|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I also think candidates who have foreign policy resumes should not be punished for having it... |
That is exactly the problem with Obama's arguments on this matter. In his effort to save himself from drowning, he is willing to stand on the head and drown the strong swimmers instead.
And how would Obama interact with professional foreign-policy experts at State and CIA were he to take the Oval Office? With a chip-on-his-shoulder about their foreign-policy experience? That is how most presidents have treated them anyway, including and especially W. Bush. So perhaps, at the end of the day, Obama is little different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
OK.
Goph, I am keeping track of this. Call me petty, but first you were impressed with Gore, then Obama, and now what?
Whose foreign policy experience impresses you? While I suppose you might have already answered that, which "electable candidates" demonstrate such experience?
My answer is none. Would you agree? If so, is America already on the road to electing a foreign policy ning-com-poop?
Would you to care to qualify what will happen if Obama is elected? Can you demonstrate , if not hypothesize about how the lack of foreign policy experience will be harmful?
Also, I'm interested in knowing how you can paint JFK's short time in office as bad but Reagan's long term in office as successful, foreign policy -wise, specifically.
Along similar lines, Obama's "lack of inexperience" is a strawman. Who said it meant anything? You're portraying it as a black/white choice. As such an intelligent person, you shouldn't indulge in such underhand tactics.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. Obama said that US forces in Afghanistan are just bombing villages and killing civilans.
2. He also said that North Korea is the biggest enemy of the US (North Korea is an enemy but gee they didn't send terrorists to attack the US.)
3. He also said that the US ought to send forces into Pakistan ,When of course that has been US policy all along except the US was quiet about it. So all he did was cause problems for a US ally with his remarks. He also probably has access to such information so the fact that he did not know probably shows that he didn't do his homework.
4. He voted against funding US forces in Iraq which meant that the US soldiers would get no mine resistant vehicles.
Obama is the most likable and charismatic candidate out there but that would not make him a good president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| North Korea is an enemy but gee they didn't send terrorists to attack the US. |
So, apparently, now that matters to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure.
But the US never invaded Iraq to invade Iraq the US invaded Iraq to invade the middle east.
At any rate:
Something the left doesn't know. Well they are ignorant, that is of course by their own choice.
| Quote: |
It is probably true that fear of retaliation kept Iraq from using chemical weapons against coalition forces during the gulf war. However, this should give us little comfort that he will be similarly deterred in the future. Before the 1991 war, Secretary of State James Baker warned his Iraqi counterpart, Tariq Aziz, that Iraq faced "terrible consequences" if it used weapons of mass destruction, mounted terrorist attacks or destroyed Kuwaiti oil fields.
Yet despite this warning, Saddam Hussein tried to send terrorist teams to America and did blow up the Kuwaiti oil fields�he simply gambled on which two of the three things Mr. Baker mentioned were unlikely to result in America ending the regime. (Many officials from that Bush administration have suggested, in fact, that Saddam Hussein didn't even make the right calculation.) |
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20030221.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| I'm interested in knowing how you can paint JFK's short time in office as bad but Reagan's long term in office as successful, foreign policy-wise, specifically. |
Who said JFK was "bad" and then called Reagan's foreign policy "successful?"
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Along similar lines, Obama's "lack of inexperience" is a strawman... |
What does "lack of inexperience" mean, anyway?
I doubt you are "interested," Nowhere Man. Just playing your usual cat-and-mouse game. Crude Daily-Show immitation by a humourless, unimaginative, America-hater. In any case, if you want to continue pressing your case-for-the-prosecution with respect to my posts, provoking responses where you can, please start by getting your facts straight and writing in intelligible English.
You are at least capable of that, are you not, Nowhere Man? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| I'm interested in knowing how you can paint JFK's short time in office as bad but Reagan's long term in office as successful, foreign policy-wise, specifically. |
Who said JFK was "bad" and then called Reagan's foreign policy "successful?"
|
Probably me.
JFK's foreign policy was pretty shaky, but Reagan's compares favorably to JFK's at least. It astounds me that JFK nearly got us into WW3 over missiles in Cuba when we already had equivalent missiles in Turkey and that this was a foreign policy success. A few years later ICBMs were born and it mattered not.
Reagan, on the other hand, got us out of Beirut real fast and pushed the USSR into bankruptcy with an arms race. He also had a really cunning strategy for playing Iraq and Iran off each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yep the US was stupid for trying to end the Iran Iraq war. The US ought to have thrown more fuel on the fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Something the left doesn't know. Well they are ignorant, that is of course by their own choice.
|
Good. If one were to keep a tally of of how often the words "left" and "right" came up on this board, even Mr PhD would be forced to admit that, on this liberal, anti-establishment, extreme-leftist board, those criticizing "the left", ironically, would win.
Is it because "the right" isn't "ignorant" and "knows"?
I don't think so. And, mostly "the right" needs to cease their pretense of being "the middle".
Whether you voted for Gore in 2000 doesn't matter. Your views don't make you a moderate. The same goes for "Mr hawaii-five-Oh-I'm-an- independent" and Mr "you've-been-indoctrinated-but-I'm-a-marine".
Of course, you can remain ignorant of this, but you do so by choice.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Probably me. |
You could argue that Reagan got the American military over Vietnam, or at least created the conditions that enabled H.W. Bush to get the American military over Vietnam in 1990-1991.
But I would question the disastrous legacy that Reagan left us: a Constitutional crisis; an insane defense-related debt; the return of massive interventionism in places like Central America, the Middle East, and subSaharan Africa; and demonstrated incompetence vis-a-vis the Iranians -- who he never should have tried to negotiate with in the first place.
I called him worse than JFK, above, by the way. And JFK's foreign policy was Idealistic, anticommunist, belligerent, panicky, and disastrous. The Oval Office imperiously silenced the professional bureaucracy and dominated it through its Special Group (ExCom), Special Group (Augmented), and Special Group (Counterinsurgency). I am talking especially about RFK's micromanaging and bullying people like Bowles and FitzGerald and others, calling them things like "gutless wonder" and with his crazy ideas about staging Cuban MIG attacks against Guantanamo Bay or blowing up the American consulate in Ciudad Trujillo to justify invasions or personally-supervising sabotage ops best left to Special-Forces operators on the ground -- not to mention both Kennedys' foaming-at-the-mouth obsession with deposing and/or assassinating Castro, come-what-may.
You mentioned the Missile Crisis. The truth is: we are all lucky to still be here given who was in charge at the time. Others are no better. I have seen declassified Russian dox that show Castro urging Moscow to go ahead and start pressing the red buttons...
In any case, some are looking at Obama and some of his Idealism as if he were the next JFK. Well, he certainly has the same foreign-policy background as JFK did in 1960. I am not so sure, however, given the current strategic and tactical situation the United States finds itself in, that another JFK would be such a good development. In my view, we require another Eisenhower, Nixon, or H.W. Bush -- someone like Powell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forgive my ignorance, but you don't learn if you don't ask.
| Quote: |
| Far too naive and idealistic -- like Carter. I suspect Clinton would do very well, conversely, given all the talent, including her husband, she would bring into the Oval Office with her -- as would Biden, for that matter. |
Explain to me as to why Hilary Clinton would do well. My understanding of Bill Clintons time in office is that he missed a number of major issues and opportunities that later came back to blow up in America's face or am I reading it wrong?
So why do we expect that Mrs Clinton could do better or is it because she would be viewed as a more friendly face of America than a republican one?
Also what impact do you think having a woman as President would have in dealing with individuals from certain countries with chauvinistic attitudes and would she be relying on the threat of force to be accepted?
Do you consider her a good choice? Anyone can answer these questions and educate me more about US candidates. I just chose Gopher because he was the one to touch on the Clintons.
My personal choice would not be Clinton, but thats because I believe she wants to be President too much and I don't trust people who want to be in politics too much. I would prefer a lesser known candidate who is kinda pushed into power over one who seems to chase it, but generally its the media and money that makes a candidate or thats the way it seems in the US.
Admittedly, when the first election occcured and Bush won and Cheney came in as vice principal, I considered Bush to be nothing more than the puppet and Cheney the real power. So I guess I could be as wrong about Clinton as I was about Cheney and Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Summer Wine: you just demoted Cheney from the White House to a school district in one fell swoop.
In any case, you asked to be educated. My experience is that you are rather impervious to it and it would be a waste of time to respond. Your obviously-confused, rhetorical questions and wanderings, above, reconfirm that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Explain to me as to why Hilary Clinton would do well. My understanding of Bill Clintons time in office is that he missed a number of major issues and opportunities that later came back to blow up in America's face or am I reading it wrong?
|
In one sense, Hilary C is the candidate most experienced in foreign affairs. She was, effectively, a co-president. On the campaign trail in '92, she was often introduced with the comment that if Bill were to be elected we'd be getting two for one. That was later played down publically because it made some people uncomfortable, but it was true. She was an exceptionally involved First Lady, much like Eleanor Roosevelt and Edith Wilson. (Along the same lines, Gore was an exceptionally active vice president, as is Cheyney. Maybe it's just coincidence, but the last 15 years present the interesting possibility that we are seeing the evolution of a 'committee' presidency.)
She is also extremely bright. One of the definitions of 'bright' is learning from experience.
The criticism of Bill C for missing opportunities is little more than Monday morning quarterbacking. But that is beside the point...why bring up his perceived failures when asking about her? They are two different people after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I like Bush's foreign policy experience. He has little if any and doesn't really care. He p1sses off everyone but the Kurds and the Israelis and there was somehting cathartic in watching Old Yurup belating and complaining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The criticism of Bill C for missing opportunities is little more than Monday morning quarterbacking. |
It isn't that noble. It is the deliberate pretension that the most intentionally obstructionist Congress in history simply didn't exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
