Posts by glennd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Perverse Entertainment, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Well, "playing them" in as much as they are there making a racket about something pretty loopy when they could be going on about something meaningful. If he did have his original certificate and put it out there or came out and said it was long lost then they'd lose some wind (maybe, I guess the 911 truthers and Bush's service records crowd are probably still banging on). But as it is by not encouraging them to shut up he keeps them and others occupied. Not that this is a difficult game to play by any means, just a convenient crowd to subtley egg-on.
-
He'll be giving the appearance of being on-board perhaps, but I can't see he is dumb enough to be actually believing it. Theatre, he's playing a part for some possible role in the near future and maneuvering to flank Obama if needed.Both are playing the birthers for what they are worth, just from opposite sides of the table.
-
Russell, to be fair to old Trump he did produce his birth certificate. But he produced the one actually issued at his birth, which ironically has no use in obtaining citizenry type things like a passport. He later produced the standard issue printout that can be used for such things. I still have my original NZ birth certificate somewhere, but I think that it too is useless in NZ for doing anything and that the printout from internal affairs is the true legal proof nowadays (could be wrong of course).
I doubt Trump actually believes Obama is a non-citizen, he's too smart and canny to be a birther, but is playing the same game as Obama. Obama neatly keeps various nuts occupied looking for an "original" birth certificate that has no legal use, and might not exist any more anyway if he has lost it. Trump lays out his original from Jamaica as if to prove his originality and theatrically asks Obama to do the same. It's a game and Trump is playing it just as Obama is, just playing the cards (certificates in this case) rather than holding them.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
The biggest failing of many IT graduates is their lack of empathy and understanding of what the people they're working with are trying to do, and an inability to communicate their knowledge with them.
But then if you made them all study more humanities, arts or whatever, chances are that you'd have a bunch of bored students doing enough to pass the requirement and a fraction who get great benefit. That reading such subjects makes you in general a more rounded person with a better appreciation for many things is not in doubt, but it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that such an education is beneficial to everyone in IT (and beyond). From what I've seen in my university life, there isn't much that various lecturers or subjects can do to change the underlying person of the typical age of university undergrads.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Islander,
(I find Glennd's comments really strange but - I dont have much to do with conservatives-)
Kind of odd to assume I'm a conservative, Islander, based on some limited criticism of Obama in a particular area of discussion. Still, leaping to such grand conclusions says a lot more about you than me I suppose. But - I don't have much to do with... whatever you are... possibly... But hey it's easier than thinking hard.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
Yes, I was thinking this also. And I think that one of the things that made Iraq such a balls-up was that Saddam wasn't finished off quickly in the first place, but instead squeezed for 10 years first. Ultimately this was because of a number of factors - Bush followed what the UN authorized.
I would agree with you there and I regard that as the most fatal element of UN "war making", that is that it never goes to war properly and ends up with half-way solutions dependent on good-luck as an endgame.
But one scenario I had discounted (perhaps in my arrogant western way) and maybe shouldn't have was that Ghadaffi could win outright. Even now the Libyan army is adapting its tactics and reducing the impact of air power and has turned the rebels to mass retreat again. It's all just a well publicized "mistaken air-strike on a wedding in Tripoli" away from a PR nightmare. If, somehow, Ghadaffi manages to pull-off the play of the century it's going to be a political nightmare in NATO. If that happens then there are a few politicians needing the sack.
Some are speculating about arming the rebels but it seems a little useless when they lack the discipline and organization to face the Libyan army and assorted mercenaries. Even NATO is not united on doing so anyway and the UN resolution includes and arms embargo! If it isn't one giant f**kup then I'd be speculating about why the rebels are being used in this way.
-
And a bit of levity in a dark world:
-
There are many possibilities. At the moment I think that, despite any speeches to the contrary, there will be NATO troops on the ground some time soon enforcing some sort of peace with the country either partitioned or Gadaffi assassinated or driven into exile.
My prefered solution would have been a total commitment to overthrowing Gadaffi and rebuilding a new state or two over a decade.
My fear is that Gadaffi will survive and exploit the peace as Saddam did, or that the international effort will give up and Libya will dissolve into a criminal state as Afghanistan did after the Soviet campaigns.
My expectation is that this will turn into "Iraq 1990-2000".
Where it lands I can't say now, but I'd keep a bob each-way on fears vs expectations.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
Then why is that all they ever do?
Because they are crap leaders usually. Leadership is hard, particularly when you must kill people. On the other hand, hand-wringing and dithering is barely much better.
but they want the rebels to do it
Yes, but when the rebels demonstrate absolutely no military prowess, leadership or discipline (quite apart from strength) then you're on a hiding to nothing and are only kidding yourself that it is going to end happily. It'll just end up with Gadaffi gone and the place disintegrating in tribal fiefdoms ruled by whoever is organized enough to band some thugs together, like Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal or maybe even Somalia. No one even knows who these rebels are, it'll be highly f*ing embarassing if there turn out to be a lot of al qaida or muslim brotherhood men in there. I can't imagine that the French want all that on their doorstep though so there will be troops deployed at some stage.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
Ahh but listen to Obama's speech. Regime change via the required military action is not what is going to happen, Gadaffi is not the target. Personally I do not believe that, but that is what he said. When Gadaffi is killed, or NATO troops are deployed, then we will see yet another interesting speech about why the first speech was not actually what was meant.
Actually I think Obama would have given his right arm to remain outside this conflict, regardless of what he professed in his speech. His initial indecision was finally broken by the State department faction winning over the Pentagon as well as pressure to look good internationally. But still, a full scale war needed to remove Gadaffi quickly and limit civilian blood would be political suicide right now but then again he needed to triangulate between that and, having committed to some sort of war, not pissing off the party leftists who are furious about any sort of war now. Thus his speech which was full of contradiction and vagaries. It is similar in a way to the Honduras diplomatic mess but on a far larger scale. Being a war leader isn't about chest thumping and demonizing (not that Gadaffi is undeserving of being called a demon), it is about leadership, something which in these contexts is not one of Obama's strengths unfortunately.