Ok, and what exactly would you have done, if you were him?
Funny how people ask "what would have you've done?" every time someone criticizes Obama's weak foreign policy's. Assuming you think he did the right thing I'll try and imagine what it would be like to be the leader of the most powerful military on the planet and answer.
Syria and the rise of ISIS, remember, Assad first used gas one year after the "red line in the sand" threat and after Obama started arming the rebels/ISIS. Assad likely never would have used gas had Obama not given strength to the opposition.
I probably would have let al-Assad deal with his own uprising with a stiff "private/personal" message that using gas as a weapon is a ticket to the afterlife, picking a side and arming them is looking for even more problems.
Iran Deal, this was unbelievable, to take the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism at their word that they won't develop nuclear weapons is absolutely stupid! his weak-kneed response to the threats of nuking Israel was bad enough but then approving a secret delivery of roughly 130 tons of uranium borders on a mental health problem.
What I would have done? if Iran wouldn't allow inspectors at any time/any place I bomb the snot out of every nuclear facility in the country until they do. Iran can't become nuclear...period.
Same goes for NK.
And before the old "that would cause WWIII" favorite, just no, Russia or China would never try and take on the USA's military might over nothing that effects their own society and lives.
Funny how people ask "what would have you've done?" every time someone criticizes Obama's weak foreign policy's. Assuming you think he did the right thing I'll try and imagine what it would be like to be the leader of the most powerful military on the planet and answer.
Syria and the rise of ISIS, remember, Assad first used gas one year after the "red line in the sand" threat and after Obama started arming the rebels/ISIS. Assad likely never would have used gas had Obama not given strength to the opposition.
I probably would have let al-Assad deal with his own uprising with a stiff "private/personal" message that using gas as a weapon is a ticket to the afterlife, picking a side and arming them is looking for even more problems.
Iran Deal, this was unbelievable, to take the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism at their word that they won't develop nuclear weapons is absolutely stupid! his weak-kneed response to the threats of nuking Israel was bad enough but then approving a secret delivery of roughly 130 tons of uranium borders on a mental health problem.
What I would have done? if Iran wouldn't allow inspectors at any time/any place I bomb the snot out of every nuclear facility in the country until they do. Iran can't become nuclear...period.
Same goes for NK.
And before the old "that would cause WWIII" favorite, just no, Russia or China would never try and take on the USA's military might over nothing that effects their own society and lives.
The deal was with Iran, not Saudi Arabia, at best the worlds Nos' 2 sponsor of terrorism although I suspect its third behind pakistan
Funny how people ask "what would have you've done?" every time someone criticizes Obama's weak foreign policy's. Assuming you think he did the right thing I'll try and imagine what it would be like to be the leader of the most powerful military on the planet and answer.
Syria and the rise of ISIS, remember, Assad first used gas one year after the "red line in the sand" threat and after Obama started arming the rebels/ISIS. Assad likely never would have used gas had Obama not given strength to the opposition.
I probably would have let al-Assad deal with his own uprising with a stiff "private/personal" message that using gas as a weapon is a ticket to the afterlife, picking a side and arming them is looking for even more problems.
Iran Deal, this was unbelievable, to take the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism at their word that they won't develop nuclear weapons is absolutely stupid! his weak-kneed response to the threats of nuking Israel was bad enough but then approving a secret delivery of roughly 130 tons of uranium borders on a mental health problem.
What I would have done? if Iran wouldn't allow inspectors at any time/any place I bomb the snot out of every nuclear facility in the country until they do. Iran can't become nuclear...period.
Same goes for NK.
And before the old "that would cause WWIII" favorite, just no, Russia or China would never try and take on the USA's military might over nothing that effects their own society and lives.
You sound like Trump, only more coherent. Blame Obama for everything and throw out a bunch of rhetoric.
The problem people like you have with Obama is he thought before acting.
Shoot first and deal with the consequences later is the prefferred action.
It worked out great for Bush.
The ME is a complete mess, had obama done any of the things people blame him for not doing, it would have failed, bigly, and I can imagine what the sentiments about him would be now.
What I would have done? if Iran wouldn't allow inspectors at any time/any place I bomb the snot out of every nuclear facility in the country until they do. Iran can't become nuclear...period.
Same goes for NK.
And before the old "that would cause WWIII" favorite, just no, Russia or China would never try and take on the USA's military might over nothing that effects their own society and lives.
you actually seemed like a level headed posters until this...
a) you don't know what China or Russia would do
b) you just going throw the world into a state of chaos
c) NK... the guy is a nutjob - anyone that doesn't think NK would just bomb the crap out of South Korea is totally delusional.
not even sure how to respond, so i won't bother...
let's see how 'strong' Trump's foreign policy is... i am sure there's going to be a lot to talk about relatively soon
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
you actually seemed like a level headed posters until this...
a) you don't know what China or Russia would do
b) you just going throw the world into a state of chaos
c) NK... the guy is a nutjob - anyone that doesn't think NK would just bomb the crap out of South Korea is totally delusional.
not even sure how to respond, so i won't bother...
let's see how 'strong' Trump's foreign policy is... i am sure there's going to be a lot to talk about relatively soon
Even nutjobs come to reason if you give them a way out, if you want chaos just wait until NK, Iran and then eventually a terrorist group get's their hands on a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Instead of personally attacking me by saying I don't have a level head, how about a real debate posting what you would do?
you actually seemed like a level headed posters until this...
a) you don't know what China or Russia would do
b) you just going throw the world into a state of chaos
c) NK... the guy is a nutjob - anyone that doesn't think NK would just bomb the crap out of South Korea is totally delusional.
not even sure how to respond, so i won't bother...
let's see how 'strong' Trump's foreign policy is... i am sure there's going to be a lot to talk about relatively soon
It actually sounds like a regurgitation of Fox News analysis. Heavy on slogans but lacking any depth of understanding.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeff Lebowski For This Useful Post:
And do you realize that what you said is basically just international relations. Build coalitions to find solutions? That's not a foreign policy.
WTF are you talking about???
Foreign policy is that philosophy by which a nation deals with or engages with others. Building coalitions is a foreign policy. I mean what the ever loving ####???
Quote:
I know you're trying super hard to be smug here, but seriously, what you said was hilariously generic.
Smug has nothing to do with it. I'm telling you what the base of the Obama foreign policy is. The fact that you think it is more complex than that means you know nothing about foreign policy or the development of foreign policy based on a philosophical perspective. Jesus man, this is poli-sci 101.
Quote:
Regardless. We can argue all day about this. In the end, the results are the results. Not a success and therefore not a great foreign policy. Either through not executing it, or having poor policy to begin with.
You can only measure the success of foreign policy based on the philosophy behind it. That is where your argument falls apart. You don't have an understanding of the Obama Doctrine and as a result you have are struggling to articulate how or why anything is a success or failure.
Quote:
Effectively this is where our disagreement lies.
And I am fine with that, so far as you articulate your argument in that way. But you haven't. Make your argument, and stick with it.
Even nutjobs come to reason if you give them a way out, if you want chaos just wait until NK, Iran and then eventually a terrorist group get's their hands on a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Instead of personally attacking me by saying I don't have a level head, how about a real debate posting what you would do?
NK already has a deliverable nuke, nukes can be delivered by shipping container just as easily as on a rocket
Even nutjobs come to reason if you give them a way out, if you want chaos just wait until NK, Iran and then eventually a terrorist group get's their hands on a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Instead of personally attacking me by saying I don't have a level head, how about a real debate posting what you would do?
you know why people ask on what you would do if you were president?
Because people often go off on some tangent with respect to foreign policy being weak, but when asked for details they don't have any...If one is informed enough to reduce the totality of foreign policy in the middle east as 'weak', then surely there's actual data that you can point to and reference that backs up that point.
I have stated that even though Obama can be criticized for being too cautious in the middle east, there's a ton of information as to why he took that route. I have a number of long posts explaining what happened and the complexities that exist in that region.
as for personal attack, anyone that says that they would "bomb the snot out of Iran's research facilities" until they acquiesced into allowing foreign inspectors doesn't seem to be on the level to me...
do you honestly think that would work? The blowback on that would be immeasurable
sounds more like the plot of a Michael Bay film than someone trying to engage in debate.
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 04-16-2017 at 09:33 PM.
And before the old "that would cause WWIII" favorite, just no, Russia or China would never try and take on the USA's military might over nothing that effects their own society and lives.
No I think that bombing a countries infrastructure, especially a nuclear power site does a lot more to cause massive environmental and humanitarian damage than anything else. Iran and North Korea are both very troubling states and that is why diplomacy and working with them is a better option than dropping bombs and hoping for the best.
No I think that bombing a countries infrastructure, especially a nuclear power site does a lot more to cause massive environmental and humanitarian damage than anything else. Iran and North Korea are both very troubling states and that is why diplomacy and working with them is a better option than dropping bombs and hoping for the best.
Of course it is, but so far they are far from willing, at some point enough is enough before it's too late.
Before what is too late? We had how many decades of MAD with the USSR before they collapsed, what makes you think N Korea or Iran would be stupid enough to take any action which would give the west an excuse to invade or attack them?
Sorry but potentially killing millions of South Koreans is never worth the risk, contain, isolate and continue doing what has been happening to N Korea, smuggling in USB sticks with TV shows, music, news, eventually this regime will collapse.
With Iran the youth of that nation in about 10-20 years will be the overwhelming people in positions of power, a youth that is quite pro west, far more liberal than the ruling class now. Again contain, sanction if you have to, but its stupid to attack them especially considering they are not stupid enough to attack anyone themselves, just like Pakistan which is about the only really truly worrisome country because they have such a significant insurgent and growing extremist presence there which if they got a hold of the nuclear arsenal would be instant reason for the west to invade or attack.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
