Obama on Foreign Policy

[JBecker]

Exactly. But I take it you HAVE read a history book before, Islam does not sway easily. I'm sure though that they will throw away all their religious doctrine and fanaticism when Obama smiles and says "hope and change":rolleyes:

 

 

This is funny. So if he supports your view, he's read a history book. If I don't support your view, it's because I've only read books and not spoken to Muslims, Arabs, or Persians.

 

What happens when I've done both?

[Sex Panther]

This is funny. So if he supports your view, he's read a history book. If I don't support your view, it's because I've only read books and not spoken to Muslims, Arabs, or Persians. What happens when I've done both?

 

 

I know you are but what am I?

[17 Tubes]

Mike - You may not agree with Obama, but can you tell me that this: is such a terrible idea?

 

No..it's not...on the face of it.

 

 

In case you didn't know...we ARE "engaging" the citizens of the Middle East. Iraq ESPECIALLY. In fact our kids are getting blown to shreds trying to not kill the innocent Iraqi's...like their own countrymen and fellow Middle Easterners are SO willing to do.

 

While we "engage" them....certain factions are creating massive disturbance...and people like Obama are pointing at OURSELVES...as if you and me are pushing the timed detonator.

 

It's time we STOP blaming US...and start blaming the REAL killers. Just be honest with yourself...and tell yourself who that is. Don;t listen to our politicians tell you it's G. Bush. Don't listen to them tell you it's AMERICANS. Americans are coming home in body bags and pieces trying to "engage" the citizens.

 

ONe thing that irks me all to hell...is that...for once forget what you think about "Bush Lied" okay? Just forget that for a moment. Fact is Congress has allowed the US to go to Iraq...even recently. Most of Congress originally approved it. But when things got tough...when things turned to {censored}...instead of standing up and doing what we needed to do...they ran like little bitches...bitches!...screaming..."Oh Bush lied bush lied...I didn't do anything it was all him!"

 

{censored}ing cowards. And don't get me started about Cindy Shehan. Thank god the public wasn't buying that 100%. But we still have Nancy freakin Pulosi to deal with.

 

Anyway...How are ya?

[damnuandurdog]

This is funny. So if he supports your view, he's read a history book. If I don't support your view, it's because I've only read books and not spoken to Muslims, Arabs, or Persians. What happens when I've done both?

 

 

Elitist fundamentalist fistjabber.

[DyeMusica]

You're reducing ALL if Islam to a small percentage, fine. But there are an awful lot of Muslims who are not part of radical Islam, and we can't lump them in with the people who are attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq. You're talking about the single largest organized religion in the world here.

 

 

Yea, thanks, you read that in a book, Ive been there, I know some of them. Some happy ones, and some that weren't so happy to see me.

Not to even mention I lived in Turkey as a kid.

You ever lived with Muslims, no matter Sunni or {censored}e?

 

So great, anyone with any brain knows that the majority of Islam doesn't not want to kill Americans and does not adhere to wahabi'ism, but there will always be those that are, and this pool will never go away.

It is part of the religion, although a small part, a vein that is strong, and get training from the best military's in the world, including ours.

 

How does Obama mean to reach them? When they have sworn to become shaheed, nothing else matters.

You think giving them money will change that?

What will?

Obama has not said how he is going to change history, he only said that he thinks he can by talking to them.

 

Guess Ive had enough {censored} fired at me to know that those that want trouble are going to want it no matter what.

[Sex Panther]

Elitist fundamentalist terrorist facist extreme lefty liberal limp wristed fistjabber.

 

 

Fixed.

[17 Tubes]

I can see where you're going and far be it from me to be an armchair military strategist but I was just illustrating the absurdity of cyclon's notion that all of Islam is full of murderers that kill 'woman and children' like we've been so innocent ourselves.

 

 

Okay..on that I agree. Sorry!

[JBecker]

No..it's not...on the face of it. In case you didn't know...we ARE "engaging" the citizens of the Middle East. Iraq ESPECIALLY. In fact our kids are getting blown to shreds trying to not kill the innocent Iraqi's...like their own countrymen and fellow Middle Easterners are SO willing to do. While we "engage" them....certain factions are creating massive disturbance...and people like Obama are pointing at OURSELVES...as if you and me are pushing the timed detonator. It's time we STOP blaming US...and start blaming the REAL killers. Just be honest with yourself...and tell yourself who that is. Don;t listen to our politicians tell you it's G. Bush. Don't listen to them tell you it's AMERICANS. Americans are coming home in body bags and pieces trying to "engage" the citizens.

 

 

Where did he blame the US? Where did anyone in this thread blame the US? Why is saying that we can change our foreign policy to be more proactive rather than reactive, which is where we sit at the moment, about blame?

[DyeMusica]

This is funny. So if he supports your view, he's read a history book. If I don't support your view, it's because I've only read books and not spoken to Muslims, Arabs, or Persians. What happens when I've done both?

 

 

Whats funnier is that if one takes the time to read this thread from the beginning, you said the EXACT same thing.

You have done both?

Good for you!

What happened then?

Please give us some details, as I want to hear em.

[JBecker]

Whats funnier is that if one takes the time to read this thread from the beginning, you said the EXACT same thing. You have done both? Good for you! What happened then? Please give us some details, as I want to hear em.

 

 

I'm not sure where in this thread I read the book thing other than to tell Cylon that he was clearly uninformed. In fact, I asked something like, "Where were you in 2002?"

 

I'm not sure what details you're referring to. You're wondering what the content of hundreds of conversations with Arabs, Palestinians, and Persians has resulted in?

[DyeMusica]

Nowhere did I even mention what I think about what Obama said, just countered what someone who is clearly uninformed said with information. I will mention that I don't think you've really said any more than anyone else in this thread, so it's kind of funny that you're calling us all windbags.

 

 

Typical, all about attacking someone for not agreeing, but all youve done is cut and paste.

Im not attacking you, calling names, or telling you what I think of you, so dont get upset.

 

You say he is uninformed, when that doesnt seem the case, he just doesnt take the same stance as you.

But to you, and others, that makes him stupid.

[Sex Panther]

Whats funnier is that if one takes the time to read this thread from the beginning, you said the EXACT same thing. You have done both? Good for you! What happened then? Please give us some details, as I want to hear em.

 

 

I'm the one that told cylon to read a book. And I didn't mean a political book. Just an educational book to perhaps boost his intelligence. "Hop on Pop", or "Horton hears a who" would be a good start.

[DyeMusica]

I'm not sure where in this thread I read the book thing other than to tell Cylon that he was clearly uninformed. In fact, I asked something like, "Where were you in 2002?" I'm not sure what details you're referring to. You're wondering what the content of hundreds of conversations with Arabs, Palestinians, and Persians has resulted in?

The reason your not finding anything is because you are having some reading comprehension problems.
I didnt quote you did I?
No, No I didn't.
I quoted weathered.
Its nice you had hundreds of conversations with people of different cultures.
Let me know when you are signing up after Obama decides to tow the party line and send more troops in.
But I have a sinking feeling that you wont be in that line.
Somehow I think you will be here, telling us how the new president is a idiot who is destroying the country.

Maybe you could do it without having your own opinion, by say, cutting and pasting something?

[JBecker]

 

Typical, all about attacking someone for not agreeing, but all youve done is cut and paste. Im not attacking you, calling names, or telling you what I think of you, so dont get upset. You say he is uninformed, when that doesnt seem the case, he just doesnt take the same stance as you. But to you, and others, that makes him stupid.

 

 

I copied and pasted the first three posts from a CNN interview since a 30 second clip on foreign policy hardly seems worth 300 posts when there is a more complete and recent source on information about Obama's foreign policy.

 

As for being uninformed-- he claimed there were no terrorist attacks on America or its allies post- 9/11 which is completely false. He claimed that Obama switched his mind on the war when it was politically convenient, which was completely false.

 

He referred to Iraqi abuses that occurred far outside the realm of the "imminent threat" which was the reason we went to war against Iraq and claims I must support those abuses since I did not view and do not view that Iraq was, in 2002, an "imminent threat". That's a false conclusion.

[Sex Panther]

Typical, all about attacking someone for not agreeing, but all youve done is cut and paste. Im not attacking you, calling names, or telling you what I think of you, so dont get upset. You say he is uninformed, when that doesnt seem the case, he just doesnt take the same stance as you. But to you, and others, that makes him stupid.

 

 

No, what makes him stupid, is the fact that he can't put together one sentence properly, and he hasn't had a valid point in any of his posts. I've read some good posts/points from you, 17 tubes, and a couple other anti-Obama guys. However, this guy just doesn't have a clue.

[17 Tubes]

Steve - you know as well as I do that this isn't WWII. We're not fighting an army that wants to engage in the open. We're fighting cells and sects - you can't simply shoot first and ask questions later, because the enemy isn't wearing a uniform and announcing their presence.

 

 

No.

 

We bombed the {censored} out of factories and people and homes. That wasn't seek and destroy only military people! It's what we are trying to do now and it will only be total failure.

 

War has not changed. Be it a caveman, WWII, or now. War doesn't change.

 

What HAS changed recently...in a historical perspective...is the fact that CITIZENS get to dictate how a war should be operated. The media has a camera at the backs of the soldier...and it isn't pretty. War is never PRETTY. That is why you go to boot camp. That is why a SOLDIER fights a war. Not a citizen.

 

In war...you most often DO shoot first and ask questions later. It MOST OFTEN SAVES YOUR LIFE.

 

 

This is part of the reason we have "failed" in Iraq. War...not war. Occupation...not occupation. Look at the little dog we tortured! We don;t belong there...we put Saddam there...it's for oil where's the {censored}ing oil?....etc etc.

 

Such indecision. We did not commit ourselves to the task. We ultimately don't have the balls to fight a war anymore. We can;t stomach it. We don't fight them in our neighborhoods...we don't find them morally or philosophically. And we damn sure can't fight them militarily...as long as the agendized media and citizens have a say.

[DyeMusica]

I have spent time in the Middle East. My family lives less than 20miles from the border of the West Bank between Arab villages in Nazareth and Tabour and have since 1919. They say it's worth talking to them. I've interacted with Palestinians and Arabs directly who suggest that their Persian friends should be talked to. I've got a great friend at Brown who's from Tehran. I've had tremendous conversations with her. Obama has repeatedly said that he does not give up his right to go in and defend America's interest but that removing diplomacy from the table is simply bad foreign policy and a recipe for disaster. I think the last 8 years have been a great example of that.

 

 

Good for you, someone in your family lives in Israel.

 

Read my post, I have nothing but respect for Islam, and know many muslims, and unlike you, I had to trust my LIFE to them many time, knowing that I was in situations that easily could have ended up me being dead rather than good people defend me from the bad, or help me defend myself;)

 

The fact I am pointing out, that you have not been able to read, is that I think that no matter what we do, there are going to be those who wish to attack us, that small percentage can do huge results with money from the other percentage that sides with them but doesnt want to actually fight.

How does Obama say he is going to reach the ones we are fighting now? The real enemy?

Oh thats right, he doesnt, he just says he wants to, and thats good enough for most.

 

Lets see a real plan, and Ill listen, I dont dislike Obama as a man, I just dont want him for a president, but I dont want McCain either.

[JBecker]

The reason your not finding anything is because you are having some reading comprehension problems. I didnt qoute you did I? No, No I didnt. I qouted weathered. Its nice you had hundreds of conversations with people of different cultures. Let me know when you are signing up after Obama decides to tow the party line and send more troops in. But I have a sinking feeling that you wont be in that line. Somehow I think you will be here, telling us how the new president is a idiot who is destroying the country. Maybe you could do it without having your own opinion, by say, cutting and pasting something?

I quoted a response in which you quoted me and claimed I used the same tactic in this thread. Try again.

So you're saying that if I sign up to go to war, I'm allowed to have an opinion and can say I have an informed decision on foreign policy. However, if I choose not to be a part of the military, I cannot possibly understand or have an opinion on foreign policy, nor could I possibly understand what the concerns are of civilians in Iraq, Iran, the West Bank, etc and what the majority pulse is like as opposed to the militant minority factions.

Am I correct? Only those who go to war are qualified.

So, if I got this right, if I don't agree with you, I better have read a book, had conversations with Arabs, Persians, and other Muslims, and I have to have gone to war.

If I agree with you, these experiences are assumed.

I haven't copied and pasted anything I've written in this thread past the CNN article.

[JBecker]

Good for you, someone in your family lives in Israel. Read my post, I have nothing but respect for Islam, and know many muslims, and unlike you, I had to trust my LIFE to them many time, knowing that I was in situations that easily could have ended up me being dead rather than good people defend me from the bad, or help me defend myself;) The fact I am pointing out, that you have not been able to read, is that I think that no matter what we do, there are going to be those who wish to attack us, that small percentage can do huge results with money from the other percentage that sides with them but doesnt want to actually fight. How does Obama say he is going to reach the ones we are fighting now? The real enemy? Oh thats right, he doesnt, he just says he wants to, and thats good enough for most. Lets see a real plan, and Ill listen, I dont dislike Obama as a man, I just dont want him for a president, but I dont want McCain either.

 

 

Actually, you have the reading comprehension issue. Obama has stated that alongside with continued efforts to fight those who wish to attack us, we should seek to form better relations with the majority factions in these countries who want nothing to do with these events or simply want peace and sovereignty. He wants to ensure that we do what we can to establish understanding, sovereignty, and trade with these nations so that the next generation is less likely to be driven towards the violent factions which current exist in that society.

[17 Tubes]

Where did he blame the US? Where did anyone in this thread blame the US? Why is saying that we can change our foreign policy to be more proactive rather than reactive, which is where we sit at the moment, about blame?

 

Oh come on the {censored} right now.

 

I never SAID anyone HERE blamed the US. Why are trying to argue that.

 

 

But if you never heard "Bush killed 50 billion in Iraq" then you better just leave the thread right now.

 

 

For all those saying we need to "talk". We need to "negotiate":cry:

 

 

So your boy Clinton couldn't negotiate? So Saddam violated 23 UN Resolutions? Israel is doing a GREAT job of "negotiating"...huh?

 

 

Where were you through all of the 90's? Just getting out of diapers maybe.

 

Look...I am all FOR "working it out" I wish it could be so. We TRIED it for almost 10 years. Not to mention the Middle East has been blowing itself up for centuries. First it was "we don;t belong there for ANY reason"... Now it's "lets' TALK to them" Let's "engage" them. TRY to be consistant...if nothing else.

 

 

IF "they"...."they" being the ones blowing innocent people to shreds....*wanted* to talk...they would have said so by now. The ones blowing people up DON'T want to talk. They want to blow people up.

 

So what do we DO about that?

[DyeMusica]

I copied and pasted the first three posts from a CNN interview since a 30 second clip on foreign policy hardly seems worth 300 posts when there is a more complete and recent source on information about Obama's foreign policy. Still cut and paste. None of this is your personal opinion. As for being uninformed-- he claimed there were no terrorist attacks on America or its allies post- 9/11 which is completely false. He claimed that Obama switched his mind on the war when it was politically convenient, which was completely false. There has been no attacks on American soil, including embassy's in a long while. Now do I think that is because of Bush? Partly, some of the measure we are using is stopping things from brewing as easy, but I think most of it is due to time. Time is different to those that want to attack us, they don't mind waiting ten years to do something, so that it is planned perfect. For the record I do not think the patriot act and other domestic spy programs have helped us as a nation, even more so when the Mexico border is wide open. He referred to Iraqi abuses that occurred far outside the realm of the "imminent threat" which was the reason we went to war against Iraq and claims I must support those abuses since I did not view and do not view that Iraq was, in 2002, an "imminent threat". That's a false conclusion. Fact is we got intel that said Iraq was a threat, so the president acted on it. At the time, the country was behind it in full force. Oh, and the reason why Obama was against the war from the beginning is great, seeing is he wasn't even involved in the senate then. Scary huh? That the guy wants to be president, and run the most powerful country in the free world, yet he has less than 150 days in politics working, not campaigning.

 

 

 

It's not that we dont agree on some of these issues, but lets get some facts straight.

Because someone said that he wants to do something, doent mean he has done anything.

[JBecker]

Oh come on the {censored} right now. I never SAID anyone HERE blamed the US. Why are trying to argue that. But if you never heard "Bush killed 50 billion in Iraq" then you better just leave the thread right now. For all those saying we need to "talk". We need to "negotiate":cry: So your boy Clinton couldn't negotiate? So Saddam violated 23 UN Resolutions? Israel is doing a GREAT job of "negotiating"...huh? Where were you through all of the 90's? Just getting out of diapers maybe. Look...I am all FOR "working it out" I wish it could be so. We TRIED it for almost 10 years. Not to mention the Middle East has been blowing itself up for centuries. First it was "we don;t belong there for ANY reason"... Notit's "lets' TALK to them" Let's "engage" them. IF "they"...."they" being the ones blowing innocent people to shreds....*wanted* to talk...they would have said so by now. The ones blowing people up DON'T want to talk. They want to blow people up. So what do we DO about that?

I'll attempt, as usual, to understand what you're saying. Bear with me.

I'm saying that Obama never suggested US blame nor did his supporters in this thread, so bringing up external arguments that no one here has yet chosen to stoop to is simply trying to take an underhanded shot at a mindset which has not been shared by those of us in this thread. I.E.-- you're not talking to that brand of liberal, so drop it.

No one is saying sing Kumbaya around the fire, we're saying the last 8 years has not been a diplomatic high point in the history of the US. We're saying, it's time to go back to diplomacy first, action threatened as a deterrent and acted upon only in dire need or true imminent threat on the American people and the world. I think that it's ridiculous to say that diplomacy is a useless, weak, liberal concept.

I'm sure that Reagan would be very happy to hear that all he had to do was send the army into the streets of Moscow.

[DyeMusica]

Actually, you have the reading comprehension issue. Obama has stated that alongside with continued efforts to fight those who wish to attack us, we should seek to form better relations with the majority factions in these countries who want nothing to do with these events or simply want peace and sovereignty. He wants to ensure that we do what we can to establish understanding, sovereignty, and trade with these nations so that the next generation is less likely to be driven towards the violent factions which current exist in that society.

 

 

1-How is he going to attack those who want to attack us, without harming others who don't want to attack us yet harbor, due to religious creed protect those that do?

 

You think trading with people like Saudi Arabia has helped us?

Did you actually live in the middle east?

No offense man, but if you did you were either sheltered or to young to know up from down.

All this is double speak, which is nice that there are those who believe it, but at some point we are going to have to have boots on the ground, even if we are only helping, and when those people are killed, then Obama is going to do what he does best in his very short political career, that is go with the public sway, and send more troops in, then the next thing you know its another little skirmish.

 

In the real world, to a group of people, although a small percentage of their religion, who want to kill us, we are going to have to kill them, that is war.

It might bother you, but I can tell you that I have seen first hand the writings of the Imans out of Iran, who will, without a doubt, destroy Israel if they get the chance.

 

So if Ole Obama gets voted in, I would suggest spending some time back in the Israel, training with the IDF rather than cutting and pasting someone else's rhetoric and lapping it up as if everything he says is true.

[personatech]

I gotta ask - what does this have to do with Amps??!!

 

JBecker - you might engage more intelligent discussion were your avatar not so smug.

One look and I want to smack you down with righteous Republicanism, even if it's not always my cup o' tea! ;-)

 

You know, if you close your eyes and LISTEN to Obama I swear to God you hear John Kerry (and Al Gore and Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale...) all over again. I'm still waiting for Obama to "reach across the aisle" and show that he's an agent of change rather than an agent of good ol' rehashed Americanized 60's socialism. C'mon, Barack, offer one little tidbit to convince me that you really are a different kind of Democrat. Frankly, I've been disappointed and am still waiting.

[JBecker]

It's not that we dont agree on some of these issues, but lets get some facts straight. Because someone said that he wants to do something, doent mean he has done anything.

 

 

I cut and paste the article to start the discussion and I've made probably 25 posts since, yet everything I've said thus far is cut and paste and not my opinion? I never even said I agree with all of what Obama said!?

 

Absolutely I think that time has a lot to do with the lack of attack on American soil. I'm actually of the impression that the fracturing of our intelligence community, the TSA breaking off of the FAA and the Department of Homeland Security, may have made effective communication as difficult if not more so than before. However, that doesn't change that there were attacks on at least two US allies since 2001. This makes his post factually incorrect.

 

To continue with your bolded comments-- I'm not posting here about support for Obama, rather, it's about discussion about a more thorough explanation of his foreign policy and principals than the original thread on here. All I have to say is that the world was not convinced by our evidence and internal members of the White House also have come out and said they were not convinced. The issue was hotly debated in my high school when decisions were being made and even then there were citizens unimpressed with the sales pitch. The intel wasn't particularly strong even if it were all true that Iraq was an imminent threat to America's interests. We were a nation gung-ho behind a president who was going to lead us in a vengeance march through the Middle East and that's where his support came from. That support was abused by arrogance, in my opinion, and an intelligence community heightened and anxious about its responsibility to not, yet again, drop the ball on US security.

 

Let's get something very straight, this is about characterizing the approach an Obama presidency would take on diplomacy abroad. It's not about what he's done, it's not about whether or not you just don't believe any politician will even attempt to do what they say or something in the spirit of what they say. It's about evaluating these fundamental beliefs in an approach for diplomacy (or lack thereof).