Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

  1. #11
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    What's 'funny' is that Republicans offer no foreign policy solutions, and often trip over themselves defending what the Bush Administration did 11 years ago. Obama may be unpopular for his disengagement from the Middle East... but what is the actual alternative? How do you fix the sectarian nightmare that Bush unleashed, besides throwing American bodies and treasure at it?

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    What's 'funny' is that Republicans offer no foreign policy solutions, and often trip over themselves defending what the Bush Administration did 11 years ago. Obama may be unpopular for his disengagement from the Middle East... but what is the actual alternative? How do you fix the sectarian nightmare that Bush unleashed, besides throwing American bodies and treasure at it?
    IMO, four big questions should guide American foreign policy in the Middle East.

    1. Are the government’s actual and intended policies compatible with U.S. interests and those of U.S. regional allies/is there opportunity to influence them in a favorable direction?
    2. Does the government have the potential to be stable or to have sustainable rule?
    3. What role does the government play in the region’s balance of power?
    4. Will the government treat its people in a reasonable fashion?

    The first question determines the direction of U.S. bilateral policy. The second determines whether military or non-military aid is likely to be effective. The third determines how much priority should be given to the relationship. The fourth is of lesser importance, but provides insight into whether the country’s policies are compatible with U.S. values, which can be helpful when advocating a sustained foreign aid or military assistance program. Recent military operations in Libya and appeals for military operations in Syria under the notion of a “responsibility to protect” do not satisfactorily address such questions. Absent true genocide, as defined in the Convention on Genocide, the U.S. should refrain from “responsibility to protect” interventionism. Libya did not meet that standard. Syria does not. Such interventionism is little different from regime change in Iraq on grounds that it would expand the sphere of democracy, one of the number of arguments that were behind the 2003 war.

    Regime change in the absence of the necessary ingredients for stable and democratic governance should not be expected to produce stable and liberal democracy. Revolutions are not always democratic in nature. Indeed, more often they are not. The Middle East is filled with complex sectarian fault lines. When an illiberal or authoritarian regime is challenged, often but not always by a repressed majority, it is very likely that the nature of the revolution is not democratic or liberal, even if appeals to democracy and human rights are made to try to secure assistance. Iraq offers one example where democracy failed to take root. Libya offers another. Given the internal factors in both countries, the post-regime change outcomes should not be too surprising. Syria would almost certainly add to that list.

    Most of the Middle East’s instability results from authoritarian/illiberal regimes that have underperformed when it comes to achieving high living standards and opportunities for the full range of their citizens (due to their own sectarian biases), sectarian fault lines that divide societies, historic rivalries, ideology, and the region’s shifting balance of power. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is a minor issue in the scheme of those larger structural drivers. That dispute does not pose significant risks to Israel or other key regional U.S. allies. Disproportionate attention should not be focused on addressing that matter. A more realistic posture would involve standing ready to help mediate the dispute if or when the parties are ready, not trying to rush to a final settlement when the fundamental differences remain enormous. A step-by-step approach with smaller interim agreements would be viable and could pave the way for a future final settlement. Big diplomatic efforts should be focused where larger American interests are at stake. The biggest such regional matter concerns Iran’s nuclear activities. The second includes shoring up American regional allies to assure that the balance of power remains consistent with safeguarding their national security and interests. The third concerns mitigating the risks posed by the broader phenomenon of terrorist organizations ranging from Hezbollah to ISIS.

    Finally, it should be noted that neo-isolationism does not provide an effective foreign policy. It represents abdication, even as the U.S. does have substantial interests in the Middle East and a number of strategic allies there.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 06-23-14 at 11:57 PM.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Well pity that most Americans dont care about foreign policy or affairs..
    That's it, or else the poll would show that Americans trust neither party, considering that for the past four decades (at least) every administration has supported militant Islamic groups. And advanced policies benificial to big business, though not so much for the citizens of other countries.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #14
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    What's 'funny' is that Republicans offer no foreign policy solutions, and often trip over themselves defending what the Bush Administration did 11 years ago. Obama may be unpopular for his disengagement from the Middle East... but what is the actual alternative? How do you fix the sectarian nightmare that Bush unleashed, besides throwing American bodies and treasure at it?
    Bush did unleash it your right, but Obama's illegal toppling of the Libyan government, along with his support of terrorist groups have given rise to more extremism. It's not republican or democrat foreign policy in the ME alone, its decades of bad US foreign policy in the region that's designed to create the very instability we've seen there.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #15
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    ... foreign policy is kind of big. It doesn't really change and mostly develops according to its own needs and logic.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  6. #16
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Edit: I removed the TYT commentary, as it is biased.

    And here's the article:

    Republicans Have Regained the Foreign Policy Edge | FiveThirtyEight



    Why would we trust either of them?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #17
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    Democrats and Republicans don't even have *the same* policy. The same foreign policy has both both of them.

    Once you dump money on another's country soil or become reliant on their resources, you lose your ability to govern that money or exist *without* those resources. You become reliant on other peoples and their systems of government and have to cooperate with them, or else, beat them into submission. Our historical reliance on Middle Eastern oil -- and the military conflicts it stimulates -- isn't a partisan disagreement, its a fact of our economic existence.

    It would take the wilful effort of hundreds of millions of people -- on a scale larger than the Civil Rights Movement -- to make a meaningful change in how our foreign policy works.

    Until then, our elected representatives are just like the rest of us: locked into the roller-coaster, screaming their heads off as it plummets to the bottom. Only difference is, they get the front row seat and everybody in back somehow blames them for driving them down the hill. As if the toy steering wheels let them control the mechanisms of a machine that's complexity goes over their heads.

    Having a position like "Senator", "Congressmen", or "President" doesn't matter when you are checkmated into irrelevance unless you comply with the plans and schemes of powerful and well connected organizations whose operations and sources of power span entire continents.

    If any single person gets uppity and starts acting out against the system Big Money created (which is necessarily an act of betrayal since Big Money is what got them to Congress), then everyone else faces a choice: ally with that rebel and risk Big Money's wrath, or marginalize him out of the committees and groups that exert influence within Congress.

    The result is a equilibrium based around with compliance with Big Money. Equilibriums can't be broken from within, they have to be upset from the outside.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 07-01-14 at 07:22 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  8. #18
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Edit: I removed the TYT commentary, as it is biased.

    And here's the article:

    Republicans Have Regained the Foreign Policy Edge | FiveThirtyEight



    Gosh. Given just the absolute unbroken string of unvarnished successes that the application of the left-wing view of the world and America's role in it has brought us over the last 6 years, I find this shift difficult to understand.

  9. #19
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    Fickle and un attentive Americans.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #20
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Americans trust Republicans more on Foreign Polcy

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Democrats and Republicans don't even have *the same* policy. The same foreign policy has both both of them.

    Once you dump money on another's country soil or become reliant on their resources, you lose your ability to govern that money or exist *without* those resources. You become reliant on other peoples and their systems of government and have to cooperate with them, or else, beat them into submission. Our historical reliance on Middle Eastern oil -- and the military conflicts it stimulates -- isn't a partisan disagreement, its a fact of our economic existence.

    It would take the wilful effort of hundreds of millions of people -- on a scale larger than the Civil Rights Movement -- to make a meaningful change in how our foreign policy works.

    Until then, our elected representatives are just like the rest of us: locked into the roller-coaster, screaming their heads off as it plummets to the bottom. Only difference is, they get the front row seat and everybody in back somehow blames them for driving them down the hill. As if the toy steering wheels let them control the mechanisms of a machine that's complexity goes over their heads.

    Having a position like "Senator", "Congressmen", or "President" doesn't matter when you are checkmated into irrelevance unless you comply with the plans and schemes of powerful and well connected organizations whose operations and sources of power span entire continents.

    If any single person gets uppity and starts acting out against the system Big Money created (which is necessarily an act of betrayal since Big Money is what got them to Congress), then everyone else faces a choice: ally with that rebel and risk Big Money's wrath, or marginalize him out of the committees and groups that exert influence within Congress.

    The result is a equilibrium based around with compliance with Big Money. Equilibriums can't be broken from within, they have to be upset from the outside.
    Agreed, though you'll find very little more agreement around here.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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