• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama At The UN One Year Ago

You seem to be under the impression that we an afford to be involved in three or more wars simultaneously, but we cannot --- not at this time. I think that Obama played Libya just about perfectly. I agree that he has been unerwhelming in Syria.

I disagree that we should be taking a more active role in other ME countries. For better or worse (worse), we've established a track record of meddling in their affairs, to their detriment, and I think the best way for us to start reversing that reputation is to stay out of their business while they get themselves together -- unless our help is requested, or there appears to be something forming that would be an active security threat to our interests.

Obama the idiot didn't create anything perfectly - he only created another ticking time-bomb with Egypt and Libya.... Give them both 4-5 years and their leaders will be screaming craziness like Ahmadinejad...
 
Obama the idiot didn't create anything perfectly - he only created another ticking time-bomb with Egypt and Libya.... Give them both 4-5 years and their leaders will be screaming craziness like Ahmadinejad...

I guess you missed it, but those time bombs went off last year and the dictators were overthrown. Democracy is a terrible thing, right?
 
This isn't just over religion. There is a lot more at play here. It is much more complexe.
What you seem to be saying is we should have a pre-imptive strike against countries that have the Muslim Brotherhood in leadership positions all because they might attack Israel? That is a horrible foraign policy. The world would begin to, and rightly so, see the US as a threat to the world. We can't force our agenda on other countries and we can't go around attacking countries just because we think they might join forces against us. That kind of policy creates more enemies than allies.

I never said attack them, I just wanted to point out that I disagree with Obama's position when it comes to the Arab spring. I would also like to point out that I admire those who really want democracy for the Middle East, however at the same time - I would say what they got is hardly democracy - they got theocracy.

I believe the old saying: "be careful what you wish for" fits perfectly into this scenario.

Our national position on the issue could come back to bite us right in the butt..
 
I guess you missed it, but those time bombs went off last year and the dictators were overthrown. Democracy is a terrible thing, right?

Man Libya and Egypt haven't even set up yet.... It will be a few years before they're even in a position to for strategic and geopolitical alliances.
 
We've been doing Democracy for 230 years or so...

A common misconception perpetrated by the masses, media and history books. America is not a Democracy - America is a Republic.
 
I never said attack them, I just wanted to point out that I disagree with Obama's position when it comes to the Arab spring. I would also like to point out that I admire those who really want democracy for the Middle East, however at the same time - I would say what they got is hardly democracy - they got theocracy.

I believe the old saying: "be careful what you wish for" fits perfectly into this scenario.

Our national position on the issue could come back to bite us right in the butt..

Ok, now we can talk policies. What is it about Obama's position on the Arab spring that you don't like? If you look back on US history, you would see that the US didn't get it all right in the begining. There was a lot of problems with people trying to create a theocracy or trying to legislate based on biblical views. In fact, many of our early congressmen went to blows over these issues. The different states were unstable at times. Democracy doesn't happen over night. What is happening in the ME is historic and, IMHO, a good start.
 
A common misconception perpetrated by the masses, media and history books. America is not a Democracy - America is a Republic.

Actually, the US is both. We are a democratic republic.
 
Actually, the US is both. We are a democratic republic.

America (speaking of the United States of America as a whole) is a Republic, as guaranteed in the Constitution by the phrase "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." (searching the entire Constitution and all 27 amendments, the letters "repub" appear once, and the letters "democ" appear zero times.)

Your local government practices Democracy - "Mob Rule" - when you elect your mayor. At a state level, you revert to a Republican form of rule - small sections of the state vote for individuals (e.g. state legislators) who then represent you in running the state.

And therein lies the problem: In our conversations (media, forums, etc), we have lost the distinctions between "Democracy" v. "Republic."

I agree, it would be nice if other countries (e.g. "the entire arab world") would follow a Republican form of government modeled after ours, but not a pure Democracy - where the majority rules.

In his Federalist Paper #10, where Madison discusses the differences between a Republic and a Democracy, he warned that "In a democracy ... tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter."

The differentiation between a Democracy and Republic was not considered trivial by our founding fathers - there was considerable discussion over it. The original topic concerned "the entire arab world" and "syria, to palestine and almost to iran." Like Madison et al, we should be noting the difference, and (in my opinion) be supporting a Republic over a Democracy.
 
Last edited:
America (speaking of the United States of America as a whole) is a Republic, as guaranteed in the Constitution by the phrase "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." (searching the entire Constitution and all 27 amendments, the letters "repub" appear once, and the letters "democ" appear zero times.)

Your local government practices Democracy - "Mob Rule" - when you elect your mayor. At a state level, you revert to a Republican form of rule - small sections of the state vote for individuals (e.g. state legislators) who then represent you in running the state.

And therein lies the problem: In our conversations (media, forums, etc), we have lost the distinctions between "Democracy" v. "Republic."

I agree, it would be nice if other countries (e.g. "the entire arab world") would follow a Republican form of government modeled after ours, but not a pure Democracy - where the majority rules.

In his Federalist Paper #10, where Madison discusses the differences between a Republic and a Democracy, he warned that "In a democracy ... tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter."

The differentiation between a Democracy and Republic was not considered trivial by our founding fathers - there was considerable discussion over it. The original topic concerned "the entire arab world" and "syria, to palestine and almost to iran." Like Madison et al, we should be noting the difference, and (in my opinion) be supporting a Republic over a Democracy.

Like I said, we are a democratic republic country. We have local, state, and federal government. Because of this complex system, it creates a democratic republic country as a whole. I know the difference in democratic (mod rule) and republic (ruled by representation). However, if the mob rule votes on something that is against the constitution, the federal government will supersede that law and strike it down. The constitution is the standard by which all laws are governed.
The arab countries would first have to adopt a constitution in order to form a republic. Egypt became a republic on June 18th 1953. They are actually experiencing the bumps in the road that are expected under a republic that is less than 100 years old. As for the rest of the Arab world, I personally don't care what form of government they have as long as they do not attack other countries. If they are members of the UN, they must follow UN laws and any dealing with them should be done through the UN. That is my humble opinion, for what it's worth.
 
It is not our business. We wouldn't let another country come here and tell us how to run our government. We shouldn't be telling them how to run theirs. If they want to live by Sharia Law, so be it.

I can agree with that. Does that mean we will stop trying to force citizens of other countries to be paid our minimum wage?
 
How many ambassador over hundreds of years? You must certainly respect my intellect and mathematical abilities. The answer is 25, but I could be wrong.:roll:


Could you translate that into how many ambassadors we'll go through?
 
Thank the Flame that you have arrived to lead and guide the masses! Haelujah.

A common misconception perpetrated by the masses, media and history books. America is not a Democracy - America is a Republic.

So, we've been doing Republic for 230 years or so and look how screwed up we are. So, maybe we should be patient about the spread of Republic in brand new nations forged from uneducated, religious zealots.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
 
It is not our business. We wouldn't let another country come here and tell us how to run our government. We shouldn't be telling them how to run theirs. If they want to live by Sharia Law, so be it.
While I admit, you are correct, I can't help but think that Poland in 1938 was thinking the same thing.
 
President Obama was right last year and he's right this year: the region has undergone a huge change away from dictatorship and towards democracy, and there will be many bumps along the road.

images
 
Yes, tragic. But getting emotional doesn't change anything.

Who's emotional?

I merely don't believe it's a "bump in the road" like you do

There's nothing "tragic" about it.
 
We can't fix the world. We are having a hard enough time fixing ourselves.
No...but we can do things to protect ourselves and protect our interests.

Helping our enemies topple regimes so that they can freely create terrorist training camps for radicals to attack us isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.
 
You apparently don't know much about the Muslim Brotherhood...

There will be no democracy - this will be a theocracy.

It will only be a matter of time before these radical Islamic organizations er political movements settle their minute differences and converge on the US or Israel.


Iran is only waiting on unity and once they get that they will attempt to destroy Israel - Obama may as well have started WWIII....

This is what fearmongerring gets you, ladies and gentlement...people spouting hateful rhetoric without checking the media sources in-country to know what's actually going on, i.e., Libyan government (Muslim Brotherhood) alongside its citizens combating Islamis extremist factions.

"Libyan authorities give Islamist militia two days to leave their bases," dated Sunday 23 September 2012

"Libyan protesters force Islamist militia out of Benghazi," dated Saturday 22 September 2012

"Libya condemns the embassy killings, but its sovereignty must be respected," dated Friday 21 September 2012
 
Yes, he was completely correct. The problem is that his foreign policy has not matched his rhetoric. His administration has maintained an extremely aloof and uninvolved policy towards the Middle East. It failed to take the lead on Libya (whether or not we bore the lions share of combat responsibility is irrelevant, and perhaps even more damning, since perception is what counts and we had the opportunity to take the political lead and did not), it failed to give a vigorous condemnation after the Saudi intervention in Bahrain (as a result of a complicated fait accompli, but it never the less showed a somewhat insincere lack of leadership to put it politely), juggling our response to Egypt instead of endorsing the street protests and calling for Mubarak to step down as we should have (as we should have done years ago), and now and most importantly for it may prove the most critical in the long run: a complete and utter failure of leadership on Syria.

Regardless of who wins in November, it is imperative that the US stop accepting the comforts of inaction and the watchward of stability, and take a direct leadership role in the Syrian revolution. Assad will fall one way or another, or there will be an internecine civil war, either way the conflict will continue to some sort of conclusion. The US can either have a hand in that outcome, or it can suffer the consequences of the rebels seeking less savory allies and patrons, and seeing what is produced. The timidity emanating from Washington is particularly strange and in-congruent with the clearly delineated positions and obviously more aggressive approaches coming from the Gulf, from Turkey, and from many European states. All that is needed is US leadership, absent that things have ground to a halt.

President Obama should remember his speeches and lead. I sincerely hope he does and that he does an incredible job of it, and I mean that without any facetiousness. We do indeed have the opportunity to continue into the decade from a position of strength, but the fruits of Arab Spring will be half ripe at best, and bitter at worst if the US does not take a more active role in the region.

Taking a "more active role in the region" is what's led to anti-American sentiments in the Middle-East in the first place. Yes, there are some areas where the American government (Obama Administration) can assist (i.e., nation building, mentoring where local leadership falls short, military training, etc.), but governance IS NOT one of them. To that, Libyan's President, Mohammed Maqrif, is correct - "we welcome your advice, America, but leave governing our country to us".
 
They're already gearing up for Sharia Law...

I'm not against religion but religious law shouldn't be law of the land.

I would compare the Muslim Brotherhood to the Italian Mafia (and I'm Sicilian) - Yet the Brotherhood's ethics are religious in nature.

That was not democracy that was a subtle false flag coup.

Interesting you'd say that. Clearly, you forget that America was founded on Christian principles and, thus, our laws are based on the tennants of Christianity. Are you saying we should abandon our laws? Think about that for a second...

We may not be allowed to display the 10 Commandments in public places - schools, courthouses, etc. - but that doesn't mean we're not a Christian nation (in legalistic terms at a minimum).
 
No...but we can do things to protect ourselves and protect our interests.

Helping our enemies topple regimes so that they can freely create terrorist training camps for radicals to attack us isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.

What things are you talking about that we can do to protect our interests in the Middle East?
What enemies have we helped to topple their regimes? Can you name the countries we helped and how they are creating terrorist training camps? I don't understand where you're getting that idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom