Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Can you repeat the questions, sorry, I forgot what you asked.

No problem.

First, how can you have such perfect trust in US foreign policy and such distrust in Domestic policy, when the same people are running it? For you to claim that the US hasn't made mistakes in the Middle East, that we haven't caused a lot of problems over there, implies this. You constantly talk about how the Government can't run anything right; but you think we've ran foreign policy correctly, and that nothing we've done has lead to aggression against us, period? This is exactly what you are stating, and I can't understand the logic in your position.

Good question. Here is what I believe. I think what can best be done by individuals should be done by us, that is what our constitution supports, however I also believe that probably the foremost and most legitimate function of government is national security and defense. So a couple of things here, I think when government intrudes upon what should be individual choice and responsibility, the liklihood and probabilities are much much greater for mistakes, errors, ineptness, inefficiencies, and corruption, will result. When government does what it has been foremost created to do, such as national defense and security, we recognize that individually we could not do this very well and although mistakes will be made in doing those jobs as well, I think we all know it comes with the territory and we must therefore make the best of it and do the best we can to get the job done together. Will there be mistakes made, yes, but the mistakes are more acceptable because that is the only logical way to approach the job. Should we recognize the mistakes and try to correct them, sure we should. Domestically however, one of the primary mistakes is that we are involved in something we should not be involved in, peoples personal lives, and the error of trying to be involved in some things is inexcusable, we should know what the constitution mandates and what it does not.

Quote:

Secondly, what about my attitude - that events tend to have causes and that the US as a whole ought to think about this before taking action - is 'dangerous?' You claim that this is a very dangerous mindset. What is dangerous about it?

Cycloptichorn

I think you misunderstood the part of your mindset that I call dangerous. In regard to what we do internationally as having consequences, sure, I agree that they do, however, if we looked at some of the policies that we have had, I think I would likely very much disagree with you about whether they were right or wrong or whether they were the cause of something like 9/11. You see, I think people that have been taught hatred would still hate us, regardless of what we do, and I do not believe that we have done so many things so terribly that we deserve the hatred, in fact if not for us, much of Europe or the world would now be living under tyranny.

I think the dangerous part of your atttitude is that you imply that perhaps terrorists or killers, and the teachers of hatred, are justified in what they are doing. That is dangerous.

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie, Wright is a separate issue. I'm not concerned with Obama's hair dresser's opinion either. Your constant drivel about Obama’s associations with Wright and Ayers moves me not at all. I know good and bad people myself. Sinners and saints. We all do.

Cyclo: You're being deliberately obtuse. Muslim Fundementalist Extremism is considerably bigger than Osama Bin Ladin. To pretend the world would be just peachy if we hadn't enabled OBL in our proxy war against the Soviets, betrays the naivity in fools who don't know better. You do. Your view of "Chickens" isn't completely outlandish... but it most certainly isn't "mainstream." When you choose not to be honest about the obvious, discussion with you becomes tedious.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cyclo: You're being deliberately obtuse. Muslim Fundementalist Extremism is considerably bigger than Osama Bin Ladin. To pretend the world would be just peachy if we hadn't enabled OBL in our proxy war against the Soviets, betrays the naivity in fools who don't know better.

Good thing I didn't say that then. Please don't Appeal to Extremes, Bill. Engaging in Logical Fallacies doesn't help move the argument forward.

I DID say, and still support the idea, that if we hadn't enabled OBL, 9/11 would not have happened. And I think you would be hard-pressed to show that it would have, if you bothered to research the history leading up to the event.

Quote:

You do. Your view of "Chickens" isn't completely outlandish... but it most certainly isn't "mainstream." When you choose not to be honest about the obvious, discussion with you becomes tedious.

You have nothing to offer other than your opinion on this matter; you continually assert that it isn't mainstream but don't offer any data showing that.

I think that most adults know that events happen for a reason, and that people aren't simply 'evil.' Stating that this belief applies to our country as well isn't outlandish at all. And you were incorrect - Okie DOES seem to have been making exactly the argument you said nobody would make. Please review the thread and see why I have bothered to defend this point in depth.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Okie, Wright is a separate issue. I'm not concerned with Obama's hair dresser's opinion either. Your constant drivel about Obama’s associations with Wright and Ayers moves me not at all. I know good and bad people myself. Sinners and saints. We all do.

If that is what you believe, fine, I think you are an honest man. I just think you are wrong, and I am also being honest when I think Wright was much much more than a "hair dresser's opinion." I reject the idea that just anybody associates with people holding radical opinions, people like Wright and Ayers, and the other Marxists and various radicals. You consider it drivel, I consider it the wisdom of continuing to say the truth, stating the obvious, until everyone has a chance to actually confront it and realize, sheesh, the people that were warning us were right, it wasn't alarmist, it was real, and it was logical. I do actually fear for our beloved country, Bill, I think we are going to be lucky to survive this next 3 years, or 7, I hope not 7.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Pretend for a second that Wright was not a part of this conversation. Forget the specific "Chickens come home to roost" statement.

Let's say that somebody of no particular fame had said that the USA's foreign policy over several decades had made us a target and that they weren't surprised we were targeted.

Wright was not the first person to has this feeling.

I think that you hold this belief too, even if you express it in a different way. I believe I can make you demonstrate it too. Tell me why the USA was targeted in your opinion. Unless you would tell us that it was arbitrary, that we were most convenient, or that we the easiest, I can't see how you yourself will be able to avoid mentally bridging a relationship between American foreign policy and terrorist motives.

I think the hold up in the conversation is this. Saying that I believe the USA's involvement is present does not mean that I think the attacks are justified or inevitable.

Do you think American foreign policy has been perfect? In your words, what is the product of bad policy/actions? What can happen?

Do you think America has enemies? If you do, why do you think we have them? Why do you believe our enemies hate us?

Is there no liability in US actions?

Why does asking these questions make a person a "terrorist sympathizer" or an "America hater?"

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

OB - I just read a later one of your posts. You did state that you understand the relationship. Nevermind.

I guess I don't understand your objection to Cyclo's statements.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

When government does what it has been foremost created to do, such as national defense and security, we recognize that individually we could not do this very well and although mistakes will be made in doing those jobs as well, I think we all know it comes with the territory and we must therefore make the best of it and do the best we can to get the job done together. Will there be mistakes made, yes, but the mistakes are more acceptable because that is the only logical way to approach the job. Should we recognize the mistakes and try to correct them, sure we should. Domestically however, one of the primary mistakes is that we are involved in something we should not be involved in, peoples personal lives, and the error of trying to be involved in some things is inexcusable, we should know what the constitution mandates and what it does not.

Okay; so, if you can admit that we made mistakes in the Middle East (hell, blame them on the Democrats, I don't care) then you may be able to reach a better understanding of my position: that we HAVE made mistakes and that those mistakes lead to aggression against us.

Quote:

I think the dangerous part of your atttitude is that you imply that perhaps terrorists or killers, and the teachers of hatred, are justified in what they are doing. That is dangerous.

Okay, good. Now we're getting somewhere.

The thing about this situation, and international politics and conflict in general, that kills me is that you guys are so damn caught up on making proclamations about what is and isn't justified. As if that mattered! Justification is something that we decide upon AFTER events have taken place. Saying that the 9/11 attackers weren't justified in their attacks - which they were not, just to make that clear - doesn't keep attacks from happening! Saying that gang members aren't justified in their violence in bad neighborhoods is both perfectly true and perfectly useless, because they will engage in it anyway, and pointing out that it isn't justified doesn't change this at all.

What DOES change it is an awareness that actions have consequences. Cause and effect, action and reaction. When the US takes action in the realm of foreign policy, it causes a response. Is that response justified? Well, that's a matter of opinion. But recognizing that responses can and do happen is a large part of a successful foreign policy.

A good example that we can discuss is our current use of Predator drones to assassinate members of AQ. In theory I support this practice, because I have no love for members of AQ and it is extremely difficult to get at a lot of these guys with conventional forces due to the terrain.

But they also have a depressing tendency to kill civilians along with the guys we are going after - in many cases women and children. Now, we can have a discussion about whether or not it's justified to kill a certain amount of civilians in order to get our guy or not; and that's a matter of opinion and strategy on our part.

But the relatives of those people don't give a ****.

They don't want to hear our justifications, the same way that you don't want to hear what Hasan's justifications are.

They grow up hating us, whether our actions were justified or not.

That has lasting effects upon the relationship between our societies, and when the other society feels comfortable using suicide bombings and killing civilians, that's going to mean terrorism that WE have to deal with. Whether we were right or wrong or whatever, the justification is the LAST thing that matters. What matters is dealing with the issue.

We don't have to cave in to terrorists, we don't have to be beholden to dictators. We don't have to do what bad people want or worry about being held hostage. But we do have to recognize that, right or wrong, meddling in other people's societies - mostly for our own financial gain, as we have done in the Middle East - is going to be trouble for us back home. If we don't want to go through that trouble, perhaps we should examine our actions in greater depth before engaging in them.

Now tell me - what's dangerous about that mindset?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Now tell me - what's dangerous about that mindset?

Cycloptichorn

I have already told you. When you imply, for example by agreeing with Wright, that terrorists or killers are justified to do what they did, that is dangerous. I think the key to all of this is the fact that evil does exist, and even if we never made one single mistake, evil still exists, and we would still be hated and opposed in this world. I think the important thing to recognize here in our disagreement, I think you are expanding our supposed mistakes in the Middle East into much much more than they have been.

Example, you talk about money or greed, in my professional work life as geologist, I got to know very well some guys, geologists and engineers, that worked in places like Iran and other middle Eastern countries, as well as Venezuela and other places in South America. Cyclops, we did not go there and drill for oil by force, companies obtained permits and agreements with the governments to drill and develop the oil resources in those countries. We also trained many people there to help operate and further develop those resources. We also paid dearly for the oil, and those countries have gotten a boatload of money from it. You could argue that much of the money ended up not with the people but with the sheiks that ran the countries. And I can rightfully point out that it was not our fault that happened, it was the corrupt political system and people that dictated that happening. So I am totally convinced that we simply made deals and developed resources that generated wealth for those countries, that was or could have been extremely beneficial to them. And also it is not our fault that some of that same money may have been used to further the hatred for the "Great Satan," or America. I am sorry, cyclops, I do not believe that is our fault, you will never never convince me of that.

Furthermore, the tiny tiny country of Israel, it is the one progressive little portion or country in the Middle East that practices some degree of liberty, and they are our one good ally there, and so if you want to suggest that we abandon them, or that our support of them has somehow brought us or made us deserve the hatred of us by their enemies, I am sorry, you will not convince me of that either.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I think the key to all of this is the fact that evil does exist, and even if we never made one single mistake, evil still exists, and we would still be hated and opposed in this world.

So, you hate liberals because you are evil?

Or are you going to argue that your hatred is justified?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I have already told you. When you imply, for example by agreeing with Wright, that terrorists or killers are justified to do what they did, that is dangerous.

Did you even read what I wrote? I specifically said over and over that your hangup with justification is a mistake and aside the point. But you don't seem to be able to let it go.

Quote:

Cyclops, we did not go there and drill for oil by force, companies obtained permits and agreements with the governments to drill and develop the oil resources in those countries.

Pff, this is ridiculous. We installed and propped up 'governments' who would sell us the oil. We did so knowing that these rich families were plundering the natural resources of their countries and doing nothing for the people who live there. We are a major party to the problems they have faced as a society, and we did it knowingly, pretending that our military and isolation would shield us from any response.

Now that this turned out not to be the case, you want to pretend that we did nothing wrong at all. It's a little ridiculous.

This attitude that the US has done nothing wrong and is in no way responsible for any of the problems in the Middle East is childish and infantile, Okie. Seriously. You state:

Quote:

You could argue that much of the money ended up not with the people but with the sheiks that ran the countries. And I can rightfully point out that it was not our fault that happened, it was the corrupt political system and people that dictated that happening.

This is ridiculous; what political system? We are not talking about democracies here, but dictatorships that WE support so that the oil keeps flowing unabated. We are part of the corruption, the equivalent of the buyers of essentially stolen goods. We do business with the bad guys.

Would you claim that someone who buys stolen stereos, knowing that they are stolen, is innocent? I doubt it.

Take some responsibility. We enable many negative things to happen and to continue happening in the Middle East and our actions have consequences.

Bill, I'd like to point out, again, that Okie is forwarding exactly the argument that you said nobody would make: that the US is blameless and that our actions in the Middle East have nothing to do with actions taken against us at all.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I think the key to all of this is the fact that evil does exist, and even if we never made one single mistake, evil still exists, and we would still be hated and opposed in this world.

So, you hate liberals because you are evil?

Or are you going to argue that your hatred is justified?

This is an interesting and very illustrative post, and one that portrays the mistaken mindset of liberals. Liberals commonly have this idea, which is dysfunctional at is root, that if you disagree with them that you somehow hate them. No, not logical thinking, parados, and not founded in reality. I disagree with you and think you are wrong, but it isn't hatred. I also very much disagree with Obama and oppose him because he is trying to institute policies which I believe are very bad for the country I love, but I do not hate the man. I do not hate any human being, but I do not agree with alot of things that people believe or do, thats all. Get over it.

1 Reply

@okie,

Hatred is judged from your actions okie.. Your willingness to lie about liberals shows hatred. You can claim all you want that you don't hate, just as terrorists are free to claim they don't hate. All you are doing is trying to justify your actions to yourself and others.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Okie: You are paranoid and delusional. Surviving the next 3 or 7 years presents no more challenge than surviving the last 3 or 7. As for associations: I've went back in forth with Deist on what I consider his fundamental lack of understanding on the dangers of communism. He seems sympathetic to that ideology, but that in no way would deter me from befriending him. Does that make me tainted too? (That's just silly.)

Deist: ... I won't forget the "Chickens" statement, because it was my original objection to Cyclo's post. The ensuing discussion is mostly Cycl0's childish attempt to avoid admitting the obvious by burning strawman after strawman of his own construction.

Cyclo: Do you have a parallel explanation for India's Chickens?

13 March 1993 - India's Chickens came home to roost.

25 June 1996 - India's Chickens came home to roost again.

13 December 2001 - India's Chickens came home to roost again.

24 September 2002 - India's Chickens came home to roost again.

29 October 2005 - India's Chickens came home to roost again.

7 March 2006 - India's Chickens came home to roost again.

11 July 2006. India's Chickens came home to roost again.

13 May 2008. India's Chickens came home to roost again.

26 July 2008. India's Chickens came home to roost again.

13 September 2008. India's Chickens came home to roost again.

26 November 2008. India's Chickens came home to roost again.

Gosh, how much must they have sewn to reap so much? Rolling Eyes

4 Replies

Interesting that some moron voted up Deist's post, even though Deist himself retracted it as erroneous in his following post. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bill, I'd like to point out, again, that Okie is forwarding exactly the argument that you said nobody would make: that the US is blameless and that our actions in the Middle East have nothing to do with actions taken against us at all.

My use of "no one" was overbroad. Please allow me to rephrase to "no rational person."
(You won’t soon see me defending Okie’s nonsensical parroting of Rightwingnuts.)

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Gosh, how much must they have sewn to reap so much? Rolling Eyes

Another bad example on your part. India has been party to a struggle between Muslim and Hindu beliefs for a thousand years or more at this point; the things you describe are exactly part of the cycle of violence that their actions help contribute to. You are engaging in the same sort of stupid behavior that Okie is. I think you're sort of flailing about at this point.

I have made no straw man whatsoever, and have repeatedly pointed out that YOU butted into the discussion without examining the position I was arguing against, and instead substituted your own position. This is why I didn't want to go around the bend with ya on this... you simply discount any and all points the other side raises which are bad for your position by refusing to acknowledge or respond to them in any detail, while constantly maintaining that the other person is acting in bad faith. Poor form, old chap.

Admit that Okie WAS forwarding the very argument you said only a fool would forward, and that my position was entirely correct in response to that argument; if you aren't willing to do that, I'm not interested in furthering the discussion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bill, I'd like to point out, again, that Okie is forwarding exactly the argument that you said nobody would make: that the US is blameless and that our actions in the Middle East have nothing to do with actions taken against us at all.
My use of "no one" was overbroad. Please allow me to rephrase to "no rational person."
(You won’t soon see me defending Okie’s nonsensical parroting of Rightwingnuts.)

Great! Please realize that my posting was in response to an idiotic argument on Okie's part, and look at it from that lens. I am not trying to justify anyone's bad actions, but instead to get him to understand that there are usually underlying events which motivate people to take bad actions - justified or not - and that we are a party to many of those vents in the Middle East.

All this talk on your part about me or Wright somehow attempting to 'justify' the deaths on 9.11, because we are willing to look for underlying causes and willing to see the US as something other than a perfect actor who has done no wrong, is entirely immaterial to the conversation and is not indicated by anything that either he or I have said. Thoroughly uninteresting.

Cycl0ptichorn

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

in regards to india

with al queda operating out of a no-mans land in northern pakistan, it behooves them to increase the instability between pakistan and india

divert some of pakistans gaze from them, allow them to grab more land in the north, maybe recriut members

plus some sites that were attacked were of western interest and mumbia in particular is a financial hub

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

My issue with your posting has nothing to do with Okie's foolishness. My issue is your calling the "Chickens" sentiment "Mainstream", fortifying it with nothing and bobbing and weaving around every example of it NOT being mainstream.

Simple Question: If Obama had came out on Television and declared that he agreed with Wright on his “Chickens coming home to roost on 911”; do you think he'd be President now?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

As for associations: I've went back in forth with Deist on what I consider his fundamental lack of understanding on the dangers of communism. He seems sympathetic to that ideology, but that in no way would deter me from befriending him.

I'm not sympathetic to communism. We both agree it fails. My only objection is that the vile things that happened under communist regimes be reduced to a product of communism itself. It's just people acting in greed no matter what ideological flag they march with. When you look at people like Kim Jong Il, they don't really square with the communist creed as much as simply brutal totalitarians. He is extraordinarily bourgeois. Nobody can deny that. It's obnoxious. Communism is a weak system doomed to fail and we both agree on that. It's the 'why' that we disagree on. You see dangers of communism, and I see how the same villains of the world can easily use communism as a vehicle for their goals. Either way communism should be avoided.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I won't forget the "Chickens" statement, because it was my original objection to Cyclo's post.

I have no interest in defending Wright. I also don't understand why it's necessary for him to be a part of the conversation at all.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know