|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bookemdanno
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
|
 Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: WHAT'S OBAMA GOT THAT THE OTHERS DON'T HAVE? |
 |
|
What's Obama Got That the Others Don't Have?
Now that he's all but cinched the nomination and reality is slowing approaching the Clinton's range of sight, it might be an appropriate time to ask: Just what does the Senator from Illinois have that neither Clinton or McCain can match, or for that matter those who dropped out earlier?
Of course, I have my own list but I'd rather hear your first this time.
Along the same lines, if you prefer, what do you think makes Obama tick? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quite honestly, for me. It's slightly refreshing to imagine someone in the white house who may actually have had a taste of what adversity is like. I'm not saying that Obama had it all that tough. I do not know that for a fact.
I do know this. I trust him more than I trust Clinton or McCain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lack of melodrama, sense of long-term planning, ability to learn from failure and to adapt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Basically, he's not Sen. Clinton or McCain. He didn't start off the game being well known for 8 years or 25 years. Sen. Clinton would probably have won if she were facing only the others, but then again, if Edwards had Obama's team, he might be the presumptive nominee and Clinton in the same spot she's in now.
McCain's too busy throwing staff off the Flip-Flop Express. I guess that's what makes him a 'maverick'- the willingness to constantly shoot himself in the foot.
Obama tends to stay on message with one message, with little deviation. Change, right? After 8 years of Bush Co, how is McCain, who's tied to Bush's hip, going to convince voters that he can bring the "change you deserve"? Oh wait, that's the House GOP motto. But still... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama is a good speaker with very little record who has accepted just about every liberal wing policy that moveon and other liberal groups have called for.
I don't see any real examples of him learning from long term failure or his ability to adapt. I have no doubts about his patriotism . Without a doubt he loves his country enough - the problem is that he doesn't hate the enemies of the US enough. There is nothing to show that he understands the nature of the enemy.
There is zero chance that Amadinajad or Iran's supreme leader would ever change their policies were they to do so they would lose their reason for ruling. The chance that Hezbollah would ever make nice is about as high as the Klan becoming liberal and tolerant.
Talking to Amadinajad or Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamani isn't the same as talking to Gorbachev because neither Amadinajad nor Khamani is someone like Gorbachev.Obama is in over is head. As in the case of other liberal democrats national security is not something Obama knows a lot about or was even particularly interested in.
There are severe consequences for putting a liberal democrat in power. The last time the US did so the end result was Khomeni coming to power and the communists overthrowing governments sympathetic to the US.
The US still suffers from the poor decisions of the Carter administration. Liberal democrats have no idea of how to protect the US and they are not even really interested in the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Talking to Amadinajad or Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamani isn't the same as talking to Gorbachev because neither Amadinajad nor Khamani is someone like Gorbachev.Obama is in over is head. As in the case of other liberal democrats national security is not something Obama knows a lot about or was even particularly interested in.
|
Joo, where would you put Mao on your Amadinejad-Gorbachev continuum? Because I've been reading a bit about the Chinese Cultural Revolution lately, and it was a MAJORLY sociopathic enterprise, easily matching Khomeinist Iran in terms of whacked-out, pointless bloodshed. And let's not forget that in the 1960s, among the two communist superstates, it was China that was regarded as more overtly Stalinist and anti-American. And they were supporting anti-American groups in various places, including Vietnam and Indonesia.
But then in 1972...
...after which point, China actually became a US ally in a number of spheres, including Africa and, later, Indochina. And nowadays of course we've got Kissinger tut-tutting the pro-Tibet movement as undue interference in China's internal affairs, and that sort of thing.
I'm not saying that any Obama overture to Iran would lead to a breakthrough along the lines of Nixon/Mao. But given what we can glean from the history of diplomacy, I don't think that some degree of positive interaction can be ruled out, either. And I personally don't think that Obama is stupid enough to continue with talks if it became apparent that any resulting agreement would be against major American interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: CAPS |
|
|
THIS IS JUST A NOTICE THAT I'M GOING TO BE TAKING THE SAME LIBERTIES STEVIE DOES.
THANK YOU
-NM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| ...where would you put Mao on your Amadinejad-Gorbachev continuum? |
Where does Vietnam, Soviet Russia, and the Cold War fall into your understanding of why, when, and how the Nixon Administration approached Mao's China, and what about Mao's subtle signals that he would respond favorably and friendly to such overtures...?
Iranian-American relations are on an entirely different track and exist in a completely different historical context. Further, Obama, when he mentioned Reagan's talking to the Soviets and his other historical examples, failed to mention that Reagan also tried to deal with Iran -- and the Iranians merely blackmailed his administration for it.
What makes Obama so certain that the Iranians in power would negotiate with the American govt in good faith? And, back to Danno's original question, what makes all of those who support Obama's proposed foreign policies so certain of this? I call it utter naivete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I call it utter naivete. |
You, in no uncertain words, announced that you weren't voting for Obama
because Michael Moore endorsed him.
On a possibly more naive side note, you are voting for Obama. Your state decided so this Spring. I know this is gonna spoil the rest of the electoral process for you, but whether you're voting McCain or Obama has already been decided. You're voting for all the ideas that a Michael Moore endorsement brings to a candidate whether you want to or not. Your vote has already been cast and your trundling about as a symbol of democracy is a joke.
It's May. You have 5 more months to lord over people how you're going to change your vote. Your vote is as important as what I'll have for breakfast tomorrow. If you don't get that, then read more Macchiavelli. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Look everyone, Mrs. Gopher is back. And she is quite furious about something. I guess I cannot stay out anymore. Will have to go home and see what the bitch is raggin' about this time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
| Joo, where would you put Mao on your Amadinejad-Gorbachev continuum? Because I've been reading a bit about the Chinese Cultural Revolution lately, and it was a MAJORLY sociopathic enterprise, easily matching Khomeinist Iran in terms of whacked-out, pointless bloodshed. And let's not forget that in the 1960s, among the two communist superstates, it was China that was regarded as more overtly Stalinist and anti-American. And they were supporting anti-American groups in various places, including Vietnam and Indonesia. |
But then in 1972...
...after which point, China actually became a US ally in a number of spheres, including Africa and, later, Indochina. And nowadays of course we've got Kissinger tut-tutting the pro-Tibet movement as undue interference in China's internal affairs, and that sort of thing.
I'm not saying that any Obama overture to Iran would lead to a breakthrough along the lines of Nixon/Mao. But given what we can glean from the history of diplomacy, I don't think that some degree of positive interaction can be ruled out, either. And I personally don't think that Obama is stupid enough to continue with talks if it became apparent that any resulting agreement would be against major American interests. |
Mao at one time actually liked the US. In WW II his forces helped rescue US forces.
Mao by 1972 was no longer focused revolutionary communism and thought of the Soviet Union and not the as its number one enemy. China in 1972 was a different place then it was in 1965. Mao had a different world view in 1972 than he had in 1960. In fact China reached out to the US first at the time with an offer of a ping -pong match.
Also talking to Amadinajad may give him him legitimacy that is something you don't want to do. Plus Amadinajad doesn't deserve a seat at the table.
If someone other than Ali Khamani and Amadinajad comes to control Iran's government you might have a point. Lets say if Rafsanjani succeeds
Khamani as supreme he would be someone the US can talk to. If someone like Iran's ex president Khatami becomes president then the US will have someone they can talk to. If Iran had people like their ex nuclear negotiator Lagani in power the US would have some one the US can talk to.
But right now the two most powerful leaders in Iran are two leaders in Iran are committed to confrontation and the expulsion of the US from the gulf . Right now the Iran doesn't have anyone in power who the US can talk to.
The sad fact is that the two people in Iran that are in charge are still committed Khomeni's ideology and his goals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mao's regime was responsible for how many deaths? 30-40 million? But he gave subtle hints he was open to a more friendly relationship with the U.S so Nixon was a visionary for negotiating with red china? Seriously people. Read up on Mao's wonderful cultural revolution, it will make you sick to your stomach.
I have no words to describe anyone who could justify negotiation with Mao yet call for a policy of confrontation with Iran. A seriously untenable contradition to hold.
If some of the pundits today were around back then do you think Nixon would have been accused of "appeasing" Mao?
I have said it before and I will say it again. I don't think the Iranian regime is guilty of anything more or anything less that what other countries around the world engage in when it comes to regional politics/projection of power.
We can afford to do it with aircraft carriers, cruise missles, nuclear weapons, F-16's or nuclear subs. They do it through support of proxies and "terrorist" acts. See how much more superior we are to them. 
Do I like the regime? No. Do I feel we have to risk yet another war in the region? No.
It disgusts me how people so easily call for war or conflict based on "threat" coming from the enemy of the day. Iran is messed up, but its population is young and hungers for change, they will take care of this regime in their own way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| Mao's regime was responsible for how many deaths? 30-40 million? |
This never had much, if anything, to do with Chinese-American non-recognition post-Mao. And Nixon's Cold War diplomacy, aimed to isolate North Vietnam and surround Soviet Russia with enemies, had everything to do with American motives in reestablishing relations in the early-1970s.
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| But he gave subtle hints he was open to a more friendly relationship with the U.S....? |
Yes, indeed he did. But apparently you never heard of this before, I presume?
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| I have no words to describe anyone who could justify negotiation with Mao yet call for a policy of confrontation with Iran. A seriously untenable contradition to hold. |
It is very easy: China's interests coincided with America's, at least with respect to Vietnam and Soviet Russia post-late-1960s. Who was openly fighting Chinese forces on China's northern borders, again, for example...?
And Iran's interests simply and nearly completely clash with American interests in the Middle East today. I doubt very seriously, for example, if Nixon would have been able to reopen relations with China had Mao been calling for Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan's utter destruction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All very fair rebuttals but you did not take into account the full meaning of one of my points. I wrote.
| Quote: |
| But he gave subtle hints he was open to a more friendly relationship with the U.S so it was responsible to negotiate with him? |
If the ayatollah carried out a program similar to Mao's for a period of 30 years or so and then turned around and offered America tacit suppourt in "the war against terror" are you saying you would shake his hand?
Whille Mao may have hinted at the possibilty for dialouge, I think it is a bit of a stretch to suggest the he was also willing to abandon his long held beliefs in regards to socialism.
I certainly understand realpolitik. I have no qualms with the practice of it. But please, do not feign indignation or surprise when the consequences of your realpolitik come back to bite you in the ass.
Let me finish with this. You say Mao was putting out feelers for more a more friendly relationship with the U.S. How would you reconcile this?
| Quote: |
| During Ahmadinejad's presidency, Iran and the US have had the most high-profile contact in almost 30 years. Iran and the US froze diplomatic relations in 1980 and had no direct diplomatic contact until May 2007 |
| Quote: |
| On May 8, 2006, Ahmadinejad sent a personal letter to President Bush to propose "new ways" to end Iran's nuclear dispute |
| Quote: |
On November 2006, Ahmadinejad wrote an open letter to the American people,[115] representing some of his anxieties and concerns. He stated that there is an urgency to have a dialog because of the activities of the US administration in the Middle East, and that the US is concealing the truth about current realities |
Last edited by yawarakaijin on Wed May 21, 2008 6:28 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| If the ayatollah carried out a program similar to Mao's for a period of 30 years or so and then turned around and offered America tacit suppourt in "the war against terror" are you saying you would shake his hand? |
Define "tacit support." Also, we ought to replace "shake his hand" with "reestablish formal relations and form one or another type of alliance with."
That being said, and provided the Iranian govt would be willing to recognize Israel's right to exist, then I think it would be easy to predict that the answer to your question would be "yes." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
