I think there is an argument to be made (if you believe that Bush was stupid), that Obomber is far dumber than Bush. Obomber is doing many of the same things that Bush did, but, which Obomber should have had the sense not to, seeing as he and his party have berated Bush for the past 10 years for doing so many of the things that Obomber has continued or is now doing.
How does Obomber come out on top in this situation?
[quote=“Tigerman”]I think there is an argument to be made (if you believe that Bush was stupid), that Obomber is far dumber than Bush. Obomber is doing many of the same things that Bush did, but, which Obomber should have had the sense not to, seeing as he and his party have berated Bush for the past 10 years for doing so many of the things that Obomber has continued or is now doing.[/quote]You may find this shocking, but I mostly agree. The big difference is the what Bush spent in money AND human lives-and that is a pretty big difference. Philosophically, however, I just don’t get it. WTF is Obama doing? I never thought he was a dove, but I also never thought he would bomb a country that posed no threat to the US. Go figure.
At least Bush lied to Congress/the people (or was ignoring a bunch of other intelligence on WMD) to get support for the war. Obama neither tried to get support nor even tried to act as though there was any threat to the US.
He will. Just watch. The American public are suckers.
I’m not saying other nations are lily white in this, but it does illuminate how some Americans view themselves in relation to other nations and other people, to say that America should not be involved in other countries unless there is a direct threat to the U.S.
Vorkosigan: Given the passage of time, Bush will probably be given a few paragraphs in a textbook and then people will be arguing over which president of their time is the worst of all time.
By admitting a mistake?
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]I’m not saying other nations are lily white in this, but it does illuminate how some Americans view themselves in relation to other nations and other people, to say that America should not be involved in other countries unless there is a direct threat to the U.S.[/quote]If you are referring to what I was saying, I think you misunderstood.
I would never say the US should not “be involved in other countries.” I think the US has and should continue to do great things in other countries. What I am talking about specifically is dropping bombs around the globe becoming a habit. Lots of countries have slaughtered their own people and it’s disgusting, but aircraft carriers and surgical missile strikes are not the only way to “get involved.”
Maybe not, but we must admit that it’s pretty fucking cool seeing shit blow up. The best part about building a sand castle at the beach was always jumping on my sister’s sand castle.
That’s what it’s come down to these days, no? The horrors of the bomb dropping can be equated with sand castles because we are sheltered from the reality that people are being blown to pieces. This might look cool, 
, but then there is always this:
Sand castles, cool…bombs, not cool.
Suiyuan: I know that you really struggle with hypotheticals and the abstract in general, but just bear with me for a second. Half of what I write at this site is extremely tongue in cheek and me playing a particular “character” in a satirical way. You do know what satire is, right? It’s when grown ups say something but don’t really mean it. In fact, often they think that what they’re saying is stupid. You could think of it as lying for fun, if you like. It’s kind of like building sand castles for grown ups, if that helps. Think of this, for example:
I don’t struggle with hypothetical or the abstract. What I struggle with is people using them to avoid the topic at hand, which some are quite fond of doing. That type of thing takes these threads way off topic and keeps the discussion more on the periphery. Hypotheticals are by nature NOT REAL. They are useful in certain contexts to get one’s point across. They are often used here as a last ditch effort when people can no longer keep their points on subject. It’s a distraction. And by the way, what you write after claiming I don’t understand hypotheticals is NOT hypothetical 
Good satire is an art form. Bad satire can often make the author seem silly. It’s a skill that not everyone has.
Suiyuan: I’m not particularly convinced you do understand hypotheticals or the abstract since it is axiomatic (there’s another difficult word for you) that hypotheticals and the abstract are not the topic at hand, but I’m not sure how you distinguish when they are relevant or not. There is such a thing called argument by analogy or allegory. I’m curious how you read Aesop or a lot of classical fiction/mythology/religion. I’m also not particularly convinced you do have good taste in, or understand, humour.
I think with the possible exceptions of Carter (I don’t remember any bombing) and Kennedy (there was some bombing of Cuban airfields during the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but I don’t remember any others–could be wrong, though), since World War II, bombing seems to be almost part of the job description.
The way I feel now, if I were Obama, I’d probably have stayed out of this current mess, but it’s possible he would have caught hell for that, too. I’m glad I don’t have to make decisions like that.
So, how’s the intervention going?
Hmmm… 
That’s keeping the pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces?
Whatever… What’s our objective again? :eh: Can somebody remind me?
So, what’s happening in Syria?
How can this be happening? Assad is a reformer, isn’t he?
How 'bout over in Bahrain?
How 'bout Yemen?
you are aware that Bahrain and Syria do not supply a huge percentage of the oil to Europe
you are aware that Libya does
you are aware that ‘national security’ and ‘stability’ are synonymous with the flow of oil
I am still shocked that people are surprised about this conflict or Iraq
it is about oil, and NOTHING else
[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]you are aware that Bahrain and Syria do not supply a huge percentage of the oil to Europe
you are aware that Libya does
you are aware that ‘national security’ and ‘stability’ are synonymous with the flow of oil
I am still shocked that people are surprised about this conflict or Iraq
it is about oil, and NOTHING else[/quote]
I’m just here filling in for the peace movement, as many of its members seem to have lost their voices. 
[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]you are aware that Bahrain and Syria do not supply a huge percentage of the oil to Europe
you are aware that Libya does
you are aware that ‘national security’ and ‘stability’ are synonymous with the flow of oil
I am still shocked that people are surprised about this conflict or Iraq
it is about oil, and NOTHING else[/quote]
I believe it’s about oil, but I also believe it’s about something else. In the old days, we didn’t seem to have much of a problem supporting oppressive governments in foreign lands, particularly if there was oil involved. But current-day Democrats would have a tough time accepting the idea of maintaining stability by supporting Gaddafi in his efforts to quash a popular uprising, or even just keeping mum about it or mouthing a few platitudes, especially under the circumstances (in fact I think a lot of Republicans would have difficulty with that one).
So they’re in a quandary. I guess they’ve decided to gamble on the notion that if the rebels win, the new regime will eventually restore stability (and of course, turn the oil back on).
Me, I dunno, me.
[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]you are aware that Bahrain and Syria do not supply a huge percentage of the oil to Europe
you are aware that Libya does
you are aware that ‘national security’ and ‘stability’ are synonymous with the flow of oil
I am still shocked that people are surprised about this conflict or Iraq
it is about oil, and NOTHING else[/quote]
NO WAR WITHOUT OIL!
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Deuce Dropper”]you are aware that Bahrain and Syria do not supply a huge percentage of the oil to Europe
you are aware that Libya does
you are aware that ‘national security’ and ‘stability’ are synonymous with the flow of oil
I am still shocked that people are surprised about this conflict or Iraq
it is about oil, and NOTHING else[/quote]
I’m just here filling in for the peace movement, as many of its members seem to have lost their voices. [/quote]
It’s way better than when you were with the war movement.
Obama has totally discredited his supporters.
the real crime:
milton.edu/news/09-10_jide.cfm
real-agenda.com/2010/05/12/elena … eme-court/
ALL Goldman Sachs - this is the real conspiracy, we’re being taken over by a large bank. game over man.
Obama has totally discredited his supporters.[/quote]
I think there’s a lot of truth in that. I supported him, but I was never so wrapped up in it that I know feel the need to put my own morals aside to defend the guy. I don’t support him at the moment. Whether he gets my vote again is yet to be seen and depends greatly on whether the Republicans can put forward a candidate who is not… :loco: Right now, I have little faith that will happen. But we’ll see.
