In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online now 510 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
So is murder too, I'd imagine. Though maybe it's ok for "infidels".
Care to expand on this? Other than 'omg obama killed bin laden!!!1!'
I've said it before, but I'm in awe at Republicans who blame Obama for "bragging" about killing bin Laden and taking the shine away from the SEALs. In a similar situation, if Bush Jr. or Reagan were at the helm, conservatives would be treating them like triumphant Pericles every day until the next election. Trumpeting how they were unshakeable on national security and the Democrats couldn't find their ass from their elbow.
It'd be like the 2002 midterm campaigns on mega-steroids.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Here's the problem with your analysis, it is colored entirely by your own partisan beliefs. One could very credibly make the argument that Obama has been far tougher on terrorism than GWB. Hell, as recently as a month or two ago one of the libertarian minded people posted in the political thread about how Obama has massively expanded the unmanned drone program, arguing that it's unconstitutional. And he has massively expanded the drone program, killing 7 or 8 senior ranking al Qaeda figures. When Obama pursued military action in Libya, it was the republican party who criticized him for being too aggressive.
Obama has been very strong in action, but there is no amount of strength he could show that would cause the republican party (or drudge for that matter) to call him "strong".
polls today more than ever show a shrinking gap bwtn the two parties on who is better on national security....and for that matter on spending as well....pubs dont have the massive advantages on these two issues that they enjoyed in the past
the reasons as to why are irrelevant...the fact is its true and its driving the rights insanity levels thru the roof
I hope she runs for something.
in fact the stronger he is the more they have to call him an apologist and traitor...no one is saying hes general patton...but to call him a muslim sympathizer or non american is such a curious strategy and just shows how much in a corner the far right is on this...and of course how much they despise him in general
This post was edited by 5th and lehigh 19 months ago
correct....obama v. romney....but thats a no brainer
i was talking in general terms....democrat vs republican...that would still favor the pubs but its not the grand canyon sized gap it used to be
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday tried to distance the U.S. government from a movie that has sparked protests throughout the Muslim world, calling it “disgusting and reprehensible” but also condemning efforts to avenge the movie through bloodshed.
“The U.S. government has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and messages,” Clinton said. “But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.”
This is the right message.
Thousands of Arab boys with plus sized bungholes say "Good one!"
Drones are an interesting area of national defense/security policy study. One of my mentors is one of the experts in the field of warfare ethics and legality, so we've had some interesting conversations on this subject. Boiled down to real basic level, drones are great for surgical strikes, but not great for prosecuting a war.
There's a growing belief that, while cheaper and less dangerous to americans obviously, the use or over use of drones is a long term negative in the hearts and minds end of war. The civilians in Pakistan are now turning against the US en masse because they view our use of drones as cowardly, simlar to how Clinton was seen as a coward for simply lobbing cruise missiles or air strike whenever he wanted to send a message. On one hand it's great to have an overwhelming technological advantage that takes your people out of harm's way, but it can be certainly used against you and makes the choices and consequences of going to war asymmetrical.
Additionally there is a lot of research being done on the psychological aspects of drone warfare on the homefront. You've got such a diss-association from the battlefield, where commanders know they won't have to write letters home to fallen soliders, so they are more aggressive/think less of the consequences or you have a guy in Syracuse NY going into an office park at 830, flying a drone strike, killing 18 people, some of whom are civilians, and then going home at 5 to dinner and then little league.
As a total aside, it's a really interesting area of security/defense studies. I actually wish I had more time to look at it from an academic perspective.
I always find these discussion about which political group is 'strong' or 'weak' on defense/security issues very interesting. Often times they are more convoluted and framed more than economic issues, and often times that framing is done very poorly and given a lot less scrutiny than economic issues; it's Republicans=Hawk, Democrats=Dove.
I think Obama has done a pretty good job with the security issues he's faced, certainly better than Bush. This current situation is going to be very tricky though, especially right before the election.
Unfortunately it's going to be politicized like hell and he's not going to have a choice dealing with it as a political as well as defense/diplomatic issue, which is too bad, because his response is going to be (necessarily) more political expedient than long term prudent.
Yeah, I really agree with your whole post. I think to a certain extent, all (modern) war is a balance between winning hearts and minds, and achieving military objectives. The only thing I would say is that most of the civilians in Pakistan have held anti-American attitudes dating back to when General Zia was playing two level games against us.
On your last point which I think is the most important, I am encouraged. The political response would be have been to launch a few missiles at some training camp in the middle of nowhere Libya and call it equal. Up to this point, the administration hasn't taken any rash measures or made any knee-jerk responses. It's a prudence that leaves him vulnerable to political attacks for being weak.
Please explain this response to us lowly, non Wake grads.
You know, I thought about the hostage crisis for a moment when I made my post, but went ahead with it anyway. This administration's foreign policy has been a disaster, and has left us looking as weak as the Carter years.
Nothing says weak on foreign policy like killing the terrorist who attacked America under the previous administration that was unable to capture him. What a bunch of sissies.
that has nothing to do with policy
Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.
Obama did what he should have done as POTUS. He called the press conference and his comments were appropriate (as were Hillary's earlier), and more importantly called the next of kin personally to offer his condolences. The POTUS is not a George Custer to lead a charge into enemy lines, he issues orders to the proper people, and they take care of business. I am a ruthless critic of Obama here, but I am not going to nitpick him here. He did what he should have done in this, as far as I am concerned.
I think terrified is over stating the matter, but Romney stepped on his dick in this, and completely unnecessarily so, and looked exactly like the guy Obama described: "shoots first and aims later!"
Yassar Arafat would say hello, if he wasn't dead...
In appreciation of Cuse's bi-partisanship, I want to write nonpartisan critique of the current debate.
I think Obama is actually pretty vulnerable right now on the Middle East. I have posted about this several times before, but I really felt Obama threaded the needle in the Arab Spring and prevented a lot of far worse outcomes from occurring. At the same time, I acknowledged that the current situation is fraught with peril, and we don't know yet what the final outcome will be. I think what is happening in Libya, Yemen and Egypt is moving the needle towards the more negative outcomes. That means those policies which I praised so much, may end up hurting American national interest in the end. It is of course, still too early to tell for sure.
There have really been strains of American foreign policy thinking that have dominated our actions in recent decades. One is a more realist tradition aligned with Kissinger and Baker and the other is neo-conservative thinking, mostly recently associated with Bill Kristol, but it really dates back to Henry Clay.
The realists argue that America should be focused on hard interests, like attempting to ensure the heads of state of the various countries will support American interests. This line of thinking ignores what the citizens of a state may want, and focuses solely on the people in power. This is the faction that would argue the United States should have supported Mubarak at all costs.
The neo-cons, as everyone is pretty familiar with now, believe that America has the unique responsibility to support and promote democracy wherever it might be found. This faction of thinkers would argue that the United States should support the democratic movements at all costs.
Obama has been some blend of the two. Supporting democracy in some places, but siding with autocratic allies in others where there is a far greater national interest. In Libya and Egypt, Obama advanced a very neo-conservative foreign policy, choosing to aggressively side with the protesters on the side of advancing democracy. If Libya and Egypt end up with governments hostile to American interests, then posterity will criticize Obama's foreign policy as being harmful to the United States during this period of great tumult. This is where he is very vulnerable right now. If Romney had, or was planning on, giving the country a broad vision of his foreign policy, he would be able to undercut Obama by siding with the realists philosophically and saying that Obama was too idealistic and it ended up hurting our country and the world.
Unfortunately for conservatives, Mitt Romney is not in any position to make the criticisms necessary to exploit this current vulnerability. Romney built his foreign policy criticism of Obama around the idea that Obama "apologizes for America". His criticism is about what Obama says and not about what Obama actually does. This is essentially a stylistic criticism and not a substantive one (in comparison to the realist vs. neo-con debate).
So when some embassy official in a state of panic in Egypt released a statement apologizing for Pastor Jones actions in an attempt to quell what must have been a terrifying riot outside of their windows, the Romney campaign couldn't believe their good fortune. Here it was: Romney has been criticizing Obama for "apologizing for America" since he began writing his book "No Apology" in 2009. And now, just two months before the election, here is an embassy official releasing an apology to radical Islamists as they are burning American flags! They initially embargoed their rattack until after 9/11, but when the saw the Obama administration begin to try to distance themselves from the embassy statement they knew they couldn't wait any longer. They broke their embargo, landed a successful hit against the President and won the day!
But see, in their haste they missed a moment here. There was a chance to make a real, substantive criticism that Obama's foreign policy was making us less safe, and how a Romney Presidency would be different. But instead, they took the opportunity to try to score some cheap political points by trying to reinforce a narrative that was bullshit from the start. That Obama "apologizes for America". And in their zealousness, no one stopped to say "Maybe we should wait until morning to find out exactly what happened".
Serious conservatives are only left to shake their head at the missed opportunity for a substantive debate about real differences. And yet, when they had the chance, none of them ever popped the "apologist President" bubble, so they really only have themselves to blame. After all, castles made of sand fall into the sea, eventually.
Of course it does. That killing was only possible because our foreign policy included a willingness to go into a sovereign country that we were not at war with ... go in without their permission and without advance warning ... despite the fact that the country was a Muslim country that generally despises us ... and despite it being the world's only nuclear Muslim power ... to take out a man who had caused American deaths.
I'm not saying everyone needs to be in love with Obama or his foreign policy, but it's a bit absurd to state that the kind of administration that would engage in such activity is the administration with a policy so weak that we have never looked weaker in our nation's history.
This post was edited by terps99 19 months ago
No chance I'm going to read that long post, but I'll give you a +1 anyway for caring enough to type all that out in what I assume was a semi-coherent manner.
You and Paul are both right.
But know this, if a person or persons are willing to die in the attack, just about anybody can be gotten, which may be the point Paul is driving...
Unfortunately, brutish behavior only responds to tougher, even more brutish behavior, at least for a while. Every insurrection in history which was successfully quelled was the result of mass murders of the most despicable kind. America is not willing to do this, so we have to take other pathways. They will take longer, be less successful short term, and cause grief, but that is who were are now.
The following is a cynical thought: Frankly, if we just got out of the way, the Sunnis and Shiites would kill each other off. Our foreign policies are a uniting force against us, under the theme the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This post was edited by tagterp 19 months ago
You may assume too much.
Either way, it's something I've wanted to write since yesterday and this board is really my only writing outlet. Apologies for the excessive scrolling it has caused.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports