| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: McCain More Hawkish Than Bush |
 |
|
This is from Bloomberg, via Yahoo:
McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq
...and more confrontational than the president on foreign policy issues ranging from Russia and China to North Korea.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080312/pl_bloomberg/apzut4blweek
Do those of you who like McCain more than I do have an informed opinion on whether this is true? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst.There is little evidence that the enemies and rivals of the US are going to make nice anytime soon. Talking is fine , diplomacy is fine. Neither is a substitute for security. The reality is was it is. The liberal democratic way of ignoring threats and claiming that the US is safe isn't an answer. Pretending a threat isn't there doesn't mean that it isn't.
Letting things go on for as long as they had been led to 9-11.
Bush's problem is not that he is hawkish but that he says hawkish things and then doesn't deliver.See the case of North Korea. He called them names ( what he said was probably true) but didn't do anything about North Korea. All he did was make the situation more difficult.
Bush forgot to walk softly and carry a big stick.
What he often did was to yell and swing the stick around and then not do anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the problem with Bush was his hawkishness.
I think it was his incompetence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think what is important is that a US president have a good strategy to deal with the strategic threats the US faces. Hawkish or not doesn't matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO, diplomacy IS security... if you're negotiating with someone, it means you're NOT bombing them... also, while i believe that bush is probably incompetent, i think that his administration knows EXACTLY what it is doing in iraq and around the world... they MEANT to cause trouble in the middle east, and are doing a great job!
when things are unstable, the bullies rule... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Bush forgot to walk softly and carry a big stick.. |
good insight. absolutely. if you're going to use diplomacy, then try being diplomatic.
I get the feeling though that Obama would walk softly but forget the big stick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
What he often did was to yell and swing the stick around and then not do anything. |
Or in the case of Iraq, swing at it half-heartedly. If you're going to take the offensive, you have to TAKE the offensive. less than 150,000 troops to topple a government with 30 million people. Stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| I get the feeling though that Obama would walk softly but forget the big stick. |
But do you know who is advising Obama, the candidate who has discussed possibly invading Pakistan unilaterally, on foreign relations? Hint: one of the Carter Doctrine's architects and an inveterate Russia-hater...And before someone takes offense, I consider this a point in Obama's favor.
That being said, McCain would likely run a better govt than W. Bush (not exactly a difficult bar to pass) and deal with the war far more competently than any of the other candidates, his position on torture notwithstanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
IMO, diplomacy IS security... if you're negotiating with someone, it means you're NOT bombing them... also, while i believe that bush is probably incompetent, i think that his administration knows EXACTLY what it is doing in iraq and around the world... they MEANT to cause trouble in the middle east, and are doing a great job!
when things are unstable, the bullies rule... |
That would depend on the nature of the enemy.
Some enemies , more than a few aren't aren't interested in diplomacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
really? like who? if we always shoot first and ask questions later, then we'll never know which parties are open to diplomacy, and which aren't...
while i agree that some groups are making unreasonable demands, isn't the purpose of diplomacy (like haggling a price in a market) to bring both sides to some middle ground? a good negotiator never makes their best offer at the beginning, so of course the other parties 'demands' sound unreasonable! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
really? like who? if we always *beep* first and ask questions later, then we'll never know which parties are open to diplomacy, and which aren't...
while i agree that some groups are making unreasonable demands, isn't the purpose of diplomacy (like haggling a price in a market) to bring both sides to some middle ground? a good negotiator never makes their best offer at the beginning, so of course the other parties 'demands' sound unreasonable! |
The US doesn't always shoot first and ask questions later.
You think the US ought to negotiate with Al Qaeda?
Answer this what are the goals the the Al Qaedists and the Khomeni followers ? What were the goals of Saddam Hussein? One would need to know those questions.
For the record I think the US ought to talk with Iran , at the same time there is little evidence that Iran keeps agreements. I don't think the discussions would come to anything.
Remember they "promised" to lift the death sentance on Rushdie.
The Soviet Union wasn't interested in peaceful co existance until Gorbachev became its leader. (Though one could argue that Khrushchev would have gone for it) . Neither Brezhnev and Stalin weren't interested in it. So negotations with them were never a solution.
You think it would have been a good idea for the US to try to negotiate a peace agreement with the axis nations? Wasn't that the mistake Chamberlain made? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
we can't say who is advising obama because we'd have to look up how to spell his name. aw shucks, bzeviksky 
ok, googled: Zbigniew Brezinski |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
mistermasan deserves the opportunity to re-establish his credibility on topics relevant to John McCain.
From an earlier post on another thread mistermasan said
| mistermasan wrote: |
| ... mccain ... woulda been courtmartialed for the forrestal ... |
I responded:
| cbclark4 wrote: |
I'm afraid you will have to explain this one.
Are you insinuating that John McCain fired the Missile that caused the fire?
What is your direct accusation of McCain wrong doing in the Forrestal Incident?
Do you have direct evidence?
Do you have a different account of the Forrestal?
I have never heard anyone raise any accusations against McCain in regards to the Forrestal until now.
You must know something that no one else does please enlighten us.
"...Lieutenant Commander, McCain was almost killed in action on July 29,
1967, while serving on Forrestal, operating in the Gulf of Tonkin. He was
at the epicenter of the Forrestal fire, when a rocket accidentally fired
across the carrier's deck and hit planes, including McCain's which had
been waiting to launch. McCain escaped from his burning jet and was
trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded; McCain was
struck in the legs and chest by shrapnel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Vietnam_operations
|
mistermasan remains in a guilty and somewhat embarrassed quiet for many days.
Here is your opportunity to exonerate yourself or at the very least offer
an apology to a man who has sacrificed for you and his country much
more than you will ever know.
edited to fix editing
Last edited by cbclark4 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
