Why don't we have articulate foreign policy officials like this MP

[truth on hold]

Edited July 18, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

B/c we have John McCain instead going on TV talking about how "Mr. President you have turned your back on the good rebels in Syria who only want democracy and are being slaughtered in the streets. The world is waiting for the U.S. the lead, and we do nothing. Mr. President we need to do something now [read: go to war]."

 

Thank God though Obama has not listened and it makes you wonder if McCain wouldn't have been W. Bush #2 if he believes this stuff that comes out of his mouth and given the "Arab Spring"...

 

The bottom line though that guy is sort of just generally opining, which is fair enough and I know we have some people who if given an opportunity to speak in a long form dialogue and w/ no real accountability to the current administration could speak just like him on all these subjects, in fact maybe better.

 

The thing is, for one many of our leaders involved are in the middle of the situation. They are working through it. Iran being critical is note something they are unaware of, but it's not something that we are going to be able to do much about right now. That's the reality of our political situation. B/c you see, we are America. We are not an alien looking down from space analyzing the situation in a vacuum. We have our own political dealings as is. All we can actually do is work with who we can, and try not to go to war if we can find the political nerve to sustain us (which we are not and generally have not had too much trouble finding under this administration... thank God for that).

 

Additionally our people involved can only say what they can say. They are actually working believe it or not they can't just come out and speak their mind on it publicly (certainly not when it would usually imply that a bunch of people we need to work with us suck). So yes you do get political speech, not long form open interviews.

 

And of course when you have people like McCain whining about the Syrian blood (which we all get, it's bad, and nobody likes it)...and then people on Fox News calling Obama weak b/c he apparently isn't man handling Russia into action the way Reagan did over this (joke point) there's also political infighting that just hurts us b/c God knows it's the wrong thing to do/say but it effects the public perception and may eventually effect our actions as a result.

 

That guy basically says do what we are doing more or less. Work for a solution and wait it out. Now if we could get the entire international community (Russia, China) on board would we provide a little air support and get involved in a way he probably wouldn't? We would. But that isn't going to happen. And in any event that would everybody doing that. So long story short, we aren't actually doing anything that is so different from what he wants to do. And as we see more internal defections, less support from Russia, Iran can only continue to support so much more with their own problems/sanctions, it's only a matter of time before it regime topples over under it's own weight and the thing transitions into whatever the hell it is going to be next...all w/ out Western intervention.

 

That's the way I see it anyway. I know you are not an Obama fan, and for some unknown reason completely and utterly hate Hillary Clinton as Sec of State...but we're not going nuts over this. And generally speaking we haven't gone nuts over too much (including Iran) and that's good. I know Romney will go to Israel this summer and beat his chest over Iran...but what we're doing is a better approach to the rhetoric he will spout over that situation (or any situation when it comes to the way he talks about foreign policy).

 

Long story short, this administrations foreign policy is not so far removed from sanity as you may think simply b/c we don't have Clinton doing 60 minutes each week giving her thoughts on everything. We are a player, not an observer we can't just talk openly about anything from the high positions involved...but you can look at our actions and generally speaking we're pretty good at least compared to what we have been.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[truth on hold]

fyi, I voted for Obama so don't paint me into a partisan corner (also voted for Bush in 2000). yes its possible to be critical of either party and any politician, no matter what Fox tells people.

 

I have to disagree with your assessment that we're not doing anything and are bystanders in Syria. We're admittedly providing mission-critical communication devices & tactical information to the insurgents/terrorists (of course under the bogus cover of "limiting civilian casualties") and if history is any guide more than likely giving them weapons &/or resources to get them. All the while championing the Saudi agenda who are known to be directly funding and arming the insurgents/terrorists.

 

You think Obama's policy is any different than W's? Given the popular mood I don't see W overtly starting another war either. But abetting the "enemy's enemy" and championing economic warfare is pushing for war. It highly elevates the chances of military confrontation, likely triggered from a desparate country like Iran or Syria attacking US in some incident, so we can say "we were provoked", "this was put on us", etc etc. As Ron Paul said economic sanctions are an act of war.

 

So why do I despise Hillary? Well personally I can't f$#*ing stand her hag-like appearance, monotone droning-voice, and the transparent and superficial nature of her positions, which she demonstrated in the primaries and now as Sec of State. No one can deny she has alienated a lot of people right from the get go in her initial spotlight on the national stage in 92' when she championed health care reform post-Bill's election. yet she's presented by her admirers as somehow polished, balanced, articulate, smart, insightful, effective, well intentioned, humble public servant the country is lucky and priveledged to have. IMO nothing could be further from the truth. Im sure some will disagree, but Im telling you my reasons for not being able to tolerate her, which i think you wanted to hear.

 

Her appointee Susan Rice went as far to say in an interview that Syria was responsible for insurgent acts of terror because of the brutal way the Assad regime suppressed demonstrations. for those paying attention, this was extraordinary ... a high ranking US official justifying terror, something Bush painted as black and white and inexusable under any scenario. So now US has opened the door to excusing terror against allies like Israel and Saudis in their puppet state of Bahrain against. HOWEVER Hilarty can't be blamed alone for the continued Neocon-inspired foreign policy under Obama, she answers to him and he must have final say over policy.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

fyi, I voted for Obama so don't paint me into a partisan corner (also voted for Bush in 2000). yes its possible to be critical of either party and any politician, no matter what Fox tells people.

 

I have to disagree with your assessment that we're not doing anything and are bystanders in Syria. We're admittedly providing mission-critical communication devices to the insurgents/terrorists (of course under the bogus cover of "limiting civilian casualties") and if history is any guide more than likely giving them weapons &/or resources to get them. All the while championing the Saudi agenda who are known to be directly funding and arming the insurgents/terrorists.

 

You think Obama's policy is any different than W's? Given the popular mood I don't see W overtly starting another war either. But abetting the "enemy's enemy" and championing economic warfare is pushing for war. It highly elevates the chances of military confrontation, likely triggered from a desparate country like Iran or Syria attacking US in some incident, so we can say "we were provoked", "this was put on us", etc etc. As Ron Paul said economic sanctions are an act of war.

 

So why do I despise Hillary? Well personally I can't f$#*ing stand her hag-like appearance, monotone droning-voice, and the transparent and superficial nature of her positions, which she demonstrated in the primaries and now as Sec of State. No one can deny she has alienated a lot of people right from the get go in her initial spotlight on the national stage in 92' when she championed health care reform post-Bill's election. She's presented by her admirers as somehow polished, balanced, articulate, smart, insightful, effective, well intentioned, humble public servant the country is lucky and priveledged to have. IMO nothing could be further from the truth. Im sure some will disagree, but Im telling you my reasons for not being able to tolerate her, which i think you wanted to hear.

 

Her appointee Susan Rice went as far to say in an interview that Syria was responsible for insurgent acts of terror because of the brutal way the Assad regime suppressed demonstrations. for those paying attention, this was extraordinary ... a high ranking US official justifying terror, something Bush painted as black and white and inexusable under any scenario. So now US has opened the door to excusing terror against key allies like Israel and Saudis in their puppet state of Bahrain against. HOWEVER Hilarty can't be blamed alone for the continued Neocon-inspired foreign policy under Obama, she answers to him and he must have final say over policy.

 

 

Hardly think that is justifying terror for one. I mean that is really, really a stretch.

 

As for economic sanctions being actions of war. Look...Ron Paul is out there. And God bless him and power to you if you want to follow his foreign policy but we just aren't going remove ourselves from the international community the way he would have us do...plain and simple. The world is more globalized than ever, cooperative international resolution of disputes is what the world is. We are going to be involved and yes, we will protect our geopolitical position in the world through dealings within this structure just as everyone else will. This is the "new war"...and the plus is it isn't quite "actual war" for the most part it's just a cross between diplomacy (the game) and chess. Also we have learned some lessons about over meddling.

 

I for one am content in 2012 to only go to war with the international community when we have to (which is very rare that will happen/be agreed upon) and otherwise to impose sanctions ....run covert ops where we need to do so in cases of blatant nose snubbing at the UN.... Keep the boots off the ground, minimize the money spent, and stop being a controlling B word on the world stage and we'll call it a good 4 year turn around.

 

Our actions in Syria do not highly elevate our risk of war btw. Assad is going down, plain and simple. Everyone on earth, even Russia, understands this now. Imposing sanctions on his regime only accelerated/accelerates that process. We have done nothing in Syria that increases our liklihood of war. The only thing that increases that liklihood as prolonged Assad massacre ... our "enemy" there is simply that kind of disorder ... the sanctions have helped. And most importantly, we aren't the most involved by any stretch of the imagination. That has largely been a regional conflict, with most stuff being contained in Syria and neighbors taking sides and supplying the bulk of supplies to either side. That is a good thing. We are keeping our noses out of these things a little more.

 

And Iran is not going to attack us, it's just madness to suggest that.

 

All of the above is of course, purely my view.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[truth on hold]

Its not a matter of if we're doing it alone or not. Was Iraq justified because we found a co-sponsor in the UK? Did the 3,000+ dead Americans and trillion taxpayer dollars somehow not count?

 

We're intervening in Syria for 2 reasons: Israel sees them an ally of Iran, and Saudi's see it as a threat to Sunni Islam. yeah nice work Bush and now Obama, playing lapdog to the perpretators of the longest running occupation since WWII, and the archetype of despotism and discrimination of all kinds; Saudis are about as anti-Democratic, anti-individual freedom, mysoginistic as a country can-be. And Sunni in Islam is historically the more radical of the 2 (i.e. al Qaeda.) So let's be clear on what we're doing supporting Saudi'S against Iran: INSERTING OURSELVES IN THE MILLENIUM OLD CONFLICT BETWEEN SUNNI AND SHIITE MUSLIMS, on the more radical-side to boot!!!

 

You seriously going to tell me this is what the founders wanted? That it benefits American civilians? That its not driven by special interests and intimated politicians? That we have a snow ball's chance in hell of successfully sorting out a millenium's old religious conflict 3 continents removed? really? Really? REALLY?

 

let the Saudis and Shiites sort out they're own f#ing mess. they earned it, deal with.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

Its not a matter of if we're doing it alone or not. Was Iraq justified because we found a co-sponsor in the UK? Did the 3,000+ dead Americans and trillion taxpayer dollars somehow not count?

 

We're intervening in Syria for 2 reasons: Israel sees them an ally of Iran, and Saudi's see it as a threat to Sunni Islam. yeah nice work Bush and now Obama, playing lapdog to the perpretators of the longest running occupation since WWII, and the archetype of despotism and discrimination of all kinds; Saudis are about as anti-Democratic, anti-individual freedom, mysoginistic as a country can-be. And Sunni in Islam is historically the more radical of the 2 (i.e. al Qaeda.) So let's be clear on what we're doing supporting Saudi'S against Iran: INSERTING OURSELVES IN THE MILLENIUM OLD CONFLICT BETWEEN SUNNI AND SHIITE MUSLIMS, on the more radical-side to boot!!!

 

You seriously going to tell me this is what the founders wanted? That it benefits American civilians? That its not driven by special interests and intimated politicians? That we have a snow ball's chance in hell of successfully sorting out a millenium's old religious conflict 3 continents removed? really? Really? REALLY?

 

let the Saudis and Shiites sort out they're own f#ing mess. they earned it, deal with.

 

I don't see us an intervening in Syria very much at all. Almost nothing that "puts us out there" really, at all. As for why we go along with sanctions...b/c the entire rest of the civilized world has to condemn the regime there. It's that simple. Might Israel like that it happened? Might the Saudi's? Perhaps. Most people have opinions of their neighbors and see their rise or fall as something that will benefit or hurt them. But the simple point is absent the domestic uprising and subsequent crack down and later massacres ... we wouldn't be doing what VERY LITTLE we have done which is basically concur with the rest of the world minus China and Russia.

 

I just don't see what you are so worked up over. We aren't that involved. This did not happen a result of our doing. We are not wasting very much money on this and no American lives or anything...this is a regional conflict as it has played out so far and we are basically not involved. Not any more involved than the rest of the world anyway.

 

This isn't Iraq at all. And just to comment on your comparing the Iraq co-sponsor to what I was describing...I was describing the UN ... not us doing something with only 1 significant partner.

 

Stop talking about this as if McCain gets his way. He doesn't. We are basically doing NOTHING.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[truth on hold]

Theres no doubt about Hilary taking the global diplomatic lead on this. We are very much involved. Please acknowledge this. So then are we following the rest of civilized world (lol @ Israelis & Saudis guardians of civility), or are we using our influence to get others to join us? Clearly the latter

Edited July 18, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

Theres no doubt about Hilary taking the global diplomatic lead on this. We are very much involved. Please acknowledge this. So then are we following the rest of civilized world (lol @ Israelis & Saudis guardians of civility), or are we using our influence to get others to join us? Clearly the latter

 

 

The diplomatic lead. Diplomacy. We are not taking a role on the ground or really doing anything other than trying to work within the channels of the UN to get the whole UN to do something to stop the alleged massacres. Why does that upset you so much? We are by definition no inserting our big nose into some conflict. We aren't doing anything other than talking within the international community. The sanctions crippled Assad. He's experiencing higher level defections. Russia no longer ships him weapons (so that's something). What is your beef with merely taking the diplomatic lead? We shouldn't even be involved in speaking to the UN leaders about possible intervention in areas with potential crimes against humanity? Would you have us leave the UN?

[truth on hold]

For reasons I outlined earlier, we're actively taking sides in a conflict, based not on human rights but on politics. Yes I would have us not do that.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

For reasons I outlined earlier, we're actively taking sides in a conflict, based not on human rights but on politics. Yes I would have us not do that.

 

 

But what do you think about my response to your accusations that this is all about Israel and Saudi Arabia? The entire world is concerned about massacres, as are we. We didn't create the situation at all, "but for" the domestic revolt and subsequent crack down and massacres there would be no issue. As such, there is...almost the entire world takes issue with it...we take the same side as them...for substantially the same reasons as I see it. To assume that we are taking sides in this conflict to meddle in regional politics under these circumstances is bizzare...and even assuming it is true we are still only engaged in diplomacy anyway working within the channels of the international community and refusing to go in and rampage around without the consensus approval of the UN.

 

This is not the example you are looking for to make your point, that's all I'm saying. This is not Iraq. This is not Afghanistan v. the Soviets. This is nothing like that at all.

 

This is plain and simple and Syrian civil war in which the international community is concerned about human rights violations and we are working within the legitimate global channels to encourage the organization to stop bloodshed. That's it. There's really nothing as I see it that is wrong with that.

 

You would argue simply b/c we are taking a side? Everyone takes a side. Everyone debates and says "yes we should do something (be it extreme like going in or passive like some sanctions)" or "no we're going to let it be." The only reason Russia and China take the approach they take is b/c in Russia's case they were loose allies who relied on Assad's regime for various things and in China's case b/c they don't want people meddling in their human rights issues so they will turn a blind eye to others so as not to set precedent. But the rest of the global community agrees...while not on every tactical point...that something (whatever that something may be) needs to be done to encourage the timely resolution to this before more people die.

 

Simply put your argument that it is political meddling is very weak I think given the circumstances as I have laid out. And even then, we are merely taking sides in the international debate...nothing more. Taking a side an international debate is not the kind of thing that creates the backlash you fear...dropping troops in or sending boat loads of weapons and money to radicals is.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[dayman]

In any event "breaking news" reports 3 members of high level gov't killed including Assad's brother-in-law. Leon Panetta says he's concerned about violence "rapidly spinning out of control." They have chemical weapons compounds. As we have seen with a lot of these dictators...when stuff gets too bad and they're in too deep they can lose their minds. The human rights issues are not to be trivialized. They are real. They are not a cover for a "western conspiracy" as you think. No way Assad keeps power for another week with out a HUGE escalation in violence. He could go insane. Right now he's in Saddam mode sitting around knowing he's done, waiting to be bombed, probably going paranoid, angry, cornered, and still in control of an army and some chemical weapons. (that's not to imply he's literally cornered as of yet...but you get the point...this **** is reaching a tipping point)

 

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/18/4639238/panetta-violence-in-syria-spinning.html

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheNewBills