On September 22 2012 05:51 SayGen wrote: Hard to take anyone seriously who says Iran isn't producing Nuclear weapons.
Iran is in prime area for Solar-- and yet they are making/operating centrifuges (key part of nuclear power/weapon development)
If they weren't making nukes, why did they ignore our attempt to handle the fuels rods for them FOR FREE. They get to gives USA a radiation hazard, keep their country free of radiation, and get nuclear power...
Fishy fishy fishy.
and I'm sure all those Anti Israel statements are a joke too. I mean hell, I wonder how many BILLIONs would cheer to see another Jewish massacre.
Anti Semitism, radical jihad is all too much. I hate Romney, really I do- but at least he has a pair and will ensure Iran fails to achieve its Nuclear ambitions
But we're not looking for what you know, we're looking for what you can prove. With all the criticism of Bush, you'd think we would know better than to fall back "it looks like they're trying to hide something so it must be something bad".
Here's a great article outlining what we (don't) know about Iran's program.
Bottom line: Before 2007, we know Iran definitely had a nuclear weapons program, which they suspended in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. They built up a parallel civilian program. After 2007, the big question is whether Iran ever re-started the weapons program. Note that even a civilian program gets them closer to being able to construct an atomic bomb, but we can't definitively prove that's what they're trying to do.
So is Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon? Short answer: we don't know, probably. Is that answer good enough to justify airstrikes or another expensive invasion in the Middle East? Short answer: we don't know, probably not. Which is why Obama isn't talking about Iran.
I asked numerious questions, and you ignored them all.
Why wouldn't Iran let us handle their fuel rods- it's a win/win for them Why do inspectors keep getting the run-around (kick out, let back in [under limited conditions]) Why are their facilities under ground, rahter than out in the open. Why hid something that's not 'bad'.
Sorry too much for me. I don't want to wait till it is too late. I don't want to have to watch a billion people cheering as millions of jews get wiped off the face of the planet. I want peace, and that means heading toward a direction of disarmament of nuclear weapons and payload devices (ICBMs and the such).
I hold Obama accountable for that poor doctor who ratted out OBL to us, and is now in prison. That doctor should be celebrated and cheered- and he is now rotting in prison. Did Obama cut the aide to pakistan....nope he sure didn't.
On September 22 2012 05:47 xDaunt wrote: Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
I would argue that the US is in a much better position to attack Iran if necessary then they were four years ago. Obama has done a good job unifying allies and isolating Iran from the rest of the world.
If Bush declared war against Iran four years ago, I'm not sure America would get much support or assistance from other countries, in light of how the Iraq war was instigated. It goes back to our original argument. You're praising Bush for 'getting stuff done', but I'm insisting that how you get stuff done matters.
This brings to mind a specific example of Obama's foreign policy that conservatives likely debate about in US: Obama's refusal to enforce Netanyahu's 'redline' that would determine whether the US would strike Iran.
Now, to a layperson or lesser conservative that may be perceived as weakness, or a lack of support to Israel. In actuality, it Obama's guarding America's independence from the rest of the world -- it insures that America can and will attack at their discretion, and not because some other foreign leader wants to, and not because some arbitrary threshold the US has no control over has been crossed.
On September 22 2012 04:02 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
Its a comedy show but it basicly shows the correct point
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
Everyone's missing the point of my comments. I'm not commenting on whether Bush's policies were good or bad. I'm using Bush as an illustration of what proper foreign policy looks like in terms of bending other nations to your will.
I'm not judging whether the Iraq war was a good thing or not. I'm saying it was a one time thing because of the damage pushing an allied state do something contrary to the will of the people does. I'm saying that if there was a new Bush who tried to do the same thing Bush did, only with Iran, he'd struggle to find a coalition of the willing because the political capital had all already been spent. You're missing the point of my comment. Political capital is like any other capital, you spend it, you buy things with it, you consume it and you can waste it. Bush inherited an awful lot of it and he spent it wastefully. What you call proper foreign policy is unsustainable, Bush was able to do it only by alienating allies, it was shortsighted, wasteful and hugely damaging to the foreign policy of the US.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
Everyone's missing the point of my comments. I'm not commenting on whether Bush's policies were good or bad. I'm using Bush as an illustration of what proper foreign policy looks like in terms of bending other nations to your will.
I'm not judging whether the Iraq war was a good thing or not. I'm saying it was a one time thing because of the damage pushing an allied state do something contrary to the will of the people does. I'm saying that if there was a new Bush who tried to do the same thing Bush did, only with Iran, he'd struggle to find a coalition of the willing because the political capital had all already been spent. You're missing the point of my comment. Political capital is like any other capital, you spend it, you buy things with it, you consume it and you can waste it. Bush inherited an awful lot of it and he spent it wastefully. What you call proper foreign policy is unsustainable, Bush was able to do it only by alienating allies, it was shortsighted, wasteful and hugely damaging to the foreign policy of the US.
I was typing up a post about this, but this outlined it perfectly so I stopped. I fully agree with this point. This is very important to understand. If you build up capital with good relations, respect, etc... you may be able to get a country to act in your favour on something they may have otherwise not gone along with. Once you use this to lead them into a shitstorm, you lose that capital, and it is incredibly hard to earn back. Obama has done an exceptional job regaining the respect and trust of a whole host of nations around the world. Just look at his approval ratings. They arent an exact measurement of US influence, but they definitely show the general attitude of a country toward you.
The method in which he did this may lack violent outbursts, erratic decision making, explosions, etc... but I argue that the more subdued approach is better, and was necessary after losing the trust and respect of most of the world during the Bush presidency. It is smart, not weak.
I am a foreigner, and my point of view is not really that big. But if i had to describe both in some few sentences it would look something like this:
Obama: Passed a huge Health Care program, to support the weak. He was unable to reduce the huge unemployment rate. He is experienced in foreign poilcy (through his presidency) He was able to bring many soldiers back home. Did an overall good job, although he had to fight with those huge debts from the Iraq war. He was not much of a hard liner concerning various topics where he should have been.
Romney: Very successful with his companies, he knows how to be economically successful, which could be his biggest asset to lead America into economical recovery. Doesnt give a fuck about the countries of the world. Treats poor people as trash. Extreme point of views. (either black, or white. no grey) Has an aura of wanting to start a war (Iran, etc) or reinvigorate the cold war with russia.
At least this is the vague image i have about both candidates. Some of those facts are true, some of them probably not correct due to my lack of knowledge.
If i had to vote, i would vote the lesser of the two evils, which is Obama to me.
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
Everyone's missing the point of my comments. I'm not commenting on whether Bush's policies were good or bad. I'm using Bush as an illustration of what proper foreign policy looks like in terms of bending other nations to your will.
I'm not judging whether the Iraq war was a good thing or not. I'm saying it was a one time thing because of the damage pushing an allied state do something contrary to the will of the people does. I'm saying that if there was a new Bush who tried to do the same thing Bush did, only with Iran, he'd struggle to find a coalition of the willing because the political capital had all already been spent. You're missing the point of my comment. Political capital is like any other capital, you spend it, you buy things with it, you consume it and you can waste it. Bush inherited an awful lot of it and he spent it wastefully. What you call proper foreign policy is unsustainable, Bush was able to do it only by alienating allies, it was shortsighted, wasteful and hugely damaging to the foreign policy of the US.
I was typing up a post about this, but this outlined it perfectly so I stopped. I fully agree with this point. This is very important to understand. If you build up capital with good relations, respect, etc... you may be able to get a country to act in your favour on something they may have otherwise not gone along with. Once you use this to lead them into a shitstorm, you lose that capital, and it is incredibly hard to earn back. Obama has done an exceptional job regaining the respect and trust of a whole host of nations around the world. Just look at his approval ratings. They arent an exact measurement of US influence, but they definitely show the general attitude of a country toward you.
The method in which he did this may lack violent outbursts, erratic decision making, explosions, etc... but I argue that the more subdued approach is better, and was necessary after losing the trust and respect of most of the world during the Bush presidency. It is smart, not weak.
Like who?
This is a hogwash argument because it's so subjective.
The only good coming out of Obama IMO is that all of you are now silent about the things that you would criticize as "war crimes" under Bush. But that's just leaning on your bias, not real foreign policy.
But ultimately, the "political capital" is nonsense because Obama still couldn't get the rest of the world do what they don't want to do.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
Everyone's missing the point of my comments. I'm not commenting on whether Bush's policies were good or bad. I'm using Bush as an illustration of what proper foreign policy looks like in terms of bending other nations to your will.
I'm not judging whether the Iraq war was a good thing or not. I'm saying it was a one time thing because of the damage pushing an allied state do something contrary to the will of the people does. I'm saying that if there was a new Bush who tried to do the same thing Bush did, only with Iran, he'd struggle to find a coalition of the willing because the political capital had all already been spent. You're missing the point of my comment. Political capital is like any other capital, you spend it, you buy things with it, you consume it and you can waste it. Bush inherited an awful lot of it and he spent it wastefully. What you call proper foreign policy is unsustainable, Bush was able to do it only by alienating allies, it was shortsighted, wasteful and hugely damaging to the foreign policy of the US.
On September 22 2012 05:51 SayGen wrote: Hard to take anyone seriously who says Iran isn't producing Nuclear weapons.
Iran is in prime area for Solar-- and yet they are making/operating centrifuges (key part of nuclear power/weapon development)
If they weren't making nukes, why did they ignore our attempt to handle the fuels rods for them FOR FREE. They get to gives USA a radiation hazard, keep their country free of radiation, and get nuclear power...
Fishy fishy fishy.
and I'm sure all those Anti Israel statements are a joke too. I mean hell, I wonder how many BILLIONs would cheer to see another Jewish massacre.
Anti Semitism, radical jihad is all too much. I hate Romney, really I do- but at least he has a pair and will ensure Iran fails to achieve its Nuclear ambitions
But we're not looking for what you know, we're looking for what you can prove. With all the criticism of Bush, you'd think we would know better than to fall back "it looks like they're trying to hide something so it must be something bad".
Here's a great article outlining what we (don't) know about Iran's program.
Bottom line: Before 2007, we know Iran definitely had a nuclear weapons program, which they suspended in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. They built up a parallel civilian program. After 2007, the big question is whether Iran ever re-started the weapons program. Note that even a civilian program gets them closer to being able to construct an atomic bomb, but we can't definitively prove that's what they're trying to do.
So is Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon? Short answer: we don't know, probably. Is that answer good enough to justify airstrikes or another expensive invasion in the Middle East? Short answer: we don't know, probably not. Which is why Obama isn't talking about Iran.
I asked numerious questions, and you ignored them all.
Why wouldn't Iran let us handle their fuel rods- it's a win/win for them Why do inspectors keep getting the run-around (kick out, let back in [under limited conditions]) Why are their facilities under ground, rahter than out in the open. Why hid something that's not 'bad'.
Sorry too much for me. I don't want to wait till it is too late. I don't want to have to watch a billion people cheering as millions of jews get wiped off the face of the planet. I want peace, and that means heading toward a direction of disarmament of nuclear weapons and payload devices (ICBMs and the such).
I hold Obama accountable for that poor doctor who ratted out OBL to us, and is now in prison. That doctor should be celebrated and cheered- and he is now rotting in prison. Did Obama cut the aide to pakistan....nope he sure didn't.
The answer to those questions is "I don't know". I would agree it looks suspicious, but what we don't want is to spend a trillion dollars, ten years, and kill tens of thousands of Iranians to find out they really didn't have a nuclear weapons program, they were just bluffing to pretend they had a big dick.
On September 22 2012 04:14 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
Everyone's missing the point of my comments. I'm not commenting on whether Bush's policies were good or bad. I'm using Bush as an illustration of what proper foreign policy looks like in terms of bending other nations to your will.
I'm not judging whether the Iraq war was a good thing or not. I'm saying it was a one time thing because of the damage pushing an allied state do something contrary to the will of the people does. I'm saying that if there was a new Bush who tried to do the same thing Bush did, only with Iran, he'd struggle to find a coalition of the willing because the political capital had all already been spent. You're missing the point of my comment. Political capital is like any other capital, you spend it, you buy things with it, you consume it and you can waste it. Bush inherited an awful lot of it and he spent it wastefully. What you call proper foreign policy is unsustainable, Bush was able to do it only by alienating allies, it was shortsighted, wasteful and hugely damaging to the foreign policy of the US.
I was typing up a post about this, but this outlined it perfectly so I stopped. I fully agree with this point. This is very important to understand. If you build up capital with good relations, respect, etc... you may be able to get a country to act in your favour on something they may have otherwise not gone along with. Once you use this to lead them into a shitstorm, you lose that capital, and it is incredibly hard to earn back. Obama has done an exceptional job regaining the respect and trust of a whole host of nations around the world. Just look at his approval ratings. They arent an exact measurement of US influence, but they definitely show the general attitude of a country toward you.
The method in which he did this may lack violent outbursts, erratic decision making, explosions, etc... but I argue that the more subdued approach is better, and was necessary after losing the trust and respect of most of the world during the Bush presidency. It is smart, not weak.
Like who?
This is a hogwash argument because it's so subjective.
The only good coming out of Obama IMO is that all of you are now silent about the things that you would criticize as "war crimes" under Bush. But that's just leaning on your bias, not real foreign policy.
But ultimately, the "political capital" is nonsense because Obama still couldn't get the rest of the world do what they don't want to do.
Has he figured out a way to get all the Muslim extremists and disenchanted youth in the Middle East to stop hating America? No. That's a problem that has been stewing since the 70's.
Did he get France and the UK to support and commit resources to a military operation in Lybia? Yup. Did he get the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to denounce the violent protests, ramp up security can crack down on protestors? Yup. Did he manage to send a covert operation to kill Bin Laden without authorization or knowledge of the Pakistani government, without complaint or controversy from Pakistan in the aftermath? Yup.
There will never be a world where America has NO enemies, but other governments are slowly falling in line with America's interests. Iran, Israel and Palestine of course have always been a clusterfuck, unfortunately.
But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
On September 22 2012 06:37 Ein0r wrote: I am a foreigner, and my point of view is not really that big. But if i had to describe both in some few sentences it would look something like this:
Obama: Passed a huge Health Care program, to support the weak. He was unable to reduce the huge unemployment rate. He is experienced in foreign poilcy (through his presidency) He was able to bring many soldiers back home. Did an overall good job, although he had to fight with those huge debts from the Iraq war. He was not much of a hard liner concerning various topics where he should have been.
Romney: Very successful with his companies, he knows how to be economically successful, which could be his biggest asset to lead America into economical recovery. Doesnt give a fuck about the countries of the world. Treats poor people as trash. Extreme point of views. (either black, or white. no grey) Has an aura of wanting to start a war (Iran, etc) or reinvigorate the cold war with russia.
At least this is the vague image i have about both candidates. Some of those facts are true, some of them probably not correct due to my lack of knowledge.
If i had to vote, i would vote the lesser of the two evils, which is Obama to me.
"treats poor people as trash" is a gross mistatement. it's pure propaganda that puts this image in people's heads.
On September 22 2012 06:37 Ein0r wrote: I am a foreigner, and my point of view is not really that big. But if i had to describe both in some few sentences it would look something like this:
Obama: Passed a huge Health Care program, to support the weak. He was unable to reduce the huge unemployment rate. He is experienced in foreign poilcy (through his presidency) He was able to bring many soldiers back home. Did an overall good job, although he had to fight with those huge debts from the Iraq war. He was not much of a hard liner concerning various topics where he should have been.
Romney: Very successful with his companies, he knows how to be economically successful, which could be his biggest asset to lead America into economical recovery. Doesnt give a fuck about the countries of the world. Treats poor people as trash. Extreme point of views. (either black, or white. no grey) Has an aura of wanting to start a war (Iran, etc) or reinvigorate the cold war with russia.
At least this is the vague image i have about both candidates. Some of those facts are true, some of them probably not correct due to my lack of knowledge.
If i had to vote, i would vote the lesser of the two evils, which is Obama to me.
Sadly you couldn't be more wrong on almost every point.
Obama: 1)Passed a HC bill that supports government dependacy and corruption/bureaucracy takes precious money away from the poor who can barly pay for present HC cost in our country. 2)He increased the number of umemployeed and broke the record set form the great depression for number of people on welfare. 3) Sent the soliders who were in Iraq to Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Qutar/UAE (Soliders like me who were part of the move) then lied about bringing them home, when the only people who went home were the ones finishing their cycle. 4) He had ZERO previous forgein policy experience, and is viewed as weak and pathetic in the international stage as he goes around apologising for American actions of the past. Romney did some work with the olympics which gives him the lead (though also very limited) in forgein policy. 5) Has been the worst president since my birth- not sure if he was worse than Carter or not- lotta debate about that. 6) Never once hardlined anything
Romney: 1) Moderietly successful in business- there are some 'gray' areas concerning one particular business venture called 'Bain Capitol'. Over all, successful- but not great, and possibly not 100% legal. 2) Cares about Americans over others (doens't mean he doens't care about the rest of the people) but he does have his priority right. I expect a Canadian leader ot have Canadian intrests 1st, same for every leader. 3) Treats poor like they have had years and years of chances and don't do anything to help themselves. Believes in 'Hand ups' not 'Hand Outs' A society who tolerates people not carrying their weight is doomed to failure. (IE: They take out, and never put back in). 4) Your right- he is pretty black and white. But perhaps Clarity of issue has it perks as well as it's downfalls. 5) War with Iran. No one wants that. And What's up with Russia? What has he said about Russia... Where you getting this from.
On September 22 2012 07:02 coverpunch wrote: But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
Even Libya was a 'victory' in US terms. In relative terms, a lot of the missions were carried by allies (mainly the UK and France) and the US managed to fly only a small amount of combat missions. Libya was truly multilateral.
On September 22 2012 07:02 coverpunch wrote: But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
First of all, that was not a gaffe. That was Obama calling out Morsi for hemming and hawing quite deliberately.
I'm trying to decipher what you mean by the bolded sentence. I'm not sure what you mean because of how it's worded.
On September 22 2012 05:51 SayGen wrote: Hard to take anyone seriously who says Iran isn't producing Nuclear weapons.
Iran is in prime area for Solar-- and yet they are making/operating centrifuges (key part of nuclear power/weapon development)
If they weren't making nukes, why did they ignore our attempt to handle the fuels rods for them FOR FREE. They get to gives USA a radiation hazard, keep their country free of radiation, and get nuclear power...
Fishy fishy fishy.
and I'm sure all those Anti Israel statements are a joke too. I mean hell, I wonder how many BILLIONs would cheer to see another Jewish massacre.
Anti Semitism, radical jihad is all too much. I hate Romney, really I do- but at least he has a pair and will ensure Iran fails to achieve its Nuclear ambitions
But we're not looking for what you know, we're looking for what you can prove. With all the criticism of Bush, you'd think we would know better than to fall back "it looks like they're trying to hide something so it must be something bad".
Here's a great article outlining what we (don't) know about Iran's program.
Bottom line: Before 2007, we know Iran definitely had a nuclear weapons program, which they suspended in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. They built up a parallel civilian program. After 2007, the big question is whether Iran ever re-started the weapons program. Note that even a civilian program gets them closer to being able to construct an atomic bomb, but we can't definitively prove that's what they're trying to do.
So is Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon? Short answer: we don't know, probably. Is that answer good enough to justify airstrikes or another expensive invasion in the Middle East? Short answer: we don't know, probably not. Which is why Obama isn't talking about Iran.
I asked numerious questions, and you ignored them all.
Why wouldn't Iran let us handle their fuel rods- it's a win/win for them Why do inspectors keep getting the run-around (kick out, let back in [under limited conditions]) Why are their facilities under ground, rahter than out in the open. Why hid something that's not 'bad'.
Sorry too much for me. I don't want to wait till it is too late. I don't want to have to watch a billion people cheering as millions of jews get wiped off the face of the planet. I want peace, and that means heading toward a direction of disarmament of nuclear weapons and payload devices (ICBMs and the such).
I hold Obama accountable for that poor doctor who ratted out OBL to us, and is now in prison. That doctor should be celebrated and cheered- and he is now rotting in prison. Did Obama cut the aide to pakistan....nope he sure didn't.
That aspect is absolutely insane. Imagine if criminals could respond to a search warrant by throwing the police out. This is one of the key reasons we keep having these debates. If we could just inspect the damn sites we'd know if there was nothing to worry about. The international community needs to be waaay more forceful about allowing inspectors to inspect.
On September 22 2012 06:37 Ein0r wrote: I am a foreigner, and my point of view is not really that big. But if i had to describe both in some few sentences it would look something like this:
Obama: Passed a huge Health Care program, to support the weak. He was unable to reduce the huge unemployment rate. He is experienced in foreign poilcy (through his presidency) He was able to bring many soldiers back home. Did an overall good job, although he had to fight with those huge debts from the Iraq war. He was not much of a hard liner concerning various topics where he should have been.
Romney: Very successful with his companies, he knows how to be economically successful, which could be his biggest asset to lead America into economical recovery. Doesnt give a fuck about the countries of the world. Treats poor people as trash. Extreme point of views. (either black, or white. no grey) Has an aura of wanting to start a war (Iran, etc) or reinvigorate the cold war with russia.
At least this is the vague image i have about both candidates. Some of those facts are true, some of them probably not correct due to my lack of knowledge.
If i had to vote, i would vote the lesser of the two evils, which is Obama to me.
"treats poor people as trash" is a gross mistatement. it's pure propaganda that puts this image in people's heads.
Agreed. "Treating poor people like trash" is definitely a reach.
Anyone else look at the returns that were released by the Romney campaign today?
You have to wonder what changes have been made to force such a long delay in releasing them.
Below is a link to a story discussing it, including looking at how Romney's adj. gross income fell eight million dollars between his preliminary return in January and the report that came out today.
On September 22 2012 07:02 coverpunch wrote: But were any of these examples things that they would not have done anyways?
For one, the US was NOT happy with the effort that the rest of NATO put out in Libya (please learn to spell it correctly). If it weren't for the US, NATO would be totally ineffective.
As for Egypt, yes, I guess this gaffe is how you make friends. Straight from the school of Bush.
And Pakistan is closer to one of the places where Obama is spending political capital, not acquiring it.
It's astonishing these examples you come up with. Obama HAS had foreign policy victories and you haven't named any of the big ones. (hint: look at barackobama.com. His points are very different from yours)
A good foreign policy is that governments are persuaded to do things against public support and against their narrow-minded interests for the greater good. You don't have any examples where Obama is doing that.
However, the biggest tragedy isn't that Obama has been lackluster on foreign policy. It's that Romney would obviously be no better. That is worrying for America.
Even Libya was a 'victory' in US terms. In relative terms, a lot of the missions were carried by allies (mainly the UK and France) and the US managed to fly only a small amount of combat missions. Libya was truly multilateral.
Nothing Bush ever did was.
Read this report. Libya was not "truly multilateral" if you're going beyond sentiment.
On September 22 2012 03:38 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Uh, yes, yes it is. A lot better than it was in 2008. And it's pretty much all due to Obama not being a tool, both in general and when it comes to conducting foreign policy. I personally find him most impressive. On the flip side, if you elect Romney you might potentially get to such a low standing internationally that you can't actually recover anymore. And, really, the only reason I would want to see Romney win would be to see the fantastic mishandling of foreign policy that would follow. Just like I would have liked to see Ron Paul win just to see the US crash and burn internally (assuming he'd actually get any of his policies through). But realistically speaking, disregarding internal politics for a second, Obama is so, so much better for the US than Romney.
EPT
