quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Well, maybe it hasn't come from the RNC specifically, but it's an attack Republicans have been using often.

ok. do you think it's an illegitimate "attack"?

i mean, are these the kinds of questions that you'd want a potential POTUS to be vetted on?

seems to me if the man wants to weigh in on the practical policy of bombing parts of an allied country then by all means let him be challenged on it. what does it matter if the prevailing sentiment on bombing other countries just happens to be a partisaned one?

apparently it isn't if he, of all people, truly believes in what he said.

...and another thing. if he truly believes what he said, be scared. if he doesn't, be disappointed. he's f**ked either way. thats his bad. if i had to choose i rather be disappointed to be honest.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ok. do you think it's an illegitimate "attack"?

It's a distortion. Bush says that Obama would "bomb an ally" - we wouldn't be doing anything of the sort. In fact, what Obama said he would do is precisely the exact thing Bush did last week - a surgical strike in Tora Bora based on actionable intelligence. I don't see where the space to attack Obama comes from without the distortion of what he initially said. So yes, I think it's an illegitimate attack, and has nothing to do with vetting. This is one of the few foreign policy areas where Dems and Republicans are united - the criticisms and attacks stem from a basic mischaracterization of Obama's comments.

quote:

...and another thing. if he truly believes what he said, be scared. if he doesn't, be disappointed. he's f**ked either way. thats his bad. if i had to choose i rather be disappointed to be honest.

What? The US already did exactly what Obama called for, albeit six months after he suggested it. Don't buy the criticisms at face value - look at the actual quote they are generalizing.

___________________

Chomsky rips a young capitalist a new one. I've heard this audio clip taken from a lecture ages before (5 years I think?), and have several of his books (I haven't read all of them, but a good number of them). Material values and base motivations are not an alien concept in this day in age, as we all succumb to it one level or another. In light of subcontious reasoning i.e. real motivation for most rationalizations and justifications for ethically bankrupt stances, and in other cases, pure denial and hipocrisy, I thought this was appropriate:



EDIT: Err, Lebezniatnikov, don't get the wrong idea. Just a clarification as my post directly preceded yours, this is totally unrelated to your exchange with Q or the subject matter of it.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

F@%@#!!! I hate my programming partner. Unfortunately, we HAVE to have one for my OOP class. He hasn't contributed shit the whole week, I've written all the code and come up with all the algorithms so far. The guy didn't even attend the class lecture on the project FFS. I did virtually all of the research... no scratch that... I did ALL of the research! 16+ hrs of it! Looking up different C++ libraries and going through billions of lines of code (me have to mimic the funtionality of one of the predefined libraries). I've basically had to explain everything I've we (aka I) have done so far... I'd be better off not having one at all. I would have spent half the amount time on it if I were actually on my own . What a fucking leach, and that's when I even told him that last Sunday that I have tests for two other classes to prepare for and have some catch up reading to do... Well, thank god we have partner evaluations, because I'm gonna grill him big time... ****** wasted literally hours and hours of my time. Never have a stupid engineering student that doesn't know jack about logic, coding, or programming theory be a part of the equation! This happened to me twice already, what rotten fucking luck! My last partner, a computer scientist like myself, we got an A (100%), the highest ranked project in the class, and the most through test cases out of the enitre class. Plus he was a musician, and not a total socially inept nerd with a propensity to only annoy the fuck out of you with redundant repetitive statements about shit you've alreaedy clearly explain a million times over... not to mention always late... fuck, I'm going to loose my mind. I need to get some sleep.

EDIT: Enough of this bullshit, I just emailed my Prof telling him exactly what the case was and how it's absolutely taken away from time I needed to study for two other test, which puts me in a very fucked up situation. I've issued a statement requesting a termination of this partnership as the ****** could cost me more than just a letter grade for one of my other classes.

EDIT2: Busted! My Prof responded within like a minute and approved my request for termination . Now I can spend half the amount of time and study for my other two test as I won't have to explain what the hell I'm doing to some incompitent lazy asshole what I'm doing half the time I've spend working on this project.
[/rant]

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Mar-01-2008 at 19:56

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Don't buy the criticisms at face value - look at the actual quote they are generalizing.

ok.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will"

not a whole lot of room for nuance there, Lebezniatnikov. i do, however, see a lot of room for criticism.

if you are unable to at least accept being challenged on the merits of the words instead just crying foul, then look forward to a very long year. maybe Presidency.

youre probably going to refer me to the Abu Laith al-Libi Predator strike earlier this year. on the surface of the reporting there is far more nuance and speculation involved with claiming that "we acted without consent" than the press would have you believe.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ok. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will" not a whole lot of room for nuance there, Lebezniatnikov. i do, however, see a lot of room for criticism. if you are unable to at least accept being challenged on the merits of the words instead just crying foul, then look forward to a very long year. maybe Presidency. youre probably going to refer me to the Abu Laith al-Libi Predator strike earlier this year. on the surface of the reporting there is far more nuance and speculation involved with claiming that "we acted without consent" than the press would have you believe.

I don't really see the nuance. The Pentagon reported that they informed the Pakistani government en route to the target. So basically, we did what Obama said he would do. Where's the room for attack there?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The Pentagon reported that they informed the Pakistani government en route to the target. So basically, we did what Obama said he would do. Where's the room for attack there?

Obama said he'd act despite Musharaff. thats wrong on it's face. nowhere has Bush done that. from targeting jihadists in the North to fostering free and fair elections Bush has always made it clear to the world, Musharaff is (was) the leader of that nation and no one else.

Obama, on his word, believes otherwise...or maybe he doesn't and he was just saying that to pander. either way, it needs to be challenged.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Obama said he'd act despite Musharaff. thats wrong on it's face. nowhere has Bush done that. from targeting jihadists in the North to fostering free and fair elections Bush has always made it clear to the world, Musharaff is (was) the leader of that nation and no one else. Obama, on his word, believes otherwise...or maybe he doesn't and he was just saying that to pander. either way, it needs to be challenged.

A. Obama never said he wouldn't inform the Pakistani government of what was going on - merely that the US would commission the strikes if Pakistan proved unwilling to do so.

B. This is hardly unprecedented - the US has continually provided notification of impending strikes as missions were underway - that's not even new to the Bush Administration. Both Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright have gone on record stating that was US policy under Clinton as well.

Anyway, here is the full transcript of the exchange:

quote:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." -Barack Obama McCain's response... "Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan, and sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?" -John McCain

How is what Obama said tantamount to "invading our ally"? It's completely blown out of proportion and is really hypocritical for Bush to attack him on that basis.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov merely that the US would commission the strikes if Pakistan proved unwilling to do so.

and what i am saying is there is nothing "merely" about his statement. it's not a casual statement at all. it's very explicit and fundamentally undermines an allied commander in a time of war. "if President Musharraf won't act, we will". wtf right? i mean, why?

to think that Obama has the right to be somehow immune to criticism for a statement like that is absurd. sorry, it is.

quote:

B. This is hardly unprecedented - the US has continually provided notification of impending strikes as missions were underway - that's not even new to the Bush Administration. Both Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright have gone on record stating that was US policy under Clinton as well.

thats not a point of contention with me and really has nothing to do with this.

quote:

How is what Obama said tantamount to "invading our ally"? It's completely blown out of proportion and is really hypocritical for Bush to attack him on that basis.

it would be really hypocritical for Bush if we had ever acted in a position where Musharaff had refused or denied us.

Obama has made it fairly clear he'd do it anyway.

why do you think he should be immune from statements like that?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo to think that Obama has the right to be somehow immune to criticism for a statement like that is absurd. sorry, it is.

Look - I don't know if we're misunderstanding each other, or what the deal is. I certainly don't think he should go unscrutinized for any foreign policy declaration. But judge that on the merits of what he actually SAID, and not on what is being labeled as "an invasion of an ally" - they are far different things. And in any case, I still believe it highly hypocritical of the GOP to criticize Obama on this since events indicate that it is one of the few areas that he and the President seem to see eye to eye with each other (give that this Republican president did precisely what Obama pledged he would should he win the office).

It's like Bush is saying "It's ok when I do it, because I'm just tough on terror. But if Obama were to do it, well that's just crazy talk."

___________________

ha ha

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I certainly don't think he should go unscrutinized for any foreign policy declaration.

ok

maybe we do misunderstand each other to some extent, but it really struck me that you would pass blame onto another group of people for Barack's shortcomings when it was Tim Russert, of all people, (the man's been in the tank for the Democrat party for God knows how long) that confronted him with his statement...a statement that is completely wrong and naive on it's face. not John McCain. not Bushitler. TIM RUSSERT!!! for goodness sakes.

Barack keeps making statements like he did, the RNC will ultimately tear him a new asshole come the general cycle. and deservedly so.