RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy

RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 9:17:21 AM)
No, it completely ignores the question. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So what are the policy objectives, and what would get us there (without causing new problems)? Because I'm not hearing any solutions, here or in Washington.

Zonie63 -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 9:57:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR "Grading" the President's foreign policy might be more meaningful if we first establish a rubric for the project. A few thoughts toward a rubric: (a) What should be the paramount goal of U.S. foreign policy? Mainly, to represent our interests to the outside world, with the primary goal of protecting our own territory, sovereignty, and national interests. quote: (b) Below or within that, what are the next three key goals? - Stabilize and secure our own region; a global system with the major powers expected to keep their own region stable - Protect American economic sovereignty - Honor the sovereignty of other nations and advocate a strict policy of non-interference and non-intervention quote: (c) What initiatives can the U.S. undertake to achieve those goals? Stop linking US foreign policy with the ideological imperative of "making the world safe for democracy"; our commitment to freedom and democracy should be a concern solely for domestic politics, while our foreign policies should deal strictly with our practical national interests. The World Wars and the Cold War led us down a path which many people seem to think has no turns. Our foreign policy has been stuck inside a "box" with strict parameters which no one seems willing or able to think outside of. For example, if the US decides to use military force somewhere, it should be only for our own practical national interests, not to play favorites with other nations or to prop up other governments or to save "damsels in distress." In the short run, I don't believe we should withdraw from any treaties or alliances of which we are currently part, although for the long term, the world as a whole will have to decide what it wants for itself. It's not just an "America" thing, since it involves the entire world. What does the world want? If the world doesn’t want democracy or freedom, then maybe we shouldn’t be trying to provide something they don’t want. If the nations of the world want to be nationalistic (which is where some factions seem headed), then what will our options be? How can America continue to promote free trade, democracy, globalism, etc. if the world doesn’t really want it and if their goals seem antithetical to our goals? quote: d) How and when can we determine the success or failure of a foreign policy initiative? That’s easy enough. If a foreign policy initiative has an objective of (for example) “peace in the Middle East,” then its success or failure should be simple to determine. Is there peace in the Middle East? No? Then the policy is a failure.

MrRodgers -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 10:07:11 AM)
The whole concept in general and partisan rant in particular, over the 'grading' of a president's foreign policy is only so much Monday morning, arm-chair quarterbacking and usually filled with unsubstantiated bullshit. Plus, after 8 years of W...we all only go up from there. The most difficult 8 years for which one could bullshit.

Musicmystery -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 10:21:04 AM)
Three problems: 1) you haven't said what those "national interests" are -- that's the question. this is all vague 2) those aren't "initiatives," but rather, things you don't want done. what initiatives should be launched? 3) your success definition begs the question as well. what, for example, doesn't peace in the Middle East look like? A cease fire? An independent Palestine? A disarmed Iran? A disposed Syrian ruler? What?

thompsonx -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 10:21:24 AM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The USA has not been attacked on his watch. Stevens. Smith. Doherty. Woods. Sure we haven't. I checked on mapquest and ben gazi is not in the u.s.[8\|] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As for the rest of his incompetence: China claims islands and builds air strips from their neighbors in vietnam, phillipines: Obamas reaction: nothing. Perhaps because it is none of our business.[8\|] Syria gases rebels DOZENS of times in the last few weeks in contravention of that chemical weapons treaty Obama bruited. Obama does: nothing. Again because it is none of our business[8\|] Russia siezes crimea. Nothing. Again not our business[8\|] Egypt: Nothing. Again not our business.[8\|] Libya is becoming islamicized: Nothing. They were an islamic country before obama became president...not surprising that you were ignorant of that. Not a single success. But hey. At least he didn't send us into iraq... He did cause a regieme change in lybia and he snuffed obl...It was in all the papers and on the news even faux.

thompsonx -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 10:22:39 AM)
Just to make sure we are on the same page, why don't you link a few of the racist comments people have made about Obama on Collarme. I am sure it won't take but a minute if the problem is as bad as you claim. One has to wonder at the feigned ignorance of your post. Do you not know where the search function is? Are you too fucking lazy to use it?

thompsonx -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 10:24:34 AM)
That answers the question. The President's first and foremost policy objective is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And just where would you say he has failed in that?

Zonie63 -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 10:43:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The whole concept in general and partisan rant in particular, over the 'grading' of a president's foreign policy is only so much Monday morning, arm-chair quarterbacking and usually filled with unsubstantiated bullshit. Plus, after 8 years of W...we all only go up from there. The most difficult 8 years for which one could bullshit. I think any kind of grading of a President's foreign policy is going to be incomplete and doesn't really tell the whole story. The problem that every President seems to face is having to inherit the foreign policy (and all the accompanying screw-ups) of his predecessors. We're already part of an international alliance and treaty system, and no President in my lifetime has shown even the slightest willingness to alter America's role within the world system.

Phydeaux -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 11:45:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The USA has not been attacked on his watch. Stevens. Smith. Doherty. Woods. Sure we haven't. I checked on mapquest and ben gazi is not in the u.s.[8\|] Seems your public school education once again rears its head and bites you in the ass. American embassies and consulates are american territory. But even if that wasn't enough, it is so like a liberal sonuvabitch to try to ignore the truth. Regardless of whether american territory was attacked America was attacked when its PEOPLE were attacked. Stevens, Smith, Doherty, Woods were attacked because to Islamic fundamentalists, they represented America. They were attacked because they were agents of the great Satan. Not because of who they were as individuals. quote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As for the rest of his incompetence: China claims islands and builds air strips from their neighbors in vietnam, phillipines: Obamas reaction: nothing. Perhaps because it is none of our business.[8\|] How incredibly stupid. Not our business? The chinese are building airbases to asymmetrically challenge american dominance of the sea and as a way of countering our carrier task forces. American naval power is one of the corner stones of american military power. Additionally, the presence of chinese bases interdict relations with our allies (phillipines, japan, korea) and nascent ally vietnam. This is a direct threat to the United States. quote: Syria gases rebels DOZENS of times in the last few weeks in contravention of that chemical weapons treaty Obama bruited. Obama does: nothing. Again because it is none of our business[8\|] Ah yes, the president that threatens unilateral bombing if assad doesn't go. The president that says they MUST surrender chemical weapons. And suddenly when obama is a pussy - its none of our business. quote: Russia siezes crimea. Nothing. Again not our business[8\|] Just like hitler seizing the sudentenland was not our business. Not our business .. how did ignoring the sudentenland work out for us... quote: Egypt: Nothing. Again not our business.[8\|] We give them 4 bil a year in aid. Yet suddenly its not our business. quote: Libya is becoming islamicized: Nothing. They were an islamic country before obama became president...not surprising that you were ignorant of that. Libya had one of the highest regards of any muslim country towards the US. But now the country is mired in a civil war that your president supported. Libya is a disaster. Extremist islamic groups that target the US are experiencing recruitment rates in excess of 20%. And these are groups that target the US. Ansar al sharia... quote: Not a single success. But hey. At least he didn't send us into iraq... He did cause a regieme change in lybia and he snuffed obl...It was in all the papers and on the news even faux. The regime change in libya is a disaster - and snuffing OBL is not a foreign policy success. Its an assassination. No one contests the USA can conduct assassinations. Assassination via drone is almost synonymous with Obama's foreign policy. Oh yeah. That and spying on world leaders.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 11:51:15 AM)
quote: American naval power is one of the corner stones of american military power snicker Try to catch up to the early 20th century. And since you demonstrably are absolutely deficient in military matters, your lack of foreign policy knowledge becomes even more laughable.

Phydeaux -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 12:11:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: American naval power is one of the corner stones of american military power snicker Try to catch up to the early 20th century. And since you demonstrably are absolutely deficient in military matters, your lack of foreign policy knowledge becomes even more laughable. Oh yes. I'm deficient. Funny. 1/3 of our nuclear deterrent is naval. Funny we maintain 10 carrier groups - they must be inconsequential because mnotter says so. Forget that it is written into military training manuals that these carrier groups allow the US to project power, to protect US interest and give us a flexibility of response that nukes, solely, do not. As a country for whom trade is a life blood - of course we have no interest in maintaining open sea lanes.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 12:25:53 PM)
quote: Forget that it is into military training manuals that these carrier groups allow the US to project power, to protect US interest and give us a flexibility of response that nukes, solely, do not. snicker Show us the military training manuals that is written in. I am an expert on military manuals, did it for a living. Never would that sort of asswipe be included into any military manual. 1/3 of our nukes are mobile. Yeah, maybe they could have gotten to Benghazi inside that hour long window, hah? that would mean 2/3rds of our nukes, the big boys are not, what does that tell us of the relative use of navy up front. We have planes and jets and drones, and the navy is relegated mostly to big floating streets, and cook shacks. And they are used mostly as showboats putting around in the puddles to say.........hey, we could be here and we got a lot of iron. China has more ships than we do, and has for sometime. Even when Obama was a senator they were crawling right up our ass. They surpassed us during a recent nutsacker administration. I pointed it out at the time.

Musicmystery -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 12:45:07 PM)
In fact, cutting it was a goal of that administration.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 1:41:41 PM)
You remember the http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/12/a-budget-agenda-for-the-109th-congress Same asswipe as nutsackers way back then, they smoke and mirrored the budgets, cut the shit out of the VA and appropriated everything for wars and other dumbass shit, so it never hit deficit and showed in debt some time down the road. We could go back to what was it? 97 and the 'contract with america'? They have been prancing this same old tired shit since christ was a corporal, but not really doing what they say they are doing. As jeebus said, the nutsackers are always with us. same shit the nutsackers are doing today.

DomKen -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 2:52:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Seems your public school education once again rears its head and bites you in the ass. American embassies and consulates are american territory. Wrong you clueless liar. US embassies are US territory. US consulates are not. Benghazi was not US territory. Do try and keep the fantasies in you head separate from reality.

thompsonx -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 3:14:06 PM)
Seems your public school education once again rears its head and bites you in the ass. My education points out your mindnumbingly stupid opinions on a regular bassis. American embassies and consulates are american territory. Doherty and woods were killed at the cia station not the consulate. The stevens and woods were killed at the consulate which is not u.s. turf. Perhaps if you had availed yourself of some of that public school you would not post up such ignorant,unsubstantiated bullshit. But even if that wasn't enough, It isn't it is so like a liberal sonuvabitch to try to ignore the truth. It is so like an ignorant sonuvabitch to post peurile,childish insults. Regardless of whether american territory was attacked America was attacked when its PEOPLE were attacked. Perhaps if the cia would not commit crimes in foriegn countries they would not be attacked Stevens, Smith, Doherty, Woods were attacked because to Islamic fundamentalists, they represented America. They were attacked because they were agents of the great Satan. Not because of who they were as individuals. Whom did you think thought otherwise?

thompsonx -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 3:17:52 PM)
How incredibly stupid. Not our business? The chinese are building airbases to asymmetrically challenge american dominance of the sea and as a way of countering our carrier task forces. So what?Count the number of chinese a/c carriers and compare that to the u.s. and tell me what the fuck you are afraid of? American naval power is one of the corner stones of american military power. As is the army and the air force...what is your point? Additionally, the presence of chinese bases interdict relations with our allies (phillipines, japan, korea) Really????how so? and nascent ally vietnam. Viet nam is a nascent ally of the u.s.?[8\|][8\|] This is a direct threat to the United States. Only in your paranoid delulsions.

thompsonx -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 3:19:44 PM)
Just like hitler seizing the sudentenland was not our business. Not our business .. how did ignoring the sudentenland work out for us... Should you ever acquire a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade you might find out.

thompsonx -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 3:20:51 PM)
We give them 4 bil a year in aid. Yet suddenly its not our business. How bout we stop giving them money[8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/19/2014 3:23:22 PM)
quote: Just like hitler seizing the sudentenland was not our business. Not our business .. how did ignoring the sudentenland work out for us... It worked out real well for us, we didnt enter into that war until it was 3 and a half years in, or we would have had our clock cleaned immediately.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625