Obama Failure Thread Part IV

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Sep 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    I don't believe we have ever had a president who, knowing what Obama knew, would not have given that order.

    Maybe Jefferson, but I don't really believe it. He wasn't too fastidious to back a pretender to the "throne" of Tripoli and then abandon him in peril when it suited us.

    The isolationist/pacifist Cooledge kept US troops in Nicaragua.

    And who's the most liberal candidate ever-- McGovern? Anybody really think he wouldn't have?

    Heck, even the fictional Bartlett did, although he agonized about it...
     
  2. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Yes maybe, which if so illustrates U.S. exceptionalism. Many countries really do care about observing international law.

    At any rate, I still think it takes a peculiar Democrat to view Obama as too liberal. I also think that if you gave them truth serum, many Republicans would admit that the country's current tax-cutting, let business do its thing, internationally interventionalist approach, is quite similar to what they would have expected had McCain won the election.
     
  3. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    This is why international law doesn't work - terrorist cells in countries are not the same as countries. Pakistan was never attacked; Osama bin Laden was. Yet, Pakistan's sovereignty was violated. Looong history of the US going after the Pancho Villas of the world. Technically, it shouldn't be allowed. But it is.
     
  4. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    "Doesn't work" is pretty strong. There are several gentlemen with South Slavic last names currently on trial for genocide and other crimes against humanity, as we speak.

    The system is FAR from perfect, and of course there's more than a whiff of "victor's justice" to it. But it does, sometimes, work.
     
  5. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Country:
    Argentina
  6. That Phat Hat

    That Phat Hat Member+

    Nov 14, 2002
    Just Barely Outside the Beltway
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    Japan
  7. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Yeah I know we're off topic, but I did wish to point out that while Americans find the notion of illegal wars and international law to be rather pointless and comical, many if not most other countries have different views. For example, there is a whole lot of heat on Tony Blair in the U.K. for having flouted international law.

    So on that topic, even a lefty American President who is by American standards a globalist, is pretty far to the right.
     
  8. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The Europeans can be more mindful of things ilke national sovereignty and international law when it suits their interest; but the French still get involved in their former colonies in Africa all the time. And in the 1990s, European governments were oddly OK with allowing the Milosevic regimes' use of avowedly fascist proxy forces to destabilize, terrorize, and carve up a UN-member democracy. It took long-delayed US pressure to defend what was left of Bosnia's sovereignty. Just as an example. Also, see: Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine; Russian interference in.
     
  9. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Well Russians, yeah. :eek:

    Wasn't that due in part to their fear of engaging in an illegal war? That is they didn't want to invade unless everybody was aboard, which of course is tricky to accomplish. My memory is fuzzy on this one.
     
  10. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Depends on which theater of action you're talking about, and at which time. I don't mean to suggest that the situation didn't lend itself to some confusion and ambiguity. But the central issue was pretty clear-cut; it was largely because the EU and the UN opted to accept nationalist propoganda at face value that the international response got so bogged down.

    There's nothing illegal about helping--or at least allowing--a sovereign nation to defend itself. Bosnia was a UN Member state, and it was under attack by the proxy forces of its larger neighbor. But the European governments decided instead to play along with the fiction that the war in Bosia was merely a civil war, that Serbia proper wasn't involved; and that the different parties in Bosnia itself were equally legitimate. And of course, nobody wanted to accept the obvious evidence of genocide because that's a violation of international law, and most countries are bound by international law to intervene. Yet, just like in Rwanda, Sudan, and many other places, everybody manages to ignore that particular mandate.

    Sorry for the threadjack; my larger point is that the Europeans are just as capable of picking and chosing when to stick to the letter of international law and when not to. So yeah; we violated legal neutrality to kill an avowed terrorist and an admitted member of a non-state enemy of our country. Less than two decades ago, the EU was using all its diplomatic powers to prevent the government of a multi-ethnic republic from defending itself against an explicitly declared genocide. Which is worse? I appreciate your concerns, but I'm not losing sleep over this one.
     
  11. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    No concerns. I cite this issue as an example (among many) that Obama is far from a bleeding-heart liberal. I'm fine that the U.S. took out the guy, and it's pretty clear that Pakistan couldn't have been told.
     
  12. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Cool. Sorry again for my threadjack/tangent--I now understand what your larger point was.
     
  13. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    The irony being you've got two GOP candidates protesting this assination.

    Me, I think assination is a harsh word, I perfer to think that Anwar al-Awlaki died from an airborne virus.
     
  14. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    So the fifth amendment isn't important to you?

    I'm not sure how you can support the fifth amendment and what happened here.
     
  15. Coyote-Trickster

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    Trust me, you're lucky I'll never be President.

    You'd be up against the wall by the end of the inauguration.
     
  16. nicephoras

    nicephoras A high quality person

    Jul 22, 2001
    New York
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
     
  17. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    Yeah, civil liberties are foolish. It would be cool if you went to jail for what you post on BigSoccer. Why not, right?

    So how will you feel if Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry go on a killing spree?
     
  18. nicephoras

    nicephoras A high quality person

    Jul 22, 2001
    New York
    1. Extremism in defense of liberty is, in fact, a vice. The reason why Emerson's quote is so meaningful is that only fools set their world view to total absolutes.

    2. How would I feel if Michelle or Rick kill al-Awlaki? I'd be cool with it.

    As taosjohn correctly pointed out, no President in the history of the United States would not have done this. As Cicero astutely said of Cato, he acted as if he lived in Plato's Republic rather than Romulus' sewer. You're setting yourself up as Cato. And you will lose. And no one will even write a Pharsalia for you.
     
  19. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Country:
    Argentina
    Countries that care about such things don't become superpowers.
     
  20. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    Wow.

    I guess no one defending this has a problem with warrant-less eavesdropping, huh?
     
  21. marek

    marek Member

    Jun 27, 2000
    Club:
    OSP Lechia Gdansk
    Country:
    Poland
    you cannot be so foolish as not to notice the 'D' after the current occupant of the White House

    that 'D' makes all the difference



    http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/

    The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality
    By Glenn Greenwald



    "What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists: criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

    From an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political culture. It not only finds ways to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.

    What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process. Remember all that? Yet now, here’s Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President — even Barack Obama — vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process."
     
  22. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    [slaps forehead]
     
  23. maturin

    maturin Member

    Jun 8, 2004
    Minneapolis, MN
    Juan Cole has a good take on this. There does not seem to be a valid constitutional argument for killing this man with no due process.

    http://www.juancole.com/2011/10/al-awlaqi-should-have-been-tried-in-absentia.html

     
  24. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Country:
    Argentina
    I think Obama's problem with the left is marketing.

    If instead of calling Al Qaeda "an anti-American terrorist organization" he would present them as "a multinational business enterprise with ties to banking and the oil industry" then the left would be praising him for hunting down and killing its top members.
     
    2 people repped this.
  25. maturin

    maturin Member

    Jun 8, 2004
    Minneapolis, MN
    Not unless they raise my bank fees. ;)
     
    2 people repped this.

Share This Page