Can Obama Lose? Will he be a one-term president?

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I completely and totally disagree. A GOP president would have found some way to keep them there. In fact, every GOP candidate has said exactly this, so I don't know why you think any differently.

Actually, it was Bush that signed SOFA. Obama didn't have a choice but to get the troops out by the end of this year.

0 Replies

@Questioner,

Quote:

also started targeting American nationals for assassination

You mean Americans citizens that had taken up arms against the US and offer aid and support to those who wish to do more mass killings of Americans on American soil?

I agree with the Romans who always went strongly after their deserters /traitors.

Demanding that such be turn over to them as a first condition of talking peace with any enemy and normally such traitors would kill themselves before allowing themselves to fall into their countrymen hands.

Sorry it there is anything worst then someone like our former friend Laden it is Americans who had offer him aid in doing his mass murders.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I completely and totally disagree. A GOP president would have found some way to keep them there.

Precisely. Like manufacturing evidence of WMD's and using post 9/11 fears and flag waiving to justify a military presence. Hell, lying and pulling the wool over people's eyes is pages 12 - 45 of the GOP handbook.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Exactly, because why let a little thing like Constitutional rights get in the way of a good 'ol popularity boost like offing an enemy combatant?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't believe this is actually true in the slightest. His job approval ratings have been consistent for almost two years, falling in the 40-45% approval range. He is rated as 'more trusted' on almost every issue than the GOP is. He also consistently polls very high in personal approval numbers (not connected to his job performance; 'likeability.') Do you have some evidence to support your contention here, and to counter polling evidence that shows him still holding on to a great deal of support?

You are right, that was an overstatement on my part. His approval ratings are not as low as my statement implied.

Quote:

Yes, that's exactly correct. People have wanted troops out of Iraq for a long time and one way or another he's the guy who is doing it.

I don't see how he's doing it though, he left them there as long as possible, missing his own deadlines. I don't think he actually took any action that hastened this in any significant way.

Quote:

The only part that's INCORRECT is that Iraq is 'kicking us out.' They aren't doing that, they don't have the capability to do that. All they are doing is specifically not allowing our soldiers to continue to have immunity from prosecution.

If you are talking about their military capability they certainly lack that, but at this point the presence of US troops on their soil is subject to their approval and from a legal perspective they certainly do have the capability to. It would be illegal under international law for America to stay if the Iraqis do not wish it.

So when you talk about it being merely a matter of them failing to give us immunity from prosecution it ignores that this is just a breakdown in a negotiation to modify the existing agreement, wherein Iraq stipulated that America must leave. We are leaving at the last minute possible because they are not willing to extend the legal basis of our presence any further on the terms we require.

You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The US is legally obligated to leave Iraq this year unless Iraq grants an extension, Iraq is not willing to do so if American soldiers continue to have immunity and something America is not willing to do without.

So yes, this withdrawal is being done on Iraqi terms, and under Obama the USA has stayed to the last minute legally possible to do so. I thusly don't credit him for withdrawing. I have not seen him do anything to hasten it and see this process as being largely inevitable regardless of administration.

Quote:

Quote:
Iraq went the way it would have gone under any administration during the period he was in charge.

I completely and totally disagree. A GOP president would have found some way to keep them there. In fact, every GOP candidate has said exactly this, so I don't know why you think any differently.

Because I happen to understand the legal basis for the current American presence there and understand that it's up to the Iraqis and not the Americans. The majority of Iraq wants us out, the GOP can't change that. Sadr's army is willing to start insurgency again if America stays any longer. There is simply not the requisite political capital in Iraq for a continued American presence on palatable terms to America and despite America having the military power to ignore it that is a level of perfidy that is simply not on the table. We just aren't going to stay in Iraq against their wishes, that is just not realistic at all right now, and we are leaving on their timetable.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I think his assassination policy is immoral.

Lord what a bullshit position to take and I would love to place you the in a room full of the families of the men women and children that was on those four planes along with the families of those who lost love ones at the three buildings hit by those planes and the survivors of the attack so you could explain how we was immoral for taking the SOB out to them.

This is just an argumentum ad misericordiam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity

"An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam)[1] is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion."

My argument is that assassination when capture is viable is immoral, appealing to pity does nothing to address this position, it's a fallacious way to argue.

Quote:

An SOB that was an ongoing threat to others men women and children in the US.

Assassination is not the only way to eliminate a threat. Opposing assassination therefore is not an argument to the effect that the threat should be ignored.

1 Reply

@Questioner,

Constitutional rights to enter into open arm conflict with the US and kill fellow Americans and not risk being kill themselves?

Or perhaps in reading the Constitution I missed where we need to risk getting our soldiers kill in order to try to capture such an arm person on the battlefield instead of placing a hell fire missile up his rear end.

Such a person could turn himself in at anytime and get to enjoy his constitutional rights it that would be his wish.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Assassination is not the only way to eliminate a threat. Opposing assassination therefore is not an argument to the effect that the threat should be ignored

.

It is however the means of doing so at the minimum risk to our men and women in the military.

We do not owe mass killers anything at all and we do owe our people who man the walls to keep evil out every means of reducing their risks in doing their jobs.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

I understand, I just don't personally buy that branding because I see him as a failure (even though I think he does have those qualities I think serious, responsible and steady people can still fail miserably) and am unsure if the country will as well. I'll give him this, though, he's certainly got those qualities over his opponents in spades.

I wonder how much of the Occupy movement and populism he'll infuse the campaign with. Despite being one of the 1% I think he could make the economic angle work for him if he tries to highlight "obstructionism" by pushing for jobs tied to taxing the rich and making the GOP oppose it.

Is there any indication if he's going to use an economic populist plank in his campaign yet?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Ok, so where would you draw the line then? Could we justify sending our policemen into a hostile situation at a known drug safehouse? Or should we just carpet bomb the block and assume that everyone next door just had it coming?

The problem isn't the particular individual that was killed nor the lives that were saved in the process, but rather the slippery as hell slope we start down when we allow our government to do this kind of thing for these kind of reasons.

1 Reply

@Questioner,

Sorry I will more then risk that slope if it mean killing an arm American on foreign soil that is in open arm conflict with the US in a manner that does not risk our military men and women lives unnecessarily.

If he does not care for the risk he is free to turn himself in at anytime.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

It is however the means of doing so at the minimum risk to our men and women in the military.

Dropping a bomb would have been the minimum risk for the men and women but after sending them in person to take his dead body away and dump it in the ocean it would not have presented significantly more risk to them to take him (he was unarmed) alive.

The decision to kill him was not made on the basis of protecting the men and women of the military. It was influenced by reasons political, not tactical. Capturing him alive was as easy for them to do as what was done, but despite the lies told after the raid no contingency was made for such a thing. They were told their mission was to kill Bin Laden. They were not told their mission was to capture and/or kill him. There were told, and I quote from memory, "we have found Bin Laden. And your job is to kill him."

Quote:

We do not owe mass killers anything at all and we do owe our people who man the walls to keep evil out every means of reducing their risks in doing their jobs.

The erosion of the society's values when it comes to monsters is, nevertheless, an erosion of the society's overall values. The weakening of the rule of law, and the principles it is based on, undermines the checks and balances that civilized society depends on.

Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable concept and to simply decide that the court of public opinion is good enough in cases of extreme notoriety is to establish an arbitrary, and most importantly uncodified, exception to the rule of law.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Because I happen to understand the legal basis for the current American presence there and understand that it's up to the Iraqis and not the Americans.

It's not a question of 'legal basis' for many proponents of the war. There was no legal basis to attack in the first place; that sure as hell didn't stop us from attacking. It would not have stopped a GOP president from attempting to use whatever force necessary to change that legal agreement. Isn't that perfectly clear to you by this point?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

The erosion of the society's values when it comes to monsters is, nevertheless, an erosion of the society's overall values. The weakening of the rule of law, and the principles it is based on, undermines the checks and balances that civilized society depends on.

And yet, when it comes to banks and corporations, you are, shall we say, not so concerned over who may have broken laws. Confused

I certainly haven't heard much out of you about how our society is undermined by the massive fraud perpetrated by banks - and the decisions to do so by individuals at those banks - in the mortgage crisis. Just a lot of talk about how everyone thought they were doing legal and right things all the time, and the system just sort of accidentally collapsed.

Quote:

Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable concept and to simply decide that the court of public opinion is good enough in cases of extreme notoriety is to establish an arbitrary, and most importantly uncodified, exception to the rule of law.

There is no presumption of innocence when the party in question repeatedly claims responsibility for an action!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Let see we capture him alive and run into the same situation that West Germany did with their terrorist group the Red Army fraction/ Baader-Meinhof Group in the late 1970s

In any case there was an number of them sitting in a nice West Germany prison when fellow travelers keep holding German hostages/kidnapping them in order to pressure the German government for their released.

Off hand I forget how many people end up dying over this matter and then somehow the prisoners was able to hang themselves in their high security cells.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And yet, when it comes to banks and corporations, you are, shall we say, not so concerned over who may have broken laws.

I disagree, I simply don't think that there was as much of it as you seem to. You twist that into a claim that I am not concerned about who broke laws but I don't think you have a very honest basis upon which to make that claim.

Quote:

I certainly haven't heard much out of you about how our society is undermined by the massive fraud perpetrated by banks - and the decisions to do so by individuals at those banks - in the mortgage crisis. Just a lot of talk about how everyone thought they were doing legal and right things all the time, and the system just sort of accidentally collapsed.

If you have any crime to point out have at it. I'm just not with you on these nebulous ones you just want to incessantly allude to without any evidence. Last thing I said to you about this was that I'm perfectly fine with any kind of investigation and to punish these individuals to the full extent of the law but I can see how it's easier to cast aspersions on my motivations by saying I would rather turn a blind eye to it all than to produce such evidence of actual wrongdoing.

Quote:

There is no presumption of innocence when the party in question repeatedly claims responsibility for an action!

That isn't always true but let's ignore those quibbles about confessions and admissions and their role in a well-functioning justice system because there's still a glaring problem with the sentencing being arbitrarily carried out without due process.

Even if you presume his guilt, the ideal way to punish him is through a transparent legal process. I am not hugely miffed that this ideal was not upheld in his case but am disappointed that Obama has, as this article put it "made assassinations cool again".

My qualm with Obama is that he's actually quite hawkish in general (I keep meaning to campaign for the Nobel to be returned) and more than willing to step up covert assassinations around the globe. All the while he gets a free pass on it and liberals are reluctant to call him on it and now the country doesn't care about things like torture and civil liberties the way it did while Bush was president. And nothing has changed except the branding. This is my qualm with this, the overal morals of the foreign policy have not changed, despite his lofty rhetoric about it and he largely gets a free pass on it.

It's stupid. The policy of assassinations likely creates more enemies and risk than it averts. We have secret agreements with governments that lie to their people and this kind of shady **** is precisely the kind of thing that gets people pissed off at America.

Anyway, there are probably other threads we should continue this on if you don't agree as it's a bit of a tangent and I readily admit that America doesn't share my values on this and it won't be a negative factor at all for Obama's re-election.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

I see what you mean about the candidates "showing their cards" too early when you quoted Robertson. I think these right wing extremists are scaring even the Republicans. Rick Perry is almost a saint in Texas--even though he had an innocent man executed--in Texas that's not a sin, but he's showing himself to be an extremist, which is fine for most Republicans, but they don't want him to be so explicit about his extremism, so he's out. To counteract he's been acting like a goofball--assuming he was sober--, ala GWB, but it doesn't seem to be helping. Maybe even the republicans couldn't stomach another GWB.

Cain is looking nutty too, now, but then to me he always did.

Rommey is looking like the gop candidate in default. Though moderate, he appears leftist to republicans. Even a moderate Republican in the White House is scary with a Republican congress.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's not a question of 'legal basis' for many proponents of the war. There was no legal basis to attack in the first place; that sure as hell didn't stop us from attacking. It would not have stopped a GOP president from attempting to use whatever force necessary to change that legal agreement. Isn't that perfectly clear to you by this point?

No, it seems wholly disconnected from reality to me.

There is no political capital for another war of aggression in America. The GOP wouldn't have been able to drum up support for the war without the reflexive paranoia after 9/11 and the political capital that afforded them and after the mess that it turned out to be the American public was a wariness for such adventures on their national conscience.

The bottom line is that all that has happened in Iraq since Obama took over was pretty much a fait accompli when he took office. I give him credit for speaking out against Iraq and torture and all while he campaigned but once elected he easily gave up on closing what he called the "sad chapter of American history" that is Gitmo and stepped up the assassinations all while the public outcry over such blights to our moral positon has all but evaporated.

I think Obama has been an incredibly harmful force insofar as these things are concerned. He managed to relegate the issues to the back burner while turning up the heat and that is not a good thing.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Anyway, there are probably other threads we should continue this on if you don't agree as it's a bit of a tangent and I readily admit that America doesn't share my values on this and it won't be a negative factor at all for Obama's re-election.

Okay, I'll agree with that.

Re: the populism angle, Obama has been working it into every speech he gives and his advisers have been openly accusing the GOP of intentionally sabotaging the economy rather than get anything done. He's been getting a lot of mileage out of pointing out that majorities of REPUBLICANS agree with his job-creation ideas, and even agree with tax raises on the rich.

I think he could see quite a bit of success with Americans, by stating: "Okay, I'll admit I screwed up. I tried working with the other side. I tried negotiating, I tried compromise. When they complained, we adjusted our plans to accommodate their complaints. And it was a mistake do so, because it's become clear that they never intended to do anything but sabotage the system to the greatest extent possible - and that's exactly what they have done. But I won't make that mistake again, I assure you..."

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

It's been a while since I read the account, but I thought the orders were to capture if possible. Had he surrendered (unlikely, IMO, but possible) he would have been taken into custody.

1 Reply

Can Obama Lose? Will he be a one-term president?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know