When has America not been the leader in making foreign policy decisions and what from his speeches indicates otherwise? Why does multilateralism in foreign policy always mean America loses to some? In my opinion, it strengthens our power.

 

Maybe this is an issue of perspective. I don't find Obama subservient in foreign relations, but respectful and diplomatic. I personally feel that is exactly the attitude needed to achieve your second statement.

 

Obama has made some comments about a New World Order of countries that are going to make the decisions, I think he said something about 20 and leadership for the World.

 

Sure seems he wants America to step back and become a secondary player in the world.

 

I am sure that the other countries do not have America's best interests at heart when they are making decisions.

 

As I indicated, this is more about where Obama is going to take this country than where we are or have been.

 

The North Korea situation is a good example. We have gone to the UN to get them to do something and it seems like all Obama is going to get is a "You shouldn't have done that NK. Don't do it again or we will issue a stronger statement against what you have done."

 

To me, that show of weakness would embolden countries to do similar or worse things.

 

Bombing Libya put Khaddfi in a different mindset than he did before.

 

I am by no means a Hawk but understand that sometimes the bully has to be stood up to as we did to Khaddfi and to Saddam.

 

It will be interesting to see if Obama goes by the UN positions and tells NK to stop, stop, stop, and they continue to thumb their noses at that, as Saddam did, or whether he does something different.

 

Do you guys honestly think that any rogue country is going to listen to the UN? But it seems that Obama is putting a lot of eggs in that basket.

Obama has made some comments about a New World Order of countries that are going to make the decisions, I think he said something about 20 and leadership for the World.

 

Sure seems he wants America to step back and become a secondary player in the world.

 

I am sure that the other countries do not have America's best interests at heart when they are making decisions.

 

As I indicated, this is more about where Obama is going to take this country than where we are or have been.

 

The North Korea situation is a good example. We have gone to the UN to get them to do something and it seems like all Obama is going to get is a "You shouldn't have done that NK. Don't do it again or we will issue a stronger statement against what you have done."

 

To me, that show of weakness would embolden countries to do similar or worse things.

 

Bombing Libya put Khaddfi in a different mindset than he did before.

 

I am by no means a Hawk but understand that sometimes the bully has to be stood up to as we did to Khaddfi and to Saddam.

 

It will be interesting to see if Obama goes by the UN positions and tells NK to stop, stop, stop, and they continue to thumb their noses at that, as Saddam did, or whether he does something different.

 

Do you guys honestly think that any rogue country is going to listen to the UN? But it seems that Obama is putting a lot of eggs in that basket.

 

Again, this is a difference of perception. You seem to want an overbearing leader, bent on strongarming the world into going along with American foreign policy with no respect or regard to other nation's positions. That simply isn't going to work.

Again, this is a difference of perception. You seem to want an overbearing leader, bent on strongarming the world into going along with American foreign policy with no respect or regard to other nation's positions. That simply isn't going to work.

 

Absolutely not.

 

But I don't want a leader either that is willing to bow down of the wishes of other countries who don't give a rat's patootie about the USA.

 

O has made some statements that concern me on what he is going to do.

 

That is why I am anxious to see what he is going to do about the North Korea issue as well as the growing piracy issue. That latter one is going to be a real sticky issue.

 

BTW, I thought he had a MASTERFUL stroke of taping an Internet message and speaking directly to the young people in Islamic countries. Great, great move. Great use of technology that will appeal to young people. And those are the ones that will eventually overturn countries, one way or the other. Unless you are in China. Then you just get run over by a tank, unfortunately.

 

If O moves us to a quiet position in the world, I would think that China and Russia will have no problem stepping into that void.

Obama has made some comments about a New World Order of countries that are going to make the decisions, I think he said something about 20 and leadership for the World.

 

Sure seems he wants America to step back and become a secondary player in the world.

 

I am sure that the other countries do not have America's best interests at heart when they are making decisions.

 

As I indicated, this is more about where Obama is going to take this country than where we are or have been.

 

The North Korea situation is a good example. We have gone to the UN to get them to do something and it seems like all Obama is going to get is a "You shouldn't have done that NK. Don't do it again or we will issue a stronger statement against what you have done."

 

To me, that show of weakness would embolden countries to do similar or worse things.

 

Bombing Libya put Khaddfi in a different mindset than he did before.

 

I am by no means a Hawk but understand that sometimes the bully has to be stood up to as we did to Khaddfi and to Saddam.

 

It will be interesting to see if Obama goes by the UN positions and tells NK to stop, stop, stop, and they continue to thumb their noses at that, as Saddam did, or whether he does something different.

 

Do you guys honestly think that any rogue country is going to listen to the UN? But it seems that Obama is putting a lot of eggs in that basket.

 

What statements, specifically, lead you to these opinions?

Can we add a "who cares" to the poll?

Obama bows, Bush went over there and begged them for more oil. Fact of the matter is due to the negligence of all of our leaders over the past 30 years we need Saudi Arabia a lot more than they need us.

Obama bows, Bush went over there and begged them for more oil. Fact of the matter is due to the negligence of all of our leaders over the past 30 years we need Saudi Arabia a lot more than they need us.

 

I agree with most of your posts, but I would love to hear the plan on how we should have dealt with the Saudis.

Can we add a "who cares" to the poll?

 

:notworthy::clap:

You get a standing "O" (no pun intended :lol:) from me today. This is what I have been trying to get across all along.

Can we add a "who cares" to the poll?

 

:thumb:

I read the title of this thread, and thought that The Oprah had gone to the Middle East.

:notworthy::clap:

You get a standing "O" (no pun intended :lol:) from me today. This is what I have been trying to get across all along.

 

Then why do you keep posting? This has been asked of me in the past.

 

If was not a bow, then he tripped and caught himself on the kings robe. While it may be of no significance to some in the US, in the arab countries, he bowed to the king and showed that the US was inferior to Saudi.

 

My opinion and I am OUT!

Then why do you keep posting? This has been asked of me in the past.

 

If was not a bow, then he tripped and caught himself on the kings robe. While it may be of no significance to some in the US, in the arab countries, he bowed to the king and showed that the US was inferior to Saudi.

 

My opinion and I am OUT!

 

Really?:ohbrother:

Parts of this would be comical if it wasn't our leaders saying it.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193481

 

The current president's U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, was on Sunday television recently explaining why she thinks Iran, now several decades into its pursuit of nuclear weapons and close to consummation, might succumb to the siren song of sweet reason and retreat from success. Doing so, she said, would enable Iran "to be a responsible member of the international community"—perhaps not the highest priority for a regime that denies the Holocaust happened, and vows to complete it—and "enter the community of nations." Otherwise Iran will face "the full force of the international community."

 

Regarding North Korea's missile launch, Rice was very stern. She said the U.N. Security Council would "meet," and there would be "consultation with our partners," who "all need to come together" and "add to" the 2006 U.N. resolution that North Korea had just disregarded, the one that demanded a halt to future missile-related activity, including launches. The Security Council met. It could not even bring itself to say North Korea's launch had violated the resolution against launches.

 

During Barack Obama's trip abroad, during which he praised himself by disparaging his predecessor and deploring America's shortcomings, he took pandering to a comic peak, combining criticism of America with flattery of Europe, when he deplored America's "failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world." Actually, as the crisis of aggression and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans demonstrated a decade ago, Europe plays almost no leadership role, even in Europe, which remains a geographical rather than a political denotation.

I agree with most of your posts, but I would love to hear the plan on how we should have dealt with the Saudis.

 

And I understand where your coming from. We developed our own reserve for protection but we should have went much further than that. I know it is easier said that done and anytime we mentioned drilling the Saudi's said oh there is no need we will keep gas cheap and they did for pretty much the late mid to late 80's into the early 2000's. Again, I know all of this is easier said than done but somebody should have realized within our govt when our imports of oil were steadily increasing we were creating a major problem.

Then why do you keep posting? This has been asked of me in the past.

 

If was not a bow, then he tripped and caught himself on the kings robe. While it may be of no significance to some in the US, in the arab countries, he bowed to the king and showed that the US was inferior to Saudi.

 

My opinion and I am OUT!

 

The "significance" is what I am interested in. If it was a bow, what does this mean? What is different today from the day before he bowed?