• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

Marshabar

Marshabar

Active member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
293
Reaction score
142
Location
United States
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors - CNN.com

Interesting comparison. I wish we could have a new less involved doctrine. I feel badly for the Libyan people being used by al Quaida to take down Mubarak. I'm sure they'll be worse off without his Western influence in such areas as women's rights, we're already seeing it. It seems nothing we do in the area actually helps the people and the best we can do is support stability of regime.

The doctrines as laid out by CNN:

Barack Obama (2009-present)


The gist: The U.S. can intervene in conflicts overseas "when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are," he said. Case in point: The potential slaughter of Libyans rebelling against Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
Click to expand...



George W. Bush (2001-2009)

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror," President Bush said shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)


"Kosovo, a Serbian province, is not an easy problem, but if we don't stop the conflict now, it clearly will spread and then we will not be able to stop it except at far greater cost and risk," Clinton said.
Click to expand...

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993)


"The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured," he said during a speech to Congress that year. "And American citizens abroad must be protected. ... Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace."
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)

"We must stand by all our democratic allies. And we must not break faith with those who are risking their lives -- on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua -- to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth," President Reagan said in his 1985 State of the Union address.

The doctrine, which spanned his two terms in office, also aimed to spread capitalism to the socialist nations.
Click to expand...
 
I fear the resulting structure of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, etc, are going to be even worse than before in terms of human rights, especially women and not traditionalist Muslims. I'm not convinced of a true caliphate developing, but I don't see it fundamentally any better for the people of those countries. Rule by force will be the result yet again, only this time with MORE force and LESS freedom.
 
Also mocked was Wolf Blitzer for being eager to try and label Obama’s speech as the beginning of the new “Obama Doctrine.” And in an effort to demonstrate that Obama isn’t unique in justifying intervention to stop a crisis in one country, while atrocities take place elsewhere, Stewart played clips from many past presidents showing that their rhetoric didn’t necessarily match their actions either. Although the loudest laugh came at the end, when Stewart played a clip of Sarah Palin trying to describe the “skirmish” in Libya, but saying the word “squirmish” instead.



Jon Stewart Obama Speech | Obama Libya Speech | NATO Control | Mediaite
 
Foreign policy "Doctrines" are stupid ideas and labels to begin with. Only "doctrine" I've ever felt that was remotely useful was the Powell Doctrine.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
"No Blood for Oil" only covers republican presidents I guess. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yep, I guess our "values" that Obama pointed out are cool with Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, etc.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Foreign policy "Doctrines" are stupid ideas and labels to begin with. Only "doctrine" I've ever felt that was remotely useful was the Powell Doctrine.
Click to expand...

I quite agree.
 
Erod said:
Yep, I guess our "values" that Obama pointed out are cool with Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, etc.
Click to expand...

That's why the Stewart clip so spot on. All our presidents have been quite selective in when we adhere to our ideals. Sadly.
 
I really wish that politicians would be honest about foreign policy. The reason why we are in Libya instead of other countries is because of practical circumstances. The Libyan people rose up on their own and the U.N. authorized action. Qadaffi isn't being targeted because he is worse than many other dictators, but because there was a opportunity to remove him. Ideals play second fiddle on the international stage. China is committing genocide against Tibet as we speak and nobody is ever going to lift a finger because China is too powerful.
 
Meet the new doctrine same as the old doctrine. Only the doctrinaire in question is looking up to the left whistling aimlessly and pretending he doesn't own it while expanding the Libya mission with stealth troops.

I get the feeling Obama does actually enjoy wielding military power, he jokes about unmanned killer drones, but of course he can't let on. Ever noticed which party is in power when real wars start?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom