I think one of the biggest things I like about him is his ability and willingness to use foreign policy. Obama made what I think of national defense pretty clear in his interview with O'Reilly. He is NOT afraid to use military should the need arise; however, it seems that over the last 8 years military force has been the first step instead of a last resort.
I don't buy Obama using military force EVER. Just a hunch... I don't know about it being the first step, weren't there a bunch of resolutions that Iraq, for example repeatedly, and continually violated? Not that those resolutions had any fire behind them, considering the orginization they came from.
I don't see why just because we don't act as a bully that we can be considered pussies? I don't know how you can use spanking children and war in the same example either as they are TOTALLY different things. I am all for spanking/disciplining children and can agree with you that recently in our country doing so is seen as a horrible thing for some reason, but the thought that we should just use violence and force on other countries to show them "who's boss" should be left to those such as the shooters of Columbine/VA Tech. "We were teased so now we are going to go shooting everyone in sight!". That is what people who are so adamant to go to war sound like to me. That's not a great example but when you think about it, it is the same type of gung-ho attitude really.
Pussification of the US and current events ARE 2 different things, I mentioned the Pussifcation as a sidebar, sort of a measuring stick as to define when (IMO) this country started going down the shitter...
For the rest of his paragraph, sometimes the yapping, ankle biting little dog needs to cracked across his snout. If you want to call that being gung ho, so be it. Keep watching the world events, if you can't see the alliance forming, you will when all hell breaks lose. I'm not advocating it, but the storm clouds ARE forming on the horizon. If you remember a past thread, I'm still hoping for the comet/asteroid impact to "adjust" the current situation going on right now.
I still say that the bigger issue with the US using force, is that they need to be allowed to get in and do their job, without the embedded "referees".
Time for the US & its allies to not guarantee the media protection in war zone.
A concern of mine is that John McCain is old coupled with the fact that his running mate has inexperience, something he spent months talking shit on Obama for (hypocritical much?). He's had cancer twice, he's over 70 years old and Sarah Palin is literally a heartbeat away from being leader of the free world. Being "this close" to Russia doesn't count as having foreign policy experience. Being staunchly pro-life will lead to coathanger abortions again, who wants that? When watching the RNC I saw many people with signs and buttons saying stuff like "I'm with the hot chick," "Palin is sexy," etc. which trivializes her already pitiful credentials. As a running mate I much prefer Joe Biden, and it does show that Obama is aware of his lack of experience so of course he would want to surround himself with older and wiser colleagues, similar to what George Bush did with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
So someone with cancer can't be president? (jmbaa-Just me being an asshole
) It is funny how the Pres/VP roles are reversed between the 2.
I am very much pro choice, and any kind of diehard pro lifer terrifies me.
World War III will be awesome, thanks America.
You want you colonies back?
As ABQ said, it won't be us throwing the first "punch", but if anything like this happens, I hope we're throwing the LAST punch.
Proactive versus reactive comes to mind here. Do we want to let foreign maniacal dictators grow unbounded, or do we want to take actions now to limit their growth and influence in the world? In my mind, the latter will put us on the doorstep of WWIII much faster than the former. WWIII will not be started by America, Swabs, regardless of your opinion.
Yep, I gree with you 100% on this. Of course anything we want to do proactively will be critizied due to the 2nd Iraq war...
Brilliance. Couldn't have said it better myself.
When Ann Coulter isn't just being a C**T, she's f'ing awesome. This, is awesome!
Firstly, how can you sort stuff out with leaders of other countries without dialogue? Difficult I would imagine.
Some you can talk to, some you can't....The leader of Iran (I won't even try to spell his name....), is an example of this, as is Kadahfy
As far as the 'corrupt' groups such as the UN, NATO and IAEA go, it's worth noting the USA is quite prepared to use them to further it's own aims when it needs them to, but denounces them as corrupt when they fail to come back with the answers that USA wants. But yes, I think the UN can be considered to be corrupt - the idea of 5 countries (and incidentally the 5 biggest arms dealers!!) having a veto in such an organisation is, quite frankly, preposterous.
We HAVE to use them as sort of an international checks & balances. It doesn't always work out our way, as history has proven. If you need a prime example of corruption, how about Kofi Anan's son & the oil for food clusterphuck the UN started?
So the USA needs a hard-nosed leader eh? Well what do you think you've had over the last few years? Bu has pissed off a large part of the world with his gung-ho attitude to pretty much everything, and with the burgeoning of religious fundamentalism in USA, military overreach abroad and the ongoing bankrupting of a once-great country, how much more hard-nosed do you want? While America has been floating on foreign cash, the likes of Russia and China have been doing very well for themselves by being a lot more savvy with their economics. I really don't think they need to try too hard to become the next economic or military force, USA is doing a fine enough job of disappearing up its own ass as it is.
In some aspects, I agree with you, but if there is a show down with Russia for eample, I'd much rather have McCain staring across the table from Putin, than Obama. I think Slick Willie would be QUITE a pushover, again, JMHFO.
The point about sorting out issues at home is well made though, we have the same issues in Britain. Some of our governments need to address their own domestic issues before trying to dictate to others.
I have LOTS to say about this (total agreement here) but in order not to offend, I will keep my mouth shut here, but will gladly discuss offline what has become a problem in the UK, Norway, and eventually will be in the US
I haven't heard the UN termed "corrupt" - "inept" and "ineffective", perhaps.
It's a difficult balancing act with issues at home and issues abroad. How do we stop Putin's regime from bringing back the old USSR and at the same time shore up our homelands? As a Briton, you're facing similar issues as the US.
I'm not sure I would call their economics more savvy though. They are using them to their advantage though, and if their investments turn to militarism, we can see major conflicts uprising.
Many nations have formed alliances with western countries, and they expect our military might to be used to protect them. We do that, both the US and Britain, and many other allied nations. I don't think we can stop.
Watching the stream of MSNBC's original 9/11 coverage was rather interesting this morning. Calls by our news commentators (Couric, Brokaw) at the time were that we were being attacked by terrorists and that we "are at war". Why have they now flip-flopped their rhetoric to criticize the same war machine they had absolutely no qualms tossing across the airwaves seven years ago? I think we all have short memories, and since there has not been a major offense against us (the West) in seven years (aside from the Spain train bombings and the London bus bomb), we tend to forget the events and tragedies that led us to our current situation. Look at the learnings of the Bush administration over that same time period - he has put in place a good foreign policy over the last several years of open diplomacy and restrained military. People don't seem to see that point though. If Obama talks of change on the foreign policies of the Bush administration, does that then mean he will start attacking other countries? Or does he really mean that he will continue what Bush has put in place, much like McCain has been accused of by the Obama camp?
Another post made out of awesome!
For UN corruption, see the oil for food program....
