Barack Obama and Foreign Policies
 

Honestly, I've been paying close attention to the news and I don't see how anyone, liberal or conservative, could possibly agree he is the best choice for president. He has made only one visit to the troops in Iraq in 2006. Yet based on that one visit he wants to surrender? He is clearly not knowledgeable on the way foreign policies work. Simply talking with terrorist organization and countries is not going to do anything. I really like the Hitler analogy to describe this, if we had talked with Hitler, it wouldn't have changed anything, he still would have killed all of those people. If the United States were to talk to countries without preconditions and then they attacked, thats going to make the US look like dumb asses. There are certain national and international protocol for meeting with these organizations, and Obama ignoring them won't help a thing.

So, how can one justify supporting Barack Obama when he plans on surrendering a war that we are winning and plans on meeting with terrorist organizations with hopes of talking them out of whatever they are going to do, when we all know good and well that's impossible?

ETA: I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm trying to antagonize liberals or Obama supporters, I'm just merely curious about why people are supporting such an obviously inexperienced candidate.

Sen. Obama has stated, several times for the record, that he would NOT
talk to any one prior to lower level meetings. And Bush is Currently going against his own statements along the same lines.

And which war are we winning?
I spent several hours on Monday talking to Veterans and soldiers.
While they are good to go, I am not to sure about our politics and policies that got them there and what is going on now left alone in a few months.

I think Obama's ideas make him dangerous, not his inexperience.

I'm not worried that he'll win and not know what to do. I'm worried that he'll win and know EXACTLY what he wants to do.

Members of my family say the same thing. What ideas concern you the most?

I agree.....When I think of him talking to the terrorists, I get a flash back of an old picture....

http://cla.calpoly.edu/%7Elcall/chamberlain2.jpg

I see what you are saying, good point.

At least Obama can identify a Sunni from a Shiite.......if not, he better quickly learn from McCain's gaffe.

I also bet he won't walk down an Iraqi street with a company of troops and declare them safe either....


BTW...since some of you like to continue on with the 'inexperience' of Obama might want to take a look at these:
(and keep in mind our CURRENT president in the eyes of some was considered 'inexperienced' for the job...)

http://media.www.beaconnewspaper.com...-3266288.shtml

http://www.newsweek.com/id/106153/output/comments


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ce-cover_x.htm

LOL, I hate those photo ops of the visiting dignitaries declaring all is great in Iraq. Nothing is mentioned of the sweeps that took place just prior to the visit, or the snipers that are strategically placed so these goobers can have their photo opportunity and assure us that things are going well.

I also do not understand this "surrender" talk. Just because we wish to get out of Iraq does not equal surrender. Has the Iraqi government met its benchmarks? Nope... and they're perfectly content on letting the Americans continue to spill blood on their behalf instead of focusing on making the strides necessary to get things done. I clearly remember last summer when the parliament decided to take a two-month break because it was too hot to meet... all the while, our men and women in uniform continued their service in the heat of the desert, with 50 lbs worth of LBE and body armor, and little comfort. The military has done an outstanding job with the mission that we gave them. The things that need to happen now cannot be accomplished with military force. It's time for the Iraqis to do things on their own. Our presence has only made them complacent.

As far as Obama is concerned, he has never said that he would meet with terrorist organizations, so I don't know why you said that. He's willing to meet with other leaders and talk, but it has been obvious in the last couple of weeks that there will be pressures brought to bear on those governments to fall in line with what is decent and acceptable in the civilized world.

-The idea that DC's restriction on gun ownership is "reasonable" under the Second Amendment.

-The idea that increasing capital gains tax will only damage the elite.

-The liberal ideology which asserts that government has unfettered right to your income, and the amount you're allowed to retain is due only to legislative grace.

-The concept of government determining what income you need and what is superfluous for your situation.

-Making the United States more subservient to international organizations, when many of those organizations (The UN, for example) are incredibly weak on matters of grave concern to the United States.

-The idea that increased corporate regulation and taxation will benefit America.

-The idea that an appropriate role for government is to determine what amount of profitability is simply too much for an American corporation.

-The idea that the terrorist is someone who can be rationalized with, yet Barack Obama apparently finds it too politically incorrect to reference what faith the terrorists who are waging war on America belong to.

-His ideas about what jurists should make up the SCOTUS (those who believe the Constitution is a malleable document).

The first one doesn't focus on his experience but focuses more on the inexperience of others. Not to mention those other "inexperienced" presidents were both former governors, not senators.
Newsweek might as well be on the Obama campaign payroll..
The last one still plays up his little experience making it sound like a lot more.

Once again, that is if Obama ever goes to Iraq again.

Why Obama get free pass on gaffes, but McCain is held to a higher standard?

see the other thread..

BECAUSE HE HAS MILITARY EXPERIENCE!!!

ha!

That's Democrats...not just Obama.

I'm not sure I've heard/read about him wanting to rationalize with terrorists. See scbelle's comment above.

Hmm...are you saying the Constitution isn't a malleable document? Based on the laws that are allowed to be passed, they could've fooled me.

I do get what you're saying all in all.

a) You're right, I'm not merely singling out Barack Obama, this could apply to most any liberal Democrat.

b) Obama is trying to draw a distinction which appeases his base. They pride themselves on the ability to use reason instead of force, despite the fact that it will almost certainly be completely unsuccessful in the named situations. If you're not bringing anything to the table, then what is the point? If you go to Iran without points to concede, it'll be a very short visit. If I thought Barack was just saying "Listen, we will make (cursory) attempts to convince Iran that they should do ________, and then we will follow it up with action," then I wouldn't be overly concerned. Maybe he will do just that, but I certainly have seen no indication that he's got the required equipment (spine). Rather, I think this line of talk is a political ploy to satisfy the fringe elements of the Democratic party who harbor anti-war and anti-military sentiments.

c) The Constitution is a malleable document...when the changes are made by the people and the legislative branch. It shouldn't be altered according to what "feels right" to liberal jurists.

I was somewhat agreeing with you. People twist the Constitution to say whatever they think it should say or they just disregard it altogether and just pass contradictory laws anyway.

Indeed, and unfortunately I don't think Barack Obama shares that concern.