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

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
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.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:14 pm

W-where am I? This, uh, this is the random thread, right?

>_>

<_<

I have seen the 14 minute 'trailer' of the film. It's ridicoulously low on quality film-wise; it's content is a whole 'nother ballgame. I can definitly see why there are protests and angry mobs, especially considering other less 'complete' offenses (i.e. cartoon drawing).

I think Feud has a point, though he may be tainted by his close ties to the political system, which is affecting the 'tone' of his responses. (?)

An American offical representing good will to a country the U.S. helped (removing Ghadaffi), was murdered at the Embassy of the U.S. by what appear to be, by all accounts, a coordinated attack. While I agree Obama is utlimately responsible, the Ambassador is directly responsible for determining appropriate security. Perhaps he overestimated the freindlyness of the native population. (many reports of Lybians helping him/his staff have surfaced) Regardless, it's understandable that many in the U.S. are unhappy with the whole situation. I don't think it makes a large difference it's an election year because we have been so divided politcally for so long we will take any opportunity to jab 'the other guy'.

There are conflicting reports as to the reason for this attack: 1. Drone strike that killed a Lybian. 2. Anti-muslim film. The protests in general are definitely related to the latter.

The film is a giant turd that is not supported by the U.S. goverment, except in it's right to be produced. However, the violent protests are also giant turds, with no real justification and those responsible for the murders should be held accountable.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Joker Dan
level0
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:01 am
Location: Here and there...

Postby Joker Dan » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:57 am

Take this as you will, but I believe that the majority of conflicts throughout today's modern world is down to one thing, that is religion.

That may have offended you, but it is simply my opinion. I wrote two separate posts for this, but they ended up rather long. All I would say is from my point of view, looking at the way things are I believe the world would be better off without religion and having everybody pull together as a PLANET, technological advancements would come around faster (Providing apple stop suing everyone for having curved edge phones) and as a race of humans, we could far surpass what we have currently achieved by combining the genius minds of the world.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:45 pm

Oh boy, I can't wait to use a national tragedy to further my political ambitions!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... s-in-libya
User avatar
Forever Young
level5
level5
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:48 pm
Location: Black Forest Germany GMT+1

Postby Forever Young » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:01 pm

Xarlaxas wrote:Oh boy, I can't wait to use a national tragedy to further my political ambitions!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... s-in-libya

Watch Romney's face after slamming Obama over killings in Libya
lol!
my vote would be for Obama!
WeAreDefconBastardsNotTerrorists

Let's dance in style
let's dance for a while
heaven can wait
we're only watching the skies
hoping for the best
but expecting the worst
are you gonna drop the bomb or not?
...
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:06 pm

I thought that's what politicians these days were supposed to do? No?
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Laika
Site Admin
Posts: 1514
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:16 pm
Location: Moscow

Postby Laika » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:54 pm

Oh boy, I can't wait to use a national tragedy to further my political ambitions!

Why not ? Romney is fighting for power now, from this point of view his actions are rather rational.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:46 am

Ace Rimmer wrote:I thought that's what politicians these days were supposed to do? No?


Well, these days maybe, but it wouldn't have flown, and in fact, didn't, back in the days of Reagan and H.W. Bush: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/ ... -election/

Again, I have to wonder how far can a party have fallen for it to make me to pine for the halcyon days of Reagan. . . .

Also, Laika, wouldn't call it rational to do something that will make you seem like an asshole on 9/11, especially with a smirk on your face.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:26 pm

Xarlaxas wrote:Oh boy, I can't wait to use a national tragedy to further my political ambitions!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... s-in-libya


That's silly.

Anyone who watched the debates knows that Romney habitually smiles when he finishes speaking on even the tough subjects. Questions about himself, others, issues, etc, when he finishes giving an answer he naturally smiles as a closing "thank you, I'm finished."

Watching the video of the remark, it's no different. He doesn't smirk walking away from the podium, he smiles as he says thank you to the press corp for listening to him, then turns from the podium to walk off stage.

Is it the best habit for a President to have? Maybe not. But pretending that it's the smirk of political exploitation ignores the hundreds of public appearances he's made in which, whether tough question or easy, he's done exactly the same thing.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests