Romney's reaction to the American embassy deaths

Mjollnir

nagilum2 wrote: »

What do you think you're looking for??

I wasn't accusing him of being antisemitic, I was accusing him of making a ridiculous comparison between the current situation and the antisemitism of the 1930's.

Oh?

"You seem to have been warned by the mods previously for throwing out the antisemitism straw man, just as you have done here, yet again."

Denerick

EDIT: See below.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

What do you think you're looking for??

I wasn't accusing him of being antisemitic, I was accusing him of making a ridiculous comparison between the current situation and the antisemitism of the 1930's.

I was making the case that this 'hatred of the other' that some people (more than others) are prone to is not a new thing and has historical parallels. You were making hateful comments about an entire civilisation of people with, frankly, some very bad arguments. If you can't handle it when somebody challenges this kind of prejudice I'd advise you to stick to minority interest websites where such altered views are considered mainstream.

Denerick

Mjollnir wrote: »

Oh?

"You seem to have been warned by the mods previously for throwing out the antisemitism straw man, just as you have done here, yet again."

He was referring to an incident years ago in which I questioned peoples hysterical reaction to a young Corkwoman joining the IDF.

At any rate, I don't see how its relevant to Mitt Romney and his reaction to the embassy attacks, and its rather creepy that he would be so well acquainted with an incident two years old.

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

nagilum2 wrote: »

Is this obfuscation? Answer the questions put before you. Or at least don't respond, because a response like the above is worse than no response at all.

I know its difficult when somebody shows you up on the internet, but resorting to this kind of conduct is quite unbecoming in a gentleman.

Lol. As I stated and you ignored, you'd not asked any questions.

So tell us, why don't you act a gentleman and address Jank's point regarding your demonstrated hypocrisy?

nagirrac

The sad part from a Democratic party perspective is this issue is now the lightning rod for Republicans to get a foothold in an election they were likely destined to lose. As if the Republicans helped the situation in the Middle East, the Iraq war totally upset the balance of power in the region and made Iran stronger. Regardless of who is in power in Washington the policy does not change that much but with a Republican administration I would say war with Iran is a virtual certainty and who knows where that could lead. The neocons appear to have Romney's ear so more military adventures in store I would imagine if he gets elected.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

Lol. As I stated and you ignored, you'd not asked any questions.

I think this kind of thinking is commonly regarded as 'cognitive dissonance'.

So tell us, why don't you act a gentleman and address Jank's point regarding your demonstrated hypocrisy?

Because the question is retarded and has very little basis in reality. Would you rather live in Stone Age Britain or Bronze Age Greece?

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

I think this kind of thinking is commonly regarded as 'cognitive dissonance'.

...if that's what you need to do to avoiding addressing that you've been caught out, then rationalize away.

Because the question is retarded and has very little basis in reality. Would you rather live in Stone Age Britain or Bronze Age Greece?

Let me refresh your memory on Jank's highlighting of your hypocrisy. Please allow me refresh your memory:

jank wrote: »

Hold on, were you advocating on the Atheist forum that people should draw Mohammad in an act of freedom of expression and speech. Now you are one step away from condemning this film as its unnecessarily trying to piss off a group of Muslims. You cant have it both ways.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

...if that's what you need to do to avoiding addressing that you've been caught out, then rationalize away.



Let me refresh your memory on Jank's highlighting of your hypocrisy. Please allow me refresh your memory:

To be honest the fact that you regard that question as in any way relevant would lead me think that continuing this exchange would be an unproductive use of my time.

You can have the last word, this tit for tat thing isn't really all that interesting. You can think what you like, the historical record says all that needs to be said.

(By the way, the last piece of 'hypocrisy' wasn't directed at me, it was at someone else. Truth and untruth, I suppose its all relevant at the end of day depending on where your prejudices lie. Read some Orwell.)

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Hold on, were you advocating on the Atheist forum that people should draw Mohammad in an act of freedom of expression and speech. Now you are one step away from condemning this film as its unnecessarily trying to piss off a group of Muslims. You cant have it both ways.

I see where you are coming from. But the two are slightly different.

I haven't watched the movie yet (All I've heard is that it's really cheap looking)

This film could have been made, with the sole intention of inciting rage and encouraging violence in Islamic countries. Is there an Israeli man behind this film? Could someone be trying to pave the way for a military offensive by the US? We know that the Israelis would love to see the US invade Iran, amongst their other 'bad' neighbours.

Considering that Draw Muhammad Day was a load of students exercising their right to freedom of speech. No special interests involved. There is a difference.

Furthermore, there has been considerably more violence and deaths from this film, than the DMD.

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

I was making the case that this 'hatred of the other' that some people (more than others) are prone to is not a new thing and has historical parallels. You were making hateful comments about an entire civilisation of people with, frankly, some very bad arguments. If you can't handle it when somebody challenges this kind of prejudice I'd advise you to stick to minority interest websites where such altered views are considered mainstream.

1. I see the hypocrisy argument was directed at someone else, so I apologize for that - my error.

2. This accusation is ridiculous and offensive. Nothing I said was hateful Denerick, and it is yet another example where you project views onto me that I do not have, then argue against those synthesized views vs my actual positions.

Further, you throw our accusations that I view the world in simple terms, while at the same time employing an intellectually lazy comparison between with antisemitism of the 1930's.

You throw out accusations that I have used broad generalizations, while you make your own broad generalized statements such as, "People just don't like Muslims".

To be honest the fact that you regard that question as in any way relevant would lead me think that continuing this exchange would be an unproductive use of my time.

That, I agree with. Good day. :cool:

jank

Denerick wrote: »

Would you rather have eggs for breakfast or cow ****?

My question is just as sensible and logical as yours.

Because bleeding heart liberals will always look at the USA as imperial transgressors, yet are blind to the facts of realpolitik. I would love to live in a perfect world but I am also a pragmatist and I believe the world is better off with USA as the worlds biggest military power rather say Russia, China or Iran.

Being Irish I suppose we can just take a neutral position in world affairs and ignore never mind pay for the defense of free trade and democracy.

I suppose you were one of those that opposed intervention in Afghanistan, those lovely Taliban and their great human rights record and all that.

nagirrac

jank wrote: »

Because bleeding heart liberals will always look at the USA as imperial transgressors, yet are blind to the facts of realpolitik. I would love to live in a perfect world but I am also a pragmatist and I believe the world is better off with USA as the worlds biggest military power rather say Russia, China or Iran.

Being Irish I suppose we can just take a neutral position in world affairs and ignore never mind pay for the defense of free trade and democracy.

I suppose you were one of those that opposed intervention in Afghanistan, those lovely Taliban and their great human rights record and all that.

+1. Although I am liberal in my views and would generally favor Democratic values over Republican this is an issue that there is much confusion over. America consists of people from all countries of the globe, most of whose ancestors left their homelands because of religious intolerance or lack of economic opportunity. They understand better than most as a people the price and value of freedom. People forget too easily that it was the Americans who turned back the fascists in Europe and in the Pacific and if the day comes when Islamic fascism emerges enough to need to be turned back it will be most likely be the Americans leading the charge as always.

joseph brand

nagirrac wrote: »

+1. Although I am liberal in my views and would generally favor Democratic values over Republican this is an issue that there is much confusion over. America consists of people from all countries of the globe, most of whose ancestors left their homelands because of religious intolerance or lack of economic opportunity. They understand better than most as a people the price and value of freedom. People forget too easily that it was the Americans who turned back the fascists in Europe and in the Pacific and if the day comes when Islamic fascism emerges enough to need to be turned back it will be most likely be the Americans leading the charge as always.

I don't think America's heavy handedness ('friendly fire' and civilian deaths) is required against these islamic countries which haven't invaded any western democracies. Unless you're talking about a bunch of insane, islamic, fundamentalist terrorists carrying out attacks. I would see a use for the US army if there were enemy armies there to fight, like the Nazi's. The US, as we all know, has massive fire power including their fleet of aircraft carriers and destroyers. These seem pretty useless when fighting guerilla warfare.

The killing of Osama, while Obama is president, shows their ability to pursue a smart and direct approach, hitting the enemy where it hurts, exiting with all soldiers alive and instilling fear into other terrorists. Instead of attacking with a noisy parade of tanks, the US Navy SEALS can arrive, 'like a thief in the night' and kill you while you sleep.

The US would do better if it flooded Afghanistan with cheap smartphones and free internet. Educate the ignorant (send in Richard Dawkins and Neil DeGrasse Tyson), help their (America's) reputation and reduce the amount of young American men and women who are sent off to die and/or get seriously maimed in a foreign desert.

You have to ask yourself, why it is, that the US is so happy to 'lead the charge'?*

*I'm not trying to take us OT, it would require it's own thread.

nagirrac

joseph brand wrote: »

I don't think America's heavy handedness ('friendly fire' and civilian deaths) is required against these islamic countries which haven't invaded any western democracies. Unless you're talking about a bunch of insane, islamic, fundamentalist terrorists carrying out attacks. I would see a use for the US army if there were enemy armies there to fight, like the Nazi's. The US, as we all know, has massive fire power including their fleet of aircraft carriers and destroyers. These seem pretty useless when fighting guerilla warfare.

The killing of Osama, while Obama is president, shows their ability to pursue a smart and direct approach, hitting the enemy where it hurts, exiting with all soldiers alive and instilling fear into other terrorists. Instead of attacking with a noisy parade of tanks, the US Navy SEALS can arrive, 'like a thief in the night' and kill you while you sleep.

The US would do better if it flooded Afghanistan with cheap smartphones and free internet. Educate the ignorant (send in Richard Dawkins and Neil DeGrasse Tyson), help their (America's) reputation and reduce the amount of young American men and women who are sent off to die and/or get seriously maimed in a foreign desert.

You have to ask yourself, why it is, that the US is so happy to 'lead the charge'?*

*I'm not trying to take us OT, it would require it's own thread.

I would agree with most of that. The reaction to 9/11 was completely OTT, and the invasion of Iraq completely unjustified. I'm not sure what the the motive of the neocons was but imagine it was a combination of wanting to send a strong message to governments that have in the past or may support terrorists targeting the US (Iraq was a poor choice in that regard) or part of a grand strategy to overthrow and replace all Middle East regimes. Fundamentally the US wants a capitalist world for economic reasons so that would be the primary motive for intervention. If nutter regimes were to seize power in countries like Saudi then the oil based global economy would be endangered which is bad for all the developed world and not just the US.

Mjollnir

jank wrote: »

Because bleeding heart liberals will always look at the USA as imperial transgressors, yet are blind to the facts of realpolitik. I would love to live in a perfect world but I am also a pragmatist and I believe the world is better off with USA as the worlds biggest military power rather say Russia, China or Iran.

** Facepalm **

I'm wondering if anyone who ever uses that tired, old warhorse "Bleeding heart liberal" actually has a definition for it.

One can be quite aware of realpolitik and it's ramifications and not be stupid enough to get involved in the military adventurism of the US over the past, oh, 40 years.

And even the most lightweight pragmatist wouldn't seriously consider that Iran could become the world's biggest military power, to say nothing of the comparative size and expense of the US military to those others now.

Being Irish I suppose we can just take a neutral position in world affairs and ignore never mind pay for the defense of free trade and democracy.

I suppose you were one of those that opposed intervention in Afghanistan, those lovely Taliban and their great human rights record and all that.

LOL!

What, that's it? THAT's your criterium? If the Taliban being bad on humans rights is all it takes, then by extension we should currently be militarily active in a LOT more countries.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

I see where you are coming from. But the two are slightly different.

Sorry but freedom of expression and speech is the same in this case. There is no difference apart from whimsy soft headed allowances.

joseph brand wrote: »

I haven't watched the movie yet (All I've heard is that it's really cheap looking)

Yet feel free to comment on it? I saw a bit of it and yea it looks like a cheap z movie that some student would have made.

joseph brand wrote: »

This film could have been made, with the sole intention of inciting rage and encouraging violence in Islamic countries. Is there an Israeli man behind this film? Could someone be trying to pave the way for a military offensive by the US? We know that the Israelis would love to see the US invade Iran, amongst their other 'bad' neighbours.

Well that is all well and good for a conspiracy theory, you know those damm Jews, always trying to cause a war or three. The guy is actually a Copteic Egyptian :rolleyes:

The fact that you would think that because the person is an Israeli that there must have been automatically some regional power play going on borders very much an anti-antisemitism.

joseph brand wrote: »

Considering that Draw Muhammad Day was a load of students exercising their right to freedom of speech. No special interests involved. There is a difference.

And wasnt this movie an expression of freedom of speech?

What was the special interest in this film apart from the promotion of one persons work? So what is the difference again. One must work as a cooperative rather than as an individuals to pass the "test"..... LOL, seriously?

joseph brand wrote: »

Furthermore, there has been considerably more violence and deaths from this film, than the DMD.

Ah, so its a numbers game. If it causes deaths then it must be bad so we should put a stop to it. So its OK to take the piss out of Jews or Christians as they are not likely to kill anyone, but we should not take the piss out of Islam as the risk of violence is too great? Have you no backbone at all? You are ready to wilt already!?

jank

Mjollnir wrote: »

One can be quite aware of realpolitik and it's ramifications and not be stupid enough to get involved in the military adventurism of the US over the past, oh, 40 years.

So you think that the USA shouldn't have been involved in say Desert Storm in 1991? If you know my history I have been very critical of American foreign policy especially under the Bush administration but I am also aware that if you were to cage the policeman then the kids would start running amok. It ain't that black and white.

Mjollnir wrote: »

And even the most lightweight pragmatist wouldn't seriously consider that Iran could become the world's biggest military power, to say nothing of the comparative size and expense of the US military to those others now.

Iran does have its eye on becoming the dominant regional power of the middle east, put simply it wants to achieve a hegemony of the region. Might be fine for you in a cosey middle class suburb with internet, electricity and warm running water, maybe not so good for those in the middle east especially Kurds, Arabs and Jews.

Mjollnir wrote: »

What, that's it? THAT's your criterium? If the Taliban being bad on humans rights is all it takes, then by extension we should currently be militarily active in a LOT more countries.

So I take that as a No?

Denerick

jank wrote: »

So I take that as a No?

Lol. Just Lol.

jank

Well clearly people like skirting around the issue. I have asked now a few times if people would or would not support the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Yet, no one has answered the question, all i got were political get outs.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Well clearly people like skirting around the issue. I have asked now a few times if people would or would not support the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Yet, no one has answered the question, all i got were political get outs.

Are you asking everyone?

My answer is no. I don't support violence as a solution.

jank

briankeating wrote: »

Are you asking everyone?

My answer is no. I don't support violence as a solution.

Fair enough, your position is that you would have left Osama Bin Laden alone in Afghanistan and not overthrow the Taliban regime after 9/11.

decimatio

joseph brand wrote: »

This film could have been made, with the sole intention of inciting rage and encouraging violence in Islamic countries. Is there an Israeli man behind this film? Could someone be trying to pave the way for a military offensive by the US? We know that the Israelis would love to see the US invade Iran, amongst their other 'bad' neighbours.

Completely irrelevant regardless of whether or not it's true.

Holocaust denial is often brought up in these kinds of discussions. I could deny the holocaust because I'm a neo nazi hating jew. I could also deny the holocaust because I actually believe (for whatever reason) that I've discovered miraculous evidence refuting its existence. I could deny it because I'm an asshole that wants to piss off people. Regardless of the reason I have the right.

Considering that Draw Muhammad Day was a load of students exercising their right to freedom of speech. No special interests involved. There is a difference.

Yes there is a difference. You agree with the reasons behind one and presumably don't with the reasons behind the other.

Free speech doesn't exist to protect the speech of those the majority agree with. Free speech exists to protect everyone, especially those in the minority.

Furthermore, there has been considerably more violence and deaths from this film, than the DMD.

Irrelevant.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Fair enough, your position is that you would have left Osama Bin Laden alone in Afghanistan and not overthrow the Taliban regime after 9/11.

No. My position is that violence begets violence and what appear to be simple solutions are never actual solutions. This is all a bit OT, maybe a political cafe discussion.

jank

briankeating wrote: »

No. My position is that violence begets violence and what appear to be simple solutions are never actual solutions. This is all a bit OT, maybe a political cafe discussion.

Again that statement is all well and good in theory but in the real world people have to make hard and tough decisions. For example, would you have appeased Hitler in WW2? Going to war would be "violent". The same with Afganistan. Do you think that some people can be talked out of their position all of the time?

Brian?

jank wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

No. My position is that violence begets violence and what appear to be simple solutions are never actual solutions. This is all a bit OT, maybe a political cafe discussion.

Again that statement is all well and good in theory but in the real world people have to make hard and tough decisions. For example, would you have appeased Hitler in WW2? Going to war would be "violent". The same with Afganistan. Do you think that some people can be talked out of their position all of the time?

I believe on working to create a world where non-violent action solves problems instead of feeding the cycle of violence.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

I believe on working to create a world where non-violent action solves problems instead of feeding the cycle of violence.

"Working to create" sounds wonderful, but as far as I know Utopia and Oz only exists in fairy tales as of now.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

"Working to create" sounds wonderful, but as far as I know Utopia and Oz only exists in fairy tales as of now.

Sounds like a perfect political answer tbh.

I could try and work to create a wormhole that lets me travel back in time, doesn't mean I will succeed!

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

I believe on working to create a world where non-violent action solves problems instead of feeding the cycle of violence.

"Working to create" sounds wonderful, but as far as I know Utopia and Oz only exists in fairy tales as of now.

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Amerika wrote: »

"Working to create" sounds wonderful, but as far as I know Utopia and Oz only exists in fairy tales as of now.

Sounds like a perfect political answer tbh.

I could try and work to create a wormhole that lets me travel back in time, doesn't mean I will succeed!

It's an ideal worth working towards. So just because we might not succeed on achieving something it's pointless? Sure you might as well kill yourself no, whats the point in living.


FYI no wormhole can allow you travel back any further than when the first one was created as they need 2 ends.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

I haven't killed anyone. As I said before I'm a recovering Hippie and Libreal (I still get the pangs once in a while, but a tall scotch usually helps stop the feelings ). What I do know is that their ideologies don't work. As I have grown older and wiser I've found the Republican party's platform works much better domestically and internationally.

sarumite

briankeating wrote: »

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

The problem is that your solution is very long term and in meantime people may be dying. I personally think your position is admirable and principled, however I certainly wouldn't want you as the sole decision maker. A long term approach is need, however short term solutions are required. Violence is never the long term answer, I do believe that sadly it can be the short term solution.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

I haven't killed anyone. As I said before I'm a recovering Hippie and Libreal (I still get the pangs once in a while, but a tall scotch usually helps stop the feelings ). What I do know is that their ideologies don't work. As I have grown older and wiser I've found the Republican party's platform works much better domestically and internationally.

You haven't killed anyone with your own hands, how admirable. But you espouse a philosophy that sends others to kill and be killed. If you are so happy with Republican foreign policy why weren't your boots on the ground in Afghanistan?

I want to live in a world where violence isn't necessary. It's people like you and your ilk that will try their best to insure this won't happen. Yet it's me that's being scoffed at.

Brian?

sarumite wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

The problem is that your solution is very long term and in meantime people may be dying. I personally think your position is admirable and principled, however I certainly wouldn't want you as the sole decision maker. A long term approach is need, however short term solutions are required. Violence is never the long term answer, I do believe that sadly it can be the short term solution.

A long term solution is needed. I wish I knew how to achieve it to be honest. What I do know right now is that more violence DOES NOT work.

sarumite

briankeating wrote: »

A long term solution is needed. I wish I knew how to achieve it to be honest. What I do know right now is that more violence DOES NOT work.

Neither does inaction. Personally I think inaction does more harm at not working than more violence.

Brian?

sarumite wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

A long term solution is needed. I wish I knew how to achieve it to be honest. What I do know right now is that more violence DOES NOT work.

Neither does inaction. Personally I think inaction does more harm at not working than more violence.

Who said anything about inaction? I'm in favour of non violent action

decimatio

briankeating wrote: »

[
A long term solution is needed. I wish I knew how to achieve it to be honest. What I do know right now is that more violence DOES NOT work.

I couldn't disagree more for several reasons.

On the effectiveness of violence; whatever your view is regarding the morality of violence its quite incorrect to say it doesn't work. It works very well in fact, depending on the goal.

Violence worked very well for Alexander III of Macedon, we still feel the effects of this today. The entire world, not just the western world, would be an emtremely different place.

The Roman Empire and the influence it caused. The British empire.

If it hasn't being for violence Ireland would likely be a Gaelic speaking country and our culture wouldn't have become anglicised as it is.

There are too many examples to count. Violence is extremely effective, always has being and always will be.

On the issue of violence as effective against Islamic terrorism; I don't see any other option. You're talking about reason with people who have no interest in a reasonable discussion.

A lot of people will claim the west caused and causes this Islamic terrorism and in a way they are right but have you ever looked at the reasons a group like Al Queada gives?

George Galloway will point out western interference in the middle east and shout about oil and politics. What he won't point out is reasons like the wests interference in a situation like East Timor. If you're unaware of this let me enlighten you.

High up on Al Queada's list of crimes committed by the west is the American intervention in East Timor to stop the annexation of East Timor by Indonesia and the genocide of the locals(xtian) by Indonesia (muslim).

If you don't want to upset these people you must let them committ genocide. Are you willing to allow that?

If you don't want to upset these people you have to destroy the free speech of your own citizens to pander to their superstitious nonsense. Are you willing to do that?

If you want to be a pacifist by all means do so but don't for a second pretend that you can enjoy that freedom without others willing to do violence to protect you from people who would commit violence against you.

On the issue of violence itself; its as integral a part of the human condition as any other trait and to deny it is to deny our own nature.

It astounds me how people can ignore that. Without violence we wouldn't be human, we wouldn't be who we are.

jank

Working towards a goal is admirable but to then say that violence no matter what is a no no. Would you have not supported the destruction of Nazi Germany for example ending the Holocaust? Would you have not supported NATO intervention in the Balkans to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? Because of your stance, mad men and maniacs would run riot doing what they want to do as the rest would just sit by.

There are times to talk, talking is always good in trying to resolve matters however sometimes violence is necessary unfortunately. What matters is is used as a last resort, not the default action.

sarumite

briankeating wrote: »

Who said anything about inaction? I'm in favour of non violent action

Obvously I support non-violent action. I certainly wouldn't rush to violent action without exhausting every non-violent option. However when non-violent action fails (which there are several documented evidence of it failing), what then?

MadYaker

I don't agree that violence is the only way to deal with groups like al qaeda. Education could be used to to combat their brainwashing, which is their main method used to recruit young, impoverished men and boys. How ever it is ridiculous to suggest that violence is never the only option, it often is the only option. WW2 being a good example, no amount of talking was going to convince Hitler to drop his plans for the third reich and the holocaust.

Amerika

I think it's becoming evident Barack Obama's Soft Diplomacy style isn't working.

Benny_Cake

Amerika wrote: »

I think it's becoming evident Barack Obama's Soft Diplomacy style isn't working.

The many victims of drone strikes would probably say otherwise, in any case, what's your alternative?

Amerika

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The many victims of drone strikes would probably say otherwise, in any case, what's your alternative?

The drone attacks are the exception to his Soft Diplomacy, and the only one that seems effective. I am torn on it - it has it's good sides and bad sides. It does eliminate the enemy we are at war with, but it does not afford us the ability to get intellegence gathering through capture, and the ability to get a guage via intellegence on what will happen in the future, when we just eliminate them in a reactionary measure.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I think it's becoming evident Barack Obama's Soft Diplomacy style isn't working.

I think it's quite evident that to claim his diplomacy style is 'soft' is irrational and indicative of willful ignorance of facts and his record, coupled with the inability to actually address it in any meaningful, substantive manner.

Oh, wait......

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

I think it's becoming evident Barack Obama's Soft Diplomacy style isn't working.

To be honest this is the cornerstone of the whole 'post truth' concept of American politics. Empirical evidence would suggest that Obama's foreign policy and diplomacy has been anything but soft. Any number of contexts could be provided that would more fully explain this. But unfortunately I think you've already decided the set of 'truths' and 'untruths' you're prepared to entertain.

Mjollnir

Denerick wrote: »

To be honest this is the cornerstone of the whole 'post truth' concept of American politics. Empirical evidence would suggest that Obama's foreign policy and diplomacy has been anything but soft. Any number of contexts could be provided that would more fully explain this. But unfortunately I think you've already decided the set of 'truths' and 'untruths' you're prepared to entertain.

I fear you ask the impossible of the incapable.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

The drone attacks are the exception to his Soft Diplomacy, and the only one that seems effective. I am torn on it - it has it's good sides and bad sides. It does eliminate the enemy we are at war with, but it does not afford us the ability to get intellegence gathering through capture, and the ability to get a guage via intellegence on what will happen in the future, when we just eliminate them in a reactionary measure.

The closest that I've seen you come close to conceding, anywhere. Progress indeed.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

The drone attacks are the exception to his Soft Diplomacy, and the only one that seems effective. I am torn on it - it has it's good sides and bad sides. It does eliminate the enemy we are at war with, but it does not afford us the ability to get intellegence gathering through capture, and the ability to get a guage via intellegence on what will happen in the future, when we just eliminate them in a reactionary measure.

Organizing NATO and bombing the holy hell out of Ghaddafi with US forces, leading to his death, is really, really soft diplomacy.

So was going into Pakistan to kill OBL w/out PK's knowledge or permission.

Yay! Reality is fun!

Denerick

Mjollnir wrote: »

Organizing NATO and bombing the holy hell out of Ghaddafi with US forces, leading to his death, is really, really soft diplomacy.

So was going into Pakistan to kill OBL w/out PK's knowledge or permission.

Yay! Reality is fun!

I think you'll find that reality has a liberal bias...

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

From what I can see, it's a make-or-break political calculation from Romney. Either he convinces people he was right all along or people see him as a ghoulish opportunist, making cheap political capital out of tragedy.

Now it appears Romney was right, and thanks to our lovely "unbiased" media, the people saw him as a ghoulish opportunist, making cheap political capital out of tragedy. Only in America!