RoR: Forum

And that's just what we've been living through since his inauguration.

Post 1

Thursday, September 23, 2010 - 1:45pm

I saw this headline and it bothered me tremendously. Absorb = How Many Lives? Bear in mind, these will be lives that will be lost in the passive absorption of an attack, not a defense against one...not in efforts to prevent one.
I thought the Government's responsibility was to "Provide for the Common Defense".

Sorry...really bothered by this.

Post 2

Thursday, September 23, 2010 - 2:22pm

Don't apologize, if you value life you should be bothered by it. Obama is a despicable person. Human life apparently to him can be sacrificed if it translates into power for him. It's the most disturbing thing I've ever heard from a President.

Post 3

Friday, September 24, 2010 - 12:34am

The doves at Cato agree with Obama:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/woodward-resilience-and-virtues-of-partisan-foreign-policy/

(Edited by Jordan Zimmerman on 9/24, 12:34am)

Post 4

Friday, September 24, 2010 - 3:04am

If the military commanders have indeed been "insubordinate" to the Commander-in-Chief, why has the latter not charged the former with same?

Post 5

Friday, September 24, 2010 - 6:49am

From the CATO article:

"I don�t think that the President�s comment that we can withstand another terrorist attack like 9-11 is offensive. After all, we can"

Taken on it's own, without any further knowledge of the President's expressed position, of course this would not appear to be offensive. It is true because we are a large, rich and powerful nation. But it's not that he said just this, it's also what else he said that should bring this quote into a more thorough context. The quote doesn't exist in a moral vacuum. As Michael said in post 1;

"...lives that will be lost in the passive absorption of an attack, not a defense against one"

And why does Michael say this? Because the President views the war on terror as something that is not worth fighting for if he:

"lose[s] the whole Democratic Party"

Obama during his campaigning for the Presidency repeatedly argued that Afghanistan was the good war. He said in 2008:

"It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan"

He did not say 'It's time we forget about trying to win in Afghanistan and find an exit strategy so that my political party can maintain power.'

Post 6

Friday, September 24, 2010 - 11:11am

John,
I'm not following your reasoning in post #5. The only way what you say makes sense to me is if you include the implicit premise: "by withdrawing early from Afghanistan, President Obama makes it clear that he considers the war on terror to be something that is not worth fighting for and is thereby making it possible for another terror attack". Is that what you are assuming?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 7

Friday, September 24, 2010 - 11:44am

Glenn

The only way what you say makes sense to me is if you include the implicit premise: "by withdrawing early from Afghanistan, President Obama makes it clear that he considers the war on terror to be something that is not worth fighting for and is thereby making it possible for another terror attack" Is that what you are assuming?

He has made it explicit he thinks it's not worth fighting for. His own words give the reasoning. When warned of subsequent attacks because of this, he says the country can absorb it and be 'stronger'. From the article:

According to the Post, Obama spent the bulk of the exhaustive sessions pressing for an exit strategy and resisting efforts to prolong and escalate the war.

Despite warnings of another attack, he suggested the United States could weather a new strike.

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger," Obama reportedly said.

According to the book, Obama said, "I have two years with the public on this" and pressed advisers for ways to avoid a big escalation in the Afghanistan war.

"I want an exit strategy," he said at one meeting.

....he set a withdrawal timetable because, "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

Post 8

Friday, September 24, 2010 - 1:24pm

John,

I haven't read the book, but the article linked to did not say, or I missed it, that an exit strategy for Afghanistan would lead to another attack. These two ideas are separate. "I want out of Afghanistan to save the party" does not mean the same as "We can absorb a terrorist attack so let them kill Americans". I don't see the connection. I think that's why the guy from CATO wasn't bothered by Obama's remark, as I wasn't.

I don't think you can conflate these two ideas and then conclude that Obama is willing to accept another attack just to save his party.

Thanks,
Glenn

PS: I just reread the piece and the single sentence, as a paragraph by itself, says: "Despite warnings of another attack, he suggested the United States could weather a new strike." Is it obvious from the context that this means that the warnings were that there could be another attack if we withdraw from Afghanistan?

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 9/24, 1:30pm)

Post 9

Friday, September 24, 2010 - 3:47pm

Glenn:

Is it obvious from the context that this means that the warnings were that there could be another attack if we withdraw from Afghanistan?

Two things

1) Yes I believe the article suggests this was argued to the President

2) I believe those are sound arguments, that capitulation in Afghanistan would lead to an emboldening of our enemy to attack. Would you disagree?

Post 10

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - 7:36pm

Well unfortunately it isn't like I've heard in recent years the majority of this country caring about the Cold War/Soviet-Terrorist threat anymore either.

They whine about the Free Speech being declined over the Mohammed images, but have no desire otherwise to fight against the oppressors.

No, no...they're more interested in complaining about "the economy", and wondering when they'll finally get their free health care.

Yes, 3,000 folks died on 9/11 for pretty much nothing. Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

If I hear "Middle East Peace Talks" one more time, I'll want to smack somebody.

As I posted on a friend's Facebook status as comment a while back:

"we'll win the war when America starts taking it seriously rather than squabbling over stupid things like the paychecks of CEOs, the world loving us, drawings of Mohammed, Republican Vs Democrat, Liberal Vs Conservative, Prayer in School, and all that other bullshit. See, this is why I pretty much dropped politics from my repertoire. As I've been saying lately: the whole thing is a massive scam just to make everyone feel important.

I'll lay it out for ya:

1. Knock off Ayatollah Khamenei, level Tehran, and let Damascus and Pyongyang know they're next if they don't comply. And I don't mean hit 'em lightly like we did Iraq or Afghanistan; FUCKING LEVEL 'EM.

2. Fly a plane with an atomic bomb over the Kremlin in Moscow, and hit "release"; make damn sure in the process Vladimir Putin is taken out, Medvedev, as well as any other "sleeper" cells they may have.

Do I expect any of this to be likely? Well....it took 50 years and my hero--albeit a washed-up actor--to take out the Soviet UNION; officially ending the Cold War will likely take a lot longer.

And yes...I will repeat this again: this is an extension of the Cold War; read enough in history, and you'll make a shitload of connections that you'd have never otherwise picked up on. The involvement with the Cold War is also the only real reason I even give a shit about any of this.

And btw...if you want to see something incredibly freaky, go to Youtube, and type in "numbers stations". If you want to know where I'm going with this, just ask.....yes, it's totally in relation to everything else I've mentioned."

Post 11

Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 3:55pm

Obama is an unprincipled consequentialist (a dreaded "utilitarian").

On this wrong moral view, hurting some folks in order to partially and temporarily benefit other folks is "moral" -- if the number of folks harmed is less than the number of folks who partially and temporarily benefit.

It is an illegitimate justification of socialism and of evil, in general.

Ed

Related:
The 4 Main Kinds of Ethics: An Introduction.

Post 12

Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 7:09pm

Ed,

I'm not sure I agree that Obama fits the model of a utilitarian.

Obama is a kind of socialist (sort of a Fabian NeoColonial socialist rather than a typical Marxist) - he divides people into classes and designates some classes as entitled and others as evil. He sees his moral duty to be achieve equality by way of redistribution from the evil classes to the entitled classes. It wouldn't matter which class has the greatest number. And he adds to this a moral duty to apply politically correct regulations to all members of all classes. But as is the case with those who adopt Neocolonialism, the focus will nearly always be in attacking the alleged colonialists. And that last item smacks of emotionalism.

Post 13

Friday, October 8, 2010 - 11:00am

Steve,

You're sort of right, but not fully so. I agree with you that Obama is, personally, an emotionalist who thinks something's right if he feels it's right. But on the other hand, he has to couch his morally-retarded view in something seemingly more refined: utilitarianism.

It's how he can say we can absorb another attack. "We" in that sentence, is the larger number of people not directly affected by the attack (the smaller number of people get murdered, the larger number escape getting murdered). There is no mention of rich, white guys getting murdered while poor, black folk escape getting murdered -- none of that kind of talk. Just numbers of people.

Ed

Post 14

Friday, October 8, 2010 - 11:16am

Ed,

The anti-colonialist view is that we (the colonialists) bring on these attacks because of our imperialism, and those third world oppressed people are just striking back, attempting to throw of the yoke of imperialist colonialism. America can, after all, absorb the damage, he says, perhaps implying that is what we should do... rather than go to war which would be another act of colonial imperialism. Seen through the lens of anti-colonialism and emotionalism, it is not numbers is it?

Post 15

Friday, October 8, 2010 - 4:59pm

Steve,

Okay, but you've merely expanded the boundaries of people -- including non-Americans in the dynamic. Now, you are probably right to do that (Obama likely wouldn't save any American lives -- but would let Americans die -- if it made foreign lives worse off in any way) -- but it's still something that you will hear Obama justify on utilitarian grounds. The final reduction (or expansion) is when the utilitarian says from a podium:

"The whole world is better off, if we work together to harm these folks over here (while pointing at the Star of David, or at the cowboy riding the missle, or whatever)."

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/08, 5:00pm)

Post 16

Friday, October 8, 2010 - 5:38pm

Ed,

I still don't hear an appeal to the largest numbers of people where the people are interchangeable. What I hear is putting people into different classes and treating the different classes as morally different without reference to the number of people in this class or that.

Post 17

Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 8:52am

Steve,

The point is that Obama won't admit his personal feelings but will, instead, couch his agenda in terms appealling to the "larger" interests of "the masses." Check this out:

http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SHQ/SHQ_FirstUnread.cgi?Function=FirstUnread&Board=11&Thread=1732

Is "putting people into different classes and treating the different classes as morally different" what you "hear" from that?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/09, 8:53am)

Post 18

Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 1:30pm

Ed,

The quote you put up is, "I'm always suspicious of politics dividing people instead of bringing them together.
President Barack Obama."

But he has said a lot of things that he didn't mean or weren't true judging by his actions. He promised to reach across the aisle. He promised to be a post-racial president. He promised to be transparent. He promised lots of things and many of those promises proved to be worth less than that hot air they rode on.

He is clearly a person who has engaged in politically divisive actions since he took office - making that quote another one of those lies. He constantly rails against the greedy Wall Streeters, the rich, greedy businessmen, greedy doctors and greedy insurance companies. He attacks the Tea Party, the Republican Party, the Cambridge Police officers, Fox News, and others. The man is a walking, talking, non-stop campaign machine that is constantly trying to divide people politically!

Maybe you can find another quote? But even if you do, I suspect that anyone who wants to understand his base political motivation should look at anti-colonial sentiments filtered through a little bit of Black Liberation Theology. I suspect that the only time he falls upon the greatest good for the greatest number is when it fits as an argument he is already making from his base position. And if there was a conflict, he would abandon the Utilitarian argument and go find another approach to support what I see as his base position.

Obama as I see him is Marxist, but modified in the following ways:

Academic and manipulative rather than street-based, authoritarian elitist rather than democratic (apart from lip service to democracy) and using gradualism as per the Fabian Socialist/Progressive movement instead of a revolution. He may not believe he needs violent revolution to gain social justice, but he feels like he is a brother to those who are revolutionaries.
Progressive in his adoption of crisis as a tool, and of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, and the Cloward/Piven model for replacing the structure by overburdening the existing structure to collapse it, and in the "living document" approach to the Constitution.
Modified to make the primary viewpoint that of anti-colonialism. I.e., the primary classes are the oppressed and oppressors. This informs the content of social justice for Obama.
The moral impetus is informed by Black Liberation Theology's collective salvation (and their oppressed/oppressor framework) and it also gives a strong racial frame to some moral classes.

Post 19

Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 2:03pm