Us Ambassador to Libya killed by Militants

[knapplc]

krill was quoting Aliens, a film which also mentions the great state of Nebraska.

 

-1 to everyone for not knowing that.

Haven't seen it.

[BigRedBuster]

I thought Obama was going to get all of these people to like us.

 

Did you really think that?

 

When he created his administration in Dec 2008 / Jan 2009, he went total hawk in state & defense.

 

Heck no.

 

But, he sure campaigned on it. He claimed that Bush's policies were why the world hated us and that specifically with Iran, we just needed to sit down and talk with them. He said that on a number of occasions and at least once in debates.

 

He turned hawkish when he entered the office because then he was met with the real world. The real world doesn't give a crap about what he campaigned on or what he promised.

 

Over the last 10-20 years could our foreign policy been better? Heck yes. But, reality is, there are very bad people in the world and one region in particular has a lot of them. Sitting down and having tea with them isn't going to make us safer.

[BigRedBuster]

I thought Obama was going to get all of these people to like us.

Just like Bush's Iraq war was going to bring gas back down to $1 a gallon, right?

i think he is poking fun at the perceived notion that liberals thought obama was going to fix everything and make everything better everywhere. no liberals thought that, but i think it is fun for conservatives to think that they did.

 

I wasn't poking fun at liberals because I have absolutely no clue what anyone actually believes. I was poking fun at Obama.

[carlfense]

But, he sure campaigned on it. He claimed that Bush's policies were why the world hated us and that specifically with Iran, we just needed to sit down and talk with them. He said that on a number of occasions and at least once in debates.

Do you think that diplomatically engaging our foes is a bad idea? If so why?

 

 

Such an easy issue to demagogue.

[BigRedBuster]

I know an older Italian man who grew up right down the street from John Gotti. He knew him very well growing up. I had heard the saying...."Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" but to hear him say it really meant something if you know what I mean.

 

Completely cutting off all communication from Iran (for an example) is the wrong approach. Not because you are going to change their mind but it allows you to at least get a feel for what they are doing even if they are trying to cover it up. Does that make sense?

 

We have to engage our foes. But, you're not going to change their attitude about us by sitting down and talking to them. They are still going to hate you and still want to kill you.

 

We can talk all we want with Iran and they still are going to hate us because we support Israel. When I say Iran hates us, I'm talking about the people in power. A large number of Iranians actually like us.

 

I guess from this article, you would have to decide what a precondition is.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...bamas-evolving/

 

When was it that he sat down with them? Bush administration was willing to sit down with them also.

 

BTW....Europe has pretty much always kept the channels of communication open with these countries. Has it helped them avoid terrorist attacks?

[carlfense]

I know an older Italian man who grew up right down the street from John Gotti. He knew him very well growing up. I had heard the saying...."Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" but to hear him say it really meant something if you know what I mean.

 

Completely cutting off all communication from Iran (for an example) is the wrong approach. Not because you are going to change their mind but it allows you to at least get a feel for what they are doing even if they are trying to cover it up. Does that make sense?

 

We have to engage our foes. But, you're not going to change their attitude about us by sitting down and talking to them. They are still going to hate you and still want to kill you.

 

We can talk all we want with Iran and they still are going to hate us because we support Israel. When I say Iran hates us, I'm talking about the people in power. A large number of Iranians actually like us.

 

I guess from this article, you would have to decide what a precondition is.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...bamas-evolving/

 

When was it that he sat down with them? Bush administration was willing to sit down with them also.

 

BTW....Europe has pretty much always kept the channels of communication open with these countries. Has it helped them avoid terrorist attacks?

So what's your criticism exactly? Lack of consistency in that Obama said he would meet without pre-conditions and then later qualified that by saying that he would only meet if it advanced the interests of the US?

 

You seem to be arguing both sides . . . but that Obama is wrong either way.

[knapplc]

It takes two to tango. It's not like Iran is sitting there at the table, everything open for discussion, just waiting for Obama to sit down and get serious.

 

Romney gets elected, exact same thing happens. It happened under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan. Only they were pissing down their legs scared of Reagan.

[Sub-Husker]

I thought Obama was going to get all of these people to like us.

 

Did you really think that?

 

When he created his administration in Dec 2008 / Jan 2009, he went total hawk in state & defense.

 

Heck no.

 

But, he sure campaigned on it. He claimed that Bush's policies were why the world hated us and that specifically with Iran, we just needed to sit down and talk with them. He said that on a number of occasions and at least once in debates.

 

Can you cite that (or anything resembling that) as a campaign promise?

 

He turned hawkish when he entered the office because then he was met with the real world. The real world doesn't give a crap about what he campaigned on or what he promised.

 

Either that, or people who listened to his actual words knew he was on the hawkish side.

 

Which contradicts what you said above.

 

Over the last 10-20 years could our foreign policy been better? Heck yes. But, reality is, there are very bad people in the world and one region in particular has a lot of them. Sitting down and having tea with them isn't going to make us safer.

 

Unfortunately many of the leaders in that region you mentioned are our allies.

[knapplc]

Obama did intend to engage Iran in talks. He made this point many times. Unfortunately, Iran isn't playing ball (go figure, huh?).

 

Blaming Obama for Iran not being serious about peace is silly. But... whatever.

[Sub-Husker]

It takes two to tango. It's not like Iran is sitting there at the table, everything open for discussion, just waiting for Obama to sit down and get serious.

 

Romney gets elected, exact same thing happens. It happened under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan. Only they were pissing down their legs scared of Reagan.

 

Most people don't realize how hot the war was between Iran and the US in the 80s.

 

It led to Iranian Hezbollah blowing up the marine barracks in Beirut, which led to the shooting down of Iran Air 655.

[carlfense]

Can you cite that (or anything resembling that) as a campaign promise?

I don't know if it's a promise exactly . . . but it's pretty close.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?pagewanted=all

[BigRedBuster]

I know an older Italian man who grew up right down the street from John Gotti. He knew him very well growing up. I had heard the saying...."Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" but to hear him say it really meant something if you know what I mean.

 

Completely cutting off all communication from Iran (for an example) is the wrong approach. Not because you are going to change their mind but it allows you to at least get a feel for what they are doing even if they are trying to cover it up. Does that make sense?

 

We have to engage our foes. But, you're not going to change their attitude about us by sitting down and talking to them. They are still going to hate you and still want to kill you.

 

We can talk all we want with Iran and they still are going to hate us because we support Israel. When I say Iran hates us, I'm talking about the people in power. A large number of Iranians actually like us.

 

I guess from this article, you would have to decide what a precondition is.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...bamas-evolving/

 

When was it that he sat down with them? Bush administration was willing to sit down with them also.

 

BTW....Europe has pretty much always kept the channels of communication open with these countries. Has it helped them avoid terrorist attacks?

So what's your criticism exactly? Lack of consistency in that Obama said he would meet without pre-conditions and then later qualified that by saying that he would only meet if it advanced the interests of the US?

 

You seem to be arguing both sides . . . but that Obama is wrong either way.

 

It may seem that way.

 

I am fed up with campaign rhetoric and my views on it may be extremely confusing to understand especially on a message board. A very large part of Obama's campaign was against Bush's foreign policies. One of the major themes of his campaign was how hawkish Bush was and how we need to go talk to them...(yes, he said without precondition). Bush was willing to talk to them but with precondition.

 

So many people who supported him firmly believed that all of a sudden everyone was going to like us because he was going to change our foreign policies. Heck, he won the friggen Nobel Peace Prize for Christs sake without doing anything other than getting elected. That was embarrassing as an American. Do something first and then we will give you an award.

 

My point is, if you are so against how something is being done and because of that you are put in position to do something about it because people supported you then friggen go do it. He hasn't done anything of the sort.

 

If you aren't going to do what you say, then don't criticize the people who are in power trying to make things work. Support them and try to make it a success.

 

I know I am not explaining my views on this very well at all. Sorry.

 

I have the exact same views against conservatives (Bush) on spending. Don't campaign and criticize liberals (democrats) on spending if you are going to come into office and do the exact same thing or worse.

 

I'm just sick and tired of rhetoric and no results.

[BigRedBuster]

Can you cite that (or anything resembling that) as a campaign promise?

I don't know if it's a promise exactly . . . but it's pretty close.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

 

I also posted a link on this earlier.

[carlfense]

I'm just sick and tired of rhetoric and no results.

[Sub-Husker]

Can you cite that (or anything resembling that) as a campaign promise?

 

I don't know if it's a promise exactly . . . but it's pretty close.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

 

Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

 

Both of the two preconditions are known to be non-starters as they are defined by our expectations.

 

And since when has aggressive diplomacy been seen as a sign of weakness (this is an open question to anyone)?