At 4/26/12 07:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/26/12 06:35 PM, TheMason wrote:
Again...wrong. Speaking as someone who has studied terrorism academically and works in the antiterrorism field...releasing the pictures would not have significantly increased violence. In some ways it may have suppressed it.For some reason, I keep getting the feeling that had he released the picture you'd be on this topic saying how it was a bad idea...
No Camaro...I'd be giving him his credit.
1) The pictures would've been cathartic for the American public.
2) I have a buddy who is in the Canadian army...psyops...who deployed to Afghanistan and we've talked about the people and their attitudes. From him and other sources, I think releasing the pics would have actually tempered emotions.
1) This is not obscure, maybe forgotten by the average voter by now. But the Maersk Alabama hijacking was front page news here in the US. And when the SeALs took them out...it was front page news. They didn't exactly try to hide it.If you were actually right, this would be the only thing they did. You tell me that the SEALs' entire anti-piracy campaign occuer between the rails of the Maersk Alabama.
Irrelevent. He brought up a single incident that was front page news and tried passing it off as something Obama did in secret...when it was very public.
Now...there is alot that we do do in secret, yes. But every president does that.
Oh...and here's some props for Obama:
1) He kept the promise to target al Qaida w/predator drones including targets in Pakistan...and he's looking to expand operations in Yemen. I think these are decisions which are risky and he deserves credit for making these hard decisions.
2) He's kept GitMo open. I think once he was in office and had access to what really goes on there...and then facing opposition from both sides of the aisle...I think he wisely backed off the issue.
Hell...Obama's ineptitude makes Bush look like Lincoln or Jefferson by comparison!Get out the worms and the poles, Mason's going fishing.
Actually no. Bush was far more successfull as Obama at getting his policy agendas passed through Congress. I think his handling of the crisis of September '08 was a sign of a president actually being able to work through gridlock with a Congress just as hostile to the WH as this one.
I think Canada is one of our most important allies, yes. We share a border and many common social traits. However, I wouldn't say you're one of our strongest allies because you don't have much power projection.Actually Canada is one of our biggest allies. They may have little military power, or little global political power, but they have a great deal of regional political power being able to poke a several thousand mile hole in many of our policies (mostly the national security ones). This doesn't even take into account the fact that much of our natural resources come from the land of maple syrup, pea soup, and Rush.
Again we have very close ties to Canada and they are an important ally. But let's not pretend that, other than an early warning system, they are on the same level as England or Korea in terms of strategic importance.
They are more important in terms of domestic policy than strategic foreign policy. For the most part we speak the same language. We have a fairly open border and trade. We have no military tension...in fact we're probably the two most military-cooperative countries in the world.
But when it comes time to project power or influence...we don't really turn to them like we do England in Europe or Korea in the Pacific. The reason: they don't really project their power or seek influence outside their borders. This is a very vital service they provide. An American can stick a Canadian flag on their backpack and move unmolested through much of Europe and the Middle East!
What was the substance of these treaties and what were the failing points?
I am also very familiar with and follow Korean politics. And yes Obama is popular and well liked...but that doesn't mean he's effective. In some of our treaty negotiations with Seoul when he got personally involved...the treaties fell through. I don't give a shit how popular our president is...if he can't do his job. This isn't high school.
Uh...just a small free trade treaty called the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement.
Most of the work had been done on this treaty in 2007. Diplomats were wrapping up some of the smaller issues that were sticking in the craw of both contries...but we had managed to come up with a deal that was acceptable to the Koreans. But then Obama, under UAW and Automakers, tried to renegotiate some of the finer points in a visit to Seoul. Then...after opening up old issues thought dealt with...went on TV and said we'd have a treaty only a few days later at the upcoming G20 summit.
This was just pure ineptitude on the part of the president. I mean the same class of stupidity and lack of deftness that one would expect from Sarah Palin or Herman Cain...not a suppossedly brilliant and accomplished community organizer who excells at bringing people together.
it is a state of anarchy and no such thing as "international law" actually exists.International law doesn't exist because the country with the best ability to give it legitimacy over the past 50-60 years was too busy fucking around behind the scenes. You're pulling a Clarence Thomas here.
Not at all. In order for law to exist there has to be an agent that is responsible for enforcing the law...and its judgements. This requires someone to be the world police. I think Iraq was a test of that. Saddam was violating several UN resolutions that prescribed the use of force if violated. The lack of will to enforce these provisions on the part of the international community is proof that the old European Colonial powers and their now independent colonies have no interest in a New World Order that will promote a legitimate international law (and its attendant agencies) founded upon the rule of law.
I think you're putting on rose colored glasses here. :)