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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

If political science does not deal with foreign policy, what does?

Gender Studies

Actually, I am seeing more and more that any degree in political science doesn't mean much without qualifiers... At my school you can get a Poli-sci degree, and having talked to one of the professors about doing a minor in it... there are a few "focuses" for undergrad work. Yes, you can focus on foreign policy which would focus more globally, but there's also Public Policy which deals almost exclusively with domestic issues, and then there's actually a focus for even more academic stuff, which would better suit someone who does it to enter a classroom and teach political science basics (which would've been where I'd gone, because I'm tryin' to be a HS teacher)

So, depending on the person's actual CV, their school and their degree, it is actually entirely possible that a person with a political science degree learned very little about foreign policy.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...

Right... when you wish to have credibility in your postings, it helps to not post things that are blatantly outlandish, such as this.

Considering Fox has the credibility of a dead hedgehog, how is that "blatantly outlandish"?

Right... it has the same level of credibility as just about every link that Cpt. posted just up. Every journalism organization "lies", and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. To compare them to a website whose sole role is satirical postings that have no relevance on reality, is outlandish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

If political science does not deal with foreign policy, what does?

Gender Studies

Actually, I am seeing more and more that any degree in political science doesn't mean much without qualifiers... At my school you can get a Poli-sci degree, and having talked to one of the professors about doing a minor in it... there are a few "focuses" for undergrad work. Yes, you can focus on foreign policy which would focus more globally, but there's also Public Policy which deals almost exclusively with domestic issues, and then there's actually a focus for even more academic stuff, which would better suit someone who does it to enter a classroom and teach political science basics (which would've been where I'd gone, because I'm tryin' to be a HS teacher)

So, depending on the person's actual CV, their school and their degree, it is actually entirely possible that a person with a political science degree learned very little about foreign policy.

But I thought a 100 level core requirement made you an expert on said topics?

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...

Right... when you wish to have credibility in your postings, it helps to not post things that are blatantly outlandish, such as this.

Considering Fox has the credibility of a dead hedgehog, how is that "blatantly outlandish"?

Right... it has the same level of credibility as just about every link that Cpt. posted just up. Every journalism organization "lies", and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. To compare them to a website whose sole role is satirical postings that have no relevance on reality, is outlandish.

Not as outlandish as claiming that every bias is equally bad. That's a rubbish argument, and you should feel bad for making it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...

Right... when you wish to have credibility in your postings, it helps to not post things that are blatantly outlandish, such as this.

Considering Fox has the credibility of a dead hedgehog, how is that "blatantly outlandish"?

Right... it has the same level of credibility as just about every link that Cpt. posted just up. Every journalism organization "lies", and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. To compare them to a website whose sole role is satirical postings that have no relevance on reality, is outlandish.

Not as outlandish as claiming that every bias is equally bad. That's a rubbish argument, and you should feel bad for making it.

I'll try not to lose any sleep over it. *rolls eyes*

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!

It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.

Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.

:shakes head:

Point being all of this makes sense.

What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).

Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.

If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.

You mean like when the Bush admin. was using Judith Miller to sell the Iraq war? http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

And simply striking down dissent from Richard Clarke and ElBaradei?

Michael Deaver's entire job in the Reagan admin was devoted almost entirely to the very thing you are describing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/18/AR2007081800587.html

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Outraged? That politicians lie, or at least spin the truth, to get gullible voters to believe what they want to them to believe?

Spoiler:

Isn't that the basis for the steady shrieking from the left about Iraq we've all had to endure for the past ~decade?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!

It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.

Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.

:shakes head:

Point being all of this makes sense.

What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).

Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.

If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.

You mean like when the Bush admin. was using Judith Miller to sell the Iraq war? http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

And simply striking down dissent from Richard Clarke and ElBaradei?

Michael Deaver's entire job in the Reagan admin was devoted almost entirely to the very thing you are describing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/18/AR2007081800587.html

That's called whataboutism.

The distinction here is that it's more perverse...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Outraged? That politicians lie, or at least spin the truth, to get gullible voters to believe what they want to them to believe?

Spoiler:

Isn't that the basis for the steady shrieking from the left about Iraq we've all had to endure for the past ~decade?

Indeed.

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
If you seriously believe something like this from Fox 'news' (ie the company that fought in court to be able to lie), I have a bridge to sell you...

Did I claim to believe it?

No, I did not.

What I did do was point out Fox and the hacker are in no position to provide proof. Do you disagree with that statement?

If there's no proof why should anyone believe anything?

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!

It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.

Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.

:shakes head:

Point being all of this makes sense.

What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).

Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.

If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.

You mean like when the Bush admin. was using Judith Miller to sell the Iraq war? http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

And simply striking down dissent from Richard Clarke and ElBaradei?

Michael Deaver's entire job in the Reagan admin was devoted almost entirely to the very thing you are describing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/18/AR2007081800587.html

That's called whataboutism.

The distinction here is that it's more perverse...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Outraged? That politicians lie, or at least spin the truth, to get gullible voters to believe what they want to them to believe?

Spoiler:

Isn't that the basis for the steady shrieking from the left about Iraq we've all had to endure for the past ~decade?

Indeed.

Did... did you just call out Whataboutism and then endorse it in the same post because one of the quotes was your side and the other wasn't? Really?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!

It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.

Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.

:shakes head:

Point being all of this makes sense.

What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).

Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.

If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.

You mean like when the Bush admin. was using Judith Miller to sell the Iraq war? http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

And simply striking down dissent from Richard Clarke and ElBaradei?

Michael Deaver's entire job in the Reagan admin was devoted almost entirely to the very thing you are describing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/18/AR2007081800587.html

That's called whataboutism.

The distinction here is that it's more perverse...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Outraged? That politicians lie, or at least spin the truth, to get gullible voters to believe what they want to them to believe?

Spoiler:

Isn't that the basis for the steady shrieking from the left about Iraq we've all had to endure for the past ~decade?

Indeed.

Did... did you just call out Whataboutism and then endorse it in the same post because one of the quotes was your side and the other wasn't? Really?

Different conversation... but, now that you say that... that does look bad.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Did... did you just call out Whataboutism and then endorse it in the same post because one of the quotes was your side and the other wasn't? Really?

That's been par for the course since the start of this thread.

Seaward wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Outraged? That politicians lie, or at least spin the truth, to get gullible voters to believe what they want to them to believe?

Spoiler:

Isn't that the basis for the steady shrieking from the left about Iraq we've all had to endure for the past ~decade?

It's slightly more nuanced than that.

The problem with the Iraq War was that Bush decided to invade and get rid of Saddam, then made up a load of crap, aided and abetted by Bliar, in order to create a pretext.

Huge numbers of people never believed the ridiculous statements made to support war, and predicted exactly the kind of scenario that actually did unfold. Not unnaturally we have been complaining about it ever since and we have a perfect right to.

Invading Iraq unnecessarily without a follow-up plan created the circumstances led to the completely gakky situation in the Middle East today, which keeps expanding to places like the Yemen, Sudan and Nigeria and we've got no good idea how to solve. When you look at these consequences which actually are worse than anyone imagined, the decision to invade Iraq was possibly the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of the western world.

If this is "shrieking" then I hope the next time a hot-headed president wants to plunge the country into a foreign military adventure he might listen a bit more to the "shrieking" in advance.

No Whembly, it isn't any more perverse. The tactics are the exact same. Just because you agreed with one side's use of them (or at least seem to dismiss them) and disagree with the other doesn't mean they don't both do (and have done) it for many years. It doesn't excuse it at all, but at least be intellectually honest about it. They all have "that relationship with the press" because the press wants access to get the scoop to be able to sell ads and administrations have agendas and narratives they want to promote. That is the way it works.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
No Whembly, it isn't any more perverse. The tactics are the exact same. Just because you agreed with one side's use of them (or at least seem to dismiss them) and disagree with the other doesn't mean they don't both do (and have done) it for many years. It doesn't excuse it at all, but at least be intellectually honest about it. They all have "that relationship with the press" because the press wants access to get the scoop to be able to sell ads and administrations have agendas and narratives they want to promote. That is the way it works.

That's how it works today.

But it shouldn't.

So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?

 whembly wrote:
So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?

No we can't all agree to that.

The president could have cured cancer, personally lead a colonization expedition to Mars, and invented an fething perpetual motion machine and you would still sit there and claim he's just doing it to "build a legacy" instead of trying to do the right thing. Look, I couldn't stand George W. Bush as a president, but I never once doubted that he didn't do anything for any reason other than it's what he felt was the right thing to do, even if I vehemently disagreed with it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Did... did you just call out Whataboutism and then endorse it in the same post because one of the quotes was your side and the other wasn't? Really?

That's been par for the course since the start of this thread.

Just ignore the troll.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

So, depending on the person's actual CV, their school and their degree, it is actually entirely possible that a person with a political science degree learned very little about foreign policy.

But not with a political science major from a place like Rice, also known as "Texas Harvard".

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Look, I couldn't stand George W. Bush as a president, but I never once doubted that he didn't do anything for any reason other than it's what he felt was the right thing to do, even if I vehemently disagreed with it.

I really couldn't stand GWB, and my dad really can't stand Obama. We know this about each other and we are totally okay with it . A few years ago he was visiting me and was a bit surprised to find GWB's "Decision Points" in my book shelf next to Bill Clinton's "My Life". I told him that I feel that even if I didn't like the person that was the president, I feel like it is at least worth listening to their stories after they leave office to see what drove them to do what they did and to me it feels like giving them a chance to share their own thoughts is part of respecting the office of the presidency.

To bring it back around to the quote: even though we both have very opposite thoughts on politics, although they do intersect in various areas of libertarianism, and completely different opinions about the various presidents, neither one of us thinks that they had any malicious indent and we both think that while they have completely different ideas regarding the direction our country should take, they did everything they did out of a love for the country and wanting to see it become a better place. I don't think that Bush wanted to screw over the poor, minorities, and send youths to their death so that his oil buddies can become rich. He doesn't think that Obama wants to destroy America so that his communists Muslim brethren can pick up the pieces. We both think that even though many presidents have completely different goals and ideals for the country, they actually care about the country and genuinely just want the best for it.

Even though we have opposite ideologies, I credit my dad a lot for the way I view things in the world.

 djones520 wrote:

But I thought a 100 level core requirement made you an expert on said topics?

All three of the institutions I attended required more than a "100 level core" for a major, even the crappy Illinois directional. Where did you go?

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
No Whembly, it isn't any more perverse. The tactics are the exact same. Just because you agreed with one side's use of them (or at least seem to dismiss them) and disagree with the other doesn't mean they don't both do (and have done) it for many years. It doesn't excuse it at all, but at least be intellectually honest about it. They all have "that relationship with the press" because the press wants access to get the scoop to be able to sell ads and administrations have agendas and narratives they want to promote. That is the way it works.

That's how it works today.

But it shouldn't.

So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?

Whembly, that's the way it has always worked, see how Washington and Jefferson used it http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/press-attacks/

 whembly wrote:

So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?

Sure, if you can properly spell "now" and leave "deal" out of quotations.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?

Sure, if you can properly spell "now" and leave "deal" out of quotations.

So can we now agree that this Iran deal was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?










Better professor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?

No we can't all agree to that.

Okay. Cool.

The president could have cured cancer, personally lead a colonization expedition to Mars, and invented an fething perpetual motion machine and you would still sit there and claim he's just doing it to "build a legacy" instead of trying to do the right thing.

I would not. You don't believe me, but that's not my problem.

Look, I couldn't stand George W. Bush as a president, but I never once doubted that he didn't do anything for any reason other than it's what he felt was the right thing to do, even if I vehemently disagreed with it.

I appreciate this as that's my viewpoint for just about every President in my living memory.

I'm not having a go at you but, it might help if you can define "altruistic reasons" in this context?

 whembly wrote:
I would not.

The personality, leanings, and knowledge you have displayed say otherwise quite loudly. If it is true that you would not you might then need to consider how you present yourself.

 whembly wrote:
You don't believe me, but that's not my problem.

Now that is the whembly we've come to know.

Probably enough dogpiling on one user for their posting habits/general commentary about posting habits. So let's just end that here. There has to be something shiny and new in US politics to distract us from that, right?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It's slightly more nuanced than that.

The problem with the Iraq War was that Bush decided to invade and get rid of Saddam, then made up a load of crap, aided and abetted by Bliar, in order to create a pretext.

Well, leaving aside the hilarity of claiming that something's nuanced and then launching into about as cut-and-dried a partisan conspiracy theory as one possibly could, let's pretend that's true for a second.

Again, is the issue that we're shocked and outraged when politicians of the other party lie to us, but willing to give cynical approval when they're ours? When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades, our usual partizans shrugged their shoulders and asked what we expected, because politicians lie all the time, yo, no big deal.

Huge numbers of people never believed the ridiculous statements made to support war, and predicted exactly the kind of scenario that actually did unfold. Not unnaturally we have been complaining about it ever since and we have a perfect right to.

We, huh?

Invading Iraq unnecessarily without a follow-up plan created the circumstances led to the completely gakky situation in the Middle East today, which keeps expanding to places like the Yemen, Sudan and Nigeria and we've got no good idea how to solve. When you look at these consequences which actually are worse than anyone imagined, the decision to invade Iraq was possibly the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of the western world.

I don't think I could get away with responding to this in full in this thread, since it ain't what the topic's about, so I'll just say for now that I strongly disagree.

If this is "shrieking" then I hope the next time a hot-headed president wants to plunge the country into a foreign military adventure he might listen a bit more to the "shrieking" in advance.

Well, it'd probably help if most of the wise sages didn't become wise sages after the fact.

But let's ignore the "wise right-wing sages" who were so terribly wrong before the fact.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But let's ignore the "wise right-wing sages" who were so terribly wrong before the fact.

I'm fine with ignoring anyone who claims they know for sure how something like a national invasion is going to go. I'm even more committed to ignoring those who claim after the fact they knew it all beforehand with little evidence to prop up such claims.

Seaward wrote:
When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades, our usual partizans shrugged their shoulders and asked what we expected, because politicians lie all the time, yo, no big deal.

So you're running with the right-wing narrative that negotiations beginning prior to Rouhani's election don't count?

Seaward wrote:

Well, it'd probably help if most of the wise sages didn't become wise sages after the fact.

I'm fairly certain Saddam's Arab Nationalist regime was known for what it was well before the invasion; a check on Iran's power.

You seem to be implying that because we toppled Saddam, we now have to legitimize Iran. Is that correct?