Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Best Syria analysis I've seen yet: it's all 2014

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | 1 year,13 hours

User Journal 17

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/curl-obamas-2014-calculation-lets-have-war/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/curl-obamas-2014-calculation-lets-have-war/

Whatever happens, this much is clear: We`re no longer talking about the IRS targeting tea party groups, the Justice Department tapping reporters` phone lines, the NSA`s surveillance programs, Benghazi. The president has smartly changed the subject to the most important decision a commander in chief makes: war.

cancel ×

17 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Presidential decisions? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | 1 year,3 hours | (#44737689)

Is the claim then that all the other conservative conspiracy theories that are listed in that statement were driven directly by decisions or decrees from President Lawnchair himself? I'm not sure that I've heard anyone make that accusation before, so I want to make sure I'm reading that sentence right.

Re:Presidential decisions? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,3 hours | (#44737795)

conservative conspiracy theories

Seriously?

Re:Presidential decisions? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,24 minutes | (#44738747)

Seriously?

Yes, Even I can see it. You are still hung up on the personality, and completely ignore that somebody else is pulling the strings. As to your other comment, foreign policy throughout history has been remarkably consistent. It has always been Monroe Doctrine with a good dose of the Roosevelt Corollary. All the great powers experience the same desires, to grow as big as they possibly can, inevitable as the sunrise. There's nothing abnormal about it. It only confirms how natural we are.

Regardless, I understand the need to keep unused resources out of the hands of our adversaries. We can't just turn the region over to them. So, we will do like we did to Atlanta...

Re:Presidential decisions? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44739621)

It's all fun 'n' games until you're singing the Martin Miemöller [wikipedia.org] blues.

You are still hung up on the personality

No, I really don't care about #OccupyResoluteDesk; I care about the pattern of collapse, as the country implodes into a 3rd-world patronage system do to over-centralization. There may be someone here bent on going the Alinsky route and personalizing matters here, but, honestly, I'd as soon forget the rodeo clown. He is by no means the disease; merely the symptom.

Re:Presidential decisions? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44742845)

Seriously?

Allow me to give my view on each of the ones you listed.

We`re no longer talking about the IRS targeting tea party groups,

I see this as the IRS doing their job. The IRS is tasked with the collection of taxes. The Tea Party groups are openly opposed to the collection of taxes and in some cases have openly advocated for their members to not pay taxes, regardless of what the law says. If these groups are asking for tax exempt status, the IRS has the right, and indeed the obligation, to see that they are entitled to that status and that their taxes were paid correctly to that point in time.

If someone is trying to connect it to the Obama white house, I would say they are propagating a conspiracy theory.

the Justice Department tapping reporters` phone lines,

This one I will admit I have not heard much about. However the justice department is driven by much more than just the top of the executive branch of the federal government.

the NSA`s surveillance programs,

I agree that there is likely a lot wrong with the NSA surveillance programs but why is it wrong now when it wasn't wrong in 2002? I am not aware of anything they are doing now that they weren't doing 10 years ago. It is far easier for President Lawnchair to leave a program going than it is for him to stop it; if you want to blame the NSA programs on him you need to show that he had something to do with them taking their current form.

That said, the extension of a program doesn't make it right. However when congress passes a monstrosity like USA PATRIOT they create problems like the NSA. I'm actually not sure that the POTUS even has the power to kill off something like this.

Benghazi.

I have yet to see any shred of evidence that the white house had anything to do with the attack on Benghazi. Just because they tried to meet the continuous news cycles with a preliminary briefing on it that carried some assumptions which were later proven false does not amount to anything criminal. Blaming Obama for Benghazi makes about as much sense as blaming Clinton for the bombing of the USS Cole.

Re:Presidential decisions? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44744919)

Just to make sure I have all this straight, George W. Bush was a rampaging, war-mongering, coked-out imbecile, right?
And Barack Obama is this gentle community organizer whos' workin' hard, tryin' to fix a few things, and he'd've succeeded, too, if not for these meddling raaaaacists?

Re:Presidential decisions? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44746543)

Just to make sure I have all this straight, George W. Bush was a rampaging, war-mongering, coked-out imbecile, right?

Not quite. GWB was below-average intelligence and way below-average for POTUS; frequently rated one fo the worst our country has ever appointed.

That said, he bravely quit using coke during one of his college experiences, and bravely quit drinking sometime in his 40s - what a brave man he was indeed. Was he really rampaging? He may have had a personal vendetta against a certain dictator who had tried to call in a hit on his dad, but otherwise he generally showed very little actual control while in the oval office. The powers behind the presidency from 2001 - 2009 were coming not from the man named Bush but the man named Cheney.

And Barack Obama is this gentle community organizer whos' workin' hard, tryin' to fix a few things, and he'd've succeeded, too, if not for these meddling raaaaacists?

First of all, President Lawnchair has failed in large part to his own inability to get people to do anything. He has caved in to the conservatives time after time, and when the dust settles his actions will cause him to be remembered as the most conservative president to date.

That said, I have noticed that those who align with the republicans thrown around the term racists much more often than those aligned with the democrats. Why might that be? I have never heard anyone who voted for President Lawnchair accuse him of having had his agenda hindered by racists. I myself point out that the republicans are quite possibly hindering progress just because they don't want to allow anyone from another party to be remembered fondly by history.

In other words the driving force is not racially motivated, it is just a result of hyper partisanship.

are you trying to have it both ways? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44746601)

And Barack Obama is this gentle community organizer whos' workin' hard, tryin' to fix a few things, and he'd've succeeded, too, if not for these meddling raaaaacists?

The statement above seems to contradict directly with the notion of Obama having managed to unilaterally launch government takeovers of everything as part of a successful initiative to turn the US into a hellish socialist nightmare. If he has been impeded from progress, then presumably he hasn't accomplished a great change. So which is it then; is he a total failure who has been impeded by your favorite alt-boogeymen (in which case the socialist takeovers haven't happened), or is he a mad authoritarian genius who has circumvented the entire government and the will of the people to force ultra-neo-socialism down our throats (in which case nobody managed to impede him at all)?

It seems that you are simultaneously projecting him as two contradictory beings.

For both of your replies (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44751247)

Not quite. GWB was below-average intelligence and way below-average for POTUS; frequently rated one fo the worst our country has ever appointed.

Until I've seen actual documentation of anything BHO ever did in college (I guess he edited some legal review, to which he never contributed?), comparisons are 'hahrd'. Bonus points for 'appointed', however. I guess if Bush hadn't been re-elected in 2004, the slanders over the 2000 election might have traction.

The powers behind the presidency from 2001 - 2009 were coming not from the man named Bush but the man named Cheney.

No, Der Decider owns his historical legacy. Has Bush ever, once, attempted to deflect responsibility to anyone else in general, or Dick Cheney in particular? I guess I've never understood the Pavlovian training on the left to hammer Dick Cheney. In the case of Joe Biden, face it: they guy does a great court jester. Whether Biden is REALLY that dumb, or it's merely a David-among-Philistines act, remains unknown.

First of all, President Lawnchair has failed in large part to his own inability to get people to do anything.

This is surprising why exactly? Obama has demonstrated mastery of campaigning and blaming. His bestselling memoirs are ghostwritten [newsbusters.org] . Credit where due--it's been a masterful PR job, but style can only triumph over substance for so long, you see. Obama's level of tangible success reflects his caliber as a leader. It's likely that, in his annointed [amazon.com] narcissism, he has no grasp of just how jacked up he is. Even when we've changed from this Progressive course, and crawled out from under the rubble of these ideas, my guess is that he'll credit himself. Would that the situation could merely be pathetic, and not so expensive.

In other words the driving force is not racially motivated, it is just a result of hyper partisanship.

It isn't even partisan. It's power, power, power. Our basic, initially flawed notion of the idividual as the unit of political analysis us under explicit and implicit attack with every dollar borrowed to fund conservative or liberal vote-buying schemes.

So which is it then; is he a total failure who has been impeded by your favorite alt-boogeymen (in which case the socialist takeovers haven't happened), or is he a mad authoritarian genius who has circumvented the entire government and the will of the people to force ultra-neo-socialism down our throats (in which case nobody managed to impede him at all)?

Aw, c'mon: when is politics EVER the binary situation you've arranged here?
You understand that ANY fascist political figure is:

  1. ALWAYS going to cloak himself in the Constitution, and SWEAR he's defending the 2nd Amendment to the hilt, while
  2. taxing and regulating out of existence the ability to defend oneself with anything more than a random tree branch, and
  3. weeping endless alligator tears over the Trayvon Martins, while conveniently ignoring the hometown [breitbart.com] bodycount?

Really, it's not about Obama personally, for three reasons:

  • Personalizing, in the sense of hero-worship or foe-demonizing, is Alinskyism, and offends the notion that we all be adults who look after ourselves and immediate neighbors.
  • Had Obama's mother not been "punished with a child" (his words, in another context) a similar piece of clay would've been molded for his role.
  • The issue isn't Obama himself personally, but the precedents of decadent collapse he sets. If we don't get some reformers who will de-centralize this mess, then the Orwellian prophecies move closer to fulfillment.

Not bad (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,3 hours | (#44737719)

I think this one [antiwar.com] hits the nail pretty squarely as well.

Re:Not bad (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,2 hours | (#44737851)

Lot of excellent linkage in that article, thanks. Overall, it's hard to come up with a consistent foreign policy. But there should be some simple overarching guidance: "We're going to help those consistently doing the Right Thing, and minimize entanglement elsewhere."
The Obama Doctrine seems to be "Manage the news cycle, win elections". While one cannot deny that the pragmatism on display has been effective for him, it seems a tad myopic.

Re:Not bad (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44739537)

I think it's a mistake to focus this too personally on Obama. There seems to be a deeper state calling the shots, regardless of who is President, at least in the sense of a foreign policy groupthink in Washington which reflexes worships power and the exercise of power, that always wants to bomb or invade and doesnt give a rats scale tail what the rest of us think on the subject.

Have you called/written your congresscritters? Big chance here to score one for peace, there will apparently be a vote called soon.

Re:Not bad (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44739655)

Concur. The whole business of centralizing power under Woodrow Wilson, with the Federal Reserve, and freezing the size of the House of Representatives has created precisely the Ruling Class that the Founders sought to avoid.
As for calling my Representative/Senators, three bigger tools than Jim Moran, Tim Kaine, and Mark Warner are not to be found in our wretched Congress.

Re:Not bad (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44739847)

Reverse that, The 'Ruling Class' created Woodrow Wilson and the Federal Reserve. It is inevitable in all great powers. The 'Ruling Class' is called that for a reason. They have always ruled, more recently with the full consent of their subjects, even under the illusion of republicanism. Ultimately, this is always the result of their game [addictinginfo.org] ... I can assure you they do not even notice.

Re:Not bad (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44740209)

It's unclear whether you mean simply that all societies develop a ruling class, or if you actually intend to imply some sort of conspiracy theory where the royal houses of medieval Europe were descended from space aliens and continue to rule from behind the scenes today.

Re:Not bad (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44741509)

I think the former, and agree: it's a function of the fact that people don't scale.
However, technology has altered the information dispersal problem to a degree, and I find it sad that my good sparring partner fustakrakich seems so strangely complacent about the situation.

Same as it ever was (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 seconds | (#44738913)

That, plus the Israelis have concluded that they'd rather fight a ragtag group like Hezbollah without an air force to worry about, than fight Assad with an air force. Combine the two, it's a no brainer for the amoral Obama.

The circumstantial evidence of who is behind this is strong: "Israeli intelligence first confirmed Assad regime behind alleged chemical attack" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/israeli-intelligence-first-confirmed-assad-regime-behind-alleged-chemical/ [foxnews.com]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>