Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Obama in Gaza

The-Hand
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 8:23:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
What did everyone here think about Obama's speech in Gaza? Do you think it set a good tone for foreign policy to come? Or do you think that we catered to terrorism like the New Right and Conservapedia tells us?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 8:20:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
He does what he always does: agree with everybody, then he'll fail to meet both standards.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 11:58:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/6/2009 8:23:34 AM, The-Hand wrote:
What did everyone here think about Obama's speech in Gaza? Do you think it set a good tone for foreign policy to come? Or do you think that we catered to terrorism like the New Right and Conservapedia tells us?

It set a good tone in foreign policy. Lets remember that while Hamas is a terrorist organization, there is moderate elements within it, and they are the elected government in the region. Obama, though he may not have (or may, I don't know, I haven't seen this yet) addressed Hamas directly, by not coming into Gaza guns-a-blazing and telling everyone that if they don't follow him, they're getting cut off for everything, he is showing a certain amount of credible respect for the people of Gaza and their sovereignty.

That will do wonders for his foreign policy in the Middle East, and it works directly in line with what he has been saying all along. He wants a two-state solution, and showing respect for Gaza/West Bank sovereignty - even if they elected Hamas as a government - shows that he really believes in what he is saying.

It is such a welcome change from the last eight years of foreign policy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 12:22:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Osama says don't listen to the speech folks.

Given that Osama knows his men won't listen anyway, that's his way of telling folks "Lissen right up, he's teaching you how not to stop me! :)"

How different is it anyway, aside from being more eloquent, only mispronouncing arabic words, instead of English ones? ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 12:26:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Besides, he's blatantly bashing his own actions.

"Violence is not a solution?"

Right, a few months after ordering pirates in a barrel, seasoned with lead.

He claims his policies consist of seeking nuclear disarmament in the speech. In fact, they consist of "You first" nuclear disarmament, which means no nuclear disarmament-- and that is THE ONLY leg he gave himself to stand on for denying Iran nukes. He has in effect conceded that Iran should have nukes.

Those are just a few things I noticed in it, aside from icky, he's approving of faith :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 1:06:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 12:26:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Besides, he's blatantly bashing his own actions.

"Violence is not a solution?"

Right, a few months after ordering pirates in a barrel, seasoned with lead.

That is a silly point to make R_R. He has said countless times that violence isn't a solution for most situations, but sometimes you don't have a choice but to engage in confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise, whether you must only engage in peaceful terms or violent ones, isn't living in reality.

He claims his policies consist of seeking nuclear disarmament in the speech. In fact, they consist of "You first" nuclear disarmament, which means no nuclear disarmament-- and that is THE ONLY leg he gave himself to stand on for denying Iran nukes. He has in effect conceded that Iran should have nukes.

Obviously he is going to say "you first" - do you not understand how diplomacy, or any argument, works? It is all about whittling down your opponent, not yourself.

I don't see how he conceded that Iran should have nukes, you'll have to explain that.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 9:20:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 1:06:32 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/7/2009 12:26:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Besides, he's blatantly bashing his own actions.

"Violence is not a solution?"

Right, a few months after ordering pirates in a barrel, seasoned with lead.

That is a silly point to make R_R. He has said countless times that violence isn't a solution for most situations, but sometimes you don't have a choice but to engage in confrontation.
He didn't give that qualifier in this speech. And any attempt to explain that to any Muslim who doubted his sincerity would render it useless as a message, since they would regard their scenario as such a choiceless one. Since they aren't stupid, it's already a useless speech.

He claims his policies consist of seeking nuclear disarmament in the speech. In fact, they consist of "You first" nuclear disarmament, which means no nuclear disarmament-- and that is THE ONLY leg he gave himself to stand on for denying Iran nukes. He has in effect conceded that Iran should have nukes.

Obviously he is going to say "you first" - do you not understand how diplomacy, or any argument, works? It is all about whittling down your opponent, not yourself.
Do you not understand that the opponent is not stupid, and this means his proposed solution results in a stalemate, i.e., nukes for all, because no other move for Iran makes sense in such a context?


I don't see how he conceded that Iran should have nukes, you'll have to explain that.
When he was explaining his position on why "some countries can still have nukes, but not Iran," his only explanation consisted of "We realize that's unfair, and we are working to make it so no country has nukes." Translation-- all his cards for denying Iran nukes are in the barrel of disarmament, disarmament he does not have any workable proposal to achieve ("You first" won't work against anyone who hasn't already disarmed). Since Iran is not stupid, they can obviously point out the inconsistency, and since that's the only argument he had, one which makes no sense, everyone in the Muslim world will soon be quite convinced Iran should have nuclear weapons at least until the US disarms. It would've been better if he'd never have spoken on the issue. The only ways this will not happen is if someone else comes up with a different argument, spreads it to the Muslim world by a similar speech (which they don't have the clout to get), and fixes the problem; or if they find some other way to spread such a message; or if Iran isn't as smart as I'm giving them credit for, which should never be relied on.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 1:18:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 9:20:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He didn't give that qualifier in this speech. And any attempt to explain that to any Muslim who doubted his sincerity would render it useless as a message, since they would regard their scenario as such a choiceless one. Since they aren't stupid, it's already a useless speech.

They don't view it as a choiceless one, especially when the American President is there supporting their cause. The speech isn't useless to them, as it shows them that there is hope there to resolve the situation in such a way that bloodshed isn't required. The civilian population doesn't want to fight a war, but they also don't want to give up their dreams. Obama's support provides that route to them. The speech is therefore not useless.

Do you not understand that the opponent is not stupid, and this means his proposed solution results in a stalemate, i.e., nukes for all

The opponent doesn't have to be stupid in order to be out maneuvered.

Since Iran is not stupid, they can obviously point out the inconsistency, and since that's the only argument he had, one which makes no sense, everyone in the Muslim world will soon be quite convinced Iran should have nuclear weapons at least until the US disarms.

Not necessarily. The main difference here is that the United States isn't alone in its endeavor to stop Iran from getting nukes, nor is it just Europe as well. The Muslim world doesn't want Iran to have nukes, especially Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Iran doesn't have enough support with its own ideological brethren to push forward its agenda. On the other hand, the United States has the support of most of the world, including Russia and Saudi Arabia, behind it. Among those allies, the United States can be trusted with its nuclear stockpile - Iran cannot.

It would've been better if he'd never have spoken on the issue.

Yes, because situations will only resolve themselves, right?

It is important for Obama, or any American president, to take note of these issues. Now, the United States does have a bad habit of only taking note when it suits them (ie., Iran nuclear weapons vs. Chinese human rights), but what country doesn't? At least by addressing what they will, it puts the pressure on those countries, especially the ones like Iran which are basically alone in the world.

By ignoring it, all Obama would do is show that the United States is either too weak to confront the issues, or just doesn't care, meaning any country can do anything - abuse its citizens, commit genocide, launch a war against a neighboring non-important country - and get away with it. At least with addressing some of the issues, there is some pressure to stop such atrocities.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 2:01:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 1:18:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/7/2009 9:20:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He didn't give that qualifier in this speech. And any attempt to explain that to any Muslim who doubted his sincerity would render it useless as a message, since they would regard their scenario as such a choiceless one. Since they aren't stupid, it's already a useless speech.

They don't view it as a choiceless one, especially when the American President is there supporting their cause.
Their cause?
You're equivocating. I specified the Muslims doubting his sincerity. The ones whose cause "he is supporting" aren't the ones I'm worried about anyway.


Do you not understand that the opponent is not stupid, and this means his proposed solution results in a stalemate, i.e., nukes for all

The opponent doesn't have to be stupid in order to be out maneuvered.
In this situation, yes, they do. "I lose nukes. I get nothing. Okay, let's ditch the nukes."


Since Iran is not stupid, they can obviously point out the inconsistency, and since that's the only argument he had, one which makes no sense, everyone in the Muslim world will soon be quite convinced Iran should have nuclear weapons at least until the US disarms.

Not necessarily. The main difference here is that the United States isn't alone in its endeavor to stop Iran from getting nukes, nor is it just Europe as well. The Muslim world doesn't want Iran to have nukes, especially Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Iran doesn't have enough support with its own ideological brethren to push forward its agenda.
If they don't want it to have nukes, they probably aren't it's ideological brethren. Iraq is a historical enemy of Iran, and was a secular dictatorship prior to US interference. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Besides, Obama's speech does nothing to help Saudi Arabia and Iraq to continue to think that way, since he has offered terrible reasoning. Just like DATCMOTO doesn't help people become Christian.
Furthermore, if what you say were true, there would be no threat of Iran's nukes and no need to bother making speeches about it.


It would've been better if he'd never have spoken on the issue.

Yes, because situations will only resolve themselves, right?
No, because there are other people who speak on the issue, who offer more argumentatively sustainable reasons why Iran can't have nuclear weapons


By ignoring it, all Obama would do is show that the United States is either too weak to confront the issues, or just doesn't care, meaning any country can do anything - abuse its citizens, commit genocide, launch a war against a neighboring non-important country - and get away with it. At least with addressing some of the issues, there is some pressure to stop such atrocities.
Other people address it. If he's going to argue that terribly, he should just leave it to the other people, and simply enact the policy himself, letting those others explain it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 2:56:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 2:01:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Their cause?
You're equivocating. I specified the Muslims doubting his sincerity. The ones whose cause "he is supporting" aren't the ones I'm worried about anyway.

Ah, alright. Sorry to mix that up then.

In this situation, yes, they do. "I lose nukes. I get nothing. Okay, let's ditch the nukes."

"I lose the nukes, I have an economy. Okay, lets ditch the nukes."

Even if disarmament was an A-class argument to make with full proof of it to back it up, no country will do it, especially not Iran and its many enemies.

Not necessarily. The main difference here is that the United States isn't alone in its endeavor to stop Iran from getting nukes, nor is it just Europe as well. The Muslim world doesn't want Iran to have nukes, especially Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Iran doesn't have enough support with its own ideological brethren to push forward its agenda.
If they don't want it to have nukes, they probably aren't it's ideological brethren.

You know what I meant. Besides, if Iran has nukes, the Saudis want nukes. Tit for tat.

Iraq is a historical enemy of Iran, and was a secular dictatorship prior to US interference. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Besides, Obama's speech does nothing to help Saudi Arabia and Iraq to continue to think that way, since he has offered terrible reasoning. Just like DATCMOTO doesn't help people become Christian.

Obama's speech wasn't necessarily aimed at pleasing the governments, just the people that live within those governments.

Lets face it - Iraq and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly pure democracies, despite what we hear about the former. Besides, I seriously doubt that either Iraq or Saudi Arabia especially will become best friends with Iran. They're afraid of Iran getting nukes just as much as the US, Europe and Israel are - even more so, depending on who you ask and which oil fields are where. The US doesn't want a huge jump of nuclear proliferation in a region that knows more instability than India and Pakistan. Obama may say that his only argument against the Iranians having nukes is because of non-proliferation, etc etc., and a lot of the average citizens of those countries will believe and like it - especially those in Iran, who are at times more pro-Western than the Saudis are. But don't confuse a pandering to the populace as the only strategy Obama will put forward.

Furthermore, if what you say were true, there would be no threat of Iran's nukes and no need to bother making speeches about it.

There would be an actual greater threat than just Iran having nukes. You can guarantee the Saudis will grab some, possibly Iraq. Throw Israel into the mix and you have a situation that can go bad very, very fast. Obama's speech underlined more than just his supposed strategy for dealing with Iran - it underlined the reasons why it can't happen, and it knocks up support not only among the population but among the governments as well, albeit in a different way.

Other people address it. If he's going to argue that terribly, he should just leave it to the other people, and simply enact the policy himself, letting those others explain it.

He is the President of the United States - the greatest influence both economically and diplomatically speaking in the area. He can't just ignore it. Besides, it isn't an argument, it is a pander. It is a speech designed to get the populations of these countries - especially Iran, which is going through its elections - to warm up to him. It isn't a dictation of policy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 3:15:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

In this situation, yes, they do. "I lose nukes. I get nothing. Okay, let's ditch the nukes."

"I lose the nukes, I have an economy. Okay, lets ditch the nukes."
Lolsanctions.
When's the last time those worked against an oil country?
If Iran wanted an economy, they'd make domestic rules that permitted an economy other than the export of oil to form. And nothing will stop the oil exports unless people stop wanting oil. At best, sanctions shift which countries buy which oil, but the effect quickly hits equilibrium. E.g., US sanctions Iran, so Iran now sells to China. China seizes on small savings, minor dent in Iran as it's motive, and stops buying somewhere else, US picks up that oil, the same amount of oil moves, Iran harmed but not very much.
If no one bought oil from Iran, all countries involved in such sanction would be harmed by reduced supply.

Not necessarily. The main difference here is that the United States isn't alone in its endeavor to stop Iran from getting nukes, nor is it just Europe as well. The Muslim world doesn't want Iran to have nukes, especially Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Iran doesn't have enough support with its own ideological brethren to push forward its agenda.
If they don't want it to have nukes, they probably aren't it's ideological brethren.

You know what I meant. Besides, if Iran has nukes, the Saudis want nukes. Tit for tat.
So, they'll push for nukes. And they have so much oil they have us by the balls ^_^.


Iraq is a historical enemy of Iran, and was a secular dictatorship prior to US interference. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Besides, Obama's speech does nothing to help Saudi Arabia and Iraq to continue to think that way, since he has offered terrible reasoning. Just like DATCMOTO doesn't help people become Christian.

Obama's speech wasn't necessarily aimed at pleasing the governments, just the people that live within those governments.
The people, likewise, are not positively affected by such terrible reasoning.

Obama may say that his only argument against the Iranians having nukes is because of non-proliferation, etc etc., and a lot of the average citizens of those countries will believe and like it
Not when it's so clearly insincere. He said disarmament, not non-proliferation.

But don't confuse a pandering to the populace as the only strategy Obama will put forward.
A pandering to the populace is the only strategy to which the discussion of Obama's speech is relevant. I'm not saying ZOMG WE ARE ALL GONNA GET BLOWN UP. I'm saying his speech is harming matters, probably rather minorly.

Furthermore, if what you say were true, there would be no threat of Iran's nukes and no need to bother making speeches about it.

There would be an actual greater threat than just Iran having nukes. You can guarantee the Saudis will grab some, possibly Iraq. Throw Israel into the mix and you have a situation that can go bad very, very fast.
Israel already has nukes. Iraq can't have nukes because we still give enough of the orders there to avoid it. And in any case, this only happens if Iran does more.


Other people address it. If he's going to argue that terribly, he should just leave it to the other people, and simply enact the policy himself, letting those others explain it.

He is the President of the United States - the greatest influence both economically and diplomatically speaking in the area. He can't just ignore it. Besides, it isn't an argument, it is a pander.
What is a pander but an argument?

It is a speech designed to get the populations of these countries - especially Iran, which is going through its elections - to warm up to him.
An argument.

It isn't a dictation of policy.
It being a dictation of policy would be what made it a non-argument lol.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 3:43:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 3:15:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lolsanctions.
When's the last time those worked against an oil country?

When was the last time anyone bothered to cut off the oil?

The current sanctions have had an effect as well, not helped by the sad mismanagement of the economy by the current President.

If no one bought oil from Iran, all countries involved in such sanction would be harmed by reduced supply.

Not if we started switching or oil supplies :D

Think about it. Iran is a hostile country but is has control of oil. Canada is a friendly country with control of oil. Russia, while not completely friendly, is lukewarm and has control of oil. We don't need Iran, Iran needs us. The only issue then would to keep China out of the fray.

So, they'll push for nukes. And they have so much oil they have us by the balls ^_^.

See above. We don't want them to have nukes, which is why Obama panders to the populace and is putting the pressure on Iran. We want to avoid this situation, and Obama, his foreign policy experts and the big US diplomatic machine is doing that.

The people, likewise, are not positively affected by such terrible reasoning.

I disagree.

Not when it's so clearly insincere. He said disarmament, not non-proliferation.

I think it is a given.

A pandering to the populace is the only strategy to which the discussion of Obama's speech is relevant. I'm not saying ZOMG WE ARE ALL GONNA GET BLOWN UP. I'm saying his speech is harming matters, probably rather minorly.

I don't think it is, for the reasons I've stated. It can harm some sections but the majority of its impact will do some good.

What is a pander but an argument?

pander: a person who caters to or profits from the weaknesses or vices of others.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Though you are right, it is an argument in a sense. Dictation of policy is an argument as well, to be frank. Policy vs. policy, policy vs. reality, policy vs. ideal, etc. Any speech that says something against what the other guy is doing, whether through pandering or dictation of policy, is an argument. One is just a strategy, the other is just a statement.

Pandering is a strategic way of arguing, a strategy that I believe suited Obama's needs. It was satisfactory and served its purpose.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2009 7:44:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/7/2009 3:43:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/7/2009 3:15:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lolsanctions.
When's the last time those worked against an oil country?

When was the last time anyone bothered to cut off the oil?
Wasn't talking about threats, just the economic disinterest being an oil country in that part of the world tends to breed.


The current sanctions have had an effect as well, not helped by the sad mismanagement of the economy by the current President.

If no one bought oil from Iran, all countries involved in such sanction would be harmed by reduced supply.

Not if we started switching or oil supplies :D
switching or oil supplies? I don't get it.


Think about it. Iran is a hostile country but is has control of oil. Canada is a friendly country with control of oil. Russia, while not completely friendly, is lukewarm and has control of oil. We don't need Iran, Iran needs us. The only issue then would to keep China out of the fray.
Canada has economically nonviable oil. Russia has oil, but oil isn't an "enough's enough" situation, we always like moar.


So, they'll push for nukes. And they have so much oil they have us by the balls ^_^.

See above. We don't want them to have nukes, which is why Obama panders to the populace and is putting the pressure on Iran. We want to avoid this situation, and Obama, his foreign policy experts and the big US diplomatic machine is doing that.
Not by telling people the only reason Iran shouldn't have nukes is we're going to disarm, which is obviously not true.


Not when it's so clearly insincere. He said disarmament, not non-proliferation.

I think it is a given.
You're a westerner, and what's more, a mainstream liberal westerner. Not the person we need to convince about Iran not getting nukes. Laziness and givens don't get you across great ideological boundaries.


A pandering to the populace is the only strategy to which the discussion of Obama's speech is relevant. I'm not saying ZOMG WE ARE ALL GONNA GET BLOWN UP. I'm saying his speech is harming matters, probably rather minorly.

I don't think it is, for the reasons I've stated. It can harm some sections but the majority of its impact will do some good.
Which good?
You've described which sort of Muslims don't want Iran to get nukes. Those are irrelevant unless you fumble and deconvert them, as Obama's argument has a chance to do. Which part of the speech has a hope of changing anyone's mind?



Though you are right, it is an argument in a sense. Dictation of policy is an argument as well, to be frank.
Well, at least in the logically valid sense of argument, argument excludes force. It might be said to be a fallacy, if it's intended as "Argument." (argument from the stick)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.