"Shame on you, Barack Obama"

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Foreign policy experience is not the same as "connections in Kenya" - and I openly question whether that experience carries over into a dangerous and difficult situation such as Iran. That's my point.

Fair enough, I said foreign relations for a reason. I don't know the specifics of his foreign policy experience except for membership on the Senate committee.

I'm all for increasing positive foreign relationships - that's been one of the downfalls of the Bush administration, I'll certainly agree. But it is pandering to associate my post with jingoism, especially when you've chosen the intentionally inflammatory "dick measuring contest" metaphor as your base of attack.

I'm not associating your post with jingoism. My response to your comment was don't blow off people who don't want to attack Iran as pacifist. The other point I was making is that being patriotic these days is seen, both in this country and in others, as not just thinking America's great, but insulting every other country in the process, even if they're our allies and support us. It's the difference between having self-esteem and finding it necessary to deride your classmates to show how awesome you are. Hence why Obama's patriotism is called into question because he chooses not to wear a flag pin. I mean, seriously.

You either missed my point, or chose not to acknowledge it because of how I packaged it - that's pretty shitty, but to each her own.

I haven't seen Team America so besides the thought that you need a guy in office (one I disagree with) I don't know the main point of what you're getting at.

There is a difference between the two, of course - there are also situations where "positive foreign relations" is a poor course to follow. Iran is likely a bigger threat to Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan. Sometimes force is required - and, since you're not a pacifist, you'll surely agree with that.

While I agree that force is necessary and that Iran is a potential threat, that doesn't mean we go invade them, something that seems to be Bush's next great adventure. Obama's said he'd act on knowledge of bin Ladin in Pakistan by attacking him directly if we didn't have Musharraf's support. He's not opposed to the careful and calculated use of force. There's a lot of room between that and invading a country.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

While I agree that force is necessary and that Iran is a potential threat, that doesn't mean we go invade them, something that seems to be Bush's next great adventure. Obama's said he'd act on knowledge of bin Ladin in Pakistan by attacking him directly if we didn't have Musharraf's support. He's not opposed to the careful and calculated use of force. There's a lot of room between that and invading a country.

To be fair, we have done/are doing this in Pakistan.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

To be fair, we have done/are doing this in Pakistan.

Yep, it was a bit of a Clinton, others: "OMG You can't just attack Pakistan" CIA: "Uh we did, it worked"

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yep, it was a bit of a Clinton, others: "OMG You can't just attack Pakistan" CIA: "Uh we did, it worked"

Back to your original statement about Barack and using calculated and limited tactics to combat terrorism (which I also think the current administration is doing, and I can't say I'm confident about what Barack promises to do)...

Do you really think Americans, more specifically, Democrats, have the stomach for a Mossad-like, "wherever, whenever," attitude towards terrorism?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Back to your original statement about Barack and using calculated and limited tactics to combat terrorism (which I also think the current administration is doing, and I can't say I'm confident about what Barack promises to do)...

Do you really think Americans, more specifically, Democrats, have the stomach for a Mossad-like, "wherever, whenever," attitude towards terrorism?

It's not that the current administration isn't doing it, it's everything else they're doing as well. And, at the very least, Obama has stuck to his statement despite derision.

I think it depends, in many ways Israel is much more threatened than the US is. But I think it requires a level of trust in the intelligence agencies and the administration itself for the American people to think that blowing up Joe Terrorist in Pakistan is a good idea.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's not that the current administration isn't doing it, it's everything else they're doing as well. And, at the very least, Obama has stuck to his statement despite derision.

I think it depends, in many ways Israel is much more threatened than the US is. But I think it requires a level of trust in the intelligence agencies and the administration itself for the American people to think that blowing up Joe Terrorist in Pakistan is a good idea.

Sure. I don't think the trust is there, but I think that's because we haven't invested in it. I hope that changes, as I think this type of infrastructure is invaluable with the threats we face.

However, when Congress is wasting time posturing on torture (which will have absolutely zero correlation with what actually occurs), I question whether we're prepared to go forward with an Israeli-like attitude. Don't get me wrong, I think they face a greater threat than we do, but I think their small scope yet cutthroat attitude is the blueprint for waging this type of defense. I'm not sure that the support wouldn't be there for this kind of action, but a lot of my liberal friends have been promoting this view lately, and I've developed some questions as a result. When people on the left are protesting the US Army Sniper School, I think it brings about natural concerns. Maybe the changing of the threat has changed people's minds on such tactics, I'm not sure. Interesting subject though.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Sure. I don't think the trust is there, but I think that's because we haven't invested in it. I hope that changes, as I think this type of infrastructure is invaluable with the threats we face.

However, when Congress is wasting time posturing on torture (which will have absolutely zero correlation with what actually occurs), I question whether we're prepared to go forward with an Israeli-like attitude. Don't get me wrong, I think they face a greater threat than we do, but I think their small scope yet cutthroat attitude is the blueprint for waging this type of defense. I'm not sure that the support wouldn't be there for this kind of action, but a lot of my liberal friends have been promoting this view lately, and I've developed some questions as a result. When people on the left are protesting the US Army Sniper School, I think it brings about natural concerns. Maybe the changing of the threat has changed people's minds on such tactics, I'm not sure. Interesting subject though.

My biggest issue is that I don't have any concrete idea of what the "threat" is anymore. I know there are people out there who hate America for various, usually self-serving, reasons, but I'm so numb to "omg scared!" that I have no true conception of what's going on. And I think that we shouldn't be giving up civil liberties in exchange for feeling safer. Though that's another story altogether, it's the side of Israel that I don't like.