Hey, everyone, it's another political thread! As you might expect, most of the people I am in contact with are either pretty conservative or they are old friends who I don't want to talk about politics with. That leaves you, Massassi, to be my link into the liberal mind. It has always seemed like there was a decent mix of viewpoints here.

So, I was wondering what you all see Obama's foreign policy as, and what you think of it.

He is yet to invade a smaller country, so I'd say so far so good.

No nukes launched yet?

This film is worse than Highlander 2.

He has a foreign policy?

Don't forget, he's only a few months in.

This

No news is good news.

Until its Big News.

Fox News fans are adorable, aren't they?

Bush in power: Hmm, an obscenely expensive war being waged for what are ostensibly humanitarian reasons and to directly assist private businesses. Yes, conservative ideals are meant to be abandoned wholesale with little provocation! Mmm, oh yeah, I love me some large government. *slurping sounds*

Obama in power: Hmmm, being even-handed, quiet and perhaps even diplomatic with other countries? Maybe... just maybe... you could say he is playing it.... conservatively??? Heh, f'in lieberals.

This thread is going to give me a lot of trolling fun!

To me, Republicans (Fox) and Democrats (everyone else, basically) are two sides of the same coin, in that they both want to control stuff and tell other people how to live. They just want to tell them the opposite things.

If it helps to spark conversation regarding his foreign policy, what made me bring this up is specifically his actions regarding Honduras, but also his actions regarding Iran, Israel, and North Korea, and anything else he may have said or done.

i dont pay enough attention to comment.

In case you weren't listening, Bush is/was not a conservative. He may claim to be, but his actions were definitely not.

Thread needs more carl.

Well, so far he's not offering North Korea food aid every time they threaten to test a missile. That's a good start.

He's not saying he'll stop them nor is he saying he will prevent an event from happening.

I'm more concerned about General Secretary Obama's ****ty Domestic Policies than his non-existent foreign policies.

I'm sure you're just full of ideas on how to accomplish both of those.

We should totally not bicker in this thread. Can we all agree it is pretty obvious and irrelevant to point out that Gold wouldn't make a very good US president?

So, I guess so far the only real Obama supporter (or at least as close as we've gotten so far) is you, Michael MacFarlane. So...care to go into detail about it?

Fair enough.

I think Obama has shown admirable restraint in not rushing to intervene or issue some grand statement whenever there's a breaking story abroad. When U.S. sailors were taken captive by pirates, he shut up and let the military do their job even though seemingly the entire country wanted to be updated minute-by-minute on what we were doing to get those sailors back. He hasn't made a lot of noise over the unrest in Iran because he knows that the worst thing that could happen to the reformers is for them to be seen as allies or pawns of the Great Satan. And like I said, he's not rushing to placate North Korea every time they throw a tantrum, which is a refreshing change considering that was the standing policy on North Korea for both Bush and Clinton.

Aside from a few embarrassing moments with officials from countries that already like us, I'd be hard pressed to point out anything he's done badly wrong.

My god, It's full of cars!

tibby made me lol

Well, I think the whole Iran thing threw a kink into Obama's plans of pursuing "talks" with Iranian leaders. It's obvious that isn't going to happen, now that he's publicly denounced the going-ons there. He was really damned if he did, damned if he didn't. People would think that he doesn't care if he didn't say anything, and now that he does say something he has to back down on one of his campaign pledges (which of course is nothing new for a politician).

So foreign policy wise, considering NK and Iran were his first "real" tests, it went pretty well. I think Hilary as the secretary of state has said some HORRENDOUSLY stupid and ignorant things though while visiting foreign nations (at least she hasn't DONE anything horrendously stupid, hard for her to do anyways), so as far as she represents his administration, I'd say he's doing alright.

The things we've done to North Korea don't really matter to much (cutting off aid doesn't matter since aid was never received by NK citizens anyway), and he hasn't foolishly invaded Iran like some *other* president. Par for the course.

Now just don't get me started on his domestic policies

I keep forgetting that she's our Secretary of State, which is probably the highest praise she's ever going to earn from me.

I'm sure NK will randomly out of the blue want to become peaceful and be friends with us. LOGIC FAILURE anyone?

Were talking about a country who if they had a 100% guarantee of getting away with it, they'd blow us to kingdom come. They've been raising their children to hate us and want to destroy us. You think they won't strike if they see a golden opportunity? They will, and thats why I feel like were letting our guard down. Our nation isn't ready to fight NK. Especially if they hit us with a surprise nuclear strike. This could all have been avoided, if it weren't for goddamn politicians who never allow people to finish a war. Even today, we still have Nazi like regimes who are ticking time bombs, just building up their weaponry to strike.

Yeah, NK is going to launch a suprise nuclear strike with their... nothing.
They can't hurt anyone except possibly South Korea and won't, because they are living the high life while the people under them suffer. That all changes pretty quick when you get bombed.

Wait, did you just call out Obama for not letting you "finish the war"?

gold, you have no idea what the general population of NK realy thinks, as they have prisoner camps that anyone that disagrees with the govt gets sent to, and as anyone from outside NK will always have a govt official with them at all times, you will never hear their real oppinions. not to mention that it is rare that anyone from outside NK will get to see somewhere other than pyonyang and the NK side of the DMZ (as pyongyang is basicly all those who are very well off and who are on the govt.'s good side).

I seriously doubt that all of the people in NK who are living in poverty due to the actions of their government realy believe in it.

Not to mention that as has been said, unless they strike at south korea, their nukes will not have time to reach a target before being shot down. Not to mention that they know that if they try anything, they will have pretty much every weapon in range fired back at them in responce.

This of course ignores the fact that they will need more nuclear material to make another bomb, and it took them three years between their first and second test, and with the way that Obama is refusing to give in to every little temper tantrum, it will probably take them longer as they wont be able to trade the aid they recieve for more materials.

TL;DR

NK is all bark and no bite as they know that if they bite, retribution will be swift and harsh, and the target of their bite might not even get bitten (c.f. missile defence systems).

North korea is probably going to fall apart once "dear leader" dies, as i doubt the son that he has appointed as a successor has the same skills as he does, and since Kim jong il is almost reguarded as a god by those that do believe him, those that do believe in him may not like the idea of the new leader. (remember kim jong il was appointed by kim il sung)

Heh, Kim Jong Il having skills...

Obama is a better man than Bush. - Agreed
But he's still a politician, so i'm not expecting a complete lack of corruption, and he's still American, so i'm not expecting a huge amount of open minded, awe inspiring acts of compromise and respect for other cultures.

Still, he's a breathe of fresh air.:v:

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Is Condoleezza Rice still around btw?

I think this sums it up pretty nicely.

He hasn't ruined any other nations thus far.

But boy howdy is he totally screwing up our own. Cap & Trade? Environmental Reform? Yes, let us introduce new legislation that will INCREASE prices during a recession. That will fix the economy! And now that Al Frankin is a US Senator, that brings the Democrats to 60. Republicans might as well go home until 2010 since they won't be able to do ****. Dems have enough to let a filibuster go ad infinitum. They have enough for a super majority (55%). They don't have quite enough for 2/3rds votes but there are some liberal Republicans that will be swayed. They only need six.

Although if you think about it, this is tit for tat. Under Bush, his government expanding legislation went through w/o out any problems too. Now Obama's government expanding legislation can go through too!

Yeah, maybe for you. You don't have to put up with his domestic policies. Hell, you're living in half of them already. Good for you, but it's not the United States of America.


One of the foreign policy issues that concerns me that no one has mentioned is his comments regarding Honduras. Namely, that he supports Zelaya as the rightful leader of the country, and just like everyone else, is calling the ousting a "military coup". Now, I don't have the whole picture, but from what I understand, Zelaya was making a move for dictator-style power, and doing it without abiding by their constitution. He was attempting to use the military to go around the rule of law and do whatever he wanted, and it backfired on him. So, in accordance with their law, he was removed, and an interim president was chosen until the elections later this year.

I don't know how right all of this is, but to a conservative like me, it's very attractive for me to see this, IF this is what has occurred. Rule of Law trumping a power-grabbing leader? It's like a fantasy come true...if it IS true, that is. And that's why it bothers me that our administration immediately condemned it as a military coup, and still recognizes Zelaya as the president. Especially when they have been so quiet on other world events, including iran and NK (although as you guys have said, there's not much to say regarding NK, and I agree). Maybe they know something I don't know.

O.o

I realy want to know what people have against leaders not haveing term limits. I mean, here in Australia, you stay prime minister until;

A: leadership dispute in the party. (though for this to happen to an incumbent party, said leader would probably have lost the election)

B: party looses power

C: leader looses seat (only happened twice in Australian history, and the incumbant party in both cases lost anyway)

D: leader dies (happened when harrold holt went swimming and was never found)

E: leader gets sacked ("Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the governor-general!").

Hell, the US only had term limits relatively recently.

So your stereotype didn't seem all hypocritical there? I wold have thought that that might have raised a few flags.

Well, I personally don't know really how I feel about it, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. However, it does seem like term limits are a sort of "safety catch" against dictatorships. Sure, assuming elections are done fairly, term limits are unnecessary. But eliminate term limits and suddenly it opens the door for a leader to say (give whatever foreign accent you find funniest here) "Whoopsie, I win the election again! Guess I'm still in charge!" indefinitely, creating a "dictator for life" situation.

Like I said, I don't know how I feel about that, whether they are necessary or even right. But that's the reasoning. It's not so much the lack of term limits, it's a leader in power who tries to remove term limits. You gotta wonder what is on that leader's mind. ESPECIALLY if the way he goes about trying to remove those term limits is unconstitutional. Seems like a bad omen.

my apologies. Brits are also terrible with that, especially back in our Empire days.

I myself, however, am a great lover of arabia and Islam. I get very angry with ignorant comments from our people towards their people.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Because more often than not, a body needs fresh blood. In theory, it helps usher in a better sense of perspective and direction by installing a new guy, for whatever position, more so than someone who has been waltzing around the same floor for decades. I mean, it's easier to see the problems of government and country from an outside viewpoint rather than one that looks inside out.

It's not hard to see how certain incumbents, especially in Congress, became fat and old and out of touch with whatever is going on around them while lingering in their positions. And when that happens, they become the prefect seeds for special interest groups, corruption, and so forth. Not to mention, without term limits, someone could still stick around like dead weight by being aided by support of whatever party he belongs to. Diversity keeps the human gene pool from collapsing onto itself, no? Somewhat the same idea.

I haven't met an Aussie who actually approves with the current people in his government.

Term limits were merely an incentive for people to do their jobs. If they didn't, they couldn't remain in power because they'll be up for election soon.

That's the way it was in theory, at least