Rustico: So, you believe that we, the U.S., are committing war crimes, you think that we are brutal, that we colonize and subjugate lands, that Israel is a de facto colony of the U.S., kill thousands of people without justification, and yet I get called a “neocon” and a “douchebag” because I quoted John Bolton for saying:
“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”
I mean, your post just exactly proved Bolton’s statement, but ok.
So let’s take this logic further: with your mindset, with you believing all this, as a lawyer and negotiator, are you willing to use strong diplomacy and negotiation in order to increase America’s position? To insist that America’s interests be preserved? Or will you somehow say to yourself, well it’s our fault that we’re in this situation to begin with, so I’ll just cut them some slack and hopefully they’ll be nicer to us because of it. Because everything is our fault. After all.
So maybe when I say that I would not want Obama, who holds many of the same views you do, to represent the U.S., maybe it’s based on reason. Because I would not want you to be representing me in court if that were the case.
As for history, I mention it because there are many here who cannot use research, logic, and reasoning to escape their emotional response to issues. Perhaps when we have a little distance then we can look at the issues objectively. For now, as is evidenced by many here, the issues are too raw to discuss rationally. And we technically aren’t even discussing those issues, we’re just discussing Obama. Those issues are a distraction and do nothing to assess Obama’s qualifications or lack thereof. Perhaps if Bush was running again, it would certainly be relevant, but he is not.
Allan: I never brought up the use of the word “neocon”, although I did use the word “left.” In my opinion, both words are actually fairly benign but it still evokes an emotional response.
gandalf: again, I point to you the question you asked. You asked when did diplomacy and negotiation become a surrender. The answer was when Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler to avoid war. History shows us that this was a crucial error, as that Hitler had no intention of abiding by his agreements. Hitler perceived (correctly) that his enemies had no stomach for war and that he could proceed with his plans for Germany to encompass all of Europe. Right or wrong, this episode has been used as an example of the failure of diplomacy.
Now, did I say that diplomacy never works? No. Did I say that it wouldn’t work against Iran? No, but I did say that if your mindset is that of a Rustico (as noted above), then your negotiation will not go well for your client (which would be the U.S.).
And finally:
[quote=gandalf]AS TO MY ORIGINAL POINT: Too many people right now putting partisan politics before country and it’s a very serious time. Enough with the horseshit already, quoting Bolton as if he was Churchill. You’re smoking crack on that one, my friend. If you don’t want to get called a douchebag, stop holding up Bolton as if he was Churchill and labeling Obama as an America-hating leftie appeaser.[/quote]
When you resort to name-calling, you are falling into partisan politics. (again, look up “projection”). I am not engaging in politics. Your only problem with my argument is that I quoted Bolton, but you haven’t addressed the core substance of his quote.
One of Bolton’s cricisms is that Obama has a poor knowledge of history. Yes, I do agree with him, but that is because there is ample evidence of it.
• Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together “because of what happened in Selma.” Obama was born in 1961.
• From Obama’s website: Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.
No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.”
(note, Hugo Chavez came to power during the Clinton Administration, and was first elected President of Venezuela in 1998, two years before the Bush Administration took office.)
• His incorrectly stating in New Mexico on Memorial Day weekend that his uncle helped liberate the victims of Auschwitz, when in fact it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. Earlier in 2002 he had said his grandfather knew U.S. troops who had liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka, both of which were liberated by Russian troops alone.
Oh, another good one:
[quote=gandalf]surveyor, as to your so-called ‘logic’, I really wouldn’t call it that. You borrow bits and pieces from different layers, piece them together inconsistently and pronounce it analysis. [/quote]
gandalf: this process is usually widely known as “education.” When you present no credible arguments to impeach my facts or analyses, and resort to name-calling and irrelevant statements, the result, in the rules of logic and debate, necessitate that you have been “schooled”.
When you guys start arguing facts about Obama, let me know.
