• 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!

U.S. Foreign Policy

What do you think about the U.S. Foriegn Policy?

  • Right

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Wrong

    Votes: 10 66.7%

  • In the Middle

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Other *Explain*

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
L

Lukas105

Active member
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
368
Reaction score
134
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Watch the video and vote on what you think.





Is the U.S. Foreign Policy wrong?
 
Lukas105 said:
Watch the video and vote on what you think.

Is the U.S. Foreign Policy wrong?
Click to expand...

Seen it and yes our foreign policy is wrong (Accidentally voted right)

Here's a better video about how our foreign policy has changed for the worse:
 
Lukas105 said:
Watch the video and vote on what you think.





Is the U.S. Foreign Policy wrong?
Click to expand...


I have some problems with Ron, most of all for giving us Rand, but during the Republican debates he was the sanest of the group, yet the media never took him seriously and treated him like he was a kook ... it was shameful ... he'd come in second in a primary and journalists would only talk about the folks who came in first, third, and fourth ... there's a great deal of truth in his speech ... we've replaced democratically elected presidents with dictators numerous times, and enabled them with arms to wipe out segments of their populations (we have the blood of of tens of thousands of people, many of them poor peasants, on our hands, but seem not to care) ... and we wonder why we're not universally loved as a country ...
 
What is the U.S. foreign policy?
 
I support democratic empire, so I'm not your man.
 
Most simplistic poll ever? The answer is way more varied than the options given.
 
Lukas105 said:
Watch the video and vote on what you think.





Is the U.S. Foreign Policy wrong?
Click to expand...


All Ron Paul did was ask a lot of questions with out any answers. After 24 "what if's" I stopped counting.

If Paul were to have replaced the "what if's" with "I" I would have thought Barack Obama was speaking.

Is the U.S. foreign policy wrong ? Looking at the Middle East and how it has become a complete basket case since Obama became POTUS, it's a dead giveaway that Obama's foreign policies have been a complete failure and are wrong.
 
There are lots of things I admire about America. Its foreign policy isn't one of them.
 
APACHERAT said:
Is the U.S. foreign policy wrong ? Looking at the Middle East and how it has become a complete basket case since Obama became POTUS, it's a dead giveaway that Obama's foreign policies have been a complete failure and are wrong.
Click to expand...

Its not just him. Bush did exactly the same thing. Bush entered the middle east (both of them!) and has left it as a America hating breeding ground for dissent, both Bush and Obama have stayed in the middle east. You cannot blame just Obama for the disastrous foreign policies look back and concede that Bush did the same. Difference is Obama has a Nobel peace prize which is quite ironic.
 
Spriggs05 said:
Its not just him. Bush did exactly the same thing. Bush entered the middle east (both of them!) and has left it as a America hating breeding ground for dissent, both Bush and Obama have stayed in the middle east. You cannot blame just Obama for the disastrous foreign policies look back and concede that Bush did the same. Difference is Obama has a Nobel peace prize which is quite ironic.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

G.W. Bush approach was "an enemy is an enemy, kill them before the kill you". Bush also realized after 9/11 that for decades, it's been the exact same people continuously supporting and backing terrorist, so started a fight to remove any regime that supported terrorism.

Obama's approach is "kiss your enemies ass as much as possible and maybe they won't go ahead and kill you." Obama did back rebels in Lybia, but they don't like us much more than Kadafi did and now he wants to support rebels against Assad, even though most of those rebels are just as anti-American as Assad is.

Also, we were in the middle east long before most people had heard of either Bush. We supported the Shaw in Iran before Ayatollah Khomeini ousted him. And the greatest sin of America, from the Muslim point of view, is that we are friends with Israel. Something that goes way back. As long as we are friends with Israel, we will never have peace from the middle east and there will always be terrorist attacking us. Unless of course we take them out before they attack us.
 
Our foreign policy is destructive.

We have spread ourselves around the world. What happens when an empire attempts to control the world? It collapses under its own immense weight due to economic issues (usually).

We cannot and should not be saviors of the world. We have so many issues to deal with here from immigration to infrastructure to major economic woes. Do they care? No...we always have to have an enemy. There always has to be a threat.

People who buy into that nonsense are very foolish.
 
DVSentinel said:
Obama's approach is "kiss your enemies ass as much as possible and maybe they won't go ahead and kill you." Obama did back rebels in Lybia, but they don't like us much more than Kadafi did and now he wants to support rebels against Assad, even though most of those rebels are just as anti-American as Assad is.
Click to expand...
Yeah - that's why there's such a big stink about all the drone strikes because Obama is really kissing their ass instead of having them killed? :lol:

The difference is, Pakistan's isn't at war with us even though we're clearly carrying out military missions inside their territory. In fact, last I looked, they're still letting us maintain a supply line through their country regardless of the drone and special forces strikes.


Bush was an arrogant ass that threw our weight around and pissed a lot of people off for no reason other than ego.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
I disagree.

G.W. Bush approach was "an enemy is an enemy, kill them before the kill you". Bush also realized after 9/11 that for decades, it's been the exact same people continuously supporting and backing terrorist, so started a fight to remove any regime that supported terrorism.

Obama's approach is "kiss your enemies ass as much as possible and maybe they won't go ahead and kill you." Obama did back rebels in Lybia, but they don't like us much more than Kadafi did and now he wants to support rebels against Assad, even though most of those rebels are just as anti-American as Assad is.

Also, we were in the middle east long before most people had heard of either Bush. We supported the Shaw in Iran before Ayatollah Khomeini ousted him. And the greatest sin of America, from the Muslim point of view, is that we are friends with Israel. Something that goes way back. As long as we are friends with Israel, we will never have peace from the middle east and there will always be terrorist attacking us. Unless of course we take them out before they attack us.
Click to expand...

To me they have the same foreign policies on Afghanistan however Obama simply doesn't want to intervene in Syria and we only backed the Libyan Rebels as Libya has large oil reserves. Bush would have been a catastrophe for Libya and Syria from an international relations standpoint between America and the middle east and Muslim communities there.
Also if those regimes were supporting terrorism against America what was the motive? Why did/do they dislike America? Yes being friends with Israel is a factor in this however it is not the only factor and it is one of the biggest but not the greatest "sin" of America. Bush's Approach was to "win the hearts and minds" through kidnapping, torture and maltreatment of prisoners. Obama's approach was to drone strike and pretend to close Gitmo. Both are flawed.

Also check up on spelling
Lybia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
MoSurveyor said:
Yeah - that's why there's such a big stink about all the drone strikes because Obama is really kissing their ass instead of having them killed? :lol:

The difference is, Pakistan's isn't at war with us even though we're clearly carrying out military missions inside their territory. In fact, last I looked, they're still letting us maintain a supply line through their country regardless of the drone and special forces strikes.


Bush was an arrogant ass that threw our weight around and pissed a lot of people off for no reason other than ego.
Click to expand...

Bush's arrogance is a matter of opinion, I don't see it, but hey, you perceive it your way.

What affect are the drone strikes actually having on Terrorism? Do they deter it in any way? Is the loss of a few leaders actually hurting any of the organizations? Has there been any decrease in terrorism world wide as a result of these drone strikes? Or are they a non-effective way for Obama to say "look, I'm doing something"?
 
Spriggs05 said:
To me they have the same foreign policies on Afghanistan however Obama simply doesn't want to intervene in Syria and we only backed the Libyan Rebels as Libya has large oil reserves. Bush would have been a catastrophe for Libya and Syria from an international relations standpoint between America and the middle east and Muslim communities there.
Also if those regimes were supporting terrorism against America what was the motive? Why did/do they dislike America? Yes being friends with Israel is a factor in this however it is not the only factor and it is one of the biggest but not the greatest "sin" of America. Bush's Approach was to "win the hearts and minds" through kidnapping, torture and maltreatment of prisoners. Obama's approach was to drone strike and pretend to close Gitmo. Both are flawed.

Also check up on spelling
Lybia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Bush would never of had to deal with Libya during the rebellion. He was out of office. Perhaps if you have any insight into how McCain would of handled it, that would be a legitimate comparison. Bush planed to take out both Syria and Libya on list of terror sponsors, so his approach was not in anyway formulated upon a rebellion happening in either place. Unfortunately, while I believe Bush had the right idea and right attitude towards terrorism, I cannot say he had a good plan. In fact, I would say how he carried it out pretty much sucked ass.

While I am critical of Obama's handling of the situation, I am not in anyway comparing it to Bush. Bush had served two terms and was gone, period. He wasn't even an option for that time period.
 
i think that we should go back to being a country. if the world wants an army, it should form and fund one. a better solution at this point would be regional policing. for example, if Mexico were to become like NK, then it becomes our problem. we simply cannot police every region, nor should we.
 
DVSentinel said:
Bush's arrogance is a matter of opinion, I don't see it, but hey, you perceive it your way.

What affect are the drone strikes actually having on Terrorism? Do they deter it in any way? Is the loss of a few leaders actually hurting any of the organizations? Has there been any decrease in terrorism world wide as a result of these drone strikes? Or are they a non-effective way for Obama to say "look, I'm doing something"?
Click to expand...
Yeah - a matter of world opinion and the world decided he was an arrogant ass, too.


One could ask the same questions about the Iraqi, which was - supposedly - not even connected to terrorism.

The war in Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11 and has moved to northern Pakistan. So, yes, any involvement there is just as justified and just as effective as being in Afghanistan. Bush himself proclaimed Osama Bin Laden to be Public Enemy #1 - and failed to either find him or kill him. Is he still alive? Nope. Where was he found and killed? Northern Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Yeah - a matter of world opinion and the world decided he was an arrogant ass, too.


One could ask the same questions about the Iraqi, which was - supposedly - not even connected to terrorism.

The war in Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11 and has moved to northern Pakistan. So, yes, any involvement there is just as justified and just as effective as being in Afghanistan. Bush himself proclaimed Osama Bin Laden to be Public Enemy #1 - and failed to either find him or kill him. Is he still alive? Nope. Where was he found and killed? Northern Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Actually, Iraq had very strong ties to terrorism prior to Desert Storm. After, not so much since the UN was sitting on them. As I pointed out elsewhere, we also could not move forces away from Iraq without that situation being settled.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Bush announced that we would be taking out all terrorist and sponsors of terrorism, including taking down governments that sponsored it or harbored terrorists. It's not hard to look back and see that the same places and faces kept showing up time and time again. If we wanted no future attacks, then take out all the players, not just the one. The War on Terror was never just about Osama Bin Laden.

If your friends trust you and your enemies fear you, then that is good. Bush put us on that track, or at least tried to. His idea was good, his ability to carry it out, not so good.
 
DVSentinel said:
Actually, Iraq had very strong ties to terrorism prior to Desert Storm. After, not so much since the UN was sitting on them. As I pointed out elsewhere, we also could not move forces away from Iraq without that situation being settled.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Bush announced that we would be taking out all terrorist and sponsors of terrorism, including taking down governments that sponsored it or harbored terrorists. It's not hard to look back and see that the same places and faces kept showing up time and time again. If we wanted no future attacks, then take out all the players, not just the one. The War on Terror was never just about Osama Bin Laden.

If your friends trust you and your enemies fear you, then that is good. Bush put us on that track, or at least tried to. His idea was good, his ability to carry it out, not so good.
Click to expand...
The 'War on Terror' was just fear mongering and pandering to the knee jerk reaction America had to 9/11. Terrorism has been a fact of life for most of the world for many decades and even we've been subject to it from time to time long before 9/11 or even 2/26/93.


You have a narrow definition of 'friend' if you believed that bull.
 
Lukas105 said:
Watch the video and vote on what you think.





Is the U.S. Foreign Policy wrong?
Click to expand...


I voted other. I think Ron Paul is a stupid old man and those who vote for him should be embarrassed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom