|
Dear Mr. President, Next time, please tell us that we're going to war and the reasons for it before the fact rather than after. Thanks!
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
The UNSC resolution does not go as far as retime change so maybe Obama felt hamstrung by that.Suntory BOSS posted:Dear Mr. President, Why? Its not like it changes anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
Carnival47 posted:Yeah I'm having trouble working out the logic in how "regime change" is defined in this speech. If Obama believes that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake", then what exactly is the primary objective of this "No Fly Zone"? Providing what is essentially tactical air support for the rebel advance towards Tripoli implies that regime change is the goal of this military mission. Intervening in civil wars is an international law no-no. That's why it's being framed by the UN and everyone involved as a no fly zone and protecting civilians. Everyone knows what the real deal is, it's just a matter of framing it the right way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
It's really not hard to understand. He is protecting the people who are revolting against their government from massacre, not installing regime change. It is up to the people to take action and change the regime. He is giving the people/citizens the opportunity to change their government for the better, because that is what they demand. It's how things SHOULD be. Good on him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
"If we are told by a foreign Power -- what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." - George Washington
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
straw man posted:"If we are told by a foreign Power -- what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." - George Washington Uh...what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
George Washington quotes. Super. The USA and the world are a little different since then. By the way the only reason Washington wasn't hung as a traitor was because of the French. Heh! A historical example of a Power intervening in a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Carnival47 posted:Yeah I'm having trouble working out the logic in how "regime change" is defined in this speech. Regime change is "what George Bush did". That's not flippant: that phrase is completely tainted and so you simply can't use it without flipping the bird to everyone. It'd be like calling this "a crusade against injustice": it's now one of those hot-button words. There's a difference in practice as well in this sense: farraday posted:He's trying to thread a needle. The goal of the US is regime change and he said so, however we will not pursue that militarily in the sense that our military will not change the regime. but at the end of the day, the real reason we are not after "regime change" even if someone should accidentally fire a missile directly at Quadaffi, is because the phrase is poisonous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why? Its not like it changes anything. You're right. In fact, why even bother telling the American people at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Uh...what? Yeah even I'm having trouble with that,is it an argument against intervening because it defeats the purpose of the fight for democracy or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
straw man posted:"If we are told by a foreign Power -- what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." - George Washington Look at you, that is just adorable you little dickens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:Dear Mr. President, Everybody knows why and was aware before we intervened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:You're right. In fact, why even bother telling the American people at all? Thats not what I said. He told us and Congress and that is enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Like seriously, you had to be a moron or playing one on national TV for political reasons to not know what we were doing, that we were going to do it before we did, and why. It just wasn't made explicit because that makes it much harder to do and there was no gain from doing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:George Washington quotes. Super. The USA and the world are a little different since then. By the way the only reason Washington wasn't hung as a traitor was because of the French. I thought it carried substantial symbolic weight that France was the first into Libya. I would argue, though, that the world hasn't changed nearly as much as the government-media complex would have you believe. (It's like the military-industrial complex.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
I see the lack of regime change talk as putting a line in the sand. The US will not pour all of its resources in overthrowing Ghaddafi. We'll help the Libyans with air strikes, but its up to them to do it. In the horrible event that they don't (unlikely, as Libya being split up seems the likely result of the rebel's failure), then it gives the US an out, one we need when we're already in two Muslim wars. EDIT: Straw man, what the hell are you saying? English, mofo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Everybody knows why and was aware before we intervened. Is that so? Given the extent to which the Japan disaster dominated news cycles, I expect there are plenty of Americans who had no idea anything was happening in Libya until the bombs started falling*. Protest and uprisings in faraway lands tend to blur together, and by the time the Libya situation escalated to the point that US military intervention was deemed necessary, a lot of Americans had probably started tuning them out. Even if that were true, it's certainly no thanks to the Obama Administration. The President was absolutely right to authorize military intervention in Libya, but he needs to get better at communicating his accomplishments and decisions to the voting public. *Yes, you can call these people morons. The point remains valid. Suntory BOSS fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
In terms of military tech, international institutions, status and power of America, and concept of international and humanitarian law the world is completely different. So you quote was dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:Even if that were true, it's certainly no thanks to the Obama Administration. The President was absolutely right to authorize military intervention in Libya, but he needs to get better at communicating his accomplishments and decisions to the voting public. This wasn't a problem of bad communication, this was an issue of deliberately ambiguous communication because staking out clear positions on this was seriously counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
Carnival47 posted:Yeah I'm having trouble working out the logic in how "regime change" is defined in this speech. If Obama believes that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake", then what exactly is the primary objective of this "No Fly Zone"? Providing what is essentially tactical air support for the rebel advance towards Tripoli implies that regime change is the goal of this military mission. Regime change will be a by-product of protecting the people who are opposing Gaddafi. They aren't directly going after Gaddafi, but if he were captured they'd just go "Meh, good on you guys, glad we could help." The NFZ does what it's supposed to, and that's protect people. That these are the same people who will take down Gaddafi is a coincidence that we all knew would happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:The President was absolutely right to authorize military intervention in Libya, but he needs to get better at communicating his accomplishments and decisions to the voting public. He has given two prime time TV announcements. What more do you want. I think it is two right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This wasn't a problem of bad communication, this was an issue of deliberately ambiguous communication because staking out clear positions on this was seriously counterproductive. I think there was also a definite element that Obama did not want to make a televised address until NATO's take over was set in stone, if not, obviously finalized. He didn't want to have to speak on the terms of what was happening last week, but what is going to be happening this week. VVV If we don't have children will they first provide us with children they will turn gay, or do the children come pre-gayed? farraday fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Uh...what? I think it's pretty self explanatory. Either we act unilaterally in international crises or Freemasons will turn our children gay. Something like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
straw man posted:"If we are told by a foreign Power -- what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." - George Washington People seem to forget that at the time America was a thinly populated, dirt poor, nation of farmers and hiding behind the Atlantic Ocean was the best way of not getting curb stomped by some empire hungry European power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I see the lack of regime change talk as putting a line in the sand. The US will not pour all of its resources in overthrowing Ghaddafi. We'll help the Libyans with air strikes, but its up to them to do it. That, and saying 'Look, G, man. We ain't actively trying to kill you. You want to leave? We'll help you leave. C'mon, get out.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Like seriously, you had to be a moron or playing one on national TV for political reasons to not know what we were doing, that we were going to do it before we did, and why. It just wasn't made explicit because that makes it much harder to do and there was no gain from doing it. It's scary that american news is soo watered down that the average american is too uniformed to actully have an opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:EDIT: Straw man, what the hell are you saying? English, mofo. euphronius posted:In terms of military tech, international institutions, status and power of America, and concept of international and humanitarian law the world is completely different. So you quote was dumb. fap fap SPLOOGE posted:I think it's pretty self explanatory. Either we act unilaterally in international crises or Freemasons will turn our children gay. Something like that. Part of the fun and the challenge in participating in a progressive community is that it's not possible to present an outside idea without opening oneself to an attack on the messenger. This was all written down by Saul Alinsky in 1971, and, while it works, it only works in the absence of leadership - certainly not a problem during the Nixon administration nor any of those that have followed. America's founders made a pretty clear stand against alliances. I'm not saying they're right or wrong - just that it's what they said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
How is saying your quote was stupid attacking the messenger? Do you even know what the phrase means?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
straw man posted:Part of the fun and the challenge in participating in a progressive community is that it's not possible to present an outside idea without opening oneself to an attack on the messenger. This was all written down by Saul Alinsky in 1971, and, while it works, it only works the absence of leadership - certainly not a problem during the Nixon administration nor any of those that have followed. America's founders took a pretty clear stand on desperately begging for french help to allow their country to exist, a fact you're already aware of. The fact America's founders were flaming hypocrites is nothing new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
straw man posted:Part of the fun and the challenge in participating in a progressive community is that it's not possible to present an outside idea without opening oneself to an attack on the messenger. This was all written down by Saul Alinsky in 1971, and, while it works, it only works in the absence of leadership - certainly not a problem during the Nixon administration nor any of those that have followed. Um, what did most of this mean? Also, the early American isolationist policies have been completely swept aside by centuries of history, and holding any modern day politician accountable to uphold them is utter lunacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
straw man posted:America's founders made a pretty clear stand against alliances. I'm not saying they're right or wrong - just that it's what they said. I really don't understand the point of your argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
straw man posted:Part of the fun and the challenge in participating in a progressive community is that it's not possible to present an outside idea without opening oneself to an attack on the messenger. This was all written down by Saul Alinsky in 1971, and, while it works, it only works in the absence of leadership - certainly not a problem during the Nixon administration nor any of those that have followed. Tossing in a quote from the founding fathers without an actual argument to back it up is not 'presenting an outside idea', its 'appeal to authority'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Tossing in a quote from the founding fathers without an actual argument to back it up is not 'presenting an outside idea', its 'appeal to authority'. Actually, I believe this is more accurately a red herring; an appeal to authority should have a connected conclusion. Clearly straw man needs a name change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Tossing in a quote from the founding fathers without an actual argument to back it up is not 'presenting an outside idea', its 'appeal to authority'. It isn't even that, because he even said that he didn't necessarily agree with the quote. So basically he's dropping a quote that has nothing to do with the context of the situation for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Why do peole care about or mention Alinsky? Was he just trolling or did Alinsky have some magical influence on my thought that I am unaware of? I am guessing trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why do peole care about or mention Alinsky? Was he just trolling or did Alinsky have some magical influence on my thought that I am unaware of? I am guessing trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
farraday posted:Actually, I believe this is more accurately a red herring; an appeal to authority should have a connected conclusion. Yeah. I also detect a reference to/fear of the worldwide Jewish socialist conspiracy. Same with the Soros hate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:How is saying your quote was stupid attacking the messenger? Do you even know what the phrase means? farraday posted:America's founders took a pretty clear stand on desperately begging for french help to allow their country to exist, a fact you're already aware of. The fact America's founders were flaming hypocrites is nothing new. ChaosSamusX posted:Um, what did most of this mean? Also, the early American isolationist policies have been completely swept aside by centuries of history, and holding any modern day politician accountable to uphold them is utter lunacy. Carnival47 posted:I really don't understand the point of your argument. Wiz posted:Tossing in a quote from the founding fathers without an actual argument to back it up is not 'presenting an outside idea', its 'appeal to authority'. farraday posted:Actually, I believe this is more accurately a red herring; an appeal to authority should have a connected conclusion. ChaosSamusX posted:It isn't even that, because he even said that he didn't necessarily agree with the quote. So basically he's dropping a quote that has nothing to do with the context of the situation for no apparent reason. euphronius posted:Why do peole care about or mention Alinsky? Was he just trolling or did Alinsky have some magical influence on my thought that I am unaware of? I am guessing trolling. It would be an appeal to authority, and therefore a logical fallacy, if I were using it to back up an argument. I didn't. I quoted George Washington saying something about "foreign power" after Barack Obama said something about "collective action". I'm not making an argument - but just because I'm not making an argument, that doesn't put my contribution out of context. Modern politicians aren't accountable to uphold two-hundred-year-old philosophies. They are accountable to understand them. America's founders were, indeed, human, as are the rest of us. Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, one of the early treatises of community organizing. I believe his work had some influence on Barack Obama. What was this about, again? "If we are told by a foreign Power -- what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." - George Washington
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
Are you a pol sci 101 student, because you have no idea what you're talking about. The quote doesn't even relate to Libya in the context it was said. If you're trying to spin the quote to have meaning then you need to provide an explanation. Are you saying that the US is a foreign power telling Libya what it should and shouldn't do? or that Obama is the power telling the US people what it should and shouldn't do. Either way you're just grasping at straws to create meaning, and it's pretty obnoxious to quote that in the first place and then backtrot by saying you weren't making a statement.
Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
"Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" - George Washington
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:23
|
|