Let me just point out that I never called anybody names. I’ve been critical of certain people, but I never went personal. But you had a good post, which I wish I could have gotten about 10 thread pages ago…
[quote=urbanrealtor]On this I disagree with you. I think that often the labels are good as thumbnails. They have a lot of utility. Hence, why they are used. You do have a fair point with regard to the limits of their utility. (Two of) Our biggest capitalist competitors are “socialist” India and “communist” China. These point out that while labels can be misleading, it is more a matter of limitations of language rather than intentional deception. I think that the thrust of Zakarias’ article. Examples that are considered conservative are being followed by someone labeled as liberal.[/quote]
I agree that labels can be useful in some instances, but when some posters and I were hashing out labels, it was used as a way to defuse an argument or make stretches of policy statements that were at best “slippery slopes.” That’s why I wanted to avoid the labels. Still, some people are caught up in the labels and I acknowledge that. For me, though, I just avoid those discussions. Or at least try to move beyond them.
[quote=urbanrealtor]Islamofacism. As labels go this one seems problematic. It has the difficulty of referencing some old conquering powers.[/quote]
I acknowledge there is some problems with the definition of islamofacism and the threat of islamic hegemony. For me, islamofacism is the attempt to produce a fascist government based on islamic principles. Until a better term comes along, I’ll use that.
[quote=urbanrealtor]The uninformed part is of course subjective. Some of the suggestions that would indicate ignorance on his part don’t fly. I find it less than plausible that a native Hawaiian who went to college in the US (and high school in Honolulu) does not have basic familiarity with the largest military action in Hawaiian history.[/quote]
Like I told gandalf, if it was one gaffe in one speech, I would have disregarded it (there are a lot of things Obama has done that I have disregarded because I thought they were immaterial to the discussion of his qualifications). However, he has said certain things that lead me to question how informed he really is. For example, his lack of knowledge of the islamofacism threat, his not knowing that Iraq and Afghanistan speak different languages, his screwing up of the Selma March dates in relation to his parents. I’ve said before that these details are not important to most people, but it is important to me.
Anyways, moving on.
[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]
Consider his facile observations about President Kennedy’s first meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna in 1961. Obama saw it as a meeting that helped win the Cold War, when in fact it was an embarrassment for the American side. The inexperienced Kennedy performed so poorly that Khrushchev may well have been encouraged to position Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, thus precipitating one of the Cold War’s most dangerous crises.[/quote]
Thats a tremendous stretch. I think Robert McNamara would disagree. Or rather he does disagree. And he has met with the actors involved in the crisis. He was one.[/quote]
Well take a look at this article and see if you still agree:
Mr. Burlatsky stressed that Khrushchev, who met Kennedy in Vienna in 1961, believed that the American President was ”very young, very intelligent, but not very strong.”
Krushchev believed that the U.S. was going to invade Cuba, but he certainly wouldn’t have tried to place missiles there if he thought the U.S. had a strong president. So there is affirmation at least of Bolton’s assessment of the meeting.
[quote=urbanrealtor]While implications are subjective, I disagree with Mr. Bolton’s assessment. Negotiations are a starting point for getting what you want. We have never tried this with either Iran or Cuba. We undermined democracy in both countries and then were shocked when our puppet governments were taken down and more popular (though evil) regimes installed. Talking would not hurt our current stalemate. Mr. Bolton has to reach back to Kennedy for an (unconvincing) example of diplomacy harming our interests. Reagan’s negotiations with Gorbachev were instrumental in dealing with a much bigger country. They achieved our aims where all the “tiny” country actions failed. If negotiations fail we will have lost nothing from where we are now.[/quote]
Actually that is grossly incorrect. As Bolton has pointed out in interviews, you lose TIME. Negotiations are useful, but if they are used to gain more time for the Iranians to get their objectives or to move into a stronger negotiating position, then yes, you actually have lost something. Time gives you the flexibility to respond with something other than negotiation. Remember, the Europeans have been negotiating with Iran all this time and they got nothing and lost time. The Iranians are closer to a nuclear weapon, they are in a stronger negotiating position (because of oil prices and their proximity to a nuclear weapon), and lastly, we do not have the time to set up or pursue other options (such as regime change, sanctions, etc.). Negotiations is also a way of showing your hand, to show how strong your convictions are. The Europeans, negotiating on our behalf, showed that they were not very forceful, which allowed the Iranians to break agreements, stall, and eliminate options for the U.S.
I also brought this up before, but let’s not just go to the Kennedy administration to show how negotiations and diplomacy can be used against us. Let’s go to the start of World War II, where Neville Chamberlain essentially convinced Hitler that the Allies were more interested in not fighting than confronting him. We all should know the result of that little adventure.
[quote=urbanrealtor]Countries don’t “go” communist. Typically either they have an unstable gov’t which sees a popular revolution (eg: Iran and Cuba) or they get invaded.[/quote]
Italy was an “example.” By the way, don’t worry about Italy. It’ll turn Islamic (as well as the rest of Europe) soon enough.
[quote=urbanrealtor]In the future your posts would be stronger if you used articles or opinion pieces by respected thinkers on these topics. John Bolton is not respected by most people who work in foreign affairs. That includes the Republicans and most conservative thinkers. His public comments that the UN is an irrelevant institution mean that he is seen as an extremist in his field. That is part of the reason he could not get confirmed by a Republican congress. [/quote]
So just because they are not respected, they should be disregarded? That was the main point of contention between gandalf and me. Gandalf attempted to imply that the arguments posted by Bolton were wrong simply because he was a “neocon”. Whether he is a neocon or not respected, that does not mean his arguments or analyses are wrong. It also does not matter if he is seen as an extremist, or if he could not get confirmed by Congress.
and lastly:
[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]
Most famously, Kirkpatrick forever seared the San Francisco Democrats by saying that “they always blame America first” for the world’s problems. In so doing, she turned the name of the pre-World War II isolationist America First movement into a stigma the Democratic Party has never shaken.[/quote]
As liberal democrat from San Francisco this is just a wasteful name-calling exercise. This was dull the first time I heard it at age 12.[/quote]
Well, is the assertion correct? Are the leftists/Democrats/Obama blaming America for the problems of the world or the root of the problems of the world? Is the belief out there that if only America was nicer to the world, that the world will become a better place?
In the previous threads, I used the analogy of a lawyer representing a client, but that the lawyer believed that it was the client’s fault. Given that mindset, would the lawyer be able to fight tooth and nail for the benefit of the client? If so, great. If not, I would choose another lawyer. A lawyer that believes in the client.
