3 Responses to “Obama And McCain Square Off On Foreign Policy”

1. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:
   May 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

   given that our current foreign policy stance has resulted in more terrorists since 9/11?

   How do you know this is a given? When American troops show up in Kabul or Bagdhad, surely the rabble will be roused to fight – but how do you know that more terrorists have not been killed or disgruntled or discredited for the future, than would have existed had no intervention taken place? How do you know that Islamic theology doesn’t inspire terrorism, and only a reaction to what America’s foreign policy does? What if WMD’s were found, would it change the Islamists attitudes towards us? Now that Afghanistan and Iraq have governments that are allied to us and are willing to crack down on terrorists in the future, rather than support or turn away, isn’t that a better investment in stopping terrorism going forward?

   McCain’s comments about legitimizing Iran are correct. Obama must concede this point because it is simply true, and Obama would have to argue that legitimizing Iran’s demands, or at least elevating the regime past its status a a “rogue state” is an acceptable part of diplomacy. The best Obama can come up with is a trite comparison with the Soviet Union, who were rational actors not seeking concessions but an outline of the rules of Mutually Assured Destruction. Kennedy didn’t talk to Khrushchev to try to get the soviets to disarm, but to establish a framework of detante, so that no one would get jumpy and press the button in haste.

   A religious terrorist with a nuclear weapon is a far greater threat than the Soviets were anyway, particularly if they are receiving orders from a regime that calls to wipe a nation off the map for religious reasons, something the Russians never had the ambitions to do in the first place. Obama clearly doesn’t understand that, so yes he is naive in that regard.

2. Lit3Bolt Says:
   May 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

   I do know it’s a given that our current foreign policy has strengthen Iran by giving them a staunch ally in Iraq. I also think it’s pretty well documented that the Arab world isn’t exactly enamored with us at the moment, mostly because of the invasion of Iraq. We haven’t been attacked, tis true; why, it’s almost as if that terrorist attack was a deliberate attempt to get the United States to do something EXTREMELY STUPID, like play cowboys and indians in the Middle East. Also, the current governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are not what I would call stable democracies.

   Look if you think threatening and bombing Iran was going to make us safer, why haven’t we done it already? The sad truth is that Republicans are hoping to hop on this old war horse this fall, but the old grey mare ain’t what she used to be. One, I think it’s safe to say starting a 3rd war is a bad idea while we’re still not done with the first two, ok? So basically the U.S. is fooling no one at this point. We don’t have any sticks really at this point, and when Obama suggests trying a carrot, he’s naive and stupid? Just like Nixon was I suppose, or Reagan, eh?

   But oh wait, I forget. Islamists are a whole new breed of enemy; this kind is pure pure pure evil, rather than just pure evil, and we can’t negotiate with them, because they’re so obsessed with craziness and evilness, except, that’s what we’re trying to encourage frickin’ Israel to do with the terrorists on their doorstep.

3. TheMiddle Says:
   May 20th, 2008 at 2:06 am

   Thats a very good point. America is in its worst defensive posture in a long time because we simply can’t afford to fight another war. If for some reason a need were to arise to fight China, Russia, Iran, or Syria, we’d be awfully hard pressed to raise the men, money, and material necessary to meet the need.

   And of course the reason for that is because were fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Fanatics Not Foreign Policy
• Small Explosion Hits Times Square
• Who Won The Foreign Policy Debate This Week?