Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor Owns Tucker. (1 Viewer)

[Pure Energy]

If I understand her correctly she's taking exception that the U.S. is not "nation building" spreading Democracy in Pakistan but yet she and Barrack take the U.S. to task for same in Iraq. Maybe I missed something in her response.....

 

[Saint by the Bay]

If I understand her correctly she's taking exception that the U.S. is not "nation building" spreading Democracy in Pakistan but yet she and Barrack take the U.S. to task for same in Iraq. Maybe I missed something in her response.....

The difference between nation building fiscally and through military force and promoting democracy (nation building) via foreign aid and diplomacy.

 

[Saintshizzle]

well the U.N. sanctions were about to be lifted. the man who interrogated saddam said saddam wanted to get ahold of WMD's once the santions were lifted. Saddam said for years he had weapons. He told all his enemies he had them. he said he wanted them. all our intelligence was pointing that he had them. Most of congress wanted to go to war as well but Obama saw the light. I will give him the benefit of the doubt but most people though it was a good idea. If bush lead us into a war intentionally well i think he should burn. there is no doubt in my mind that saddam was an enemy of the USA. If he had access he could have sold weapons for money, he was crazy enough to do it.

You seem like you know the truth here. Try to remove the ifs so that you do not appear so nieve. There are many others that were at large during this time. Why do you think iraq was he choice? Heck, remove the oil from Iraq and we do not attack any of the "Axis of Evils."

the al queda connection wasn't true and bush and powell should be ashamed but iraq is a better place without the red army of saddam and saddam and son's. We couldn't allow a psycho to walk around and get weapons and mess with oil.

Again, wouldn't nK, Iran also be better places if we spent Billions (close to a trillion) dollars and our lives to go clean it up? How about diplomacy...just not set a US democratic timetable on Nations that have Cultures 5,000 years older than ours. I took the if out of this one for you, forgive the illegal edit, but it was to help you.

I do find however that obama meeting leaders is a dumb move. he needs to listen to clinton on this issue. meeting castro is the dumbest thing in the world. it undermines all presidents since Kennedy.

I agree

I do take "fan the flames of Anti-USA sentiment" as a sad statement. i think the media needs to leave our war areas. i say if you want to report you are on your own. i wish the media of today would have been in WWI and WWII and lets how great that generation was.

Honestly, the media is a plus now. There are still many things that we keep from them and them away from, but knowing that they have immediate access to the American People has helped in honesty.

 

[Pure Energy]

The difference between nation building fiscally and through military force and promoting democracy (nation building) via foreign aid and diplomacy.

True there is a difference and yet similarities. In either case we're out of pocket. There's no guarantee diplomacy gets us to our end destination and won't require some force. A little meddling can end up costing us a lot more than we anticipated. In this respect, I'm more likely to agree with Ron Paul's position of non-Interventionism. That being said, I believe most would agree, if we're going to mix it up with another nation, we'd much rather have McCain at the helm than Obama.

 

[MLU]

The difference between nation building fiscally and through military force and promoting democracy (nation building) via foreign aid and diplomacy.

Neither of which has proven to be too successful for us, either. Mostly ( I feel) because we give a half-assed effort in doing both.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

True there is a difference and yet similarities. In either case we're out of pocket. There's no guarantee diplomacy gets us to our end destination and won't require some force. A little meddling can end up costing us a lot more than we anticipated. In this respect, I'm more likely to agree with Ron Paul's position of non-Interventionism. That being said, I believe most would agree, if we're going to mix it up with another nation, we'd much rather have McCain at the helm than Obama.

When a nation acts like they are the tough guy and refuses to negotiate, moves unilaterally and refuses diplomacy with its enemies it only inadvertantlly weakens its standing. It does so by creating more enemies and dissolving alternate avenues that may have avoided conflicts, conflicts which will use up precious resources and manpower. McCain refuses to use diplomatic avenues on many dictatorship regimes and instead tows the same neo-con line as Bush has that has cost us so much blood and treasure.

If your a fan of Ron Paul's non-interventionism McCain should be last on the pecking order as he would be the most interventionist and the most close minded to its approach.

Also I would ask to Saintshizzle what is wrong with talking to leaders such as Musharaf and Ahmadinejad? Diplomacy is one more avenue to resolving conflicts without using up valuable blood and treasure. Clinton's and more recentlly Bush's diplomatic talks with North Korea kept his nuclear weapons programs in check and avoided any serious conflicts he had thought of over the years.

 

[Saintshizzle]

Also I would ask to Saintshizzle what is wrong with talking to leaders such as Musharaf and Ahmadinejad? Diplomacy is one more avenue to resolving conflicts without using up valuable blood and treasure. Clinton's and more recentlly Bush's diplomatic talks with North Korea kept his nuclear weapons programs in check and avoided any serious conflicts he had thought of over the years.

Fair question, mainly because I do not take a hard stance on this either way. I will tell you that in my immediate area, we are hiring guys that have major blood on their hands. One, even my have been involved in mutilation. But, they have taken the money, I mean handshake, and are now working with us to rid their areas of AQI and others.

We should not go straight into opening dialogues with people/nations without having some sort of tentative agreement first. That can be done with the NSA or another surrogate. Our President should remain "above the fray" when dealing with tyrants, I mean, other nations. I'm with the right on this one mostly, but if we do talk, lets ensure we set the tone. I think Obama is articulate enough to manage that.

Again, the past 8 years has taken a toll on our standing around the world. Obama or McCain will have to dig deep into their bag of diplomacy to fix a lot of it.

 

[FWtex]

Wait a second? Barak is evidently the "Anti" candidate. He is Anti anything that the US has done in the past. What does he believe the US has ever done right?

So Barak is saying the key to winning the war on Terrorism is in Pakistan? Pakistan has been a fairly stable country in the region and Obama wants to destabilize that at this point in time and let Iraq go back to Iran or alQueda? Did she or he forget Pakistan is a nuke power that right now is secure. Sure lets go into Pakistan and stir up the people to revolt against its government while a group like AlQueda is looking for any crease to create chaos there.

Out of one side of his mouth he speaks of getting out of middle east issues yet now he believes in meddling with Pakistan?? Make up your mind.

What about Saudi? This is where the Majority of AlQueda is coming from and this country is the original source of the middle East problems with the west.

Typical Obama tactic of diverting your attention from the real problems he has no answers.