dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 03:34 pm
Nixon-China, what do you think okie?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 04:26 pm
engineer wrote:
okie wrote:
Contrast that with the philosophy of great statesmen, such as Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, etc, that the only clear way to success is victory over that which is wrong, not negotiation with it.

But Reagan and Churchill did negotiate with the USSR and Germany respectively. That they did not kowtow to them did not mean they did not speak with them. Maybe there was a lot of shouting, but at least both sides knew what the other was thinking. Reagan found a partner he could deal with while Churchill did not, but the idea that you can speak forcefully with your enemies is one that both embraced. That is my vision of foreign policy. The idea that we should not have any discussion of any kind with a government like Iran or Cuba is incomprehensible to me.

I agree to a point, and actually I think we should consider changing our policy toward Cuba. And we probably are communicating unofficially with Iran now, and have been for a long time. Is it in our best interest to elevate the credibility of the leader, who cannot be trusted, to have official talks and negotiations, I doubt it very seriously.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 04:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The basic difference being, Bill, that Okie does not consider all viewpoints to be worth considering; and certainly doesn't consider a willingness to negotiate to be a sign of strength, but instead, a sign of weakness.

Cycloptichorn


He considers them ... he just considers certain viewpoints to be inferior to others.

Just like you do.


Judgments over the merits of differing viewpoints are interesting, but rarely lead to good Foreign policy. Dealing with others' viewpoints is the test, and opinions as to the relative merits hardly matter at all.

Obama has displayed a willingness to look at the world in an analog, not digital, fashion. That is the main difference between him and the other fellow in the race, and for that matter, Bush.

Cycloptichorn


In other words, your man is quite willing to negotiate with terrorists?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 05:21 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
In other words, your man is quite willing to negotiate with terrorists?

If you consider the government of Iran terrorists, then yes, he's said he would be willing to talk to them. Are those negotiations? They might become so if we found some common ground. Is the President of Iran a nut case? Yes, but sometimes it "takes Nixon to go to China."
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 05:29 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
Glenn Beck: Obama's odd timing on Wright
By Glenn Beck
CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend. The ongoing sprint from such a polarizing figure is far from a surprise, it's just the timing of it that is so odd.

A New York Times editorial described the recent developments like this:

"In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he [Wright] embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of "terrorism" and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

Shocking? Every one of these opinions of Wright has been part of the public record for months. It's no more shocking than Angelina Jolie coming out in favor of adoption.

Even in the schizophrenic world of politics, it's unclear how to accomplish the mental gymnastics required to make sense of all of this. The media's love affair with Obama makes them ask us to believe that Obama was courageous for defending Wright in his Philadelphia speech on race and also courageous for throwing him under the bus six weeks later for the exact same opinions.

The only plausible realities are that either the speech was naïve and the press conference realistic, or the speech was pandering and the press conference politically expedient. Neither paints a pretty picture of a politician who is supposed to change Washington.

When the tapes surfaced Obama informed us that much of the controversy had been caused not by Wright's views, but by our lack of understanding about the differences in culture. "Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear."

It wasn't Wright's overbearing volume, hilarious comedy, hand movements, or dance quality that made me think he was a dangerous peddler of conspiracy theories. It was his words that did that. I don't want someone like him with access to the president for twenty minutes, let alone twenty years.

Those who were outraged by Wright's divisive and destructive comments that preyed on hate have been called racists by many. But, when Obama said he was "outraged" by the "divisive and destructive" comments that gave "comfort to those who prey on hate," he's called brave.

For anyone believing this is about race for Wright's critics, think of disgraced professor Ward Churchill. He was fired for research misconduct from University of Colorado at Boulder and made famous for saying many of the same things as Wright.

If any presidential candidate from either side -- white or black -- had been using Churchill as a "sounding board" for the last twenty years, we would rightly dismiss them.

Obama's political excommunication of Wright is not only a sudden and stark departure from his vaunted Philadelphia speech on race -- it also appears to be retroactive. In his press conference he said about Wright: "I know that one thing that he said was true, that he was never my "spiritual adviser." He was never my spiritual mentor. He was my pastor. And to some extent how the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, was inaccurate."

Indeed, the press had characterized Wright in that role quite often. For example, the Chicago Sun Times described him as "a close confidant" in an article about people Obama "seeks out for spiritual counsel," and the New York Times described Wright as his "spiritual mentor."

Another source even called Wright the man "who helped introduce" Obama to his "Christian faith," who "counsels" him, is "like family," "a friend," "a great leader" and a "sounding board," who was a member of Obama's spiritual advisory committee and who officiated his wedding and baptized his children.

That source? Barack Obama. I wonder where "the press" got all those crazy ideas.

Do I think for a second that Obama believes the government created the AIDS virus to kill African-Americans? No. But at this point it's rational to wonder whether he is either lying or has an awful sense of judgment. He either knew Wright's views and didn't tell the truth about them, or he somehow missed the core beliefs of the man who was spending his Sunday mornings teaching core beliefs.

I'm glad Obama has come to the same conclusion that Wright's critics came to long ago. I just wonder why it took me two minutes and him two decades.


Why? Because you're a racist is why! I found the article in the NY times that stated exactly what Rev. Wright said. He didn't make it up; the Times printed the article! First, the disease was used to get rid of gay men and in Africa, Africans were vaccinated with aids. Knowing this counties track record on innoculating people it considers "expendable", When Black men were innoculated with syphilis at Tuskeegee, so many Blacks including myself, that this is a "credible" story! Just an opinion from someone who lives a Black reality, instead of a "white" myth!
Cool
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 05:34 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The basic difference being, Bill, that Okie does not consider all viewpoints to be worth considering; and certainly doesn't consider a willingness to negotiate to be a sign of strength, but instead, a sign of weakness.

Cycloptichorn


He considers them ... he just considers certain viewpoints to be inferior to others.

Just like you do.


Judgments over the merits of differing viewpoints are interesting, but rarely lead to good Foreign policy. Dealing with others' viewpoints is the test, and opinions as to the relative merits hardly matter at all.

Obama has displayed a willingness to look at the world in an analog, not digital, fashion. That is the main difference between him and the other fellow in the race, and for that matter, Bush.

Cycloptichorn


In other words, your man is quite willing to negotiate with terrorists?


Not in the slightest. It is the societies from which terrorism spawns which must be negotiated with. Terrorism is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in as of itself.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 05:43 pm
Teeneyboone
How about an address for your post so I can read it myself.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 06:12 pm
A radical critique of Obama over the Wright issue from the left: Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch.

Quote:
Has Rev. Wright Cost Obama the Presidency?

Every few years New York City cops hear the growl of clear and present danger and subdue the threat with powerful volleys of lead. With Sean Bell, an African-American, in November 2006 the fusillade rose to 50 shots, deemed necessary by the men in blue to lay low Bell outside a nightclub in November 2006. [..]

The crowds protesting in Queens after Judge Anthony Cooperman let Bells' killers go free a week ago were orderly, as instructed by an African American. "We're a nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that came down," Barack Obama , said when asked about the case by reporters in Indiana. "Resorting to violence to express displeasure over a verdict is something that is completely unacceptable and is counterproductive."

Spoken like a president of the Harvard Law Review, at least in this era! [..] Since he is, though half white, black in appearance -- and in such matters appearance counts for everything - Obama has dealt with the pigmentation problem by declaring that race is no longer a troubling factor in America, and should be low on the fix-it list of any incoming President. In Selma, Alabama, he declared that blacks "have already come 90 percent of the way" to equality. Indeed he's already issued white America a loss damage waiver. "If I lose, it would not be because of race. It would be because of mistakes I made along the campaign trail."

Actually, if Obama loses, he will probably ascribe it privately to a mistake he made many years ago, stepping into the Rev Jeremiah Wright's tumultuous church in Chicago intead of praying sedately in some dour white Presbyterian chapel in the western suburbs. [..] Wright came bounding back last weekend, with an unflinching interview with Bill Moyers on tv and a rip-roaring sermon in the National Press Club in Washington. [..]

People have puzzled about Wright's timing, which from Obama's point of view, could not have been worse. I'd bet that there was no plan. In the press club Wrght felt the wind at his back and gave the folks his basic sermon. It's the way he is and 95 per cent of it makes total sense and is a breath of fresh air, as Wright ushers the Real America onto the stage, as opposed to the political candidates' flattering fictions.

But of course all this week Obama has been in despair. Now he expels Wright from his life. He derides the man who presided at his wedding. "Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems." Once the Man has got you saying sorry, he'll never let you stop. "Okay, but not quite enough. Try it again, and again and again..."

Has Wright really cost Obama the presidency? I doubt it. There are Americans who will never vote for Obama, because he looks like a black man, whether or not his hue is darkened by Wright's shadow. There are Americans reminded by Wright that whatever Obama may say, there are still a lot of angry black people. But particularly this week these Americans have seen that Obama isn't angry and doesn't want to demand reparations for slavery and justice for Sean Bell. He and Wright are in opposite corners of the ring.

Admittedly, for context, Cockburn also dubbed Wright "clearly the most powerful public orator in America since Martin Luther King"...

Also, you know, things are the way they are. The kind of politician who would embrace Wright's Press Club performance, even with qualifications, could never become the President of the US.

But there's definitely something depressing, or cynical, about Cockburn's final observation, that in fact, this "could help Obama, having a black radical as well as whites to run against."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 08:28 pm
On a trivial but slightly exasperated note...

The Prospect's TAPPED reports:

Quote:
Campaigning in Indiana this past weekend, Barack Obama defended his refusal to pander on the gas tax by advocating -- gasp! -- a real public policy solution to both global warming and our over-reliance on foreign oil:

    The irony is with the gas prices what they are, we should be expanding rail service. ... We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices. And it is a perfect time to start talk about why we don't have better rail service.

So far, so good. How can one of the largest, richest country be so bad at providing its citizens with decent public transport, at least outside the old cities of the East and Midwest? How can it so singularly lack an effective national railway system, especially considering how it once led the way in its glorious heyday of rail traffic? It works elsewhere in the world, and it would really help in fighting both congestion and global warming.

But then a dissonant tone:

Quote:
    We are the only advanced country in the world that doesn't have high speed rail. We just don't have it. And it works on the Northeast corridor. They would rather go from New York to Washington by train than they would by plane. It is a lot more reliable and it is a good way for us to start reducing how much gas we are using. It is a good story to tell.

Argh. As if the man wants to be portrayed as the new John Kerry. Remember, the debate at hand is that about the gas tax holiday Hillary and McCain are proposing. That proposal makes little to no rational sense, but it's squarely aimed at assuaging the anxiety of financially squeezed families for whom the rising gas prices are causing some real panic.

Obama refuses to go along with this pandering proposal that's irresponsible and substantively meaningless, and will enrich the oil companies rather than give those families that extra break. Good for him. But then please highlight, at every turn, an alternative message that does address those anxieties. Dont start talking about how useful high speed rail would be on the Northeast Corridor as an alternative to flying. I mean, who flies from New York to DC? Not your average middle class family coping with rising gas prices.

I know, I know, I'm sure it's just a fragment from whatever he was saying, and that he said lots of more a propos stuff too. But at this point in the race it's all about staying on message. And pondering the opportunities of a choice between air or high-speed rail for the executive types going to and fro between NY and DC is just not a part of any right response to this issue. Gah!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 08:36 pm
I guess I see where you're coming from, but the fact is that the Northeast Corridor is pretty much the only place in this country where rail actually works. People don't choose rail (often) to cross the country because it costs more than flying and takes for freaking ever. If we want rail to be an actual alternative then it has to be fast, affordable, and available. The Northeast Corridor is about the only example of this in our country.

Then again transportation (especially trains -- LOVE trains) is one of my pet interests so I'm just glad that someone is actually talking about it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 08:57 pm
I have a much lower opinion of Wright than evidently has Cockburn. As an orator I found him merely dramatic and pugnatious, as opposed to powerful and persuasive. Indeed I thought the logic of Wright's repeated assertions - that the different perspectives of people on issues from religion to almost anything else constitute enduring different realities - were specious and without merit. The obvious explanation of the difference between Wright (and Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton) on one hand and Obama on the other has to do with the difference experience of different generations in a fast changing situation. This is implicit in Obama's rejection of him and is the very essence of the scene being played out before us. Some enduring reality !! (Some will likely say this is all a scam - a conspiracy played out in advance. I don't buy it.)

That said, I agree the near-term effect on Obama may well be less than many estimate, mostly because of the generally consistent way he has dealt with the issue and the restraint he has shown under stress. Recent poll data, particularly the comparisons of his and Hillary's performance against McCain, appears to indicate that Obama has lost more than that, but the comparison is indirect - via a McCain who has been a bit remote from the recent sound and fury.

The election in November will be different - the whole electorate will be involved, and the choice before the voters will have a more final character than the recent state primaries. I find it difficult to forecast how all this might play out then. In some respect Obama's presentation of himself as a candidate who has the ability to transcend the racial issue - a new and particularly appealing thing to many voters - is bound to emerge a bit tarnished by recent events. However, how much and how enduring that might be is something I don't feel able to predict at all.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 09:23 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
In other words, your man is quite willing to negotiate with terrorists?

Be clear here about what you are implying. Are you saying that Iranians are terrorists?

Sun Tzu is spinning in his grave.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 09:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not in the slightest. It is the societies from which terrorism spawns which must be negotiated with. Terrorism is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in as of itself.

Cycloptichorn

I think you first treat the symptom, while you have the overall strategy of disarming or defeating the problem. Negotiation with the problem doesn't eliminate the problem. Neutralizing or defeating the problem will eliminate it, at least for a while.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 09:50 pm
Okie - PLEASE indulge us on how you think the problem is solved. Be specific please. Remember that you can't use bureaucracy at all.

That would be "negotiating."
K
O
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 09:58 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
In other words, your man is quite willing to negotiate with terrorists?

Be clear here about what you are implying. Are you saying that Iranians are terrorists?

Sun Tzu is spinning in his grave.

T
K
O


I'm not implying a thing ... I asked a question. And I said NOTHING about Iran.

Just trying to gauge what "looking at the world in an analog fashion" is supposed to mean.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 10:00 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Okie - PLEASE indulge us on how you think the problem is solved. Be specific please. Remember that you can't use bureaucracy at all.

That would be "negotiating."
K
O

First of all, there will always be problems, and you will never eliminate all of them. I am not one to believe utopia is possible or likely on earth. But simply because I believe there will always be problems, I don't advocate simply rolling over and giving in. So, resist evil with all the ability that you have, and stand for good, and if it requires military action, so be it. Negotiate where reasonable and where there is an element of good faith, but don't negotiate with the unreasonable.

Next question?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 10:06 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
In other words, your man is quite willing to negotiate with terrorists?

Be clear here about what you are implying. Are you saying that Iranians are terrorists?

Sun Tzu is spinning in his grave.

T
K
O


I'm not implying a thing ... I asked a question. And I said NOTHING about Iran.

Just trying to gauge what "looking at the world in an analog fashion" is supposed to mean.

Then perhaps you should stay on topic. He was talking about the US relations with countries like Iran. A far divide from bending to Al Queda's demands.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 10:15 pm
okie wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Okie - PLEASE indulge us on how you think the problem is solved. Be specific please. Remember that you can't use bureaucracy at all.

That would be "negotiating."
K
O

First of all, there will always be problems, and you will never eliminate all of them. I am not one to believe utopia is possible or likely on earth. But simply because I believe there will always be problems, I don't advocate simply rolling over and giving in. So, resist evil with all the ability that you have, and stand for good, and if it requires military action, so be it. Negotiate where reasonable and where there is an element of good faith, but don't negotiate with the unreasonable.

Next question?

Wow. So you're idea of solving problems with nations like Iran is to press the war button rapidly while assaulting the enemy with a barrage of meaningless hyperbole about good and evil?

I asked for specifics, and said nothing about creating a utopia.

You make mention of negotiating but don't offer us any definition of what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable."

I see having a dialog with countries like Iran and Cuba as being reasonable. It doesn't mean that they get their way, but it means that we are using our political scientists and not our military scientists to wage war with conflicting ideas/world-views/interests.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Tue 6 May, 2008 12:01 am
Diest TKO wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
In other words, your man is quite willing to negotiate with terrorists?

Be clear here about what you are implying. Are you saying that Iranians are terrorists?

Sun Tzu is spinning in his grave.

T
K
O


I'm not implying a thing ... I asked a question. And I said NOTHING about Iran.

Just trying to gauge what "looking at the world in an analog fashion" is supposed to mean.

Then perhaps you should stay on topic. He was talking about the US relations with countries like Iran. A far divide from bending to Al Queda's demands.

T
K
O
Dude asked a reasonable question. WTF is analog supposed to mean here? (I can think of no way that analog is superior to digital)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 6 May, 2008 04:28 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dude asked a reasonable question. WTF is analog supposed to mean here? (I can think of no way that analog is superior to digital)

Digital: everything is either 1 or 0... following the association from there, looking at the world in a digital fashion would be seeing everything in terms of black and white, us vs them, good guys or bad guys, and never a way between can be seen. Makes for much strident rhetorics, little skill at diplomacy, and all too quickly seeing war as the only solution.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 814
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 07/11/2025 at 10:06:12