Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Monday, March 5, 2012

March 5, 2012 - Morning Headlines

Morning Headlines:

- President Obama proclaims that all options, including military attack, are on the table for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons (CNN): http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/04/politics/obama-aipac/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

- Amid allegations of election fraud, Vladimir Putin is poised to retake the Russian presidency (CNN): http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/04/world/europe/russia-election/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

- GOP candidate Mitt Romney picked up a major nomination over the weekend as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor endorsed the former Massachusetts governor (ABC News): http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/eric-cantor-house-majority-leader-endorses-mitt-romney/

- Al Qaeda in Iraq is believed to be responsible for an attack that killed 25 policemen in Western Iraq Sunday (ABC News): http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iraqi-demands-kurdish-arrest-vice-president-15844220#.T1St0IcS1WI

13 comments:

  1. Instead of this: "President Obama proclaims that all options, including military attack, are on the table for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons", it should say this:


    President Obama proclaims that all options, including an apology to Iran, are on the table for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you beat me to it!

      Delete
    2. Slim you dirty bastard!

      Great point!

      Delete
  2. Dear Mr. President,
    What the hell are you thinking? Why would you announce, publically, that military options are on the table? I understand that I am paying for the gas that fills up the tank in the Cadillac limo, which I also bought you, that drives you around, but you don't buy my gas. Gas prices are hitting all time highs because of the tension with Iran. Do you think announcing that military action against Iran is on the table will make prices drop? Well they won't. I love how you give in to the pressure of the media, I mean, after all, they are your re-election campaign. The media says "I can't believe the President won't comment on tensions with Iran or how he's going to handle it" (not an accurate quote). Then you say this kind of crap that gets our country in a whole heap of trouble that you, for whatever reason, apologize for later. STOP IT!! Don't tell people our plans, just do it.

    Here's a lovely example of how you screw this up every time. Oh, and yes, I am paraphrasing.

    Issue: Troops in Iraq

    You (Mr. President): Hey world, hi terrorists, hello extremists. I just wanted to let you all know that I'm going to go ahead and get troops out of the Middle East in, oh say, about 8 months. Does that work for you?

    Result: Iranian extremists pull back; Iraqi extremists pull back and wait for the exit of American troops. Once they are gone they start killing each other all over again and all of that work we did to free those people goes out the window.

    Just STOP IT Mr. President!!!

    Sincerely,
    CPAElephant

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good afternoon,

      Is this not what every president has done in our history?

      I feel you would be hard-pressed to find any president/situation where cautionary warnings were not made before action was taken. Not once have we ever gone from ‘no comment’ to bombs; there is always at least some attempt for diplomatic resolution (or announcement of intentions) before taking action. Especially when it comes to something as serious as a potential war.

      And frankly, that is how it should be. Would you really rather that everything in the given administrations agenda was kept 100% secret until we dropped bombs? How would that even allow for a fair representation of the public voice?

      Delete
    2. You obviously haven't served in the military. CPAElephant might have. He might not have. But at least he knows that you don't tell your enemy vital info. I have to say, I completely agree with him here.

      Iran is not a rational state. Unlike what Ron Paul says, we can't just talk to them. Military intervention is an option, and, I hate to say this, but I support the president in using it. I just don't like that he would announce it, so I do agree with CPA.

      To be effective, we need to keep secrets secret and the element of surprise a surprise.

      Delete
    3. Huh? I would have had to serve in the military, to know I don't tell the enemy secrets? Yeah, I could have never deduced that for myself otherwise ::rolls eyes::.

      You're going for extreme hyperbole here; you're acting like the president released complex military tactics and plans for how we would disable the Iranian industrial complex. Simply saying 'we will use force' isn't revealing any kind of a secret other than letting them, the world, and our nation know how serious this administration is on the issue.

      I hardly see how we would be best-suited to stay neutral on it, and then just surprise them one day by bombing the country into the ground. "Surprise! We kept secret the fact we were going to bomb you if you got nukes! Commence WW3.”

      It is completely normal and part of international relations to first take a diplomatic route and/or express your ultimatum/intentions/potential course of action, and every president in our history has done this on any serious issues.

      If you feel that is wrong, then you really can’t say that without implying that every presidential administration was wrong in doing this. In which case, this has nothing at all to do with Obama and everything to do with international relations.

      Otherwise, please explain to me how it's OK for every administration in our past with the exception of this one to do it.

      Delete
    4. So CPAElephant - You are OK with another attack? How many more wars do we have to get in to. Would you send your kid to fight? Why are you so obsessed with war? Your strawman argument about Iraq and the timetable pullout is over played. Get real. if you don't want to fight, don't send other people to do it.

      Delete
  3. The article that captured my enthusiasm the most for today:
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/opinion/avlon-snowe-partisanship/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9

    Partisan politics will ruin America.

    I've never seen such a toxic political atmosphere, from both sides. It's more about who can have the best insulting remark, one-liner, point the blame the most, make false promises, or obscene comparison than who proposes the most sound, reasonable policies and plans to get us back on track.

    To make it worse, we’re battling against major fiscal issues right now but instead are focusing most of our steam on social issues. Don’t get me wrong, they’re important, but hardly should be part of the main issues while battling a near-depression.

    America was built on a two-party system for a reason, and it has done us well so far… but the idea behind this wasn’t so one party could always blame things on the other, or so they could fight and obstruct each other (turning a branch into a do-nothing Congress), it’s for people to work together and compromise when need be for the good of America. I hardly see that at all now; it’s just a whole bunch of ‘us vs them’ politics rather than working together for the greater good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rken - good afternoon!

      You know... I'd say that because of what you and I each believe, we have disagreed more than we have agreed. When we have agreed, they have been great, but our disagreements have also been great, too.

      This comment is probably the best one yet, and probably the one I agree with the most.

      It's dead on, and you're 100% right.

      This: "It's more about who can have the best insulting remark, one-liner, point the blame the most, make false promises, or obscene comparison than who proposes the most sound, reasonable policies and plans to get us back on track." - Dead on

      This: "To make it worse, we’re battling against major fiscal issues right now but instead are focusing most of our steam on social issues." - Dead on

      The last paragraph: - Dead on

      That's why it's good to see people like you and the many others out there on both sides. Level headed Americans that will hear the other side out, listen to their views, understand them, agree with them when they do, and respectfully disagree when they do, too. Instead of blaming and fighting, we should be sharing ideas and trying to improve. I'm glad you get it... our politicians don't seem to.

      Alright, that's enough kissing up :-) (j/k) In all seriousness, truly insightful and to me, 100% correct.

      Delete
    2. How partisan politics drove Olympia Snowe away


      Who cares what it took? Thank God she's gone. Hopefully the other liberal republican from Maine will quit too.


      Hey RKen, good to see you again.

      Delete
    3. Good afternoon to you too LME!

      And yep, our conversations do very well in demonstrating how politics should be.

      People will always disagree and share different points of view, just as you and I do on some issues, but the idea is that we can debate them in a mature, level-headed fashion without having to insult, villainize, criticize, or disbar the other person.

      Resorting to those ad hominem (or flat-out dishonest) tactics, which seems to be 90% of politics lately, does no good for anyone at all.

      We still hold respect for each other and try to see the different points of views, and ultimately will (or at least attempt to) see eye-to-eye or meet in a middle ground somewhere.

      How I wish our politicians (and our voting populous) could embrace this; we would be far better off. Seems to be nothing but wishful thinking now though.

      Thanks for the support on those points. :)

      Delete