US Elections 2008

[james0246]

@Fipskuul: I am not sure I understand. How is "gentle-offensive" actually bad? McCain painted, quite well, a worse case scenario if the President simply meets with an actual foreign leader without any pre-conditions (which would actually be the "neutral" path, similar to how Sweden or Switzerland during WWII dealt openly with both the axis and the allies), while Obama drove home the idea that a "harsh-offensive" policy in regards to diplomacy makes no sense and has never gotten the job done. So, "gentle-offensive" seems the only path left that could broker any actual possible truce or settlement (btw, I would expect that McCain would also follow a "gentle-offensive" path, the same as Obama).

[cors8]

Isn't "gentle-offensive" synonymous with "speak softly and carry a big stick"? Or am I just interpreting it wrong?

[Vexx]

aye.... less brandishing and boasting. Just move fast when you need to.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by cors8

Isn't "gentle-offensive" synonymous with "speak softly and carry a big stick"? Or am I just interpreting it wrong?

That is more or less how I viewed the phrase "gentle-offensive", and also why I was wondering why Flipskuul thought it a bad (or at least not the best) diplomatic stance.

[cors8]

If that's what it really means, I find it ironic that McCain would criticize it when he also claims to be a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by cors8

If that's what it really means, I find it ironic that McCain would criticize it when he also claims to be a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

A another "flip-flop" by McCain about that.

I think that some situations you may want to use "gentle-offensive" because you dont want to come guns blazing and maybe damage relationship between that nation that including countries that is Allies and good friends to us. I know that Obama see that and wants to do that because you dont want to make a "Today" friend into a "Tomorrow" enemy.

For the debates, I think that both candiates did well but at the end, Obama did what he had to do, and we can all see it in the polls (Obama +8).

[Phantom-Takaya]

Obama stuck to the main points of what he's been saying, I'll give him that. Though, I'd have to agree with McCain. Simply saying, "No, you won't." wouldn't be my response. So the guy wants to take Israel off the face of the Earth. Hmm. My response would be, "You mean to say that innocent human lives have no value to you? Very well then. This will be your only warning: You carry out what you're threatening to do, which is a crime against humanity, and I will assure you here and now that you won't survive the first night." But, that's me. I wouldn't want to cater to terrorist threats, much less acts. They obviously have hostile intent. Why make it seem like we're begging them to stop?

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by james0246

That is more or less how I viewed the phrase "gentle-offensive", and also why I was wondering why Flipskuul thought it a bad (or at least not the best) diplomatic stance.

I consider it as not the best method, because, you can give up more than you intended to in order to reach a solution while you wouldn't have to give up that much in the first place to reach the same solution. That is why I called it gentle-offensive, you are more than willingful to reach a solution. While I definitely consider Bush's approach extremely unpleasant and a method to avoid at all cost, the opposite is not a very good idea either, better but not the best.

Originally Posted by cors8

Isn't "gentle-offensive" synonymous with "speak softly and carry a big stick"? Or am I just interpreting it wrong?

The interpretation you gave is the latest impression Obama tries to make to correct his earlier stance, but, I honestly think it is just to defend his position against conservatives. His real stance I believe is to become more willingful than that, to make it become a more softly speaking version of it with no requirement of a stick attached to it. Otherwise, wouldn't it make his referral to change a bit less meaningful?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Obama stuck to the main points of what he's been saying, I'll give him that. Though, I'd have to agree with McCain. Simply saying, "No, you won't." wouldn't be my response. So the guy wants to take Israel off the face of the Earth. Hmm. My response would be, "You mean to say that innocent human lives have no value to you? Very well then. This will be your only warning: You carry out what you're threatening to do, which is a crime against humanity, and I will assure you here and now that you won't survive the first night." But, that's me. I wouldn't want to cater to terrorist threats, much less acts. They obviously have hostile intent. Why make it seem like we're begging them to stop?

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

The interpretation you gave is the latest impression Obama tries to make to correct his earlier stance, but, I honestly think it is just to defend his position against conservatives. His real stance I believe is to become more willingful than that, to make it become a more softly speaking version of it with no requirement of a stick attached to it. Otherwise, wouldn't it make his referral to change a bit less meaningful?

Doesn't Obama saying that he would be willing to bomb Al Qaeda headquarters in Pakistan (as an absolute last resort) address all these points? He is willing to use the "big stick" if necessary, and is unwilling to negotiate with terrorist demands (not that my example of Pakistan is necessarily a terrorist country) unless America benefits from the exchange (as he said Friday night)...or at least that is what he wants us to think (who knows what McCain or Obama will really do once in office, here is hoping that they are legitimate in their portrayal of themselves or else we are all screwed).

[Sassarai]

Obama= tough diplomacy
McCain = threaten "axis of evil" Pre-emptive strikes?

Use force only when necessary seems like the best strategy to me. Can America really even afford any more wars?

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by james0246

(who knows what McCain or Obama will really do once in office, here is hoping that they are legitimate in their portrayal of themselves or else we are all screwed).

I second this.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by Sassarai

Obama= tough diplomacy
McCain = threaten "axis of evil" Pre-emptive strikes?

Use force only when necessary seems like the best strategy to me. Can America really even afford any more wars?

Of course, it can't, it doesn't have a endless fountain of money.

"Axis of Evil" is a fancy way of saying whack a mole with other countries.

[cors8]

Not with a 700B bailout and a extremely stretched military.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by cors8

Not with a 700B bailout and a extremely stretched military.

That is why McCain has a tighter leash

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Dynames/ Virtue

That is why McCain has a tighter leash

Yep, but that leash will break and we all know that, I think that "tough diplomacy" is much better then "threaten "axis of evil" Pre-emptive strikes?" anyday.

I want to see how the EV votes look now after what happen this weekend? I think Obama leads in some of BG states will get bigger and McCain/Palin has to knock it out of the park in those next 3 debates or they will lose this election.

[Cherudim Arche]

On Google news based off of what I read, it told how it backfired entirely on"McCain Month", only boost Obama support. If he has any tricks to use, he should learn now that it has a greater chance backfiring on their side more.

[Sassarai]

I think what scares people the most about McCain is that he'll continue threatening countries and getting us involved in more wars (war mongering/Bush's 3rd term).

I like Ron Paul's views on foreign policy. We should worry about our domestic probelms rather then trying to police the world.



I think McCain will win the election because Obama will get swift boated when the election comes closer to the end. I.E Kerry. Maybe they do have a video of Michelle Obama saying she hates whitey =O

[Phantom-Takaya]

Well, that doesn't make sense since in the debate, McCain actually questioned Obama's response to how to deal with Iraq. Obama said that the main focus should be Afghanistan, which McCain responded by saying that that would be impractical since that would mean we would be fighting two battles; Iraq and Afghanistan/Taliban. So, it's obvious McCain does see that we need to deal and conclude threats one at a time.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by Sassarai

I think what scares people the most about McCain is that he'll continue threatening countries and getting us involved in more wars (war mongering/Bush's 3rd term).

I like Ron Paul's views on foreign policy. We should worry about our domestic probelms rather then trying to police the world.

Or if they do foreign, they don't need a gaint stick hovering above them. I think one of the president is true, I forgot which one. To use trading on wars to help each other.

Only idiots start wars or continue pointless ones.

[Vexx]

I was reading this article....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/us...9campaign.html
and this bit of whimsy sprang into my head:

This election is really "Kirk vs Picard" ...... (but don't take this analogy too far - more like "old xenophobic Kirk vs young philosophical Picard").