Cutter: Romney, Ryan 'entire reason' Libya attack is political issue

[|Bunghole|]

If you need any reason to back up what I said, you need look no further than our humanitarian intervention in Somalia to relieve their suffering. Oh that's right, when aid drops were intercepted and our token military response was rebuffed, we...did nothing. At least we are protecting our commercial shipping off the Horn of Africa now. So there's that.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1350097289' post='1169518']
If you need any reason to back up what I said, you need look no further than our humanitarian intervention in Somalia to relieve their suffering. Oh that's right, when aid drops were intercepted and our token military response was rebuffed, we...did nothing. At least we are protecting our commercial shipping off the Horn of Africa now. So there's that.
[/quote]

What do you mean nothing? Was I just dreaming that we were talking about troops that were sent in to get rid of the warlord?

[Jamie_B]

[img]http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/diplomatic-attacks3.png[/img]

So "Peace through strength" worked 'eh?

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350097524' post='1169521']
What do you mean nothing? Was I just dreaming that we were talking about troops that were sent in to get rid of the warlord?
[/quote]

Well, I didn't word myself properly there. I don't mean to disrespect those that gave their lives in the Mogadishu Battle. What I meant by "nothing" was that we sent in a force of what, 150 people? Granted, they were Rangers and some SEALs supported by a few helicopters, but it was an insufficient force for the mission and the mission itself was ill-conceived in my view.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

This goes for both parties...

Never let a good crisis go unused....

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350135221' post='1169568']
[img]http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/diplomatic-attacks3.png[/img]

So "Peace through strength" worked 'eh?
[/quote]

I think that chart can be very flawed. How do they chose what constitute a Diplomatic target? What do they consider an attack on a Diplomatic target? What do they consider part of a conflict that is already ongoing, versus an actual attack on a Diplomatic target?...there are several questions I could ask.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350157461' post='1169598']
I think that chart can be very flawed. How do they chose what constitute a Diplomatic target? What do they consider an attack on a Diplomatic target? What do they consider part of a conflict that is already ongoing, versus an actual attack on a Diplomatic target?...there are several questions I could ask.
[/quote]

Here you go - [url="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney"]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney[/url]

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350160330' post='1169606']
Here you go - [url="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney"]http://www.motherjon...ks-obama-romney[/url]
[/quote]

Ok I am going to try and explain myself on a few fronts. Hopefully this doesn't get somewhat confusing.

1. First and foremost, citizens of other countries are generally receiving censored propaganda that is going to convey that their own government is the best and the United States are trying to change that. We are a selfish nation that wants all the good things everyone else has. While in contrast a family of four probably throws in the trash more food in a month than some of these families eat in a year. They don't know that though. All they know is all Americans are bad, don't trust us, don't believe anything we say, and don't take Halloween candy from us because it is probably poisoned.

2. It doesn't matter who is in office. Other countries hate the 'American' way of life. Anyone that is President is inherently bad, and in fact became the leader of the infidels. So pretty much it mirrors something in that chart. Terrorism and violence against U.S. diplomats has no prejudice, they hate everyone equally.

3. Some of the hatred towards the United States will more than likely never change. How can you change something that has become a belief? I'm not sure you can find anything in the United States to compare it to. The closest thing I can come up with would be religion. Most Americans agree with the fact if you kill someone, you will go to hell. Generally we were taught that by our parents, by the people in our social circle, and through media from the time we could understand it. How can we fault people that were raised in these types of circumstances to hate everything American? Its a no win situation. People will continue to raise families like this, governments will continue to censor their media, and if the U.S. does anything to try and help these people realize who the real enemy is, the U.S. is considered to be interfering in a situation we shouldn't be dealing with.

Ok, so I ask, what do we do? De we turtle up here in the United States, draw all of our troops out of other countries, and tell everyone to deal with their own problems? Then the U.S. would look selfish right?

Does the U.S. continue stepping in when we feel threatened by another country? Everything thinks we have a hidden agenda, and we are overstepping our bounds.

Does the US. go on the offensive and make an example out of North Korea? Go in with a bunch of media showing the world what the government has been doing to their own people? How horrible they live despite all the money spent on an Army that all they do is learn how to march and make pretty pictures like you would see at a college football game. Film EVERYTHING, show the rest of the world what they are letting happen is actually inhumane? If that happened there might be some people that cheered the U.S. for helping the people of North Korea, but several others would think the United States did it just to create a new territory in the Far East as a front on China and Russia. Even if this worked, would it set a precedence? Then other countries would be giving that as an excuse for overstepping their bounds.

I have no clue what to do.


I have no idea why I all of a sudden dipped in this politics forum after being here so long.

[T-Dub]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350157461' post='1169598']
I think that chart can be very flawed.
[/quote]

I'm sure you do, since it refutes your argument with clear facts.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1350169301' post='1169626']
I'm sure you do, since it refutes your argument with clear facts.
[/quote]

It's pretty pathetic that you try to mock my opinion when you have no idea what my opinion really is. I'm saying I don't disagree with the background and purpose of the chart, just that there are so many variables that could skew the truth in numbers. The true chart could show the same results, and instead there be even a higher number of instances.

If anyone at all needed proof that you are a troll, they need not look any farther than this.

BTW thank you [b]Bunghole[/b] for leading me on to that site. I love knowing how other cultures work. I wish I could see some of this stuff in person, except for the crappy "matter" they feed people. I'm just not rich enough at this point to do so!

[T-Dub]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350171225' post='1169631']
It's pretty pathetic that you try to mock my opinion when you have no idea what my opinion really is. I'm saying I don't disagree with the background and purpose of the chart, just that there are so many variables that could skew the truth in numbers. The true chart could show the same results, and instead there be even a higher number of instances.
[/quote]

I wasn't mocking your opinion, I was mocking your habit of trying to obfuscate things that run counter to it.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1350172658' post='1169635']
I wasn't mocking your opinion, I was mocking your habit of trying to obfuscate things that run counter to it.
[/quote]

I'm not trying to ignore anything, nor am I fabricating anything. I have my stance from things I have read, seen, and lived. I haven't seen anyone in the thread provide any information that their stance correct and mine wrong. Instead all I have gotten have gotten is post after post saying I'm wrong and I am viewing things in the wrong way. I'd like to see Obama turn to Romney after Romney makes a statement and say, "You're wrong." Then refuse to make any other comment except say Romney is wrong. Do you now see the ridiculousness in that?

[bengalrick]

I'm getting tired of hypocracy here... Someone quotes a story from Glennbeck.com and everyone just dismisses it whether it is right or wrong because that is a biased site. So why not the same when someone quotes a story from motherjones.com. Doesn't matter if its right or wrong from Beck, but it does from Motherjones.com... ? For the record, I think quoting from either is defeating the purpose and should be avoided.

Also why do you keep changing the subject Jamie? The question isn't the amount of attacks. The problem is that we lost an ambassador on this one and the Obama admin decided to blame everyone except themselves for it. It is the epitome of BAD LEADERSHIP. THAT is the problem, not that motherjones and company can post a link of how bad Rep's are and how great Dem's are when that isn't the question at all.

Get out of here with your hypocritical bs... I've said this before and for your own same (talking to you Jamie) I hope you wisen up at some point. You remind me of... me when I was defending W after all the crap he did to our country. It took Katrina to finally burst my bubble and frankly I have been embarrassed about it ever since. I WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN TO ME AGAIN and I hope you, at some point, realize you are defending bad policies. Our country needs passionate people like you and me, that will fight for what is right, not WHO they think is right no matter what they did. Obama's passing the buck is wrong because a good leader takes credit for the bad he causes. Even if it isn't his fault, the leader of anything has to take the blame and/or credit. That is how it works.

[Jamie_B]

Oh I dont know Rick one comes from a study done by the National Consortum for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism and the (freaking) State Department, that MJ goes on to explain, which I have no doubt has some bias to it their slant on it, but not a bias on the facts.

The other is Glenn Beck.

Would you like to explain to me where his study comes from?

GTFO with that.

No Rick the point is some folks are making this attack entirely political despite the notion that these attacks happen regardless of which party is in power. THAT my friend is the point.


And if you think I am as bad as you were defending Bush, defending Obama, you might want to spend some time reading these threads, especially where I've called him a 90s republican, and "x2ed" Homer on saying Obama didnt go far enough with respect to the financial stuff, or how I was pissed about him hiring Summers/Geithner, or how I've said he's doubled down on the Bush foreign policy.

Sorry but you are off base with that.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350224030' post='1169670']
Oh I dont know Rick one comes from a study done by the National Consortum for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism and the (freaking) State Department, that MJ goes on to explain, which I have no doubt has some bias to it their slant on it, but not a bias on the facts.

The other is Glenn Beck.

Would you like to explain to me where his study comes from?

GTFO with that.

No Rick the point is some folks are making this attack entirely political despite the notion that these attacks happen regardless of which party is in power. THAT my friend is the point.


And if you think I am as bad as you were defending Bush, defending Obama, you might want to spend some time reading these threads, especially where I've called him a 90s republican, and "x2ed" Homer on saying Obama didnt go far enough with respect to the financial stuff, or how I was pissed about him hiring Summers/Geithner, or how I've said he's doubled down on the Bush foreign policy.

Sorry but you are off base with that.
[/quote]

Jamie I feel I need to correct you on something. The argument Rick, I, and some others are having isn't that the attacks happened, because of Obama, but rather he handle the situation wrong and now refuses to level up to it. The mob that killed those people and destroyed the consulate would have undoubtedly destroyed the building if there were people in it or not. So why despite pleas for more protection, were there not more people sent, or why were the people left there at all? The only information we have been given is the terrorist hijacked some of the mob and led them to the attack on the consulate. Is that true? Will we ever know? Or was it just posturing by the current administration to deflect blame and categorize this as a random act of violence? Isn't that very conflicting depictions of the situation if the consulate was asking for more protection for weeks, yet when something happened it was a choreographed act of terrorism? Odd isn't it?

[bengalrick]

well put Lew. Glad someone is interpreting what is being said.

Jamie... I like you buddy. I really do... But I hope you wake up at some point because this country needs people like you. They don't need droids spewing out the crap that the political parties want us to spew. Because as long as we do, those two stay in power and we are all fucked. We need more parties with bigger and better ideas. I know you will agree with that. You and I will most likely never be on the same political side of things, but we don't need a bunch of people agreeing with each other at every pass. We need smart, passionate people debating the best way forward without relying on our political party telling us what that is.

[b]THIS[/b] topic is completely indefensible and you are somehow defending it (by changing the subject and my point but nonetheless...) . More power to you for dogging on Obama in the past. But [b]THIS[/b] topic reminds me of me trying to defend some things in the past, i.e. the Iraq war. You can counter my argument again if you'd like and post other things, but if you do, you are missing the point.

[Jamie_B]

*sigh*

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350231365' post='1169731']
*sigh*
[/quote]

Ok can you defend my premise on this?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350231404' post='1169734']
Ok can you defend my premise on this?
[/quote]

Specifically your premise as to?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350231533' post='1169737']
Specifically your premise as to?
[/quote]

Why when an ambassador dies in an attack (which is ONE hell of a big deal) is this dumb ass lady coming out and saying that the only reason this is a story is because Romney and Ryan are making it one?

Do you really think that the first ambassador to be killed in 33 years is not a serious or big story?

Is this only a story because it is the political season?

[Lewdog]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350231720' post='1169741']
Why when an ambassador dies in an attack (which is ONE hell of a big deal) is this dumb ass lady coming out and saying that the only reason this is a story is because Romney and Ryan are making it one?

Do you really think that the first ambassador to be killed in 33 years is not a serious or big story?

Is this only a story because it is the political season?
[/quote]

Who was the last one? Was it an Ambassador or Congressman that was killed by Jim Jones at Jonestown?

[Jamie_B]

No it I dont think its a story simply because its a political season, however I do think some are spinning it....and I am COMPLETELY weary of the hawk types using this stuff as a way to defend their "peace through strength" garbage that Ive shown is bullocks.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350231829' post='1169745']
No it I dont think its a story simply because its a political season, however I do think some are spinning it.
[/quote]

How can you spin it? Weeks before the event took place, multiple times the Consulate asked for extra protection and were denied. The White House at first played dumb that they had no idea anything was even going on. Then after spinsters had enough time, a story breaks this was a calculated attack by a terrorized group who "hijacked" a large group of protestors and led them to the consulate. Again, how can anyone spin this? First the White House denies the requests, and then they come up with a cover story to make it look like a freak incident. That's bogus. That would be like the Captain of the Titanic saying he didn't know there was enough life boats on board.

[Homer_Rice]

My opinion, FWIW:

This is a classic example of why I am disappointed in the Obama admin. Their foreign policy, like the preceding admin's, is a militaristic expression of the Washington Consensus. There's more to it than that of course, but when you get down to the rub, it's the desire for a WC world which underlies both Repub and Dem policy orientations. Whereas the Bush admin was a pretty naked iron fist, the Obama admin is more velvet glove. But it boils down to the same smelly distillation: the US will seek to run the world on it's terms as the sole "super-power" now that the Cold War is over. No matter that as each year passes we are more frequently exposed as an emperor with no clothes.

So, when something happens on an anniversary of 9-11, for crying out out, to try to pretend it is not a radical response to our attempts to impose ourselves on the world in this way is the height of political crapola. Shame on the Obama admin for trying to pull the wool over our eyes on this.

All the empirical details of who, what, when and how are subordinate to "Why" here. And the "Why" is, in this case, along the lines with what Lara Logan said in the video Backer posted: there is a lot of anti-American policy sentiment out there in the world. It's real and it's not going away simply because we now have a Nobel Peace prize winning Prez who prefers a more "sanitary" drone war to the in-your-face ground-pounders and grunts preferred by the previous admin.

I personally believe that AM foreign policy ought to be developing a new paradigm which is a bit less confrontational. It's possible to maintain our current role as the predominant "republic" in the world instead of this stupid striving to be an American Empire because we somehow out-lasted the Soviets.

So, yeah, this admin tried to spin this thing politically, instead of using it as an opportunity to distinguish itself from it's predecessor.

[Lewdog]

...all and well, but how do you lead a more hands off approach for diplomacy against groups that think you are the devil incarnate? How do you talk your way through peace, when members of the opposing group have a belief in their mind that they are doing the right thing but giving their life to take some of ours?

This is a difficult world we live in.