One Law Student's Quest For Love In A World Gone Mad
(Because I'm not a technical writer anymore.)
- (no subject)
-
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
mcsnee- July 16th, 2008
Can this be the same Bush administration that thinks Obama is irresponsible for wanting to talk to Iran's leadership?
(Leave a comment)
(Leave a comment)
Can this be the same Bush administration that thinks Obama is irresponsible for wanting to talk to Iran's leadership?
Um, sure. Why not?
Um, sure. Why not?
Is Pres. Bush going?
Ummmmm, no.
Should you be smarter than this?
Ahhhhh, yes.
Ummmmm, no.
Should you be smarter than this?
Ahhhhh, yes.
Help me understand why sending an underling is different than sending the President.
The office of the President of the United States is the most prestigious position in the entire world. Not #3. Not #2. #1.
When the President meets with a foreign Head of State, that prestige is shared with the person he's meeting. Given that, a responsible President is extremely careful about who he bestows that prestige. That would be President Bush.
An irresponsible President, say a President Obama, would elevate terrorist nations to World Class by giving one of our most important asset--the prestige of the office of the President of the United States--to an inferior enemy without a single concession being extracted from that enemy.
It's not just a bad idea. It's a dangerous one. Be very careful with your vote.
Edited at 2008-07-17 08:06 am (UTC)
When the President meets with a foreign Head of State, that prestige is shared with the person he's meeting. Given that, a responsible President is extremely careful about who he bestows that prestige. That would be President Bush.
An irresponsible President, say a President Obama, would elevate terrorist nations to World Class by giving one of our most important asset--the prestige of the office of the President of the United States--to an inferior enemy without a single concession being extracted from that enemy.
It's not just a bad idea. It's a dangerous one. Be very careful with your vote.
Edited at 2008-07-17 08:06 am (UTC)
I live in Texas. Drop in a bucket here.
But don't you think your assertion that the office of the President is the most prestigious in the world is a little myopic and nationalistic? I mean, sure, it means a lot to us because we live here, but to people in other countries it doesn't mean that much.
Also, by what standard do we judge that Iran is a terrorist nation? That they don't act friendly toward the US? That they're not obedient to our wishes? Well, why should Iran kow-tow to the US? I can't see that they're a threat to us militaristically, either, unless they've suddenly developed a serious case of having an air force, a navy and a battery of ICBMs, but neither do they owe us any obeisance. If Adhamenicanneverspellhisnameinijad wants to spout off bluster, let him. It's not like he's being taken seriously. He denied the Holocaust, and that there were homosexuals in Iran. The guy's a loon, and a mouthpiece for the theocracy that controls his country.
On the other hand, a diplomatic talk might actually resolve some of this tension, and the chief diplomat of the US is the President. If, as you seem to suggest, some prestige from the office of the President might magically rub off on anyone the President deigns to visit, so what? I can't imagine that other nations would suddenly flock to Iran's banner, letting Iran lead them in a glorious, world-scouring crusade. Think of what happened when the "#1" leader of the free world called for a glorious invasion and occupation of Iraq. As I recall, crickets were heard.
I don't think putting the leaders of Iran and the US around a table spells doom for the world. I don't even think it would accomplish anything, not so long as the theocrats control.
But don't you think your assertion that the office of the President is the most prestigious in the world is a little myopic and nationalistic? I mean, sure, it means a lot to us because we live here, but to people in other countries it doesn't mean that much.
Also, by what standard do we judge that Iran is a terrorist nation? That they don't act friendly toward the US? That they're not obedient to our wishes? Well, why should Iran kow-tow to the US? I can't see that they're a threat to us militaristically, either, unless they've suddenly developed a serious case of having an air force, a navy and a battery of ICBMs, but neither do they owe us any obeisance. If Adhamenicanneverspellhisnameinijad wants to spout off bluster, let him. It's not like he's being taken seriously. He denied the Holocaust, and that there were homosexuals in Iran. The guy's a loon, and a mouthpiece for the theocracy that controls his country.
On the other hand, a diplomatic talk might actually resolve some of this tension, and the chief diplomat of the US is the President. If, as you seem to suggest, some prestige from the office of the President might magically rub off on anyone the President deigns to visit, so what? I can't imagine that other nations would suddenly flock to Iran's banner, letting Iran lead them in a glorious, world-scouring crusade. Think of what happened when the "#1" leader of the free world called for a glorious invasion and occupation of Iraq. As I recall, crickets were heard.
I don't think putting the leaders of Iran and the US around a table spells doom for the world. I don't even think it would accomplish anything, not so long as the theocrats control.
Oh, go ahead and vote for Sen. Obama. It seems you two share a common, childlike view of the world.
But don't you think your assertion that the office of the President is the most prestigious in the world is a little myopic and nationalistic?
Can there even be any argument about this? This is simply a fact.
Can there even be any argument about this? This is simply a fact.
Are you saying it's a fact that it is the most prestigious office in the world, or a fact that it is not?
Powerful and influential I'll grant you, but prestigious? I don't know if the office commands the international respect that would seem to imply. Certainly no one by virtue of having the office commands such respect.
I see your point, and maybe even agree with it a little, if I'm being very pure about my definition of prestige.
Okay.
You apparently are the expert on prestige.
What office is the most prestigious in the world?
And we'll go with the appropriate dictionary definition...
Widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance: a position of prestige in diplomatic circles.
You apparently are the expert on prestige.
What office is the most prestigious in the world?
And we'll go with the appropriate dictionary definition...
Widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance: a position of prestige in diplomatic circles.
From whose standpoint do we judge? It's not like prominence, distinction and importance are quantifiable things we can measure scientifically; they're subjective valuations dependent highly upon who we ask. I'm sure that to every nation their highest office is the most prestigious. For example, the British probably place that with the Prime Minister, the Germans with their Chancellor, the French with their president, etc. And while I'll agree that the office of the US President is a powerful one with a certain degree of influence, it doesn't command automatic respect and importance within our nation, let alone without.
I would say that there is no most prestigious office, but certainly those that are up there are the papacy, the head of the UN or NATO, the heads of the G8 nations (yes, including the United States). I just think it's a bit culturally and socially myopic to assume that everyone else places the same importance on the US that Americans do. Because they don't. At all.
I would say that there is no most prestigious office, but certainly those that are up there are the papacy, the head of the UN or NATO, the heads of the G8 nations (yes, including the United States). I just think it's a bit culturally and socially myopic to assume that everyone else places the same importance on the US that Americans do. Because they don't. At all.
"I would say that there is no most prestigious office, but certainly those that are up there are the papacy, the head of the UN or NATO, the heads of the G8 nations (yes, including the United States)."
Head of the UN...no direct power. Same with NATO and The Pope. The other G8 nations have less power than the US.
Worldwide, the US Presidency has more prestige than any office in the world. Now, that prestige can be squandered (as Obama appears to intend to do) or challenged (Russia and China are about the only possibilities), but right now, the US Presidency is still the top dog in the world.
Head of the UN...no direct power. Same with NATO and The Pope. The other G8 nations have less power than the US.
Worldwide, the US Presidency has more prestige than any office in the world. Now, that prestige can be squandered (as Obama appears to intend to do) or challenged (Russia and China are about the only possibilities), but right now, the US Presidency is still the top dog in the world.
Let's assume for a minute that your point is correct, and that being the President of the U.S. confers something as far beyond being a normal head of state as being a normal head of state is beyond being a normal citizen--something I'm not even close to being willing to concede.
You're giving the President a lot of apparent power with one hand, and then taking away his power with the other by saying he shouldn't be able to use that power in the way he thinks it should best be applied, but in the way you think it should best be applied--i.e., by not using it at all.
Withholding a meeting is one method of exercising the President's prestige power. To claim that it is the only method is ridiculous; to claim that it should be the only method borders on idiocy.
We don't need to look beyond your favorite war to see that sometimes meetings with people we otherwise think are utter douchebags can be in our country's best interest. Nobody thinks Stalin was a good guy, but without the face-to-face meetings among the major Allied powers, there's a good chance we would not have had the coordination necessary to win the war.
Your next argument is going to be that Iran is not Russia.
And mine is going to be that you're making a distinction that doesn't deserve to be made. Iran is a powerful country in a region where we are currently trying to exert influence. If there's the possibility that face-to-face meetings between the heads of state can help us do that, I think it's a risk worth taking.
You would have a stronger argument on the question of North Korea, but North Korea has nuclear capabilities.
Then there's the obvious value that it's, by and large, harder to blow somebody up once you've met him and talked to him. We see this all the time on the web... it's really easy to start a flame war with somebody you're not talking to face to face. It's a lot more difficult to look somebody in the eye and tell him he's an idiot.
I could go on here, but I trust you get the point.
You're giving the President a lot of apparent power with one hand, and then taking away his power with the other by saying he shouldn't be able to use that power in the way he thinks it should best be applied, but in the way you think it should best be applied--i.e., by not using it at all.
Withholding a meeting is one method of exercising the President's prestige power. To claim that it is the only method is ridiculous; to claim that it should be the only method borders on idiocy.
We don't need to look beyond your favorite war to see that sometimes meetings with people we otherwise think are utter douchebags can be in our country's best interest. Nobody thinks Stalin was a good guy, but without the face-to-face meetings among the major Allied powers, there's a good chance we would not have had the coordination necessary to win the war.
Your next argument is going to be that Iran is not Russia.
And mine is going to be that you're making a distinction that doesn't deserve to be made. Iran is a powerful country in a region where we are currently trying to exert influence. If there's the possibility that face-to-face meetings between the heads of state can help us do that, I think it's a risk worth taking.
You would have a stronger argument on the question of North Korea, but North Korea has nuclear capabilities.
Then there's the obvious value that it's, by and large, harder to blow somebody up once you've met him and talked to him. We see this all the time on the web... it's really easy to start a flame war with somebody you're not talking to face to face. It's a lot more difficult to look somebody in the eye and tell him he's an idiot.
I could go on here, but I trust you get the point.
Geah's comment with the ad hominem attacks removed:
Let's assume for a minute that your point is correct, and that being
the President of the U.S. confers something as far beyond being a normal head of state as being a normal head of state is beyond being a normal citizen--something I'm not even close to being willing to concede.
Well, then, you've put yourself at a disadvantage here, as you show your naivete when it comes to world diplomacy. []
You're giving the President a lot of apparent power with one hand, and then taking away his power with the other by saying he shouldn't be able to use that power in the way he thinks it should best be applied, but in the way you think it should best be applied--i.e., by not
using it at all.
My complaint is that Sen. Obama seems to be ... underinformed.... I think a President should use the power in the way he thinks best, but I want a President who understands the nature of his power.
Withholding a meeting is one method of exercising the President's prestige power. To claim that it is the only method is ridiculous; to claim that it should be the only method borders on idiocy.
Agreed. No one is doing that.
We don't need to look beyond your favorite war to see that sometimes meetings with people we otherwise think are utter douchebags can be in our country's best interest. Nobody thinks Stalin was a good guy, but without the face-to-face meetings among the major Allied powers, there's a good chance we would not have had the coordination necessary to win the war.
Your next argument is going to be that Iran is not Russia.
No, it's not.
First of all, Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union, not Russia.
Second, the Soviet Union was a fellow superpower. You have to treat a country like that differently than a less-powerful and less-prestigious regional power.
Third, and most importantly, when FDR met Stalin, it was because he was an ally, and a very important one. When Iran is allied with the US in the war again terror let me know, because I'll be the first to say the President should meet with Iran's leaders and thank them.
And mine is going to be that you're making a distinction that doesn't deserve to be made. Iran is a powerful country in a region where we are currently trying to exert influence. If there's the possibility that face-to-face meetings between the heads of state can help us do that, I think it's a risk worth taking.
[...] What on Earth do you think Pres. Obama would say to the Iranians that would make them do a 180? There's probably a bigger risk that he'll get rolled, just as Kennedy admitted he did when he first met Khrushchev, and we all know how that turned out (hint: Cuban Missile Crisis).
Bottom line: You do not take the kind of risks you're talking about.
Besides, in the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad isn't even the real leader. Meeting with him has no upside...only a downside. That's why it's so foolish and Obama should not be President.
You would have a stronger argument on the question of North Korea, but
North Korea has nuclear capabilities.
We wisely didn't act bilaterally with NK. Don't you know why they wanted us to?
Then there's the obvious value that it's, by and large, harder to blow somebody up once you've met him and talked to him.
That's tough. Sometimes people need blowing up.
We see this all the time on the web... it's really easy to start a flame war with somebody you're not talking to face to face. It's a lot more difficult to look somebody in the eye and tell him he's an idiot.
It is? I don't have that problem.
[...]
Edited at 2008-07-17 04:55 pm (UTC)
Let's assume for a minute that your point is correct, and that being
the President of the U.S. confers something as far beyond being a normal head of state as being a normal head of state is beyond being a normal citizen--something I'm not even close to being willing to concede.
Well, then, you've put yourself at a disadvantage here, as you show your naivete when it comes to world diplomacy. []
You're giving the President a lot of apparent power with one hand, and then taking away his power with the other by saying he shouldn't be able to use that power in the way he thinks it should best be applied, but in the way you think it should best be applied--i.e., by not
using it at all.
My complaint is that Sen. Obama seems to be ... underinformed.... I think a President should use the power in the way he thinks best, but I want a President who understands the nature of his power.
Withholding a meeting is one method of exercising the President's prestige power. To claim that it is the only method is ridiculous; to claim that it should be the only method borders on idiocy.
Agreed. No one is doing that.
We don't need to look beyond your favorite war to see that sometimes meetings with people we otherwise think are utter douchebags can be in our country's best interest. Nobody thinks Stalin was a good guy, but without the face-to-face meetings among the major Allied powers, there's a good chance we would not have had the coordination necessary to win the war.
Your next argument is going to be that Iran is not Russia.
No, it's not.
First of all, Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union, not Russia.
Second, the Soviet Union was a fellow superpower. You have to treat a country like that differently than a less-powerful and less-prestigious regional power.
Third, and most importantly, when FDR met Stalin, it was because he was an ally, and a very important one. When Iran is allied with the US in the war again terror let me know, because I'll be the first to say the President should meet with Iran's leaders and thank them.
And mine is going to be that you're making a distinction that doesn't deserve to be made. Iran is a powerful country in a region where we are currently trying to exert influence. If there's the possibility that face-to-face meetings between the heads of state can help us do that, I think it's a risk worth taking.
[...] What on Earth do you think Pres. Obama would say to the Iranians that would make them do a 180? There's probably a bigger risk that he'll get rolled, just as Kennedy admitted he did when he first met Khrushchev, and we all know how that turned out (hint: Cuban Missile Crisis).
Bottom line: You do not take the kind of risks you're talking about.
Besides, in the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad isn't even the real leader. Meeting with him has no upside...only a downside. That's why it's so foolish and Obama should not be President.
You would have a stronger argument on the question of North Korea, but
North Korea has nuclear capabilities.
We wisely didn't act bilaterally with NK. Don't you know why they wanted us to?
Then there's the obvious value that it's, by and large, harder to blow somebody up once you've met him and talked to him.
That's tough. Sometimes people need blowing up.
We see this all the time on the web... it's really easy to start a flame war with somebody you're not talking to face to face. It's a lot more difficult to look somebody in the eye and tell him he's an idiot.
It is? I don't have that problem.
[...]
Edited at 2008-07-17 04:55 pm (UTC)
"To claim that it is the only method is ridiculous; to claim that it should be the only method borders on idiocy."
You missed this ad hominem attack.
You missed this ad hominem attack.
Do you see the difference between "this claim is foolish" and "you are a fool"?
2008-07-17 03:34 am (UTC)