Barack Obama has the potential of being considered 'great' by Presidential historians in the foreign policy arena.
Diplomacy is back, the Right and its hidebound policies that include saber rattling and the eternal bogey man is dismissed. Progressive is better.
I am proud to see embassies reopened in Cuba and later Iran. The silly 55 year p*ssing contest over Cuba coming to an end in my lifetime.
We finally get real about the Iran situation from a global perspective.
Salon is a left leaning publication, and I qualify it as such. But, what hard evidence do the opponents in Washington, Tel-Aviv or your household have to dispute the wisdom of this course?
Supporting Salon article below.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/30/the_mid … h_partner/
I agree about Cuba. We should have normalized relations decades ago. As to Iran, we'll see. They have a history of not abiding by agreements made with us and any nation whose stated objective is the annihilation of another nation is not to be trusted and we shouldn't be attempting to make agreements until they are more reasonable toward the existence of other nations. Sorry.
L to L, when you read the article and look at the history of Iran/US relations you can see that there is reason for both parties to distrust each other. As John Lennon said, "all we are saying is give peace a chance".
The only power in the region with nuclear weapons is Israel, regardless of the mere threat of words from Iran. Iran has 8 times Israel's population, if they had been serious about attacking Israel, there would not have been much to stop them. Netenyahu is crying wolf, as he has done over the last 30 years
Those are some of the facts, no apology necessary.
Sorry, are they trying to be funny?
This looks like an Onion article.
Onusonus, I am waiting for your significant alternative to the accords that would produce a better outcome?
I'm sorry, but if you actually buy into this miserable attempt to paint our president as a savvy diplomat, then clearly you are beyond reasoning with.
Just what I suspected, you throw rubbish out, I am just holding you to picking it up. No thoughts huh, just what I thought, quite typical....
The only rubbish that was thrown out came from that sounding board for left wing surrealism that you mistook for a credible source.
All of that is just another way of saying you have no idea how to solve the problem if the solution is not mapped for you on Fox News? Right-wingers are so pinheaded. All pompousness aside, if you don't have a solution just say so.
Of course there are many viable solutions. Unfortunately none of them include wealth redistribution, class warfare, or race baiting. So you most likely wouldn't be interested.
Earth to Onusonus, What does this have to do with foreign policy?
That's what I've been wondering.
Your commander in chief just went over to the impoverished country of Kenya to talk about gay rights.
The same guy told the graduating class of a coastguard academy that climate change was the cause of terrorism.
And remember when Marie Harf said we were going to defeat Isis by creating jobs for them?
But forget about all that stuff, Keep your eyes shut and ears plugged. Maybe you can put him in for another Nobel prize for a high golf score.
The President also spoke about terrorism and economic development as to how the US could assist. Did they leave this out of your Fox News report?
Most PROGRESSIVES are mentally agile enough to know that poverty is foundation of many terrorist movements? You did not learn that at Rush Limbaugh Unviersity, huh?
If he suceeds with the Iran accords he will deserve another Nobel Prize, so you just watch now!!
Today your Nobel Prize winning patsy Obama just told a group of African leaders that killing people to harvest body parts is "a foolish tradition". Just a tad hypocritical considering his support of planned parenthood. I suppose MSNBC left that one out of the narrative. Big surprise.
Apparently you only listen to media outlets that worship your liberal messiah.
I hadn't heard that he said that - what do you think he was referring to? I'm unaware of any country or group that kills people in order to obtain organs, limbs, blood or any other "body part".
Given the reference to Planned Parenthood, it sounds like you're referring to the rare cases where "body parts" are removed from a fetus (not a person) but even the fetus is not killed in order to harvest organs. Was that the thrust - just a political statement against legal abortion? Hardly seems reasonable to blame Obama for that!
Lots of projecting in your backward conclusion.
I find it interesting that you admit that they are harvesting BODY PARTS and in the same sentence fail to recognize that body parts come from people.
Perhaps if planned parenthood were harvesting body parts from Cecil the Lion you might have paid closer attention.
If I fail to realize that a fetus is a person, it is because the term is a defined one only, and you have no more right to make the definition than anyone else does.
But I notice you did not address the question of the harvest being the reason for the abortion; care to address that as well?
No, making money off the harvesting of aborted fetal body parts is a side benefit for planned unparenthood.
May I quote you? "...Obama just told a group of African leaders that killing people to harvest body parts...". That's quite a bit different than salvaging something from the death of a fetus, isn't it? Much like saying that car crashes are intentional because the occupant might have signed an organ donor card and body parts could then be legally harvested from the corpse.
I think your outrage is just a trifle bit misplaced.
As far as I know most abortions are intentionally performed. They do not preform an abortion after the fetus has died, it is quite literally the process by which the child is put to death. So no there isn't much of a difference at all.
Strange that liberals have to have the most simplistic facts explained to them
Why don't you 'stifle yourself' Edith? According to Roe vs Wade abortion is legal up to 26 weeks. That is the law, so what else was the President going to say on the subject?
You rightwingers get your panties in a bunch over a rogue film, that had been edited and planted in the hands of certain legislators. Where is the proof that laws were broken? But, of course, you couldn't care less about that.
I promise you this, if you try to shut the Government down over this nonsense, you will be stomped flat.
The rightwinger is like a mad dog, once something gets in its scent........
Interesting that you would assert the president has no choice but to defend a law simply because it's a law. I didn't see him defending the law when Arizona tried to secure it's boarders. In fact on numerous occasions he has said that he will act whether or not he has the support of congress. Remember the old "I've got a pen and a phone" speech? No? Rachael Maddow must have left that one out.
I seem to remember the left getting up in a tizzy over an anti Muslim video to the point where the Prez went on a three week apology tour to Muslim countries, that is after they left our people at the American consulate in Benghazi to be slaughtered. More foreign policy brilliance from our commander in chief, Captain Zero. Give him a a freaking medal, he's a damn genius.
By the way, who the Hell is Edith?
Good luck to Obama seeing these policies through to a positive, for first time ever in the USA, in my life time have I seen an effort being made for peace and not war.
Given the money the neo-cons have Obama has a tough battle on his hand.
Thanks for your comment. It appears that the GOP warhawks in Washington are more interested in presenting an Anti-Iran, Pro-Islrael, Pro-defence, Anti-Obama stance than actually trying to understand the substance of the agreement.
This is so childish and hypocritical....
I have a question. Whenever I ask an Iranian living in this country whether or not they agree with what Obama is doing they say, No. They do not want the US to involve themselves with Iran what-so-ever. Why are we telling the leaders in Iran anything?
Israel is a Democratic country. Therefore, Israel is our our friend. Iran is not, for many reasons. If Iran makes one move against Israel they need to know we will take action to stop them. Thats all we should be telling them.
Fair question, I don't know which Iranians you have been talking to?
We are not telling the leaders of Iran anything, this is diplomacy, negotiations giving the Iran the option of expanding its economy into the world of nations in exchange for the ratcheting back of its nuclear program.
I have friends and political interests around the world, Israel is just one.
"Israel is a Democratic country, Therefore, Israel is our friend"
I have been hearing that stuff since grade school, Israel good, Arabs and Muslim bad. Cowboys good, Indians bad.
Education and critical thinking is the solution.
There is a lot of history behind US-Iranian relationship that is not in the Dick and Jane primers
"Thats all we should be telling them"? NO!
P.S., I presume that you have read the linked article?
Israel is a democratic country and the US has a history of defending and helping Democracies.
Why would we?
Which brings up the question of Cuba.
Your link's first sentence:
"Don’t sweat the details of the July nuclear accord between the United States and Iran."
Couldn't read past this.
"Couldnt read past this"
Well, you need to read past this to understand really what is going on.
Defending and helping democracies? No, more like defending those that align themselves with the US military, political and economic objectives. Another interesting fact that you won't find in the Dick and Jane reader.
Saudi Arabia is not a democracy
In the early 50's we toppled Iran"s popularly elected government in favor of Pavlovi, as Shah of Iran, when he was willing to not nationalize oil fields contrary to the interests of the U.S and Great Britain. So, if Iran is such a monster now, we helped to create it. This is all detailed in the article. So maybe it is time to patch things up.
This sort of 'diplomacy' has been the American standard in Central and South America beginning through out the 20th century. We help who ever it is that aligns itself with our economic interest. What do think happened in Cuba, Guatamala, or Chile? We did not care if the regime was authoritarian or democratic.
"the US has a history of defending and helping Democracies.
"The United States continues to support authoritarian regimes today. However, international relations scholar David Skidmore believes that increased public pressure is motivating a shift away from supporting authoritarian regimes, and towards supporting more consensual regimes instead."
And yes, apparently there are many reasons we support dictatorships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a … ted_States
Reasons we support dictatorships: and why we "provide financial assistance, education, arms, military training and technical support to numerous authoritarian regimes across the world:"
B. "To further American economic and political priorities, such as opening foreign markets to American manufacturers."
C. "To support authoritarian regimes that were combating communism, including socialist and democratic socialist movements, especially in Latin America."
D. "To ensure a conducive environment for American corporate interests abroad, such as the United Fruit Company or Standard Oil, especially when these interests came under threat from democratic governments."
E. "From the 1980s onwards, the United States government began to fear that its interests would be threatened by the increasingly popular Islamist movements in the Middle East, and began to work to secure friendly authoritarian regimes in the region, while isolating and weakening, but not removing, unfriendly ones."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a … ted_States
I meant defending them through war.
Not just "supporting" them.
We have never fought for/ defended a dictatorship, have we?
I found this article. Yikes
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/A … 2550.shtml
It's all about the generalities and normal acceptance of controversial social behavior, In years past we were asked to understand a woman's rights , her need or wishes for an abortion , Fine . We can all accept that there certainly are certain reasons for an abortion . Even a true Christian conservative can accept that , now we are asked to accept that fetus' or their fetus' body parts can be sold to the highest bidder for whatever purpose ? AND- that tax dollars are to be expected to pay for them , or for possibly both , the abortion , and the taking of body parts for what - salvage rights ?
What's next we might actually ask , and how much as a mostly moral society, are we expected to accept ?
by Threekeys10 days ago
Could you elaborate with some examples please.
by Elizabeth4 years ago
Should Laws in a Democratic Country reflect religious beliefs or should separation apply?A lot of people in the united states fall under the heading of generalized Christianity, and they vote based upon their own...
by H P Roychoudhury8 months ago
India is said a democratic country then why only Rahul Gandhi is projected as the future PM of...India?
by rakuba7 years ago
Why do you think so?
by Credence223 months ago
Be it not for me to speak ill of a fellow Democrat, but Hillary Clinton disappoints. Please read the articles, I confess that Salon is a left leaning publication, but I have included the article placed by H. Clinton in...
by Mike Russo14 months ago
Should Trump be sending out tweets of foreign policy while Obama is still President?As far as I know, Obama is still president until January 20th. The constitution only allows one president at a time. Trump's...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.