That is a really dense way of looking at. Whether you like it or not, there are other countries in the world that aren't the United States. And the United States occasionally interacts with them, or even asks for their help (:scared:). There is a tremendous value to engaging in civil dialogue with other countries and attempting, at least, to cooperate. The "if you don't agree with us - get bent" foreign policy of the last 6 or so years has been nothing short of destructive.

 

Get out of my head!!!! :scared: :lol: :thumb:

Off the top of my head I will go with

 

[*]the U.S.'s unilateral invasion of Iraq Old rehashed tripe, at the time even the Dems said yes.

[*]the "you are either for us or against us" rhetoric After an attack like that, it's what needed to be said.

[*]the refusal to join the International Criminal Court I say good for us.

[*]the refusal to obey common, agreed upon human rights laws Such as?

[*]the refusal to diplomatically engage Iran There is NOTHING diplomatic about Iran.

[*]the U.S.'s inability to capture bin Laden because Pakistan won't let us (and this may be a shocker, but it's because they don't like us)And that's something new? :lol:

 

[*]the rise of the old Russia (see "for us or against us rhetoric")I hardly think it has anything to do with for us or against us "rhetoric".

 

 

If I get free time, I may find a few more.

...

...

 

Edit

Edited September 18, 200818 yr by UKPat02

About as good as that.

 

Okey dokey.

I assume that when you asked for further clarification, your intention was to prove me wrong to some degree. At that time, the only points that could have been proven wrong from my statement were 1.) my ability to name specific reasons, 2.) that the Bush foreign policy has not significantly engaged in diplomacy and cooperation, or 3.) that the Bush foreign policy has been destructive. Now, let’s examine your response.

 

Old rehashed tripe, at the time even the Dems said yes.

 

That certainly doesn’t negate any of the above reasons. Democrat complicity doesn’t mean action against Iraq was a good move, or one a more tempered, well reasoned foreign policy would pursue, especially not one without the backing of significant allies.

 

After an attack like that, it's what needed to be said

 

Again, this doesn’t negate any of the possible reasons I listed, yet, remarkably, affirms it. After 9/11 we had the world’s attention. Rather than using that to shore up weaknesses between the U.S. and countries who would be fundamental in pursuing and destroying terrorist networks, for example, the U.S. decided to tell the world where they could put their goodwill.

 

I say good for us.

 

I see a pattern developing. Not only is this a divisive maneuver, but one that really isn’t helping, well, anything. Although my opinion of the ICC is a separate matter, it is an obvious answer.

 

Such as?

 

You’re serious? Guantanemo Bay and the “dark” sites throughout the world the U.S. uses (or used, I don’t know if they remain operational) to torture captives outside of the bounds of international human rights laws. And there is the whole, divisive/destructive thing.

 

There is NOTHING diplomatic about Iran.

 

James Baker, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, and Henry Kissinger disagree with you (yes, those are five former Secretaries of State). I would also contend that our refusal to engage in diplomacy with Iran will result in their having a nuclear weapon sooner, rather than later. Which, of course, leads us back to the divisive/destructive thing.

 

And that's something new?

 

Nope. But, it reaffirms my point that giving them the proverbial middle-finger isn’t helping us capture the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Also, keep in mind, Pakistan is a nuclear power with an oddly divided military/government, and the political aspects haven’t exactly been stable.

 

I hardly think it has anything to do with for us or against us "rhetoric".

 

Perhaps “rhetoric” was a stretch, and the U.S. stance on Russia has dated back to the Clinton years. Anyhow, they are slipping back to the Russia of yore and our current solution is a missile shield in Poland and sweeping former-Soviet republics into NATO.

 

And there we have it. More than I wanted to say on the matter, but I defend my statements.

Off the top of my head I will go with

 

• the U.S.'s unilateral invasion of Iraq
  
• the "you are either for us or against us" rhetoric
  
• the use of the WTO to tear down trade barriers in other countries, but not the U.S.'s own
  
• the U.S.'s comical representation at the World Bank prior to Robert Zoellick's appointment (but, then see WTO representation)
  
• the refusal to join the International Criminal Court
  
• the refusal to obey common, agreed upon human rights laws
  
• the refusal to diplomatically engage Iran
  
• the U.S.'s inability to capture bin Laden because Pakistan won't let us (and this may be a shocker, but it's because they don't like us)
  
• the rise of the old Russia (see "for us or against us rhetoric")
  

If I get free time, I may find a few more.

 

Is George Bush and all those republicans responsible for all these things you disagree with? You must be livid with the democratic loaded congress. I guess they bear no responsibility for anything you disagree with though. Do a little research into the Freddy/Fannie catastrophe and you'll see Clinton & democrats are all over it. It was all started (intentionally) under Clinton.

Is George Bush and all those republicans responsible for all these things you disagree with? You must be livid with the democratic loaded congress. I guess they bear no responsibility for anything you disagree with though. Do a little research into the Freddy/Fannie catastrophe and you'll see Clinton & democrats are all over it. It was all started (intentionally) under Clinton.

 

 

Most all of what he was talking about deals with Foreign Policy. Which, as we all know, comes straight out of the Oval Office.

Some Rothschild lady who was a major Hillary supporter is now supporting McCain.

 

Campbell Brown interviewed her tonight and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HER QUESTIONS to Rothschild was about Obama or Hillary. When Rothschild wouldn't answer the question but instead wanted to talk about WHY she was supporting McCain, Brown would interrupt Rothschild her and scold her for not answering her questions.

 

Ummm....she is on your show because she is supporting McCain and you are not letting her talk about McCain.

 

She even rudely told her that it was pretty much laughable that someone with her money calls someone else elitist.

I assume that when you asked for further clarification, your intention was to prove me wrong to some degree. At that time, the only points that could have been proven wrong from my statement were 1.) my ability to name specific reasons, 2.) that the Bush foreign policy has not significantly engaged in diplomacy and cooperation, or 3.) that the Bush foreign policy has been destructive. Now, let’s examine your response.

 

 

 

That certainly doesn’t negate any of the above reasons. Democrat complicity doesn’t mean action against Iraq was a good move, or one a more tempered, well reasoned foreign policy would pursue, especially not one without the backing of significant allies.

 

 

 

Again, this doesn’t negate any of the possible reasons I listed, yet, remarkably, affirms it. After 9/11 we had the world’s attention. Rather than using that to shore up weaknesses between the U.S. and countries who would be fundamental in pursuing and destroying terrorist networks, for example, the U.S. decided to tell the world where they could put their goodwill.

 

 

 

I see a pattern developing. Not only is this a divisive maneuver, but one that really isn’t helping, well, anything. Although my opinion of the ICC is a separate matter, it is an obvious answer.

 

 

 

You’re serious? Guantanemo Bay and the “dark” sites throughout the world the U.S. uses (or used, I don’t know if they remain operational) to torture captives outside of the bounds of international human rights laws. And there is the whole, divisive/destructive thing.

 

 

 

James Baker, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, and Henry Kissinger disagree with you (yes, those are five former Secretaries of State). I would also contend that our refusal to engage in diplomacy with Iran will result in their having a nuclear weapon sooner, rather than later. Which, of course, leads us back to the divisive/destructive thing.

 

 

 

Nope. But, it reaffirms my point that giving them the proverbial middle-finger isn’t helping us capture the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Also, keep in mind, Pakistan is a nuclear power with an oddly divided military/government, and the political aspects haven’t exactly been stable.

 

 

 

Perhaps “rhetoric” was a stretch, and the U.S. stance on Russia has dated back to the Clinton years. Anyhow, they are slipping back to the Russia of yore and our current solution is a missile shield in Poland and sweeping former-Soviet republics into NATO.

 

And there we have it. More than I wanted to say on the matter, but I defend my statements.

I will comment on these later today, I'm off to work now.

I assume that when you asked for further clarification, your intention was to prove me wrong to some degree. At that time, the only points that could have been proven wrong from my statement were 1.) my ability to name specific reasons, 2.) that the Bush foreign policy has not significantly engaged in diplomacy and cooperation, or 3.) that the Bush foreign policy has been destructive. Now, let’s examine your response.

 

 

 

That certainly doesn’t negate any of the above reasons. Democrat complicity doesn’t mean action against Iraq was a good move, or one a more tempered, well reasoned foreign policy would pursue, especially not one without the backing of significant allies.

Habib, you know as well as I that the Intel we had gave us reason to go into Iraq. Why rehash this? We went in, found out later the Intel was bad. What were we supposed to do, just pull out at that point?

 

 

 

Again, this doesn’t negate any of the possible reasons I listed, yet, remarkably, affirms it. After 9/11 we had the world’s attention. Rather than using that to shore up weaknesses between the U.S. and countries who would be fundamental in pursuing and destroying terrorist networks, for example, the U.S. decided to tell the world where they could put their goodwill.

You have to take a hard line after something like that. They figured us for a paper lion, you can't look weak in the world view when you take such a vicious hit. It's not a time for making nice and hoping all will all join in with us. You let the world know you mean business, it's the only thing extremists understand, they prey on the weak.

 

 

I see a pattern developing. Not only is this a divisive maneuver, but one that really isn’t helping, well, anything. Although my opinion of the ICC is a separate matter, it is an obvious answer.

I hope this country is always smart enough to refuse.

 

 

 

You’re serious? Guantanemo Bay and the “dark” sites throughout the world the U.S. uses (or used, I don’t know if they remain operational) to torture captives outside of the bounds of international human rights laws. And there is the whole, divisive/destructive thing.

I knew Guantanamo Bay is what you were driving at. I have to ask, ARE YOU SERIOUS? Cry me a river for these scum of the earth that are fighting our troops, without a uniform I might add. They should be shot on sight IMO. I give zero sympathy to any of them, poor things getting water-boarded while all they did is kill some of our troops, helped in roadside bombings, cut off innocent peoples heads, shot and killed innocent civilians and on and on and on...

 

 

 

James Baker, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, and Henry Kissinger disagree with you (yes, those are five former Secretaries of State). I would also contend that our refusal to engage in diplomacy with Iran will result in their having a nuclear weapon sooner, rather than later. Which, of course, leads us back to the divisive/destructive thing.

Israel won't allow it and I couldn't care less what any Secretary of State thinks about Iran. Until that regime is overthrown diplomacy will not work.

 

 

 

Nope. But, it reaffirms my point that giving them the proverbial middle-finger isn’t helping us capture the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Also, keep in mind, Pakistan is a nuclear power with an oddly divided military/government, and the political aspects haven’t exactly been stable.

All it reaffirms is that these people have hated this country for long, long since before you or I was born. There is nothing that will get through to them simply because religiously we are too different and they want us dead. You can't reason with religious extremists, and sadly that's who's in charge over there.

 

 

 

Perhaps “rhetoric” was a stretch, and the U.S. stance on Russia has dated back to the Clinton years. Anyhow, they are slipping back to the Russia of yore and our current solution is a missile shield in Poland and sweeping former-Soviet republics into NATO.

Did anyone really think anything different would happen? I mean, seriously, Russia has always wanted to regain it's prominace as a world power. That hardly has anything to do with the Bush Administration.

 

And there we have it. More than I wanted to say on the matter, but I defend my statements.

I thank you for your views, I disagree with you, but you are one of the best when it comes to P&R and I always admire the way you handle yourself in our "debates". I seriously think you should consider public service, maybe a guy like you could actually bring us some real change. :thumb:

Edited September 18, 200818 yr by Run To State

GOP Senator Chuck Hagel has the same reservations about Palin I do. Just got her first passport last year? Yikes...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/hagel_palin;_ylt=ApOeYgRyiDEccaIy0Hk4bWYpzJV4

 

"You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

Yikes! Joe Biden seems to have even stronger reservations about Obama:

 

Biden: "If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistake..." (Sen. Joe Biden, "The Diane Rehm Show," 8/2/07)

 

Somehow I don't think Obama has strengthened his national security and foreign policy credentials in the past year, has he Joe?

Somehow I don't think Obama has strengthened his national security and foreign policy credentials in the past year, has he Joe?

Well, he picked Biden as his running mate ...

Well, he picked Biden as his running mate ...

And Palin isn't running for President- a man with plenty of foreign policy and national security experience is.

And Palin isn't running for President- a man with plenty of foreign policy and national security experience is.

Other than McCain's military service, he has about the same experience as Biden.

 

Collectively, the two tickets are about even.