This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Obama: 'I Have Not Made a Decision' on Syria
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gnomerdon
Obama's current stance on Syria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxyBKKYPT4c
In summary, Obama is does not want to engage into another civil war, but if chemical weapons were used, then the U.S. might consider going in.
What is the best stance to take at this moment, knowing how Syria is doing right now?
What would you do if you were president?
It's not really our business
or
should we intervene to save some lives?
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I find it amusing that if the US acts in it's best interests, it becomes a disgusting piece of spineless trash; but if they act for the best interests of others, they need to stop being the world's cop and just leave everyone alone.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I find it amusing that if the US acts in it's best interests, it becomes a disgusting piece of spineless trash; but if they act for the best interests of others, they need to stop being the world's cop and just leave everyone alone.
I don't. 99% of the people saying those things are exclusively only saying one of them. And I think it's silly collectivist rhetoric to group them together and pretend there is some sort of hypocrisy at play when in reality that is only a tiny minority that would say both of those things.
Post by
Gone
I find it amusing that if the US acts in it's best interests, it becomes a disgusting piece of spineless trash; but if they act for the best interests of others, they need to stop being the world's cop and just leave everyone alone.
I don't. 99% of the people saying those things are exclusively only saying one of them. And I think it's silly collectivist rhetoric to group them together and pretend there is some sort of hypocrisy at play when in reality that is only a tiny minority that would say both of those things.
Well if you look at our recent history, public opinion has straddled between those two extremes in a lot of instances. They called Bush a warmonger for going into Iraq, and Clinton a coward for doing nothing to curtail the Rwandan Genocide.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well if you look at our recent history, public opinion has straddled between those two extremes in a lot of instances. They called Bush a warmonger for going into Iraq, and Clinton a coward for doing nothing to curtail the Rwandan Genocide.
Contention 1: That is indicative of the ideological split in American politics, not of individual hypocrisy.
Contention 2: 7/8 years is enough time for both political majorities to change and for individuals to change their views without it being necessarily hypocritical.
Contention 3: No actual statistics on the individual views of people over those 8 years are provided.
Post by
Gone
That is indicative of the ideological split in American politics, not of individual hypocrisy.
I was speaking of societal trends as a whole, and maybe a little bit about international perception. Not people on an individual basis (hence the words "public opinion"). I'm not saying that individual people are hypocrites, but I can see how Funden might get that impression based on what you hear in the media. Political polarization is the boogyman that everybody blames for most problems in Washington, but sometimes it's a cop-out. Of course when you consider that people tend to be more vocal about displeasure than a course of action they approve of, it can be reconciled as the cause of the false consensus syndrome that seems to sway both ways.
Contention 2: 7/8 years is enough time for both political majorities to change and for individuals to change their views without it being necessarily hypocritical.
Contention 3: No actual statistics on the individual views of people over those 8 years are provided.
Neither of these are relevant to my point, and again I was never talking about individual hypocrisy.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Neither of these are relevant to my point, and again I was never talking about individual hypocrisy.
But I was and you replied to me.... :P
Post by
Monday
I find it amusing that if the US acts in it's best interests, it becomes a disgusting piece of spineless trash; but if they act for the best interests of others, they need to stop being the world's cop and just leave everyone alone.
I don't. 99% of the people saying those things are exclusively only saying one of them.
You're right.
And I think it's silly collectivist rhetoric to group them together and pretend there is some sort of hypocrisy at play when in reality that is only a tiny minority that would say both of those things.
And I also find it amusing that my observation on the polarizing affect of situations like this flew right over your head.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Except it didn't. I was commenting you finding it amusing. It's perfectly normal and occurs in nearly every aspect of human behavior, and I find the rhetoric of making it into some sort of point worthy of unqualified merit on its own was worth a reply.
Post by
Monday
It's perfectly normal and occurs in nearly every aspect of human behavior
Not really. The normal response nowadays is apathy. That's why I find the heated opinions amusing.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't know where you live or what politics you're exposed to, but to call the American two-party mentality anything but apathetic I find to be nothing short of a complete falsehood. Everyone has an opinion about what the opposite party is doing, and every single major political decisions is met with stiff disapproval without fail. Syria? Yep. Egypt? Yep. Gay marraige? Yep. Abortion? Yep. Healthcare? Yep. Iran? Yep. And that's just the last 2 years.
Post by
Monday
Obviously everybody has an opinion, but not very many go out of their way to voice it on most subjects. American foreign intervention is one of the few where you are guaranteed a heated response from either side.
Edit: This is the crux of the issue. I find the fact that people go out of their way to state their opinions on American foreign intervention amusing, as it doesn't happen with many issues. However, I don't think you realized this.
And I also find it amusing that my observation on the polarizing affect of situations like this flew right over your head.
Except it didn't.
If you had truly understood my original point, you wouldn't have accused me of using
silly collectivist rhetoric
to look for
some sort of hypocrisy at play
Since, as you said,
in reality that is only a tiny minority that would say both of those things.
If you had truly understood my original point, you wouldn't have said
any
of that. It is completely irrelevant and barely tangentially related to what I was referring to.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I find the fact that people go out of their way to state their opinions on American foreign intervention amusing, as it doesn't happen with many issues.
Have you not payed attention to the Healthcare debates? The abortion debates? The NSA debate? Affirmative action debates? Every month there is a new thing in the news and on people's minds. People having strong political opinions is the furthest thing from noteworthy.
If you had truly understood my original point, you wouldn't have said any of that. It is completely irrelevant and barely tangentially related to what I was referring to.
Only if your assumptions are correct. Which I'm clearly debating the veracity of.
Post by
Monday
Which I'm clearly debating the veracity of.
Now you are. You certainly weren't before.
Have you not payed attention to the Healthcare debates? The abortion debates? The NSA debate? Affirmative action debates? Every month there is a new thing in the news and on people's minds. People having strong political opinions is the furthest thing from noteworthy.
I see quite a bit on NSA and Healthcare, but the only time I see anything on affirmative action is from social crusade bloggers and the only time I see anything on abortion is from fundie Christian websites. I barely hear any of that IRL, which is why I find foreign intervention funny, as it generates a response from a large majority of IRL people (which, once again, doesn't happen for most issues).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Now you are. You certainly weren't before.
So you think I don't understand your point, but you're certain you understand mine better than me? At least give me the benefit of the doubt of having the same level of intelligence as you.
I see quite a bit on NSA and Healthcare, but the only time I see anything on affirmative action is from social Crusade bloggers and the only time I see anything on abortion is from fundie Christian websites. I barely hear any of that IRL, which is why I find foreign intervention funny, as it generates a response from a large majority of IRL people (which, once again, doesn't happen for most issues).
Look, I can't tell you what you have or haven't seen. But what I can say is that you're wrong if you are making a general claim about the US as a whole. There is
always
a current issue between the right and the left. Obama hating is just as alive as Bush hating was 8 years ago. There is nothing new about it. Hell, if you take this forum as any sort of metric, foreign policy is one of the tamest political topics we've ever discussed.
Post by
Monday
So you think I don't understand your point, but you're certain you understand mine better than me? At least give me the benefit of the doubt of having the same level of intelligence as you.
I'm afraid you're confusing me. When did I suggest that I knew your points better than you? What I was attempting to suggest was that you read my post and took in the information and came to an incorrect conclusion, based by your response.
Hell, if you take this forum as any sort of metric, foreign policy is one of the tamest political topics we've ever discussed.
Off-topic debaters are largely non-American.
There is always a current issue between the right and the left.
No.
Way.
Obama hating is just as alive as Bush hating was 8 years ago.
How is this relevant?
I have
never
suggested this is anything new. I have
never
said that it is the only topic people get so worked up about. What I
did
say was that it is one of the most vehement topics in politics today and the debates centered around it amuse me.
I would ask you to stop putting words in my mouth, kthx.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You made a
purely
rhetorical point in a vacuum. No premises, no logical structure -- it simply used sarcasm and carefully chosen pseudo-quotes to make a point. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm making arguments against the basis of that statement, hoping to cement the fact that the rhetoric is completely misplaced.
I will always make a point to argue against rhetoric. I don't care if you're right or not. If you haven't actually provided evidence or at least a somewhat structured argument, I don't think the point has any place is a serious discussion (which this thread is).
Post by
Monday
Argue against rhetoric all you want, but I'd ask that you argue against the actual point.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.