Let's get some HONEST, thoughtful answers: Who's foreign policy would you prefer? Let's look at the various options here: Obama v Bush ********************** Bush: Removed Taliban from power; Didn't get Bin Laden; Invaded Iraq and spent a couple trillion $$ in an idiotic war; 4,000 plus lives lost Obama: Got BIN LADEN - the guy responsible for 9/11; began a responsible withdrawal from the mess in Iraq; got Qaddhaffi out of power WITHOUT putting american lives at risk and minimal cost; worked with the international community to achieve this. Obama v Romney (hypothetical) ***************************************** I don't have much insight into Romney's foreign policy views but I suspect gel hair would be more of a mainstream pragmatist compared to his crazy co-competitors. Obama v Perry (hypothetical, thank goodness) ******************************************************** Gov. Goodhair would prolly call a prayer meeting and pray for a bolt of divine lightning to strike down the evil tyrant qadhaffi. Obama v Bachmann (again, hypothetical, and again thankfully so) ****************************************************************************** Don't know. Y'all's input would be welcome. So, we have the choice of Obama vs the aforementioned. I'll take Obama - a serious, smart, pragmatic leader who's laser focus got rid of bin laden. vs
Honestly? And you expect a thoughtful response? Your messiah achieved all of that by himself and without the benefit of the events leading up to those achievements over the past 10 years? If you really believe that then there is no room for honest discussion.
I thought KSM was responsible for 911, that he was the mastermind??? Thats why we tortured his *** in Gitmo for years, or so we were told. Libya has been around for decades... Obama wasnt all that concerned with Libya when he took office. No one was. Thats a civil war. How does it serve our national interest?
Why do we still have great patriots being killed in Afganistan in great numbers after 10 years there? It is pointless. Why did Obama bypass Congress for his Libya engagement? Hey if they put Khadaffi down for a dirt nap, that would be great, but why not follow the law of the land?
an honest evaluation would say that BHO took much of what Bush did and continued it (much of what he campaigned against). honestly bho does not care much about F.P., his main focus was healthcare (that was his baby).
Have you read any of Roger's other posts? I think messiah is spot on. Again, why are we still in Afganistan, Iraq, and Gitmo?
I'm not defending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, do you not think Bush would have made the same call on OBL if they could have pinned him down? All of the intel over the past ten years led to the opportunity that allowed Obama to have a go/no-go decision. It didn't just all come to light the minute he took office. With regard to Libya and the rolling tide of democratic rebellion in the Middle East...I think there is a lot to be said for these people's observation of a freed Iraq. Their dictator is gone and, while they are not without issues, the outlook for Iraq is much better than under a dictator. The people from Iran to Libya see that working and want a taste of it. Again, to think a democratic uprising in the Middle East is somehow the masterful work of Obama is pure fantasy. I'm no Bush apologist but you have to take off your Obama goggles and deal with reality.
Do we know what kind of gov't Libya will operate? I know there are many concerns that Egypt will resort to sharia law and now there are reports that a libyan government will also be islamic or sharia. Of course nations should be allowed to have any form of government they choose but reality about islamic law is how women, gays and non muslims are treated. since Obama called for Mubarack to step down in reaction to the protestors and more importanly ent a bilion on ousting Gddafi should we expend anymore to prevent shair law from becoming the rule of the land? What would be Obama's policy regarding implementation of shria law in those countries?
We will see TexasFan. Im not sure how optimistic Iraqis are about their future at the moment. Once the US is gone from Iraq and they are allowed to determine their future, then we can see how thats gonna work out. Our track record over there is horrible.... Dont forget the US of A supported that murderous Dictator over in Iraq... And regarding Egypt, our best friend Israel wanted Mubarak to stay in power. The US position on Egypt was luke warm. There are a lot of political interests at play here, and non of them have anything to do with "liberation" or "democracy" for the people.
We got rid of sadaam pretty quick and we are still in iraq. Libya will face similar challenges and the bad guys appear to win frequently in the middle east.
One major difference between Obama and the rest is that only he would inspire the following: Obama is weak, as foreign dignitaries around the world have come to know first hand. And it is not just the bowing. It is also his habit of making grand speeches filled with glorious promises that turn out to be empty gestures. One example is the promises he made at the Copenhagen Climate Change summit. Obama is not respected or trusted around the world, and he is regarded as extremely weak. The United States has been been diminished by that. I would expect any of these other candidates to do a substantially better job in these areas.
Buddy, Its pretty tough to evaluate their track record over there because we have been inbedded within it ever since WW2 ended and the Ottoman Empire was carved up by the West. How many times does it need to be said that we have supported and funded these very same despots that are now being overthrown? We are complicit in everything that has gone on in the ME since WW2, the oppression, the dictators, all of it. Weve given them all billions and billions and billions. They have all been our friends at one time or another, and they werent any nicer or democratic at any point during those times. Lets get the hell out of of there, and let those people handle themselves for 50 years and then we can see what the answer to your question is. It will take at least a decade for the resentment of Western influence to subside as it is. Weve meddled so much in their affairs over the decades it is impossible to know what they would be right now. Surely you jest.
It's impossible to isolate a single reason for the "Arab Spring". The population growth of the youth in the middle east has been extreme the last few decades. The foment of disenfranchisement among those youth has been palpable. Their anger towards regimes that have been in power for 50 years coalesced into a movement. This movement is more attributable to Technology (twitter, facebook) than any war in Iraq or Afghanistan, imho. There is a very good chance the Arab Spring would have occured without Iraq and Sadam would have suffered Quadaffi's fate. Simply put, the ideas behind Cheney's Project For A New American Century could have achieved much of their goals by waiting rather than bloodshed. They were simply impatient.
Agree. The Kuwaities were impatient when Saddam annexed them as well. The Kurds were impatient when they were gassed. The UN inspectors were impatient when Saddam kicked them out of the country.
