Obama's weakness on foreign policy issues

[mav451]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
McCain thinks we can win a war in a region that has had religious wars for thousands of years. So that basically puts him behind a 4th grader in understanding foreign policy.

No kidding. To sum up McCain's Iraq plan:
100 years.

All that rhetoric from the right about responsible fiscal spending goes down the hypocritical drain.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: extra
Is it wrong that I read the threat (for some reason this fit better than thread) title and was able to guess the author of the thread before I looked at it? LoL.

The thing is, Obama, like Kennedy, has surrounded himself with many smart, young, minds.

Your article comments on Khrushchev. How he didn't respect Kennedy. LOL! Your post is a joke and that article is a joke. Khrushchev had GREAT respect for Kennedy later on in his life once he was able to reflect on what they (both of them) had gone through in a sense, together. How do we know this? Oh yeah, Khrushchev's own Memoirs about his life. Which that guy has obviously not read.

Khrushchev and Kennedy were both pressured by right-wing hardliners in their own governments and/or militaries who tried to push them each to do things to start war. Khrushchev writes extremely favorably about Kennedy in his Memoirs and considers them to have both been under the same pressures. He writes about how Kennedy had made the right--courageous and wise--choices.

And "Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot." Yeah. I can't imagine Reagan appeasing anyone in Iran. LoL. Wheeee!

Whether Khrushchev had respect for Kennedy or not is irrelevant.

You cannot deny the facts:
1. Kennedy admitted that the summit was the worse event of his life.
2. Following the summit the Berlin wall was started.
3. Similarly the Russians decided to move missiles into Cuba because they did not fear any reprisal from Kennedy.

Finally, you have to be an idiot if you don't look at history and realize that dozens of events and wars were started because one side looked at the other and saw weakness.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
McCain thinks we can win a war in a region that has had religious wars for thousands of years. So that basically puts him behind a 4th grader in understanding foreign policy.

we're at war with Christianity?

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Whether Khrushchev had respect for Kennedy or not is irrelevant.

You cannot deny the facts:
1. Kennedy admitted that the summit was the worse event of his life.
2. Following the summit the Berlin wall was started.
3. Similarly the Russians decided to move missiles into Cuba because they did not fear any reprisal from Kennedy.

Finally, you have to be an idiot if you don't look at history and realize that dozens of events and wars were started because one side looked at the other and saw weakness.

Here is another fact for you. We did not start a war with Russia to stop the missiles.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Whether Khrushchev had respect for Kennedy or not is irrelevant.

You cannot deny the facts:
1. Kennedy admitted that the summit was the worse event of his life.
2. Following the summit the Berlin wall was started.
3. Similarly the Russians decided to move missiles into Cuba because they did not fear any reprisal from Kennedy.

Finally, you have to be an idiot if you don't look at history and realize that dozens of events and wars were started because one side looked at the other and saw weakness.

You're pretty much just parroting what the op-ed said as fact which is HIGHLY debatable.

It is obvious that bad diplomacy can have negative consequences. That's a no brainer. It does absolutely nothing to undermine the idea that we should always be open to talk to our enemies however.

 

[Lemon law]

The PJ delusion is contained here----Whether Khrushchev had respect for Kennedy or not is irrelevant.

You cannot deny the facts:
1. Kennedy admitted that the summit was the worse event of his life.
2. Following the summit the Berlin wall was started.
3. Similarly the Russians decided to move missiles into Cuba because they did not fear any reprisal from Kennedy.

Finally, you have to be an idiot if you don't look at history and realize that dozens of events and wars were started because one side looked at the other and saw weakness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you have to be an even bigger idiot to not look at history and realize that far more wars and conflicts were started by one side who thought they could oppose historical forces with military might. Its always a losing game advocated by the clueless.

Can we forget the star wars blessing, may the force be with you. Idiots pitted us against those very forces in Vietnam and we lost. Now we fail to understand those very forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and have not lost yet while we lose badly. We have everything back asswards. We think we can impose our values on them when we must sell our values to them.

 

[jpeyton]

What weakness?

Obama is the strongest on foreign policy out of any candidate running for the Presidency.

 

[Stoneburner]

Obama knows the difference between Sunni and Shia 🙂

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Obama knows the difference between Sunni and Shia 🙂

The difference matters not. We bomb them all the same. Obama would rather hug it out with our enemies.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Obama would rather hug it out with our enemies.

What enemies?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Obama knows the difference between Sunni and Shia 🙂

The difference matters not. We bomb them all the same. Obama would rather hug it out with our enemies.

I propose that when we're done bombing them we go bomb your house all the same too.

 

[sportage]

What happened to the op Obama woodie???

 

[First]

McCain is far weaker on foreign policy. Has been caught on numerous occasions mistaking Sunni's and Shi'a with each other, having to be corrected by Lieberman on some occasions regarding Iranian and AQ terrorism, and most prominently supporting the war in Iraq that has done far more harm to American interests in terms of economics (deficit spending the U.S. cannot continue to keep up with), in terms of moral obligations to families who are losing their sons and daughters, in terms of the U.S.'s ability to conduct foreign diplomacy (world view of U.S. is down huge since 2000), and perhaps worst of all in terms of Iran and outlying terrorists increasing in strength and number (confirmed by NIE and every credible independent report). Meanwhile the positives of Iraq amount to less violence in Iraq as a (likely) result of the surge last summer, reducing levels of violence from intolerable to less intolerable. And even then, last month was the bloodiest month since September of last year.

As much as I disagree with most of Obama's other policies, McCain, the alternative, has nothing on him expect being an American hero for enduring torture in a prison camp and living to tell about it. He'd make a decent president (certainly better than Bush), but Obama and I'm sure other people would make better ones.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Obama knows the difference between Sunni and Shia 🙂

The difference matters not. We bomb them all the same. Obama would rather hug it out with our enemies.

I propose that when we're done bombing them we go bomb your house all the same too.

Generally you bomb the biggest dangers first.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Obama knows the difference between Sunni and Shia 🙂

The difference matters not. We bomb them all the same. Obama would rather hug it out with our enemies.

I propose that when we're done bombing them we go bomb your house all the same too.

Generally you bomb the biggest dangers first.

Well... it seems to me we define dangers and asign degree consistent with our objectives. We also seem to take action based not on the degree of danger but rather, based on the weakness of the potential bombee.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yes, this was written by Karl Rove. But he makes some very good points.
Especially about the Nixon and China thing.

When it comes to foriegn policy it seems that Obama will be doing a lot of 'on the job training.'
I am not sure the position of the Presidency is where you want someone to go through that type of training.
link

Obama's Troubling Instincts
By KARL ROVE
May 22, 2008
Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It's not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions.

On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.

By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.

Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking.

Is Mr. Obama's first instinct to dismiss North Korea, the world's worst nuclear proliferator, as an insignificant threat? Is his immediate reaction to treat Venezuela as a wayward child, rather than as an adversary willing to destabilize the hemisphere? Is his memory so short he has forgotten the Castro brothers' willingness to aid revolutionary movements? Is he so shortsighted as to ignore the threat to Mideast stability that Syria's meddling in Lebanon and support for Hamas and Hezbollah represents?

Mr. Obama's Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet ? eagerly and without precondition ? during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China.

I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield.

Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.

But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn't work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he'd make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.

If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Wow, another troll thread about Obama from john. How shocking.

 

[nageov3t]

someone's got to compete with all the "McSame" threads 😛

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Obama knows the difference between Sunni and Shia 🙂

The difference matters not. We bomb them all the same.

that has worked oh so well in Iraq.

 

[JohnnyGage]

I love how Thomas Sowell put it:

"If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated."

This is what is going to happen when Obama tries to negotiate with Iran. First of all he will have to replace the constitution with Sharia to get anywhere--because it's okay to lie to the infidel so we better be a muslim nation. Remember Achmadina-nut-job is the same guy who said there aren't any gays in Iran(I wonder why). Oh yes and where women can't go outside without a hijab--try to roll that one past NOW and see how it flies. Also there's that whole Israel thing--you know it's a 'rotten stinking corpse' and 'it should be wiped off the map'. If half the stuff he says where coming from a Christian leader you wouldn't be giving him the same respect.

So what will Obama discuss without consessions?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
I love how Thomas Sowell put it:

"If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated."

This is what is going to happen when Obama tries to negotiate with Iran. First of all he will have to replace the constitution with Sharia to get anywhere--because it's okay to lie to the infidel so we better be a muslim nation. Remember Achmadina-nut-job is the same guy who said there aren't any gays in Iran(I wonder why). Oh yes and where women can't go outside without a hijab--try to roll that one past NOW and see how it flies. Also there's that whole Israel thing--you know it's a 'rotten stinking corpse' and 'it should be wiped off the map'. If half the stuff he says where coming from a Christian leader you wouldn't be giving him the same respect.

So what will Obama discuss without consessions?

If America is full of only idiots like yourself who would care?