Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,126 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,226,918
Pageviews Today: 1,564,999Threads Today: 294Posts Today: 6,476
12:05 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.

 
PACNWguy
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 366950
United States
03/24/2008 03:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
Obama as C-in-C?
by Kris W. Kobach

The third week of March was not a good one for Barack Obama. The news cycle was dominated by tapes of the racist tirades of Jeremiah Wright, and by Obama’s efforts to distance himself from his long-time pastor and counselor.

Had the Wright tapes not emerged at that time, the news cycle might have been dominated by a speech that Obama delivered on March 19, 2008, in Fayetteville, North Carolina. In it, he offered voters a sketch of what American foreign policy might look like under President Barack Obama.

Although Obama’s view of the world is not as twisted as his pastor’s view, it is every bit as troubling. And that view informs his foreign policy prescriptions. In the speech, Obama revealed several disturbing elements that would define his foreign policy.

The first is Obama’s view that Islamist Terrorism is caused by poverty and inequality. Obama initially expressed this idea when he was an Illinois State Senator who aspired to be a U.S. senator. Speaking to an anti-war rally in October 2002, Obama explained why he was opposed to going to war in Iraq. He now wears this speech on his sleeve as proof that he was always opposed to the war.

It certainly did reveal his opposition to the war, but it also revealed a shockingly naïve view of Islamist terrorism. He said: “Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East … stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.” According to Obama, the desire to carry out suicide attacks in the name of Islam stems from “poverty and despair.”

Never mind that many of Al Qaeda’s recruits have come from privileged backgrounds. And never mind that indoctrination in well-funded Wahabbi madrassa schools -- not the lack of education -- has produced thousands of jihadist fighters for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Obama’s supposition that terrorists just want their governments to stop “oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent,” is even more nonsensical. His equation of Islamist terrorists to western freedom fighters betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy. A President Obama would attempt to solve the problem by cajoling moderate Middle-Eastern government into allowing freer speech, broadening civil rights, and launching American-style anti-poverty programs.

This is, to quote Jeremy Bentham, “nonsense on stilts.” Islamist terrorists are not fighting for open, western-style democracies. They are fighting to impose Sharia law and silence all dissent. If anything, moderate Middle-Eastern governments are too open and too permissive, according to the Islamofacist worldview. Just ask the Iranians.

Three years in the senate have not cured Obama of his naivete. He continues to repeat this notion. On March 19, he insisted that America must invest “in education and opportunity” to defeat radical Islamism. It is as if Obama thinks that young men in Saudi Arabia join al Qaeda for the same reasons that young men in Chicago join a street gang. Scholarships and jobs won’t solve the problem.

The second element of Obama’s foreign policy flows from the first: his desire to send extraordinary amounts of economic assistance around the world to make Islamist terrorism go away. On March 19, he promised that he would double our economic assistance to foreign countries. He would also double the size of the Peace Corps. His view of international problems is a simplistic one: more American money means more American friends.

Obama opined with respect to Pakistan, “That is why we should dramatically increase our support for the Pakistani people -- for education, economic development, and democratic institutions. That child in Pakistan must know that we want a better life for him, that America is on his side, and that his interest in opportunity is our interest as well.”

In Obama’s world, it’s that simple. Expose the kid in Pakistan to the audacity of hope, and he’ll reject militant Islamism forever. Obama failed to offer any examples of countries in which this strategy has succeeded. But why let experience get in the way “change we can believe in?”

The third element is one that we are all familiar with -- Obama’s pledge to get our soldiers out of Iraq as soon as possible. On March 19, he not only promised to end the war immediately, he also laid out a specific timetable: “I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them in 16 months.”

I’m sure Al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent organizations appreciate Obama’s willingness to provide a precise timetable for withdrawal. If they are lucky, he’ll soon explain which brigades will leave first and which operations in Iraq will be immediately halted.

It is the height of irresponsibility for any presidential candidate to publicly lay out such a detailed timetable. This facilitates terrorist planning and allows them to determine when to launch their next waves of attacks. It also offers hope to those insurgents who may be on the verge of surrender. Why give up now, when in January 2009, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will begin?

So much for listening to the advice of our military commanders in Iraq. Obama has a schedule to keep. Just when things are going our way and the surge is working, Obama would impose his naïve, brigade-a-month timetable. If he succeeds, we may just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Chaos and genocide would surely follow.

And what will Obama do to ensure stability in Iraq when the troops are gone? “We will engage with every country in the region—and the UN—to support the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq.” In other words, we will ask Iran and Syria to play nice. And by merely “engaging” with them, we will convince them to support a free, open and stable Iraq.

Apparently, Obama is so impressed by the power of his own words to charm swooning Democratic voters, he thinks that a few choice phrases will melt the hearts of Iranian and Syrian leaders.

The fourth element of Obama’s foreign policy will be to apologize to the rest of the world for American unilateralism and seek greater popularity in the international community. As Obama explained on March 19, “[O]ur alliances around the world have been strained.”

He didn’t offer any evidence for that assertion. Nor did he address recent developments to the contrary. French and German voters have elected the most pro-American governments in decades. Seven years of bombings by Islamist terrorists throughout Europe have hardened European leaders to the threat they face and have increased their cooperation with U.S. counterterrorism programs.

Ignoring such evidence, Obama constantly complains that America needs to change its image in the world. He seems to believe that America must tailor it foreign policy to win the approval of the champagne-swilling, globalist crowd at Davos.

How do we win greater popularity in the world? According to Obama, “This means closing Guantanamo, restoring habeas corpus, and respecting civil liberties.” Translation: bring Taliban fighters and other terrorists captured in Afghanistan to prisons inside United States, try them like garden-variety criminals in U.S. courts, and dramatically scale back U.S. surveillance of terrorist organizations. All of this, even though no court has found that anyone’s civil liberties have been violated.

The last President who saw it as his central mission to curry favor with the rest of the world was Jimmy Carter. It was during his presidency that Islamist extremism began to spread like a wildfire throughout the Middle East. Despite Carter’s winning smile, it became fashionable in the region to burn American flags. As the Iranian hostage crisis demonstrated, not only did certain nations still not like us, they didn’t respect us either.

The fifth and final theme in Obama’s foreign policy is perhaps the most troubling. He twice told the audience in Fayetteville that America must adopt a new ideology. He said he was “running for President because it’s time to turn the page on a failed ideology.”

He later offered the following cryptic words: “An ideology that does not fit the shape of the times cannot shape events in foreign countries.”

One wonders what aspects of American ideology a President Obama would attempt to jettison. Would it be our commitment to democracy and self determination? Would it be our belief in free markets? Would it be our willingness to risk American lives so that other people may be freed from tyranny? Or would it be our rejection of Islamist extremism?

American ideology is, and always has been, a force for good in the world. And despite what Obama’s advisers are telling him, American voters aren’t looking for a leader who will apologize to the world on our behalf. Indeed, our allies aren’t looking for that either.

American leadership in the war against Islamist terrorism is precisely what our allies can least afford to lose. If America does not lead with resolve and force, it will be doubly difficult for our allies to defend themselves.

Obama’s prescription of offering billions of dollars in foreign aid along with a doubling of the number of Peace Corps volunteers will do nothing to stop the advance of militant Islamism in the world.

In sum, Obama’s recent statements reveal a shocking naivety about the world, as well as a radical change of course that he would undertake in American foreign policy. This is one “change” that none of us can afford to believe in.

:obamapak:
OBAMA - THE FASTEST FAILED PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY

"I inherated and I am Great!"
malu

User ID: 394870
United States
03/24/2008 03:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
“I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them in 16 months.”

i certainly don't have the answers and i still think the war was a mistake, but if we were to do the above, those troops left behind each month will have hell to pay, can you imagine being the last few brigades? everyone able to hold a rifle or make a bomb will be trying to get a piece of you
if by chance he was elected, i expect to see hundreds of soldiers killed with in the first few weeks
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war."

Israel's Mossad

"The truth shall set you free."

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Motto
PACNWGuy's Conscience
User ID: 394142
United States
03/24/2008 03:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
radical islamic extremists and al-qaeda are gonna try n' make me wear a turban. they are the greatest threat to america. those few thousand terrorist don't like our freedoms and they want to take it from the 300,000,000 americans! i don't care if we gotta send all our troops to die and i don't care if we gotta spend all our money and our economy completely tanks, i will not praise allah like those dune coons are gonna try n' make me do. no way no how.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 301537
United States
03/24/2008 03:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
You would have so much more credibility if you weren't so biased.... :-)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2711
United States
03/24/2008 03:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
I don't know where he thinks we have all this extra money hidden.
malu

User ID: 394870
United States
03/24/2008 04:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
You would have so much more credibility if you weren't so biased.... :-)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 301537



??

this was a copy and paste

read the article for what it is worth
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war."

Israel's Mossad

"The truth shall set you free."

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Motto
PACNWguy (OP)

User ID: 366950
United States
03/24/2008 04:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
You would have so much more credibility if you weren't so biased.... :-)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 301537


Ya think? laugh

I dont think I would have posted this if I was an Obama supporter.

But you need to wonder how anyone who is wanting to be President can be soooo fucking niave as to what drives Islamic terrorists. Poverty...Thats just stupid.
OBAMA - THE FASTEST FAILED PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY

"I inherated and I am Great!"
1-2-Follow

User ID: 394142
United States
03/24/2008 04:19 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
You would have so much more credibility if you weren't so biased.... :-)


Ya think? laugh

I dont think I would have posted this if I was an Obama supporter.

But you need to wonder how anyone who is wanting to be President can be soooo fucking niave as to what drives Islamic terrorists. Poverty...Thats just stupid.
 Quoting: PACNWguy


so do you think mccain will do better while his staff brushes his hair for him and changes his pee pants for him? can a man who is on the verge of alzheimer's and talks incessantly to furniture run what was once the greatest country in the world or can will he just be the best at finishing the destruction of it that bush has started?
"As of 10:18 a.m. EST, on the 23rd day of July, I officially declare this the day your DOW DOOM died. 9000 has just been breached." - the 1-2

Truth is schilling in the empire of retards.

"Yep but for now we dub you toast guy." - AC520845

*PROCLAIMED PROPHET OF THE DOW* ®
PACNWguy (OP)

User ID: 366950
United States
03/24/2008 04:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
so do you think mccain will do better while his staff brushes his hair for him and changes his pee pants for him? can a man who is on the verge of alzheimer's and talks incessantly to furniture run what was once the greatest country in the world or can will he just be the best at finishing the destruction of it that bush has started?
 Quoting: 1-2-Follow


This guy is the same age and so is Ron Paul. Id almost bet McCain runs further every day than you do.

He will have a super VP like Condi Rice to lend a hand if he has a problem. And that will give her and the GOP 8 more years.

rr129
OBAMA - THE FASTEST FAILED PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY

"I inherated and I am Great!"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 393156
United Kingdom
03/24/2008 04:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
America....the biggest lunatic asylum on the planet!
1-2-Follow

User ID: 394142
United States
03/24/2008 04:40 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
so do you think mccain will do better while his staff brushes his hair for him and changes his pee pants for him? can a man who is on the verge of alzheimer's and talks incessantly to furniture run what was once the greatest country in the world or can will he just be the best at finishing the destruction of it that bush has started?


This guy is the same age and so is Ron Paul. Id almost bet McCain runs further every day than you do.

He will have a super VP like Condi Rice to lend a hand if he has a problem. And that will give her and the GOP 8 more years.

rr129
 Quoting: PACNWguy


i'm not talking about the mans age, i'm talking about his health and mental stability you idiot. but if you want to speak on age, how many times did you talk shit about how old paul was when huckleberry was your boy? now mccain is your boy by default and all of a sudden age isn't an issue to you?

maybe once condi gets tired of smelling his shit britches you could apply for a job to be his changer.
"As of 10:18 a.m. EST, on the 23rd day of July, I officially declare this the day your DOW DOOM died. 9000 has just been breached." - the 1-2

Truth is schilling in the empire of retards.

"Yep but for now we dub you toast guy." - AC520845

*PROCLAIMED PROPHET OF THE DOW* ®
PACNWguy (OP)

User ID: 366950
United States
03/24/2008 04:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
How many times did you talk shit about how old paul was when huckleberry was your boy?
 Quoting: 1-2-Follow


Hmmmm let me think....thinking....thinking....

I got it.

Zero.

(Maybe once....But I dont think so.)
OBAMA - THE FASTEST FAILED PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY

"I inherated and I am Great!"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 103336
United States
03/24/2008 04:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
And for a comparison, lets imagine a
Foreign Policy under an McCain Administration.
Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.

THREATEN THEM.
BOMB THEM.
NUKE THEM.
OCCUPY THEM FOR 100 YEARS!

OK. Give me Obama.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 398896
France
03/24/2008 05:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
Hmmmm OP tell me


Who did 911 ???

Bin Laden ???

OK, now I understand ....

You poor

Seek for Truth in your own country before hating others.

OF COURSE OBAMA IS RIGHT !!

This is the man you need to help you out of that mess !!

I'm not American but hope you'll have him as President, he's just the best choice you can do.

GO OBAMA GO

hf
American Voter
User ID: 2711
United States
03/24/2008 05:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
This US citizen will not vote for Obama. Showering US dollars on the world to buy friends is not my idea of sound foriegn policy.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 394824
United States
03/24/2008 05:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
if he were elected he will do just as the state dept/CFR tells him to do.your a dumbass.god by the time the fake election gets here your gonna be in a mental hospital lol
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2711
United States
03/24/2008 05:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
Obama the Interventionist

By Robert Kagan
Sunday, April 29, 2007; Page B07

America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.

Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week was pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John Mearsheimer. It had a deliberate New Frontier feel, including some Kennedy-era references ("we were Berliners") and even the Cold War-era notion that the United States is the "leader of the free world." No one speaks of the "free world" these days, and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs" will sound like an anachronistic conceit to many Europeans, who even in the 1990s complained about the bullying "hyperpower." In Moscow and Beijing it will confirm suspicions about America's inherent hegemonism. But Obama believes the world yearns to follow us, if only we restore our worthiness to lead. Personally, I like it.

All right, you're thinking, but at least he wants us to lead by example, not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world in America's image. When he said, "We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance himself from this allegedly discredited idealism.

Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . . halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" and fight disease. Obama proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts, to $50 billion, by 2012.

It's not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. "We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy." The "security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." Realists, call your doctors.

Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to terrorism.

Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?

Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.

Of course, it's just a speech. At the Democrats' debate on Thursday, when asked how he would respond to another terrorist attack on the United States, Obama at first did not say a word about military action. So maybe his speech only reflects what he and his advisers think Americans want to hear. But that is revealing, too. When it comes to America's role in the world, apparently they don't think there's much of an argument.

[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 394824
United States
03/24/2008 05:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
Obama the Interventionist

By Robert Kagan
Sunday, April 29, 2007; Page B07

America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.

Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week was pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John Mearsheimer. It had a deliberate New Frontier feel, including some Kennedy-era references ("we were Berliners") and even the Cold War-era notion that the United States is the "leader of the free world." No one speaks of the "free world" these days, and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs" will sound like an anachronistic conceit to many Europeans, who even in the 1990s complained about the bullying "hyperpower." In Moscow and Beijing it will confirm suspicions about America's inherent hegemonism. But Obama believes the world yearns to follow us, if only we restore our worthiness to lead. Personally, I like it.

All right, you're thinking, but at least he wants us to lead by example, not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world in America's image. When he said, "We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance himself from this allegedly discredited idealism.

Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . . halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" and fight disease. Obama proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts, to $50 billion, by 2012.

It's not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. "We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy." The "security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." Realists, call your doctors.

Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to terrorism.

Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?

Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.

Of course, it's just a speech. At the Democrats' debate on Thursday, when asked how he would respond to another terrorist attack on the United States, Obama at first did not say a word about military action. So maybe his speech only reflects what he and his advisers think Americans want to hear. But that is revealing, too. When it comes to America's role in the world, apparently they don't think there's much of an argument.

[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2711

At the Council of Global Affairs lmao what a riot.They probly wrote his stupid ass kissing speach for him hahaha
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 398925
United States
03/24/2008 05:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
Were the Apollo moonlanding faked by NASA and the US !!??

It seems to me that a lot of people are willing to automatically turn off their critical thinking skills and accept the most ridiculous things as long as it comes tagged with a "government cover up or government conspiracy" label.

Could it be that most of these hoax stories are created by people who have never accomplished anything (that they feel is important) in their lives, and want to comfort themselves by believing that they now, finally,has one up on the,government, scientists, NASA, military, etc.

There is lot of money to be made selling all kinds of weird theories to the gullible.

Debate!

And not just the old ad hominem.

Not the, LETS TRY AND JUMP the person presenting the claim or argument!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 341880
United States
03/24/2008 05:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Foreign Policy under an Obama Administration. Twisted, Incredibly Naive and Troubling.
if he were elected he will do just as the state dept/CFR tells him to do.your a dumbass.god by the time the fake election gets here your gonna be in a mental hospital lol
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 394824


Yes, you're absolutely right. The OP actually thinks there is a difference between any of these criminals running for President.
If any of them don't follow the CFR plan, then they won't be allowed to consume oxygen any longer. They will get the JFK treatment.

News