Why People Hate You When God Is Love?

[Lews Therin]

On 18/11/2020 at 11:46 PM, Leo Gura said:

Lol

You have a naive understanding of how politics works. When you are leading a giant nation, all sorts of evils will happen and mistakes will be made.

Have you considered how many people would have been killed without the drone strikes? What the alternatives to drone strikes are?

See, when you sit at home and judge others, that's easy. When you are put in charge of the world's largest military and tasked to defend Americans, that's a whole new ballgame. Don't forget, they will replace you with someone more bloodthirsty if you don't make them feel defended.

The rules for world leaders are not the same rules as middle school. Death is baked into every decision you make at that scale.

A naive stage Green does not appreciate such politcal complexities. It just wants peace to magically happen. This is the biggest problem with progressives. They act like all this is so easy, and then of course they complain and pout when they can barely win power in a real world election. Much easier to be right in your own head vs making things happen in a world full of selfish devils who want to eat you alive.

Obama is a butcher compared to a middle school teacher. But that is the wrong comparison.

I may also be a naive Green, but i feel you can't ignore the responsabillity of the commander in chief of a country when it meddles in another countries affairs. I used to think Obama's election was cool. Then Lybia happened, and i started to dislike him a lot. Today, each day i gorw more fond of him, due to better understanding some of his actions and responsibilities.

That said, somethings i just can't swallow, and i think Lybia is the best example. Gaddafi did not pose any threat to the US population, only to the interests of some US corporation's who wanted to exploit the continent. And Obama signed the order to bomb the country, effectively destroying it and turning it into to a hub of slave trade.

And you dont have to compare him to a school teacher, Trump for example did a much better job (even though i like Obama better) at not destroying other countries.

You ask what the alternatives to drone strikes are? i feel like NO drone strikes are a GREAT alternative.

[Grateful Dead]

On 19.11.2020 at 3:46 AM, Leo Gura said:

Lol

You have a naive understanding of how politics works. When you are leading a giant nation, all sorts of evils will happen and mistakes will be made.

Have you considered how many people would have been killed without the drone strikes? What the alternatives to drone strikes are?

See, when you sit at home and judge others, that's easy. When you are put in charge of the world's largest military and tasked to defend Americans, that's a whole new ballgame. Don't forget, they will replace you with someone more bloodthirsty if you don't make them feel defended.

The rules for world leaders are not the same rules as middle school. Death is baked into every decision you make at that scale.

A naive stage Green does not appreciate such politcal complexities. It just wants peace to magically happen. This is the biggest problem with progressives. They act like all this is so easy, and then of course they complain and pout when they can barely win power in a real world election. Much easier to be right in your own head vs making things happen in a world full of selfish devils who want to eat you alive.

Obama is a butcher compared to a middle school teacher. But that is the wrong comparison.

Wow that's a real eye opener! From this perspective it's much more understandable.

[Corpus]

On ‎19‎/‎11‎/‎2020 at 2:46 AM, Leo Gura said:

Lol

You have a naive understanding of how politics works. When you are leading a giant nation, all sorts of evils will happen and mistakes will be made.

Have you considered how many people would have been killed without the drone strikes? What the alternatives to drone strikes are?

See, when you sit at home and judge others, that's easy. When you are put in charge of the world's largest military and tasked to defend Americans, that's a whole new ballgame. Don't forget, they will replace you with someone more bloodthirsty if you don't make them feel defended.

The rules for world leaders are not the same rules as middle school. Death is baked into every decision you make at that scale.

A naive stage Green does not appreciate such politcal complexities. It just wants peace to magically happen. This is the biggest problem with progressives. They act like all this is so easy, and then of course they complain and pout when they can barely win power in a real world election. Much easier to be right in your own head vs making things happen in a world full of selfish devils who want to eat you alive.

Obama is a butcher compared to a middle school teacher. But that is the wrong comparison.

There is a lot of wisdom in this post. There is a massive web of causality at work here, extending geographically and temporally, and a valid beginning point is impossible to identify. Kind of turtles all the way down ie Why drone strikes? Because Al Qaeda. Why Al Qaeda? Because Iraq sanctions/ Israel/ US bases in the Arabian Peninsula/ Russian-Afghan War. Why each of these? Infinite regress. Blaming Obama misses  this point.

The only part of Leos post I would highlight which merits some further thought is "When you are put in charge...".(4th paragraph). Obama devoted years and much effort to securing this position ie sought it out and he would have been largely aware of what it entails. Altruism, narcissism, lofty idealism and a blindness to real-politik? Who can say. Those who aspire to lead powerful nations will have a mix of both positive and less positive attributes, and it is the balance of these which can have a big impact on how high they rise, along with how well they reveal/misrepresent these to a populace who tend to be emotionally and selfishly driven.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Corpus
typo

[Leo Gura]

16 hours ago, Lews Therin said:

I may also be a naive Green, but i feel you can't ignore the responsabillity of the commander in chief of a country when it meddles in another countries affairs. I used to think Obama's election was cool. Then Lybia happened, and i started to dislike him a lot. Today, each day i gorw more fond of him, due to better understanding some of his actions and responsibilities.

That said, somethings i just can't swallow, and i think Lybia is the best example. Gaddafi did not pose any threat to the US population, only to the interests of some US corporation's who wanted to exploit the continent. And Obama signed the order to bomb the country, effectively destroying it and turning it into to a hub of slave trade.

And you dont have to compare him to a school teacher, Trump for example did a much better job (even though i like Obama better) at not destroying other countries.

You ask what the alternatives to drone strikes are? i feel like NO drone strikes are a GREAT alternative.

Well, there are many possible explanations there:

1) There were threats posed by Lybia that needed some action.

2) The military advisors and so on misled Obama

3) Obama could have made a mistake.

It's hard to tell without knowing all the details of why they decided to bomb. I don't know all the details of that action and the reasons behind it.

Certainly I acknowledge that Obama could have made some bad choices. But you also have to consider what worse choices someone else in his position could have made. If Trump was in his shoes during that time I don't think he would hesitate much to bomb Lybia. Same for John McCain.

Remember, it's not like Jesus is going to fill the Presidency role. The choice was Obama vs McCain vs Romney.

[PurpleTree]

22 hours ago, b_woo said:

Is it outside the realm of thinking that this may be staged?

nah that's very possible

imo it's mostly like this:

Either Obama (and all other potus) killed many children women and innocent people and acting "woke" for tv and voters.

or the "deep state" is doing what it wants and the president is mostly a puppet.

Now obviously hegemony and keeping the us the superpower isn't easy and a lot of sacrifices have to be made, which might be good in the end or it might not, depending on where you live and your pov

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Leo Gura Leo, isn't real Love the most bittersweet thing you've ever felt?

[Marxwa Sright]

On 11/18/2020 at 6:46 PM, Leo Gura said:

Lol

You have a naive understanding of how politics works. When you are leading a giant nation, all sorts of evils will happen and mistakes will be made.

Have you considered how many people would have been killed without the drone strikes? What the alternatives to drone strikes are?

See, when you sit at home and judge others, that's easy. When you are put in charge of the world's largest military and tasked to defend Americans, that's a whole new ballgame. Don't forget, they will replace you with someone more bloodthirsty if you don't make them feel defended.

The rules for world leaders are not the same rules as middle school. Death is baked into every decision you make at that scale.

A naive stage Green does not appreciate such politcal complexities. It just wants peace to magically happen. This is the biggest problem with progressives. They act like all this is so easy, and then of course they complain and pout when they can barely win power in a real world election. Much easier to be right in your own head vs making things happen in a world full of selfish devils who want to eat you alive.

Obama is a butcher compared to a middle school teacher. But that is the wrong comparison.

You didn't seem to extend that level of nuance and detail into the Stalin thread previously, where everything applies exactly the same.

Justifying the destruction of the most vulnerable and needy in favor of the strongest and most privileged in the world right now is already culturally accepted and normalized, might be justified by consciousness, as anything, but doesn't seem too productive imo.

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, Marxwa Sright said:

You didn't seem to extend that level of nuance and detail into the Stalin thread previously

In that thread I said that Russia's level of development could not accommodate much better.

Were it not for Stalin, probably some other strong-man would have taken his place.

In general I don't hold the naive view that ousting a "bad guy" will solve much of a country's problems. The bad guy will be replaced by another bad guy.

[Marxwa Sright]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In general I don't hold the naive view that ousting a "bad guy" will solve much of a country's problems. The bad guy will be replaced by another bad guy.

Would you agree that Obama is therefore also a bad guy? And I get that from there your argument would be that he's the best bad guy at the time and I would agree.

I'm just curious about your perception, and many around here, that he's yellow. How did we get Trump as his successor then? Did his 5D chess plays backfired?

And as a last argument in my effort to see him more critically, as a previous strong Obama supporter. What's up with his actions in opposition to his rhetoric? Please be aware of what he DOES and not only what he SAYS. The president of Hope and Change went on to be a Netflix film producer and used his influence to help nominate Biden in the primary.

[Corpus]

Libya, I think, is an interesting case. We need to put it into (at least) a couple of contexts to perhaps expand our understanding. The longer-standing context should include the USA's memory of its humiliation (subjectively felt) over the downing of the Pan Am flight late in 1988; the lust for revenge lingered and was not satiated by the subsequent bombs it dropped on Libya not too soon after the event. The more immediate context (relative to the time of Obamas enthusiasm for hitting Libya) was the wishful hopefulness that existed at the time in terms of the Arab Spring. Gadaffi was apparently going to send his troops into the town of Benghazi, which he claimed was full of Al Qaida-affiliated militants, to take back control and suppress this de-stabilizing force who were promoting insurrection/rebellion in the nation. To really understand how Gadaffi felt about Islamism (as its termed now) and his own political beliefs one should perhaps read "The Green Book" which he wrote outlining his politics. He was no lover of marked religious adherence, regarded it as threatening and had little qualms about keeping a close eye (and occasionally a tight fist) on those with a more religious outlook than his own. Relative to his position, Benghazi was militant but note- only relative to his own views. Ironically Benghazi did attract proper Jihadists from places such as Tunisia and Morocco, and this led in the ensuing years to the rise of ISIS affiliates and the bombings in these countries.

Obama, Cameron and the French leader at the time believed that deposing the guy would lead to a democratic successful nation emerging, with the leaders instilled there, as a debt of gratitude, looking favourably on oil contracts being granted to concerned parties, and this gullible idea that its good to have democracy and  it also pays well (potentially) prevented clear thinking and a more accurate assessment which would have considered the geography and tribal culture more carefully. Such thinking also played a part in the adventures in Iraq and the same poor analysis led to immanent effects for anyone minded to look. 

Politics is a dirty business, and it takes people with appropriately dirty characteristics to even want to ascend to political power. Obama achieved this power suggesting he has enough dirty characteristics, and focus of intent. Situations always unfold in unknown ways and these dirty characteristics may not be as successfully deployed in the presence of this unfolding.     

Edited November 21, 2020 by Corpus

[PurpleTree]

15 minutes ago, Corpus said:

Obama, Cameron and the French leader at the time believed that deposing the guy would lead to a democratic successful nation emerging, with the leaders instilled there, as a debt of gratitude, looking favourably on oil contracts being granted to concerned parties, and this gullible idea that its good to have democracy and  it also pays well (potentially) prevented clear thinking and a more accurate assessment which would have considered the geography and tribal culture more carefully. Such thinking also played a part in the adventures in Iraq and the same poor analysis led to immanent effects for anyone minded to look. 

ok that's all fine and good but how do you know what they believed?

how do you know they believed it would ensue in being a "democratic successful" nation?

maybe they were told that by people who knew better.

if the president cares so much about "democracy" etc. what about saudi arabia and why did they topple many democratically elected governments?

[Corpus]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

ok that's all fine and good but how do you know what they believed?

how do you know they believed it would ensue in being a "democratic successful" nation?

maybe they were told that by people who knew better.

 

Good point. Let us examine what Cameron said. He is a politician so probably lying scum, but lets overlook that and take him at his word.

 

 

[PurpleTree]

20 minutes ago, Corpus said:

Good point. Let us examine what Cameron said. He is a politician so probably lying scum, but lets overlook that and take him at his word.

 

 

uh no. i don't see why i should believe him. and what about s. arabia etc.?

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Marxwa Sright said:

Would you agree that Obama is therefore also a bad guy?

No, because relative to most politicians he's one of the most intelligent and developed.

Compare him to Trump, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Clinton, etc. and Obama comes out ahead.

I'm not sure what you want?

Bernie? Yeah, Bernie is great but unelectable.

Quote

I'm just curious about your perception, and many around here, that he's yellow. How did we get Trump as his successor then? Did his 5D chess plays backfired?

Stage Blue Orange backlash.

We have a billion dollar right-wing propaganda machine which demonizes Green.

Economically Obama is more in the Orange/Green stage. Not even solid Green.

Trump is a demogague. Demogauges gain power by con artisry and appealing to people's fears and anger. Trump pull off the greatest con in American political history thanks to demonization of Green and improper media coverage.

[Corpus]

54 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

uh no. i don't see why i should believe him. and what about s. arabia etc.?

You are not obliged to believe him. He is a politician after all.

Political power involves assessing and juggling many considerations and inevitably involves paying lip-service to worthy notions selectively, following up with force when self/national interests (as perceived) are involved, and there is no divine code of conduct which is ever followed "because it is right". Dirty business.

Re Saudi Arabia- I am no geo-political expert but considerations which are pertinent, as I see it, include:

What happens if the Royal family falls?

As the epicentre of Islam, is democracy going to follow? Not immediately.

How would this strengthen Iran?

How would Israels interests be affected?

How would the clerics react to "mischief in the land" when considered from the position of the Sunnah?

Who would the people listen to with their present level of thinking?

Could instability in The Land of The Two Mosques be a clarion-call for a new and "clearly unavoidable" jihad?

How would oil supplies be affected with consequences more globally?

If the UK supported US interference in Saudi Arabia, what consequences for London, where much Saudi wealth is invested?

Would the UK still find customers there for its weapons, a big part of the UK economy?

Would Turkey think its a good or bad thing, with the Caucasus on its doorstep, a place where "many a staunch defender of Islam" ("jihadist") has been born?

How would this affect Russia, with impeders to its interests in the area, and an antsy Caucasus possibly playing up? 

 

I am sure there are other factors, but these suggest its a convoluted juggling act being a politician.

  

[PurpleTree]

6 minutes ago, Corpus said:

You are not obliged to believe him. He is a politician after all.

Political power involves assessing and juggling many considerations and inevitably involves paying lip-service to worthy notions selectively, following up with force when self/national interests (as perceived) are involved, and there is no divine code of conduct which is ever followed "because it is right". Dirty business.

Re Saudi Arabia- I am no geo-political expert but considerations which are pertinent, as I see it, include:

What happens if the Royal family falls?

As the epicentre of Islam, is democracy going to follow? Not immediately.

How would this strengthen Iran?

How would Israels interests be affected?

How would the clerics react to "mischief in the land" when considered from the position of the Sunnah?

Who would the people listen to with their present level of thinking?

Could instability in The Land of The Two Mosques be a clarion-call for a new and "clearly unavoidable" jihad?

How would oil supplies be affected with consequences more globally?

If the UK supported US interference in Saudi Arabia, what consequences for London, where much Saudi wealth is invested?

Would the UK still find customers there for its weapons, a big part of the UK economy?

Would Turkey think its a good or bad thing, with the Caucasus on its doorstep, a place where "many a staunch defender of Islam" ("jihadist") has been born?

How would this affect Russia, with impeders to its interests in the area, and an antsy Caucasus possibly playing up? 

 

I am sure there are other factors, but these suggest its a convoluted juggling act being a politician.

  

all of these are obviously points that need consideration in terms of money, security, hegemony etc.

and for the uk, us, israel etc. it's obviously better to have a somewhat "stable" ally in the middle east who buys their weapons

even if they export wahabism(terrorism), behead people, kill women for witchery, go to war in yemen etc etc

 

but then don't give us this childish, vile, stupid democracy and freedom talk, grow a spine be more honest  (i'm talking to the politicians here etc. not to you)

[Corpus]

Just now, PurpleTree said:

all of these are obviously points that need consideration in terms of money, security, hegemony etc.

and for the uk, us, israel etc. it's obviously better to have a somewhat "stable" ally in the middle east who buys their weapons

even if they export wahabism(terrorism), behead people, kill women for witchery, go to war in yemen etc etc

 

but then don't give us this childish, vile, stupid democracy and freedom talk, grow a spine be more honest  (i'm talking to the politicians here etc. not to you)

People love childish, stupid talk, and struggle with honesty because it doesn't sit well with self-interest usually. And honesty is a flexible notion depending on ones self-interest. That's politics folks!  

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Corpus said:

People love childish, stupid talk, and struggle with honesty because it doesn't sit well with self-interest usually. 

I don't love it, i think it's vile and disgusting, i'd guess many others would also prefer more honesty.

Obviously it's always going to be a certain perspective and not the full spectrum of honesty.

But this ain't it dude, it's crap and it makes it easy for foreign powers like Russia/China to point out the flaws and make you look like a hypocrite

Because you (not you) are a hypocrite

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I don't love it, i think it's vile and disgusting, i'd guess many others would also prefer more honesty.

Honesty in what sense? 

What kind of honesty are you looking for? 

[PurpleTree]

  stop the silly freedom and democracy talk for example, most people don't buy it anyways

maybe they can say something like "we need them as an ally to counter iran, they buy our weapons and use the petro dollar etc. and thus they create jobs for 'muricans and you want that job right bob and sally?"

still bad but more honest