jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (36 posts)

Barack Obama's foreign policy triumps prove that Progressive is better

  1. Credence2 profile image81
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    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/

    1. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

    2. Onusonus profile image81
      Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, are they trying to be funny?
      This looks like an Onion article.

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Onusonus, I am waiting for your significant alternative to the accords that would produce a better outcome?

        1. Onusonus profile image81
          Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.
          Good day. lol

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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....

            1. Onusonus profile image81
              Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The only rubbish that was thrown out came from that sounding board for left wing surrealism that you mistook for a credible source.

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Onusonus profile image81
                  Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image81
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Earth to Onusonus, What does this have to do with foreign policy?

  2. Zubair Ahmed profile image81
    Zubair Ahmedposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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....

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    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.
    Right?

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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?

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Israel is a democratic country and the US has a history of defending and helping Democracies.
    Not dictatorships.
    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to 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.

    2. IslandBites profile image88
      IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "the US has a history of defending and helping Democracies.
      Not dictatorships."

      Really? LOL

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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

  5. ahorseback profile image70
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    Delusion  is a powerful drug !

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    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."

    Extracted from:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a … ted_States

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Are you surprised? You really shouldn't  be.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    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

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Pretty scary stuff and not the sort of thing that you are going taught in grade school. So you now have the answer to your question of 4 days ago.

  8. ahorseback profile image70
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    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 ?

 
working