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

1. 81

   Credence2posted 9 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/

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 9 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.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 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.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 9 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.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 9 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....

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Onusonusposted 9 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 9 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Onusonusposted 9 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              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.

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 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!!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    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.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       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!

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          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.

                                          report
                                          1. 95

                                             wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             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?

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                No, making money off the harvesting of aborted fetal body parts is a side benefit for planned unparenthood.

                                                report
                                                1. 95

                                                   wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                   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.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 0

                                                      Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                      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

                                                      report
                                    2. 81

                                       Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       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........

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          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?

                                          report
2. 74

   Zubair Ahmedposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 9 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....

      replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 9 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?

      replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 9 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.

      replyreport
   2. 91

      IslandBitesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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

         replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Delusion  is a powerful drug !

   replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Are you surprised? You really shouldn't  be.

      replyreport
7. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 9 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.

      replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 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 ?

   replyreport