Romney: Arab Spring Could've Been Avoided By Bush's 'Freedom Agenda' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964229]"I'm going to ignore the only form of data that can possibly give any prediction of an election outcome because I would rather think Romney is constantly losing votes, which isn't based on any data or evidence."[/QUOTE] That form of data is historically wrong and entirely unreliable. It's no better than anecdotal evidence. They mean absolutely nothing. There's one poll that matters and it won't be undertaken until November.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964174][url]http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama[/url] He's doing pretty well if you ask me. [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] It's hard to tell. Like I said, hypotheticals are hard to say because you will never know. However, there have been cases in the past of absolute rulers giving up a lot of their power and reforming the government over time.[/QUOTE] I guess the biggest example was the English rebellions, but they only established their constitutional monarchy because the king had no choice.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;36964208]No there couldn't have. Such changes to a country's regime are impossible without spilling blood, this never happened before, and never will. A dictator with an army at his disposal will not give up his power without a fight.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure Britain moved towards more democracy at least fairly peacefully. The Soviet Union turning into a more democratic state was peaceful as well. Those are two examples. I'm sure I could find more if I really wanted to dig through every country's history. [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] Oh yea, and the United States reformed their government peacefully during the Civil Rights Movement. That wasn't a war or huge amount of bloodshed at all.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964229]"I'm going to ignore the only form of data that can possibly give any prediction of an election outcome because I would rather think Romney is constantly losing votes, which isn't based on any data or evidence."[/QUOTE] Polls mean literally nothing. Huckabee was going to be the main candidate for presidency in 2008 according to a lot of polls.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;36963897]the man is a walking gaffe machine i'd like to see a gaffe-off between him and biden[/QUOTE] Biden makes harmless gaffes that make him look senile and goofy, Romney means what he says and his opinions are actually harmful. Except for the gaffes that give away he is a robot those are also harmless. The trees are the right height will go down in history.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964281]I'm pretty sure Britain moved towards more democracy at least fairly peacefully. The Soviet Union turning into a more democratic state was peaceful as well. Those are two examples. I'm sure I could find more if I really wanted to dig through every country's history. [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] Oh yea, and the United States reformed their government peacefully during the Civil Rights Movement. That wasn't a war or huge amount of bloodshed at all.[/QUOTE] [b]A.[/b] The united states had Viet-Fucking-Nam'. [b]B.[/b] Britain had [b]MULTIPLE[/b] civil wars in a short period of time up to their reforms. And [b]C.[/b] there were many attempted Revolts in the soviet union and satellite states, but when you're armed to the teeth, waiting for war, you tend to be equipped with gear that can outmatch citizens with assault rifles.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964281]I'm pretty sure Britain moved towards more democracy at least fairly peacefully. The Soviet Union turning into a more democratic state was peaceful as well. Those are two examples. I'm sure I could find more if I really wanted to dig through every country's history.[/QUOTE] The Soviet Union falling apart was entirely the Soviet government's fault, it was not a revolution. Don't know about Britain, though

[QUOTE=Nikota;36964322][b]A.[/b] The united states had Viet-Fucking-Nam'.[/quote] The Vietnamese didn't force us to change our government...Vietnam played a role in the Civil Rights Movement, but it wasn't the end all be all for blacks getting more rights. [quote][b]B.[/b] Britain had [b]MULTIPLE[/b] civil wars in a short period of time up to their reforms.[/quote] Really? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1884[/url] [quote]And [b]C.[/b] there were many attempted Revolts in the soviet union and satellite states, but when you're armed to the teeth, waiting for war, you tend to be equipped with gear that can outmatch citizens with assault rifles.[/QUOTE] And these revolts had little effect, it was ultimately economics and peaceful reform that led to the dissolution of the Soviet State. [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] I'm not saying that revolutions are ineffective, but similar results can be achieved over longer timespans through peaceful means.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964431]The Vietnamese didn't force us to change our government...Vietnam played a role in the Civil Rights Movement, but it wasn't the end all be all for blacks getting more rights. Really? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1884[/url] And these revolts had little effect, it was ultimately economics and peaceful reform that led to the dissolution of the Soviet State.[/QUOTE] I can link things too [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_civil_war[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution[/url]

[QUOTE=Nikota;36964472]I can link things too [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_civil_war[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution[/url][/QUOTE] [b]1642–1651[/b] [b]Revolution of 1688[/b] These happened over 100 years [i]before[/i] the reforms I'm talking about.

I was talking about the reforms from absolute to constitutional monarchy in my previous posts :v:

And I never claimed that the English achieved reform completely through peace. I'm saying that peaceful means can achieve reform in a state.

Well yeah. All forms of reform and document passage require a couple of signatures.

Maybe the Arab Spring was unnecessary, maybe not. All I'm really trying to get at is Romney wasn't defending these dictators or closed societies, he was postulating that reform might have been achieved through other means. It's not really a good argument since if "what ifs and buts were candy and nuts..." but it's really not a horrible argument either. It's just postulation based on little evidence which is largely what political candidates do.

But still. The civil wars show that most of the dictators have been unwilling to give their power up and wouldn't have if the doctrine was kept in place.

Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea and I really don't like playing the what if game, because there are too many variables that can change history. You can really find anything and make a what if scenario that completely changes the entire world if you want to. But that's what politicians do by nature. They say "What if I was in charge in the next election? Look at how great shit would be!" or "What if my opponent was never president, shit would be so boss!"

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964174][url]http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama[/url] He's doing pretty well if you ask me.[/QUOTE]National polls don't mean anything. Its swing state polls that are the real test, a test that Obama is still winning in: [url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/[/url]

And Romney says literally anything to get these voters. What I find hilarious is how Foxnews and such aren't covering his trips around Europe, when they cover the shit out of it any time Obama leaves the country. These fuckers even count hotel costs and security upkeep and have something like OBAMA SPENDS SO AND SO MILLIONS DOLLARS IN LAVISH TRIP TO X COUNTRY [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] It's extremely embarrassing. I've hit my thread limit for this month and am not going to post these articles. But here's a good link to several of them [url]http://samuel-warde.com/2012/07/british-media-blasts-romney-commentary-and-photo-essay/[/url] [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] Like. The UK is just going, "Get the fuck out scrub."

[QUOTE=Nikota;36964806]And Romney says literally anything to get these voters. What I find hilarious is how Foxnews and such aren't covering his trips around Europe, when they cover the shit out of it any time Obama leaves the country. These fuckers even count hotel costs and secuirty upkeep and have something like OBAMA SPENDS SO AND SO MILLIONS DOLLARS IN LAVISH TRIP TO X COUNTRY[/QUOTE] Yea, this is true [img]http://txt.elexar.com/vote.php?v=UP&id=245[/img]

Obama knows one thing better than any other candidate: Those who do not learn from history, are sure to repeat it. In many cases of US foreign involvement, more blood was spilled than necessary. These may be bloody, violent revolutions and we all know that once blood is drawn, more is sure to spill. But the people of these Arab nations have their own path, their own course to navigate. Our role should be humanitarian support, and it should end there. Any political or military intervention is poisonous to the oppressed peoples of this region. I have faith that one day, be it far off in the future, they will resolve their hostilities. The suffering must be allowed to pass, my hope is that a new way of life will be born out of the ashes of the old for these people. It may not be this time, but I have faith that it will come.

[QUOTE=Teal Moose;36965176]Obama knows one thing better than any other candidate: Those who do not learn from history, are sure to repeat it. In many cases of US foreign involvement, more blood was spilled than necessary. These may be bloody, violent revolutions and we all know that once blood is drawn, more is sure to spill. But the people of these Arab nations have their own path, their own course to navigate. Our role should be humanitarian support, and it should end there. Any political or military intervention is poisonous to the oppressed peoples of this region. I have faith that one day, be it far off in the future, they will resolve their hostilities. The suffering must be allowed to pass, my hope is that a new way of life will be born out of the ashes of the old for these people. It may not be this time, but I have faith that it will come.[/QUOTE] Is this why Obama authorized military intervention is Libya along with the rest of NATO? And why the USA wants to involve itself in the Syrian conflict? I mean, say what you want about whether Libya or Syria deserve US intervention, but to say that it isn't military intervention is disingenuous.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36965234]Is this why Obama authorized military intervention is Libya along with the rest of NATO? And why the USA wants to involve itself in the Syrian conflict? I mean, say what you want about whether Libya or Syria deserve US intervention, but to say that it isn't military intervention is disingenuous.[/QUOTE] In this case, I redact the statement about Obama knowing the difference. Perhaps he does and Romney doesn't, but his actions should reflect it then. I still hold strong to the rest though, they do have their own path.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;36962873]Romney just drop out, you've lost everyones votes.[/QUOTE] Go read Fox Nation or (some parts of) Facebook, he still has votes, just not of smart people.

[QUOTE=G3rman;36963751]Couldn't the same be said about the US or other nations being Christian/Catholic run governments? Yes there is supposed to be separation, but it does play a role in policy and decision making.[/QUOTE] I suppose it could, and I know I'm generalizing here but most 'Christian' nations are far more sane than most of the Muslim ones. And the U.S. isn't a Christian nation, it's just run by people who consider themselves Christian.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;36962968]Wait, why is the Arab Spring a bad thing?[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01833/blair_1833408c.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Starpluck;36963088]Its because the U.S. and Israel lost their puppet dictator in the Middle East (Egypt) - he's being interviewed by an Israeli paper which is why he's making those statements. Horseshit.[/QUOTE] But that literally rapes everything our country is [B]supposed[/B] to stand for in the ass. Why would you say something like that?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36966729]Go read Fox Nation or (some parts of) Facebook, he still has votes, just not of smart people.[/QUOTE] Speaking of this. Out of the 130 or so friends I have on facebook, 30 of them support Obama. 1 supports Romney and she's as country as it can get. She runs a fucking taxidermy business.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964150]Because it could have been a more peaceful transition to democracy. For fuck's sake people, do you even read the fucking article? He is saying Bush had a program started that was pushing for these dictators and totalitarian regimes to reform their government and move towards more democracy. Obama scrapped that plan.[/QUOTE] What "reforms" Romney is referring to really wasn't anything substantial. They got some token ones here and there to act like they were granting better civil liberties, but they were essentially giving them a blank check to continue their political dominance so long as they didn't try something stupid like crack down on economic contracts. Did Obama really scrap these plans? Just look at how they reacted to Egypt compared to Syria and Libya. Where they were appealing for calm to protestors in Egypt to calm down as they were gunned down by government thugs, blaming them for being violent, they egged on the same behavior in Libya and Syria and blamed the government for violence there. No, what Romney and the rest of the crew wished for was invasions ala Iraq to install "democracy" on their own terms and keep it in line with foreign policy in the region and continue supporting corrupt regimes that shared foreign policy, rather than let the people of those nations determine their own fates. You know, democracy.

I don't think so considering the Arab Spring was supposedly caused by rising corn prices as a result of popularity of ethanol pushing up the cost of food in the region, the largest portion of GDP expenditure for these countries.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36967496][img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01833/blair_1833408c.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I nearly forgot about that grinning mother fucker and now my day is ruined.