kenberg Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 A bit ago I suggested in an admittedly over-simplified form that the candidates seriously address our aims and policies in the Middle East. Here are a couple of much less simple-minded, and more global, versions one might think about. David Ignatius has an article in today's Post. I'm not so sure non-subscribers can still read Post columnists online, but the article appears athttp://www.jconline....can-commitments He refers to an article in the Washington Quarterly by Michael Mazarr. This can be found at https://csis.org/fil...2FallMazarr.pdf These guys know more than I do. That doesn't mean that they are right, people can know more than I do and still be wrong, but Ignatius would like to see the candidates address these issues and so would I. To get back to my more simple-minded formulation, I want any candidate who says that we should bomb Iran on Thursday to tell me what we will be doing on Friday. And on Saturday and Sunday. Dropping bombs is the easy part. Surely we know that by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I want any candidate who says that we should bomb Iran on Thursday to tell me what we will be doing on Friday. And on Saturday and Sunday. Dropping bombs is the easy part. Surely we know that by now.yeah, there was a time (so i've heard, anyway) when our politicians, of all swipes, took a longer-than-next-election-cycle view on matters vital to the nation... people are so scared of seeming weak that they no longer practice statesmanship... there are a few, but they're dying off and not being replaced, that i can see (and no, "statesman" and "liberal" are not synonyms) you can even see it on this forum... everyone is so partisan (except for me, of course - i'm the model of reasonableness, always looking for compromise)... hell, there are even american posters here who don't see any need for the constitution, or at least not the way it was written, or agree with american exceptionalism anymore... it seems to me that the guiding factor must always be the best interests of the country, as long as other nations are not unjustly affected... kind of an objectivist national political philosophy, even if such is not practiced individually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 ....hell, there are even american posters here who don't see any need for the constitution, or at least not the way it was written, or agree with american exceptionalism anymore... Perhaps your reading of the Constitution is too narrow? As to exceptionalism, America can be just as wrong in its actions and ideas as any other country. Exceptionalism is code for better than, and better than is simply an unjustified position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Perhaps your reading of the Constitution is too narrow? As to exceptionalism, America can be just as wrong in its actions and ideas as any other country. Exceptionalism is code for better than, and better than is simply an unjustified position.i rest my case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 hell, there are even american posters here who don't ... agree with american exceptionalism anymore. You acting as if "American Exceptionalism" once once the law of the land and something has suddenly changed.I know you evangelicals have some dumb ass ideas, but you need to stop pretending that these define the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 A bit ago I suggested in an admittedly over-simplified form that the candidates seriously address our aims and policies in the Middle East. Here are a couple of much less simple-minded, and more global, versions one might think about. David Ignatius has an article in today's Post. I'm not so sure non-subscribers can still read Post columnists online, but the article appears athttp://www.jconline....can-commitments He refers to an article in the Washington Quarterly by Michael Mazarr. This can be found at https://csis.org/fil...2FallMazarr.pdf These guys know more than I do. That doesn't mean that they are right, people can know more than I do and still be wrong, but Ignatius would like to see the candidates address these issues and so would I. To get back to my more simple-minded formulation, I want any candidate who says that we should bomb Iran on Thursday to tell me what we will be doing on Friday. And on Saturday and Sunday. Dropping bombs is the easy part. Surely we know that by now. What happens if we bomb Iran? This guy probably doesn't know for sure either, but he probably knows more than all the guys who advocate bombing Iran put together, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 What happens if we bomb Iran? This guy probably doesn't know for sure either, but he probably knows more than all the guys who advocate bombing Iran put together.Thanks for the link to this great article. This quote reminded me of what Ken said earlier: “Don’t be mistaken, I am not a liberal by point of view,” he went on. “If I thought the use of brute force on Iran would stop the nuclear threat in the region and to Israel, that would be one thing. I am judging things from a practical point of view. . . . You have to take into consideration the following questions about an Israeli attack: What would be achieved? What about five minutes after? And what are the consequences of such an attack?” Dagan answers those questions simply: “An Israeli bombing would lead to a regional war and solve the internal problems of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It would galvanize Iranian society behind the leadership and create unity around the nuclear issue. And it would justify Iran in rebuilding its nuclear project and saying, ‘Look, see, we were attacked by the Zionist enemy and we clearly need to have it.’ A bombing would be considered an act of war, and there would be an unpredictable counterattack against us. And the Iranians can call on their proxy, Hezbollah, which, with its rockets, can hit practically any target in Israel.” Meir Dagan, Director of the Mossad, 2002-2011The close relationship between Bibi Netanyahu and Mitt Romney concerns me. Tonight's debate should prove interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 The New Yorker endorses Obama. The reelection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 The New Yorker endorses Obama. great quote. I really like how that last sentence sums up the President's agenda and vision. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwar0123 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 What happens if we bomb Iran? This guy probably doesn't know for sure either, but he probably knows more than all the guys who advocate bombing Iran put together,Great article, from it, my word for the day. somnambulant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 In these times when senators like Dick Lugar find themselves pushed out because they can work together with democrats on occasion, it's nice to read this tribute to George McGovern from Bob Dole: I am sure there are some who were surprised by the long friendship that George and I shared. After all, before his death this weekend at age 90, he was a proud and unapologetic liberal Democrat and I am a lifelong Republican. As chairman of the Republican Party, I did what I could to ensure the defeat of his 1972 run for the White House. When the election was over, however, George and I knew that we couldn’t keep on campaigning forever. We also knew that what we had in common was far more important than our different political philosophies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 In these times when senators like Dick Lugar find themselves pushed out because they can work together with democrats on occasion, it's nice to read this tribute to George McGovern from Bob Dole: Yes, my first vote ever...I think I was one of the few in the country to vote for him in 72. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 granted this is from a conservative source, but if true it could cause a ruckus ... secret message? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 granted this is from a conservative source, but if true it could cause a ruckus ... secret message?There was a poll question on the page with this "news story." It asked who I believed won the second presidential debate. After I answered that question another question appeared asking me who I thought would win the senatorial race in New Jersey - Robert Menendez or Joe Kyrillos. Anyone who knows anything about this race knows that Bob Menendez is a heavy favorite - Nate Silver has Bob Menendez with about a 16% lead in the polls, and a chance of winning at about 99%. But on this site, there was a 2-1 margin that Joe Kyrillos would win. Not which candidate they were voting for, but the candidate they thought would win! Clearly the people who frequent this site have a very loose grasp on reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Clearly the people who frequent this site have a very loose grasp on reality.so i take it you lend no credence to the story? as i said, it may not be true at all ("if true")... i guess we'll find out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwar0123 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 so i take it you lend no credence to the story? as i said, it may not be true at all ("if true")... i guess we'll find outI would guess that every modern president has conceded Iran's right to nuclear technology. There are three things going on here, both of which are the reason you are not taken seriously on this forum. 1. That you would actually think the President would say such a thing in the context in which you are understanding it. 2. That you can't realize that the context is absurd and then deduce that the actual context for the quote(assuming the quote is real) is that it is relating to medical and energy nuclear technology. Though with the caveat with respect to nuclear energy technology, it being of the non weaponizable type. 3. That you would read and post from a site that abuses context so absurdly that meaningful conversation can not even begin. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonottawa Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 There are three things going on here, both of which are the reason you are not taken seriously on this forum. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwar0123 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 LOL:) Good catch, there were two originally, but I thought of a 3rd :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I just wanted to get on record now, to complain, before the fact, about Schieffer's ridiculous display of liberal bias. No sour grapes from me.... EDIT: he did a good job suppressing his inclinations and actually moderating. Kudos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I hereby state that I recognize Luke Warm's nuclear rights. Or lack thereof. Also, I was doing some yard work and recognized the poison ivy. There will be some delicate stuff to deal with here. My skepticism is not particularly that the story comes from a conservative source, I wouldn't trust such an announcement from a liberal source either. (no, a liberal source wouldn't print it, but they print different crap.) The real problem will be when (or if) the negotiators (if/when there are some) announce a satisfactory agreement that will allow Iran to develop nuclear technology in a manner that does not lead to nuclear weapons. My guess is any agreement will be along such lines. Will we believe that the safeguards are adequate? Our government will say that they are. There will be skeptics. For me at least, this also will not be a matter of left or right, Obama or Romney. I am a trusting sort of guy, but I try not to be totally naive. Politicians have been known to spin the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I missed the first part of the debate but caught the last. I believe I can render a verdict. Obama will get a second term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalldonn Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I missed the first part of the debate but caught the last. I believe I can render a verdict. Obama will get a second term.I hope you caught the moment when Obama made his comment about bayonets and horses and that it's not a game of battleship. That made Romney look really really bad. So did the part where Romney criticized Obama for for not going to Israel on a particular trip to the Middle East and Obama responded by recapping where he has gone in Israel. As for Romney, he kept repeating that "4 years closer to a nuclear Iran" which seems like a weak scare tactic to me. We are also four years closer to Iran no longer existing, the US sinking into the ocean, Bob Hamman's 100th bridge world championship, and anything else that hasn't happened yet and may or may never happen in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Well Obama certainly wasn't passive about pointing out Romney's meandering positions this time. Here we laughed at "Obama's bin Laden", and couldn't figure out what Romney meant by saying that Syria is Iran's route to the sea. He must have meant something else, but what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I hope you caught the moment when Obama made his comment about bayonets and horses and that it's not a game of battleship. That made Romney look really really bad. The bayonets and horses line was very clever and made for a nice sound bite. It also did answer Romney's claim that our navy will soon become the smallest since 1917. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I totally agree with the points made about Iran. 1) The world does not think what happens after we bomb Iran.2) The world does not think what happens if Iran gets the bomb. fwiw see the world and personal diarys of France/England/Poland just before ww11 I think we all can agree we know more and write more about Lohan or Kardashians...or Fashion Police on tv...see friday ...:)--- side note as I am sure all forum posters see....Syria spilling into: TurkeyJordanLebanonIraqmore? War is always just another form of Politics Politics is or infects much if not most... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.