Name the countries made safer, better or more secure by the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton/ John Kerry foreign policy.
Go ahead, I'll wait. *pours fresh cup of coffee*
Never mind the obscure little countries that nobody ever hears about, just look at the medium to larger countries.
I did this last night during an hour of sleeplessness. I sat down next to the globe (outdated because some countries keep changing their names) and looked at each continent.
South America? No real improvements here, and much economic decline. Lots of al-Qaeda movement into some areas to set up footholds.
Africa? No good news here, either in sub-Saharan Africa, or northern Africa. Too much violence, too many wars, too much poverty. And al-Qaeda is making big, violent swings through some parts. Don't forget the Chinese, who are making a very big presence in the mineral rich parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
Europe? Germany is the only European nation that is showing some signs of improvement, but only because of the economic conservatism of Angela Merkel. And the smaller Eastern European nations are less secure because the umbrella of American protection against Russian hegemony is beginning to fold.
Asia? Japan is feeling threats from China and has taken steps necessary to build its own massive military. India is being infiltrated by Muslim terrorists, as are smaller Asian countries.
North America? Mexico is still a drug-addled mess. Canada is benign. The US is floundering economically and has a weakened military.
My late night list of countries made better/stronger/ more secure by the administration's policies came down to these:
China
Russia
Iran
North Korea
They told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney, the axis of evil countries would become stronger. And they were right!
Discuss.
64 comments:
Like everything else all the bad ideas and incompetence are fulfilling Rev Wright's prediction.
PS This includes the fact that 73% of US A-stan casualties are since 1/21/09.
The answer is obvious. Mexico. They were provided with a lot of weapons that the average American can't buy. So, there's that.
What we need to do is get those four countries into a war against each other. Maybe if Barack leads the U.N. next we can get there.
Another area where Obama supporters seem entirely impervious to reason. Obama can't be making foreign policy mistakes. He's not Bush.
Allen - The same applies to some really bad middle eastern countries.
Iraq was on its way to success -then Obama ruined our blood and treasure by removing our presence there. We still have people in Japan and Germany for crying out loud.
Iran is absolutely in a stronger position thanks to Hussein.
China is trickier to figure out. China is holding a mountain of U.S. debt and it has to be dawning on the commies in charge that our commie in charge has no interest in reigning in U.S. spending, which means that endgame will be default on our debt. Enter from stage left -- WW III.
Oops. Reining in.
Iraq was on its way to success -then Obama ruined our blood and treasure by removing our presence there.
My blood boils on that. One can argue against the Iraq War for many reasons, but throwing away our sacrifices there afterward did no one any good except Iran, Islamists, and small-minded Democrats who want Iraq to be a failure.
Africa will be the front at which the great Christian/Islamic war of this century occurs.
I'd say that the U.S.A. is safer now that we know just how badly the government can fuck something up. We had our suspicions, but damn!
Remember that kid that used to get the atomic wedgies and would be just hanging on the fence a couple times a week, but never stood up for himself? Unfortunately, we have a lot of voters like that.
Compared to George W. Bush's policies?
That's easy. The United States.
Washington DC is becoming one of the richest places on earth. It is a country unto itself. Needs more knockout game.
As I understand it, Iraq refused to sign a SOFA agreement, and Obama would not stay without it.
I suspect the overall plan is to keep the ME warring amongst themselves, and for Iran to become the regional hegemon. I know this isn't a popular view here, but I think it's the right way to go. Now where's April?
phx: How is the US better off under Obama than under Bush?
Liberals practically seem to say Obama is better by definition because he is not George Bush. Leaving liberal animus towards Bush aside, how in real terms is the US better?
Economy?
Foreign policy?
Employment?
Healthcare?
Transparent government?
National polarization?
Law-abiding executive branch?
National deficit?
National debt?
Guantanamo?
Drone killings?
Global warming?
National security invasiveness?
Blocking Iranian nuclear weapon?
International respect?
Aside from killing Bin Laden it's hard to see much that people can agree upon is better under Obama.
There's blocking oil production, stacking the courts with liberals, favoring gay marriage and other such items that are to Obama's credit if one likes those.
But otherwise, what are the slam-dunk reasons and results supporting your claim that the US is better under Obama?
My answer to all of this is all too dispiriting but-all-too-true analysis is to go out and lay-in another case of "Rhume" Barbancourt 5-Star..
Creeley - that is a f-ing great list and supports the argument that Obama is a huge f-ing failure.
But otherwise, what are the slam-dunk reasons and results supporting your claim that the US is better under Obama?
Well, he's black isn't he? That was the goal, wasn't it?
I suspect the overall plan is to keep the ME warring amongst themselves, and for Iran to become the regional hegemon. I know this isn't a popular view here, but I think it's the right way to go.
That means Israel disappears, right? And you're okay with that?
"Well, he's black isn't he? That was the goal, wasn't it?"
Even that is, at best, a 50% success. So yea, he has streak going right from the git go.
He has managed to lose millions of people their health insurance, designed the weakest recovery in history, and blow 22 hoop shots in a row. I'm not sure which of those is hardest to do, but it is fucking amazing work.
The frightening thing is that a lot of people believe the cure for the things listed by Creely at 2:18 is Hillary Clinton.
PHX - Please name for me a GWB policy. Any policy will do.
Lydia:
"That means Israel disappears, right?..."
I disagree with your conclusion.
Iran denies the validity of the state of Israel and it supports Hezbollah in its aim of destroying Israel. But if it were the dominant power in the Middle East, Israel would have nothing to worry about?
phx is just a bad sniper. He takes a shot; misses badly, then retreats.
deborah: Keeping the Muslims fighting each other is OK by me, but I don't see that's what Obama and Kerry are intending.
Their foreign policy mostly seems to be about kneecapping Israel, dissing the UK and central Europe, attempting to curry favor with Muslims, and avoiding foreign involvement unless someone else leads the parade. Syria looked like a misfire based on incautious rhetoric and an effort to play the strong leader.
Overall Obama seems to be the anti-Bush who wants to downplay American exceptionalism and American power, and corral the US into the UN global system.
He doesn't particularly mind if the Iranians get nuclear weapons. He still seems to believe he is a transformational figure in history who can accomplish great things through speeches, charisma, and brilliance.
They would have something to worry about...everyone there hates them. And those who are non-aggressive toward them have been bought off by the US. I favor Iran and the other Shiite nations as the less bat-shit crazy Muslims, and trust them more not to destroy Israel, given the proper negotiations and treaties.
At the beginning of the Iraq War, Iran sent a letter through a third party, volunteering to give up their nuclear program. Bush, etc., declined. They also agreed at the beginning of the Afghanistan War to recover any downed pilots in their territory while flying missions in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the ones who flew into the WTC were almost all Saudi.
The terrorist activities of Iran's Quds Force throughout the Middle East and in Africa, plus an unclear relationship with Al Qaeda, indicate a pretty high level of bat-shit craziness to me. Or maybe it's more diabolical cunning.
deborah: I dunno. There are plenty of wacko-dangerous Muslims coming out of Saudi, no doubt. OTOH we have had a working relationship of a sort with Saudi Arabia since they developed their oil.
Iran has been our nonstop enemy since the Shah was overthrown and American hostages from the Embassy were taken and held. The government and its people speak openly of America and Israel as their enemy. Then there is the bat-shit looniness of the 12th Imam apocalypticism among the Shia.
I'll take Saudi Arabia over Iran any day. I don't trust Iran at all not to attack Israel. I never heard of their offer to give up their nuclear program before the Iraq War. Cite?
Deborah - I'm not an expert at the migraine inducing details of Persian/Arab/Muslim politics, factionalism and tribalism. I look at what exists and try to understand that.
And what I see now is the nearly unimaginable cooperation of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in defending themselves against threats from and attack by Iran.
When the Jew hating Arabs want help from Israel against Iran, it's a pretty safe bet that Iran is not a well-intentioned country.
creely:
"Their foreign policy mostly seems to be about kneecapping Israel, dissing the UK and central Europe, attempting to curry favor with Muslims, and avoiding foreign involvement unless someone else leads the parade. Syria looked like a misfire based on incautious rhetoric and an effort to play the strong leader.
Overall Obama seems to be the anti-Bush who wants to downplay American exceptionalism and American power, and corral the US into the UN global system."
Netanyahu has been trying to strong-arm Obama, and Obama pushed back. Israel won't so much as halt building in the West Bank as a show of good faith. I mean it when I say I don't have a dog in the fight between Israel and the rest; they're all half-crazy and doing their very special state-craft.
It was a great relief to me Obama backed down on Syria, and I don't care that he looked like Putin's bitch in doing it.
Yes, we are basically moving into a New World Order/Neoliberalistic age, and there's not much to do about it. I don't think he's dropping the exceptionalism so much as down-playing it.
creely:
"Iran has been our nonstop enemy since the Shah was overthrown and American hostages from the Embassy were taken and held. The government and its people speak openly of America and Israel as their enemy. Then there is the bat-shit looniness of the 12th Imam apocalypticism among the Shia.
I'll take Saudi Arabia over Iran any day. I don't trust Iran at all not to attack Israel. I never heard of their offer to give up their nuclear program before the Iraq War. Cite?"
Well, there's a lot of water under the bridge since we installed the Shah in '53 via CIA coup, so I'm willing to start over.
I'll look for the cite...
Lydia:
"The terrorist activities of Iran's Quds Force throughout the Middle East and in Africa, plus an unclear relationship with Al Qaeda, indicate a pretty high level of bat-shit craziness to me. Or maybe it's more diabolical cunning."
We'll see how it shakes out.
John Kerry made the claim about the nuclear deal Iran was willing to cut with Bush. The Wash. Post Fact Checker looked into it and concluded:
"It was not an offer, but a vague listing of U.S. aims and Iranian aims to start off a diplomatic process — which came from the Swiss, not even from Iran. There were no actual specifics concerning the nuclear program; there is notably no mention of halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions."
Oops, they only volunteered to make their program more transparent:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6274147.stm
Jeez little Debbie are you applying for the Cedarford Chair in Middle Eastern Studies?
How could you possibly say that you would not choose between Israel and Iran?
One a democracy that has been our firm ally for generations.
The other the funding source for terrorism for decades.
It boggles the mind.
Thanks, Lydia, that was informative. Toward the end, this section holds up the spirit of my point:
"Update, Dec. 13: There is another wrinkle to this story.
In a little noticed interview in 2012, Rouhani described how the U.N. nuclear chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, had rushed to Tehran after an autumn 2004 meeting with Bush to say the president was interested in a broad dialogue with Iran. “Bush had told ElBaradei that he was not familiar with the situation in Iran and who has the ultimate power, but an Iranian representative with the authority to make a deal should go to the U.S. and Bush himself would personally lead the negotiations,” Rouhani recounted.
But Rouhani said that, after internal debate, Iran rejected what he described as an American initiative. “At that time, the decision was that we should not negotiate with the U.S.,” he said.
ElBaradei, in his recent memoir “The Age of Deception,” describes the meeting but says Bush’s comment came after he presented a note from Rouhani, “without a letterhead or signature,” requesting a dialogue “on all issues, including both Iran’s nuclear program and broad matters of regional security.” According to ElBaradei, Bush responded: “I’d like to talk leader to leader, but I am not sure that Iran is ready to engage.”
ElBaradei wrote that he thought that “Bush was, in his own way, confirming my view that a U.S.-Iran dialogue could bring multiple and mutual benefits.” But when ElBaradei conveyed key elements of the discussion with Bush, the Iranians were indignant about Bush’s skepticism about Iran’s readiness for dialogue. The Iranians noted that Bush had placed Iran on the “axis of evil” after assisting on Afghanistan. Nothing came of the exchange.
Rice, asked about these discussions, said in an email that she does not recall Bush receiving such a piece of paper from Rouhani but does remember the meeting and said it was correct that Bush “never wanted to get ‘stuck’ on just the nuclear issue.” She said Bush’s remarks to ElBaradei “probably shouldn’t have been thought of as a formal offer to negotiate but rather a probe” to see if the Iranian leadership was truly interested in a dialogue.
“The President didn’t want to hear from Rouhani — he wanted to hear from Khamenei,” she recalled. “He was always suspicious (not without cause) that the Iranians were split on the question of the U.S. and that he might end up negotiating with un-empowered people.”"
Israel has sold military secrets from weaponry we gave them, in the form of military aid, to China. Israel sank one of our Naval ships, the USS Liberty. Israel has spied on us, e.g., Pollard and others.
I like you, guy, but when the subject is politics, don't try to call me a Jew-hater.
"Name the countries made safer, better or more secure by the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton/ John Kerry foreign policy."
Wow, so the USA has the power to make other countries better?
Really? I don't think we do.
Not only that I thought the purpose of our Foreign Policy was to make the *USA* safer and more secure. But Evidently we sort of World policeman/nanny who exists to "Give to Others".
I find it an odd attitude, but then I'm Un-American, being neither a Tub-Thumping world crusader nor a Mrs. Jellyby.
Leaving aside the question of Israel, you gotta love the way Kerry turned the whole current Iran negotiating mess over to Bush with what he knew was a lie, leaving the impression that if only Bush had grasped the wonderful deal Iran had offered, the great Obama/Kerry team wouldn't have to bring a miracle to bear.
And, once again, misinformation gets out there without strong rebuttal. Or at least I haven't heard it.
It's what you are willing to accept at face value that gets you killed. The idea that Iran would give up their nuclear ambitions for anything is one of those. Iran is run entirely by men, very religious idealistic men of a particular ideology that admires strength, revenge, and patience over all else. If you understand such humans, you would never realistically expect them to give up such a thing for trinkets, or money, or peace.
They will tolerate Israel only so long as they are forced to by their instinct for survival, and even more by their desire to win eventually. These are not men of our standards, of our proclivities, or of our weaknesses. It's very dangerous when only one side recognizes this.
For example, what's the difference between you and a vicious street thug? You both enjoy laughter, food, love, beauty even; but peace, cooperation, tolerance, and compromise. Only one of you values that, and that makes all the difference about how you should view, and respect their options, and anticipate their actions.
They have a view of you too, and what they expect from you. It's important that they not be mistaken.
"I would guess they're more interested in being under our nuclear umbrella than having an actual affinity with Israel."
Now why would anyone need an umbrella in that desert?
@deborah & Trooper: You are the same side.
Please don't infight.
Discuss
Depress.
Interesting point, Lydia. I've been out of the loop, and hadn't even heard that Kerry had brought up/misued that issue.
bago:
"They will tolerate Israel only so long as they are forced to by their instinct for survival, and even more by their desire to win eventually. These are not men of our standards, of our proclivities, or of our weaknesses. It's very dangerous when only one side recognizes this."
The negotiations in mind are not to allow them to build weapons, but to use nuclear energy for fuel/to produce electricity. The sanctions we used were effective in bringing them to the table. They were really hurting financially. Plus, they don't have their own refineries to make gasoline. It won't do them much good to have nukes if the world withholds financial interaction.
Chick, we're not fighting, we're communicating :) Troop knows I love him.
@deb: amor vincit omnia
Deborah, how do you take Iran's side in this?
Iran has made known its wish to build nuclear weapons which it intends to destroy Israel and begin the process of restoring the so-called Islamist caliphate with it's capital in Jerusalem.
You said that Iran needs nuke plants because it has no oil refineries. That is not correct. Iran has nine major refineries If it needs more refining capacity, it can build more refineries.
Why do you take the side of the country that is virulently anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-woman, and anti-liberty?
What Iran has demonstrated over and over is that it uses negotiations to win, not to compromise for peace. Sure they will say whatever it takes to get you to agree to help them toward their objectives, even if they are in direct conflict with yours or peace or anything else. Believing that these men are negotiating as some understand it, is like saying a baited trap is a food offering. I'm sorry, but to me it's just really dumb, and it follows a long history of similar dumb. It's a mistake made over and over, and often with terrible results, but in this case were just talking about nuclear weapons and the future of Jews, so maybe it's different this time.
This isn't even an Iranian thing. This is an ancient human trait among dictatorial, oppressive regimes bent on accumulating power. Hell, it even common just in business negotiation or family relations.
If you watch the "Shahs of Sunset" you realize that the Iranians are terrible people and not to be trusted.
Thank you, Michael. The no refinery thing has been out there a while; I first heard it years ago. I should have questioned it, but I think the logic was they could export crude and buy gasoline more cheaply than would justify the cost of building refineries, or something.
As far as being virulently anti-Semitic, Iran is the Muslim country with the largest number of Jews. And interestingly, Jews fought with the Muslims in the Iran-Iraq War:
"Jews are conscripted into the Iranian army like all Iranian citizens. Many Iranian Jews fought during the Iran-Iraq war (1980–1988) as drafted soldiers, and about 150 were killed.[59]
Most Iranian Jews say that they view Iran as their home and are allowed to practice Judaism freely.[60]"
As far as women's rights, please read in wiki, 'women's rights in Saudi Arabia' and 'women's rights in Iran,' and let me know which country you think treats their women better.
As far as wanting to destroy Israel, they all want Israel gone. Ones like Egypt and Jordan are paid off to keep the peace. Saudi and the Emirates we buy oil from. I think we are playing chess and currently have a comfortable stalemate.
Bags, thanks, please see my reply to Haz.
Troop, I'll watch it if I can find it, thanks.
Anksthay ickchay.
I think the clever Iranian mullahs are probably using the remaining Jews in Iran for PR purposes. From a 2006 Jewish Weekly article:
" 'Every Iranian Jew who had the financial possibility or courage has already left,' and those who remain behind are living in fear, according to Iranian-born Menashe Amir, the host of a Persian-language radio show that Israel beams to Iran. In a recent interview, Amir said that 'While there are Jewish schools, the principals and most of the teachers are Muslim, the Bible is taught in Farsi [Persian], not in Hebrew, and the schools are forced to open on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. So while the regime declares that there is freedom of religion, it is all just for the sake of appearances.'
The interviewer added: 'Jewish leaders are reluctant to draw attention to incidences of mistreatment of their community, due to fear of government reprisal, along with fear of being arrested or accused of being spies.' They have not forgotten how 13 Iranian Jews were jailed in 1999 on trumped-up espionage charges. It was only after an intense international protest campaign that they were finally freed after several years of brutal incarceration."
Also, Iran has about 9,000 Jews; Turkey, a Muslim country, has about 15,000. And that Iran number has dropped from about 35,000 in the mid-1990s.
Hey let's stir the pot on a slow Saturday afternoon.
My dear Holmes,
It is your most humble petitioner, Inspector Lestrade. It has been quite some time since I have last requested your assistance in the troubling matter of the disappearance
of Lord Douchebag and the obscene affairs of the odious Lady Chatterley and her grass stained lover. Today I must ask for assistance in an entirely different matter.
We here at the Yard are well aware of the secret work you brother Mycroft does with the Foreign office. It is the reason we have not inquired too closely into the comings and goings of various swarthy sepoy’s and tattooed lascars in his rooms at the club. However a recent difficulty with certain foreign powers has caused some concern with my superiors and I would like to address them with you.
It seems that your brother has obtained a strange and perverted friendship with a young baker who has an establishment strangely enough right on Baker’s Street. It is not inconceivable that your brother might conceive a friendship with a tradesman. What is strange is that this tradesman is in fact a woman. We are well aware of Mr. Mycroft Holmes affinity for snack cakes and pastries but in all of our experience we have yet to see him attempt social intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. This of course led to some interest from my superiors if only because of the secrets entrusted to his care.
It seems that this hoyden has tempted your brother with delicious snack cakes and pastries to such a degree that he is passing some state secrets that were best kept in the confines of the Foreign office. Our investigation has shown that he might not even be aware of this but that his greed for tasty sugary treats has loosened not only his considerable bowels but his tongue as well.
As I am sure you are aware the Foreign office has been in negotiation with the Sultan of Araby regarding some mining concessions and coaling stations on the coast of Persia. This exotic and secretive land has long been a source of contention among the great powers. Now it seems they have resources that her Majesty’s government must access in the most expeditious manner possible. However the internal affairs of this despotic pesthole have precluded direct discussions. It seems the attacks and murders of their Hebrew citizens have been so scandalous that Prime Minister Disraeli has refused to negotiate with them. This would seem to stem from the fact that Dizzy is in fact a Hebrew but it also can be ascribed to the barbarous behavior of these carpet fanciers. Negotiations have stalled.
Your brother has been the one voice who has stood firm against the Prime Minister in this matter. I have been charged with determining whether this is his own belief or the influence of his new friend. It seems this baker has some animus towards those of the Hebraic persuasion and might unduly influence your brother by withholding her tasty treats as it were. I would ask for your indulgence in this matter and your assistance in getting to the bottom of this matter.
As an aside with regards to bottoms you might assure your brother that we have hushed up the recent incident that he was involved with at the orphanage. He will of course have to accept the fact that he will not be able to foster the young untouchable that he had wanted to adopt from the slums of Delhi. This issue is closed and should not factor into your discussion regarding the Persians and the Jews.
My best to Doctor Watson and I hope he is recovered from his recent bout with pink eye. When last I saw him he was squinting to such a degree that I ventured to jest that he had begun to resemble a Chinese woman. Please assure him that was not in fact an allusion to the size of his breasts. We all increase in weight as we age. I trust he will forgive my impertinence and join you in your efforts in this matter.
I remain as always,
Your obedient servant,
Inspector G. Lestrade
November 12, 1898
Sorry but you know me.
I like to be a dick.
Merry Christmas.
Lestrade,
I am once again in your debt for bringing to my attention the antics of my wayward brother. The baker on Baker Street, the tasty cake provider you mention, is none other than our chief espionage agent in the region of which you speak. She has long admired the Jewish people, to the point of experiencing sore regret at not being of Jewish extraction. She finds any form of false accusation to be reprehensibly cowardly and uncivilized. I strongly suggest you seek another tree up which to bark.
Your beleaguered associate,
Sherlock Holmes
November 13, 1898
My Dear Holmes,
I wish to express my gratitude for you recent missive in reply to my inquiry. It is so seldom that you reply I must venture to surmise that this topic is dear to your estimable heart.
I find it quite intriguing that you would claim that this baker is an espionage agent who regrets not being of Hebraic extraction. It is our information that at one time she was Jewish by injection which would have the natural result in her current animus towards those of the hook nosed Hebraic persuasion. I know you might think this inappropriate but it is based on speculation alone and not any facts that we are currently in possession of at this time.
That is why we ask that you inquire of your brother as to his knowledge of this supposed agent. We can only judge someone persuasion by their words and deeds as it is almost impossible to determine what truly resides in their innermost heart.
As you have often said, it is just as easy to come to a conclusion as to the fact that a dog did not bark. Regardless of it is near or not near a tree. Evidence of urine streaming down the bark is of course a more determinative factor in formulating a hypothesis.
Please present my salutations to your brother and remind him that our inquiries are simply at the direction of our superiors and in no way purport to damage or demean either him or his snack providing paramour.
Also please be so kind as to remind him that a donut hole is not to be used for that purpose. Perhaps in the privacy of his own rooms but not in the dining room of the club.
I remain as always,
Your obedient servant,
Inspector G. Lestrade
Lestrade,
You would perhaps enjoy better results in your casework were you to rely more upon physical clues rather than speculation.
I would have assumed that you reached the conclusion that I exercise very little influence over my brother, and encourage to make your inquiries directly.
Sherlock Holmes
Post a Comment