Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

What I fear is the other countries backing down like the cowards most of them are and leaving us to clean up the mess.

That, and Hillary's multiple references to our "unique capabilities." Yeah, like B-2s as one quick for instance. And one of Gadaffi's close pals, Calypso Louis Farrakhan (you know, the guy who engineered the hit on Malcolm X and close buddy of BHO's minister) is suggesting the president doesn't know "what the heck he's doing." Wasn't Louis supposed to be dying of cancer?

 

[XYZ]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

France, Lebanon and the UK proposed UN intervention in Libya. Was the US, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, supposed to vote against it?

What did Russia and China do?

We could have done the same, but of course we know that was never going to happen.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Just a reminder to the regressives in the thread: it is treason to say anything negative about the president during a war. If you have nothing positive to say, best to keep your mouth shut.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Just a reminder to the regressives in the thread: it is treason to say anything negative about the president during a war. If you have nothing positive to say, best to keep your mouth shut.

This is wartime, and good americans support our president in times of war.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

What I fear is the other countries backing down like the cowards most of them are and leaving us to clean up the mess.

A country isn't "brave" or "cowardly." That's great rhetoric to rally masses to a cause, but a country is a type of corporation -- a machine designed to focus and direct the will of the people who control it. You may as well call a screwdriver or a cantilever "brave."

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

A country isn't "brave" or "cowardly." That's great rhetoric to rally masses to a cause, but a country is a type of corporation -- a machine designed to focus and direct the will of the people who control it. You may as well call a screwdriver or a cantilever "brave."

Except for the French, who are probably surrendering as I type this post.

(Why are all the roads in France lined with trees?)
.
.
.
.
(So the German army can march in the shade. Thank you, thank you, be sure to tip your waitress).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Except for the French, who are probably surrendering as I type this post.

(Why are all the roads in France lined with trees?)
.
.
.
.
(So the German army can march in the shade. Thank you, thank you, be sure to tip your waitress).

Yes, except for France.

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." — Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." — Schwartzkopf

"What do you call a Frenchman advancing on Baghdad?" "A salesman."

etc...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

A country isn't "brave" or "cowardly." That's great rhetoric to rally masses to a cause, but a country is a type of corporation -- a machine designed to focus and direct the will of the people who control it. You may as well call a screwdriver or a cantilever "brave."

It isn't that dry and clinical. Certainly as a whole the people of certain countries have acted bravely at times in history, for example the British during the Battle of Britain in WW2. They could easily have caved to Hitler, but didn't. And often it's a mixed bag, with a nation's people showing a mix of characteristics, with some being brave, some not so much.

How you dole out responsibility or credit for such things to leaders, the common people, etc. is certainly a side discussion that can be made. But, to represent that nations are unthinking automatons that don't express their people's aspirations and conduct as a whole is not accurate.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Oh, so it's NOT his little war? Don't make me laugh. Why don't you just rewind all of his whiny anti-war statements from before he was elected, then explain to the rest of us how they aren't relevant any more.

Because we think Iraq was stupid...does that mean that we automatically have to be against WWII? Libya has a much better humanitarian case for intervention than Iraq...we could see wholesale slaughter of Libyans if the government wins outright. And if you're going to intervene...missles and sorties is much less involved, lower US casualties and less costly than an endless occupation.

 

[SteveP]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

yeah, I'd say that this falls outside of the scope of what Obama was talking about during the campaign (trying to end the military's role in rebuilding Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan).

Really? His words, responding in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage (then of The Boston Globe), seem to indicate that this action falls well within the scope of what he was talking about in 2008:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Because we think Iraq was stupid...does that mean that we automatically have to be against WWII? Libya has a much better humanitarian case for intervention than Iraq...we could see wholesale slaughter of Libyans if the government wins outright. And if you're going to intervene...missles and sorties is much less involved, lower US casualties and less costly than an endless occupation.

I'm not sure if it's a good argument to try to say Gadhafi is worse regarding human rights than Saddam Hussein was. Hussein did slaughter his people wholesale, whereas we speculate that Gadhafi would. It's like when I was a kid offering me peas and lima beans and telling me one tastes better than the other. They were both awful. Of course Libya is easier to be involved on a limited basis (which I think we all hope it stays at) than Iraq or Afghanistan was/is.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

It isn't that dry and clinical. Certainly as a whole the people of certain countries have acted bravely at times in history, for example the British during the Battle of Britain in WW2. They could easily have caved to Hitler, but didn't. And often it's a mixed bag, with a nation's people showing a mix of characteristics, with some being brave, some not so much.

How you dole out responsibility or credit for such things to leaders, the common people, etc. is certainly a side discussion that can be made. But, to represent that nations are unthinking automatons that don't express their people's aspirations and conduct as a whole is not accurate.

(Edit: ugh, this turned into a Russian novel. Sorry about that.)

Well, first of all I'm sure you agree that a "nation" as a set of ruling institutions doesn't have any human characteristics at all, it's just a noun, and that's what I was talking about. "The US" as a territorial and political entity isn't animate and doesn't have any animate characteristics. American principles have normative characteristics -- the freedoms that citizenship is supposed to guarantee are good things, for example. Other characteristics may not be so good, though on the whole there aren't a lot of other sets of rules I'd prefer to live under. So patriotism makes sense both as a way of saying "I approve of and will defend these freedoms and rights" and also as the next concentric circle of allegiance after family and whatever locality (congregation, hockey team, etc) turns you on.

But let's talk about a "nation" as its people. Certainly the British people showed amazing courage during WW2, as did the Russian people. But of course the French people showed amazing courage during WW1, when they lost some insane number like 20% of their male population of age and still didn't buckle, and that ruins a lot of great French jokes.

What did all those cases have in common? A populace was directly attacked and so of course our hearts go out to them, and every act of kindness or stiff upper lippedness is magnified because when we put ourselves in their shoes we imagine the suffering. Add to this that people did all sorts of amazing individual acts putting themselves at risk so that others could be safe, and we marvel at the bravery, in the same way we do when somebody runs into a burning house or dives into freezing water to save somebody.

Put it another way. If we are going to claim countries are "brave" or "cowardly," what are we? The troops who risk their lives on the front lines we call "brave" and the vast majority are, particularly since this is an all-volunteer military. But is the guy who pilots drones from his cubical in Nevada brave? Doesn't what we call "bravery" shade off into an emotional statement of approval or disapproval? The guys who flew an airliner in the WTC were insane and immoral and wrong and ef them, but it took stones. Would any of us call that "bravery," or does "bravery" mean "I respect what you're doing" and not "you faced down fear for what you believed in"?

I know many people who served in WW2 and when they talk about it they talk about being either bored or terrified most of the time, relying on what little training they had, and doing what they had to both to survive and to help the man next to them survive because he seemed like an OK guy who would do the same for him. If that's what courage is, and I think it is, then courage is about being human rather than British or American. London in 1940 displayed a huge number of brave people, and part of that was people hanging together rather than saying "I'm looking out for #1, the rest of you are on your own." The very ethic, in fact, that many people sneer at when it's displayed in peacetime.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Really? His words, responding in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage (then of The Boston Globe), seem to indicate that this action falls well within the scope of what he was talking about in 2008:

On the one hand, I agree with this criticism and think any president should get an explicit vote from Congress before any hostile action unless danger is imminent, as it clearly isn't in this case. Obama did not and he should immediately.

On the other hand, anybody who makes this argument after supporting the previous administration should be laughed off the stage.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

(Edit: ugh, this turned into a Russian novel. Sorry about that.)

Well, first of all I'm sure you agree that a "nation" as a set of ruling institutions doesn't have any human characteristics at all, it's just a noun, and that's what I was talking about. "The US" as a territorial and political entity isn't animate and doesn't have any animate characteristics. American principles have normative characteristics -- the freedoms that citizenship is supposed to guarantee are good things, for example. Other characteristics may not be so good, though on the whole there aren't a lot of other sets of rules I'd prefer to live under. So patriotism makes sense both as a way of saying "I approve of and will defend these freedoms and rights" and also as the next concentric circle of allegiance after family and whatever locality (congregation, hockey team, etc) turns you on.

But let's talk about a "nation" as its people. Certainly the British people showed amazing courage during WW2, as did the Russian people. But of course the French people showed amazing courage during WW1, when they lost some insane number like 20% of their male population of age and still didn't buckle, and that ruins a lot of great French jokes.

What did all those cases have in common? A populace was directly attacked and so of course our hearts go out to them, and every act of kindness or stiff upper lippedness is magnified because when we put ourselves in their shoes we imagine the suffering. Add to this that people did all sorts of amazing individual acts putting themselves at risk so that others could be safe, and we marvel at the bravery, in the same way we do when somebody runs into a burning house or dives into freezing water to save somebody.

Put it another way. If we are going to claim countries are "brave" or "cowardly," what are we? The troops who risk their lives on the front lines we call "brave" and the vast majority are, particularly since this is an all-volunteer military. But is the guy who pilots drones from his cubical in Nevada brave? Doesn't what we call "bravery" shade off into an emotional statement of approval or disapproval? The guys who flew an airliner in the WTC were insane and immoral and wrong and ef them, but it took stones. Would any of us call that "bravery," or does "bravery" mean "I respect what you're doing" and not "you faced down fear for what you believed in"?

I know many people who served in WW2 and when they talk about it they talk about being either bored or terrified most of the time, relying on what little training they had, and doing what they had to both to survive and to help the man next to them survive because he seemed like an OK guy who would do the same for him. If that's what courage is, and I think it is, then courage is about being human rather than British or American. London in 1940 displayed a huge number of brave people, and part of that was people hanging together rather than saying "I'm looking out for #1, the rest of you are on your own." The very ethic, in fact, that many people sneer at when it's displayed in peacetime.

We, as are most folks, are a mix of good and bad. Some situations have brought out our better characteristics and responses, some not so much.

To me bravery has an aspect of doing what's right and good, and maybe making a conscious decision to sacrifice your well-being for the good of others, so no, my initial reaction is that, IMHO, the 9/11 bombers weren't brave (though they may have thought they were, after a fashion), but it did take some gumption to do what they did, although I think at least some of it was blind Islamic zealotry, which probably limited their stopping and thinking about how awful the thing they were doing was.

Those examples are of people who were attacked, but then you have someone like the White Rose Movement in Nazi Germany, who saw what they nation was doing, and resisted in the face of nearly sure death. I would say they showed remarkable bravery.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

We, as are most folks, are a mix of good and bad. Some situations have brought out our better characteristics and responses, some not so much.

To me bravery has an aspect of doing what's right and good, and maybe making a conscious decision to sacrifice your well-being for the good of others, so no, my initial reaction is that, IMHO, the 9/11 bombers weren't brave (though they may have thought they were, after a fashion), but it did take some gumption to do what they did, although I think at least some of it was blind Islamic zealotry, which probably limited their stopping and thinking about how awful the thing they were doing was.

Those examples are of people who were attacked, but then you have someone like the White Rose Movement in Nazi Germany, who saw what they nation was doing, and resisted in the face of nearly sure death. I would say they showed remarkable bravery.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

I agree with all of this. I also have no idea whether people operating out of zealous motives are brave or simply insane. War is a state in which we rationalize almost any action done for our side, and Holy War is even worse since it's all done "in the service of God." God, as a rule, does not compromise.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

France, Lebanon and the UK proposed UN intervention in Libya. Was the US, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, supposed to vote against it?

Show me a statement by Obama that military force is never, ever called for, and I'll agree with you. But given that (1) this was a UN resolution proposed by other nations, (2) the US is far from being the majority player here and (3) our entire role in the military action is to prevent Qaddafi from performing air strikes on his own people... yeah, I'd say that this falls outside of the scope of what Obama was talking about during the campaign (trying to end the military's role in rebuilding Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan).

The Daily Show does not agree with you. In fact they refute pretty much every point you make. We may SAY we are not leading this thing but we are.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I agree with all of this. I also have no idea whether people operating out of zealous motives are brave or simply insane. War is a state in which we rationalize almost any action done for our side, and Holy War is even worse since it's all done "in the service of God." God, as a rule, does not compromise.

The answer to this is simple 1) what side you are on and 2) who won. That is why the Colonists are seen as patriots and heroes and were never hung for being traitors to the crown.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

The answer to this is simple 1) what side you are on and 2) who won. That is why the Colonists are seen as patriots and heroes and were never hung for being traitors to the crown.

He didn't ask a question, so not sure what you're answering.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Well you are arguing semantics really, he said he had "no idea" so I gave him an idea. But yes, you are right he didnt ask a question so my post was worded wrong technically.

Is this going to be your thing now, you are just going to look for random posts by me, find a point to go after and go all Old Pio on the bit? If so I am totally down with it and I will even throw in random crazy words or stuff just for you to attack

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Well you are arguing semantics really, he said he had "no idea" so I gave him an idea. But yes, you are right he didnt ask a question so my post was worded wrong technically.

Is this going to be your thing now, you are just going to look for random posts by me, find a point to go after and go all Old Pio on the bit? If so I am totally down with it and I will even throw in random crazy words or stuff just for you to attack

Hold on there pilgrim. I just didn't know what point you were making as your comments weren't easily related to the previous post you seemed to be responding to. No need to get a bee in your bonnet.