But when BO reaches China, he'll have to bend over and kiss ass to keep the money flowing.
Obama is like a bull in a China shop sometimes, but he means well. On the contrary, on the whole, instead of demeaning our country, he is slowly restoring the respect we had before Cheney/Bush took office, and maybe going a notch or two better. It is only the far Right who do not understand the behavior of a diplomat in contrast to the arrogance of the last eight years.
I guess if he destroys our country it's ok since he "means well."
What is this "respect" he's restoring to our country, Perry? And how is it manifesting itself in positive ways for the U.S.? So far, we've seen the POTUS kowtow and apologize around the world, sell out the eastern Europeans and behave disrespectfully to our closest ally, the British. In return, he's gotten exactly what?
I don't see POTUS kowtowing and apologizing, rather, I see Obama extending his hand and showing respect for the views of other leaders, as opposed to the axis of evil mentality which we have endured for eight years. In return, he has gotten dialogues going with Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Iran, and Israel that may lead to resolutions of issues and better communications. In Asia, he has initiated high level dialogues and negotiations with Japan, China, North and South Korea. These are all beginnings which hopefully will do well in representing our interests while acknowledging those of other nations. It's called diplomacy, a word that had been dropped from our national vocabulary for too long.
Perry, the POTUS should *never* bow to another country's leader. It is a sign of weakness. Rather, he should shake hands with other leaders. Even the Japanese recognized his maneuver as boneheaded suckin'-upidness.
You say he's "opened a dialogue" with Syria, Iran and Israel. First, I doubt the Israelis feel that he's opened a dialogue with them, but that's another matter. What has his "dialogue" with Iran gotten the U.S.? We have a more belligerent Iran that is openly pursuing nuclear capabilities. How is the "dialogue" changing that?
Finally, Obama better be nice to the communist Chinese, since they are financing his obscene debt. As for "opening dialogue" with Japan, North Korea and South Korea, how is his diplomacy changing anything in a way that is different from the last decade or two? What does "change" look like to you?
I think "change" for you is anything that isn't George W. Bush, and you are willing to kowtow to the left to achieve it, nevermind what bowing and scraping does for the U.S.
I said "beginnings", Sharon. The results of diplomacy usually take time to develop. Really, it is a continuing process.
I understand that you folks on the Right, with your 'might makes right' mentality of instant solutions based on the threat of and use of military power, don't understand these things, as your record proves. I am thankful that you lost the last two election cycles, otherwise we would be continuing to follow the same insane, failing policies. Now shall we talk about global warming?
You say "beginnings" because you are trying to buy time for your (repeatedly) failed policies. We've been down the track your people lead, Perry. It was called the Iranian hostage crisis, multiple terrorist acts and the North Korean nuclear program.
You'd think if your "beginnings" had any positive effects, there would be some glimmer of activity. But there are none.
Come on, Sharon, stop making stuff up!
The Iranian hostage crisis had it's roots when the CIA overthrew a democratically elected President and replaced him with the Shah, in 1953 under Ike, a Repub.
The worst terror attack of all occurred a month after Bush was warned and did nothing, 9/11, under Bush, a Repub.
The North Korean nuclear program had its roots when Korea was partitioned and isolated in 1953, under Ike, a Repub.
I think you need to brush up on your post WWII American history, Sharon.
My use of the word "beginnings" was intended to lead into the statement that it takes time for diplomatic initiatives to develop. Your calling Obama's policies a failure is preemptive, therefore inane.
Perry, does it ever get old for you? Do you ever get tired of it? I mean, don't you ever get frustrated?
All these times you declare "you made that stuff up" and the facts get shoved in your face has to frustrate you. How many times have you demanded in very authoritarian fashion that people provide proof or "admit [they] made that stuff up?" And how many times have people provided that irrefutable evidence (that you subsequently refused to admit)?
Doesn't it ever frustrate you that you are constantly being proven wrong? I mean, seriously, dude. Buy a clue.
The Iranian hostage crisis came about because of the weakness shown by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat.
9/11 was a culmination of weak-kneed Democrat policies of treating terrorism as a crime as opposed to an act of war. Those events happened under several presidents, including Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
North Korea's nuclear program came about because of the appeasement strategies propigated by Democrat presidents, culminating under Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
We can continue playing this game like you didn't vote for these jerks, Perry, but it won't turn out well for you. To argue that, somehow, the various Republican presidents hold sole responsibility for foreign policy is idiotic. Over the last 60 years, Democrats never held any responsibility for the foreign policy disasters of their presidencies? Fortunately, most people don't have such a perverted view of history.
1. OK Sharon, let's focus on the recent past. There is no question that the Right prefers wars over diplomacy, as per the Bush-43 regime, and the current knee-jerk wish for escalation in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama is trying to follow the Teddy Roosevelt mantra of speaking softly (diplomacy) while carrying a big stick. I like that approach.
2. The Bush foreign policies in general have produced a disaster for this nation, both in terms of lost international respect, and in terms of domestic fiscal irresponsibility, causing us to have to act now from a position of weakness, especially compared to Asian countries, in particular the Chinese. Obama has inherited this mess and is doing his best to put us back on track. Those ideologues like yourself, who criticize him for lack of instant success, are just plain ignorant of the breadth of the pit we are in. Moreover, you have no solutions, only criticism. That is not productive!
3. To blame Jimmy Carter for the Iranian hostage crisis is crazy, as per the roots I mentioned, mainly due to a CIA gone wild during Ike. In resolving it, he set up the solution, which took place the very first day of the Reagan presidency, when the hostages were released. You conveniently forgot about that, or were ignorant of it. That's OK, you were just a kid then!
4. And speaking of Jimmy Carter, had Reagan and subsequent Presidents, including Clinton, followed his initiatives on energy independence, we would not be a victim of the oil Middle Eastern and South American oil vendors, most of whom are certainly not our friends. In fact, we may not even have gone into Iraq after oil with our war of aggression. Jimmy Carter had his weaknesses no doubt, but in terms of energy policy and foreign policy, he is underrated by Americans, but respected globally.
John, why don't you stop butting in with your childish gibberish? Are you questioning Sharon's ability to hold up her side of the debate? Though we mostly disagree, she is doing just fine, while you sit on the sideline and add absolutely nothing but crankiness!
1. The Right doesn't "prefer wars over diplomacy." What they prefer is not coddling dictators and thugs, behaving as though giving them what they want will make them respect us more or act less thuggishly. The difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right accepts the idea that there are evil people in the world who want to discredit the U.S. and harm Americans, and that the goal of our foreign policy should be to prevent this. GWB did an admirable job in this respect, given that there were no attacks on American soil after 9/11 and the beginning of the War on Terror. Whereas, under Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, we have had such attacks (and numerous times under Bill Clinton).
2. The Bush foreign policies kept Americans from being kidnapped, blown up and used as propaganda tools by the enemies of the state. The Obama foreign policy is simply to appease the thugs and dictators of the world, hoping that, somewhere, somehow, it will result in a victory that anybody recognizes as a victory. I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly what international respect has done for America lately. I'll give you a hint, Perry. I'm not a kid, nor was I raised to be a naive punk who thinks the world will like us better if we kowtow to them. I'm old enough to know that the world won't like America until we are as powerless as they are, and that will be a dangerous world for Americans.
3. Jimmy Carter was a weak and feckless president, possibly the worst of the 20th Century. His bumbling foreign policy led directly to the Iranian hostage crisis, which he couldn't even resolve (let alone carry out a daring rescue).
4. As for his idea of energy independence, I fully remember the gas lines, high inflation and pain the American people felt under the inflation his administration couldn't deal with. It's looking like Obama will be every bit as useless and harmful to Americans as Carter was.
Please don't tell me you're one of those useful idiots arguing that we went to war in Iraq for oil. I almost gave you credit for brains till you said that.
Perry, are you once again trying to censor me?
All these times you declare "you made that stuff up" and the facts get shoved in your face has to frustrate you. How many times have you demanded in very authoritarian fashion that people provide proof or "admit [they] made that stuff up?" And how many times have people provided that irrefutable evidence (that you subsequently refused to admit)?
John, let Sharon handle her end of the debate. If you wish to bring up or discuss a specific issue, fine, but cut out these unsubstantiated attacks, unless you have a specific incident to call to my attention. OK? Otherwise I will either ignore your nonsense or push back at it, as now.
1. There is no coddling of dictators or thugs going on, but they cannot be ignored, and must be dealt with in such a way that they are not multiplied, as happened under Bush. You have not internalized the fact that we are now in a position of weakness economically and militarily, therefore must take that into account strategically and tactically, militarily vis a vis Afghanistan, and economically vis a vis China. We seemed to have learned something about fighting insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, but have not yet demonstrated how to handle the brands that are in Afghanistan. What terrorist attacks have occurred during Obama? Certainly you are not classifying Hasan's Ft Hood act as terror under Obama. If you must, then admit that the neglect of the red flags by the Army occurred also under Bush. Come on!
2. You seem to relate diplomacy to "kowtowing" and "appeasement". I could not disagree more. What gains have we seen from Obama? We've got Russia engaged on the Iran problem, perhaps China as well. We've got China and South Korea engaged on the North Korea problem. We've got Pakistan involved against al-Qaeda. We have a beginning of the restoration of respect globally, meaning that we are looked to once again as a global leader. It is much too early to judge the longer range implications of these advances, but they are at least encouraging.
3. You'll need to explain to me how Jimmy Carter's "bungling" led to the Iranian hostage crisis. And as I said before, he set up the resolution of it for Reagan's first day. That doesn't deserve any credit. And it is a crying shame that Reagan did not respond to the energy policy initiatives of Jimmy Carter. I actually think that Reagan was our worst post WWII Presidents, because the economic policies he started have come to roost right now, excessive spending simultaneous with tax cutting favoring the wealthy. It took almost thirty years, but here we are, in the worst economic mess since the Great Depression. Yes, definitely, I put a lot of the blame on Reagan, then Clinton, then Bush-43.
4. To blame the gas lines and inflation on Carter alone borders on total ignorance. What was he to do when the Arabs shut off the oil supply, then suddenly raised the price. We had allowed ourselves to get too dependent on their oil. Carter tried to initiate energy policy to make us independent, both conservation and alternate energy sources, both of which Reagan dropped like a lead balloon, and not subsequent President properly addressed it. Carter also inherited the post Vietnam War malaise in which a good percentage of our population were happy to detach, smoke and inject into a world of escapism instead of dealing with the loss of a war and the resultant post war trauma. Dealing with that, Carter was ineffective, I grant you that.
And yes, I do believe we attacked Iraq for control of oil, as well as to establish a strategic military position in the middle of the Middle Ea
Sharon, your site here seems to have a limit on the number of words, or is it lines? So here I repeat the last paragraph:
And yes, I do believe we attacked Iraq for control of oil, as well as to establish a strategic military position in the middle of the Middle East to help Israel. Neither goal was successful, which is why you neocons would rather forget, or revise. Certainly deposing Saddam, or WMD, or yellow cake were not primary, nor were they even legitimate justifications, in my view. Now you foolish folks want to attack Iran, or support an attack by Israel. How will that solve anything, I ask?
1. How can you say that there's "no coddling of thugs or dictators going on"? We have a president who has embraced Hugo Chavez (allowing him to be photographed with Chavez and a very anti-American book), bowed to the Saudi king, kowtowed to the Japanese leader (a move that embarrassed the Japanese, as well as Americans), who dissed our greatest ally (Great Britain), sold out Eastern Europeans (and received nothing from the Russians in return for that move. We've had the North Koreans firing test missiles, the Iranians squashing dissidents (with barely a murmur from Teh One) and also firing test missiles. What exactly, has all this bowing and scraping gotten us?
Yes, Perry, I classify Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers as a terrorist attack. The Left constantly argues that the sporadic killing of abortion doctors (5 in 20 years) is "terrorism," but when a Muslim nut shoots soldiers on a military installation, you shy from the use of that term?
To say that we are in a "position of weakness economically and militarily", yet supporting the Obama policies that have made our economic woes worse is quite a feat. I'm curious how, in fact, any of Obama's policies will improve our position, economically or militarily. Obama ignores the requests of his commander on the ground because sending more troops to Afghanistan would anger the luny left. So, that leaves us better off in Afghanistan exactly how? I thought that was the "good war," the "war we should be fighting." Yet Teh One doesn't want to fight that one either.
2. How is Russia "engaged" in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? In fact, the Russians rebuffed the U.S. and hasn't tried in any way to stop the Iranians. And how has Russia "engaged" China? Or how has China "engaged" North Korea? What exactly does "engagement" look like?
I know what I think success would look like: the end of the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, less American debt owned by the Chinese and more support for our Eastern European allies, the ones who actually like America.
You really think that the rest of the world will like us if we just stop protecting or pursuing our national interests around the world. Yet you can't explain what fruits Obama's appeasement "engagement" has brought forth or will bring forth.
3. Jimmy Carter was utterly blindsided by the taking of American hostages in Iran, when it was quite apparent that the Iranian mullahs "Death to America" campaign would lead to just such a situation. Then he sat around for 444 days allowing the Iranians to humiliate our country (you probably consider it to have been "engagement"). As for the economic policies you think were so great, I'm really glad we haven't spent the last 20 years with high inflation, gas lines, and crushing unemployment (although President Obama is more like his mentor Carter in these respects, as well). You actually have the audacity to think President Reagan was a bad president? How far up your ass is your head, anyway?
4. Carter was to blame for the misery his administration caused, particularly his "wear a sweater" energy policies designed to pour taxpayer money down the ratholes of environmentalists.
BTW, Perry, we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East. We get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico. See here: http://www.energyrefuge.com/
arch..._comes_from.htm
About 50 percent of our petroleum imports are from countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 19 percent from the Persian Gulf, and 18 percent from Africa and 13 percent from other regions".
Some war for oil. Where'd the cheap oil go, Perry? The cheap oil we were all supposed to get? You gonna now try to sell some bullshit that they're just hidin' it from us? The Left blew a gasket at the idea of Iraq paying us back for liberating them, now you want to argue that the war was for oil? Has blubonnet taken over your tag?
How would attacking Iran solve anything? It would be better than wringing our hands like your guys want to do, then complain and weep when Iran has nukes. But I guess it's ok if they wipe Israel off the map, since the Left hates Israel anyway.
Commenting by HaloScan
