Thank goodness for Fox News! Obama: America a Superpower 'Whether We Like It or Not'

#127
#127
emainvol said:
He's not saying "it sucks that we are a superpower" he is saying "it sucks that because of that we end up being the world police"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I would certainly hope that to be the case e-main but given the criticism Obama has received for some of his past comments wouldn't you think his speechwriters would have made that singular point better? It just seems a little more in line with some of his past comments about America's arrogance.

If this indeed is the sentiment he was trying to convey he did not get that point across clearly.
 
#128
#128
emainvol said:
He's not saying "it sucks that we are a superpower" he is saying "it sucks that because of that we end up being the world police"
Click to expand...

DC Vol said:
The burden of power.
Click to expand...

This is the United States not Bolivia.
Why not embrace it? Why not deal with it?

Would it be better to let those seeking power (which in a lot of cases are against our freedom) police the world because its too much of a burden on us?

Im not advocating the US as world police force in anyway. But in some cases we have interest that must be protected. And in some cases, that is not on our own soil.
 
#129
#129
KB5252 said:
I'm not sure, I would certainly hope that to be the case e-main but given the criticism Obama has received for some of his past comments wouldn't you think his speechwriters would have made that singular point better? It just seems a little more in line with some of his past comments about America's arrogance.

If this indeed is the sentiment he was trying to convey he did not get that point across clearly.
Click to expand...

I think his point was that the US takes it's role in world affairs not as a matter of wanting to conform the world to capitalistic democracies but that it was thrust upon us by virtue of being the world's preeminent economic and military power.
 
#130
#130
BeecherVol said:
This is the United States not Bolivia.
Why not embrace it? Why not deal with it?

Would it be better to let those seeking power (which in a lot of cases are against our freedom) police the world because its too much of a burden on us?

Im not advocating the US as world police force in anyway. But in some cases we have interest that must be protected. And in some cases, that is not on our own soil.
Click to expand...

Because, when dealing with other countries, perhaps it is easier if they see us as a friend who feels indebted to give aid instead of a barnstorming "if you don't like what I'm telling you to do than we'll bomb you into submission".

It's not the what in our actions... it's the how that Obama is trying to change.
 
#131
#131
DC Vol said:
I think his point was that the US takes it's role in world affairs not as a matter of wanting to conform the world to capitalistic democracies but that it was thrust upon us by virtue of being the world's preeminent economic and military power.
Click to expand...

That's what I took from it, then again I am a commie leftist who cannibalized fetuses. :)
 
#132
#132
DC Vol said:
Because, when dealing with other countries, perhaps it is easier if they see us as a friend who feels indebted to give aid instead of a barnstorming "if you don't like what I'm telling you to do than we'll bomb you into submission".

It's not the what in our actions... it's the how that Obama is trying to change.
Click to expand...

Pertaining to what?
Natural Disaster Aid? I would agree with that.

Do you believe Iran gives a "rats" @$$ about being friends with the US?
 
#133
#133
DC Vol said:
I think his point was that the US takes it's role in world affairs not as a matter of wanting to conform the world to capitalistic democracies but that it was thrust upon us by virtue of being the world's preeminent economic and military power.
Click to expand...

I understand that and don't totally disagree, it may very well be the point he was trying to convey. I was just pointing out that this point could have been made much more clearly.

When compared with some of his previous rhetoric about American arrogance it seems to blend much better. It may very well have been an honest mistake in language but I would think his speechwriters would have addressed that issue given the criticism he's received in the past over some comments.
 
#135
#135
DC Vol said:
Because, when dealing with other countries, perhaps it is easier if they see us as a friend who feels indebted to give aid instead of a barnstorming "if you don't like what I'm telling you to do than we'll bomb you into submission".

It's not the what in our actions... it's the how that Obama is trying to change.
Click to expand...

I may be totally misunderstanding what you are saying here?

I think Aid is the hang up.
 
#136
#136
BeecherVol said:
Pertaining to what?
Natural Disaster Aid? I would agree with that.

Do you believe Iran gives a "rats" @$$ about being friends with the US?
Click to expand...

No. The current ruling party of Iran does not. Recent events have shown that the administration in Iran does not represent the people of Iran. If we reach the people of Iran... that's a victory. North Korea is a lost cause in that regard. It's very much in the vein of the "hearts and minds" campaign we tried in Iraq. If the people of Iraq and Iran believe that the US has their best interests, and have at least a semblance of a democratic government that will work wonders towards stabilizing that region.

I think this is more of a message to other nations of the world (not Middle Eastern ones) that were justifiably concerned about the imperialistic image that the US was showing. Of course nations are going to look after their own global interests, but our actions (and our subsequent interactions with the world) in Iraq were on a whole different level. He wasn't specific if it pertains to Aid or other military actions, but I certainly don't want the world to fear a carrier group anchored off of their coast... unless they have a defined reason to fear it.
 
#137
#137
KB5252 said:
I understand that and don't totally disagree, it may very well be the point he was trying to convey. I was just pointing out that this point could have been made much more clearly.

When compared with some of his previous rhetoric about American arrogance it seems to blend much better. It may very well have been an honest mistake in language but I would think his speechwriters would have addressed that issue given the criticism he's received in the past over some comments.
Click to expand...

I think his comments about arrogance backfired on him a bit. I think this is the more neutral comment he was looking for previously that conveyed the message he wanted without such overt language in it.

It's a sign that he's becoming a bit of a wilier politician... especially in international matters. For better or worse, he's our international representative for the next couple of years.
 
#138
#138
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
well, historically when people when things go south, and something needs to be done, it has been the US that has stepped in and fixed the problem. WWII would never have made it to WW status if the US didnt have the isolationist policy that it had prior to the war
Click to expand...

....um explain this a bit further please; if i'm recalling correctly, all of Europe; most of Asia, and a good deal of the Northern parts of africa were all involved before pearl harbor


Or are you saying that had we not had the whole "we dont want to deal with anyone else's problems so close after WWI" mentality, that WWII would not have even reached the size it did?
 
#140
#140
DC Vol said:
No. The current ruling party of Iran does not. Recent events have shown that the administration in Iran does not represent the people of Iran. If we reach the people of Iran... that's a victory. North Korea is a lost cause in that regard. It's very much in the vein of the "hearts and minds" campaign we tried in Iraq. If the people of Iraq and Iran believe that the US has their best interests, and have at least a semblance of a democratic government that will work wonders towards stabilizing that region.

I think this is more of a message to other nations of the world (not Middle Eastern ones) that were justifiably concerned about the imperialistic image that the US was showing. Of course nations are going to look after their own global interests, but our actions (and our subsequent interactions with the world) in Iraq were on a whole different level. He wasn't specific if it pertains to Aid or other military actions, but I certainly don't want the world to fear a carrier group anchored off of their coast... unless they have a defined reason to fear it.
Click to expand...

1. If that is the case, the Iranian people have nothing to do with what its leadership does. Thus, as far as our intentions go (which would be our security, and the security of our allies) leaves them out of the equation.

So you are suggesting that the people of Iraq were happy with their situation under their former ruler?
 
#141
#141
DC Vol said:
I think his comments about arrogance backfired on him a bit. I think this is the more neutral comment he was looking for previously that conveyed the message he wanted without such overt language in it.

It's a sign that he's becoming a bit of a wilier politician... especially in international matters. For better or worse, he's our international representative for the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

1. I think he expressed his true feelings.
2. I think he realized he pissed off some of the home folk with said comments, and backed it down a notch. Which to me means nothing. I don't care if he becomes a better politician. We need a better leader, not speaker.
 
#142
#142
BeecherVol said:
1. I think he expressed his true feelings.
2. I think he realized he pissed off some of the home folk with said comments, and backed it down a notch. Which to me means nothing. I don't care if he becomes a better politician. We need a better leader, not speaker.
Click to expand...
.
 

Attachments

  • aniCrowdApplause.gif
    aniCrowdApplause.gif
    99.7 KB · Views: 11
#144
#144
BeecherVol said:
1. If that is the case, the Iranian people have nothing to do with what its leadership does. Thus, as far as our intentions go (which would be our security, and the security of our allies) leaves them out of the equation.

So you are suggesting that the people of Iraq were happy with their situation under their former ruler?
Click to expand...

Well, realistically, they don't. Ahmadinejad completely hijacked the election that he didn't even win by popular vote. The Iranians, as a people, are not as theocratic as the government that represents them is. That does not mean that Iran, as a state, does not represent a security risk.

The people of Iraq, for the most part, respect the US and appreciate our actions but a time has come for them to govern themselves. The conflict they're going through would have likely erupted after Saddam died. It was seen as almost an inevitability. They hated Hussein but were so fearful of him that no one did anything against him.

Freeing the Iraqi people is not why the US said it was going into Iraq. Should we support a revolution that is the wish of a people that want to overthrow a tyrannical regime? Maybe. Should we create a revolution? Never.
 
#146
#146
Take that back. I can't. My granny said she would disown me if I ever got into politics.

"If you ain't crooked when you become a politician, you will be before you leave."

-Granny
 
#147
#147
BeecherVol said:
1. I think he expressed his true feelings.
2. I think he realized he pissed off some of the home folk with said comments, and backed it down a notch. Which to me means nothing. I don't care if he becomes a better politician. We need a better leader, not speaker.
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you. I'm just a little tired of people completely over-reacting and taking what he says and does out of context in order to support their own dislikes of him.

It's no better than leftists criticizing Bush's funny accent and his dyslexia. It serves no purpose in rationally debating his faults as a President and only works against any valid points to be made.
 
#150
#150
DC Vol said:
I'm right there with you. I'm just a little tired of people completely over-reacting and taking what he says and does out of context in order to support their own dislikes of him.

It's no better than leftists criticizing Bush's funny accent and his dyslexia. It serves no purpose in rationally debating his faults as a President and only works against any valid points to be made.
Click to expand...

Yeah....but BHO SMOKES!!!!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top