![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Finding faults with McCain's recent statements
From "McCain hammers Obama on national security" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080520/ap
In what ways would holding such a meeting “endanger national security?” Please provide some sort of hypotheses and “rationale” for this statement, because all it is is an opinion until some sort of speculation or proof is provided. And by the way, I don't agree with that opinion, and I see no definitive ways that holding true diplomatic dialog with these leaders would endanger national security. All his statement is is pure fear-mongering. Bush has been doing it for years -- aren't we as a populace finished with that irrational line of thought yet? I'm pretty fed up with simple statements without follow-through logic and explanation -- all it does it continue the last 7 years of FUD we've been under.
Carter kissed Brezhnev, SO it's dangerous. What kind of logic is that? How does one world leader offering a warm recognition to another world leader equate to danger? Is it that one man kissed another? What does that have to do with politics? In this case it was cultural -- men in other parts of the world are fine with kissing and hugging each other... we here in the US are the oddballs for the most part.
But let's not even consider our puritanical and misguided cultural misconceptions about sexuality in this particular regard. Let's look at this politically, historically, and diplomatically:
The US under Carter and the USSR under Brezhnev were on fairly good terms at the time, if I recall correctly. And let's not forget that, oh my god, he was having a meeting with the leader of a country that we didn't agree with, whose country was our sworn ideological enemy for the previous 30 years, and with which we had been holding global wars and skirmishes with other countries as our pawns and battlegrounds. We had dialog? And some sort of agreement? Doesn't that situation itself negate McCain's entire argument?
And, oh my god, during Reagan's presidencies we had further warming of relations with ourswornsovietenemytherussians under Gorbachov. We had further dialog and diplomacy. Yes, the soviet ideology was breaking down, but we still were holding dialogs. Is it just a matter that they were the only country in the world which could match us? Are we being that dismissive with smaller up-and-coming nations? Let's remember that some of them are on their paths to nuclear power and potentially weaponry. Based on the soviet dialog and its outcome, how does that precedent seem to exclude our dialog with current nations and governments adversarial to us? Heck, I'm a citizen and I'm feeling adversarial to my own country's administration right now -- please don't be dim and confuse dissent of opinion in a democracy with being unpatriotic either. Is the Nixon's reign as the king-president still that solid in conservatives' and moderates' minds yet?
Have we, citizens of the US, forgotten that our country is a democratic republic with elected officials and term limits for the executive branch for the express purpose that our country doesn't fall prey to autocracy and demagoguery? Are we that forgetful and apathetic towards our history, towards our founding fathers and their struggle for independence and a new style of government? Are we now that detached and slovenly comfortable in our place in the world to take our liberties (real and supposed) for granted until some critical mass of citizens realizes how much has been abnegated from us during our fat-naps? Where did we lose our democratic sense of involvement and dedication to our ideology? Was it when capitalism and democracy became erroneously synonymous? When did we all become such cynical and bitterly jaded teenagers about our system? When did we trend towards entitlement and away from involvement?
And most importantly, will we ever find the fire in our civil belly again? Or will be become the poster-children for a failed ideology that we made manifest 230+ years ago?
For a second day, McCain criticized Obama for saying, in a debate last year, that as president he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela without preconditions.
McCain insisted such a meeting could endanger national security, sounding a theme that is likely to persist until the November general election.
In what ways would holding such a meeting “endanger national security?” Please provide some sort of hypotheses and “rationale” for this statement, because all it is is an opinion until some sort of speculation or proof is provided. And by the way, I don't agree with that opinion, and I see no definitive ways that holding true diplomatic dialog with these leaders would endanger national security. All his statement is is pure fear-mongering. Bush has been doing it for years -- aren't we as a populace finished with that irrational line of thought yet? I'm pretty fed up with simple statements without follow-through logic and explanation -- all it does it continue the last 7 years of FUD we've been under.
“Carter went over and kissed Brezhnev, remember?“ McCain said Tuesday in Miami. “So it's dangerous; it's dangerous to American national security if you sit down and give respect and prestige to leaders of countries that are bent on your destruction or the destruction of other countries. I won't do it, my friends.“
Carter kissed Brezhnev, SO it's dangerous. What kind of logic is that? How does one world leader offering a warm recognition to another world leader equate to danger? Is it that one man kissed another? What does that have to do with politics? In this case it was cultural -- men in other parts of the world are fine with kissing and hugging each other... we here in the US are the oddballs for the most part.
But let's not even consider our puritanical and misguided cultural misconceptions about sexuality in this particular regard. Let's look at this politically, historically, and diplomatically:
The US under Carter and the USSR under Brezhnev were on fairly good terms at the time, if I recall correctly. And let's not forget that, oh my god, he was having a meeting with the leader of a country that we didn't agree with, whose country was our sworn ideological enemy for the previous 30 years, and with which we had been holding global wars and skirmishes with other countries as our pawns and battlegrounds. We had dialog? And some sort of agreement? Doesn't that situation itself negate McCain's entire argument?
And, oh my god, during Reagan's presidencies we had further warming of relations with ourswornsovietenemytherussians under Gorbachov. We had further dialog and diplomacy. Yes, the soviet ideology was breaking down, but we still were holding dialogs. Is it just a matter that they were the only country in the world which could match us? Are we being that dismissive with smaller up-and-coming nations? Let's remember that some of them are on their paths to nuclear power and potentially weaponry. Based on the soviet dialog and its outcome, how does that precedent seem to exclude our dialog with current nations and governments adversarial to us? Heck, I'm a citizen and I'm feeling adversarial to my own country's administration right now -- please don't be dim and confuse dissent of opinion in a democracy with being unpatriotic either. Is the Nixon's reign as the king-president still that solid in conservatives' and moderates' minds yet?
Have we, citizens of the US, forgotten that our country is a democratic republic with elected officials and term limits for the executive branch for the express purpose that our country doesn't fall prey to autocracy and demagoguery? Are we that forgetful and apathetic towards our history, towards our founding fathers and their struggle for independence and a new style of government? Are we now that detached and slovenly comfortable in our place in the world to take our liberties (real and supposed) for granted until some critical mass of citizens realizes how much has been abnegated from us during our fat-naps? Where did we lose our democratic sense of involvement and dedication to our ideology? Was it when capitalism and democracy became erroneously synonymous? When did we all become such cynical and bitterly jaded teenagers about our system? When did we trend towards entitlement and away from involvement?
And most importantly, will we ever find the fire in our civil belly again? Or will be become the poster-children for a failed ideology that we made manifest 230+ years ago?
