Comments on: They Won’t Admit it, But McCain and Obama Agree http://blog.psaonline.org/2008/07/16/they-won%e2%80%99t-admit-it-but-mccain-and-obama-agree/ Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:49:22 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Matt Rojansky http://blog.psaonline.org/2008/07/16/they-won%e2%80%99t-admit-it-but-mccain-and-obama-agree/comment-page-1/#comment-1144962 Matt Rojansky Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:58:16 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/?p=571#comment-1144962 John, first, Pakistanis are not Arabs--Pakistan is a patchwork of ethnic groups, most of whom are Sunni Muslim, and some of whom (like the Pashtun) overlap into Afghanistan, but they're certainly not Arabs. As far as violating Pakistani sovereignty, the argument is very much the same as was the case for going into Afghanistan in the first place: if the US is attacked or imminently threatened by groups operating with impunity from inside another state, and if the government of that state is unable or unwilling to take action to eliminate the threat, the US has no choice but to act, even if it means violating another state's sovereignty. Under the UN Charter, sovereignty is not absolute--it is guaranteed only insofar as states do not act against international peace and security, and do not threaten or wage war against neighbors. In this case, allowing Taliban and Qaeda to flourish would be a threat to international peace and security by omission and justify either collective action or unilateral US action if necessary. John, first, Pakistanis are not Arabs–Pakistan is a patchwork of ethnic groups, most of whom are Sunni Muslim, and some of whom (like the Pashtun) overlap into Afghanistan, but they’re certainly not Arabs.

As far as violating Pakistani sovereignty, the argument is very much the same as was the case for going into Afghanistan in the first place: if the US is attacked or imminently threatened by groups operating with impunity from inside another state, and if the government of that state is unable or unwilling to take action to eliminate the threat, the US has no choice but to act, even if it means violating another state’s sovereignty. Under the UN Charter, sovereignty is not absolute–it is guaranteed only insofar as states do not act against international peace and security, and do not threaten or wage war against neighbors. In this case, allowing Taliban and Qaeda to flourish would be a threat to international peace and security by omission and justify either collective action or unilateral US action if necessary.

]]> By: John Maszkaj http://blog.psaonline.org/2008/07/16/they-won%e2%80%99t-admit-it-but-mccain-and-obama-agree/comment-page-1/#comment-1138665 John Maszkaj Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:26:16 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/?p=571#comment-1138665 Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs and a nuclear arsenol. Pakistan also has the support of China. The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state?s sovereignty. Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs and a nuclear arsenol. Pakistan also has the support of China. The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state?s sovereignty.

]]> By: dbliss http://blog.psaonline.org/2008/07/16/they-won%e2%80%99t-admit-it-but-mccain-and-obama-agree/comment-page-1/#comment-1136319 dbliss Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:52:33 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/?p=571#comment-1136319 It’s not even the “peppering” of comments about the opponent’s ignorance that is most troubling to me. It is rather the language used so pervasively by the media, campaigns, and now the public that actively discourages bipartisan agreement in an election year. If a candidate softens his stance on an issue and concedes points to his opponent, he is suddenly a “flip-flopper,” a moniker equivalent to political poison since it was used so effectively against Kerry in 2004. Republicans and Democrats alike hammered Sen. Obama on his apparent “rush to the center” over the past month. I understand that Americans desire a certain sturdiness and consistency in their President, but is it that terrible of a sin to be flexible enough to incorporate new information into policy? Is it that detestable to try to find some middle ground on major policy concerns? Simply, it may not be just the candidates that insist on partisan rhetoric. Certain language that punishes similarity and consensus resonates with the public. Should we blame the people for buying into jargon like “flip-flopper?” Should we blame the media for perpetuating this aversion to agreement? Or should we blame the candidates themselves for not being brave enough to drop the façade of separation, the irrational personal jabs? Perhaps the best response is not to blame. Perhaps all we can do is educate ourselves and reward the truly bipartisan candidate (in action, not rhetoric) with our votes. To be such a candidate, both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have work to do. It’s not even the “peppering” of comments about the opponent’s ignorance that is most troubling to me. It is rather the language used so pervasively by the media, campaigns, and now the public that actively discourages bipartisan agreement in an election year.

If a candidate softens his stance on an issue and concedes points to his opponent, he is suddenly a “flip-flopper,” a moniker equivalent to political poison since it was used so effectively against Kerry in 2004. Republicans and Democrats alike hammered Sen. Obama on his apparent “rush to the center” over the past month.

I understand that Americans desire a certain sturdiness and consistency in their President, but is it that terrible of a sin to be flexible enough to incorporate new information into policy? Is it that detestable to try to find some middle ground on major policy concerns?

Simply, it may not be just the candidates that insist on partisan rhetoric. Certain language that punishes similarity and consensus resonates with the public. Should we blame the people for buying into jargon like “flip-flopper?” Should we blame the media for perpetuating this aversion to agreement? Or should we blame the candidates themselves for not being brave enough to drop the façade of separation, the irrational personal jabs? Perhaps the best response is not to blame. Perhaps all we can do is educate ourselves and reward the truly bipartisan candidate (in action, not rhetoric) with our votes. To be such a candidate, both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have work to do.

]]>