Opens with the classic Lerxst Nuh Uh®
/yawn
This has become your fallback when you lack any sort of intelligent response.
Wrong, it's a completely appropriate comparison. You'll try and dismiss it as inappropriate because it completely destroys your knowledge of how foreign policy is crafted.
/yawn
Prepare for school kid.
It's precisely what is being discussed here.
No, it's not. You decided to try and force the thread that way because you opened your mouth and swallowed your shoe.
Nice try, Not. Sending a message is crafting policy.
No it's not.
Crafting policy is actually
developing policy.
Main Entry:
craft
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
15th century
:
to make or produce with care, skill, or ingenuity <is crafting a new sculpture> <a carefully crafted story>
Communicating a policy already crafted is sending a message. In no way whatsoever was Obama engaged in crafting foreign policy when he offered to meet with Raul Castro and lift the embargo. Why is this so hard for you to get your head around? Using the media as a conduit to transmit a message that expresses a desire to meet and discuss our two nations relationship is a tactic that is born out of foreign policy that's
already been developed by the administration. You just don't walk out and throw that out there if you haven't already put together your first half game plan. This is simply Obama recognizing the new President of Cuba as a legitimate head of state and communicating a desire normalize relations. Wow, sort of like Nixon did with Mao. Only difference here is Mao wouldn't tip his hand and demanded preconditions on Taiwan. Kissinger was sent in because he was
needed at that specific juncture. What Obama was doing didn't require a Kissinger.
Again, you try to divert attention away from your feeble attempt at debate.
I've reframed nothing, merely pointing out your attempt at dodging in order to cover up the fact that you've once again taken up an ignorant position on the subject matter at hand. The nasty habit is yours.
And notice you didn't actually debunk what I stated. You just said "no I didn't, you're just being mean." :rofl
I never said he was. Here you are reframing the argument, you know, what you just accused me of. :lamo
You absolutely made that argument when you started moving the goal posts around and bringing up why he should have sent a lesser diplomat instead of speaking to those leaders himself. Hell, all he did was make statements to the media about his willingness to meet with Castro and discuss relations, like Nixon did when he was seeking a face to face with Mao.
When I challenged you on that you began bringing comparison of Kissinger and Brady to validate your case. It was an inappropriate comparison because the situations now and then are very different. You were making the argument that Obama was out of line for not sending someone like Clinton in there first to "lay ground work and reach agreements in principle." This wasn't a case of Obama trying to deal with a nuclear armed superpower during the Cold War. There is nothing for Clinton to go in and negotiate right now as we don't have an invitation to come down and begin actually negotiating agreements. The first in this case is for the heads of state to agree there is commons ground, and it's very politically strong to announce this on the world stage. This is about thawing relations, extending an olive branch of sorts to show the world that our President isn't above recognizing the leader of a hostile nation without preconditions. This is very important because you absolutely must take personalities into account. When you snub a world leader simply because you are ideologically opposed or because you subscribe to the strategy of "let's not legitimize them" then you are being insulting. Nothing positive comes of this unless it is your goal to maintain frosty relations.
I don't know if you realize this or not, but Fidel Castro is no longer the President of Cuba, Raul Castro is. I don't care what that old bag of **** said, Raul Castro is in power. There is plenty of speculation right now that Raul and Fidel have different ideas about the future between the U.S. and Cuba.
No, the discussion was Obama blundering by giving a statement that backfired, in which I pointed out that that is showing how ignorant he is on foreign policy.
Not at that point it wasn't. The argument had evolved past that point. And your assertion that Obama is ignorant of foreign policy is rich consider the colossal pile of excrement your argument here is.
Again, you're trying to reframe the argument. I clearly stated that they go in to lay the groundwork.
Except that we weren't at that stage of negotiations so your bringing it up was both inappropriate and off base given the reasons you were criticizing Obama. There was no ground work to be laid for what was taking place. Obama was simply sending a message on the world stage and the President of Cuba responded positively. The ex-President of Cuba didn't like what Raul had to say and he voiced his opinion. Big deal. Fidel's time is over. It's like Bush coming out and saying "Obama is wrong in what he said." Nobody would care but W nut huggers.
My examples are spot on. Clearly showing how foreign policy is implemented and carried out.
You didn't clearly show anything. You used a poor comparisons to what the actual situation between Obama and Castro was. I went into more detail about Kissingers mission in China than you did and showed absolutely why your comparison was poor. In fact Obama is taking at least a similar approach in publicly stating he would meet with Raul Castro, like Nixon publicly stated he desired to travel to China and speak with Mao. Nixon wasn't "crafting foreign policy" with those statements, nor is Obama doing that here. They were sending messages based on foreign policy they have already at least partially framed out. The mere fact that they are making overtures of that nature means that some degree of policy work has already been done.
You're problem here is that you really don't know what you are talking about...hence your injection of Brady and insinuating that he had some meaningful role in the downfall of Communism in eastern Europe. This alone sheds a massive white light on your level of understanding of the subject matter.
Your boy Obama has shown repeatedly he doesn't understand how to reach out through diplomatic channels in order to engage properly his foreign policy messege.
That is your opinion. And you base it only on the fact that you don't like him. You don't have the foggiest clue as to what proper amounts to here. The fact that the President of Cuba was so quick to respond positively to Obama's overture is evidence that he sincerely interested discussing the future between our nations.
Here you are, trying to defend the baffoon and his lack of knowledge on foreign policy implementation with your own inept interpretation of it.
No, I'm just here pointing out how moronic your argument is. You have no choice but to pluck posts out of context and then try to use them as some sort of evidence.
That's all you have.
Here we go, the famous Lerxst "I'm right your wrong because I said so" codswallup.
I'm right because I'm right and you have done nothing to prove me wrong. You're case here wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate club.
With the typical follow up of "Me and my two friends here at DP don't like you" whine.
Yeah, and you might want to see if University of Phoenix Online has math classes available. More of the
GottaHurt Sniffle®. :rofl
Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I see you using many of my techniques now, and targeting myself & Palin quite frequently.
Technique? It's called mockery. You get that a lot here in case you didn't notice.
No, I just enjoy walking you into the floor on things like this.
