Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| obamas foreign policy direction; "change?" | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 8 2008, 02:30 PM (73 Views) | |
| troubleatiu | Nov 8 2008, 02:30 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Coach
|
i know alot of you guys read what i put up, but i wonder how much you really pay attention to it? ive mentioned zibigniew brzezinski (jimmy carter's national security advisor) many times as being an obama foreign policy advisor. now, the man is 80 years old and OFFICIALLY held no title during his campaign and more than likely wont hold an OFFICIAL title during his administration, but nonetheless has had significant influence on obama, as well as the democratic party in general. brezinski wrote a book about 10 years ago called "the grand chessboard" in which he lays out his vision for the middle east, specifically the balkan area and the area once controlled by the old USSR. he actually believes the US can bait the russians into a nuclear war and win it. heres a COMMENTARY on obamas POSSIBLE direction concerning foreign policy. considering his connection to zbig, anything is possible. The central theme of Barack Obama’s successful campaign for the presidency was his call for “change”—albeit often with few details. There is an imperative need for change in America’s foreign policy. Even during the cold war, Washington’s strategy led to security free-riding by allies and clients, caused the republic to blunder into ill-advised military crusades, most notably the Vietnam War, and imposed unnecessary financial burdens on taxpayers. Matters have become even worse since the end of the Cold War. U.S. forces have intervened in places as diverse as Panama, Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, and the Persian Gulf, and Washington’s formal and informal security commitments have expanded enormously. America’s strategic over-extension and muddled priorities reached new levels under George W. Bush, with the utopian goal of implanting democracy in the Middle East and other unpromising regions. America’s foreign policy cries out for drastic change, but it remains uncertain whether president-elect Obama will bring the right kind of change. Many of his foreign-policy positions are sketchy, and in those cases where he has provided details, there are as many reasons for uneasiness and skepticism as there are for hope and confidence. He shows no willingness, for example, to reconsider Washington’s commitment to the hoary North Atlantic alliance. Indeed, he advocates further expansion of NATO, including membership for Ukraine and Georgia, despite the certainty of provoking Russia. Obama has praised NATO’s interventions in both Bosnia and Kosovo during the Clinton years, and he embraced the February 2008 decision to grant Kosovo independence over Moscow’s vehement objections. His attitude is most unfortunate, since many U.S. policies reek of obsolescence or misplaced priorities. For example, Obama’s reflexive enthusiasm for NATO ignores mounting evidence that the alliance lacks either the cohesion or strategic rationale to play a worthwhile security role in the twenty-first century. NATO’s bumbling performance in Afghanistan is only the most visible example. Worse, adding small-security clients creates dangerous liabilities for the United States as the leader of the alliance. An obligation to defend Georgia, for instance, could entangle America in the deservedly obscure dispute between Tbilisi and Moscow over the status of Georgia’s secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. President Obama should ask himself how risking a confrontation with a nuclear-armed power over such meager stakes would benefit America. It is on the issue of humanitarian intervention, though, that Obama’s attitude—and that of some of his likely foreign policy appointees—is most worrisome. His article, “Renewing American Leadership,” in the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs included a dubious and troubling assumption. He insisted that “the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.” That assumption about the alleged indivisibility of destinies is not materially different from the sentiments that President Bush expressed in his second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.” But that assumption is both erroneous and dangerous. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that America can never be safe or prosperous unless the dozens of chronically misgoverned countries are (somehow) transformed into free, democratic states. That is a blueprint for endless nation-building missions and perpetual war. Given the strains created by the recent debacle in America’s financial system, it is also an ambitious mission that American taxpayers can ill-afford. Although it is hard to imagine, Obama’s foreign policy could prove even worse than that of the Bush administration. He flirts with the notion that the guiding principal of U.S. foreign policy should be to promote, defend and enforce respect for “human dignity” in the world. As an operational concept, such a standard would have to improve several notches just to reach vacuous. At best, it would entail Washington becoming the nag of the planet, constantly hectoring other governments to improve their behavior. At worst, it could become an excuse for lavish foreign-aid expenditures and military interventions to protect the downtrodden in failed states or even in functioning countries with repressive regimes. Yet most of the probable arenas for such interventions entail little or no connection to America’s tangible interests. Instead, this country would embark on expensive and potentially dangerous humanitarian crusades that would bleed America’s armed forces and drain the treasury. It will not be an improvement if an Obama administration withdraws American forces from Iraq only to launch new interventions in such strategically and economically irrelevant snake pits as Darfur and Burma. That is not the kind of foreign-policy change the American people want or need. If President Obama adopts a security strategy confined to defending vital American interests, he will win—and deserve—the gratitude of the American people. If, on the other hand, he embraces a nebulous crusade to secure “human dignity” all over the world through the instruments of U.S. foreign aid and military power, he will undermine his own administration and ignite yet another round of public frustration about the unwillingness of political leaders to focus on America’s best interests and well-being. That is the fundamental choice facing President Obama as he enters the Oval Office. Posted Image Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books on international affairs, including Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America (2008). He is also a contributing editor to The National Interest. where do we go from here? with zbig whispering in his ear and a fucking israeli as his chief of staff, where do you think we go? ...meet the new boss, same as the old boss... |
![]() "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger "What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler "Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified | |
![]() |
|
| boilergrad01 | Nov 8 2008, 03:26 PM Post #2 |
|
Working on the last 5
|
Trouble, I might believe this man is a problem but his daughter is fucking hot. MSNBC she was a big Obama cheerleader and had her daddy on as a Foreign Policy expert a few times. FP under Carter was really brillant |
| Nothing beats an Astronaut | |
![]() |
|
| troubleatiu | Nov 8 2008, 07:36 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Coach
|
"I might believe this man is a problem but his daughter is fucking hot. MSNBC she was a big Obama cheerleader and had her daddy on as a Foreign Policy expert a few times. FP under Carter was really brillant"-bg i... ah.. failed to mention mika. yeah, if you watch msnbc in the morning you might know mika brzezinski. thats zbigs daughter. you ainta shittin she's hot. but that's not the issue here. :wanker: |
![]() "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger "What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler "Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified | |
![]() |
|
| boilergrad01 | Nov 8 2008, 07:42 PM Post #4 |
|
Working on the last 5
|
Trouble, I know what you are saying if Obama is about change why recycle the failed FP of Carter. Carter got Sadot killed and Iran went from friend to a enemy and very disruptive party in the middle east. I was very young but I know the Chiefs I met in the Coast Guard and a few Navy Chiefs I met at navy schools called him Jimmy The C |
| Nothing beats an Astronaut | |
![]() |
|
| troubleatiu | Nov 8 2008, 08:12 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Coach
|
seriously bg, i cant address this in a message board format. it would take an hour of face-to-face to even try to explain what happened. |
![]() "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger "What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler "Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified | |
![]() |
|
| boilergrad01 | Nov 8 2008, 08:19 PM Post #6 |
|
Working on the last 5
|
Maybe the Tuesday before Thanksgiving we can meet then. I will be back in Indiana for the bucket game and stay until after Thanksgiving maybe the Sunday after the bucket game if we promise to not talk about the game. |
| Nothing beats an Astronaut | |
![]() |
|
| troubleatiu | Nov 8 2008, 08:39 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Coach
|
truth be known, i probably won't watch the game. things have spiraled out of control so much i dont have time for frivolous shit like sports. send me something in my inbox if youre in state and want to talk. ill meet you anywhere. just let me know. (a couple days notice would be great as well.) |
![]() "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger "What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler "Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:17 PM Jul 10
|









7:17 PM Jul 10