12
   

Is Obama the most Inept Foriegn Policy President Since Carter?

 
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2013 09:27 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
dealing with ocean pirates


Quote:
Piracy is down. What's the problem?


US piracy is still running at its normal high levels.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2013 09:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
who ever said america was in charge? America has a moral obligation as well as a self interest in bullying (sorry encouraging) other players to step up and look after civilization.

"Ought implies "can". Nobody elected America to be the arbiter of civilization. America frequently undercuts the UN, the closest thing to such an arbiter that the world does have. So why should the rest of the world let America bully it into looking after America's idea of civilization? People resist bullies; it's a good thing; therefore, an American policy of bullying countries won't work, whether you want it to or not.

hawkeye wrote:
edit: so when the chinese say that "human rights" are not a chinese value and thus should be resisted by the governments foreign policy your response is "what ever"....right?

America can speak up, try to name and shame China's human-rights abuses, maybe throw in a sanction or two. But it should expect to accomplish too much, and it shouldn't disparage its president when he doesn't meet unrealistic expectations.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 05:38 am
@JTT,
Pipe down, pipsqueak, adults are talking.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 05:56 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The Crusades were a just war of self defense against Islamic aggression.


This is breathtaking bullshit--far above your usual level of delusion. You really, really hate Muslims.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 06:05 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The Crusades were a just war of self defense against Islamic aggression.


This is breathtaking bullshit--far above your usual level of delusion. You really, really hate Muslims. Signature


http://able2know.org/topic/220270-1

Educate yourself.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 06:09 am
@Setanta,


Film about muslims with a happy ending: the tale of Inalchik, the guy who tried to show Genghis Khan how bad he was by burning the beards off of four Mongol ambassadors...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 06:13 am
@gungasnake,
So, to defend Oralloy's bullshit, you post more bullshit from a right-wing blog site. That piece of **** you quoted and linked is a contrivance of distortions, half-truths and outright lies. Islam was not attempting to overrun Anatolia, the Seljuk Turks were. If we follow what passes for logic in that article (and, apparently, at your house), everytime a christian nation has made war on anyone, it has been a religious war. However, i'm not surprised. I already knew that you and Oralloy don't know anything about history. In any event, learning or exploring history is never your goal. Just like this brain-dead thread, the object is the furtherance of partisan polemic.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 09:53 am
@Setanta,
By 600 AD the entire Med basin was Christian. You actually believe that going from that to what we observe now happened peacefully??
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 10:30 am
I didn't say it did. You, like so many conservatives here, would be lost without straw men to set up and knock down.

While it is true that the Seljuk Turks had invaded Anatolia, they didn't give a rat's ass about religion. If you paid the tribute they levied, and how you got was your problem, they were fine with that. The first crusade was about half men at arms and their lords, and about half gullible pilgrims who thought they'd see Jerusalem. When they got to Constantinople, the men at arms started plundering the towns around the city, and even the houses and shops up to the city walls. The Emperor paid them a "subvention" to be on their way--basically, your standard middle ages protection racket. When they got on the road into Anatolia, they made sure to avoid the Turks there, who could actually fight back. They discovered the concept of logistics, and realized they hadn't planned to supply themselves. So they plundered the pilgrims who had come with them, and they plundered the Emperor's loyal christian subjects. Somebody in Constantinople must have tipped them wise, because rather than fight a well-organized Turkish force, they slipped into Syria and Palestine where an ineffective power struggle was under way. They plundered everyone in sight who wasn't armed, and they carved out fiefs for themselves.

One of the Turks fighting for control of Baghdad lost, and had to run, and was eventually killed. His best military officer was a Kurd, Ayyub. Ayyub brought along Yussuf, known as Salah'-al-Din, Peace to the Faithful, and rendered as Saladin by the French. They took back Jerusalem and several of the Crusader fiefs, and the subsequent crusades were unable to dislodge them. The Ayyubids also didn't give a rat's ass what religion their victims practiced.

The original "Holy Warriors" overran the Sassanid Empire, a corrupt and decaying government that had lost the support of the people, They also overran Persia, which was in the same state. They also overran the Vandal and Visigoth kingdoms of North Africa, which were also corrupt and decaying, and which had lost the support of the people. They failed to overrun the Roman Empire, which was still effective. It took them almos 500 years to overrun Anatolia, and that only happened after the Turks showed up. It took them 300 more years to take Constantinople. When they tried to invade what we call France, the Franks and Lombards under Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) handed them their military ass at Tours. Fanaticism can accomplish some things, but it is no match for a well-organized and determined opponent.

You're trying to make out that the Turks were waging holy war, just as Oralloy was, and that's bullshit. You're also trying to make the christians out to be the good guys, and the Turks to be the bad guys. There were no good guys during the crusades.

As i've already pointed out, you don't care about history, this is just polemic you came up with because you hate Muslims and would love to see war waged on them. As with that idiot Mongol video, you relish the slaughter and mayhem. As long, of course, as your sorry ass never has to go in harm's way.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 10:55 am
@joefromchicago,
Do you mean lying, dishonest adults like you, Joe?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 11:00 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
Nobody elected America to be the arbiter of civilization. America frequently undercuts the UN, the closest thing to such an arbiter that the world does have. So why should the rest of the world let America bully it into looking after America's idea of civilization? People resist bullies; it's a good thing; therefore, an American policy of bullying countries won't work, whether you want it to or not.


Nicely sanitized, Thomas. I guess sometimes spades aren't really spades.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 02:59 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Nobody elected America to be the arbiter of civilization. America frequently undercuts the UN, the closest thing to such an arbiter that the world does have. So why should the rest of the world let America bully it into looking after America's idea of civilization? People resist bullies; it's a good thing; therefore, an American policy of bullying countries won't work, whether you want it to or not.


Nicely sanitized, Thomas. I guess sometimes spades aren't really spades.

nicely delusional....people bully others because it often works.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Aug, 2013 12:40 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
"Ought" implies "can".

Perhaps we should smash a rogue nation once a year, just to remind everyone that we can.


Thomas wrote:
Nobody elected America to be the arbiter of civilization.

That isn't true. A number of free and democratic nations from around the world freely choose to rely on us to defend them from the bad guys.


Thomas wrote:
America frequently undercuts the UN, the closest thing to such an arbiter that the world does have.

Nonsense. How do we undercut the UN?


Thomas wrote:
So why should the rest of the world let America bully it into looking after America's idea of civilization?

What you are calling "bullying" is our defense of ourselves and our allies.

As for why: Because they'll be eating DroneStrikes (or worse) if they don't.


Thomas wrote:
People resist bullies; it's a good thing;

Not when the "bullies" are merely the police enforcing the law, and not when the "resisters" are actually a gang of criminals. Then it's a bad thing.

But police have a ready solution when criminal gangs resist them: They shoot the criminals until the resistance stops.


Thomas wrote:
therefore, an American policy of bullying countries won't work, whether you want it to or not.

Actually, having our military shoot up the troublemakers works quite well.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Aug, 2013 12:58 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You really, really hate Muslims.

Nah. I just want them to stop killing everyone and stealing holy sites.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Aug, 2013 01:02 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Nah. I just want them to stop killing everyone and stealing holy sites.

wait, so standing up to bullies does not mean you hate them?? I shall have to ponder that there idea.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Aug, 2013 01:57 am
@oralloy,
I was addressing Gunga Dim, who, at least polemically, does really, really hate Muslims. I won't stoop to respond to your unsubstantiated characterization.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2013 02:25 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Perhaps we should smash a rogue nation once a year, just to remind everyone that we can.


The US is pretty much on schedule there, oralboy, but it's never been rogue nations, it's only been weaker nations that the US bullies and then steals from, leaving the people far worse off than they were before the illegal invasions.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2013 05:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
Yes
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2013 07:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

there will be no civil war in Egypt because the Brotherhood does not have the power to make one and because the people can not tolorate a civil war. a nation that needs tourism to feed itself does not have the will to support an insurgency.

what has happened on Obama's watch is that just abiut no one in Egypt cares anymore what America thinks or does..now if you want having no power to be a plus for america as you do with Iraq fine, but succesful foreign policy assumes that the one being spoken of has power. look at all the places around the wirld where we have no power now, and remember that just a few years ago we were a superpower.

I am sure that the Brotherhood has realized in the last 48 hours how little popular support their calls for jihad against the miltary has. the only question now is did the military a year ago decide to give the brotherhood just enougu rope to hang themselves? My Egyptian food salesman says no, that the miltary was bought off but later had a change of heart.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/22/2019 at 07:04:11