"Shame on you, Barack Obama"

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

My only point was that he has more foreign relations experience than people give him credit for. He's said he'll be tough in Afghanistan and has emphasized that his number one priority is to keep the American people safe, it's just a change in tactics. It's not a pacifist POV, btw. I'm more of a Just War person and I would serve in this nation's military if necessary.

Foreign policy experience is not the same as "connections in Kenya" - and I openly question whether that experience carries over into a dangerous and difficult situation such as Iran. That's my point.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Blowing off someone who wants to increase our positive foreign relations - with countries who are our allies no less - as pacifism is ignoring the fact that Americans are thought poorly of in much of the world. American patriotism is associated with jingoism and preemptive strikes, not loving our country.

I'm all for increasing positive foreign relationships - that's been one of the downfalls of the Bush administration, I'll certainly agree. But it is pandering to associate my post with jingoism, especially when you've chosen the intentionally inflammatory "dick measuring contest" metaphor as your base of attack.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

There's a difference between ineffective sanctions and going "We're going to have to go to war with Iran" every five minutes. We almost went to war because we listened to a joke broadcast when two ships were standing off. Seriously, put the dicks, and Team America, away.

You either missed my point, or chose not to acknowledge it because of how I packaged it - that's pretty shitty, but to each her own.

There is a difference between the two, of course - there are also situations where "positive foreign relations" is a poor course to follow. Iran is likely a bigger threat to Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan. Sometimes force is required - and, since you're not a pacifist, you'll surely agree with that.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Social conservatives have been dominating the party, so they have been defining the hard right.

Fiscal conservatives have clearly NOT been dominating the Republican party. Or this administration.

I think your final points are saying the same thing I started out saying in my first post, you just took the conversation around several corners along the way.

Social conservatives are a large presence but I wouldn't say that they are currently dominating.
Fiscal conservatives are certainly NOT dominating the party right now though. Hopefully there can be a movement back to fiscal conservatism, I think at least 2/3 of Americans can agree that it needs to happen.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Social conservatives are a large presence but I wouldn't say that they are currently dominating.
Fiscal conservatives are certainly NOT dominating the party right now though. Hopefully there can be a movement back to fiscal conservatism, I think at least 2/3 of Americans can agree that it needs to happen.

Yeah, I agree with this, especially as McCain emerged over Huckabee as the nominee.

I'm not sure where those of us who aren't fans of big expensive government can go at present, but maybe we'll see some changes eventually.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Yes, that is what I was trying to "pull off". And thanks for the condescension. I didn't realize you were the definer of all terms here, please don't feel the need to redefine my posts through your spectrum and we'll stop writing in parallel to each other.

I was trying to dash something off before I went to work. I asked when we started how you were defining your terms to avoid having this problem, and it was you who insisted there was only one way to define hard right.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Foreign policy experience is not the same as "connections in Kenya" - and I openly question whether that experience carries over into a dangerous and difficult situation such as Iran. That's my point.

Fair enough, I said foreign relations for a reason. I don't know the specifics of his foreign policy experience except for membership on the Senate committee.

I'm all for increasing positive foreign relationships - that's been one of the downfalls of the Bush administration, I'll certainly agree. But it is pandering to associate my post with jingoism, especially when you've chosen the intentionally inflammatory "dick measuring contest" metaphor as your base of attack.

I'm not associating your post with jingoism. My response to your comment was don't blow off people who don't want to attack Iran as pacifist. The other point I was making is that being patriotic these days is seen, both in this country and in others, as not just thinking America's great, but insulting every other country in the process, even if they're our allies and support us. It's the difference between having self-esteem and finding it necessary to deride your classmates to show how awesome you are. Hence why Obama's patriotism is called into question because he chooses not to wear a flag pin. I mean, seriously.

You either missed my point, or chose not to acknowledge it because of how I packaged it - that's pretty shitty, but to each her own.

I haven't seen Team America so besides the thought that you need a guy in office (one I disagree with) I don't know the main point of what you're getting at.

There is a difference between the two, of course - there are also situations where "positive foreign relations" is a poor course to follow. Iran is likely a bigger threat to Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan. Sometimes force is required - and, since you're not a pacifist, you'll surely agree with that.

While I agree that force is necessary and that Iran is a potential threat, that doesn't mean we go invade them, something that seems to be Bush's next great adventure. Obama's said he'd act on knowledge of bin Ladin in Pakistan by attacking him directly if we didn't have Musharraf's support. He's not opposed to the careful and calculated use of force. There's a lot of room between that and invading a country.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

While I agree that force is necessary and that Iran is a potential threat, that doesn't mean we go invade them, something that seems to be Bush's next great adventure. Obama's said he'd act on knowledge of bin Ladin in Pakistan by attacking him directly if we didn't have Musharraf's support. He's not opposed to the careful and calculated use of force. There's a lot of room between that and invading a country.

To be fair, we have done/are doing this in Pakistan.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

To be fair, we have done/are doing this in Pakistan.

Yep, it was a bit of a Clinton, others: "OMG You can't just attack Pakistan" CIA: "Uh we did, it worked"

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yep, it was a bit of a Clinton, others: "OMG You can't just attack Pakistan" CIA: "Uh we did, it worked"

Back to your original statement about Barack and using calculated and limited tactics to combat terrorism (which I also think the current administration is doing, and I can't say I'm confident about what Barack promises to do)...

Do you really think Americans, more specifically, Democrats, have the stomach for a Mossad-like, "wherever, whenever," attitude towards terrorism?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Back to your original statement about Barack and using calculated and limited tactics to combat terrorism (which I also think the current administration is doing, and I can't say I'm confident about what Barack promises to do)...

Do you really think Americans, more specifically, Democrats, have the stomach for a Mossad-like, "wherever, whenever," attitude towards terrorism?

It's not that the current administration isn't doing it, it's everything else they're doing as well. And, at the very least, Obama has stuck to his statement despite derision.

I think it depends, in many ways Israel is much more threatened than the US is. But I think it requires a level of trust in the intelligence agencies and the administration itself for the American people to think that blowing up Joe Terrorist in Pakistan is a good idea.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's not that the current administration isn't doing it, it's everything else they're doing as well. And, at the very least, Obama has stuck to his statement despite derision.

I think it depends, in many ways Israel is much more threatened than the US is. But I think it requires a level of trust in the intelligence agencies and the administration itself for the American people to think that blowing up Joe Terrorist in Pakistan is a good idea.

Sure. I don't think the trust is there, but I think that's because we haven't invested in it. I hope that changes, as I think this type of infrastructure is invaluable with the threats we face.

However, when Congress is wasting time posturing on torture (which will have absolutely zero correlation with what actually occurs), I question whether we're prepared to go forward with an Israeli-like attitude. Don't get me wrong, I think they face a greater threat than we do, but I think their small scope yet cutthroat attitude is the blueprint for waging this type of defense. I'm not sure that the support wouldn't be there for this kind of action, but a lot of my liberal friends have been promoting this view lately, and I've developed some questions as a result. When people on the left are protesting the US Army Sniper School, I think it brings about natural concerns. Maybe the changing of the threat has changed people's minds on such tactics, I'm not sure. Interesting subject though.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Sure. I don't think the trust is there, but I think that's because we haven't invested in it. I hope that changes, as I think this type of infrastructure is invaluable with the threats we face.

However, when Congress is wasting time posturing on torture (which will have absolutely zero correlation with what actually occurs), I question whether we're prepared to go forward with an Israeli-like attitude. Don't get me wrong, I think they face a greater threat than we do, but I think their small scope yet cutthroat attitude is the blueprint for waging this type of defense. I'm not sure that the support wouldn't be there for this kind of action, but a lot of my liberal friends have been promoting this view lately, and I've developed some questions as a result. When people on the left are protesting the US Army Sniper School, I think it brings about natural concerns. Maybe the changing of the threat has changed people's minds on such tactics, I'm not sure. Interesting subject though.

My biggest issue is that I don't have any concrete idea of what the "threat" is anymore. I know there are people out there who hate America for various, usually self-serving, reasons, but I'm so numb to "omg scared!" that I have no true conception of what's going on. And I think that we shouldn't be giving up civil liberties in exchange for feeling safer. Though that's another story altogether, it's the side of Israel that I don't like.

[AGDee]

I don't know how we can attack experience with foreign affairs when all of our recent Presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter) were governors. What experience do governors have with foreign affairs?? Zip, Zero Zilch. Anybody who has served any time on the senate has more exposure to foreign affairs than any governor. I find it interesting that all of our remaining candidates this time are senators!

I think it would be an interesting exercise in politics to hear who they would put on their cabinet. The cabinet are supposed to be the experts who do the advising as to what direction the President should take. If we knew who they would consider for these positions, I think we could make better voting decisions.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't know how we can attack experience with foreign affairs when all of our recent Presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter) were governors. What experience do governors have with foreign affairs?? Zip, Zero Zilch. Anybody who has served any time on the senate has more exposure to foreign affairs than any governor. I find it interesting that all of our remaining candidates this time are senators!

I think it would be an interesting exercise in politics to hear who they would put on their cabinet. The cabinet are supposed to be the experts who do the advising as to what direction the President should take. If we knew who they would consider for these positions, I think we could make better voting decisions.

Although I don't really disagree that governors are necessarily more qualified with respect to foreign policy, I do think the Bush's would have an argument (regardless of how you feel about their policy). GHWB was director of the CIA and a former UN ambassador. He'd beat out a lot of people with his resume. Similarly, though I don't really give full credit to the "they've been around it" concept, I have no doubt that GWB was surrounded by people who were very capable on foreign policy matters prior to becoming POTUS. Whether you think he used it or not is a different matter, but I certainly think he'd have a slight edge in understanding the executive's role in this arena. I think the same could be said about Hillary, though to a lesser degree. Political dynasties, whether you like them or not, certainly provide some (good or bad, your choice) education and experience in a host of matters.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't know how we can attack experience with foreign affairs when all of our recent Presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter) were governors. What experience do governors have with foreign affairs?? Zip, Zero Zilch. Anybody who has served any time on the senate has more exposure to foreign affairs than any governor. I find it interesting that all of our remaining candidates this time are senators!

I think it would be an interesting exercise in politics to hear who they would put on their cabinet. The cabinet are supposed to be the experts who do the advising as to what direction the President should take. If we knew who they would consider for these positions, I think we could make better voting decisions.

This is a really interesting point, and I think Shinerbock's response is a good one about GHWB and the CIA.

I suspect that when we elected Bush in 2000, we probably weren't as sensitive to foreign policy as a major issue. I think we took a lot of Clinton's international popularity for granted, and I don't think we felt threatened as a country until after 9-11. We were past any Cold War fears, and I don't think a lot of us appreciated how far reaching the Middle Eastern issues were going to be. We were kind of blissful in terms of international relations.

My instinct is to say that only Reagan, of the people AGDee listed, was elected at a time when we would have similar foreign policy fears to what we feel today.(Cold War plus Iran in his case) Sure, Carter would still have been elected when we faced the Soviet Union, but being recently out of Vietnam and glad about it, as well as escaping the taint of Watergate, would have counteracted any desire to elect anyone who might think think about military involvement, it seems to me.

If we're not worried or feeling threatened from the outside as one of our very top concerns, a lack of foreign policy experience really might not be regarded as a problem.

Right now, I think most of us this foreign policy is really important. Either because Bush goofed it up so badly or because we think we're authentically threatened by international terror networks or emerging international issues. Or both.

[AGDee]

Actually, I probably shouldn't include GHWB because he was Vice President for 8 years before he became President. As such, he probably got a lot of foreign experience especially since the Cold War ended, we dealt with Libya, Nicaragua, Iran, etc. So, scratch him from that list.