there really hasn't been much difference between Bush and Obama on the foreign policy.

 

The funny thing is you'll hear how big of a mess the middle east is as a reason for us to get more involved. As if that seems to help things, rather then taking a step back and ending the endless cycle of regime propagating that has lead to decades of conflicts.

You Obama loving hippie! The solution is bombs! you can't do nothing!

---

Gee, I wonder what happened in Iraq. Maybe destabilizing an entire region for no reason was a bad idea after all. But Colin Powell said...

---

Yeah I'm looking forward to the republican primaries where I'm sure everyone will take shots at Rand for his alleged non-intervention policy which isn't nearly as strong as it should be. But I'll be funny to hear how our non-involvement is the cause of world ills.

---

Yeah I'm looking forward to the republican primaries where I'm sure everyone will take shots at Rand for his alleged non-intervention policy which isn't nearly as strong as it should be. But I'll be funny to hear how our non-involvement is the cause of world ills.

He's completely changed his position on Iran and middle east in general. Also on foreign aid. He's basically just another conservative at this point. He's not his father at all. 

---

He's completely changed his position on Iran and middle east in general. Also on foreign aid. He's basically just another conservative at this point. He's not his father at all. 

 

Not as bold as his Father was, but of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat he's the closest to a non-intervention as there is. I don't think you'll ever see a true believe in non-intervention even sniffing the white house, it's just not how the world works. But damn I'm going to vote for the one that's going to get us as little involved as possible.

---

I fear the privatized military industrial complex has become so strong that without campaign finance reform any one that becomes president will be influenced to continue the Bush doctrine of military interventionism.

---

I fear the privatized military industrial complex has become so strong that without campaign finance reform any one that becomes president will be influenced to continue the Bush doctrine of military interventionism.

 

While Bush was certainly guilty of it lets not pretend it started with him. It's been around since the end of WW2 and grown with every administration.

---

so..... war?

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that we declare war or invade Iran.  The point is that the Iranians are provoking tensions in the area, and it's not good.  Part of our navy's duty is to protect foreign interests of ours up to and including civilian tankers and cargo ships.  Also, the areas that I mentioned are not very big, and if our Navy ships happen to be transiting the area, they do so with "a finger on the trigger" so to speak.  If they happen to do so while a threat is in the area at close range, then it becomes a situation where the "finger is on the trigger with the safety off".

 

Another thing to consider is the possibility of an Iranian ship firing on an allied warship or aircraft in the area.  Again, an allied warship or aircraft is a foreign interest of ours, and it would be our navy's duty to respond accordingly.

 

One other thing to note.  The Iranians don't necessarily have to fire a weapon to initiate a response from one of our warships and/or aircraft.  If it is detected (and it will be) that their ship is in a target acquisition mode, then that act alone is considered threat enough for the ship to be eliminated.  If that sort of situation happened, where we take out an Iranian warship without them firing first, the Iranians and the main stream media will report that we fired first and started the mess.

 

It's a touchy situation that requires some "backbone and a pair" to handle.  Our current regime doesn't seem to have either to handle something like this.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It doesn't necessarily mean that we declare war or invade Iran.  The point is that the Iranians are provoking tensions in the area, and it's not good.  Part of our navy's duty is to protect foreign interests of ours up to and including civilian tankers and cargo ships.  Also, the areas that I mentioned are not very big, and if our Navy ships happen to be transiting the area, they do so with "a finger on the trigger" so to speak.  If they happen to do so while a threat is in the area at close range, then it becomes a situation where the "finger is on the trigger with the safety off".

 

Another thing to consider is the possibility of an Iranian ship firing on an allied warship or aircraft in the area.  Again, an allied warship or aircraft is a foreign interest of ours, and it would be our navy's duty to respond accordingly.

 

One other thing to note.  The Iranians don't necessarily have to fire a weapon to initiate a response from one of our warships and/or aircraft.  If it is detected (and it will be) that their ship is in a target acquisition mode, then that act alone is considered threat enough for the ship to be eliminated.  If that sort of situation happened, where we take out an Iranian warship without them firing first, the Iranians and the main stream media will report that we fired first and started the mess.

 

It's a touchy situation that requires some "backbone and a pair" to handle.  Our current regime doesn't seem to have either to handle something like this.

That whole scenario you describe just sounds overly aggressive to the point of wanting action to break out. I am no military expert but it sounds that way. 

 

In addition it's not like the US has not been doing the same provoking of tensions or purely destabilizing things for decades now. A lot of the mess is either partly or entirely our doing. It seems hypocritical to try to take the high road in regards to the region at large. 

---

While Bush was certainly guilty of it lets not pretend it started with him. It's been around since the end of WW2 and grown with every administration.

We got big guns, we world's #1 nation. We bring the freedom!

---

It's actually 26. Anyways, we have assets and a large naval presence in the area; why not send the 5th fleet and save us the embarrassment of having to ask countries such as India and China for help? I don't care about the other countries asking for help, but why should we request assistance for help when we already have plenty of assets in the area to deal with the situation to begin with? Aren't we trying to maintain our image as a superpower?

 

We stopped being a superpower shortly after The Cold War ended.

 

Yeah, the 8 previous years were so successful.

 

You'll rarely hear me praise "my boy" for much, especially regarding foreign policy, but I understand blanket statements bring warmth.

 

I must apologize for my comment.  You are right and I should not have used that phrase.

 

there really hasn't been much difference between Bush and Obama on the foreign policy.

 

The funny thing is you'll hear how big of a mess the middle east is as a reason for us to get more involved. As if that seems to help things, rather then taking a step back and ending the endless cycle of regime propagating that has lead to decades of conflicts.

 

Actually, there is a difference between the two.  If you go back and look at past presidencies, each one has gotten more passive when it involves dealing with threats.  My guess is, given the current situation,  President Bush would have ordered more assets into the area.  President Clinton as well as the other President Bush would have done the same.  Each one would have taken a hard stance and projected a "super power" status in the area and force the Iranian navy out of the area.

 

The "conflicts" in the area are more important than most people realize.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That whole scenario you describe just sounds overly aggressive to the point of wanting action to break out. I am no military expert but it sounds that way. 

 

In addition it's not like the US has not been doing the same provoking of tensions or purely destabilizing things for decades now. A lot of the mess is either partly or entirely our doing. It seems hypocritical to try to take the high road in regards to the region at large. 

 

Nobody wants "action to break out", but that's the reality.  In a situation like that, you can't be passive or "diplomatic".  You must be aggressive and show that you have the "upper hand".  The slightest sign of being passive is viewed as a weakness.

 

Regarding the US provoking anything is ridiculous.  We haven't done anything like that since we "crossed the line of death".  If you don't know what that means, google the phrase.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Nobody wants "action to break out", but that's the reality.  In a situation like that, you can't be passive or "diplomatic".  You must be aggressive and show that you have the "upper hand".  The slightest sign of being passive is viewed as a weakness.

 

Regarding the US provoking anything is ridiculous.  We haven't done anything like that since we "crossed the line of death".  If you don't know what that means, google the phrase.

I understand the strategy behind it. I just question it's worth with nations that are not powers is all. It seems like it's asking for a conflict when all relationships are tentative or openly hostile in the region. 

 

You don't think any actions we have taken since 86 (that's where you phrase linked me in google) have been provocative in nature at all? Like constant invasion, or toppling of regimes or aiding various groups to hurt other groups than doing it all again? I'm not saying it's right or wrong but that seems pretty darn provocative to me. 

---

Everything we touch in the Middle East dies, the Middle East AND Israel would be 100% better off if we just got out of dodge and let them do what they will. We've got enough of a mess to clean up within and on our own boarders. 

 

Imagine if instead of spending the last 40 years trying to spread democracy in the Middle East we'd focused on stabilizing our own continent you know Central and South America. How much better off would we all be?

---

While Bush was certainly guilty of it lets not pretend it started with him. It's been around since the end of WW2 and grown with every administration.

Totally agree! I didn't mean to portray Bush as the only one. They all are beholden to the war machine.


My main point is that these private companies make huge money off these"interventions". And they influence politician's foreign policy.


Look at how Rand is moving to a more hawkish stance. Without campaign finance reform these things won't change.

---

Totally agree! I didn't mean to portray Bush as the only one. They all are beholden to the war machine.


My main point is that these private companies make huge money off these"interventions". And they influence politician's foreign policy.


Look at how Rand is moving to a more hawkish stance. Without campaign finance reform these things won't change.

 

Agreed, this is one area where I am 100% against "private" military industrial complex propagating a constant war state for profit.

---

Everything we touch in the Middle East dies, the Middle East AND Israel would be 100% better off if we just got out of dodge and let them do what they will. We've got enough of a mess to clean up within and on our own boarders. 

 

Imagine if instead of spending the last 40 years trying to spread democracy in the Middle East we'd focused on stabilizing our own continent you know Central and South America. How much better off would we all be?

Imagine all the infrastructure improvements and good work we could have done at home. Heck you guys could have built your stupid wall!

---

Imagine all the infrastructure improvements and good work we could have done at home. Heck you guys could have built your stupid wall!

Speaking of that, there are plenty of US citizens in US territories that are in need of government help, but they don't get it.

 

It's kind of funny how many politicians are willing to do anything to stomp out the threat of terrorism (of which has not been a major problem in the United States lately) but won't do anything to stop any other threats.  I'm starting to wonder if they only focus on the small things because they can say "Look, we've succeeded!" when little happens.  While the big problems they ignore because their plans might not work, and it'll stop them from getting re-elected.

 

Everyone always advocates for 'merit pay' for teachers (despite no real measurement of success for students), maybe it's time we start a merit pay system for politicians.  Congressional approval ratings are what?  15% 18%  That's worse than failing. They're more hated than Nickleback.  I think it's safe to say that congress is not being successful in doing what Americans want. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Speaking of that, there are plenty of US citizens in US territories that are in need of government help, but they don't get it.

 

It's kind of funny how many politicians are willing to do anything to stomp out the threat of terrorism (of which has not been a major problem in the United States lately) but won't do anything to stop any other threats.  I'm starting to wonder if they only focus on the small things because they can say "Look, we've succeeded!" when little happens.  While the big problems they ignore because their plans might not work, and it'll stop them from getting re-elected.

 

Everyone always advocates for 'merit pay' for teachers (despite no real measurement of success for students), maybe it's time we start a merit pay system for politicians.  Congressional approval ratings are what?  15% 18%  That's worse than failing. They're more hated than Nickleback.  I think it's safe to say that congress is not being successful in doing what Americans want. 

The worst part is the vast majority will win reelection. Abysmal ratings but will still be reelected but my guy is not the problem it's the other guy! Those ads with the nuclear explosions told me so!

---

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/eur...yemen.html

---