fairly odd tack laughing that he has never claimed that he wrote Gattaca so obviously he isn't a plagiarist and that he wishes he could challege all the "haters" to a duel.
Is this a big deal now adays? When a guy who is considered to be a rising star in the GOP and a definite contender in the next GOP presidential primary season can lift whole sections of other peoples words and pass them off as the result of his own knowledge on the situation. Should this be a bigger story?
New York Times article on it
Buzzfeed article on some of the plagiarism
Racheal Maddow's original video on the palgiarism
#2
Tress
Tress
Given all the other things to criticize Rand Paul for, this just doesn't rank high enough on my list.
#3
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Mostly he has a lazy staff of writers...
His base won't care.
His base won't care.
#5
D
Dubyamn
The Obama one seems like a huge stretch when you watch the video.
D
Dubyamn
You're right I should have mentioned the fact that Biden's plagiarism scandal destroyed his presidential bid and probably kept him from mounting a presidential bid again.
The Obama one seems like a huge stretch when you watch the video.
#6
GasBandit
GasBandit
So Paul is still in the running for Veep then? Cruz/Paul 2016?You're right I should have mentioned the fact that Biden's plagiarism scandal destroyed his presidential bid and probably kept him from mounting a presidential bid again.
#7
Dave
Dave
It's very difficult to footnote speeches. Personally, I think if someone uses someone else's words in a speech it's not as big of a deal, Rand Paul included. I mean, he was explaining something and used words directly from Wikipedia. *yawn* So what? As long as he wasn't doing it for money (as in a fee for speaking, not a campaign speech) or saying that he wrote the words, I don't see the big issue.
Sometimes others say things better than I could myself, and if I got the information from Wikipedia it would be very difficult to attribute.
Sometimes others say things better than I could myself, and if I got the information from Wikipedia it would be very difficult to attribute.
#8
Covar
Covar
Stop being reasonable, everyone knows you can't quote from wikipedia a summary of another work without including attribution to wikipedia, and the citation or citation needed of each sentence of the wikipedia article itself.It's very difficult to footnote speeches. Personally, I think if someone uses someone else's words in a speech it's not as big of a deal, Rand Paul included. I mean, he was explaining something and used words directly from Wikipedia. *yawn* So what? As long as he wasn't doing it for money (as in a fee for speaking, not a campaign speech) or saying that he wrote the words, I don't see the big issue.
Sometimes others say things better than I could myself, and if I got the information from Wikipedia it would be very difficult to attribute.
#9
Dave
Dave
Yeah this is a case of the left acting like alarmist morons. Looks like the pendulum is swinging back.
#10
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Obligatory
#11
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Basically a guaranteed victory for Democrats again?So Paul is still in the running for Veep then? Cruz/Paul 2016?
#12
D
Dubyamn
And even beyond that did you just pass over the fact that the book he wrote and sold took unattributed passages from Heritage foundation reports and passed them off as Rand Paul's own words?
I mean maybe it's my background but from grade school on it has been instilled in me that Plagiarism is every bit as bad as lying, cheating and stealing. My class president was kicked out for Plagiarism a good friend in college was expelled for plagiarism and I've always known that in my job any plagiarism is enough to be fired pretty much on the spot. I mean if nobody thinks that a possible presidential candidate plagiarizing and refusing to admit it isn't a problem then I guess I can accept that. But it literally shocks me.
D
Dubyamn
Not really. You can say "According to wikipedia" or even "The movie blurb says" and you've just effectively and honestly "footnoted" your speech.It's very difficult to footnote speeches. Personally, I think if someone uses someone else's words in a speech it's not as big of a deal, Rand Paul included. I mean, he was explaining something and used words directly from Wikipedia. *yawn* So what? As long as he wasn't doing it for money (as in a fee for speaking, not a campaign speech) or saying that he wrote the words, I don't see the big issue.
And even beyond that did you just pass over the fact that the book he wrote and sold took unattributed passages from Heritage foundation reports and passed them off as Rand Paul's own words?
Not really. You would just say "I read on Wikipedia" and you're done. If somebody explains something better than you then you have to acknowledge that they did in fact say it and that you didn't come up with it on your own. I mean hell I always feel vaguely embarassed when I quote somebody in everyday conversation and people think I came up with it.Sometimes others say things better than I could myself, and if I got the information from Wikipedia it would be very difficult to attribute.
I mean maybe it's my background but from grade school on it has been instilled in me that Plagiarism is every bit as bad as lying, cheating and stealing. My class president was kicked out for Plagiarism a good friend in college was expelled for plagiarism and I've always known that in my job any plagiarism is enough to be fired pretty much on the spot. I mean if nobody thinks that a possible presidential candidate plagiarizing and refusing to admit it isn't a problem then I guess I can accept that. But it literally shocks me.
#13
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Next time he just needs his staff writer to change the Wikipedia entry...
#14
Dave
Dave
I didn't know about the book and that's bad. But speeches? I could hardly care less. I know that's a double standard of a kind, but there it is.
#15
GasBandit
GasBandit
It doesn't matter who the republicans put up in 2016, the media is going to paint them as scary ultraconservative monsters under the bed, so they might as well act the part.Basically a guaranteed victory for Democrats again?
#16
Dave
Dave
Because they HAVE BEEN!It doesn't matter who the republicans put up in 2016, the media is going to paint them as scary ultraconservative monsters under the bed, so they might as well act the part.
#17
GasBandit
You wouldn't know conservatism if it snuck up and bit you on the ass.
GasBandit
Yeah, McCain was totally the iron uncompromising will of the conservative movement.Because they HAVE BEEN!
You wouldn't know conservatism if it snuck up and bit you on the ass.
#18
Dave
Dave
You're right. I'm that dumb.Yeah, McCain was totally the iron uncompromising will of the conservative movement.
You wouldn't know conservatism if it snuck up and bit you on the ass.
#19
GasBandit
GasBandit
I try not to go there, but you make it difficult sometimes.You're right. I'm that dumb.
#20
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
He wasn't, up until election time came, when he suddenly pretended to be.Yeah, McCain was totally the iron uncompromising will of the conservative movement.
You wouldn't know conservatism if it snuck up and bit you on the ass.
#21
Fun Size
Fun Size
In his defense, it's because conservatism insists on wearing that silly leather mask during all ass-biting activities.You wouldn't know conservatism if it snuck up and bit you on the ass.
#22
Tress
Tress
Oh, the king of whining about ad hom attacks leveling one against Dave? How perfect. Remember this next time you dismiss someone else's comments for doing the exact same thing.GasBandit said:You wouldn't know conservatism if it snuck up and bit you on the ass.
#23
Dave
Dave
John McCain wasn't the crazy idiot on that ticket, as well you know. But he was a different person before he got the nomination, after he'd gotten it, and after he'd lost the campaign. Before and after the campaign, McCain was not afraid to be his own man and talk against the hardline right of the party. But during the campaign, he toed the party line strictly and without argument.
So you can use him as the only one that might seem palatable to the majority of the country, but even he went WAY right when he felt he had to to kowtow to his idiot base of rednecks and illiterate racists.
See? I can be needlessly insulting, too!
So you can use him as the only one that might seem palatable to the majority of the country, but even he went WAY right when he felt he had to to kowtow to his idiot base of rednecks and illiterate racists.
See? I can be needlessly insulting, too!
#24
GasBandit
Yes, McCain pretended to move to the right, but he didn't fool anybody. That's why he pulled Palin out of Alaska to be his running mate, because absolutely nobody was enthused about his ticket because he was, and is, practically as much Democrat as Republican. But the media, oh how they vilified. Oh how they slandered. Oh how they kicked their once-and-future favorite Republican to the curb and painted him as a right wing fascist even though they knew better themselves.
And even Romney wasn't all that conservative. He was, after all, the grandfather of Obamacare. He was just rich, which is something socialists equate with conservative automatically, despite that wealth just as common on any side of whichever aisle.
The point is, Republicans will continue to be demonized as baby-eating monsters no matter who their nominee is. They should just go ahead and nominate whoever scares the media the worst - then at least our continual, steady descent into ruin will have entertaining prime time TV, since it's already a foregone conclusion that we're locked on the tracks toward forced Libertarianism via bankruptcy.
GasBandit
To be fair, I also used to be the king of ad hom. But that was a long time ago.Oh, the king of whining about ad hom attacks leveling one against Dave? How perfect. Remember this next time you dismiss someone else's comments for doing the exact same thing.
Oh I haven't even BEGUN to get needlessly insulting. You know I'd be just itching for that kind of thread, don't you?John McCain wasn't the crazy idiot on that ticket, as well you know. But he was a different person before he got the nomination, after he'd gotten it, and after he'd lost the campaign. Before and after the campaign, McCain was not afraid to be his own man and talk against the hardline right of the party. But during the campaign, he toed the party line strictly and without argument.
So you can use him as the only one that might seem palatable to the majority of the country, but even he went WAY right when he felt he had to to kowtow to his idiot base of rednecks and illiterate racists.
See? I can be needlessly insulting, too!
Yes, McCain pretended to move to the right, but he didn't fool anybody. That's why he pulled Palin out of Alaska to be his running mate, because absolutely nobody was enthused about his ticket because he was, and is, practically as much Democrat as Republican. But the media, oh how they vilified. Oh how they slandered. Oh how they kicked their once-and-future favorite Republican to the curb and painted him as a right wing fascist even though they knew better themselves.
And even Romney wasn't all that conservative. He was, after all, the grandfather of Obamacare. He was just rich, which is something socialists equate with conservative automatically, despite that wealth just as common on any side of whichever aisle.
The point is, Republicans will continue to be demonized as baby-eating monsters no matter who their nominee is. They should just go ahead and nominate whoever scares the media the worst - then at least our continual, steady descent into ruin will have entertaining prime time TV, since it's already a foregone conclusion that we're locked on the tracks toward forced Libertarianism via bankruptcy.
#25
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
No... we equate being rich with being out of touch with the daily reality of a majority of the population. He pretty much proved that point with his 47% percent comment that basically cost him the election. People don't hate people for being rich... it's just that rich people tend to be assholes about everything because they can get away with it.And even Romney wasn't all that conservative. He was, after all, the grandfather of Obamacare. He was just rich, which is something socialists equate with conservative automatically, despite that wealth just as common on any side of whichever aisle.
#26
GasBandit
GasBandit
"Rich Republicans" and "Republicans only care about the rich" are such common invective that they're practically trite. By comparison, hardly anyone grouses about those "damn rich Democrats," despite that there's just as many of them.No... we equate being rich with being out of touch with the daily reality of a majority of the population. He pretty much proved that point with his 47% percent comment that basically cost him the election. People don't hate people for being rich... it's just that rich people tend to be assholes about everything because they can get away with it.
#27
Covar
Covar
You know 47% of the country was not going to vote for him regardless and he shouldn't have wasted time and money campaigning to them. It's amazing how that comment was made to sound like the nastiest, most disgusting comment ever uttered from the mouth of a political candidate. Then again most the outrage was from the very 47% percent of people who would never even consider voting for him (although people love to tell themselves and others that they consider all cannidates) so it's not too surprising.
#28
Dave
Dave
The more I read about this the more I think it was a bad thing, but only in his books and paid appearances. I still don't give two shits about his stump speeches lifting from other places.
#29
strawman
strawman
While this plagiarism is pretty overt, one need only search the internet for "[politician] plagiarism" to find how nearly every other prominent politician has either plagiarized or been accused of it. There's a funny article on the comparison of Obamas Syria speech and bushs speech on making the case for the Iraq war.
Obama seems more adept at altering the content slightly so it's not a direct lift, for instance, whereas Ryan's appears to be a much lazier form of plagiarism.
But if you go back to state of the union addresses and you find many more "similarities" than you see differences from leader to leader.
In academia and research plagiarism is anathema because your total worth is your ideas, and when someone steals one, they are taking a part of you and presenting that part of you as belonging to themselves. Their worth increases due to your ability.
But in most other careers plagiarism is used to communicate, and isn't necessarily associated with one's worth.
Don't get me wrong, plagiarism isn't acceptable, particularly such overt verbatim plagiarism, but it's a means to an end and not value in and of itself.
While one can do the research themselves, and pull together the right words to convey a thought, concept, or convincing argument, if someone else has done the work then the point is to get the idea across, then build on that.
When information is used from elsewhere one should certainly footnote it. It's wrong not to do so. But it doesn't reflect as badly on ones character as it does in research and academia.
Obama seems more adept at altering the content slightly so it's not a direct lift, for instance, whereas Ryan's appears to be a much lazier form of plagiarism.
But if you go back to state of the union addresses and you find many more "similarities" than you see differences from leader to leader.
In academia and research plagiarism is anathema because your total worth is your ideas, and when someone steals one, they are taking a part of you and presenting that part of you as belonging to themselves. Their worth increases due to your ability.
But in most other careers plagiarism is used to communicate, and isn't necessarily associated with one's worth.
Don't get me wrong, plagiarism isn't acceptable, particularly such overt verbatim plagiarism, but it's a means to an end and not value in and of itself.
While one can do the research themselves, and pull together the right words to convey a thought, concept, or convincing argument, if someone else has done the work then the point is to get the idea across, then build on that.
When information is used from elsewhere one should certainly footnote it. It's wrong not to do so. But it doesn't reflect as badly on ones character as it does in research and academia.
#31
Krisken
Krisken
Meh. Plenty of other reasons to completely write off Rand Paul.
#32
D
Dubyamn
Romney mostly got screwed by refusing to separate what he would do as president from what the official Republican campaign platform which was cartoonishly evil.
He also had this terrible tendency of during interviews and everything when he was talking off the cuff to say things that were reasonable, well thought out and centrist only to have his campaign "correct the remarks" later saying he actually meant the exact opposite. I mean it was very obvious that Romney wasn't a true believer and one his own would be pretty reasonable. Just as a president you would have no idea if anything he would say or if he would follow through with any of his plans or initiatives.
D
Dubyamn
Gotta admit I've never actually heard anybody complaining about the "rich republicans." That they only care about the rich yes because it is fairly obvious that they really don't care about the poor and middle class."Rich Republicans" and "Republicans only care about the rich" are such common invective that they're practically trite. By comparison, hardly anyone grouses about those "damn rich Democrats," despite that there's just as many of them.
Romney mostly got screwed by refusing to separate what he would do as president from what the official Republican campaign platform which was cartoonishly evil.
He also had this terrible tendency of during interviews and everything when he was talking off the cuff to say things that were reasonable, well thought out and centrist only to have his campaign "correct the remarks" later saying he actually meant the exact opposite. I mean it was very obvious that Romney wasn't a true believer and one his own would be pretty reasonable. Just as a president you would have no idea if anything he would say or if he would follow through with any of his plans or initiatives.
#33
GasBandit
GasBandit
Man, I can never seem to go a week without hearing it.Gotta admit I've never actually heard anybody complaining about the "rich republicans." That they only care about the rich yes because it is fairly obvious that they really don't care about the poor and middle class.
As opposed to Democrat campaign platforms which are cartoonishly good(as in, only work in fiction)?Romney mostly got screwed by refusing to separate what he would do as president from what the official Republican campaign platform which was cartoonishly evil.
The same could be said for a lot... well, most politicians, especially in the presidential races.I mean it was very obvious that Romney wasn't a true believer and one his own would be pretty reasonable. Just as a president you would have no idea if anything he would say or if he would follow through with any of his plans or initiatives.
#34
D
Dubyamn
Stuff like "I don't support Employer's being able to determine healthcare coverage based soley on religious beliefs" Romney
"The candidate absolutely supports the right of employers to determine healthcare coeverage based on religious beliefs.
D
Dubyamn
Then it should be easy to provide sources.Man, I can never seem to go a week without hearing it.
Which part specifically?As opposed to Democrat campaign platforms which are cartoonishly good(as in, only work in fiction)?
Yeah but there was a week straight of it happening to everything Romney said and not just clarification.The same could be said for a lot... well, most politicians, especially in the presidential races.
Stuff like "I don't support Employer's being able to determine healthcare coverage based soley on religious beliefs" Romney
"The candidate absolutely supports the right of employers to determine healthcare coeverage based on religious beliefs.
#35
drawn_inward
Also, folks who are poor and don't help others don't usually become super-philanthropists just because they become rich.
That being said, it is unfortunate the politics is a rich man/woman's game. A poor guy with good ideas doesn't have a chance (usually).
drawn_inward
I don't know about you, but I know plenty of poor assholes. I don't look up to rich folk as a general rule, but I do look up to folks that build themselves up from scratch. Poor to rich or at least better than their parents.People don't hate people for being rich... it's just that rich people tend to be assholes about everything because they can get away with it.
Also, folks who are poor and don't help others don't usually become super-philanthropists just because they become rich.
That being said, it is unfortunate the politics is a rich man/woman's game. A poor guy with good ideas doesn't have a chance (usually).
#36
Chad Sexington
I mean, it's a long dead point now, so I suppose it's too late to understand, but I never got a clear answer then, either.
Chad Sexington
I really never understood the outrage here. I watched the video, and I feel like, uhm, wasn't he right? There are people who are going to vote Democrat no matter what, and Republican no matter what, and so you don't really need to campaign to them - now maybe the truer statement is therefore "94%" but I feel like all he said was "There are people out there who are just not going to change their minds about Obama, and it's nearly half the electorate. I have to reach the swing voters." Which... is true. Do you think Obama cared about the, I'll just say, 47% of people who wouldn't vote for him? No, he too needed to reach people who were unsure of how they were going to vote.He pretty much proved that point with his 47% percent comment that basically cost him the election.
I mean, it's a long dead point now, so I suppose it's too late to understand, but I never got a clear answer then, either.
#37
GasBandit
GasBandit
It's a little hard to source conversations in a forum-linkable format, especially when it never occurred to me there'd be a reason to document such an occurance. But a good example in pop culture, I'd suppose, is the republican backroom meeting scenes from the simpsons where Ralph Wiggum was a candidate.Then it should be easy to provide sources.
The parts where we can get by on "alternative energy" sources without oil? The part where everybody gets health care without it bankrupting us? The part where if we're just nice and unthreatening on foreign policy, hostile elements will just leave us alone or talk out their differences with us?Which part specifically?
I don't remember a week of such density of corrections. I'm not saying it didn't happen or that I don't believe you.Yeah but there was a week straight of it happening to everything Romney said and not just clarification.
Stuff like "I don't support Employer's being able to determine healthcare coverage based soley on religious beliefs" Romney
"The candidate absolutely supports the right of employers to determine healthcare coeverage based on religious beliefs.
#38
Krisken
Krisken
I think it was more the 'I don't represent them' part of it.
#39
Tress
Tress
If you watched the video, you should have heard his reasoning for why 47% of the country wouldn't vote for him:I mean, it's a long dead point now, so I suppose it's too late to understand, but I never got a clear answer then, either.
It's the characterization of almost half the country as leeches, followed with the comment "it's my job not to worry about these people" that caused the problem.There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
#40
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
Hm, I agree the characterisation was mean-spirited (and wrong), but I think when he said "it's not my job to worry about..." he meant more in terms of inclining them to vote for him. Perhaps I am being to charitable. I had forgotten he described them as entitled "to you-name-it."
#41
D
Dubyamn
And what are you talking about being nice and unthreatening? The Democratic party platform listed out how they were planning on countering the threats we face and how they plan on keeping the American military as the strongest on earth.
D
Dubyamn
Yeah but pushing alternative energy isn't a goofy idea. Hell George Bush often pushed for alternative energy sources. Now believing that we would be able to get off oil in X years is goofy but advancing alternative energy sources is a incredibly sensible idea.The parts where we can get by on "alternative energy" sources without oil? The part where everybody gets health care without it bankrupting us? The part where if we're just nice and unthreatening on foreign policy, hostile elements will just leave us alone or talk out their differences with us?
And what are you talking about being nice and unthreatening? The Democratic party platform listed out how they were planning on countering the threats we face and how they plan on keeping the American military as the strongest on earth.
I remember them coming pretty heavy.I don't remember a week of such density of corrections. I'm not saying it didn't happen or that I don't believe you.
#42
GasBandit
GasBandit
Much of the Obama charm was the thought that since he wasn't GWB, he could then magically bring our enemies to the table and talk peace with them, and unite us all for the grabl BLAH *cough cough* I can't even articulate it. A silly pie-eyed fantasy, but they did give him a Nobel prize for it.And what are you talking about being nice and unthreatening? The Democratic party platform listed out how they were planning on countering the threats we face and how they plan on keeping the American military as the strongest on earth.
#43
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Well to be fair it has kind of worked out in Iran and Syria. Where as GWB got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.Much of the Obama charm was the thought that since he wasn't GWB, he could then magically bring our enemies to the table and talk peace with them, and unite us all for the grabl BLAH *cough cough* I can't even articulate it. A silly pie-eyed fantasy, but they did give him a Nobel prize for it.
#44
GasBandit
GasBandit
Not so much Libya (GWB had Khaddafi pretty darn cowed), definitely not Palestine or Egypt, and Syria was more of a coup for Putin than Obama. Iran... we'll see. We're still in Afghanistan, btw.Well to be fair it has kind of worked out in Iran and Syria. Where as GWB got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.
#45
D
Dubyamn
In Syria we're getting what we want to get rid of their chemical weapons. Whether Putin or Obama gets the credit is a worthless argument because it fucking worked and worked out with exactly 0 American deaths.
Was Palestine particularly quiet during GWB's presidency? Cause that was when they elected Hamas to be their leaders. What current stuff are you referring to?
Egypt has nothing to do with fear or loathing of America. It does have much to do with the fact that GWB turned into a paramilitary organization rather than one that kept the president abreast of rapidly developing situations.
D
Dubyamn
Libya was one of GWB's few diplomatic victories though I think it had more to do with Khaddafi wanting to come in out of the cold than anything else. Of course it paid dividends during the Libyan revolution when we didn't have to worry about either Khaddafi using chemical weapons or the rebels getting their hands on those same chemical weapons.Not so much Libya (GWB had Khaddafi pretty darn cowed), definitely not Palestine or Egypt, and Syria was more of a coup for Putin than Obama. Iran... we'll see. We're still in Afghanistan, btw.
In Syria we're getting what we want to get rid of their chemical weapons. Whether Putin or Obama gets the credit is a worthless argument because it fucking worked and worked out with exactly 0 American deaths.
Was Palestine particularly quiet during GWB's presidency? Cause that was when they elected Hamas to be their leaders. What current stuff are you referring to?
Egypt has nothing to do with fear or loathing of America. It does have much to do with the fact that GWB turned into a paramilitary organization rather than one that kept the president abreast of rapidly developing situations.
#46
GasBandit
GasBandit
Uh, this discussion (as of the last 5 posts or so) is exactly about who is getting credit for what. Plus, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama was about ready to start droppin' bombs in Syria after his experimental gaffe into the realm of tough rhetoric painted him into a corner.In Syria we're getting what we want to get rid of their chemical weapons. Whether Putin or Obama gets the credit is a worthless argument because it fucking worked and worked out with exactly 0 American deaths.
The thing was that Obama's charisma and not-being-Bushness was supposed to bring all concerned to the table and improve things, not just leave them as awful as they are.Was Palestine particularly quiet during GWB's presidency? Cause that was when they elected Hamas to be their leaders. What current stuff are you referring to?
Yeah, it's not like he totally backed the wrong horse during that whole "arab spring" thing there or anything.Egypt has nothing to do with fear or loathing of America. It does have much to do with the fact that GWB turned into a paramilitary organization rather than one that kept the president abreast of rapidly developing situations.
#47
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Personally I'm looking forward to a Chris Christie vs Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
#48
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
Cliched, but No Matter Who Wins We All LosePersonally I'm looking forward to a Chris Christie vs Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
#49
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
... I'd actually be ok with that matchup.Cliched, but No Matter Who Wins We All Lose
#50
GasBandit
GasBandit
Christie will eat her alive.
Yes it's a fat joke.
Yes it's a fat joke.
#51
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
What are you going for here? Yes Obama was going to go dropping bombs like an idiot before he stumbled assbackwards into a solution to his Syrian problems. And honestly I'm okay with that. I'm okay with whatever Obama did or allowed to happen in order to remove Syrian's chemical weapons.Uh, this discussion (as of the last 5 posts or so) is exactly about who is getting credit for what. Plus, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama was about ready to start droppin' bombs in Syria after his experimental gaffe into the realm of tough rhetoric painted him into a corner.
So it was nonsense then.The thing was that Obama's charisma and not-being-Bushness was supposed to bring all concerned to the table and improve things, not just leave them as awful as they are.
I wasn't aware we had a dog in that fight.Yeah, it's not like he totally backed the wrong horse during that whole "arab spring" thing there or anything.
#52
GasBandit
And now half of Egypt thinks we threw him under the bus because our president wants the Muslim Brotherhood in control.
GasBandit
What I'm "going for here" is a comparison of foreign policy efficacy.What are you going for here? Yes Obama was going to go dropping bombs like an idiot before he stumbled assbackwards into a solution to his Syrian problems. And honestly I'm okay with that. I'm okay with whatever Obama did or allowed to happen in order to remove Syrian's chemical weapons.
Well, yes, but I'm a little surprised you agree with me so readily.So it was nonsense then.
No dog in that fight? Egypt has historically been one of our most important allies in the region - a (until recently) stable secular arab government that served as an important moderating influence in a very volatile region. They are one of the 5 original "Major Non-NATO Allied nations" (the others being Australia, South Korea, Japan and Israel). Hosni Mubarak had been one of our best allies in the region, especially since 9/11.I wasn't aware we had a dog in that fight.
And now half of Egypt thinks we threw him under the bus because our president wants the Muslim Brotherhood in control.
#53
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Yes, it is the tendency of "haves" to dismissively write off the "have-nots" that tends to burn people's britches. Doesn't matter if it's money, land, bread, or even sleep...if you lack it, and someone else is going on about how they have so much of it that they don't know what to do with the extra, you tend to resent them a bit, especially when it becomes obvious they don't even know why you are mad at them.It's the characterization of almost half the country as leeches, followed with the comment "it's my job not to worry about these people" that caused the problem.
--Patrick
#54
D
Dubyamn
What with the 2 wars of misadventure who's only real effect was sending all the newly drilled Iraqi oil going straight to China. Well besides the effect of thousands of dead Americans and trillions added to the debt.
What with allowing North Korea to go Nuclear.
What with turning the CIA into Pervez Musharraf's personal assassins.
What with the continual trade deficits with China.
What with the fucking Coup we attempted in Venezuala
And with Iran continuing their dash towards Nuclear weapons undeterred.
I'll take Obama efficiency every single day.
D
Dubyamn
Yes George Bush was big on efficiency wasn't he?What I'm "going for here" is a comparison of foreign policy efficacy.
What with the 2 wars of misadventure who's only real effect was sending all the newly drilled Iraqi oil going straight to China. Well besides the effect of thousands of dead Americans and trillions added to the debt.
What with allowing North Korea to go Nuclear.
What with turning the CIA into Pervez Musharraf's personal assassins.
What with the continual trade deficits with China.
What with the fucking Coup we attempted in Venezuala
And with Iran continuing their dash towards Nuclear weapons undeterred.
I'll take Obama efficiency every single day.
I know you think you're being cute by acting thick. You really aren't.Well, yes, but I'm a little surprised you agree with me so readily.
Still not seeing our right or how we gain in supporting a dictator slaughtering his own people who have started a nonviolent protest to his rulership.No dog in that fight? Egypt has historically been one of our most important allies in the region - a (until recently) stable secular arab government that served as an important moderating influence in a very volatile region. They are one of the 5 original "Major Non-NATO Allied nations" (the others being Australia, South Korea, Japan and Israel). Hosni Mubarak had been one of our best allies in the region, especially since 9/11.
And now half of Egypt thinks we threw him under the bus because our president wants the Muslim Brotherhood in control.
#55
GasBandit
GasBandit
I think you misread me, I said efficacy, not efficiency.Yes George Bush was big on efficiency wasn't he?
Well, then maybe I misread you, because I was certainly saying Obama's charm offensive was fluff and vapor, as it has proven to be.I know you think you're being cute by acting thick. You really aren't.
There was very little non-violent about the Arab Spring, and Morsi was going from bad to worse. Would you rather have a secular ally or a hostile islamist regime in control of one of the most strategically important nations of the globe?Still not seeing our right or how we gain in supporting a dictator slaughtering his own people who have started a nonviolent protest to his rulership.
#56
D
Dubyamn
And the thing is we tried the whole "Support a murderous dictator" thing. Look how well it turned out in Iraq and Iran.
D
Dubyamn
Replace efficiency with efficacy and my point still stands. GWB was a terrible ineffective president on foriegn policy.I think you misread me, I said efficacy, not efficiency.
Ah okay I was saying your "point" about Palestine was complete nonsense.Well, then maybe I misread you, because I was certainly saying Obama's charm offensive was fluff and vapor, as it has proven to be.
Hostile islamist regime was never in the cards. The Egyptian military is too powerful and too deeply entrenched with American educated men to ever allow Egypt to be truly hostile.There was very little non-violent about the Arab Spring, and Morsi was going from bad to worse. Would you rather have a secular ally or a hostile islamist regime in control of one of the most strategically important nations of the globe?
And the thing is we tried the whole "Support a murderous dictator" thing. Look how well it turned out in Iraq and Iran.
#57
Krisken
Krisken
I admire your pluck, Dubyamn. I gave up smacking my head against that wall long ago.
#58
D
Dubyamn
-Tvtropes
D
Dubyamn
They're a thousand candles in the night; one is blown out, another's lit. The hunter falls, the Vigil remains.I admire your pluck, Dubyamn. I gave up smacking my head against that wall long ago.
-Tvtropes
#59
GasBandit
GasBandit
He wasn't exactly a shining beacon, but compared to him, the only explanation for Obama's performance is either mindblowing incompetence or intentional treason.Replace efficiency with efficacy and my point still stands. GWB was a terrible ineffective president on foriegn policy.
Not at all. These were actual expectations set by supporters and media lackeys at the time.Ah okay I was saying your "point" about Palestine was complete nonsense.
I guess the proof is in the pudding that you're right about the Egyptian military - after all, they stepped up and deposed Morsi. The thing is, thanks to Obama foreign policy, now the Egyptian man in the street thinks the whole mess is America's fault and that we backed Morsi's play and support the Muslim Brotherhood, which greatly complicates our relationship with them.Hostile islamist regime was never in the cards. The Egyptian military is too powerful and too deeply entrenched with American educated men to ever allow Egypt to be truly hostile.
And the thing is we tried the whole "Support a murderous dictator" thing. Look how well it turned out in Iraq and Iran.
#60
Krisken
Krisken
We should go back to giggling at the idea of Rand Paul being a presidential hopeful. That was fun stuff.
#61
D
Dubyamn
I mean sure you can and do claim that all that blood and treasure was worth it because the world was "afraid" or "gave us proper respect" But clearly that wasn't the case.
North Korea went Nuclear under Bush. Venezuala resisted our coup attempt and we lost nearly all influence in South America. Russia regained a great deal of it's power despite Bush's attempts to cut them off from their power.
The fact remains that had we backed Musharef in killing nonviolent protestors all that we would have gained is the same problem that Russia is having in backing Syria.
D
Dubyamn
How exactly? He wasted more blood and treasure and had worse outcomes.He wasn't exactly a shining beacon, but compared to him, the only explanation for Obama's performance is either mindblowing incompetence or intentional treason.
I mean sure you can and do claim that all that blood and treasure was worth it because the world was "afraid" or "gave us proper respect" But clearly that wasn't the case.
North Korea went Nuclear under Bush. Venezuala resisted our coup attempt and we lost nearly all influence in South America. Russia regained a great deal of it's power despite Bush's attempts to cut them off from their power.
Your point is still nonsense.Not at all. These were actual expectations set by supporters and media lackeys at the time.
Actually it's due to Louie Gomert and Michelle Bachmann's traitorous foreign policy that people believe that we backed Morsi.I guess the proof is in the pudding that you're right about the Egyptian military - after all, they stepped up and deposed Morsi. The thing is, thanks to Obama foreign policy, now the Egyptian man in the street thinks the whole mess is America's fault and that we backed Morsi's play and support the Muslim Brotherhood, which greatly complicates our relationship with them.
The fact remains that had we backed Musharef in killing nonviolent protestors all that we would have gained is the same problem that Russia is having in backing Syria.
#62
Bubble181
Bubble181
Okay....Dubyamn? I'm a leftie bleeding heart pacifist commie European, but even I have to concede Obama's foreign policy hasn't exactly been spotless.
In Syria, if anyone from the US deserves any credit for any small part of that fuck-up, it's Kerry - and even so, there're still WMDs in Syria, they've only given up (supposedly, according to NATO visitors) their ability to produce more. There are still 2 million civilian deaths and, oh yeah, the war is still going on. Saying it's a victory because no Americans died is easy - you can count Eastern Congo as a major victory too, then, because there're currently approximately 48 rapes per hour going on, but none of them are American.
As for Egypt - this was handled badly, perhaps even more so by the EU than by the US, but ineptness and "wrong" responses from the American diplomacy have definitely made things more difficult. GB is right (shudder) that, where Egypt was one of the most pro-American countries in the Middle East (along with Turkey), it's now much more a hotbed of anti-Western sentiments. Nobody deserves any kudos whatsoever for what happened and is still happening there.
Lybia....eh, that went ok, I guess. It's still a miserable hellhole with people dying left and right, but at least the current government - insofar as they have any power - is only moderately anti-Western and theocratic.
Iran and Iraq...Well, both were horrible, but neither's really gone down-hill since GWB.
Gas, the "Nobel Peace Price Winner" bit is useless. I don't know anyone - anyone - from the far left to the far right who thinks that prize was in the least bit deserved. "Not being GWB" was a great platform to start your foreign policy, it shouldn't be a reason to get a prize. He definitely hasn't done anything afterwards to merit it. And GWB really was much, much worse in relation to allies, especially.
In Syria, if anyone from the US deserves any credit for any small part of that fuck-up, it's Kerry - and even so, there're still WMDs in Syria, they've only given up (supposedly, according to NATO visitors) their ability to produce more. There are still 2 million civilian deaths and, oh yeah, the war is still going on. Saying it's a victory because no Americans died is easy - you can count Eastern Congo as a major victory too, then, because there're currently approximately 48 rapes per hour going on, but none of them are American.
As for Egypt - this was handled badly, perhaps even more so by the EU than by the US, but ineptness and "wrong" responses from the American diplomacy have definitely made things more difficult. GB is right (shudder) that, where Egypt was one of the most pro-American countries in the Middle East (along with Turkey), it's now much more a hotbed of anti-Western sentiments. Nobody deserves any kudos whatsoever for what happened and is still happening there.
Lybia....eh, that went ok, I guess. It's still a miserable hellhole with people dying left and right, but at least the current government - insofar as they have any power - is only moderately anti-Western and theocratic.
Iran and Iraq...Well, both were horrible, but neither's really gone down-hill since GWB.
Gas, the "Nobel Peace Price Winner" bit is useless. I don't know anyone - anyone - from the far left to the far right who thinks that prize was in the least bit deserved. "Not being GWB" was a great platform to start your foreign policy, it shouldn't be a reason to get a prize. He definitely hasn't done anything afterwards to merit it. And GWB really was much, much worse in relation to allies, especially.
#63
D
Dubyamn
Dark times indeed.
1. Apparently the Secretary of state is somehow different than the president's foreign policy. The success of one can be separated from the other.
2. Until you reach your goal 100% you can't claim any sort of victory no matter how far you've come or how successful you have been in following the timetable you set out.
Both are obviously ridiculous.
We had a clear gain from stopping the use of chemical weapons from becoming an acceptable line to cross and we were able to stop it from becoming that.
Us being able to step into Syria to stop the killing or into Congo to stop the rapes? I'm less sure of our power to do that.
It's a clusterfuck. But one that wouldn't have been helped by us propping up an unpopular and unsustainable dictator. Musharef had to go. And I'm sure that the Obama administration
And Iraq we're out of Iraq. We're no longer pouring blood and treasure all over that country just so that the oil can flow into China to power their rise.
D
Dubyamn
We live in dark times indeed when somebody saying that better than GWB is spotless.Okay....Dubyamn? I'm a leftie bleeding heart pacifist commie European, but even I have to concede Obama's foreign policy hasn't exactly been spotless.
Dark times indeed.
Okay so let's go over Bubble's understanding of things.In Syria, if anyone from the US deserves any credit for any small part of that fuck-up, it's Kerry - and even so, there're still WMDs in Syria, they've only given up (supposedly, according to NATO visitors) their ability to produce more.
1. Apparently the Secretary of state is somehow different than the president's foreign policy. The success of one can be separated from the other.
2. Until you reach your goal 100% you can't claim any sort of victory no matter how far you've come or how successful you have been in following the timetable you set out.
Both are obviously ridiculous.
This is incredibly cold but is America supposed to step in to stop every killing and rape? Do we even have that power? Do we even have that fucking right with our murder and rape rates?There are still 2 million civilian deaths and, oh yeah, the war is still going on. Saying it's a victory because no Americans died is easy - you can count Eastern Congo as a major victory too, then, because there're currently approximately 48 rapes per hour going on, but none of them are American.
We had a clear gain from stopping the use of chemical weapons from becoming an acceptable line to cross and we were able to stop it from becoming that.
Us being able to step into Syria to stop the killing or into Congo to stop the rapes? I'm less sure of our power to do that.
Please indicate where I thought what is happening in Egypt deserves any kind of kudos.As for Egypt - this was handled badly, perhaps even more so by the EU than by the US, but ineptness and "wrong" responses from the American diplomacy have definitely made things more difficult. GB is right (shudder) that, where Egypt was one of the most pro-American countries in the Middle East (along with Turkey), it's now much more a hotbed of anti-Western sentiments. Nobody deserves any kudos whatsoever for what happened and is still happening there.
It's a clusterfuck. But one that wouldn't have been helped by us propping up an unpopular and unsustainable dictator. Musharef had to go. And I'm sure that the Obama administration
Iran and Iraq have both been Obama success stories. We're currently in talks with Iran about how to dismantle their nuclear weapons programs with all indications from Iran being that the new president has the supreme leader's blessing to put the nuclear program on the table. Sure it's not a guaranteed thing but if you had told me last year that these talks would even be happening I would have called you simple.Lybia....eh, that went ok, I guess. It's still a miserable hellhole with people dying left and right, but at least the current government - insofar as they have any power - is only moderately anti-Western and theocratic.
Iran and Iraq...Well, both were horrible, but neither's really gone down-hill since GWB.
And Iraq we're out of Iraq. We're no longer pouring blood and treasure all over that country just so that the oil can flow into China to power their rise.
#64
GasBandit
GasBandit
Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it. The actions of the Obama administration have emboldened enemies of the US to the point that they attacked one of our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11, killed the Amabassador and his staff, and got clean away with it - and he tried to blame it on a youtube video. He nearly botched his way into the Syrian civil war, but luckily for him Putin was there to throw him a lifeline. Our relations with Russia took a nose dive after 2009 after a huge hullaballoo about a "reset" button Obama was supposed to provide. Even our allies don't like us these days. And Afghanistan continues to grind away at our "blood and treasure" but because a democrat is in the white house the media has switched from gleeful daily body counts to quietly pretending it's just background noise.How exactly? He wasted more blood and treasure and had worse outcomes.
And who gave them the tools for that, I wonder?North Korea went Nuclear under Bush.
How exactly did we "lose nearly all influence?"Venezuala resisted our coup attempt and we lost nearly all influence in South America.
Sigh. "No U." Your turn.Your point is still nonsense.
Obama called for Mubarak to step down, but declared Morsi legitimate.Actually it's due to Louie Gomert and Michelle Bachmann's traitorous foreign policy that people believe that we backed Morsi.
#65
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
And during the Bush administration there were at least 10 attacks on our embassies with 60 deaths. Obama has 1 attack with 4 deaths so apparently our enemies were far more emboldened under Bush.Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it. The actions of the Obama administration have emboldened enemies of the US to the point that they attacked one of our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11, killed the Amabassador and his staff, and got clean away with it
Still not understanding the outrage over us accomplishing our goals without spending trillions and killing thousands of Americans.- and he tried to blame it on a youtube video. He nearly botched his way into the Syrian civil war, but luckily for him Putin was there to throw him a lifeline.
That is actually a good point. Unfortunately relations with Russia are in shambles right now.Our relations with Russia took a nose dive after 2009 after a huge hullaballoo about a "reset" button Obama was supposed to provide.
Amazing how leading them into 2 pointless wars would cause problems for our relations with them. And how those problems wouldn't be immediately cured with a new president's election.Even our allies don't like us these days.
When on earth did America ever give a crap about casualties in Afghanistan? Before Iraq we were still angry about 9/11, during Iraq Afghanistan remained the "good war" the "war we have neglected" and after Iraq we should care all about the casualties in the war.And Afghanistan continues to grind away at our "blood and treasure" but because a democrat is in the white house the media has switched from gleeful daily body counts to quietly pretending it's just background noise.
Don't see how that effects the fact that they went Nuclear under Bush.And who gave them the tools for that, I wonder?
When Hugo Chavez effortlessly regained power there was a wave of anti americanism that swept over South America saw numerous South American presidents elected who won because they bad mouthed America.How exactly did we "lose nearly all influence?"
Still trying the purposefully thick route huh? It's really not working for you.Sigh. "No U." Your turn.
Yeah recognizing a democratically elected prime minister while condemning an unpopular dictator who is clearly on his way out is unconscionable and a truely stupid move in foreign policy.Obama called for Mubarak to step down, but declared Morsi legitimate.
#66
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
I really never understood the outrage here. I watched the video, and I feel like, uhm, wasn't he right? There are people who are going to vote Democrat no matter what, and Republican no matter what, and so you don't really need to campaign to them - now maybe the truer statement is therefore "94%" but I feel like all he said was "There are people out there who are just not going to change their minds about Obama, and it's nearly half the electorate. I have to reach the swing voters." Which... is true. Do you think Obama cared about the, I'll just say, 47% of people who wouldn't vote for him? No, he too needed to reach people who were unsure of how they were going to vote.
I mean, it's a long dead point now, so I suppose it's too late to understand, but I never got a clear answer then, either.
I mean, it's a long dead point now, so I suppose it's too late to understand, but I never got a clear answer then, either.
#67
Krisken
Krisken
Already asked and answered?
#68
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
It was a plagiarism joke. That's @Chad Sexington's post from the top of the thread.Already asked and answered?
#69
Krisken
Krisken
Blast! I fall on my sword in shame!
#70
GasBandit
And yet the only time we hear about Afghanistan is when Obama is firing a general.
GasBandit
There have been more attacks during the Obama administration than just Benghazi (at least 9 so far, just barely into the start of his second term), that was just the one that displayed the most (possibly willful) incompetence.And during the Bush administration there were at least 10 attacks on our embassies with 60 deaths. Obama has 1 attack with 4 deaths so apparently our enemies were far more emboldened under Bush.
What goals would you say have been accomplished? The weakening of our standing on the global stage?Still not understanding the outrage over us accomplishing our goals without spending trillions and killing thousands of Americans.
Well taken. We'll just put that aside because things we agree on are no fun.That is actually a good point. Unfortunately relations with Russia are in shambles right now.
Actually, what I was saying was they had gotten worse. Especially with all the NSA issues coming to light. And before you say it, yes, Bush spied too. I'm not here to defend Bush. But Obama has continued or exacerbated every bad policy that was already active under Bush.Amazing how leading them into 2 pointless wars would cause problems for our relations with them. And how those problems wouldn't be immediately cured with a new president's election.
Afghanistan was going swimmingly through most of the Bush years. It wasn't covered because bloody Iraq headlines got so many more viewers and clicks. But since 2009, Afghanistan has suddenly taken a turn:When on earth did America ever give a crap about casualties in Afghanistan? Before Iraq we were still angry about 9/11, during Iraq Afghanistan remained the "good war" the "war we have neglected" and after Iraq we should care all about the casualties in the war.
And yet the only time we hear about Afghanistan is when Obama is firing a general.
You think it's more important when the Norks finished building their bombs out of the parts Clinton provided them than the fact that the parts were provided by Clinton?Don't see how that effects the fact that they went Nuclear under Bush.
I don't remember this happening. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume it did - so what? The opinion of South Americans on the US is about as influential on the world stage as the forest creatures' opinions of motorbikes.When Hugo Chavez effortlessly regained power there was a wave of anti americanism that swept over South America saw numerous South American presidents elected who won because they bad mouthed America.
Why am I obligated to do more than say "Yeah huh" to your "nuh uh?"Still trying the purposefully thick route huh? It's really not working for you.
If only it was as simple as that. Obama all but took credit for the "Arab Spring" movement that swept Morsi into power. Then trumpeted his "legitimacy" while his own electorate rose up against him. And don't kid us that Morsi isn't every inch the bloodthirsty tyrant - if not more than - that Mubarak ever was.Yeah recognizing a democratically elected prime minister while condemning an unpopular dictator who is clearly on his way out is unconscionable and a truely stupid move in foreign policy.
#71
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Don't kid yourself if you think North Korea did this one it's own or that Clinton is entirely responsible. It's a sure bet they've had Chinese help the entire time and it's entirely likely they've been getting their fissionable materials from them as well.You think it's more important when the Norks finished building their bombs out of the parts Clinton provided them than the fact that the parts were provided by Clinton?
#72
D
Dubyamn
But the uptick in casualties is directly due to the fact that we began and aggressive strategy in Afghanistan something which is exactly what Obama promised to do.
D
Dubyamn
Okay are they greater than the 60 deaths and ~10 attacks that happened during Bush presidency? Cause the point is that nobody was "cowed" by the Bush administration's insane and counter productive foriegn policy.There have been more attacks during the Obama administration than just Benghazi (at least 9 so far, just barely into the start of his second term), that was just the one that displayed the most (possibly willful) incompetence.
Chemical weapon use remains a international taboo and we strip Syria of its chemical weapons.What goals would you say have been accomplished? The weakening of our standing on the global stage?
True Obama definitely does deserve a great deal of scorn for not bringing the NSA to heel. And I certainly wouldn't start going but.but.but Bush over this. My main point was that our allies are more likely to follow France into an armed engagement than the US right now due to how badly they got burned over Iraq.Actually, what I was saying was they had gotten worse. Especially with all the NSA issues coming to light. And before you say it, yes, Bush spied too. I'm not here to defend Bush. But Obama has continued or exacerbated every bad policy that was already active under Bush.
Afghanistan has been a hellhole ever since we got there. Nothing of importance is achieved or will ever be achieved. We should have planted the flag on top of Tora Bora, declared victory and left.Afghanistan was going swimmingly through most of the Bush years. It wasn't covered because bloody Iraq headlines got so many more viewers and clicks. But since 2009, Afghanistan has suddenly taken a turn:
And yet the only time we hear about Afghanistan is when Obama is firing a general.
But the uptick in casualties is directly due to the fact that we began and aggressive strategy in Afghanistan something which is exactly what Obama promised to do.
[Citation needed]You think it's more important when the Norks finished building their bombs out of the parts Clinton provided them than the fact that the parts were provided by Clinton?
You mean besides the trade we do with South America, the trade they do around the world? And the kind of power we have traditionally been able to wield due to our influence in South America?I don't remember this happening. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume it did - so what? The opinion of South Americans on the US is about as influential on the world stage as the forest creatures' opinions of motorbikes.
Cause it was your garbage point. So you really do need to back it up or let it go.Why am I obligated to do more than say "Yeah huh" to your "nuh uh?"
When exactly did Obama trumpet the legitimacy of Morsi's government? I'm pretty sure they bent over backwards to try and avoid calling it a coup when the military threw down Morsi's government.[/quote]If only it was as simple as that. Obama all but took credit for the "Arab Spring" movement that swept Morsi into power. Then trumpeted his "legitimacy" while his own electorate rose up against him. And don't kid us that Morsi isn't every inch the bloodthirsty tyrant - if not more than - that Mubarak ever was.
#73
GasBandit
GasBandit
Oh, I didn't mean to imply the Norks did it all on their own, but Clinton sure helped.Don't kid yourself if you think North Korea did this one it's own or that Clinton is entirely responsible. It's a sure bet they've had Chinese help the entire time and it's entirely likely they've been getting their fissionable materials from them as well.
#74
GasBandit
GasBandit
Man, Dub, you really need to clean up your quotation tags.
Wikipedia lists the Bush era death toll at 49, and that includes attackers, local police and civilians - not just Americans. So far 18 during the Obama administration with the same qualifiers. Naturally a true comparison of number of attacks won't be possible until 2017, but the same wikipedia article lists 9 for the Bush years and 9 so far for the Obama years, which puts Obama higher on a per-year basis thus far, and the best that can be hoped for is 3 years of no attacks to break even.Okay are they greater than the 60 deaths and ~10 attacks that happened during Bush presidency? Cause the point is that nobody was "cowed" by the Bush administration's insane and counter productive foriegn policy.
Putting aside again the fact that that was a Russian foreign policy triumph and not American, I'm still of a mind to wait and see if Syria's weapons really are all destroyed.Chemical weapon use remains a international taboo and we strip Syria of its chemical weapons.
I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the situation. France has undergone a great number of interesting changes in recent years and turned more hawkish, while the US has projected weakness - and it's shameful to be sure. Also, I think the Snowden leaks on NSA activity have damaged our pull with our allies much more than Iraq has. It's much more fresh, for one thing.True Obama definitely does deserve a great deal of scorn for not bringing the NSA to heel. And I certainly wouldn't start going but.but.but Bush over this. My main point was that our allies are more likely to follow France into an armed engagement than the US right now due to how badly they got burned over Iraq.
You have a point - it's not like we can even "bomb them back to the stone age" because they're practically already there.Afghanistan has been a hellhole ever since we got there. Nothing of importance is achieved or will ever be achieved. We should have planted the flag on top of Tora Bora, declared victory and left.
This was 1994 which predates the internet as we know it. But it is not disputed that the Clinton administration provided North Korea with nuclear reactors in exchange for promises (which were quickly broken) to not enrich their own uranium.[Citation needed]
For someone who wants citations so often, you sure don't provide many. Can you show how our trade has allegedly suffered, and that our influence abroad was affected by this?You mean besides the trade we do with South America, the trade they do around the world? And the kind of power we have traditionally been able to wield due to our influence in South America?
No, I'm sorry, if your rebuttal is unbased dismissal, I'm not going to waste more time than you in dismissing your dismissal.Cause it was your garbage point. So you really do need to back it up or let it go.
.. in the link I provided?When exactly did Obama trumpet the legitimacy of Morsi's government?
#75
D
Dubyamn
I have one example that really solidifies the fact that countries don't want to follow the American leadership into war. It was during the gearing up for war with Syria. Great Britain took a vote about the possibility to using Military force in Syria. The Prime minister's party whipped the vote in such a way that it indicated to their members of parliment "You go along with this or your future in the party is in jeopardy." That vote failed and failed so hard that the prime minister said that he wouldn't even try again.
That happened before the fact that the NSA was spying directly on the German prime minister or the French population came out. To me it's very obvious that the UK wasn't willing to follow our lead again after getting bamboozled into Iraq.
Now of course influence that we wield is always hard to quantify but when Hugo Chavez talked all of south America seemed to listen. And we had record Deficits and I remember there being numberous trade disputes between America and South America after the coup.
D
Dubyamn
Fixed it eventually. But yeah it happens.Man, Dub, you really need to clean up your quotation tags.
Wikipedia
Of course a straight up comparison can't be done until the end of Obama's presidency. But I think that the fact that there were attacks during Bush's presidency shows that the point that somehow Bush's insane and counter productive foreign policy somehow cowed people into non action is wrong headed.lists the Bush era death toll at 49, and that includes attackers, local police and civilians - not just Americans. So far 18 during the Obama administration with the same qualifiers. Naturally a true comparison of number of attacks won't be possible until 2017, but the same wikipedia article lists 9 for the Bush years and 9 so far for the Obama years, which puts Obama higher on a per-year basis thus far, and the best that can be hoped for is 3 years of no attacks to break even.
2 points on Syria. 1. I don't think it matters who gets the credit so long as our goals are reached. 2. The destruction of Syrian chemical weapons factories is still a monumental success. The works is still ongoing but the fact that Syria allowed it's chemical weapon factories to be destroyed is amazing news about their... I don't want to say sincerity cause they obviously don't want to do it. But that they are serious about maintaining the agreement.Putting aside again the fact that that was a Russian foreign policy triumph and not American, I'm still of a mind to wait and see if Syria's weapons really are all destroyed.
I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the situation. France has undergone a great number of interesting changes in recent years and turned more hawkish, while the US has projected weakness - and it's shameful to be sure. Also, I think the Snowden leaks on NSA activity have damaged our pull with our allies much more than Iraq has. It's much more fresh, for one thing.
I have one example that really solidifies the fact that countries don't want to follow the American leadership into war. It was during the gearing up for war with Syria. Great Britain took a vote about the possibility to using Military force in Syria. The Prime minister's party whipped the vote in such a way that it indicated to their members of parliment "You go along with this or your future in the party is in jeopardy." That vote failed and failed so hard that the prime minister said that he wouldn't even try again.
That happened before the fact that the NSA was spying directly on the German prime minister or the French population came out. To me it's very obvious that the UK wasn't willing to follow our lead again after getting bamboozled into Iraq.
Asked and answeredFor someone who wants citations so often, you sure don't provide many. Can you show how our trade has allegedly suffered, and that our influence abroad was affected by this?
Now of course influence that we wield is always hard to quantify but when Hugo Chavez talked all of south America seemed to listen. And we had record Deficits and I remember there being numberous trade disputes between America and South America after the coup.
*After Morsi was disposed... in the link I provided?
#76
GasBandit
GasBandit
There have been attacks on embassies during the administrations of every president going back over 30 years, so clearly the mere instance of embassy attacks in and of themselves is not indicative of foreign policy efficacy. But there have been several highly publicized attacks that were important not only for the attack themselves but how the president dealt with them. The Iran hostage crisis. The Beirut embassy bombing. And of course Benghazi (along with the simultaneous attack on the American embassy in Egypt and supporting subsequent attack 2 days later in Yemen). It's not really quantity that counts (even though as noted, Obama is ahead of Bush on a year by year basis so far), it's, for lack of a better word, quality.Of course a straight up comparison can't be done until the end of Obama's presidency. But I think that the fact that there were attacks during Bush's presidency shows that the point that somehow Bush's insane and counter productive foreign policy somehow cowed people into non action is wrong headed.
It matters when the discussion at hand is pertaining particularly to a review of the foreign policy actions of specific presidents. Blind luck is not a preferable foreign policy. Otherwise, by this logic, if I hurl myself off a bridge and am miraculously caught by superman, and deposited safely on the ground by the river below, then my policy of hurling myself off a bridge instead of taking the stairs is a "monumental success."I don't think it matters who gets the credit so long as our goals are reached.
I'll grant you that the UK is extremely war weary, but so is the US. Not even the US wanted US military force to be used in Syria - that was only on the table at all because of Obama's "red line" rhetoric painting himself into a corner. But even that aside, are you saying that if it had been France who wanted to use military force in Syria, the UK would have gone along?I have one example that really solidifies the fact that countries don't want to follow the American leadership into war. It was during the gearing up for war with Syria. Great Britain took a vote about the possibility to using Military force in Syria. The Prime minister's party whipped the vote in such a way that it indicated to their members of parliment "You go along with this or your future in the party is in jeopardy." That vote failed and failed so hard that the prime minister said that he wouldn't even try again.
28 nations were on "our side" in that disagreement, and 5 on Chavez', and from what I read mostly for (understandably) self-serving reasons. I don't read anything in that article referencing the 2002 coup attempt, and Chavez has always been hostile to start with, though eventually even the other nations got really tired of him. Remember when the King of Spain famously (and hilariously) told him to STFU at the Ibero-American summit?Asked and answered
Now of course influence that we wield is always hard to quantify but when Hugo Chavez talked all of south America seemed to listen. And we had record Deficits and I remember there being numberous trade disputes between America and South America after the coup.
Obama's a lot of things, but he's not stupid enough to continue to stick up for Morsi after he'd been deposed.*After Morsi was disposed.
#77
D
Dubyamn
Is there an accepted formula for determining what counts as a quality attack on our embassy? Like would an attack that kills 2 locals, 1 embassy worker and wounds 3 of each be significant? Does the country the embassy in have an effect on the calculation?
All I know is that Syria is an example of a successful foreign policy. One that you are incapable of calling a failure no matter how much you are trying to give the success to others.
Also I've always thought there was a quote along the lines of "Proper planning and blind luck often look the same" but I can't find anything similar. I'm wondering if i just made it up during a particularly good game of Risk.
Now obviously we're comparing apples and oranges but it does seem like America has reached our military credit limit while France has been given a bit of a credit upgrade. And the single biggest expenditure of that kind of military credit was Iraq in which we burned all of our Military allies very badly.
D
Dubyamn
So only embassy attacks of a certain scale indicate that our enemies are becoming emboldened by our weakness? Other attacks are just background noise?There have been attacks on embassies during the administrations of every president going back over 30 years, so clearly the mere instance of embassy attacks in and of themselves is not indicative of foreign policy efficacy. But there have been several highly publicized attacks that were important not only for the attack themselves but how the president dealt with them. The Iran hostage crisis. The Beirut embassy bombing. And of course Benghazi (along with the simultaneous attack on the American embassy in Egypt and supporting subsequent attack 2 days later in Yemen). It's not really quantity that counts (even though as noted, Obama is ahead of Bush on a year by year basis so far), it's, for lack of a better word, quality.
Is there an accepted formula for determining what counts as a quality attack on our embassy? Like would an attack that kills 2 locals, 1 embassy worker and wounds 3 of each be significant? Does the country the embassy in have an effect on the calculation?
Well if your plan was to get to the bottom of the bridge for whatever reason I would actually argue that it was a monumental success one that might not be attributable to you. But if you wanted to kill yourself it was a complete failure.It matters when the discussion at hand is pertaining particularly to a review of the foreign policy actions of specific presidents. Blind luck is not a preferable foreign policy. Otherwise, by this logic, if I hurl myself off a bridge and am miraculously caught by superman, and deposited safely on the ground by the river below, then my policy of hurling myself off a bridge instead of taking the stairs is a "monumental success."
All I know is that Syria is an example of a successful foreign policy. One that you are incapable of calling a failure no matter how much you are trying to give the success to others.
Also I've always thought there was a quote along the lines of "Proper planning and blind luck often look the same" but I can't find anything similar. I'm wondering if i just made it up during a particularly good game of Risk.
When France started using military force in Libya UK and the US followed. When France used military force in Somalia other countries provided aid.I'll grant you that the UK is extremely war weary, but so is the US. Not even the US wanted US military force to be used in Syria - that was only on the table at all because of Obama's "red line" rhetoric painting himself into a corner. But even that aside, are you saying that if it had been France who wanted to use military force in Syria, the UK would have gone along?
Now obviously we're comparing apples and oranges but it does seem like America has reached our military credit limit while France has been given a bit of a credit upgrade. And the single biggest expenditure of that kind of military credit was Iraq in which we burned all of our Military allies very badly.
So once again we are back at you having a problem with Obama talking up and trying to have a congenial working relationship the new leader of a critically important nation. Really not seeing the problem with that.Obama's a lot of things, but he's not stupid enough to continue to stick up for Morsi after he'd been deposed.
#78
GasBandit
GasBandit
Granted it's a very subjective measurement, but it's plain to see these named embassy attacks were some of the most politically charged. They dominated headlines and continued to be front and center for a great deal of time afterwards, having noteworthy political ramifications stateside. The exact nature of those effects were unique to each situation, but that they garnered national attention and political action is plainly seen, and they held special significance above others - perhaps, even from a cynical point of view, indeed relegating the others to "background noise," for example the 1998 coordinated bombings of US embassies in Africa that killed over 200 and injured over 4000. Despite being far deadlier and destructive, it was not really an indictment of Bill Clinton's foreign policy and didn't do very much to affect politics here at home. We bombed a couple pharma plants and called it a day.So only embassy attacks of a certain scale indicate that our enemies are becoming emboldened by our weakness? Other attacks are just background noise?
Is there an accepted formula for determining what counts as a quality attack on our embassy? Like would an attack that kills 2 locals, 1 embassy worker and wounds 3 of each be significant? Does the country the embassy in have an effect on the calculation?
Heh, perhaps so. But if not for Putin's intervention, which could not have been reliably predicted given Russia's cold relations with the US, Syria was shaping up to be an absolute mess. That Putin rescued the situation cannot be attributed to Obama's foreign policy acumen.All I know is that Syria is an example of a successful foreign policy. One that you are incapable of calling a failure no matter how much you are trying to give the success to others.
Also I've always thought there was a quote along the lines of "Proper planning and blind luck often look the same" but I can't find anything similar. I'm wondering if i just made it up during a particularly good game of Risk.
Certainly to a degree, but I think those were very different circumstances than Syria (as you note). There was absolutely no political will behind the use of force to intervene in Syria, not even in the US. It would have been unrealistic in the extreme to expect others to go along with that, even in favorable political climes.When France started using military force in Libya UK and the US followed. When France used military force in Somalia other countries provided aid.
Now obviously we're comparing apples and oranges but it does seem like America has reached our military credit limit while France has been given a bit of a credit upgrade. And the single biggest expenditure of that kind of military credit was Iraq in which we burned all of our Military allies very badly.
My link pointed to him trying to bolster him even as protests and violence returned to Egypt, similar conditions that led to Obama calling for Morsi's predecessor's resignation. The end result is a discerned favortism for the muslim brotherhood, which if not intentional, shows a truly unsettling level of ineptitude.So once again we are back at you having a problem with Obama talking up and trying to have a congenial working relationship the new leader of a critically important nation. Really not seeing the problem with that.
#79
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'm not even gonna come close to stepping into this one, but it certainly is a fun read.
#80
Eriol
Eriol
No matter what your avatar looks like, you will now and forever be Motormouth Jones to me.I'm not even gonna come close to stepping into this one, but it certainly is a fun read.
View attachment 13004
#81
GasBandit
GasBandit
We are the meanest instructors here. We’ve got you because you are the worst people here. You are D Squad; D for dirtbags. When I say: "Hey dirtbags!" that means you. You people are going to hate my guts for the rest of your lives. I am going to make you sorry that you ever came here.
#82
Bowielee
Bowielee
I really need to watch Police Academy again. It's been far too long.
#83
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Still strikes me as an incredibly subjective measurement for something as nebulous as the "boldness of our enemies." I mean if Ambassador Stevens was able to escape would it have still been a "significant" attack? How about if it took place on a different day? How about if it didn't take place during an election cycle that would allow the Republicans to try and make political hay out of it?Granted it's a very subjective measurement, but it's plain to see these named embassy attacks were some of the most politically charged. They dominated headlines and continued to be front and center for a great deal of time afterwards, having noteworthy political ramifications stateside. The exact nature of those effects were unique to each situation, but that they garnered national attention and political action is plainly seen, and they held special significance above others - perhaps, even from a cynical point of view, indeed relegating the others to "background noise," for example the 1998 coordinated bombings of US embassies in Africa that killed over 200 and injured over 4000. Despite being far deadlier and destructive, it was not really an indictment of Bill Clinton's foreign policy and didn't do very much to affect politics here at home. We bombed a couple pharma plants and called it a day.
Nor can Libya choosing to come in out of the cold be put down to GWB's deft hand at foreign policy. However even then I still have to say that Libya was a success for GWB and from everything we've seen Syria is turning into a huge success for Obama.Heh, perhaps so. But if not for Putin's intervention, which could not have been reliably predicted given Russia's cold relations with the US, Syria was shaping up to be an absolute mess. That Putin rescued the situation cannot be attributed to Obama's foreign policy acumen.
Indeed but there was no political will to intervene in Iraq in most of the countries that went with us. Difference is that in Iraq they were willing to follow our lead while in Syria they bowed out rather unceremoniously.Certainly to a degree, but I think those were very different circumstances than Syria (as you note). There was absolutely no political will behind the use of force to intervene in Syria, not even in the US. It would have been unrealistic in the extreme to expect others to go along with that, even in favorable political climes.
Your link only said that he wasn't demanding Morsi step down and that he would work with him for as long as he was the president of Egypt. I saw no examples of him bolstering up Morsi.My link pointed to him trying to bolster him even as protests and violence returned to Egypt, similar conditions that led to Obama calling for Morsi's predecessor's resignation. The end result is a discerned favortism for the muslim brotherhood, which if not intentional, shows a truly unsettling level of ineptitude.
#84
GasBandit
GasBandit
Whilst walking down the hallway to Storage B, our hero hears the sound of rummaging and muttering in a disused room and pauses to investigate. Flipping on the light inside, he finds...
Jeezus, are you still in here?! We gave you up for dead over a week ago!
Jeezus, are you still in here?! We gave you up for dead over a week ago!
If Ambassador Stevens had been able to escape (IE, was rescued), it would have shown that maybe Obama and his state department wasn't completely incompetent and/or potentially treasonous.Still strikes me as an incredibly subjective measurement for something as nebulous as the "boldness of our enemies." I mean if Ambassador Stevens was able to escape would it have still been a "significant" attack? How about if it took place on a different day? How about if it didn't take place during an election cycle that would allow the Republicans to try and make political hay out of it?
Gaddafi immediately started spooling down his belligerence when the tough rhetoric started spilling out of the US during the Iraq war. That rhetoric was an integral part of GWB's foreign policy, for good or ill. As for Syria, it may yet become slightly less fucked, but to call it a huge success for Obama would be like saying the Broncos having beaten the Chiefs was a huge win for the Giants. It was certainly to the Giants' benefit, but not of their doing.Nor can Libya choosing to come in out of the cold be put down to GWB's deft hand at foreign policy. However even then I still have to say that Libya was a success for GWB and from everything we've seen Syria is turning into a huge success for Obama.
Not even the American people were willing to follow Obama's lead into Syria, and said so loudly and clearly. As you said earlier, the two situations are apples and oranges.Indeed but there was no political will to intervene in Iraq in most of the countries that went with us. Difference is that in Iraq they were willing to follow our lead while in Syria they bowed out rather unceremoniously.
The very act of continuing to address him as the legitimate head of state while his nation rose up against him, after having called upon his predecessor to stand down, is an overt attempt at bolstering through association by way of trying to lend legitimacy to his regime by recognizing him.Your link only said that he wasn't demanding Morsi step down and that he would work with him for as long as he was the president of Egypt. I saw no examples of him bolstering up Morsi.
#85
Covar
Covar
like saying the Broncos having beaten the Chiefs was a huge win for the Giants.
#86
D
Dubyamn
Wouldn't attacks on military installations be a better indicator of the boldness of our enemies? Rather than "significant" attacks on Embassies which has happened 3 times over the last 30 years.
I think it's more like a game where the winning team totaled up ~100 yards of offense. It isn't pretty but you still have to give them the win.
Now Syria and Somalia that's apples and oranges. But Syria and Iraq are very similar.
Had Morsi embraced reforms we honestly don't know how the crowd would have reacted.
D
Dubyamn
Got burned out. Replaced the fuse so I'm all good again.Whilst walking down the hallway to Storage B, our hero hears the sound of rummaging and muttering in a disused room and pauses to investigate. Flipping on the light inside, he finds...
Jeezus, are you still in here?! We gave you up for dead over a week ago!
Or he got incredibly lucky. But besides the point.If Ambassador Stevens had been able to escape (IE, was rescued), it would have shown that maybe Obama and his state department wasn't completely incompetent and/or potentially treasonous.
Wouldn't attacks on military installations be a better indicator of the boldness of our enemies? Rather than "significant" attacks on Embassies which has happened 3 times over the last 30 years.
Except the success wouldn't have happened if Obama hadn't been pushing for war against Syria. Russia wouldn't have acted on it's own to disarm Syria of it's chemical weapons. Russia moving to back the disarmament of Syria directly followed Obama's "red line" rhetoric.Gaddafi immediately started spooling down his belligerence when the tough rhetoric started spilling out of the US during the Iraq war. That rhetoric was an integral part of GWB's foreign policy, for good or ill. As for Syria, it may yet become slightly less fucked, but to call it a huge success for Obama would be like saying the Broncos having beaten the Chiefs was a huge win for the Giants. It was certainly to the Giants' benefit, but not of their doing.
I think it's more like a game where the winning team totaled up ~100 yards of offense. It isn't pretty but you still have to give them the win.
Actually I've always been very uncomfortable about the similarities between the build up to Iraq and Syria. In both cases we were going to go in to destroy the chemical weapons. Either to stop them from being handed to terrorists or to stop them from being used on civilians. Only difference is that Bush and his administration lied about Iraq having a nuclear program or chemical weapons.Not even the American people were willing to follow Obama's lead into Syria, and said so loudly and clearly. As you said earlier, the two situations are apples and oranges.
Now Syria and Somalia that's apples and oranges. But Syria and Iraq are very similar.
He waited several weeks before saying that Mubarak had to step down and really only made that statement when it was clear that the only two options were for Mubarak to step down or a civil war.The very act of continuing to address him as the legitimate head of state while his nation rose up against him, after having called upon his predecessor to stand down, is an overt attempt at bolstering through association by way of trying to lend legitimacy to his regime by recognizing him.
Had Morsi embraced reforms we honestly don't know how the crowd would have reacted.
#87
GasBandit
GasBandit
It would take more than luck to get an american out of Lybia during a massive terrorist military operation. It'd be practically impossible without outside support.Or he got incredibly lucky. But besides the point.
I have a feeling you're trying to go somewhere with this, so let's go ahead and have it - what are those statistics?Wouldn't attacks on military installations be a better indicator of the boldness of our enemies? Rather than "significant" attacks on Embassies which has happened 3 times over the last 30 years.
Man, that is one huge credit pretzel that's being twisted right there. Obama's universally-lamented red-line gaffe that nearly plunged us into the middle of the Syrian civil war, in which we had absolutely no business or interest or possible advantage to be gained, is now to be given congratulations for giving Russia the opportunity to upstage us and look like the metaphorical prevailing cooler head, embarrasing us at home and abroad? Hey, the chemical weapons are being destroyed, and it started with Obama's amazing Xanatos gambit! Nnnnno. Sorry, I don't buy it. The truth of the matter is, if Obama hadn't done what he did, there wouldn't have been a war crisis - if Putin hadn't done what he did, the crisis would have gone over 9000.Except the success wouldn't have happened if Obama hadn't been pushing for war against Syria. Russia wouldn't have acted on it's own to disarm Syria of it's chemical weapons. Russia moving to back the disarmament of Syria directly followed Obama's "red line" rhetoric.
I think it's more like a game where the winning team totaled up ~100 yards of offense. It isn't pretty but you still have to give them the win.
Actually, the buildup to Iraq took over a year - plenty of time for Saddam to send his weapons to Syria, if you'll recall. Conversely, Obama was ready to start with the airstrikes within a week, coalition building be damned. You're also parroting the debunked "Bush lied" line.Actually I've always been very uncomfortable about the similarities between the build up to Iraq and Syria. In both cases we were going to go in to destroy the chemical weapons. Either to stop them from being handed to terrorists or to stop them from being used on civilians. Only difference is that Bush and his administration lied about Iraq having a nuclear program or chemical weapons.
Now Syria and Somalia that's apples and oranges. But Syria and Iraq are very similar.
That's a very massaged and reinterpreted version of the chain of events that also relies on a what-if scenario. The pragmatic outcome, however, is that the majority of Egyptians-in-the-street believe the US backed Morsi, an opinion shaped by Obama's public statements at the time where he all but tried to take credit for the "Arab Spring" that brought Morsi into power and his apparent reluctance to repudiate him when it became obvious he was a monster. That in and of itself is a massive foreign policy failure.He waited several weeks before saying that Mubarak had to step down and really only made that statement when it was clear that the only two options were for Mubarak to step down or a civil war.
Had Morsi embraced reforms we honestly don't know how the crowd would have reacted.
#88
D
Dubyamn
Sure he did it in a stupid way but in the end a big big win for Obama's foreign policy.
D
Dubyamn
Not really there were 3 people in that "safe haven" the guy who left after the terrorists started smoking them out survived and the 2 guys Stevens and Smithg who stayed died. Now of course Stevens leaves he might have died anyway but he also might have survived like the other guy did.It would take more than luck to get an american out of Lybia during a massive terrorist military operation. It'd be practically impossible without outside support.
Just wondering why you are so obsessed with Embassy attacks being the end all be all of how our enemies see us despite your own admission that there have been 3 over a period of 40 years.I have a feeling you're trying to go somewhere with this, so let's go ahead and have it - what are those statistics?
If Obama hadn't done what he did Syria would still have it's chemical weapon plants. Might even be upping the use of Chemical weapons on civilians.Man, that is one huge credit pretzel that's being twisted right there. Obama's universally-lamented red-line gaffe that nearly plunged us into the middle of the Syrian civil war, in which we had absolutely no business or interest or possible advantage to be gained, is now to be given congratulations for giving Russia the opportunity to upstage us and look like the metaphorical prevailing cooler head, embarrasing us at home and abroad? Hey, the chemical weapons are being destroyed, and it started with Obama's amazing Xanatos gambit! Nnnnno. Sorry, I don't buy it. The truth of the matter is, if Obama hadn't done what he did, there wouldn't have been a war crisis - if Putin hadn't done what he did, the crisis would have gone over 9000.
Sure he did it in a stupid way but in the end a big big win for Obama's foreign policy.
Bush did lie about the chemical weapons. The Bush administration leaned hard on the CIA and even forced them multiple times to rewrite reports to give them the backing to go into Iraq. That really isn't up for debate for any rational person.Actually, the buildup to Iraq took over a year - plenty of time for Saddam to send his weapons to Syria, if you'll recall. Conversely, Obama was ready to start with the airstrikes within a week, coalition building be damned. You're also parroting the debunked "Bush lied" line.
And upon the day that Egypt calms down and begins to scale back American access in the region I'll believe that it was a complete foriegn policy debacle. Until then I'll maintain that it was a small miscalculation at worst.That's a very massaged and reinterpreted version of the chain of events that also relies on a what-if scenario. The pragmatic outcome, however, is that the majority of Egyptians-in-the-street believe the US backed Morsi, an opinion shaped by Obama's public statements at the time where he all but tried to take credit for the "Arab Spring" that brought Morsi into power and his apparent reluctance to repudiate him when it became obvious he was a monster. That in and of itself is a massive foreign policy failure.
#89
GasBandit
GasBandit
Not embassy attacks in general, just the one that killed an ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11 that the administration bungled to an epic degree and then lied and spun as hard as possible to obfuscate and deflect blame onto a previously unknown youtube video.Just wondering why you are so obsessed with Embassy attacks being the end all be all of how our enemies see us despite your own admission that there have been 3 over a period of 40 years.
Wow. Those are some epic size partisan blinders right there. Remind me to thank Lois Lane for saving us from the meteor by standing under it so Superman would do something about it.If Obama hadn't done what he did Syria would still have it's chemical weapon plants. Might even be upping the use of Chemical weapons on civilians.
Sure he did it in a stupid way but in the end a big big win for Obama's foreign policy.
Because rational people usually don't like being shouted down by rabid mynah birds. But some people still stick their face in the reaping machine, day after day.Bush did lie about the chemical weapons. The Bush administration leaned hard on the CIA and even forced them multiple times to rewrite reports to give them the backing to go into Iraq. That really isn't up for debate for any rational person.
The WaPo article said:On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
So now the goalposts are moved from "he didn't" to "it wasn't a big deal that he did." Everybody's mad at us over there, now, on both sides. It would have been hard to handle it worse without actual troop deployment.And upon the day that Egypt calms down and begins to scale back American access in the region I'll believe that it was a complete foriegn policy debacle. Until then I'll maintain that it was a small miscalculation at worst.
#90
Eriol
Eriol
Quote of the day here. That one is great.Remind me to thank Lois Lane for saving us from the meteor by standing under it so Superman would do something about it.
#91
D
Dubyamn
So maybe Lois Lane shouldn't be thanked for stopping the meteor but I'm sure as shit not going to call Superman a hero when he's the one who threw it at Earth in the first place.
Aluminum tubes: Lie. Experts had determined that those tubes were useless for an enrichment program.
Yellow cake: Lie that when they were called on it they outed a CIA agent in retaliation and then continued to use.
Mobile weapon labs: All information was gathered from a single information informant Curveball who was a known liar. Using this information was an absolute lie.
Iraq Al-Queda link: Lie literally without any sort of defense.
D
Dubyamn
So a sample size of literally one is the end all and be all of measuring the boldness of our enemies? Seems especially weak.Not embassy attacks in general, just the one that killed an ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11 that the administration bungled to an epic degree and then lied and spun as hard as possible to obfuscate and deflect blame onto a previously unknown youtube video.
I do like you felating and worshiping Putin as a hero in this situation. And how you "forget" who gave Syria the tech to build those chemical weapons and who has been supplying them with the military aid they need to keep on fighting their war.Wow. Those are some epic size partisan blinders right there. Remind me to thank Lois Lane for saving us from the meteor by standing under it so Superman would do something about it.
So maybe Lois Lane shouldn't be thanked for stopping the meteor but I'm sure as shit not going to call Superman a hero when he's the one who threw it at Earth in the first place.
The Bush administration cherry picked intelligence to build the case for war ignoring and silencing all voices in the intelligence community who tried to argue against their rush to war. Now you can say "That isn't lying they were just misinformed." But when every example they used to justify the Iraq war was known to be false by the experts in the field your objection is worthless.Because rational people usually don't like being shouted down by rabid mynah birds. But some people still stick their face in the reaping machine, day after day.
Aluminum tubes: Lie. Experts had determined that those tubes were useless for an enrichment program.
Yellow cake: Lie that when they were called on it they outed a CIA agent in retaliation and then continued to use.
Mobile weapon labs: All information was gathered from a single information informant Curveball who was a known liar. Using this information was an absolute lie.
Iraq Al-Queda link: Lie literally without any sort of defense.
No I still don't think that is what he did but even if that is how people saw it it's not a big deal.So now the goalposts are moved from "he didn't" to "it wasn't a big deal that he did." Everybody's mad at us over there, now, on both sides. It would have been hard to handle it worse without actual troop deployment.
#92
GasBandit
At any rate, it's part of what makes Obama's foreign policy record so abysmal - it actually gave Putin, the world's foremost supervillain, an international coup.
GasBandit
A sample size of one massive and complete failure, the scope of which can only be explained by astounding incompetence or intentional treason.So a sample size of literally one is the end all and be all of measuring the boldness of our enemies? Seems especially weak.
Fellating has two Ls, incidentally. And if I were you, I wouldn't be tossing that kind of rhetoric around when you are manifestly sucking down the obama kool-aid as fast as they can find cyanide to put in it.I do like you felating and worshiping Putin as a hero in this situation. And how you "forget" who gave Syria the tech to build those chemical weapons and who has been supplying them with the military aid they need to keep on fighting their war.
At any rate, it's part of what makes Obama's foreign policy record so abysmal - it actually gave Putin, the world's foremost supervillain, an international coup.
If a man digs a burmese tiger trap, then prevents a PETA protester from falling in it, he's still saved that person's life even if he is still a poacher.So maybe Lois Lane shouldn't be thanked for stopping the meteor but I'm sure as shit not going to call Superman a hero when he's the one who threw it at Earth in the first place.
Yep, there's that reaping machine I was talking about. Chant it hard, I know you believe it.The Bush administration cherry picked intelligence to build the case for war ignoring and silencing all voices in the intelligence community who tried to argue against their rush to war. Now you can say "That isn't lying they were just misinformed." But when every example they used to justify the Iraq war was known to be false by the experts in the field your objection is worthless.
Aluminum tubes: Lie. Experts had determined that those tubes were useless for an enrichment program.
Yellow cake: Lie that when they were called on it they outed a CIA agent in retaliation and then continued to use.
Mobile weapon labs: All information was gathered from a single information informant Curveball who was a known liar. Using this information was an absolute lie.
Iraq Al-Queda link: Lie literally without any sort of defense.
No I still don't think that is what he did but even if that is how people saw it it's not a big deal.
#93
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
@GasBandit and @Dubyamn argued and fought into the wee hours of the night, shouting each other until they were blue in the face. In the end, they were both left panting, red-faced, staring at each other with a fiery anger. In that moment, between the meeting of eyes, the mood seemed to shift. Without a word, the two fell into a fiery, hungry embrace.
Am I the only one that thinks this is how this should end?
Am I the only one that thinks this is how this should end?
#94
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Yeah but not explained by international terrorists being so emboldened by Obama's weakness.A sample size of one massive and complete failure, the scope of which can only be explained by astounding incompetence or intentional treason.
If giving him a win when he got everything he wanted without cost is sucking down the kool aid then the phrase is worthless.Fellating has two Ls, incidentally. And if I were you, I wouldn't be tossing that kind of rhetoric around when you are manifestly sucking down the obama kool-aid as fast as they can find cyanide to put in it.
International coup being him having to do something he clearly didn't want to do. Clearly a massive coup.At any rate, it's part of what makes Obama's foreign policy record so abysmal - it actually gave Putin, the world's foremost supervillain, an international coup.
Yeah he did but certainly shouldn't get a parade or any type of credit. But of course your metaphors like all the ones you have tried to use is fundamentally flawed.If a man digs a burmese tiger trap, then prevents a PETA protester from falling in it, he's still saved that person's life even if he is still a poacher.
Will do.Yep, there's that reaping machine I was talking about. Chant it hard, I know you believe it.
#95
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
I'ts hilarious that when two people disagree and argue on the forums, it automatically means they should make out.@GasBandit and @Dubyamn argued and fought into the wee hours of the night, shouting each other until they were blue in the face. In the end, they were both left panting, red-faced, staring at each other with a fiery anger. In that moment, between the meeting of eyes, the mood seemed to shift. Without a word, the two fell into a fiery, hungry embrace.
Am I the only one that thinks this is how this should end?
#96
strawman
strawman
THANKS OBAMA.I'ts hilarious that when two people disagree and argue on the forums, it automatically means they should make out.
#97
GasBandit
GasBandit
Well they certainly won't be cowed by it.Yeah but not explained by international terrorists being so emboldened by Obama's weakness.
So you're saying he wanted to look like an idiot manchild who painted himself into a corner and only got out of it by being thrown a lifeline by an opponent?If giving him a win when he got everything he wanted without cost is sucking down the kool aid then the phrase is worthless.
He got to be the big man on the scene, which is something Putin loves more than anything else. Also, he naturally got to spotlight American bumbling with his actions, which I'm sure he found to be a bonus.International coup being him having to do something he clearly didn't want to do. Clearly a massive coup.
And yet he did. Even Obama's media cheerleaders recognized that.Yeah he did but certainly shouldn't get a parade or any type of credit.
[DOUBLEPOST=1385409536,1385409482][/DOUBLEPOST]The New York Times of all people said:President Obama woke up Monday facing a Congressional defeat that many in both parties believed could hobble his presidency. And by the end of the day, he found himself in the odd position of relying on his Russian counterpart, Vladimir V. Putin, of all people, to bail him out.
I had no idea of all the poonany I've been due all these years, and missed out on.I'ts hilarious that when two people disagree and argue on the forums, it automatically means they should make out.
#98
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
I don't think it's poonany that's been arguing with you all these years.I had no idea of all the poonany I've been due all these years, and missed out on.
#99
GasBandit
GasBandit
Sometimes it has been.I don't think it's poonany that's been arguing with you all these years.
#100
MindDetective
MindDetective
I don't particularly have a dog in this fight but it occurs to me that a policy can be effective but unpopular, misperceived, or executed in a bumbling (but still effective) manner. If you are going to discuss public perception, that is fine, but you seem to be trying to argue the merits of foreign policy by relying on public perception as a crutch. At the very least, it is a weak position to argue from.So you're saying he wanted to look like an idiot manchild who painted himself into a corner and only got out of it by being thrown a lifeline by an opponent?
#101
GasBandit
And I don't believe for a second that Obama expected Putin to step up and save him. This was not some cunning Xanatos gambit, as I said earlier.
GasBandit
Part of foreign policy is the appearance of strength or weakness, competence or lack thereof, on the world stage. When your head of state is seen as bumbling, it hurts your international gravitas.I don't particularly have a dog in this fight but it occurs to me that a policy can be effective but unpopular, misperceived, or executed in a bumbling (but still effective) manner. If you are going to discuss public perception, that is fine, but you seem to be trying to argue the merits of foreign policy by relying on public perception as a crutch. At the very least, it is a weak position to argue from.
And I don't believe for a second that Obama expected Putin to step up and save him. This was not some cunning Xanatos gambit, as I said earlier.
#102
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Yeah but we've gone far afield here.Well they certainly won't be cowed by it.
No I'm saying that from the beginning we wanted Syria's Chemical weapon stockpile destroyed or at least contained. Obama has accomplished that without spending American blood and treasure. Which is better than I thought we would be doing.So you're saying he wanted to look like an idiot manchild who painted himself into a corner and only got out of it by being thrown a lifeline by an opponent?
I'm sure that it salved the fact that he was forced to throw an ally under the bus. Still doesn't change the fact that he pretty obviously didn't want to have to turn on AssadHe got to be the big man on the scene, which is something Putin loves more than anything else. Also, he naturally got to spotlight American bumbling with his actions, which I'm sure he found to be a bonus.
Okay so Putin got credit that wasn't fully deserved. *I'mokaywiththis.jpg*And yet he did. Even Obama's media cheerleaders recognized that.
#103
MindDetective
MindDetective
The bolded bit is the reason that I feel it is a relatively weak position you are taking.Part of foreign policy is the appearance of strength or weakness, competence or lack thereof, on the world stage. When your head of state is seen as bumbling, it hurts your international gravitas.
And I don't believe for a second that Obama expected Putin to step up and save him. This was not some cunning Xanatos gambit, as I said earlier.
#104
strawman
strawman
I think part of the problem is that in the Middle East, nearly all of foreign policy is your perceived strength. I don't know much about Middle East culture, but one of my friends who has studied their culture and languages for years suggested that appearing weak and willing to sit down at a table with them will never result in them changing.
In the US it may be that the ends justify the perception of weakness and incompetence, but that isn't going to fly if we want them to experience real change. The only thing we can negotiate for right now is our surrender to their terms.
In the US it may be that the ends justify the perception of weakness and incompetence, but that isn't going to fly if we want them to experience real change. The only thing we can negotiate for right now is our surrender to their terms.
#105
D
Dubyamn
Did he mention if the last 60+ years just haven't been long enough of projecting strength or maybe we haven't projected enough strength? Maybe with the drone policy we were just about to force the Muslims to the table even though sitting at the table would be seen as the ultimate weakness?
Does your friend actually have an idea for how to fix the Middle East? Cause quite frankly not engaging with the entire Middle East isn't a rational possibility.
D
Dubyamn
So was he talking about Persian culture? Or Turkish culture? Arab?I think part of the problem is that in the Middle East, nearly all of foreign policy is your perceived strength. I don't know much about Middle East culture, but one of my friends who has studied their culture and languages for years suggested that appearing weak and willing to sit down at a table with them will never result in them changing.
In the US it may be that the ends justify the perception of weakness and incompetence, but that isn't going to fly if we want them to experience real change. The only thing we can negotiate for right now is our surrender to their terms.
Did he mention if the last 60+ years just haven't been long enough of projecting strength or maybe we haven't projected enough strength? Maybe with the drone policy we were just about to force the Muslims to the table even though sitting at the table would be seen as the ultimate weakness?
Does your friend actually have an idea for how to fix the Middle East? Cause quite frankly not engaging with the entire Middle East isn't a rational possibility.
#106
strawman
strawman