• 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!

Which hurts America worse in terms of credibility as a nation?

Which hurts America worse in terms of credibility as a nation?

  • Bonehead policies

    Votes: 11 52.4%

  • Empty threats

    Votes: 10 47.6%
  • Total voters
    21
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Which hurts America worse in terms of credibility as a nation?

Bonehead policies, or empty threats?

Of the two, it's a relative question.

This question is prompted by President Obama's current rhetoric toward Russia regarding Ukraine. "Oh boy, you better not do nothin'" :roll: It's just empty rhetoric, and everybody knows it. We aren't going to do squat.

On the other hand, we certainly don't make many friends with many of the policies we do carry out.

Disclaimer: To be fair, Obama is not the only President to have employed empty rhetoric, so it's more of a generic question. This current events are only prompting the question.
 
I cannot answer your poll, as the options are rather simplified in a very complex situation.

Diplomacy sometimes requires veiled threat. Military options sometimes require hidden or imagined power.

Backseat quarterbacks in military foreign affairs are amongst the worst.


It is unlikely you have more knowledge than the Pentagon.
 
Actions speak louder than words.
 
No matter how many empty threats, the world knows the US could do a lot at any given moment. That reality insulates empty threats by the US with the presumption that the US decided not to but WAS capable. As long as US capability is an undisputed reality, bad policy is worse.
 
radcen said:
Which hurts America worse in terms of credibility as a nation?

Bonehead policies, or empty threats?

Of the two, it's a relative question.

This question is prompted by President Obama's current rhetoric toward Russia regarding Ukraine. "Oh boy, you better not do nothin'" :roll: It's just empty rhetoric, and everybody knows it. We aren't going to do squat.

On the other hand, we certainly don't make many friends with many of the policies we do carry out.

Disclaimer: To be fair, Obama is not the only President to have employed empty rhetoric, so it's more of a generic question. This current events are only prompting the question.
Click to expand...

Actually with the Ukraine, there is not much if anything we can do. World leaders like to sound tough in situations like this even though most realize that if Russia wants to invade the Ukraine, there is not a thing they can do about it. Besides the vast majority of Americans do not want to risk a war over the Ukraine. There is really no support for a tough guy stance among the populace here, so tough talk is all that is left.

But to answer your question, I think a nation can more easily over come some bonehead policies than empty threats. Especially if the the people in the effected country believe the empty threats to whom ever is their belligerent. There could be uprisings and riots where, in this case the people of the Ukraine expect the U.S. to come to their aid. I mean to get involved militarily. Then when we don't that could lead to a heavy loss of life on their part. When one is president, he better choose his words real carefully.
 
USA is learning pretty fast from Iran, N. Korea and applying the same rhetoric.
 
There's no poll option for rolling around the world, dropping bombs on people.
 
tecoyah said:
I cannot answer your poll, as the options are rather simplified in a very complex situation.

Diplomacy sometimes requires veiled threat. Military options sometimes require hidden or imagined power.

Backseat quarterbacks in military foreign affairs are amongst the worst.

It is unlikely you have more knowledge than the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

It's unlikely that Obama listens to the Pentagon, given that he distrusts them and is hostile to taking advice from senior subject matter experts.
 
Perotista said:
Actually with the Ukraine, there is not much if anything we can do. World leaders like to sound tough in situations like this even though most realize that if Russia wants to invade the Ukraine, there is not a thing they can do about it. Besides the vast majority of Americans do not want to risk a war over the Ukraine. There is really no support for a tough guy stance among the populace here, so tough talk is all that is left.

But to answer your question, I think a nation can more easily over come some bonehead policies than empty threats. Especially if the the people in the effected country believe the empty threats to whom ever is their belligerent. There could be uprisings and riots where, in this case the people of the Ukraine expect the U.S. to come to their aid. I mean to get involved militarily. Then when we don't that could lead to a heavy loss of life on their part. When one is president, he better choose his words real carefully.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this. With boneheaded policies, you at least get "respect" in that you'll do something, albeit dumb and counterproductive. That alone can bring people to the table.

On the other hand, if you earn a reputation for being all talk and no action, you don't even get that grudging "respect", and others stop listening to you.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Not to the average voter.
Click to expand...

The average voter is likely unaware of either. The average voter believes bumper sticker narratives, and votes for people that they like, even when they think they are less competent and capable to the task. They'd rather have a President they think is a fella like them, or says nice things about them, than one capable of actually, you know, effectively running foreign policy or the executive branch of government. "Well I'm gonna vote for candidate so-and-so 'cause, you know, he's like in favor of good stuff, not like that other guy, who is like, I think, in favor of bad stuff, and stuff...." :roll:
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
I imagine that he means that we are saying ridiculous things, making ourselves a laughingstock.
Click to expand...

Of course, what else? But the comparison is ludicrous.
 
radcen said:
I tend to agree with this. With boneheaded policies, you at least get "respect" in that you'll do something, albeit dumb and counterproductive. That alone can bring people to the table.

On the other hand, if you earn a reputation for being all talk and no action, you don't even get that grudging "respect", and others stop listening to you.
Click to expand...

I am old enough to remember Hungry where our rhetoric of help caused them to rise up against the old USSR. There was not a thing we could do about. Then again our rhetoric caused Czechoslovakia to have their Prague spring, again there was nothing we could do to help them. I suppose my point is the Ukraine better understand that the only support we can give them is moral support, none other.
 
I'll take "What are bonehead politicians" for 500, Alex.
 
Hard to say with any certainty. Both stupid policies and empty threats can undermine our own security and that of the world's. In some circumstances, it's easier to walk back a hasty calculation than repairing the damage done to your credibility and allies through inaction.. Situation dependent I suppose.
 
radcen said:
I tend to agree with this. With boneheaded policies, you at least get "respect" in that you'll do something, albeit dumb and counterproductive. That alone can bring people to the table.

On the other hand, if you earn a reputation for being all talk and no action, you don't even get that grudging "respect", and others stop listening to you.
Click to expand...

A good point. Actions > Words. When you pursue boneheaded policies, your good policies can mitigate. When you make empty threats, you harm the ability of your good policies to have effects, too.
 
ecofarm said:
Of course, what else? But the comparison is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Sure. Hey, quick question. Which countries are currently led by leaders who claimed that their ascension would have positive effects on the weather?

A) North Korea
B) The U.S.
C) Both the U.S. and North Korea


?
 
cpwill said:
Sure. Hey, quick question. Which countries are currently led by leaders who claimed that their ascension would have positive effects on the weather?

A) North Korea
B) The U.S.
C) Both the U.S. and North Korea


?
Click to expand...


D. Venezuela (previous leader)
 
ecofarm said:
No matter how many empty threats, the world knows the US could do a lot at any given moment. That reality insulates empty threats by the US with the presumption that the US decided not to but WAS capable. As long as US capability is an undisputed reality, bad policy is worse.
Click to expand...

Are you using last August as an example during the Putin-Obama staredown over Syria and Obama was unable to get the Navy's surge Carrier Strike Group out of Norfolk ? :lamo

The United States is no longer a Superpower. We are just another world power like Russia, China, the Frogs :blah: , Germany and the UK.
 
APACHERAT said:
The United States is no longer a Superpower. We are just another world power like Russia, China, the Frogs :blah: , Germany and the UK.
Click to expand...

All because Obama is openly and secretly destroying our military to pave the way for Kenyan Muslim world domination! He's like an evil John the Baptist.


:roll:
 
Well I voted for "Empty Threats" because it was empty threats from President Clinton that led to Al Qaeda believing that America was a paper tiger and thought they could get away with attacking America on it's own soil on 9-11-01.

From Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War against the United States aka Bin Ladens first Fatwa, 1996:

>"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the “heart” of every Muslim and a remedy to the “chests” of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu..."<

Osama bin Laden fatwa”Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”
 
Perotista said:
I am old enough to remember Hungry where our rhetoric of help caused them to rise up against the old USSR. There was not a thing we could do about. Then again our rhetoric caused Czechoslovakia to have their Prague spring, again there was nothing we could do to help them. I suppose my point is the Ukraine better understand that the only support we can give them is moral support, none other.
Click to expand...
Excellent points. I'm not quite old enough to remember Hungary 1956, but I've done a lot of reading about it. Yes, I agree that we encouraged many people to their deaths.


APACHERAT said:
Well I voted for "Empty Threats" because it was empty threats from President Clinton that led to Al Qaeda believing that America was a paper tiger and thought they could get away with attacking America on it's own soil on 9-11-01.

From Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War against the United States aka Bin Ladens first Fatwa, 1996:

>"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the “heart” of every Muslim and a remedy to the “chests” of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu..."<

Osama bin Laden fatwa”Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”
Click to expand...
Many of Clinton's actions/retaliations might as well have been empty rhetoric. They were about as useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom