is that how he got elected to his current seat?

No, I believe a lot of us were glad to have a smart charismatic guy in the White House, after having 8 years of Bush.

Unfortunately, Obama couldn't stay behind his charisma, he had to show some policy, and that was his undoing.

Having Bill Ayres visit the White House? Never ever would I have believed that possible.

Countries do not base their foreign policy on rhetoric. At least Russia, China, Iran, or Pakistan don't.

Not true.

Admitting past mistakes is often seen as a sign of strength, not weakness. I don't know of anyone outside the US who saw those speeches as a sign of weakness. Only Republicans do.

He never apologized. You are wrong.

Disagree. There are two types of power: hard power and soft power. Obama's speeches, along with other things, gave the US a huge boost in soft power. I can almost guarantee that McCain would not be able to get as tough of sanctions against Iran as Obama did.

So why are you insecure about admitting it if everyone did it?

Good thing we don't live in the pre-1800's, huh?

Did you know that the South succeeded from the US because they thought the North was weak?

Did you know that Hitler invaded Poland because he thought they US was weak?

Did you know that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he thought the US was weak?

Did you know that Osama Bin Laden attacked the US because he thought the US was weak?

Strength and weakness are relative things. If other Presidents of major powers were touring the world acknowledging their nations past errors, over and over - then OK. But that's not the case, is it?

Now, compared to past Presidents, and Presidents of other major nations, our country appears weaker - and yes, terrorist groups and other nations, watch and analyze what the President says, and how he says it, as well.

For example, Saddam Hussein DID believe, based on the comments of the President and Sec. of State, that we would not intervene with his take over of Kuwait, militarily.

Are you arguing that if we appear weak, we're really improving the odds for peace (peace through weakness?), and the nice terrorists will leave us alone?

That's REALLY interesting logic you have there! :rolleyes: Worked really well when the UK tried it when Chamberlain was in office, and tried it again with the Falklands, didn't it? :rolleyes:

Care to try it again? Is there a certain number of lessons needed before you learn it's not working?

You kind of fell down the rabbit hole there didn't ya?

I fail to see how our foreign policy in the past four years could be considered weak? It is is only Republicans that believe that.

I'm offended that Rmoney keeps insisting that America is not the best damn country in the whole wide world. He's a fucking traitor, that's what he is. We are perfect, thanks to Mr. Obama.

Who else is trying to take advantage of our less than stellar foreign policy?

1) North Korea, which continues to expand it's range of ICBM's, despite it warnings from the UN and the US, not to. Next will be a nuclear bomb test. This is after shelling an island belonging to South Korea (which is our ally, and where we station more than ten thousand troops).

2) Al Qaeda and it's related terrorists groups in Cairo and Benghazi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Yemen, and Mali, etc.

3) China, which continues to push for ownership of a vast area of sea between itself and Japan, and between itself and the Philippines.

4) Syria, which knows we don't have the stomach to support the rebels. Finally, we are starting to arm them.

5) Al Shabab, (an Al Qaeda linked group), who could be crushed in Somalia right now, if we gave the legitimate gov't a little help.

6) Argentina, which is calling on all South American countries to blacklist every shipping company that serves the Falklands. It has several nations signed up for this.

7) Rwanda, which is supporting a terrorist army in the Congo. We have soldiers in country to find and stop the terrorist army.

8) Iran, where the mullah's continue to thumb their nose at the US and the international community, by refining nuclear material, and supporting terrorist groups. Latest effort was to kill with a bomb, the intelligence chief in Lebanon. He was investigating the murder of his father -- chief suspect: Iran.

And much much more.

There is ALWAYS movement on the foreign affairs front. Nations are always jockeying for a better position. Various groups that want a country of their own, are always plotting ways to get one, by violence. We don't hear much about it, because diplomatic efforts, and the efforts to unravel them by force, are made sub rosa, whenever possible.

I don't believe that Obama's administration has been a foreign policy disaster. I simply argue that his planned fleet reductions and foreign policy, will leave us weaker. Despite some more capable ships we have now, we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.

Cite.

you sound like romney--holycrabcakes! it's scary out there, scary people, be afraaaaiiiid!!!

So, back to your list. I challenge you to name one from that list that wouldn't be there even if we had a "stellar" foreign policy.

Adak, your arguments have no reference point and therefore are worthless.

First, if these state and non-state actors were extremely passive before 2009 and then suddenly became aggressive after 2009 you would have point. That hasn't happened. State and non-state actors have tested every American president since FDR. There is no fundamental difference from what is occurring during Obama's term and prior terms.


Second, if other state and non-state actors did become more aggressive, you would need to make sure that it was due (or partly due) to a belief of American weakness and not outside factors. For example, Islamic terrorists did not just start believing America was weak in the 1990's with that belief increasing in time. An outside factor led to an increase in attacks in the 1990's and that is continuing until today.

We are escorting American flagged oil tankers, in the Gulf of Persia, with a fleet of Navy ships, because Iran has threatened to attack them. That's been all over the news.

But we also need a fleet to support our efforts in Afghanistan, and we need other Navy ships to help control the Pirates raiding around the Horn of Africa (and all the way down to the Seychelles).

A Cruiser in the Gulf of Persia, can't assist in the anti Pirating work, nor can that ship (no matter how advanced it is), assist in Afghanistan, if it's at sea, near the Horn of Africa.

And certainly we can't assist anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea, if our fleet is running exercises with the Japanese Navy or South Korea, or the Philippine or Australian Navy.

No matter how advanced your ships are, they can't be two or more places, at the same time.

Kicking a dead horse to make it run again, has no reference points either, but it's common sense that it won't avail you anything.

Yes, there are a plethora of other factors - always are in foreign policy. In general however, we've seen the losses we've had when we were not strong. They don't build up in a straight line, but they do build up, over time.

Believing something different will result, after you've take the same action over and over, is a sure sign of a liberal (and therefore a simple and naive) philosophy.

OK. I'll pick Somalia. Al Shabob is on the run atm. With a push from us, they'd be out of business.

Are you a child to believe that these "bad actors" won't ever attack us or our allies?

North Korea MILITARY (not the government), just told South Korea that if any helium balloon leaflets were sent over the DMZ, they would open fire with artillery "mercilessly". And "the PRK Army never speaks without acting".

Does that sound like the idyllic foreign relations paradise you seem to believe in?

Wake up! :eek:
Read up!: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20000970

Quote:
Cite.

You said Obama used as a defense in the foreign policy debate that a ship in the Pacific can help with a problem in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean.

I'd like you to provide a citation for this statement, please. Absent a citation I will consider it another one of your fearmongering smears.