• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Herman Cain's Foreign Policy

Helix said:
that policy is worse than isolationism. perhaps if we could avoid a 40 year cold war with another superpower, we might actually be able to repave a couple of our roads.
Click to expand...

It is typical right wing policy.. on behalf of their military industrial complex backers. Another cold war and a new "enemy" with big guns, means there is an excuse to keep a few million men and women (for now) under arms and have a bloated military budget that can be exploited by friendly companies.
 
This man said he would increase military spending and has no problem involving us in more wars.

Oh and he had no idea china already has interest in nuclear weapons...lol


Damn.
 
Rough Rider said:
I'm sorry you got such a crappy education. You probably went to school in Kansas or maybe even Texas.
Click to expand...

I went to school in several different places. None of my classes contained a section on "country-by-country nuclear proliferation".
 
Rough Rider said:
During a recent interview on PBS Herman Cain stated that China presents a serious military threat to the United States. Cain goes on to warn that "China is trying to develope nuclear capability."
I guess someone should have told him that China tested their first nuclear weapon in 1964 and has had a large stockpile of warheads for decades. Cain's foreign policy expertise could only be rivaled by the likes of Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum. He makes Sarah Palin look like Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...

You actually believe that a man that designed fire control systems of the Navy during the Vietnam war doesn't know China's capability's ???

According to his book, he evaluated China's nuclear missile capabilities including launch trajectories while in the Navy.
 
Gill said:
Really??? You actually dispute the numbers from the Wiki article ???
Click to expand...
Keep pretending that you just missed words like: "limited information" and "estimates" with regard to China's nuclear arsenal.
And Wikipedia is far from being an authoritative source of information about anything.
 
Rough Rider said:
Keep pretending that you just missed words like: "limited information" and "estimates" with regard to China's nuclear arsenal.
And Wikipedia is far from being an authoritative source of information about anything.
Click to expand...

You're right. Other "estimates" indicate that China could have as few as 145 warheads.

The DOD table followed a fact sheet published by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in April 2004, which stated: "Among the nuclear-weapon states, China...possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal." Since Britain has declared that it has less than 200 operationally available warheads, and the United States, Russia, and France have more, the Chinese statement could be interpreted to mean that China's nuclear arsenal is smaller than Britain's. Not surprisingly the devil is in the details; does the word 'arsenal' refer to the entire stockpile or just the portion of it that is operationally deployed?
Click to expand...
Nuclear Weapons - China Nuclear Forces

With China, there are no hard facts, only 'estimates' and 'limited information'. I noticed that you haven't been able to produce any confirmation of your "estimate".
 
Gill said:
You're right. Other "estimates" indicate that China could have as few as 145 warheads.


Nuclear Weapons - China Nuclear Forces

With China, there are no hard facts, only 'estimates' and 'limited information'. I noticed that you haven't been able to produce any confirmation of your "estimate".
Click to expand...


Feeble back peddling equivocation, at best.
 
Rough Rider said:
Feeble back peddling equivocation, at best.
Click to expand...

Still no proof of your comments I see........... figures, you are just another blowhard with no facts to back up your "estimates".
 
Gill said:
Still no proof of your comments I see........... figures, you are just another blowhard with no facts to back up your "estimates".
Click to expand...
More of the same. Sad.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock it off you two.
 
Rough Rider said:
During a recent interview on PBS Herman Cain stated that China presents a serious military threat to the United States. Cain goes on to warn that "China is trying to develope nuclear capability."
I guess someone should have told him that China tested their first nuclear weapon in 1964 and has had a large stockpile of warheads for decades. Cain's foreign policy expertise could only be rivaled by the likes of Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum. He makes Sarah Palin look like Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...
This is just too funny, I would think conservatives would be embarrassed by Herman Cain and toss him.
 
Cain later claimed he was talking about nuclear-powered aircraft carriers or something, but his phrasing seems to definitely indicate that "nuclear capability" and "aircraft carriers" are two separate items he's worried about...

"And secondly, we already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defense a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity. So yes, they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability, and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cain has the same problem many of us Americans have. We constantly rail against our politicians - how wrong they are on this issue, or how stupid they are about that issue, that we get this notion over time that we are smarter than they are. Business leaders look at national politicians all the time and talk about how they need to do this or that. Basically, when it comes to politics and world affairs, in the United States just about everyone is an armchair quarterback. Thus Cain looks at the presidency and thinks "hey I could do that".

The problem is that our presidents are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. The vast majority of our presidents have been extremely intelligent people. Many are borderline geniuses. Even the ones that most people consider to be stupid are still more intelligent than the vast majority of Americans. I would be willing to bet that even Bush had an IQ of at least 120. Clinton was easily over 130 as was Nixon, and probably Reagan. Obama may not be that good of a president, but by all indications has a brilliant mind. Which brings me to my point: Presidents, both successful and unsuccessful, usually have a brilliant mind. They are almost always more intelligent than 98% of Americans, and for that matter, they are almost always more intelligent than the vast majority of business leaders. That is not to say that most presidents would make good CEOs, but it does mean that the vast majority of CEOs, just like the vast majority of Americans, do not have the brains to be a good president.
 
Herman Cain clearly appeals to a constituency of extremely modest intellectual endowment. Cain is obviously out of his depth on this subject.
 
pbrauer said:
This is just too funny, I would think conservatives would be embarrassed by Herman Cain and toss him.
Click to expand...
The bar has been set very low for Republican presidential candidates.
 
Samhain said:
That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read.
Click to expand...

Why is it so funny? Because it's the truth?

It's well documented that our military and coalition forces under former Pres. GW Bush had OBL surrounded on 3-sides in the mountains of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, and when the military commanders requested to engage him they were ordered to stand down. As such, OBL slipped through their grasp w/o a scratch. How the hell is that funny? I'd think you'd be furious!!! I know I was then and remained so for years afterwards. But I grinned from ear-to-ear and praised Pres. Obama when the news came that he got him!

I don't find it funny that the former leader of the free world proclaimed to the world that "we would make no distinction between the terrorist and those who harbour them," yet let America's #1 enemy and the world's most renouned terrorist get away. There was nothing funny about that at all.

But let's not hijack the thread and turn it into a discussion it's not, shall we. I just think you, sir, are 100% off-base in your remark here.

99percenter said:
Bush was too pro pakistan and respected their sovereignty too much to do what obama did.
Click to expand...

No; the Bush family was too close to the Bin Laden family and did Daddy Bin Laden a favor and let his son walk free. But let's NOT divert the thread, okay?
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
I was really just responding to the point that you should "ask any school child" about China's nuclear capabilities.

And really, nobody is going to know everything about everything. Obama basically admitted that he didn't know a crap load of stuff and said he'd rely on advisors and experts to help inform him as president and that seemed to be okay. The fact that a higher standard would be placed on one candidate than was placed on another is...irritating. Foreign policy can be supplemented by bringing in former ambassadors, speaking with former SecsofState, bringing in other qualified experts, etc. If it's worked for other presidents (surely Obama was not the only one who relied on help from others with more knowledge than he) it can work for the next president(s).

I liken it to Obama's stance on GITMO. He was fixated on closing it down, determined to end its use as an indefinite holding cell for uncharged enemy combatants. He even signed an EO with a precise date for closure. But GITMO didn't close and little was done with many of the ECs being held there. After learning how challenging it would be to find states willing to house these prisoners during and after trial, and after learning the exact details of GITMO's use, the plan changed. Would people say he didn't know enough to be president because he made an uninformed statement about GITMO's practical use? Would people say that he should have known and understood everything about GITMO before he became president? Probably only the hacks, if anybody at all.

So Herman Cain was wrong or distorted regarding China. Now he knows, and hopefully he'll take steps to learn more. If he doesn't, I'll be concerned about his capabilities, but my immediate reaction isn't to label him defective and incapable. You can't possibly know everything, and sometimes you just plain blank on information.
Click to expand...

There is a difference though. I don't recall Obama saying that he would attack China or claim that they're trying to develop a nuclear arsenal that they've had for many decades.

Cain saying that there will be things he will need to learn is perfectly acceptable.

Not learning them and then making bold, factually inaccurate statements that could be perceived as a threat to a sovereign nation...? That's another story.
 
Deuce said:
Cain later claimed he was talking about nuclear-powered aircraft carriers or something, but his phrasing seems to definitely indicate that "nuclear capability" and "aircraft carriers" are two separate items he's worried about...
Click to expand...

If that is his defense, I think it would be a classic case of the big issue being not owning up to his mistake. He would have been well off to say what is probably true: "I have been doing alot of interviews and speeches, and got China and Iran mixed up in my head for a minute and said something I know better than. Oops.". I am not at all concerned about his mistake really and to me this whole thing is kinda a nonissue, except in that if he gets the nomination, it will be an easy campaign add.
 
Gill said:
You actually believe that a man that designed fire control systems of the Navy during the Vietnam war doesn't know China's capability's ???

According to his book, he evaluated China's nuclear missile capabilities including launch trajectories while in the Navy.
Click to expand...

Cain can't remember what he did 20 years ago so I doubt he can remember what he did 36(?) years ago :-D im j/p.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
There is a difference though. I don't recall Obama saying that he would attack China or claim that they're trying to develop a nuclear arsenal that they've had for many decades.

Cain saying that there will be things he will need to learn is perfectly acceptable.

Not learning them and then making bold, factually inaccurate statements that could be perceived as a threat to a sovereign nation...? That's another story.
Click to expand...

Can you say Ubecki becki becki becki stan stan three times real fast?
 
Rough Rider said:
The bar has been set very low for Republican presidential candidates.
Click to expand...
Herman Cain is a conservative radio talk show host and like most of them has never been challenged as to what he says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom