Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The defense for Obama ya'll trying to spin is getting nauseating.
I'm not spinning anything. I'm pointing out that your characterization of Obama's words is not reflective of what Obama actually said. Stating that one group of people has found common cause with another group of people does not indicate that the speaker believes that they are the same, or even necessarily comparable.
Really? Here's his double-down on CNN's interview:
Spoiler:
Uh... no... not a mischaracterization. It's a tactic to paint the oppositions as an extreme viewpoint, as it's agreed that the hardliners in Iran are far away extreme themselves.
The oppositions are for multitude of reasons... namely:
a) very pro-Israel
b) the idea of "negotiating" with a terrorist state with US servicemen's blood on their hands
c) 'rewarding' Iran for relinquishing held money (billions)
d) gakky deal all round
Did you actually watch and listen to the video? He's not factually wrong.
It's simple logic:
Group A opposes a thing + Group B opposes same thing = common cause
The reasons for opposing it are irrelevant to that equation, the simple fact of opposition is what is relevant to the comparison. Was it a bad choice of words, intended solely to provoke and antagonize? YES, but it still does not change the fact that many of those opposing the deal did so before the deal was completed, before they even knew the details, solely because those politicians are in the pockets of special interest groups.
Why bring up such a antagonizing comparision in fthe first place?
He's not fostering any compelling argument for this other that "This is what I want, so suck it up buttercups".
I don't want to have anything to do with a country that chants "Death to America" and funds very bad organizations in that region. feth them.
I don't want to have anything to do with a country that chants "Death to America" and funds very bad organizations in that region. feth them.
Historically, the US hasn't been much better. Look up some of the things said by Curtis Lemay, for example. We can't really blame the Iranians for being 60 years behind us in the development of political rhetoric, can we?
Besides, in the point of view of many in that region, what you said largely describes how they see the US. Maybe if we actually gave diplomacy an honest try, things might change. But, no, we send our soldiers over there, our own politicians (including one VP candidate) then claim we're doing God's work, and we wonder why they think we're attacking Islam? We spend over a year in negotiations, only to have the result fail because of a political hissyfit on our end and we wonder why they call us arrogant and untrustworthy?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I can certainly appreciate how they could see us as untrustworthy, but this is how a Democracy works. But on the flipside nobody in that region has ever given a western nation any good reason to trust in return.
And no matter how much they may try to paint the picture that the West hates Islam its simply not true. We don't have state approved marches shouting "Death to Islam", while at the same time them shouting "Death to America" is basically a daily occurrence. All we do in reaction is yawn and carry on because its no big deal.
Why should we negotiate in good faith with these people in the first place?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Why should we negotiate in good faith with these people in the first place?
Because we're the "good guys"??
That was approximately the answer given each time I ever heard the question, "but Sgt. why do we need to follow the Geneva Conventions when the other guys aren't going to?"
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Good guys, yes.
Stupid guys, no.
Following the Geneva Convention and negotiating in good faith with those who have none is stupid. The idea that rules and such can apply to war and conflict is beyond stupid, its braindead and moronic and only ensures you will lose any conflict you engage in.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Following the Geneva Convention and negotiating in good faith with those who have none is stupid. The idea that rules and such can apply to war and conflict is beyond stupid, its braindead and moronic and only ensures you will lose any conflict you engage in.
It's not at all stupid. There are lots of very good reasons for such, and they aren't necessarily detrimental to conduct of war.
Did the US suffer any meaningful problems in WW2 for treating German prisoners humanely? Hrm...no, in fact it's likely the opposite as many German units would not resist as fiercely and would give up sooner than their comrades would against the Red Army. Did Germany & Japan suffer for treating prisoners badly? Yes, they absolutely did.
Likewise, not every war is a knock down drag out fight to the bitter end. Having some rules that each side generally agrees to abide by makes settling a conflict much easier. Had the British used nerve gas against the Argentinians, or the Argentinians brutally tortured prisoners and burned down every dwelling during the Falklands war, would that conflict have ended as quickly and (relatively) cleanly as it did, or would it have turned into a longer, and much uglier conflict that would have resulted in heavier costs for both sides?
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Why bring up such a antagonizing comparision in fthe first place?
Because Obama wouldn't get Republican cooperation under any realistic set of circumstances. Many GOP politicians have spent the last 7 years demonizing the present Administration, and now have to act in consistence with the "History's Greatest Monster" charade or risk losing their seat.
He's not fostering any compelling argument for this other that "This is what I want, so suck it up buttercups".
You realize the structure of your argument is identical to the one you claim Obama is making, right?
Anyway, the core argument is that lifting sanctions on Iran will lead to economic development, and a concomitant reduction in support for radical political positions, with the elimination of nuclear sanctions being particularly important for symbolic reasons. In short, Iran gets to feel like a significant world power, while the West gets to look a bit more reasonable in the eyes of others.
This argument isn't even one that has been specifically articulated with respect to Iran. The basic principles underlying it have been a major focus for Obama since he was campaigning in 2008.
Why should we negotiate in good faith with these people in the first place?
Because we're the "good guys"??
That was approximately the answer given each time I ever heard the question, "but Sgt. why do we need to follow the Geneva Conventions when the other guys aren't going to?"
If they could be trusted to stand by the agreements that they made, then I would agree with you. But "death to America" is a huge part of their culture, and any agreements that they make are going to simply further the cause that they have assigned themselves to - the destruction of the most powerful superpower in the world. Regardless of our own efforts to make peace and end the wars going on, a helluva lotta the people over there see Americans as untrustworthy, unfaithful whores, and think of it as common sense to see us in that manner. Until that culture is broken, then we will never have successful negotiations, and the only way for us to supplant that culture is to take full control (ie balls-to-the-wall invasion and occupation) and replace the anti-Western bull shonkey and replace it with pro-American bull shonkey - and then back it up with humane practices and unquestionable kindness and freedom. Even then, it would take decades to create a people that would be more "sensible" (by our standards), and wouldn't be as radical with their beliefs, plus, we would likely make a metric asston of enemies if we were to engage in such an action.
tl;dr: The current Islamic states are too radical and brainwashed to engage in true-blue, mutually beneficial negotiations that they can be trusted to keep.
To quote a fictional character... "Let's make this fun!"
Tactical_Spam wrote: There was a story in the SM omnibus where a single kroot killed 2-3 marines then ate their gene seed and became a Kroot-startes.
Grey Templar wrote: I can certainly appreciate how they could see us as untrustworthy, but this is how a Democracy works.
Actually, foreign policy tends to be pretty stable in established democracies, or really any other form of established government. The West (The US is really just the current poster boy.) simply has an illustrious history of fething with less powerful countries, especially the Middle East.
Actually, foreign policy tends to be pretty stable in established democracies, or really any other form of established government. The West (The US is really just the current poster boy.) simply has an illustrious history of fething with less powerful countries, especially the Middle East.
Yes. What I meant was the US political climate is volatile and changes with each election, often to diametrically opposed viewpoints. This leads to flux in what our foreign policy is at any given time, thus it can give the illusion of untrustworthyness. Basically promises made are only good so long as someone amicable to that agreement is in power OR if it somehow passes Congress with bipartisan support.
Did Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, and the UAE cease to exist at some point?
While those are relatively stable countries they still far from being trustworthy. The Saudis funding of terrorist organizations is the worst kept secret ever. They allow many terrorist organizations to operate openly or very poorly concealed within their borders.
This entire region is filled with 2 faced people. Remember Islam says its ok to lie to non-believers.
Everyone in the region is at best an ally of convenience depending on the situation.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Perhaps. But thats not really a big deal is it? Everyone acts in their own interests on the political stage. Its really just a matter of how much another's goal align with your own.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Perhaps. But thats not really a big deal is it? Everyone acts in their own interests on the political stage. Its really just a matter of how much another's goal align with your own.
Grey Templar wrote: Perhaps. But thats not really a big deal is it? Everyone acts in their own interests on the political stage. Its really just a matter of how much another's goal align with your own.
I think the ultimate question to look at is: what makes us right and what makes them wrong?
And the plain and simple truth is that age old axiom: Might Makes Right. We're only "right" because we're bigger and stronger. Morality doesn't enter into it, because we've proven we'll throw away our morals when we feel like it. Freedom and democracy doesn't enter into it, because we toss those aside when they become inconvenient.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Grey Templar wrote: What I meant was the US political climate is volatile and changes with each election, often to diametrically opposed viewpoints. This leads to flux in what our foreign policy is at any given time, thus it can give the illusion of untrustworthyness.
Illusion? A nation-state which experiences frequent, significant shifts in its foreign policy does not project an illusion of being untrustworthy, it is simply untrustworthy. Thankfully, as I've already pointed out, that doesn't happen under established governments.
While those are relatively stable countries they still far from being trustworthy.
All of those countries have strong diplomatic ties with the US for one reason or another, a few of them host (or have hosted) US military bases, 1 of them (Turkey) is a member of NATO, and most them have economic or defense agreements with the US (primarily the Gulf states).
The Saudis funding of terrorist organizations is the worst kept secret ever. They allow many terrorist organizations to operate openly or very poorly concealed within their borders.
I don't particularly care if the Saudis fund terrorist organizations (and the Saudi state doesn't actually do so), so long as those terrorist organizations aren't a significant threat to US interests.
This entire region is filled with 2 faced people. Remember Islam says its ok to lie to non-believers.
Taqiya is actually a lot more complicated than that (with multiple interpretations of the doctrine), usually requiring a legitimate fear of significant harm to be considered acceptable.
Grey Templar wrote: Perhaps. But thats not really a big deal is it? Everyone acts in their own interests on the political stage. Its really just a matter of how much another's goal align with your own.
I think the ultimate question to look at is: what makes us right and what makes them wrong?
And the plain and simple truth is that age old axiom: Might Makes Right. We're only "right" because we're bigger and stronger. Morality doesn't enter into it, because we've proven we'll throw away our morals when we feel like it. Freedom and democracy doesn't enter into it, because we toss those aside when they become inconvenient.
Well, in the political game Good and Bad are determined by which side you personally are on.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
It all depends on the details. Was it an actual classified document sent to her, with all the proper labelings? Was it derived from a classified document (a quote from a classified document contained within a larger, normally unclassified document), and was that document properly labeled or not? Did she send a properly labeled classified document incorrectly? Did she make a derivative document (quoted something classified) that was or was not labeled correctly? The devil will be in the details.
If we're talking actual, properly labeled classified materials sent to her, and she did not properly address the issue (i.e. disciplinary action) with whomever did it, then she's in trouble for that. If she sent them, she's in trouble for that, too. By letting them remain on a server not approved for storing classified materials (after being accused of deleting emails, ironic, eh?), she's in trouble for that, too. Interestingly enough, if she was the original classifying official who classified the material, she has the authority to declassify it, but not, you know, retroactively after it was already sent incorrectly. The devil's gonna be in the details.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Hillary Clinton has agreed to hand over the private email server that she used as secretary of state to the Justice Department.
Mrs Clinton's use of private email has generated a barrage of criticism.
Critics say that her set-up was unsecure, contrary to government policy and designed to shield her communications from oversight.
Mrs Clinton initially handed over thousands of pages of emails to the state department, but not the server.
The FBI is investigating the security of Mrs Clinton email server.
I think ultimately, unless charges come out of it, Hillary's email snafu is going to get swept under the rug. Even if she's guilty as sin, I'd be shocked if she were indicted. If that happens, I think it'll be the end of her campaign, and I'm sure her opposition is going to hope very much that it does happen, but I'd be surprised if she doesn't brush it off in the end or at worst get it pinned on a poor staffer. Much as I dislike her (particularly after the 2008 campaign), I think it's going to be very difficult to get anything to stick, particularly while the Justice Department operates under the control of a Democratic president.
With regards to the GOP candidates, I'd guess that within the next couple months it'll be down to Bush, Walker, Cruz, maybe Rubio, Fiorina, and possibly still Trump. My guess is that Rubio and Fiorina are going to be gunning for a VP slot, Cruz is going to try to eat up Trump's disaffected populists after Trump eventually crashes, Walker is going to be the Koch puppet, and Jeb the "establishment" candidate, and we'll see if Trump runs a 3rd party campaign or not.
I don't see any of the others sticking it out much longer however, at least in any serious sort of capacity and generating any campaign income.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, Dune was a big metaphor about oil and the middle east. Too bad nobody but geeks learned the lessons within it, though.
That writing a series of books that focus on pre-destination are pre-destined to get very silly, very quickly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ProtoClone wrote: It does reek of some sort of political character assassination. Not only that, it confuses the image of the real BLM movement and causes more people to associate them in a negative way. My first thought was that they were trying to discredit the BLM by acting in this way.
I don't think you need to reach for conspiratorial plots, when it can be explained a lot easier with idiotic attention whoring. Every cause has a fringe of people who are way more interested causing a ruckus than achieving anything. Some movements these people aren't even a fringe, but the majority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: In all serious though from what being said on some media news outlet that the more likely reason that Trump leading in the polls is that majority being polled are a bit tired of career politicians. I'm one of those who is tired of "career politicians"
We’ve already talked through why the whole outsider thing is total bs, and we even spent time establishing that even if it meant something, it certainly doesn’t apply to Trump.
Do we really need to go through it again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Thats my fear.
Alternatively Israel attacks and the world blames Israel for being the aggressor.
Mwahahaha!
Yeah, okay, so now that we've moved in to the world of Tom Clancy's shittier, more delusional later novels, can we get on with blowing up Baltimore?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I can certainly appreciate how they could see us as untrustworthy, but this is how a Democracy works. But on the flipside nobody in that region has ever given a western nation any good reason to trust in return.
And no matter how much they may try to paint the picture that the West hates Islam its simply not true. We don't have state approved marches shouting "Death to Islam", while at the same time them shouting "Death to America" is basically a daily occurrence. All we do in reaction is yawn and carry on because its no big deal.
Why should we negotiate in good faith with these people in the first place?
It isn’t about trusting that the other person is really nice, but about knowing how mutual benefit works. You don’t have to like your boss to know that an arrangement where you turn up and do your job, and they pay you works out for both parties.
Also, your comment that ‘no-one in that region has ever given a western nation any good reason to trust’ is fething absurd. The region consists of more than the couple of countries who get talked about in the news, you know. There have been long term, mutually beneficial deals set up with Egypt, with Jordan, with the UAE.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Following the Geneva Convention and negotiating in good faith with those who have none is stupid. The idea that rules and such can apply to war and conflict is beyond stupid, its braindead and moronic and only ensures you will lose any conflict you engage in.
Absolute bs.
Of course it is difficult and maybe impossible to take an absolute, hard and fast set of rules and never break them no matter what the circumstances of the war, but that doesn't mean a complete rejection of laws is even remotely sensible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: This entire region is filled with 2 faced people. Remember Islam says its ok to lie to non-believers.
Everyone in the region is at best an ally of convenience depending on the situation.
Okay, so we're basically at the point where it should be clear to everyone your worldview is about as sophisticated as the Monster Manual.
Engaging further on this issue is a waste of time.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/08/12 02:33:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: very cause has a fringe of people who are way more interested causing a ruckus than achieving anything. Some movements these people aren't even a fringe, but the majority.
We call them the Tea Party.
Spoiler:
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Tannhauser42 wrote: It all depends on the details. Was it an actual classified document sent to her, with all the proper labelings? Was it derived from a classified document (a quote from a classified document contained within a larger, normally unclassified document), and was that document properly labeled or not? Did she send a properly labeled classified document incorrectly? Did she make a derivative document (quoted something classified) that was or was not labeled correctly? The devil will be in the details.
If we're talking actual, properly labeled classified materials sent to her, and she did not properly address the issue (i.e. disciplinary action) with whomever did it, then she's in trouble for that. If she sent them, she's in trouble for that, too. By letting them remain on a server not approved for storing classified materials (after being accused of deleting emails, ironic, eh?), she's in trouble for that, too. Interestingly enough, if she was the original classifying official who classified the material, she has the authority to declassify it, but not, you know, retroactively after it was already sent incorrectly. The devil's gonna be in the details.
I'm still confused on what the policy is in disiminating 'Top Secret' information...
Need to research further, but it appears that multiple information (not just the 4 reported) falls within this 'Top Secret' category. These were originated from the intelligence departments and the IG confirmed that at least two of them are impacted:
From what I understand, these are compartmentalized with an associated code word, which means you have to be 'read in' to that particular information. Once you sign whatever red-tape needed, you then are 'cleared' to read material with that particular code word. I guess that's how they control folks with 'need-to-know' and control access.
If it were anyone else, this is hard-core felony prison infraction.
But, alas, nothiing will happen... the Clintons will always remain the best example of living/breathing Teflons™.
From what I understand, these are compartmentalized with an associated code word, which means you have to be 'read in' to that particular information. Once you sign whatever red-tape needed, you then are 'cleared' to read material with that particular code word. I guess that's how they control folks with 'need-to-know' and control access.
If it were anyone else, this is hard-core felony prison infraction.
But, alas, nothiing will happen... the Clintons will always remain the best example of living/breathing Teflons™.
I know you have a hard-on for taking down HRC, but in this case... with the way things are going, I almost wouldn't be surprised to see some Ana Montes or Bob Hanson level stuff going on, and at her level of the gov't... damn, that would be fething huge
Please note, all you dakka users, I am NOT saying that HRC was spying, I'm merely saying that at this point it wouldn't surprise me.
I think it's pretty rare for anyone that high up to be prosecuted and imprisoned for mishandling or leaking classified info, even if that was the case. Look at Sandy Berger, Mary McCathy, Richard Armitage, and David Petraeus.
It's more fun to pretend, though, I guess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/12 05:12:19
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
