Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:45 pm

Xocrates wrote:Are people seriously arguing that an openly xenophobic film, which indirectly caused several deaths, shouldn't be condemned?

A more interesting questions is whether the condemnation should be equally leveled at the protesters. The political circumstances and cultural context surrounding the film and the protesters are massively different, it is much easier and much more viable to condemn the film than the protesters, who may feel a lot more justified in their anger than the movie producers.


Are you seriously saying that someone who says something offensive should be condemned over those who are so intolerant of freedom of expression that they attack embassies, destroy property, and murder people?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:53 pm

Like I said, context matters.

Lybia isn't the US and shouldn't be treated like the US. I'm not saying that what they did wasn't worse than what the filmmakers did, I'm saying the filmmakers should know better while for the protesters it was an open attack on their religion.

Does this justify the protesters actions? No, but they're not the root of the problem.

The filmmakers however, are just plain douchebags.
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:14 pm

Feud wrote:Many feel that the protests are a result of his foreign policy choices over the last several years, and his response to such are foreign policy choices.


Really anyone who says that ill feeling towards the USA & it's foreign policy is limited to Obama's time in office is not of this earth. How about his predecessor, his predecessor's predecessor, etc, etc, etc. I'd say the last decent thing you guys did was join the fight against the Nazi's and their allies, though that all ended when you decided to test your nukes on Japanese citizens.

This is a good example of how utterly fucked up your foreign policy can get when paranoia trumps common sense...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... 93Iraq_war
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:55 am

I don't think anyone has said it is limited to that. Rather, people think that his policies have made the situation worse, that he didn't do enough to prevent the attack, and will judge him on how he reacts to an invasion of a US diplomatic mission and attack upon diplomatic persons.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:58 am

Out of curiosity, what should (or, for that matter, could) he do to prevent the attacks?
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:09 am

Xocrates wrote:Out of curiosity, what should (or, for that matter, could) he do to prevent the attacks?


Well, attending his security briefings would be a good start.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:23 am

Obvious question: Did this issue come up in said briefings?
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:35 am

<redacted>
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:39 am

Which makes this a theoretical issue.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:57 am

Not at all.

National security, and the security at and around diplomatic missions, is a principle concern of the executive, especially in a system like America's where the executive is both head of state and head of government. We don't know the details of classified security meetings, for obvious reasons. We do know though that he only attended those meetings about a third of the time they were held.

The question then is why he didn't do more, especially around 9/11. An argument of "I did my best" or "it couldn't have been stopped" is more convincing when there isn't doubt about whether a reasonable effort was made in the first place. A major attack, combined with what appears to be a casual approach, looks like negligence to many.
User avatar
GreenRock
level4
level4
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 3:47 pm
Location: Triangulating...

Postby GreenRock » Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:37 am

I came home and my dog had taken down a pigeon... it was still moving
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:31 am

Something bad happened, quick blame Obama. This is just lazy politics Feud.

Is there any evidence that shows the recent violence could have been prevented had Obama attended more PDB' s? Say the kind of evidence suggesting Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11?

It's an election year though so I suppose this type of finger pointing is inevitable.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:16 am

Is his attendance rating lower than that of his predecessors? Besides making the protection of your embassies depended on the attendance and competence of one man isn't probably a good idea. Especially not an elected individual who has no proven competences whatsoever. Don't you have experts to deal with these things?

Also has anyone actually seen the movie they keep talking about? I had never even heard of said movie so it's a bit confusing.
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:20 pm

zjoere wrote:Is his attendance rating lower than that of his predecessors? Besides making the protection of your embassies depended on the attendance and competence of one man isn't probably a good idea. Especially not an elected individual who has no proven competences whatsoever. Don't you have experts to deal with these things?

Also has anyone actually seen the movie they keep talking about? I had never even heard of said movie so it's a bit confusing.


Bush is reported to have been very keen on attending briefings, while Obama prefers reading the reports rather than attendiing in person.

Bush's attendance at these briefings didn't prevent planes being crashed into the twin towers so how Obama missing these meetings can somehow be a factor in overseas violence aimed at the US is beyond me.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:34 pm

ynbniar wrote:Something bad happened, quick blame Obama. This is just lazy politics Feud.


Even if that were what I did, he is the President. The buck stops with him, and it's not lazy politics to hold him ultimately responsible for national security issues.

But, that's not what I did. I did not say it was his fault, that he could have avoided it, or that he has failed in his duty since it's occurrence.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests