Support NeoGAF

[Aaron]

Obamacare is the Republican's Bengazi. They're rather see Americans die than fund their medical security.

 

[Chichikov]

I don't understand this latest round of outrage that the NSA was hacking the UN's communications. Isn't that its job in the first place? Can someone give a rational counterpoint to why the NSA shouldn't be hacking the UN outside of naive "we shouldn't hack our allies!"

What do you expect to gain from hacking UN communications?
Because I can tell you what you're losing - standing in the world, trust of your allies (and not so allies), the ability to demand other that countries stop hacking our computer systems with a straight face.

I mean seriously, this is the fucking UN, you're going to make a national security argument here?
Are we doing it just because we can?

Its a way to vent frustration at the US's superpower status. Or naive international idealism.

So when the US files complaints to china about hacking, is it naive international idealism or venting of frustration about its superpower status?

 

[delirium]

What do you expect to gain from hacking UN communications?
Because I can tell you what you're losing - standing in the world, trust of your allies (and not so allies), the ability to demand other that countries stop hacking our computer systems with a straight face.

I mean seriously, this is the fucking UN, you're going to make a national security argument here?
Are we doing it just because we can?

Information. Is China really going to vote for this resolution or not. Would X country back us up or are they lying to our face. How far is our ally going to support us in this. Those are very important questions that espionage provides.

So when the US files complaints to china about hacking, is it naive international idealism or venting of frustration about its superpower status?

It's political posturing. Every politician already knows that everyone is spying on everyone. By pointing out that they're spying we want to embarrass them the same way Russia and China is doing now because of the Snowden leaks.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What do you expect to gain from hacking UN communications?
Because I can tell you what you're losing - standing in the world, trust of your allies (and not so allies), the ability to demand other that countries stop hacking our computer systems with a straight face.

I mean seriously, this is the fucking UN, you're going to make a national security argument here?
Are we doing it just because we can?

What goes on in the UN? Negotiating... knowing what they're saying helps you does it not? And you only lose this if it goes public. Without people betraying oaths it never would or you're really sloppy. And why is national security not relevant at the UN? The security council and its members are pretty damn important in world security.

So when the US files complaints to china about hacking, is it naive international idealism or venting of frustration about its superpower status?

Its PR most of the time. But I think its clearly naive or intentionally obtuse to pretend the US's goals in the hacking the US complains about are the same as the Chinese. They're trying to hack us much of the time because they don't have our tech and are using it to build their economy. I actually don't see as much frustration at the Chinese when they hack the DoD, the response is more of "DoD why didn't you stop this?" Rather than "china stop spying on our military."

 

[Chichikov]

Information. Is China really going to vote for this resolution or not. Would X country back us up or are they lying to our face. How far is our ally going to support us in this. Those are very important questions that espionage provides.

Dude, it's the fucking UN, how does knowing that stuff (over what you can know from common sense and diplomacy) advance the US's interests?
And not only that, doing it to such degree as to overcome the damage it does to the US's standing in the world.

It's political posturing. Every politician already knows that everyone is spying on everyone. By pointing out that they're spying we want to embarrass them the same way Russia and China is doing now because of the Snowden leaks.

So in your mind the best way to organize the world is for every country to hack everything that they can?
Just making sure I'm not shadowboxing here.

What goes on in the UN? Negotiating... knowing what they're saying helps you does it not? And you only lose this if it goes public. Without people betraying oaths it never would or you're really sloppy. And why is national security not relevant at the UN? The security council and its members are pretty damn important in world security.

How many surprise votes are there in the security council, and how knowing a couple of days in advance about a vote would seriously help the US's interests?
I'm struggling to see the huge benefits.

Its PR most of the time. But I think its clearly naive or intentionally obtuse to pretend the US's goals in the hacking the US complains about are the same as the Chinese. They're trying to hack us much of the time because they don't have our tech and are using it to build their economy. I actually don't see as much frustration at the Chinese when they hack the DoD, the response is more of "DoD why didn't you stop this?" Rather than "china stop spying on our military."

So it's okay to hack as long as you're the most advanced technological country in the world?
You sure put a fresh coat of paint on that old exceptionalism wagon.

 

[delirium]

Dude, it's the fucking UN, how does knowing that stuff (over what you can know from common sense and diplomacy) advance the US's interests?
And not only that, doing it to such degree as to overcome the damage it does to the US's standing in the world.

So in your mind the best way to organize the world is for every country to hack everything that they can?
Just making sure I'm not shadowboxing here.


How many surprise votes are there in the security council, and how knowing a couple of days in advance about a vote would seriously help the US's interests?
I'm struggling to see the huge benefits.

So it's okay to hack as long as you're the most advanced technological country in the world?
You sure put a fresh coat of paint on that old exceptionalism wagon.

1. Because they're our allies doesn't mean that they have our interest at heart? We compete against our allies as well as our opponents. Trust but verify. A country may say one thing but plans on doing something different completely.

2. How did you get there from what I said? I stated that when the US files complaints over China about hacking its political posturing.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How many surprise votes are there in the security council, and how knowing a couple of days in advance about a vote would seriously help the US's interests?
I'm struggling to see the huge benefits.

You're struggling because you don't want to see. They don't only discuss what there vote will be. Its silly to think otherwise.

So it's okay to hack as long as you're the most advanced technological country in the world?
You sure put a fresh coat of paint on that old exceptionalism wagon.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying hackers hacking to build a better car or ipod is different than china trying to steal military secrets.

You really seem to come from the assumption if the US stops the rest of the world will stop. Its not about the ideal way to set up the world its about how the world works, it doesn't make it morally right but it makes it necessary or your at a comparative disadvantage. I don't want the NSA trying to prefect the world. I'll leave that too the diplomats.

 

[Chichikov]

1. Because they're our allies doesn't mean that they have our interest at heart? We compete against our allies as well as our opponents. Trust but verify. A country may say one thing but plans on doing something different completely.

2. How did you get there from what I said? I stated that when the US files complaints over China about hacking its political posturing.

1. It's not about what interests they have at heart, it's about what you can gain from reading the Germany UN ambassador communication, which is think is not a whole lot.

2. So I'm not sure what you're saying, you either think it's good everybody tries to hack everything or you don't. which is it?

You're struggling because you don't want to see. They don't only discuss what there vote will be. Its silly to think otherwise.

Can you give me maybe a hypothetical example?
Like, a vote on Syrian sanction is due in the security council, the NSA grab a Chinese email that states that they're going to veto it, therefore the US does.... what?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying hackers hacking to build a better car or ipod is different than china trying to steal military secrets.

You really seem to come from the assumption if the US stops the rest of the world will stop. Its not about the ideal way to set up the world its about how the world works, it doesn't make it morally right but it makes it necessary or your at a comparative disadvantage. I don't want the NSA trying to prefect the world. I'll leave that too the diplomats.

I'm fine with military espionage, of all that crap this is something I can actually live with.
That being said, "everyone's doing it" is not a good enough reason to do something, and for real, let's say Germany read all the UN emails and the US doesn't, do you honestly think that hurt American interests in a meaningful way?
It's the fucking UN dammit.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

1. It's not about what interests they have at heart, it's about what you can gain from reading the Germany UN ambassador communication, which is think is not a whole lot.

2. So I'm not sure what you're saying, you either think it's good everybody tries to hack everything or you don't. which is it?
Can you give me maybe a hypothetical example?
Like, a vote on Syrian sanction is due in the security council, the NSA grab a Chinese email that states that they're going to veto it, therefore the US does.... what?

I'm fine with military espionage, of all that crap this is something I can actually live with.
That being said, "everyone's doing it" is not a good enough reason to do something, and for real, let's say Germany read all the UN emails and the US doesn't, do you honestly think that hurt American interests in a meaningful way?
It's the fucking UN dammit.

Example? I've never been in the UN but something like the Russians internally discussing their discussions with syria and proof of chemical weapons, or historical? The soviets discussing their relationship with cuba. that information can add to our understanding.

And yes I do thing it does put US at the disadvantage. They're more blind than the people reading the email.

 

[Chichikov]

Example? I've never been in the UN but something like the Russians internally discussing their discussions with syria and proof of chemical weapons, or historical? The soviets discussing their relationship with cuba. that information can add to our understanding.

And yes I do thing it does put US at the disadvantage. They're more blind than the people reading the email.

And then what?
The US shaming Russia into doing something that they weren't going to do?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And then what?
The US shaming Russia into doing something that they weren't going to do?

Youre intentionally trying to be obtuse on how this can be useful. It gives a better picture of reality, it could be proof (or new evidence) of something you didn't already know. More than one proof is better than relying on less. maybe you have suspision or the word of another intelligence agency but your spying there confirms something. Its not most likely going to radically advance our knowledge but it can help. You act like spys can have prefect information rather than the puzzle it is. Its easier to solve with more pieces.

Most of the stuff that is discovered isn't made public I don't know why you assume information is always used offensively, most of the time we don't want people to know that we know things.

The NSA's job is to provide all the information they can to help the president and US policy makers make the best decision they can. This is part of it. Your advocating going blind for something that isn't going to change. Other countries aren't going to stop if we do.

 

[empty vessel]

Most of the stuff that is discovered isn't made public I don't know why you assume information is always used offensively, most of the time we don't want people to know that we know things.

Isn't that precisely the argument against spying in circumstances where gain is marginal? Information is indeed power. And information that the US is spying in places like the UN is power to other countries.

Regardless of those practical objections, I don't think we have to accept a world in which political elites do whatever it takes to advance the interests of their respective ruling classes. We can, in fact, advocate for genuine international collaboration. There's nothing ridiculous about that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

nvm.

 

[Aaron Strife]

B. On the flip side, this could get them super-energized in the primary process to stack the deck with super-conservatives. And what if by pushing these morons to the forefront, it costs them the actual seats? Gerrymandered and all, if a few districts were to flip anyway, a few end up losing as a result of apathy, and now a few lose because of a few Akins opening their mouth once the party's nom, goodbye House.

I have no doubt this is going to happen. Granted, these are all Senators, but look at who's facing serious primary challenges. Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, Mitch fucking McConnell. Deeply conservative senators from red states who are accused of being traitors for various, and trivial reasons. And if they lose, that creates pickup opportunities for Democrats, provided they run credible candidates in those races.

Take a state like South Carolina - Obama performed slightly better there than in Indiana and slightly worse than in Missouri, states where Democrats won Senate contests for the same reason (primarying Dick Lugar was the dumbest fucking thing they ever could have done and I said as much when it happened). Granted, there may be more persuadable voters in those states, but it's certainly worth putting up someone with a decent background.

If the House makes any moves on immigration reform and the budget, it'll happen all over again in House races.

 

[Chichikov]

Youre intentionally trying to be obtuse on how this can be useful. It gives a better picture of reality, it could be proof (or new evidence) of something you didn't already know. More than one proof is better than relying on less. maybe you have suspision or the word of another intelligence agency but your spying there confirms something. Its not most likely going to radically advance our knowledge but it can help. You act like spys can have prefect information rather than the puzzle it is. Its easier to solve with more pieces.

Most of the stuff that is discovered isn't made public I don't know why you assume information is always used offensively, most of the time we don't want people to know that we know things.

The NSA's job is to provide all the information they can to help the president and US policy makers make the best decision they can. This is part of it. Your advocating going blind for something that isn't going to change. Other countries aren't going to stop if we do.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm really don't, I'm really struggling to understand what value the US can get form spying on the UN, and you replying in generalities is not really helping me see it.
And as I said, if the value is small (and sorry, it might help us collaborate some other stuff we may know from different sources, on areas we don't know what they are) we should consider not doing it, but the harm to the US's standing in the world is very real, and it further undermine the idea of peaceful diplomacy, which is in the US (and the world's) best interests.

 

[thepotatoman]

I don't get this. Its seems really lazy or ignorant to try to say this is anything like Iraq. Everything about that case was the white house pushing for war. The fit the story to meet their desired end, using crappy evidence, downplaying disagreements, outing spys etc. Everything Obama has done has shown a reluctance to start a new war. He's always been the last to jump on board.

Obama has been obviously been very very far from reluctant when it comes to bombing other nations considering how much he's been bombing Pakistan with his drones. He maybe reluctant to boots on the ground warfare, but that's not what's happening here anyway. Obama's love of drones to wage warfare is certainly better than Bush's love of foot troops, but I really don't think better than Bush should be used in any actual measurement of his supposed love of peace.

And Bush is far from the only president who has meddled in the middle east to negative effect. There's been plenty of precedent set of the US backing revolutions to take over more influence for ourselves at the expense of the country. So allow me to be skeptical about the US's position on this.

It's not like the UN doesn't know what it's doing either. I at least see no reason to trust them less than we trust the US government.

 

[delirium]

1. It's not about what interests they have at heart, it's about what you can gain from reading the Germany UN ambassador communication, which is think is not a whole lot.

2. So I'm not sure what you're saying, you either think it's good everybody tries to hack everything or you don't. which is it?
Can you give me maybe a hypothetical example?
Like, a vote on Syrian sanction is due in the security council, the NSA grab a Chinese email that states that they're going to veto it, therefore the US does.... what?

I'm fine with military espionage, of all that crap this is something I can actually live with.
That being said, "everyone's doing it" is not a good enough reason to do something, and for real, let's say Germany read all the UN emails and the US doesn't, do you honestly think that hurt American interests in a meaningful way?
It's the fucking UN dammit.

1. Information gathering isn't like the movies where they just hack/spy on one thing and they know what's going on. It takes multiple sources of partial information to event build something that can be used. Is gathering information from German diplomats at the UN going to be useful most of the time? Probably not. But some of the time, it might provide a huge clue.

2. I don't think its good or bad that everyone spies on everyone else. It's just a matter of life. Countries want an edge of their rivals/competition (that includes allies). Spying is how they do it.

As for an example of how this information helps the US act. Let's say our one of our ally go to the media and talk about how they support a hypothetical sanction against Iran over their nuclear program. They tell our diplomats that they are completely being it. However there are factions inside their own gov't that don't support it and they're using the talks in the UN to delay the sanctions to help Iran. If spying gleamed this information, the US can avoid sanctions that go through the UN and do it either unilaterally or in conjunction with countries that really do support sanctions.

 

[KingK]

Obama has been obviously been very very far from reluctant when it comes to bombing other nations considering how much he's been bombing Pakistan with his drones. He maybe reluctant to boots on the ground warfare, but that's not what's happening here anyway. Obama's love of drones to wage warfare is certainly better than Bush's love of foot troops, but I really don't think better than Bush should be used in any actual measurement of his supposed love of peace.

And Bush is far from the only president who has meddled in the middle east to negative effect. There's been plenty of precedent set of the US backing revolutions to take over more influence for ourselves at the expense of the country. So allow me to be skeptical about the US's position on this.

It's not like the UN doesn't know what it's doing either. I at least see no reason to trust them less than we trust the US government.

Idk. I think if Obama wanted to get involved in Syria he would have done so by now. He's had the US more or less stay out of it despite pressure to get heavily involved up to this point. I don't think it's fair to paint him as a warmonger in Syria when his actions so far point to the opposite.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If not for the red line comment we may have been able to avoid that shithole.

There is no reason to intervene there, not our problem. It'll be interesting to see if public opinion changes wit the media showing dead kids every day.

 

[Samk]

I think bombing Syria talk is just a credible deterrent. It's a big, "hey guys, you can't break international norms without consequence". I don't think it's warmongering anymore than Israel's arms stockpile (which, depending on who you are may be viewed as warmongering). It's all game theoretic models of punishing cheats.

 

[The Librarian]

The Monkey Cage is moving to the Post.

 

[Diablos]

GOPers still aren't seriously considering shutting down the Government over PPACA... right?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If not for the red line comment we may have been able to avoid that shithole.

There is no reason to intervene there, not our problem. It'll be interesting to see if public opinion changes wit the media showing dead kids every day.

I understand the feeling its not our problem but if there is something we can do without making it worse I feel we do have an obligation. Ignoring crimes on this level is morally repugnant to me.

I do understand that we can make it worse, its a very real possibility which does need to play a factor in our decision but just saying its not our problem is the weakest argument. And "shithole" comments about the middle east always rub me the wrong way. The middle east is a great place. Politically its unstable to the nth degree but so was most of the world till about 100 years ago.

 

[PhoenixDark]

GOPers still aren't seriously considering shutting down the Government over PPACA... right?

One way to ensure that plan completely fizzles is to bomb Syria. Not saying that would be the White House's goal but it would kill any GOP plan of fucking with the government or debt ceiling. And I'm sure Fox News will make the connection!

 

[bonercop]

It seems Noam Chomsky is trying his hand at this whole shark jumping thing:

Even if you're disappointed with Obama's accomplishments in regards to his campaign promises, willingly hitching yourself to Sarah Palin's wagon is a very poor move.

The quote he's referencing was when she did that "how's that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya?" thing. Framing it like Chomsky is coming out to support Sarah Palin or her positions or "admitting" she's right is pretty silly.

See the original context in which that quote was made. No idea why right-wing sites are suddenly reporting this.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Obama has been obviously been very very far from reluctant when it comes to bombing other nations considering how much he's been bombing Pakistan with his drones. He maybe reluctant to boots on the ground warfare, but that's not what's happening here anyway. Obama's love of drones to wage warfare is certainly better than Bush's love of foot troops, but I really don't think better than Bush should be used in any actual measurement of his supposed love of peace.

And Bush is far from the only president who has meddled in the middle east to negative effect. There's been plenty of precedent set of the US backing revolutions to take over more influence for ourselves at the expense of the country. So allow me to be skeptical about the US's position on this.

It's not like the UN doesn't know what it's doing either. I at least see no reason to trust them less than we trust the US government.

People should really read the atlantic's drone article from this month. Its often presented in characture when the reality isn't the "obama loves drones" story that is often told.

Obama's use of drones and intervention can be seen to follow norms and adhere to a restraint. Bush's, Clinton's and Reagan's never did. Obama's the closest president we've had to carter in foreign affairs. And he's done more to withdraw US presence around the middle east than beef it up. Remember where we were in 2008. Drones have increased yes but we've gotten out of Iraq, are getting out of Afghanistan, Libya was quick and done, and now drones are decreasing... I completely understand holding the opinion its not enough but compared to Bush he is a saint and peacenik and has shown reluctance to commit US resources to the Middle East

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm really don't, I'm really struggling to understand what value the US can get form spying on the UN, and you replying in generalities is not really helping me see it.
And as I said, if the value is small (and sorry, it might help us collaborate some other stuff we may know from different sources, on areas we don't know what they are) we should consider not doing it, but the harm to the US's standing in the world is very real, and it further undermine the idea of peaceful diplomacy, which is in the US (and the world's) best interests.

I don't see how it really hurts the US's standing in the world or hurts diplomacy. Spying has never not existed but at the same time peace and international cooperation has increased (even through periods such as the cold war were spying was maybe at an all-time high). The two can coexist.

Your assumptions are based in counterfactual assumptions, we've never seen world free from spying on things like the UN.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I understand the feeling its not our problem but if there is something we can do without making it worse I feel we do have an obligation. Ignoring crimes on this level is morally repugnant to me.

I do understand that we can make it worse, its a very real possibility which does need to play a factor in our decision but just saying its not our problem is the weakest argument. And "shithole" comments about the middle east always rub me the wrong way. The middle east is a great place. Politically its unstable to the nth degree but so was most of the world till about 100 years ago.

I said Syria is a shithole not the entire Middle East.

And no, the US doesn't have an obligation to intervene in a civil war, especially one in which the world would be better off if both sides lost. Are kids being gassed a sad thing? Sure. But I can think of a many things I'd rather have my tax dollars used to fund than intervening in another ME country that will end up worse after our involvement.

 

[bonercop]

I do understand that we can make it worse, its a very real possibility which does need to play a factor in our decision but just saying its not our problem is the weakest argument. And "shithole" comments about the middle east always rub me the wrong way. The middle east is a great place. Politically its unstable to the nth degree but so was most of the world till about 100 years ago.

The reason I personally like to call the ME a shithole is because everyone's been shitting on it for the past century, not because of the weird Dawking/Harris notion that they(me? I'm of North-African descent, which is considered the "greater Middle-east" by the Bush administration.) are "savage".

 

[Link]

The quote he's referencing was when she did that "how's that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya?" thing. Framing it like Chomsky is coming out to support Sarah Palin or her positions or "admitting" she's right is pretty silly.

I knew what he was referring to. My point still stands. Why you would use Sarah Palin to make the point is ridiculous.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I said Syria is a shithole not the entire Middle East.

And no, the US doesn't have an obligation to intervene in a civil war, especially one in which the world would be better off if both sides lost. Are kids being gassed a sad thing? Sure. But I can think of a many things I'd rather have my tax dollars used to fund than intervening in another ME country that will end up worse after our involvement.

I don't think we have an obligation to intervene in a civil war. But to stop chemical weapon slaughter? Bombing of civilians? Yeah I think the world does. Genocide and crimes against humanity are something the entire world is responsible for stopping since there is nothing really else that can. By saying its not our problem you'd allow things like the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, killing fields.

I understand the reality based criticisms of we might get it wrong or make it worse.

The reason I personally like to call the ME a shithole is because everyone's been shitting on it for the past century, not because of the weird Dawking/Harris notion that they(me? I'm of North-African descent, which is considered the "greater Middle-east" by the Bush administration.) are "savage".

I don't think the comments are always bad or full of malice, just that it makes me cringe because I don't always know what the intent behind it is. I tend to think its usually used the same people who say "we just need to bomb it and start over."

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't think we have an obligation to intervene in a civil war. But to stop chemical weapon slaughter? Bombing of civilians? Yeah I think the world does. Genocide and crimes against humanity are something the entire world is responsible for stopping since there is nothing really else that can. By saying its not our problem you'd allow things like the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, killing fields.

I understand the reality based criticisms of we might get it wrong or make it worse.

We will make it worse.

The Holocaust was stopped due to us already being involved in WWII, I wouldn't compare it to other situations. And no, I would not have intervened in Rwanda either. While Clinton has said his handling of the situation was his biggest failure, he has also said the US would not have been able to stop the killing (only lower it). I'm not convinced we could have, in fact I think it's more likely the US would incite more violence and lead to large US losses.

I don't support military intervention unless one of our allies are being attacked (see: WWII).

 

[bonercop]

I knew what he was referring to. My point still stands. Why you would use Sarah Palin to make the point is ridiculous.

Why wouldn't you? Chomsky isn't a politician who has to worry about "which wagon he hitches to". If anything, he's already hitched his "wagon" to the most unpopular thing in the country -- the activist/far-left. Dude's an anarcho-syndicalist.

She's notoriously crazy/stupid to the point that everyone, even Republicans, liked to make fun of her(Including Chomsky). So from Chomsky's view there is something ironic about her most famous line actually being sort of accurate.

Oh, and I didn't mention it, but that interview is a year old!

I don't think the comments are always bad or full of malice, just that it makes me cringe because I don't always know what the intent behind it is. I tend to think its usually used the same people who say "we just need to bomb it and start over."

Yeah, I can see that. I think the word didn't get a reaction from me because I use it myself, but I get an uncomfortable feeling from the way people talk about the Middle-east on GAF myself sometimes.

 

[thepotatoman]

Idk. I think if Obama wanted to get involved in Syria he would have done so by now. He's had the US more or less stay out of it despite pressure to get heavily involved up to this point. I don't think it's fair to paint him as a warmonger in Syria when his actions so far point to the opposite.

The pressure isn't coming from the US citizens. If so few are happy about intervention when there are chemical weapons involved, imagine how few there will be if there aren't. The only pressure I see come from the same sort of sources that got us into the Iraq war.

But even then, it's not so much a complete distrust in Obama as it is a neutral opinion where I want to see what the UN investigators say first.

People should really read the atlantic's drone article from this month. Its often presented in characture when the reality isn't the "obama loves drones" story that is often told.

Obama's use of drones and intervention can be seen to follow norms and adhere to a restraint. Bush's, Clinton's and Reagan's never did. Obama's the closest president we've had to carter in foreign affairs. And he's done more to withdraw US presence around the middle east than beef it up. Remember where we were in 2008. Drones have increased yes but we've gotten out of Iraq, are getting out of Afghanistan, Libya was quick and done, and now drones are decreasing... I completely understand holding the opinion its not enough but compared to Bush he is a saint and peacenik and has shown reluctance to commit US resources to the Middle East

I've hated that article since it was first put up. That article makes sense if people were just mad about just the existence of drone technology, but that's not what people are upset about. They are upset about the use of them, not the technology itself. So I don't see that articles relevance to anything at all.

As for Obama's restraint, I guess I just don't see where he's had any more restraint than Clinton or Reagan. And both Clinton and Reagan have their histories of middle east meddling. Obama's used more advanced technology to make less of a scene of it, but he's still doing plenty of killing of citizens in countries we haven't even declared war against.

Besides if we're just going by a judge of character, I don't trust the character that has been so very anti whistleblower while not doing anything about the war criminals and crappy practices that those whistleblowers exposed.

 

[Oblivion]

Uh oh. Looks like Boehner's in real trouble now:

Tea party activists are planning to rally outside of House Speaker John A. Boehner’s Ohio office on Tuesday, telling the Republican speaker that if he doesn’t use this year’s spending fight to defund the health care law, it will hence be known to them as “BoehnerCare.”

“If he funds it, he will own it,” said Janet Porter, president of Faith2Action, one of the groups participating in the rally.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/tea-party-obamacare-now-boehnercare/

 

[Fenderputty]

Boehnercare sounds like something you buy out of an adam and eve mailer or something.

 

[Link]

Uh oh. Looks like Boehner's in real trouble now:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/tea-party-obamacare-now-boehnercare/

I love the smell of backfire in the morning.

 

[Averon]

Any chance the GOP establishment can reign in the the crazy or are they stuck with them for the foreseeable future?

 

[Samk]

Okay, world building thought exercise:

You know how the minorities are always in danger whenever a regime change occurs? What would be the downside to giving somebody like the Kurds their own state? Wouldn't a culturally homogenous state more likely to be a rational actor?

 

[Tamanon]

Okay, world building thought exercise:

You know how the minorities are always in danger whenever a regime change occurs? What would be the downside to giving somebody like the Kurds their own state? Wouldn't a culturally homogenous state more likely to be a rational actor?

Well, giving someone their own state usually means you're taking it from someone else(the Israel problem). Unless they're moving to Antarctica.

 

[786110]

Okay, world building thought exercise:

You know how the minorities are always in danger whenever a regime change occurs? What would be the downside to giving somebody like the Kurds their own state? Wouldn't a culturally homogenous state more likely to be a rational actor?

while not a perfect analogy by any means this sprang to mind

 

[GaimeGuy]

Any chance the GOP establishment can reign in the the crazy or are they stuck with them for the foreseeable future?

these are the 30% of Americans who still approved of Bush when he left office. They're the True Believers and have been the GOP base since Nixon, or Reagan at the very latest.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Uh oh. Looks like Boehner's in real trouble now:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/tea-party-obamacare-now-boehnercare/

You created this monster, GOP. Have fun getting destroyed by it.

 

[Crisco]

I need me some BonerCare™.

 

[thepotatoman]

Any chance the GOP establishment can reign in the the crazy or are they stuck with them for the foreseeable future?

If they somehow reign in people like Hannity and Rush it would help a lot, but this type of thing is ratings gold for them, so that maybe very hard.

But even then, I do think a lot of this comes from the internet and facebook. If this movement was born of people living in Fox News echo chambers with absolutely no filters, then the lawlessness of the internet is going to allow that to happen to even further extreme levels.

Hannity and Rush maybe quick to completely distort facts by quoting them out of context, but there doesn't need to be even a small drop of truth for things to catch fire on the internet.

I do wonder what would happen if they somehow disassociated themselves with those type of people. You think their fear of democrats will make them turn out for republicans anyhow?

 

[Plinko]

Any chance the GOP establishment can reign in the the crazy or are they stuck with them for the foreseeable future?

No. The animals are out of the barn and they're not coming back. Somebody reasonable is going to be called a "liberal" by the Tea Party and turned against.

 

[Black Mamba]

Uh oh. Looks like Boehner's in real trouble now:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/tea-party-obamacare-now-boehnercare/

Boehnercare, lol. I couldn't be happier about this.

 

[bonercop]

Any chance the GOP establishment can reign in the the crazy or are they stuck with them for the foreseeable future?

A future where "the crazy" dies off because of old age isn't that far off.

I need me some BonerCare™.

at your service.

 

[Plinko]

A future where "the crazy" dies off because of old age isn't that far off.

But didn't that poll posted a few days ago show that there was plenty of crazy in the younger generation, too?

 

[Black Mamba]

lol

 

[B-Dubs]

Uh oh. Looks like Boehner's in real trouble now:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/tea-party-obamacare-now-boehnercare/

I never knew this was everything I had wanted in my life until right now...