CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Whose foreign policy is better?
Confrontation vs. Diplomacy
"Republican John McCain, with his long stint in national politics, has attempted to frame the foreign policy issue around the question of experience. But evaluating McCain’s foreign policy positions reveals a candidate consistently dedicated to confrontation, threats, and the use of military power.
Democrat Barack Obama, a new face on the national scene, has chosen to emphasize the need for change in the way in which U.S. foreign policy is conducted. Obama has called formore focus on diplomacy, less on military action, and an end to the "politics of fear." However, an examination of Obama’s advisers and policy ideas makes it clear that Obama is anything but a non-interventionist."
I feel negotiation and talking is fine.But I hope Obama realizes that sometimes negotiation will not work and it is America that must strike first before America suffers extreme casualties. There are extremest in the world that just out right hate America and what we stand for. These extremest will not stop until America and certain allies are annihilated.
Obama wants to talk and negotiate, fine. But what makes Obama think that he can change the opinions of leaders, of countries such as Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela,etc. who have made statements such as, "America is a stinking corpse,"The days of the American Empire are coming to an end", "America, Israel, and the U.K. will soon be wiped off the face of the earth", "America's and Europe's Christian god will be conquered by the one true god", "All countries must unite to destroy the evil America".
-If Obama talks with these leaders, don't you think they'll tell him what he wants to hear and still have a pure hatred for Americans and want to destroy us any chance they get? I do.
Your statement; "There are extremest in the world that just out right hate America and what we stand for" is plain ridiculous. It's a myth used to confuse the American public. For sure there are extremists, but they don't bomb and attack us for the beliefs (religious, political, or economic), they bomb us because we bomb them. We've been murdering millions of people in dozens of countries for decades. What you're referring to is backlash for all the families we have bombed or starved with economic sanctions and one sided trade rules. It's a side effect of our arrogance in thinking that we should police the world and that we have the right to profit of the poverty and ignorance of 3rd world countires.
Yes, no country is 100% correct in its efforts and everyone loses in a war. BUT the best defense is a good offense, not to be confused with aggression. The United States is not the one spewing "KILL THE INFIDELS" and schooling their children in hatred and terrorist techniques. There are religious extremest that teach hatred for all others that do not follow their beliefs. Some even go as far to call for the death of non-believers. Our national defense and security must not be compromised by those who think that the United States is the enemy. If you think that these leaders and groups will ever change their goal to destroy the United States, than you need a serious wake-up call.
First of all, how is offense NOT aggression? they're practically synonymous. And to think that America doesn't have it's only form of ignorance, zeal, and propaganda is naive. You're falling for their BS, they just use fear to get you to pay taxes for the imperialist war machine. But I'm not here to teach you about American history, if you really want to find out why people hate us the information is out there when you're ready for it.
The issue with Obama's original comment is that you cannot just meet and talk without having ground work done. Obama realized that and backtracked on his original comments. He admitted that of course state department ground work would be laid. The issue with meeting with these guys is the prestige it gives them back home. They use the footage and sound bites to boost their status in the eyes of their countrymen.
Additionally, there are always talks going on, sometimes directly, sometimes behind the scenes and sometimes through third parties. We had negotiations with Saddam Hussein going on through the UN before getting tired of his deception and invading. But it wasn't done unilaterally and it wasn't done without giving him the chance to prove that the WMDs which we knew he had a few years earlier had been destroyed. There was diplomacy. There was diplomacy with N Korea. It was through third parties. It was seemingly to no avail but didn't we just announce a breakthrough?
Obama will have a huge learning curve but there will be seasoned advisors at his side hopefully. JFK screwed up his first taste of foreign policy. He could have killed the Bay of Pigs invasion. He could have let it go through fully supported. But he chose the worst possible path and let it go on but failed to give it full support and it was an immense disaster, cost us huge loss of international esteem and caused a rift with his own CIA. But he relied on his instincts and will always be remembered for the Cuban Missile crisis.
McCain will have more of a chance to hit the ground running. He is not likely to be a hawk. He has paid the price personally. The biggest difference will of course be Iraq. McCain wont pull out as losers with our tail between our legs as we did in Vietnam scarring a generation. In twenty years we will know if the price we paid in Iraq was successful in transforming the Middle East. Until then, we can only decide how to wrap up our involvement. If a democratic pro west state grows up and spreads across the middle east, GWB will enjoy the same change of opinion that Truman did. But meanwhile we need to manage the end of this engagement so that we make the most of the investment we have already made.
- WMD's are a joke, sorry. We invaded because he was about to trade oil in Euros. Same reason we're about to invade Iran.
- McCain is a hawk. His voting record has fallen more and more into line with Pres. Bush, up to 100% in 2008. Bush wants war with Iran, and has said he will take the first steps to ensure it if Obama will get elected. If McCain gets elected, it won't be necessary, as he will take those steps himself.
- The mistake in Vietnam was going in, not getting out. And we have patterns of setting up dictatorships (for example, Saddam Hussein), not democracies.
WMDs are a threat, not a joke. We know for a fact that Iraq had them as evidenced by UN inspectors. The period immediately preceding our invasion inspectors were sent back into Iraq, to give Hussein an opportunity to show that they had been destroyed. He refused to do so. Whatever level of joke the media has made of the issue of WMDs, EVERYONE with any knowledge of the issue believed they had WMDs. Both sides of the aisle. capital hill and white house and Langley. Everyone. US and Europe. EVERYONE who mattered. Clinton administration AND Bush administration. Everyone was wrong.
Why would we have cared back then if he denominated oil in Euros. Fear had not yet arisen that the Euro would replace the dollar as a reserve currency. It was certainly not enough of a threat, and probably still isn't, to start a war over. Please enlighten me as I am obviously missing something. We have much more to fear from the euro now but we don't engage in trade wars with the eurozone. We still coordinate with the ECB. Please explain further for me.
Please provide a quote where Bush made either of those statements
We went in to bail out the french under Ike, we expanded actions to serve our own interests under two Democrats. We got out under a Republican. Lots to flesh out the story but that is the basic fact. Ike and Kennedy had discretion to stop. Johnson and Nixon inherited no win situations and both admittedly made a bad situation worse.
You are referring to our cold war policies when we had a much more intrusive and surreptitious foreign policy. And it is true but is not germane to what I said. I said what the neocon plan was for Iraq, not what our history is or was.
Wait, what? Show me any reporting of WMD's in Iraq after 1994. Have you heard of Hans Blix? And just because "both sides of the isle" believed the buSHit, that doesn't mean it was a legitimate concern. Both sides signed the Patriot Act; does that make it right? Speaking of this, where did you hear that "everyone who mattered" believed in the WMD's? As I recall, there was significant outcry before the invasion, against this issue. And if you're relying on the White House and CIA for credibility... "I've got a bridge to sell you."
Bush didn't make the statements, I concur. [I cite Source Amnesia and Confirmation Bias. :-P] The statement was conjecture by Bill Kristol of Fox News. But regardless of whether Bush himself said it: What do you think? He's been posturing himself for an invasion. According to Russian intelligence, US troops amass at the border. Generals are threatening to resign if we attack. Would this administration go to the trouble of warlike posturing if it didn't intend to do anything about it? If you want to ignore the last 8 years of its actions, go ahead and say yes.
The bottom line is that the admin and its allies stand to benefit monetarily from another war. I've yet to see how the economic downturn will affect this.
Regarding Vietnam: I don't care which president did what, and under what party he did it. In terms of foreign policy, the parties and all presidents generally defer to the intelligence and strategic community. Any hopes I have of Obama preventing war are half-hearted, but better than I can feel for McCain.
Cold war policies are not over. The Cold War isn't even over. We are more intrusive and surreptitious than ever. We will erect nothing but puppets at best, and monuments to chaos at worst.
I refer you to my link. I feel this book could fill in some of the gaps for you.
Not only have I heard of Hans Blix i have read his reports. He is the one who said that we know there were WMDs in Iraq and he is the one who said that his inspection team was there NOT to search for WMDs but to be shown proof that they were destroyed. He was the one who said that Saddam was doing nothing but stalling and playing games. He is the one who said that Saddam did nothing to prove that he did not have the weapons we know he previously had. THAT Hans Blix?
It was not just both sides of the aisle. It was everyone in a position to know for sure. Every friendly intel service. Our own intel service, Clinton, Bush, everyone in a position to know. There was outcry against the war, not disagreement over there being WMDs. And the issue of WMDs is not the only rationale given. That is just the one that the media glommed onto when none were found. I have already told you why I think we went in. The neocon agenda to establish a pro western democracy in the middle east in order to change the dynamics there since 60 years of "talk" has accomplished nothing except a worsening of the situation. That is my personal opinion, so don't ask for proof.
Countries posture all the time. Usually it is either for intimidation or for a power show for the home folks. Of course it isn't possible that he wants to intimidate Iran to keep them from killing more Americans and arming those who do so. Naaah why believe that when we can just believe we will wait tail the day before the inauguration of a new president who wants to invite Ahmadinajhad to a cotillion and up for milk and cookies afterwords, before attacking. Sometimes it is in preparation for war. I am sure however we can just get together for a game of poker and Iran will stop arming and infiltrating groups killing Americans in Iraq. Maybe if we win all their chips they will promise to stop killing Americans. Good idea. You bring the chips and I will bring the dip. There are three months left in the Bush administration. Just what is he waiting for?? Please try and keep fantasies out of this discussion. I spend too much time on here dealing with fiction.
Clinton has proven that an ex president doesn't need war to make money. Carter has proven you can even trash your country on enemy soil and still be a hero. Who needs something as messy as a war for mere profits? Besides, Obama is going to take all their money away and send it to the poor of the world anyway
He will most likely emulate Clinton who neutered our intelligence community with chinese walls that kept the FBI from sharing information about foreign nationals taking flying lessons from other agencies who had the other half of the necessary information. Whatever percentage of fault for 9/11 does not lie with AL Quaeda lies squarely on Clinton's shoulders for the mess he made of our intelligence services. I am sure that Obama cannot wait to emulate Bill and undo whatever repairs have been done by the Bush administration.
The Cold war was the US against the Soviet Union. The soviet union doesn't exist any more. It is over. Go hate on America to someone else. I think I have had enough of your hating on us. And if you think I am going to use a Chomsky book for anything but starting a fire, you are mistaken. Those who put ideology over life deserve the death they get. The only gaps I have are in my patience for nonsense.
At least you are knowledgeable enough to know what you are saying. I am amazed anyone actually believes as you do but at least you don't come at me with ignorance. But as far as I am concerned, the result is the same. Out of curiosity . . . Just how long after Iran completes their first nuke will you still be talking with them? Do you believe in a preemptive attack if we know they are 24 hours away from having a functional bomb? Or will you still be talking? And when you hear they have nuked the port of LA, will you still be talking? Just what will it take to get you to stop talking?
No, not Bizarro Hans Blix. The one in our world, who admonished Saddam for being uncooperative, but who said, "There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction."
According to Blix, the WMD intel was faulty. I agree with you about why we went into Iraq. Though did that agenda really begin with the Neocons?
Countries posture all the time, yes. The US, yeah it postures all the time. But we also invade all the time. We have troops on the border. And the military-industrial complex stands to make a killing, once again. The stars are thus aligned.
The Cold War, yes, technically against the Soviet Union. But Russia has risen anew, and is continuing the same world-power chess strategies it was given to decades ago. Georgia, Poland, and the Ukraine are all stories that could just as easily have happened with the USSR.
Those who burn a book can simply find no other way to counter its ideas. Honestly, Inkwell. What can you possibly hope to learn if you only read things you already agree with? Why don't you stick to banning Harry Potter at your ignorant Parent-Teacher Association?
Iran is about a decade from having a nuke. Check out the attached link. It discusses many of your concerns. They cite sources, if you're skeptical. As far as the 24-hour question goes, I think it's moot. Several dozen Soviet "suitcase nukes" are unaccounted for. If someone was determined to nuke the United States, they would have already.
(It would take more than nuking LA for me to stop talking to someone, only because it's LA.)
I read your cited article on the Euro and euro denominated oil. I don't buy it. His main evidence is the refusal of Germany and France to back us. This was because they profited greatly from Iraqi oil and did not want to see us disrupt that. Their motivation was economic self interest. Besides, if you weren't so anti American you would just spin this the other way. Why aren't you complaining that Germany and France stabbed us in the back and wouldn't back their ally because they want to supplant the dollar to their own interests. Either way they were solely acting out of their own financial interests. But would you blame them for acting in their own interests? Hell no! Why do that when you can indulge your anti American views. If it was all over euro denominated oil, why did they vote for our entry and then refuse to back us? Why is THEIR financial interest pure of motive but ours is evil and unilateral? Try and keep an even keel here. I don't blame France, Russia or Germany. They were in bed with Iraq and needed to protect their oil interests. They are not our vassals. They are sovereign states so they need to make their own choices looking out for their best interests. But don't tell me that we were evil for doing EXACTLY the same thing. That article is totally one sided. And while the issue might be something to worry about now, back then it was barely conceivable.
I didn't cite the article because it explained my point of view. It merely gives a more astute way of looking at our way into the wars with Iraq and Iran.
I'm not so much Anti-American as I'm anti-Hegemony. At least modern France and Germany are a bit more responsible with their power.
How can anyone answer this question? We have no idea what Obama will do in a crisis. He said he would undo trade treaties like NAFTA to get votes from working middle America and when Canada said thanks, then we will just sell our oil to China instead of the US, he sent his people to Canada to say "just kidding". Israel is scared to death of him because his commentary before running for president was overwhelmingly pro Palestinian and he wants to hold talks with Iranian leaders without defining what talks would entail. So that is two of our three strongest allies he has worried already. I frankly have no idea what an Obama administration's foreign policy will look like. So how can I answer?
Obama is not Pro-Palestine. He has said he would meet their leaders, but then kind of changed his stance when he realized you MUST support Israel to get elected here. Now he has covered up his position by saying he supports Israel 100%.
It's a disgusting flip-flop, but at least he does it less than McCain :-\ And honestly, being pals with Israel is not the way to win hearts and minds. But when we have to stand with someone as abrasive and unpopular as Israel, when it's strategically sound to do so, that's how you know we're fucked either way. [What are your middle school bullies doing in life now?]
As for talking with leaders of Iran and Palestine without preconditions, what could possibly be wrong with that? I think that's a pretty American way of looking at negotiation. I'm probably overlooking some major aspect of foreign negotiation, so someone please fill me in.
Your characterization of Israel is so off base and wrong headed as to be laughable. Comparing Israel to a bully when they have been attacked repeatedly since formation in 1948. The Palestinians who are still in camps left Israel when the surrounding Arab nations told them to leave their homes and they could return after they drove the Jews into the sea. They have tried repeatedly. They can still go home . . . as soon as the same Arab nations fulfill their goal, which still 60 years later unchanged, to drive the Jews into the sea. Syria wants the Golan back? Tough, they used the high ground to reign mortars on innocent Israeli farms. They attacked Israel, now they want their military advantage of the high ground back? Screw'em. The Arab armies outnumbered the Israeli army many times over, they had more guns, more tanks, more planes but lost time after time. When Clinton made Israel kiss ass, Israel gave in on 90% of what the Palestinians were asking. Palestinian leadership responded by walking away from talks and calling for intifada. The idea that Israel has a partner to deal with ridiculous.
As for Obama, he repeatedly spoke of how the Palestinians are the ones suffering. What about the Israelis killed by daily mortar fire from Lebanon and Gaza? How about the Israelis AND AMERICANS killed by so called suicide bombers? The most recent action in Lebanon is being called offensive and preemptive but that totally ignores the hundred of mortars landed in Israel from Hezbollah and the two Israelis taken prisoner. Since when is the bully the one who takes a beating strictly defending itself? Israel defended itself in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982. Since then they have pretty much been under a constant state of attack from mortars and suicide bombers under several intifada calls.
Israel is one of three reliable and effective partners we have in the world. Obama has already pissed off Canada and Israel is scared of him winning. No one can possibly believe he is pro Israel. When does he alienate us from England?
I gave the reasons why you don't do it. If you don't like my reasons go ask someone in the state department.
My characterization of Israel is off-base? The land was stolen and given to the Jews. Through little fault of their own, yes, but stolen nonetheless. But surely you understand that our partnership with Israel is based on our dependence on vital Middle East interests, and the containment of regional powers such as Iran? Even the Soviets attempted to partition Iran into 3 castrated states; in 1946 even they understood the strategic danger of a large, possibly autonomous future regional power. Israel is our nuclear outpost in the desert, and its militarization has spurred that of neighboring powers. Nuclear ambition can be traced to their refusal to comply with non-proliferation. The country has evolved into an extremely aggressive (as I said, second only to the US) military-/ high tech-industrial complex, known for extremely destructive and irresponsible civilian-targeted counterattacks. Sorry about the ad misericordiam, but I have a Palestinian friend with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. His girlfriend protested the demolishing of her house, and the Israeli bulldozer did not hesitate to destroy her in front of him and her family. This is run-of-the-mill in "Israel," nowadays.
Let's say you live in country X. Any country. China reaches an agreement with the UN to partition your country and give half of it to the Uighurs, and relocate all of your citizens to the remaining half. When is violent resistance legitimate? When the UN rejects your rejection of the agreement? When you get relocated, and your home is bulldozed? When your people are massacred in a neighboring country [Jordan]? When, after 50 years, the Uighurs have expanded to take over almost your whole country? The Palestinians are bereft of legal representation. They elect Hamas, and the actual democratic decision is rejected. And those talks they walked away from? It's because Israel refused a ONE-TO-ONE land trade, insisting instead on three-to-one. When every other option is rendered useless, and Israel remains aggressive, violence is the only option left.
Inkwell: "Israel is scared to death of [Obama] because his commentary before running for president was overwhelmingly pro Palestinian and he wants to hold talks with Iranian leaders without defining what talks would entail."
The alternative sounds dangerously like the Unilateralism that has made us so unpopular and dangerously inflexible in the first place.
Inkwell, what religion do you subscribe to, out of curiosity?
and the land was stolen from the Jews before that by the Romans and the Byzantines. and before that the Jews took it from the Edamites and Canaanites and Philistines and other tribes. We stole this land from the native Indians. Don't be naive! Or at least don't expect me to feed that naivete. Every other group of refugees since WWII has been taken in and resettled by their own people. Only the Palestinians have been turned away by their own, used as a political football by their racial kin. The Jews were shunted from country to country by the Catholic Church. Jews lived nonstop in the middle east, Jerusalem, Amman, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran in relative peace for centuries. They were never gone. They were slaughtered by Crusaders just like the Moslems and Arabs were. In fact the first "battle" of the crusades was a group of English knights killing all the Jews in their town in their excitement to get started with the killing. Vital middle east interests? The only vital middle east interest is oil and Israel has none. So I surely understand that is all bunk. It would serve our purposes much more surely to jettison Israel and suck up to the Saudis further except for one thing. Israel is a reliable trustworthy ally and no one else in the middle east are. Israel has never nationalized American interests in their country as the oil countries have.
LOL so you are criticizing them for their COUNTER attacks, In other words reacting after being attacked. They do NOT target civilian population but when you fight an enemy who operates intentionally in the midst of the civilian population, oh well, shit happens. Irresponsible is in the eye of the beholder. When Syria is mortaring farms, Hezbollah doing the same from Lebanon I don't really care about how they strike back. How long would the US put up with mortars being fired from Windsor Canada into Detroit? Would we worry about civilian casualties on the other side if they were sending pregnant women with bombs tied to their waist to blow up civilian buses and tourist sites? I sure hope we wouldn't shed a single tear over them. I frankly don't care about your friend's girlfriend. I have been at funerals on the other side for too many Israeli and Americans killed by suicide bombers. This crap is not film on the 6 O'Clock news to Israel. This is their sons and daughters dying. This is decades of living daily next to people who are vocally and actively and violently and murderously devoted to your destruction.
Most refugees left when their fellow Arabs said to them to leave and you can have your homes back after the Jews are driven into the sea. They were driven out as much by their fellow Arabs as by the new Israelis. And their fellow Palestinians who make up a huge part of the Jordanian population have not taken them in. The fact that they have been in camps along the Jordan since 1948 is a sin, but it is their own racial brothers who should be held culpable. As I said, every other group of refugees has been absorbed. Only the Palestinians turned their back on their "brothers". Israel gave in to everything Clinton demanded. Their sole substantial holdout was Jerusalem. Israel needs a solution more than the Palestinians. They have huge political issues to deal with on their own. They NEED a Palestinian state as much as the Palestinians do, even knowing it will be a state devoted to their destruction. When Britain said the Jews could have this shit hole in the desert, did they hold out for Hawaii or or somewhere with a single natural resource? Hell no! They took this god forsaken corner of the earth and created a miracle. They created farms where nothing could grow by developing world changing irrigation practices. They fought wars over and over against huge odds and defeated the amassed armies of multiple nations despite the odds.
I don't live in country X. I live in the United States. We took the country from the Indian tribes and threw out our colonial masters. We shamefully approved and exploited slavery. I freely admit those were wrong but I am not willing to cry or pay reparations or drown myself so the descendants of the people our nation wronged can have their lands back or their 40 acres and a mule. While slavery was happening here, my ancestors were being chased across Europe by the Catholic Church or killed in pogroms by the Cossacks. But I don't strap bombs to my waist and blow up churches or the Russian Tea Room. My mother's whole family, dozens of people were gassed in Auschwitz but I don't walk into the German Embassy with bombs or a gun and kill people.
The Palestinians walked out because the Israelis actually offered so much they were shocked and there was no way Arafat would neuter himself by actually agreeing to something, anything. His life and career depended on having Israel as an enemy to fight. Without the conflict he was a dead man. There was NO agreement under ANY terms he would or could agree to. Israel, under pressure from Clinton agreed to 90% of the land in question. What you probably don't understand is that Israel WANTS a Palestinian homeland. They do not want and cannot survive integrating the Palestinians into Israel proper. They do not breed as fast and would be outvoted in a few short years. And yes, Palestinian Israelis vote. Many many Palestinians stayed and prosper in Israel.
Everything sounds like something to you. I couldn't care less what label you choose to put on it. They want Israel destroyed. They want America destroyed. So please tell me what the fuck you want to talk to them about? Last night's soccer scores?? Exchange rates on camel piss? They want to KILL you and I. They want to kill Israelis and eradicate Israel. They are fanatically religiously and irrationally devoted to those goals. So whatever you think is so god damned important for us to talk to them about just doesn't interest me. Your willingness to strengthen Hamas or Hezbollah or maniacal religious zealots in Iran by treating them as equals is just plain suicidal and traitorous. By talking to them you strengthen them. I do not want to strengthen those who devote their life to killing me. I don't get what is so hard about that to understand. I will admit being a Unilateralist as soon as you admit you are a traitor. Stupid? No shit it is stupid. Just like aiding in your own destruction.
I frankly just don't care about your friend, his girlfriend or her family. Thousands of mortar attacks on kibbutzes and collectives and farms just sort of harden you. Knowing those mortars are hidden in the middle of urban centers so that any retaliation provides PR value shows THEY don't care about their civilian population so don't expect me to care about them. Their paying families of people who blow themselves up, raising children to commit suicide, preaching hate and destruction of Israel, makes it very hard for me to think of them as human beings. If they don't value their lives, don't ask me to when they live to kill me.
My religion has been listed on my personal page since my first day here. But I have no idea if my "subscription" is up to date.
White people stole America from my ancestors. Two, three, four hundred years back. There's not a movement to get it back because-- well, aside from history's largest genocide-- it's history now. Like the Byzantines and Canaanites.
The Palestinian refugees are still alive.
Vital Middle East Interests: Just because Israel doesn't have oil doesn't mean it can't be our point military base in the region. We have an advanced army and a nuclear power in the region. Don't tell me that doesn't give us leverage towards our goals. And a "reliable trustworthy ally?" Well, I suppose if you drop a man in a pit of snakes, you're still the guy with the rope, and as close to an ally as there is. If Is doesn't do everything we like, we can cut off its incredible military aid. We likewise have an interest in keeping them happy.
No, you have a point. There is little way to retaliate against terrorism accurately. But when you exhaust someone else's options until all they can do to be heard is set off suicide bombs... there had to be another way. I'm not saying Is started all of this, I blame the UN much more. But the policies pursued by its administration have been doing nothing less than asking for it. And remember to separate the government from the citizens. I know a couple of Israelis who object to everything their government stands for; Obviously, you know quite a few. What is the general consensus among Israelis? Do they much approve of their government?
The Palestinians who had the resources to flee, fled. The poor are left to kill and be killed. And yes, Israel is in a terrible position. A lot of what you say after that is tangential, though.
The Nazi regime is gone. Israel is not. You can try to draw parallels, but these are two different situations, and it doesn't work 1:1.
I won't contradict anything else you say in the post, as I'm running out of time. Your strong feelings aren't illegitimate, but neither are those of the Palestinians. This is a shitty situation, and basically both parties are being fucked by people much more powerful than any of them. I suppose there are some conflicts that can only be resolved with conflict, and this may be one of them. I can only debate the causes, as I'm in the dark as to a solution.
Look at the two candidates! McCain is an experienced veteran and Obama is an inexperienced radical who has never traveled south of our border!
The last time Obama went to visit the middle east (remember, the big media-fest) he canceled many visits to troops in Germany, etc. But, I guess you didn't hear about that on Keith Olbermann so it isn't true (sarcasm).
Okay, glad to see that you talked about the candidates stated policies and didn't just quote bullshit rightwing talking points (sarcasm).
Let's look at McCain's "experience" shall we. He led us into the Iraq war and said it would be easy. He didn't even understand the cultural conflict between shia and sunni Muslims.
Also, what does being a veteran in Vietnam do to help with foreign policy experience? I commend McCain for his service to our nation, but that doesn't mean he automatically is going to know what's best. You have to look at his record, and in this case his record tells a different story.
Finally, the video you showed. I'm pretty sure that bringing "democracy and freedom" to the people of Iraq shouldn't involve the deaths of somewhere between 400,000 and a 1,000,000 people.
In addition, in Iraq 4,119 U.S. armed forces have died since the start of the war. In the September 11 attacks: 2,998.
The stated reasons for going into this war were that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to us. This was not true and McCain was one of the people who sold us on these lies.
well, we could do what Britain did (what Obama wants) and compromise with a radical (Mahmoud, Hitler, w/e you want). or, we can do what America is known for, and say "do it, i dare ya, we got all the bombs ready to drop bitches" and then drop them if they go ahead.
what's the policy? "we don't negotiate with terrorists". we can threaten them, but if you negotiate, THEY'RE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT!
What happend with Hitler was appeasment. In order to stop a war from happening they let Hitler get away with more and more until finally he went to far. What Obama wants is to talk to these people. Talking is a far cry from appeasement.
What negotiating does is it shows other nations that we are not just some country that trys to boss people around militarily. If our demands are reasonable then we gain international support and nations such as Iran are put under pressure. By threatening them militarily we make them look like heroes in the eyes of many of their people. The object would be to put them into a situation where we have the moral high ground so if we do have to use military force, then at least we can say, "we tried every other option first" and our allies will support us in our decisions, not hate us.
So what your saying is you would risk the lives of millions of Americans, just so we can say "We have the Moral High Ground". A lot of countries do and will hate America whether or not we have the moral high ground. What allies are you talking about that hate America. Hate is a strong word, some allies may not agree, like most did with the war on Iraq. But most sent troops anyway to help because they are our allies and we would do the same for them.
Risk the lives of millions of Americans? How? I assume your saying that talking to them means that they will have a better chance of developing a nuclear bomb, and if so you misconstrued my meaning. In our negotiations we need to make sure that they know that it is unacceptable to us that they develop nuclear weapons. Obama has said this. He knows that the Iranians cannot obtain nuclear weapons and will make sure they don't at any cost.
As for our allies, do you wonder why Tony Blair was so unpopular in England when he left? Because of his support for the Iraq war. Now the English forces are withdrawing. The people of most nations will not let their leaders go to war unless absolutely necessary, even if their allies want them to. Also, how long do you think our alliances will last if we keep bringing our allies into wars they do not want to fight?
Diplomacy, with international support, is the best way to approach these problems.
You don't have to limit yourself to allies who hate America. Bill Ayres is an American who literally and actively declared war on the United States. He literally in writing declared war on behalf of the Weather Underground and he committed violent acts of war against the US. So we don't have to go as far offshore allies to find those who hate America. And we don't have to go further than our ballot box to find those who would describe those who hate and declare and carry out war against the United States as merely "someone in the neighborhood".
talks means giving prestige. Mahmoud felt like a God when he was asked to talk at a college. We all called him a moron (since the reason why there are no fags in Iran is because he kills all of them), but the people understand that speaking at a University is an honor.
Now, the president of the United States talking to this man... good job. wtf is he going to say? really. how do you just say "don't kill all the Jews and Gays please". what, will Mahmoud just say "O... I guess my religion is wrong and my hatred towards Jews is superficial". Yeah, we obviously see that it doesn't work with the KKK... why work with this guy? we need to put pressure on him, put fear into him. He's a piece of shit and we can surely make him feel like it. and if he doesn't, we kick his ass.
About giving him legitimacy, he's the president of Iran! Denying it isn't going to change that fact. We don't like that he's president but there's no way around it. During the cold war we communicated with the leaders of Russia even though they were our mortal enemies. This didn't mean we were giving them legitimacy, it meant we were trying to maintain peace.
I don't think we can change his views, but we can try to get him to follow the guidelines set down by the U.N. about human rights. Right now, he says that he wants Israel destroyed, but the government has not taken any direct action against the nation. Yes, the government of Iran has supplied terrorist groups with weapons, but there is not an all out war. So maybe we can't get him to love Israel, but we can possibly stop him from declaring war on them.
Interfering in the Middle East militarily is the whole reason that Iran hates us in the first place. They tried to become independent from French control, but with our help this new government was put down and replaced by a pro-west monarchy. Then, the radical, anti-west government that exists today took control. This is why they hate us, because to them we are evil imperialists who tried to exert control over them. In order to get a stable, less radical government, we cannot just "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." We have to convince the people of Iran and the rest of the world that we are trying to do what is right.
(also..."fags"? Really? let's try not to promote bigotry on this site)
What if "what they want" is reasonable? Israel refuses to negotiate with Palestine, after basically stealing their country and becoming the second most militarily aggressive country in the world. Yeah, we all know who's #1. Actual terrorist acts are a last resort; suicide bombing is the tool of people who don't have the resources to launch rockets into neighborhoods, a la the IDF.
And why do you think Ahmadinejad is a radical? This is what the mainstream media has told you. Have you done any research into him at all? Maybe this idiotic strong-arm foreign policy is what is CAUSING terrorism against us, no? Get some more understanding on the subject aside from what you are told in History class and on CNN.
why ask a f---ing question if you are going to answer it yourself. Back to your mental masturbation. You don't need a partner for sex OR debate apparently. You ask a question and then answer it yourself. Screw the media. They are your scapegoat for everything. He appears on TV and we can judge his words for ourselves. He appears in print and we can judge his words for ourselves. Unless you think the interpreters which he provides are distorting his message and no one has caught it. This is not the 1930s where a single media point of view is all that we have available. You are a propagandist and nothing more. The IDF fires rockets into neighborhoods because that is where the mortars are. That is where the cowardly Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists hide. Suicide bombers who attack buses and discos and cafes at lunch time and libraries full of Americans are not targeting military targets. THAT is the very definition of terrorism in my book. Violence used NOT for military tactic but for terrorizing a populace. IDF rockets are aimed at military targets. If those targets are cowards hiding in residential neighborhoods, or urban centers,oh well. If you don't understand the difference you are intentionally obtuse.
Israel cannot negotiate with a group whose sole purpose is to destroy them. What can they possibly discuss? It is like the warden giving a condemned man his choice of the chair or lethal injection. When negotiation was forced on them by President Clinton, Israel came to the table giving up 90% of the questioned land and the PLO offered nothing in return but further demands and walked away to declare intifada. Would YOU rush back to the table after that? We already know what they want. Destruction of Israel. That is not reasonable. When they were both forced to the negotiating table, it was the PLO who left after offering NOTHING and declared intifada. Go spread your propaganda to someone who doesn't know better.
I believe that holocaust denial and "drive the Jews into the sea" are radical. Maybe the butterfly effect or fluoridation of water are causing it. Maybe too much sugar in his diet causes him to want to kill people. AFTER I kill the rabid dog trying to bite me I can worry about the cause of rabies. First job is kill the rabid dog. Arabs have been trying to kill Jews and eliminate Israel since 1948. I don't think it has anything to do with the Bush administration. The day you stand next to an empty casket because the suicide bomber didn't leave enough of your family member to bury, you can lecture me. When you have been to Israel a dozen times you can lecture me about history class you 20 year old know nothing. Experience some life and then you can presume to talk to me about he media brainwashing me. Once again you presume to know me and about me. If you knew 1 percent of what you think you know, you might be worth something.
There are subtle ways to manipulate your opinions. And yes, he was mistranslated-- see link. And yes we have media choices. WE do. Think of the average American: little to no source-checking or consideration of bias. To most Americans, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are considered objective reporting. And the mainstream is dominated by corporate sources, all of whom have a few things in common that will sway the purport of their effect on public opinion.
Terrorism is the tool of people who have no voice, who do not have the money for Kevlar and rocket stations, to march out in the open and declare whatever directorate by whichever Commander or politician. Why attack the military when it extracts 10 casualties for every 1 your side can get? Logistically, it makes sense to attack civilians, to whittle away support for a conflict you know your enemy's people wouldn't support if they truly understood it.
Destruction of the illegitimate state of Israel. The issue comes down to the legitimacy of the state itself, not the people. If you cannot give a good reason for its existence, then you cannot call their objections illegitimate.
Physician heal thyself. Do not whine to me about the bias of the media when you display YOUR bias over and over. First, you name only conservative media sources which are no more or less biased than liberal trash like the NYtimes and CNN. There is no unbiased mainstream media . . . on either side. But you have no place to piss and moan about it. You are just as biased. Your posts reek of your bias. Just look below. Terrorism is OK for the poor but self defense is not OK for the rich? What kind of horse shit is this? Morality is morality and there is nothing holy about being poor terrorists. I don't need to justify Israel. There is nothing to justify. They found a Land occupied by insects. Humans don't use terrorism. Terrorists give up any rights that humans possess. Even if Thomas Jefferson's words are accepted and we are all created equally, our actions can forgo that state of affairs. Israel has done nothing but defend itself and the insects attacking it have given up any rights we grant to human beings by their conduct. Society has rules. As society exists, Israel is a state and that is it. Terrorism is outside of society's norms and thus those who commit it are not party to the rights which society grants its members. There was no Palestinian "state" until the British formed Trans Jordan. So the British created the state and then gave part of it to the Zionists as Israel. The Israelites were occupying that part of the region 3500 years ago. Now you can accept or reject any of those circumstances as legitimizing the nation of Israel, but the fact is that it exists and is accepted by our society. Any of them are plausible but none of them are necessary. As for your rejecting ANY media source because they are biased? Pot, meet kettle.
As a fag, I object to your language. If I were an opportunist, calling you an ignorant douchebag would be the crux of my argument. The Iranian executions of homosexuals and women are extremely backwards, and motivated by ignorance and Theocracy. Yes, radical. But what about Saudi Arabia, which has many of the same radical habits? Do some research on our relations with both countries and you will understand that we are only hostile to Iran because they have the chance to become an autonomous regional power, and they insist on self-determination.
"Wipe Israel off the map:" there is no idiom for this in the Persian language. He wishes to topple the [corrupt, aggressive] government of Israel. This mistranslation was perpetrated by the MSM in order to evoke genocidal imagery and alienate the West against Iran.
YES, REALLY. MSNBC and CNN are mainstream media. Cable news? Come on. It doesn't matter whether they have an Obama or McCain agenda; they are still the mainstream media. So is Fox, I don't understand why you don't count that. I would rebut your statement, but I can't even begin to understand why you would think they're not mainstream. Also, explain the 1 and 4 thing? My fag mind can't comprehend it.
the 4>1 thing means that the 4 cable news channels are deeply in the tank for Obama. While Fox News has attacked McCain (unfairly i would say... but hey, it's the media), they have had more views from the right.
the fact is, the majority of "mainstream" actually aren't worried about Iran.
as for Saudi Arabia, the fact that they don't want us and our allies dead does sort of eliminate their threat. you have to remember, Mahmoud is not only radical, but also hates our ways and wishes to eliminate the capitalism and powerful military that we have, and wishes to destroy Israel (because they're all jews).
Fag means homosexual. and i'm actually supporting the fags, because i'm against them getting executed... what's your problem?
I agree, it does seem the media has made its choice as to whom will be elected. I don't see why you brought up media partisanship however, as that was not the issue being discussed.
Like I said, do some research into the history of our foreign policies with S.A. and Iran. You're basically repeating sound-byte explanations from cable news, which is third-hand reporting.
Why don't you go to Harlem and tell some black people that you don't think it's right to lynch niggers? Walk into a synagogue and voice your support for kikes. Perhaps you're just unaware of the etymology? A faggot is a bundle of sticks for a bonfire. At times in Old Europe, the practice was to burn homosexuals at the stake. The word "Fag" evokes persecution and dehumanizing as much as the N word.
you see, that's just being too sensitive. cursed PC world.
i didn't bring up "mainstream media" in the first place. i responded on it's bringing up. they obviously want Obama, and in doing that, they've tried to DOWNPLAY the threat of Iran.
and it's also wrong to rape pasty face bitches. for some reason though, white people don't find that offensive...
I agree about PC. In a more enlightened society, we would make fun of everyone equally. Unfortunately, in this current environment, saying "fag" means something totally different. Sorry.
I will rape pasty-faced bitches with you, to build legitimacy. Cracka-ass-crackas are just asking for it.
and i totally forgot to refute the other point that "Fag" didn't even come that way.
it used to be used as a 16th century slang term for and Old unpleasant woman. it came back in the 19th century to apply to old women who sold and gathered firewood... they were called "faggot-gatherers".
really, old women were faggots, and i guess really how gay men got it was because they're "old queens". LOL.
Just because America is known for something doesn't mean it is good or America should continue that policy. Sure Britain did compromise with Hitler but while Hitler was evil as are terrorists, Hitler led a country where as terrorists don't necessarily lead any country in a sense terrorists are like parasites feeding off the unsuspecting or helpless host. Terrorists don't necessarily want to negotiate, they want us to suffer to feel pain; right now America is feeling a lot of pain. We cannot label anyone who doesn't want american influence in an area as terrorists just because we don't like that they don't like us. Remember it is not the american people but the american government that they truly hate. we can't take the approach that we are always right and if you say otherwise we'll just bomb you, not if we want to live without fear and suffering that is. I'm assuming that you want foreign policy that McCain wants which happens to be what America has been following for almost a decade. Ask yourself has it worked? Are we really safer? Is the world a better place? Does having two simultaneous wars going on at the same time increase our security? McCain's policy which is basically an extension of Bushes failed policy is reckless and dangerous. Obama at least understands that our policy is wrong and that it needs change, he understands that you can't fight terrorists the same way you fight an enemy nation. There is no shame in trying to preserve life by talking and compromising, in fact it takes greater courage to not resort to violence even when you are threatened by it. Make no mistake Obama is no pacifist but he also isn't a reckless and indifferent war hungry hawk.
you basically just admitted that the terrorists are worse than Hitler, yet, you think we can talk with them?
Mahmoud executes gays, jews, raped women, and wants to destroy Israel. Do you think "talk" will stop him?
we haven't been attacked since we invaded. Hell, AMERICAN INTERSEST (which was attacked many times before) hasn't been attacked since we invaded. I think we are safer... but hell, maybe stats are wrong.
I don't see how i admitted that terrorists are worse than Hitler. What i stated was that terrorists don't have a home nation where as Hitler did. With Hitler you could fight in a conventional way, terrorists you can't. You can talk to anyone, America, sorry to say it, isn't the moral high ground, it hasn't been for at least a decade. America has committed terrorists acts against nations and its people when it doesn't agree with them, but they are hidden behind ideas of spreading democracy and capitalism.
I am pretty sure that the Israeli government would want several Arab nations to be destroyed they just didn't make the mistake of saying it publicly. Of course you wouldn't just talk to someone like Mahmoud and if the talk didn't work out just give up and say you did your best. You would follow other options but there is no harm in talking first and attempting to solve these matters without needless wars and deaths.
Yes we haven't been attacked, but look at our situation. Our economy is dieing, our army is spread too thin and there is great animosity towards us, rightfully so, by nations that used to look at us as a beacon of light and hope. Just because we haven't yet been attacked doesn't mean we are safer. I'm unsure exactly what you mean by american interests. Do you mean domestically or internationally such as our allies and puppet "democracies" we have propped up throughout the world?
'Obama has called formore focus on diplomacy, less on military action, and an end to the "politics of fear." However, an examination of Obama’s advisers and policy ideas makes it clear that Obama is anything but a non-interventionist."'
a) It's is always better to negotiate than blindly strike a potential enemy.
b) We're damnear broke due to current military action, do we really need more?
c) Fear is what the ignorant use to control the more ignorant; communication is how the informed win over (and thus control) the informed
d) Non-intervention isn't always the best way to go. You can try and try to convince a person not to spit in your face, but after trying you may find the only way they pay attention to you is by smacking their face.
In this global society there is no room for shoot first and ask questions later. There is a tremendous amount at stake if we do things that way. More than ever before we must see an end to cowboy politics and we must have diplomacy working for us at all times. I'm certain Obama would act if absolutely necessary but only when all else has been exhausted. That's the type of person I wish to have as President.
"Citizens of dozens of foreign countries prefer Barack Obama over John McCain as our next president by a margin of almost 4 to 1" CNN.com
And by dozens, he means 70. I want the world to view us as helpful Americans. I am sick of cowboy presidents. Thats why I think is foreign policy is better.
