Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

  1. #1
    Student Marshabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    11-09-13 @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    293

    How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    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.


    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.
    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.
    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."
    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.

  2. #2
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,071

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    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.

  3. #3
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    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

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #4
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    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 by StillBallin75; 03-30-11 at 01:01 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #5
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,680

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    "No Blood for Oil" only covers republican presidents I guess.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #6
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,071

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    "No Blood for Oil" only covers republican presidents I guess.
    Yep, I guess our "values" that Obama pointed out are cool with Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, etc.

  7. #7
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    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.
    I quite agree.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #8
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Yep, I guess our "values" that Obama pointed out are cool with Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, etc.
    That's why the Stewart clip so spot on. All our presidents have been quite selective in when we adhere to our ideals. Sadly.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #9
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    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.

  10. #10
    Student Marshabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    11-09-13 @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    293

    Re: How the 'Obama doctrine' compares with predecessors

    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •