Romney's reaction to the American embassy deaths

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Well clearly people like skirting around the issue. I have asked now a few times if people would or would not support the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Yet, no one has answered the question, all i got were political get outs.

Are you asking everyone?

My answer is no. I don't support violence as a solution.

jank

briankeating wrote: »

Are you asking everyone?

My answer is no. I don't support violence as a solution.

Fair enough, your position is that you would have left Osama Bin Laden alone in Afghanistan and not overthrow the Taliban regime after 9/11.

decimatio

joseph brand wrote: »

This film could have been made, with the sole intention of inciting rage and encouraging violence in Islamic countries. Is there an Israeli man behind this film? Could someone be trying to pave the way for a military offensive by the US? We know that the Israelis would love to see the US invade Iran, amongst their other 'bad' neighbours.

Completely irrelevant regardless of whether or not it's true.

Holocaust denial is often brought up in these kinds of discussions. I could deny the holocaust because I'm a neo nazi hating jew. I could also deny the holocaust because I actually believe (for whatever reason) that I've discovered miraculous evidence refuting its existence. I could deny it because I'm an asshole that wants to piss off people. Regardless of the reason I have the right.

Considering that Draw Muhammad Day was a load of students exercising their right to freedom of speech. No special interests involved. There is a difference.

Yes there is a difference. You agree with the reasons behind one and presumably don't with the reasons behind the other.

Free speech doesn't exist to protect the speech of those the majority agree with. Free speech exists to protect everyone, especially those in the minority.

Furthermore, there has been considerably more violence and deaths from this film, than the DMD.

Irrelevant.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Fair enough, your position is that you would have left Osama Bin Laden alone in Afghanistan and not overthrow the Taliban regime after 9/11.

No. My position is that violence begets violence and what appear to be simple solutions are never actual solutions. This is all a bit OT, maybe a political cafe discussion.

jank

briankeating wrote: »

No. My position is that violence begets violence and what appear to be simple solutions are never actual solutions. This is all a bit OT, maybe a political cafe discussion.

Again that statement is all well and good in theory but in the real world people have to make hard and tough decisions. For example, would you have appeased Hitler in WW2? Going to war would be "violent". The same with Afganistan. Do you think that some people can be talked out of their position all of the time?

Brian?

jank wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

No. My position is that violence begets violence and what appear to be simple solutions are never actual solutions. This is all a bit OT, maybe a political cafe discussion.

Again that statement is all well and good in theory but in the real world people have to make hard and tough decisions. For example, would you have appeased Hitler in WW2? Going to war would be "violent". The same with Afganistan. Do you think that some people can be talked out of their position all of the time?

I believe on working to create a world where non-violent action solves problems instead of feeding the cycle of violence.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

I believe on working to create a world where non-violent action solves problems instead of feeding the cycle of violence.

"Working to create" sounds wonderful, but as far as I know Utopia and Oz only exists in fairy tales as of now.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

"Working to create" sounds wonderful, but as far as I know Utopia and Oz only exists in fairy tales as of now.

Sounds like a perfect political answer tbh.

I could try and work to create a wormhole that lets me travel back in time, doesn't mean I will succeed!

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

I believe on working to create a world where non-violent action solves problems instead of feeding the cycle of violence.

"Working to create" sounds wonderful, but as far as I know Utopia and Oz only exists in fairy tales as of now.

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Amerika wrote: »

"Working to create" sounds wonderful, but as far as I know Utopia and Oz only exists in fairy tales as of now.

Sounds like a perfect political answer tbh.

I could try and work to create a wormhole that lets me travel back in time, doesn't mean I will succeed!

It's an ideal worth working towards. So just because we might not succeed on achieving something it's pointless? Sure you might as well kill yourself no, whats the point in living.


FYI no wormhole can allow you travel back any further than when the first one was created as they need 2 ends.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

I haven't killed anyone. As I said before I'm a recovering Hippie and Libreal (I still get the pangs once in a while, but a tall scotch usually helps stop the feelings ). What I do know is that their ideologies don't work. As I have grown older and wiser I've found the Republican party's platform works much better domestically and internationally.

sarumite

briankeating wrote: »

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

The problem is that your solution is very long term and in meantime people may be dying. I personally think your position is admirable and principled, however I certainly wouldn't want you as the sole decision maker. A long term approach is need, however short term solutions are required. Violence is never the long term answer, I do believe that sadly it can be the short term solution.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

I haven't killed anyone. As I said before I'm a recovering Hippie and Libreal (I still get the pangs once in a while, but a tall scotch usually helps stop the feelings ). What I do know is that their ideologies don't work. As I have grown older and wiser I've found the Republican party's platform works much better domestically and internationally.

You haven't killed anyone with your own hands, how admirable. But you espouse a philosophy that sends others to kill and be killed. If you are so happy with Republican foreign policy why weren't your boots on the ground in Afghanistan?

I want to live in a world where violence isn't necessary. It's people like you and your ilk that will try their best to insure this won't happen. Yet it's me that's being scoffed at.

Brian?

sarumite wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

At least I want to try. What's your solution? Probably more killing.

The problem is that your solution is very long term and in meantime people may be dying. I personally think your position is admirable and principled, however I certainly wouldn't want you as the sole decision maker. A long term approach is need, however short term solutions are required. Violence is never the long term answer, I do believe that sadly it can be the short term solution.

A long term solution is needed. I wish I knew how to achieve it to be honest. What I do know right now is that more violence DOES NOT work.

sarumite

briankeating wrote: »

A long term solution is needed. I wish I knew how to achieve it to be honest. What I do know right now is that more violence DOES NOT work.

Neither does inaction. Personally I think inaction does more harm at not working than more violence.

Brian?

sarumite wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

A long term solution is needed. I wish I knew how to achieve it to be honest. What I do know right now is that more violence DOES NOT work.

Neither does inaction. Personally I think inaction does more harm at not working than more violence.

Who said anything about inaction? I'm in favour of non violent action

decimatio

briankeating wrote: »

[
A long term solution is needed. I wish I knew how to achieve it to be honest. What I do know right now is that more violence DOES NOT work.

I couldn't disagree more for several reasons.

On the effectiveness of violence; whatever your view is regarding the morality of violence its quite incorrect to say it doesn't work. It works very well in fact, depending on the goal.

Violence worked very well for Alexander III of Macedon, we still feel the effects of this today. The entire world, not just the western world, would be an emtremely different place.

The Roman Empire and the influence it caused. The British empire.

If it hasn't being for violence Ireland would likely be a Gaelic speaking country and our culture wouldn't have become anglicised as it is.

There are too many examples to count. Violence is extremely effective, always has being and always will be.

On the issue of violence as effective against Islamic terrorism; I don't see any other option. You're talking about reason with people who have no interest in a reasonable discussion.

A lot of people will claim the west caused and causes this Islamic terrorism and in a way they are right but have you ever looked at the reasons a group like Al Queada gives?

George Galloway will point out western interference in the middle east and shout about oil and politics. What he won't point out is reasons like the wests interference in a situation like East Timor. If you're unaware of this let me enlighten you.

High up on Al Queada's list of crimes committed by the west is the American intervention in East Timor to stop the annexation of East Timor by Indonesia and the genocide of the locals(xtian) by Indonesia (muslim).

If you don't want to upset these people you must let them committ genocide. Are you willing to allow that?

If you don't want to upset these people you have to destroy the free speech of your own citizens to pander to their superstitious nonsense. Are you willing to do that?

If you want to be a pacifist by all means do so but don't for a second pretend that you can enjoy that freedom without others willing to do violence to protect you from people who would commit violence against you.

On the issue of violence itself; its as integral a part of the human condition as any other trait and to deny it is to deny our own nature.

It astounds me how people can ignore that. Without violence we wouldn't be human, we wouldn't be who we are.

jank

Working towards a goal is admirable but to then say that violence no matter what is a no no. Would you have not supported the destruction of Nazi Germany for example ending the Holocaust? Would you have not supported NATO intervention in the Balkans to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? Because of your stance, mad men and maniacs would run riot doing what they want to do as the rest would just sit by.

There are times to talk, talking is always good in trying to resolve matters however sometimes violence is necessary unfortunately. What matters is is used as a last resort, not the default action.

sarumite

briankeating wrote: »

Who said anything about inaction? I'm in favour of non violent action

Obvously I support non-violent action. I certainly wouldn't rush to violent action without exhausting every non-violent option. However when non-violent action fails (which there are several documented evidence of it failing), what then?

MadYaker

I don't agree that violence is the only way to deal with groups like al qaeda. Education could be used to to combat their brainwashing, which is their main method used to recruit young, impoverished men and boys. How ever it is ridiculous to suggest that violence is never the only option, it often is the only option. WW2 being a good example, no amount of talking was going to convince Hitler to drop his plans for the third reich and the holocaust.

Amerika

I think it's becoming evident Barack Obama's Soft Diplomacy style isn't working.

Benny_Cake

Amerika wrote: »

I think it's becoming evident Barack Obama's Soft Diplomacy style isn't working.

The many victims of drone strikes would probably say otherwise, in any case, what's your alternative?

Amerika

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The many victims of drone strikes would probably say otherwise, in any case, what's your alternative?

The drone attacks are the exception to his Soft Diplomacy, and the only one that seems effective. I am torn on it - it has it's good sides and bad sides. It does eliminate the enemy we are at war with, but it does not afford us the ability to get intellegence gathering through capture, and the ability to get a guage via intellegence on what will happen in the future, when we just eliminate them in a reactionary measure.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I think it's becoming evident Barack Obama's Soft Diplomacy style isn't working.

I think it's quite evident that to claim his diplomacy style is 'soft' is irrational and indicative of willful ignorance of facts and his record, coupled with the inability to actually address it in any meaningful, substantive manner.

Oh, wait......

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

I think it's becoming evident Barack Obama's Soft Diplomacy style isn't working.

To be honest this is the cornerstone of the whole 'post truth' concept of American politics. Empirical evidence would suggest that Obama's foreign policy and diplomacy has been anything but soft. Any number of contexts could be provided that would more fully explain this. But unfortunately I think you've already decided the set of 'truths' and 'untruths' you're prepared to entertain.

Mjollnir

Denerick wrote: »

To be honest this is the cornerstone of the whole 'post truth' concept of American politics. Empirical evidence would suggest that Obama's foreign policy and diplomacy has been anything but soft. Any number of contexts could be provided that would more fully explain this. But unfortunately I think you've already decided the set of 'truths' and 'untruths' you're prepared to entertain.

I fear you ask the impossible of the incapable.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

The drone attacks are the exception to his Soft Diplomacy, and the only one that seems effective. I am torn on it - it has it's good sides and bad sides. It does eliminate the enemy we are at war with, but it does not afford us the ability to get intellegence gathering through capture, and the ability to get a guage via intellegence on what will happen in the future, when we just eliminate them in a reactionary measure.

The closest that I've seen you come close to conceding, anywhere. Progress indeed.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

The drone attacks are the exception to his Soft Diplomacy, and the only one that seems effective. I am torn on it - it has it's good sides and bad sides. It does eliminate the enemy we are at war with, but it does not afford us the ability to get intellegence gathering through capture, and the ability to get a guage via intellegence on what will happen in the future, when we just eliminate them in a reactionary measure.

Organizing NATO and bombing the holy hell out of Ghaddafi with US forces, leading to his death, is really, really soft diplomacy.

So was going into Pakistan to kill OBL w/out PK's knowledge or permission.

Yay! Reality is fun!

Denerick

Mjollnir wrote: »

Organizing NATO and bombing the holy hell out of Ghaddafi with US forces, leading to his death, is really, really soft diplomacy.

So was going into Pakistan to kill OBL w/out PK's knowledge or permission.

Yay! Reality is fun!

I think you'll find that reality has a liberal bias...

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

From what I can see, it's a make-or-break political calculation from Romney. Either he convinces people he was right all along or people see him as a ghoulish opportunist, making cheap political capital out of tragedy.

Now it appears Romney was right, and thanks to our lovely "unbiased" media, the people saw him as a ghoulish opportunist, making cheap political capital out of tragedy. Only in America!