Sorry People...We've Meddled Enough

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
I think your post provides an excellent illustration of what I perceive to be the difference between the Bush (read "Cheney") approach to the world versus Obama's. If you constantly view things in such stark contrast like this, and thereby fool yourself into thinking you are acting on principle, you end up in situations where you do far greater damage to your status in the world than if you recognized that its all situational and that outright interference in one country might be worthwhile whereas even the slightest meddling in the one next door could be disastrous.

Foreign policy is so nuanced and complex, I just think its a huge mistake to say that we should take a position because failure to meddle provides an adversary a chance to grow. Same thing with all this nonsense about "legitimizing" a foreign leader by shaking his hand. There's just so many levels of complexity to it and its way wrong to think you can determine policy based on the schoolyard level geopolitics of dealing with bullies.
Click to expand...

I love the nuance argument - seems every Bush critic tossed it out when they said why do one thing in Iraq and another in Korea. When Team Bush suggested different situations called for different approaches the hypocrisy flag was waved.

Of course diplomacy is nuanced - to suggest CS doesn't understand this is pure strawman.

There is also nuance to making statements of principle - of what you and your country stand for.

Obama could easily make a stronger statement about the value of free/valid elections without backing either side directly.

Instead, he is ignoring issues of human rights violations and now suppression while talking about our (America's) checkered past. It looks pretty clear that he believes diplomacy is achieved not angering Iran. My question is what is the end game? How does virtually ignoring this situation help us in the end?

What's wrong with making statements on principles? Is his core principle message here "we don't meddle"? If so, he needs to change his policies with regard to other countries awfully quickly. North Korea comes to mind and his statement that we will not allow them to have nuclear weapons - I'd call that meddling.
 
#27
#27
CSpindizzy said:
Obama treks all over the globe telling the world he will work for global change. He speaks in Berlin all about changes. He goes all over the Middle East to inspire change. He's all about meddling but now?
Click to expand...

Dude, it's called nuance.
 
#28
#28
CSpindizzy said:
Yes, your Neville Chamberlain approach is so much better. I don't think there is a stark contrast. If anything each situation brings different possibilities. You act as if MY approach is the only one that could potentially do damage. Foreign policy is a risk game. Sometimes things work and sometimes things don't. It does not mean you cower in a corner for fear of risk of negative things happening.

You are ignoring the fact that Obama has already chosen to meddle. This is ignored or condoned by you. Why do you ignore his current meddling in some affairs but fear acting in Iran? If anything, Obama is being inconsistent in his words and actions. Obama admits a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. He admits they violate human rights. He is handed a situation in which potential change can be made and he fails to act. But yet in Israel, he demands that Israel give up land and security or face consequences. He gets forceful with them into their affairs and you do not have an issue with that.

The issue with Iran is that according to him and his followers prior to the election, his speeches were to provoke a favorable reaction in the elections. His speech was designed to meddle in the hearts and minds of Iranians. The underlying hope was to have a similar effect as he claims happened in Lebanon. So pre-election Obama himself expected some effect from his speech. But suddenly post-election, this strategy is denied and forgotten. Not to mention to do the same thing now is suddenly meddling. Odd how something done pre-election was designed strategy by Obama and a good thing and post-election we dare not do this for fear of our image.

Obama treks all over the globe telling the world he will work for global change. He speaks in Berlin all about changes. He goes all over the Middle East to inspire change. He's all about meddling but now?
Click to expand...



Because meddling in one country might make perfect sense whereas meddling in another might be a really stupid thing to do. Do you not think that Obama's response to the situation over there was studied and very specifically penned prior to him giving it?
 
#29
#29
volinbham said:
I love the nuance argument - seems every Bush critic tossed it out when they said why do one thing in Iraq and another in Korea. When Team Bush suggested different situations called for different approaches the hypocrisy flag was waved.

Of course diplomacy is nuanced - to suggest CS doesn't understand this is pure strawman.

There is also nuance to making statements of principle - of what you and your country stand for.

Obama could easily make a stronger statement about the value of free/valid elections without backing either side directly.

Instead, he is ignoring issues of human rights violations and now suppression while talking about our (America's) checkered past. It looks pretty clear that he believes diplomacy is achieved not angering Iran. My question is what is the end game? How does virtually ignoring this situation help us in the end?

What's wrong with making statements on principles? Is his core principle message here "we don't meddle"? If so, he needs to change his policies with regard to other countries awfully quickly. North Korea comes to mind and his statement that we will not allow them to have nuclear weapons - I'd call that meddling.
Click to expand...


I don't remember this.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
I don't remember this.
Click to expand...

North Korea was handled with multi-lateral talks vs. the uni-lateral (virtually) handling of Iraq.

Regime change was pursued in Iraq but not in other countries with violent dictators that murdered their own people.


Each situation was handled differently. Some directly, some indirectly.

I'm not saying any or all were handled correctly but they were treated differently. To play the "nuance-card" for Obama yet suggest Bush only used one crude approach is either disengenous or forgetting history.

Obama's approach is as single-minded as Bush's - unfortunately, it's likely to be just as effective.
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
North Korea was handled with multi-lateral talks vs. the uni-lateral (virtually) handling of Iraq.

Regime change was pursued in Iraq but not in other countries with violent dictators that murdered their own people.


Each situation was handled differently. Some directly, some indirectly.
Click to expand...

I think the criticism leveled at Bush wasn't so much about the nuance of his foreign policy, it was the fact that it didn't add up. His stated reasoning for going into Iraq was WMD's, Terrorism ties, human rights violations, ignoring the UN resolutions...etc...But then you look at N. Korea and Iran and they are worse and more of a legitimate threat than Iraq was on virtually everyone of those issues. Yet, he chose unilateral action in Iraq and not N. Korea, or Iran? It wasn't that he wasn't nuanced, it was that his nuance made very little sense.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
Because meddling in one country might make perfect sense whereas meddling in another might be a really stupid thing to do. Do you not think that Obama's response to the situation over there was studied and very specifically penned prior to him giving it?
Click to expand...

He's already meddled into the affairs of Iran. That train has already left the station.

As for that last sentence, seeing his record to date, my answer would be no. I think he honestly thinks he has an insight into the Muslim world just a few months ago he was quick to deny. Read the speech. He claims to have some great understanding of Islam and the Middle East and thus can give speeches at will to inspire people. You see him taking credit for his speech's "effect" on the elections in Lebanon but then runs and hides over the "effects" in Iran. If you truly believe in speaking out to create change, then do so when a favorable situation presents itself.

The point in Iran is to change the minds or strategy of the mullahs since they are in charge. The best way to do this is to create a large enough presence and voice within the country to back the mullahs up slowly against the wall. Elections are meaningless. You create change from the inside. The Left used to support this sort of strategy especially after Bush used military force for regime change in Iraq. Again, a moment of weakness presents itself. And these rarely happen in Iran. We can either take advantage of it or sit back, let the mullahs identify those most vocal opponents and round them up, consolidate power over no fears of repercussions either from within or without, and continue on with bold actions on a nuclear program. As an added part, Russia sits back and applauds Obama's inaction because it helps Putin's own situation. We come out weaker, freedom movements lose morale, and our enemies gain strength and position.
 
#33
#33
rjd970 said:
I think the criticism leveled at Bush wasn't so much about the nuance of his foreign policy, it was the fact that it didn't add up. His stated reasoning for going into Iraq was WMD's, Terrorism ties, human rights violations, ignoring the UN resolutions...etc...But then you look at N. Korea and Iran and they are worse and more of a legitimate threat than Iraq was on virtually everyone of those issues. Yet, he chose unilateral action in Iraq and not N. Korea, or Iran? It wasn't that he wasn't nuanced, it was that his nuance made very little sense.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my point. There is a ton of nuance that makes sense here.

No way you go to war with NK - too much collateral damage and a much harder case to make. Also, you've got to leverage China to make any impact diplomatically on NK.

Iraq on the other hand has a laundry list of treaty violations from the previous war plus a laundry list of UN sanction violations to use as a lever to gain support. You can't get other Arab countries to provide the diplomatic leverage that China could give you in the case of NK and the collateral damage is going to be small (e.g. South Korea doesn't get trashed). The world doesn't like it outwardly but no western countries are really kicking and screaming about it. If it had/does work then it's a good deal for all the West. Try it in NK and it'd be a full on freak out because of the collateral damage potential, the China's backyard problem and the lack of pontential for the results to spread beyond NK.

That said, Iraq doesn't make sense at all without WMD and probably not even with WMD but treating these two differently makes perfect sense.

One may not agree with the choices but clearly it wasn't one big foreign policy - it was specific for each situation given the context and goals.
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
volinbham said:
This is exactly my point. There is a ton of nuance that makes sense here.

No way you go to war with NK - too much collateral damage and a much harder case to make. Also, you've got to leverage China to make any impact diplomatically on NK.

Iraq on the other hand has a laundry list of treaty violations from the previous war plus a laundry list of UN sanction violations to use as a lever to gain support. You can't get other Arab countries to provide the diplomatic leverage that China could give you in the case of NK and the collateral damage is going to be small (e.g. South Korea doesn't get trashed). The world doesn't like it outwardly but no western countries are really kicking and screaming about it. If it had/does work then it's a good deal for all the West. Try it in NK and it'd be a full on freak out because of the collateral damage potential, the China's backyard problem and the lack of pontential for the results to spread beyond NK.

That said, Iraq doesn't make sense at all without WMD and probably not even with WMD but treating these two differently makes perfect sense.

One may not agree with the choices but clearly it wasn't one big foreign policy - it was specific for each situation given the context and goals.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the reasoning here. Every reason quoted for justifying the Iraq invasion applies elswhere on a much broader scale. Saddam needed to be dealt with, no argument from me on that point. But did he need to be dealt with more than Kim Jong Il, or any of the Mullah's in Iran? Was Saddam more dangerous? I'm of the opinion Saddam wasn't, and was far more isolated and less of a threat than either NK or Iran. I'm not arguing the nuance, I'm arguing that nuance makes very little sense when put in the context for justification. The justification wasn't we could win in Iraq, or we would get a forward operating base...it was Saddam was a threat.

Given the history of the ME, and specfically Iraq, there was no reason not to believe it would become Vietnamesque after the major combat operations ceased. I doubt very much such nuance was given a second look. Meanwhile, Iran has become further along with its WMD program and NK has actually detonated nukes and test long range missiles. Given the pretext stated for invading Iraq, how silly will the Iraq war and its justification look if a new sunrise levels NYC with a bomb made in Iran? What if NK really feels threatened and lands a nuke laced ICBM on Honolulu or Fairbanks? With the way the whole thing was sold, it was never about which evil in the axis made the most sense, and the nuance of it all, it was which one was the biggest threat, of which, Iraq clearly isn't.

Furthermore, I don't think China could care less about NK. The only way they put leverage on NK is when it best serves their interest. They could go to them tomorrow and say they will cut off all aid unless NK stops its nuclear development but they don't.
 
#37
#37
rjd970 said:
I'm talking about the reasoning here. Every reason quoted for justifying the Iraq invasion applies elswhere on a much broader scale. Saddam needed to be dealt with, no argument from me on that point. But did he need to be dealt with more than Kim Jong Il, or any of the Mullah's in Iran? Was Saddam more dangerous? I'm of the opinion Saddam wasn't, and was far more isolated and less of a threat than either NK or Iran. I'm not arguing the nuance, I'm arguing that nuance makes very little sense when put in the context for justification. The justification wasn't we could win in Iraq, or we would get a forward operating base...it was Saddam was a threat.


Given the history of the ME, and specfically Iraq, there was no reason not to believe it would become Vietnamesque after the major combat operations ceased. I doubt very much such nuance was given a second look. Meanwhile, Iran has become further along with its WMD program and NK has actually detonated nukes and test long range missiles. Given the pretext stated for invading Iraq, how silly will the Iraq war and its justification look if a new sunrise levels NYC with a bomb made in Iran? What if NK really feels threatened and lands a nuke laced ICBM on Honolulu or Fairbanks? With the way the whole thing was sold, it was never about which evil in the axis made the most sense, and the nuance of it all, it was which one was the biggest threat, of which, Iraq clearly isn't.

Furthermore, I don't think China could care less about NK. The only way they put leverage on NK is when it best serves their interest. They could go to them tomorrow and say they will cut off all aid unless NK stops its nuclear development but they don't.
Click to expand...

Arguing that the nuance doesn't make sense is quite different than saying there was no nuance. Given Bush's FP goals and the situation there was no way to do an Iraq on Iran or NK.

My point originally was that Bush used "nuance" by carefully choosing comments and actions differently according to different situations. Whether or not each of these decisions was well reasoned is a different issue. LG claiming that somehow Obama is different for using "nuance" is a false claim.

Just as Team Bush's decisions may have not have been the right ones, it looks like Team Obama's may also be flawed. Both administrations use nuanced, carefully constructed approaches but both also have a larger guiding FP agenda.
 
#38
#38
the next 3 1/2 years will show how much the world's dictators love a weak America.. they know that Hussein will be a deer in the headlights just like Carter...
 
#40
#40
obama needs to step up and say that he supports free and honest elections. end of story.
 
#42
#42
OrangeEmpire said:
LG translator-

Obama is a god and he can do no wrong!
Click to expand...


If you think that, you have been reading my posts very superficially. I am just promoting realistic and apolitical analysis of policy. As a consequence, I find myself constantly criticizing the religious right, the hysteria that Obama is a Muslim agent, or that he is the anti-Christ, or Mussolini, or whatever.

This is what it hurting the right now, so much. Obama still has very high approval ratings, and most of all people perceive him to be sincere in his desire to help the country. The far right would be much better off protraying him as simply mistaken or even naive, rather than going down the road of trying to make him seem malevolent. People just aren't buying that.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
If you think that, you have been reading my posts very superficially. I am just promoting realistic and apolitical analysis of policy. As a consequence, I find myself constantly criticizing the religious right, the hysteria that Obama is a Muslim agent, or that he is the anti-Christ, or Mussolini, or whatever.

This is what it hurting the right now, so much. Obama still has very high approval ratings, and most of all people perceive him to be sincere in his desire to help the country. The far right would be much better off protraying him as simply mistaken or even naive, rather than going down the road of trying to make him seem malevolent. People just aren't buying that.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:

Who cares about the far right?

No one should listen to them!

:banghead2:
 
#46
#46
apolitical? Now that's legit funny. Makes some of the irony on the main board pale in comparison.
 
#47
#47
droski said:
please list what of obama's policies you have disagreed with.
Click to expand...


There are huge portions of the stiumulus package I diagree with. In fact, basically everything non-bailout related, I am at a minimum extremely skeptical of and almost certainly line by line oppose. And I oppose it because Congresspeople, mostly Democrats this time around, are shoving pork in there left and right to reward supporters and improve their own chances for reelection. Obama should have demanded a simpler and much less expensive bill.

I do think the administration played games with the GM situation in order to help the unions. That was wrong, as well.

I am waiting to hear details on the financial services industry regulation. I think some is clearly needed, but its all about whose ox is getting gored and I need to see details to know how I would feel about that.

I question the same sex benefits change he is making later today because no one has established what that is going to cost. I probably don't oppose it in principle, but I'd like to know the price tag, first.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
I question the same sex benefits change he is making later today because no one has established what that is going to cost. I probably don't oppose it in principle, but I'd like to know the price tag, first.
Click to expand...

they will have to give these benefits to all domestic partners if they do this which costs big time $$$. My old roommate put his gf on his health insurance under the "domestic partner" clause at work. he had only been dating her for 3 months.
 
#50
#50
droski said:
they will have to give these benefits to all domestic partners if they do this which costs big time $$$. My old roommate put his gf on his health insurance under the "domestic partner" clause at work. he had only been dating her for 3 months.
Click to expand...


As Steely Dan sings in "My Old School" ....


"California, crumbles into the sea ....."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top