• 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!

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq

Grant said:
The buck stops elsewhere? Where would that be? You may forget a great many things but one thing you should remember is that the Fundraiser-in Chief has been making seriously bad decisions for six years now, to the point where many are asking just whose side this guy is on.
Click to expand...

Your talking points are getting old.
 
cpwill said:
That is a pretty one-sided description of what occured. In fact there was a broad coaltion including Sunni and Kurds forming under the initial Maliki Government, but we (read: the Presidents' action officer, read: Joe Biden) dicked it up, collapsed it, and Maliki had no option but to ally with the Sadrists to make a majority. Then we yanked out early, leaving that element without a curb.

The idea that Arab Culture cannot adapt to representative government today is no more legitimate than the claim that Confucian Culture could not do so half a century ago.
Click to expand...



Why is it so important to install "democracy"? Especially since every one of America's regime changes eventually ends up corrupt and with a lot of dead. Pinochet was a great example, Panama, and the decision to topple Saddam based on manufactured evidence.

It's not and never has been about "democracy", but "he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch."
 
So Panetta was down with all the BS, but now grew a conscience?
 
Fearandloathing said:
Why is it so important to install "democracy"? Especially since every one of America's regime changes eventually ends up corrupt and with a lot of dead. Pinochet was a great example, Panama, and the decision to topple Saddam based on manufactured evidence.

It's not and never has been about "democracy", but "he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch."
Click to expand...

Exactly, again F&L!
 
CRUE CAB said:
So Panetta was down with all the BS, but now grew a conscience?
Click to expand...

He's a politician. Just look at all the politicians who had their support behind the Iraq war, and the distance they've put between that and themselves now.
 
Montecresto said:
He's a politician. Just look at all the politicians who had their support behind the Iraq war, and the distance they've put between that and themselves now.
Click to expand...

And vice versa on the ones that were against "Bush's war" but now are now in full throat support of Obamas War.
 
Grant said:
The buck stops elsewhere? Where would that be? You may forget a great many things but one thing you should remember is that the Fundraiser-in Chief has been making seriously bad decisions for six years now, to the point where many are asking just whose side this guy is on.
Click to expand...

I think the president, not unlike his predecessors, has made bad decisions, particularly regarding the ME. As one of the chief partisans on this board (you have competition) you think that everything wrong with the ME is Obama's fault, which is neither objective or factual.
 
CRUE CAB said:
And vice versa on the ones that were against "Bush's war" but now are now in full throat support of Obamas War.
Click to expand...

I suppose so. But I hope your not including me in the group that supports Obama's wars!
 
Fearandloathing said:
Why is it so important to install "democracy"?
Click to expand...

There are, I would initially propose, three rough tiers why that is important.

In the immediate, the American Populace will not support an alternative - we won't put blood or treasure for it. Sine blood and treasure are required expenditures in order to defend US interests, however, the support for the exansion of our founding value set is a required prerequisite for any effort which we expect to be publicly sustainable in the face of opposition.

In the near to mid term, the Islamic world has spent the last century or so looking for a replacement to the Ottoman Empire as a governing venue that would allow them to reclaim their pride/place/self-direction/what-have-you. They tried constitutional monarchies and that didn't work, so they shifted to military-led pan-Arab socialism. That didn't work, so many shifted to Islamist Fundamentalism, which is now in the process of not working. It is in our interest to ensure that A) Islamist Fundamentalism doesn't work and B) the option the region shifts to afterwords is support for some form of liberal governance.

In the long term, increasing the portions of the globe governed by more liberal and representative structures offers greater security to the US and her interests as well as greater enablement of US policy objectives.



All three of these tiers, it should be noted, apply broadly to the Anglosphere at large and the "West" that has been influenced by it (such as, for example, Japan).


It is also the right thing to do.
 
Montecresto said:
He's a politician. Just look at all the politicians who had their support behind the Iraq war, and the distance they've put between that and themselves now.
Click to expand...

What you are talking about is "wedging".

There is no real issue here between hawks nor doves, there are none in the US government. This is simple positioning through nuance to make it appear you are against whatever the other party is for while actually having every intention of doing the same thing.

It is designed to add to the perception of differences, positioning, by driving a wedge into the thinnest of cracks. It is precisely what has kept the US moribund since at least when Obama took office. It reinforces the idea that politicians are not allowed to ever change their mind when that is precisely what you want of them, the ability to think and grow. And it engages in the propagandist's most favored tool, over-simplification; what happens today can be a result of what happened years ago, but not the same. It is extremely confusing, since America's "most trusted journalist", Walter Cronkite became so be changing his position on the Vietnam War and declared it "unwinnable".

I became a member of the Liberal Party of British Columbia because the new leader stood up and said "the [tax] was a mistake. It was an insult to the people. I will correct that mistake."
For some reason American politicians are not allowed to say that, appearing weak or something. In would sooner support the politician who said "I was wrong on the Iraq invasion. Knowing what I now know, I would not have done it. And I want to make damn sure we are never mislead like that again". Instead they simply run away from it, and that's what need's to be addressed. Instead of "they did it too" finger pointing, the electorate needs to demand accountability and focus on what's happening today, otherwise today is just another yesterday.
 
cpwill said:
There are, I would initially propose, three rough tiers why that is important.

In the immediate, the American Populace will not support an alternative - we won't put blood or treasure for it. Sine blood and treasure are required expenditures in order to defend US interests, however, the support for the exansion of our founding value set is a required prerequisite for any effort which we expect to be publicly sustainable in the face of opposition.

In the near to mid term, the Islamic world has spent the last century or so looking for a replacement to the Ottoman Empire as a governing venue that would allow them to reclaim their pride/place/self-direction/what-have-you. They tried constitutional monarchies and that didn't work, so they shifted to military-led pan-Arab socialism. That didn't work, so many shifted to Islamist Fundamentalism, which is now in the process of not working. It is in our interest to ensure that A) Islamist Fundamentalism doesn't work and B) the option the region shifts to afterwords is support for some form of liberal governance.

In the long term, increasing the portions of the globe governed by more liberal and representative structures offers greater security to the US and her interests as well as greater enablement of US policy objectives.



All three of these tiers, it should be noted, apply broadly to the Anglosphere at large and the "West" that has been influenced by it (such as, for example, Japan).


It is also the right thing to do.
Click to expand...




Please read the part where I say the US has no record of success on which to base the theory, in fact a century or more of death and destruction from Cuba, to Chile, to Vietnam, to Iraq.

It is not working.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Please read the part where I say the US has no record of success on which to base the theory, in fact a century or more of death and destruction from Cuba, to Chile, to Vietnam, to Iraq.
Click to expand...

Good point. It is well known that A) Latin America today is widely dominated by communist-leaning dictatorships instead of representative governments and that B) so are South Korea, Japan, and Germany, whom we are constantly going back to war with.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Here we go again :lamo
Click to expand...

:) I find it really entertaining how you felt the need to make sure you didn't cite the rest of the post, which rather drove home the point. :)
 
Fearandloathing said:
What you are talking about is "wedging".

There is no real issue here between hawks nor doves, there are none in the US government. This is simple positioning through nuance to make it appear you are against whatever the other party is for while actually having every intention of doing the same thing.

It is designed to add to the perception of differences, positioning, by driving a wedge into the thinnest of cracks. It is precisely what has kept the US moribund since at least when Obama took office. It reinforces the idea that politicians are not allowed to ever change their mind when that is precisely what you want of them, the ability to think and grow. And it engages in the propagandist's most favored tool, over-simplification; what happens today can be a result of what happened years ago, but not the same. It is extremely confusing, since America's "most trusted journalist", Walter Cronkite became so be changing his position on the Vietnam War and declared it "unwinnable".

I became a member of the Liberal Party of British Columbia because the new leader stood up and said "the [tax] was a mistake. It was an insult to the people. I will correct that mistake."
For some reason American politicians are not allowed to say that, appearing weak or something. In would sooner support the politician who said "I was wrong on the Iraq invasion. Knowing what I now know, I would not have done it. And I want to make damn sure we are never mislead like that again". Instead they simply run away from it, and that's what need's to be addressed. Instead of "they did it too" finger pointing, the electorate needs to demand accountability and focus on what's happening today, otherwise today is just another yesterday.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with you on the merits of that, so long as, it was a genuine and not political position to begin with. From my far less than lofty position, I was able to discern the the folly of the Iraq invasion, and as such, cut no politicians any slack for having ever supported it. It's mind boggling, the limited opposition to the Iraq war amongst those that had the power to prevent it. But I'm certain that what your saying would be right on any number of issues, as evidenced by the example you gave.
 
cpwill said:
That is a pretty one-sided description of what occured. In fact there was a broad coaltion including Sunni and Kurds forming under the initial Maliki Government, but we (read: the Presidents' action officer, read: Joe Biden) dicked it up, collapsed it, and Maliki had no option but to ally with the Sadrists to make a majority. Then we yanked out early, leaving that element without a curb.

The idea that Arab Culture cannot adapt to representative government today is no more legitimate than the claim that Confucian Culture could not do so half a century ago.
Click to expand...
It was said that the Japanese could never adapt to Democracy either, but we see immigrants from all over the world adapting to life in the Democracies who would usually never want to return to any other form of government.
 
Montecresto said:
I think the president, not unlike his predecessors, has made bad decisions, particularly regarding the ME. As one of the chief partisans on this board (you have competition) you think that everything wrong with the ME is Obama's fault, which is neither objective or factual.
Click to expand...
Why not respond to posts directly than than riffing on some subliminal messages you may have received?
 
Fearandloathing said:
Why is it so important to install "democracy"? Especially since every one of America's regime changes eventually ends up corrupt and with a lot of dead. Pinochet was a great example, Panama, and the decision to topple Saddam based on manufactured evidence.

It's not and never has been about "democracy", but "he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch."
Click to expand...

Chile (not a 'regime change' by the USA) and Panama (riidding them of Noreiga was good!) are doing very well and a 'stable' Iraq was bungled by you-know-who.

In a time of war of course alliances are going to be made with those who would normally be kept at arms length, but there is also the Big Picture to be looked at. All in all, the US did a pretty good job in supporting the democracies against dictatorships and international Communism. No one did better.
 
Montecresto said:
I won't disagree with you on the merits of that, so long as, it was a genuine and not political position to begin with. From my far less than lofty position, I was able to discern the the folly of the Iraq invasion, and as such, cut no politicians any slack for having ever supported it. It's mind boggling, the limited opposition to the Iraq war amongst those that had the power to prevent it. But I'm certain that what your saying would be right on any number of issues, as evidenced by the example you gave.
Click to expand...

It was mass insanity as I recall. As old Hans Bliz was begging for another week, he was being decried as a 'terrorist sympathizer' in the media. There is no escaping the fact the US was in a frenzy over invading; while politicians of the day heralded themselves as heroes, Canada went about re-electing the most corrupt Prime Minister in the modern era because "he kept us out of Iraq. If there was anyone opposed at the time, they were few, I think even Obama voted "present".

But what good does that do now? Since then a lot of water has gone over the dam; the initial occupation was a sham, they virtually destroyed the country. Obama then fed off over-glowing reports about stability and pulled out, resulting in the current situation. None of what happened to the changing of the guard is relevant since they are gone. Obama is in charge, he is the only one who can change anything, he is the Omega man, the only guy who can now fix what has been wrought. That's where is the focus. as was my point, harping on "they did it too" only feeds the fact nothing changes.

and nothing will until Americans take an honest look at where they are instead of the ongoing mid game of blaming each other about how you got there.
 
Grant said:
Chile (not a 'regime change' by the USA) and Panama (riidding them of Noreiga was good!) are doing very well and a 'stable' Iraq was bungled by you-know-who.

In a time of war of course alliances are going to be made with those who would normally be kept at arms length, but there is also the Big Picture to be looked at. All in all, the US did a pretty good job in supporting the democracies against dictatorships and international Communism. No one did better.
Click to expand...



Well that one takes the daily prize for missing the whole point.

Pinochet was a ****ing success? The United States installed one of the most brutal ****ing dictators, the guy made Idi ****ing Amin look like Mother Theresa, the CIA helped him round up political opponents and disappear them.

Panama? You talk about now, I talk about Noriega........

And no, I don't know, nor care "you know who", constantly blaming the "other guy" is why you've been making the same mistake since you first rolled into Vietnam in 1947 with all the ****ing answers.


There's no list of "successes" where US "regime change" has been involved....not even Ukraine where you tried to do it without bombing for a change....look how well that worked.

No one elected the United States the world's policeman; with the world's worst crime rates, poorest education system in the modernized world, on-going warfare for the last 13 years and so much racial division the nation stalls every time a white cop shoots a black kid, fewer and fewer people in this world want what you have. It is time to stop trying to force it down people's throats by arming rebels and backing dictators.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Well that one takes the daily prize for missing the whole point. Pinochet was a ****ing success? The United States installed one of the most brutal ****ing dictators, the guy made Idi ****ing Amin look like Mother Theresa, the CIA helped him round up political opponents and disappear them.
Click to expand...
You obviously know nothing of Chile or this period.
Panama? You talk about now, I talk about Noriega........
Click to expand...
Good.
And no, I don't know, nor care "you know who", constantly blaming the "other guy" is why you've been making the same mistake since you first rolled into Vietnam in 1947 with all the ****ing answers.
Click to expand...
Vietnam??
There's no list of "successes" where US "regime change" has been involved....not even Ukraine where you tried to do it without bombing for a change....look how well that worked.
Click to expand...
The US is responsible for the Ukraine? I would point my finger at the Russians.

No one elected the United States the world's policeman; with the world's worst crime rates, poorest education system in the modernized world, on-going warfare for the last 13 years and so much racial division the nation stalls every time a white cop shoots a black kid, fewer and fewer people in this world want what you have. It is time to stop trying to force it down people's throats by arming rebels and backing dictators.
Click to expand...
You didn't impress me too much with your comments on Chile, Panama, the Ukraine or the Cold War. Without United States involvement in the world wars, including the Cold War, do you feel there would be fewer dictators in the world?
 
Grant said:
You obviously know nothing of Chile or this period.
Good.
Vietnam??
The US is responsible for the Ukraine? I would point my finger at the Russians.

You didn't impress me too much with your comments on Chile, Panama, the Ukraine or the Cold War. Without United States involvement in the world wars, including the Cold War, do you feel there would be fewer dictators in the world?
Click to expand...




I guess I must be a complete dolt...

The military dictatorship of Chile (Spanish: dictadura militar de Chile) was an authoritarian military government that ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990. The dictatorship was established after the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973. The dictatorship was headed by a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet. The perceived breakdown of democracy and the economic crisis that took place during Allende's presidency were justifications used by the military to seize power. The dictatorship presented its mission as a "national reconstruction".

The regime was characterized by the systematic suppression of political parties and the persecution of dissidents to an extent that was unprecedented in the history of Chile. Over-all, the regime left over 3,000 dead or missing[1] and forced 200,000 Chileans into exile.[2] The dictatorship shaped much of modern Chile's political, educational and economic life. In 1980, it replaced the Constitution of 1925 with a a new one crafted by regime collaborators. The constitution was approved in a highly controversial referendum in 1980, but Pinochet's plans to remain in power were thwarted in 1988 when the regime admitted defeat in a referendum that opened the way for democracy to be reestablished in 1990. Before the regime relinquished power, an amnesty law was passed, preventing most members of the military from being prosecuted by the subsequent government.Military dictatorship of Chile (1973
Click to expand...

Didn't read the rest, and yes, the CIA is entirely responsible for the unrest in the Ukraine, your CIA station chief is caught on tape. You tried to end Russian influence and failed there too.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I guess I must be a complete dolt...
Click to expand...
Only in some areas.

Didn't read the rest, and yes, the CIA is entirely responsible for the unrest in the Ukraine, your CIA station chief is caught on tape. You tried to end Russian influence and failed there too.
Click to expand...
If a CIA Station Chief can overthrow the Ukraine then a dozen or so could probably overthrow the entire Middle East.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I guess I must be a complete dolt...



Didn't read the rest, and yes, the CIA is entirely responsible for the unrest in the Ukraine, your CIA station chief is caught on tape. You tried to end Russian influence and failed there too.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom