John Edwards endorses Obama

[Gilding the Lily]

It would appear that we are well on our way toward having the first black president of the USA.... I figured this nation was still too racist. I thought the bigots from the 60's would have to die off first. I guess this country is a little more advanced that I thought. A pleasant surprise.

Now, a former leader of a local chapter of the KKK is endorsing Obama.

Byrd endorses Obama

 

[Tug McGroin]

We are well on our way toward having him for a pres because the alternatives are useless. Clinton is out and McCain is Bush III and no one wants that.

As for him (or anyone else for that matter) not being able to accomplish what they want/say. I believe that congress will stone wall and substantive change. They are protecting their own self interests. Fixing problems in this country is not in their best interest.

As for checks and balances, see post 4.

As for bigotry. This country is still full of it. Do a search for curious George in 08. There is a video of some red neck who has a picture of curious George with "Obama in 08". That is just one example. Yes, a majority will not vote for him because they disagree on the issues. That is fine. There is a distinct number who will not vote for him due to his race. If you disagree with him on issues, goody for you.

Considering what the 'vast experience' in foreign relations in the current admin got us, I fail to see how much worse Obama could do. Beside, his cabinet is what counts. They are the brains behind the POTUS. War can be avoided if we try a different approach. If W pulls the trigger on Iran, we might was well close shop. Oil prices will sky rocket to make $200 a barrel look like a bargain. Also, given the fact that W removed Iran’s opposition really did not help. Perhaps if someone had a clue in his administration about the ME we would not be in this pickle.

I never said Obama was lying. I said he would not be able to accomplish most of what he wants to do and he probably knows it. It will not be from lack of trying. It will be the lobbies and Congress who stonewall him.

i have not bitten into anything. I just believe that out of the 3 remaining candidates, Obama is the best option.

You are free to express your preference for Obama. You may however, want to hold your judgment as to the usefulness of Clinton even if she decides if drop out of the race prior to every Democrat having the opportunity to vote. The last time I cared to check, 47% of democrats have voted for Clinton. It has been reported that upwards to 27% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if she is not on the ticket in November. Contrary to your “mission accomplished†declaration, Obama is not well on his way to being the next President.

In a shining example of abysmal Democrat party management, and as a way of saying your vote doesn’t count, there are hundreds of thousands of Democrats in Florida and Michigan that have been disenfranchised, as punishment, by their own party. Obama has promised to negotiate with the enemies of America with America’s best interest in mind yet has been genuinely indifferent to resolve this important issue. What reason would Obama have for not wanting to resolve this issue and fortify his campaign pledge to “unify†the people?

You either have a very basic misunderstanding of how Congress works or you’re 12 years old. Since the Democrats hold the majority in Congress, it is without exception that this Congress would work in lock step with the agenda of a Democrat President. The same would hold true if the roles were reversed with Republicans or Independents holding the keys to the democracy. It goes without saying that a well balanced Congress works best for Americans. The Democrats that make up the majority in Congress have been in place since November 06. They ran on a platform that promised a major change in domestic and foreign policy. The promise to get out of Iraq, lower taxes on the middle class, medical insurance for everyone, revised energy policy, lower gasoline prices, etc. etc is what got them elected. 18 months into their majority yet nothing has changed. This should cause pause for all those who have vested in a politician that promises the same.

You should include yourself when you state that America is full of bigots. As I’m sure you don’t know anything about the person in the video that has a picture of Curious George with “Obama in 08†on it, you were quick to label him as a “redneckâ€. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary for the definition of bigotry before making a fool of yourself. As for the picture of Curious George with “Obama in 08†on it, I fail to see how this could be remotely interpreted as racist. As an example of how loose the definition of racist has become, columnist and devoted Obama supporter Ruben Navarette implied that if you are white and don't vote for Obama you are a racist.

If you think war can be avoided if we appease and submit to the wishes of the tyrants of Iran and Syria you are sadly mistaken. As the Democrats sell fear that Bush will launch on Iran, Iran continues to pursue the development of a nuclear bomb. Iran continues to threaten Israel’s with total annihilation. Iran continues to thumb their nose at the joke called the UN. The very idea that we need to polish our reputation with these tyrants in order to earn their respect is asinine. For Obama to conclude that Iran is a “tiny†threat speaks volumes to his inexperience and resolve to deal with them. You really think Obama even has a clue as to what he is doing. Scary !!

 

[Cosworth]

You are free to express your preference for Obama. You may however, want to hold your judgment as to the usefulness of Clinton even if she decides if drop out of the race prior to every Democrat having the opportunity to vote. The last time I cared to check, 47% of democrats have voted for Clinton. It has been reported that upwards to 27% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if she is not on the ticket in November. Contrary to your “mission accomplished†declaration, Obama is not well on his way to being the next President.

Yes I have seen those polls and I have also seen polls saying that if McCain were to win the nomination masses of Republicans would vote for Hillary. I doubt either will switch when they get in the booth due to the differences in political beliefs. As much as I dislike Clinton, she would get my vote long before Bush III would. While people may say that to a pollster to vent their frustrations, I find it very difficult to believe it would actually happen. Where Obama will win is with the independents. My suspicion is that they are so fed up with the current set of idiots in office, that a majority of them will swing to Obama and sweep him into office.

In a shining example of abysmal Democrat party management, and as a way of saying your vote doesn’t count, there are hundreds of thousands of Democrats in Florida and Michigan that have been disenfranchised, as punishment, by their own party. Obama has promised to negotiate with the enemies of America with America’s best interest in mind yet has been genuinely indifferent to resolve this important issue. What reason would Obama have for not wanting to resolve this issue and fortify his campaign pledge to “unify†the people?

The members of the FL DNC voted in their leaders. They should have told their leaders to follow the rules. It is a political group or club if you will. They are submitting candidates for us the people to vote on. Anyone can submit a candidate given adequate funds and political interest. So to say that the DNC disenfranchised voters in FL and MI is not correct (if I understand the process correctly). The DNC has their own rules. If you don't like the rules, join the DNC and try to change them. They are not publicly funded and there fore are not bound by federal or state law. Any independent candidate can run. You can run if you chose and your party can make what ever rules it would like to.

What bothers me more is the fact that FL is a closed primary so that people such as my self cannot have our voices heard. Those are the rules and that is just the way it is. I can no more complain about that than I can complain about the fact that the Roman Catholic church does not allow female clergy. It is their game and they make the rules. My only choice is to play their game for find another game.

Obama is negotiation just as Clinton has been. Thing is Obama is negotiating from a position of strength. The DNC makes the rules and everyone agreed to them. The only reason Clinton wants them, and wants them cast 'her' way is becasue she looses without them.

Do you actually believe that anyone gives a crap about the rights of the FL an MI voters? Everyone agreed to ban FL and MI because no one expected this to go to the finish line. Everyone expected to have a nominee by Super Tuesday. OOps! They were wrong. That is why people are fighting over LF and MI. Neither side is altruistic in their beliefs.

You either have a very basic misunderstanding of how Congress works or you’re 12 years old. Since the Democrats hold the majority in Congress, it is without exception that this Congress would work in lock step with the agenda of a Democrat President. The same would hold true if the roles were reversed with Republicans or Independents holding the keys to the democracy. It goes without saying that a well balanced Congress works best for Americans. The Democrats that make up the majority in Congress have been in place since November 06. They ran on a platform that promised a major change in domestic and foreign policy. The promise to get out of Iraq, lower taxes on the middle class, medical insurance for everyone, revised energy policy, lower gasoline prices, etc. etc is what got them elected. 18 months into their majority yet nothing has changed. This should cause pause for all those who have vested in a politician that promises the same.

Congress (either party) is not going to vote for anything that is not in their self interest. Election reform is a perfect example. Ear marks are another. A republican pres with a republican Congress will have an easier time but let the pres ask them to do something not in their self interest and see what happens. The Dems do not have a veto proof majority so I am not quite sure how you expect them to full fill their promises when the POTUS keeps vetoing the bills sent to him.

You should include yourself when you state that America is full of bigots. As I’m sure you don’t know anything about the person in the video that has a picture of Curious George with “Obama in 08†on it, you were quick to label him as a “redneckâ€. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary for the definition of bigotry before making a fool of yourself. As for the picture of Curious George with “Obama in 08†on it, I fail to see how this could be remotely interpreted as racist. As an example of how loose the definition of racist has become, columnist and devoted Obama supporter Ruben Navarette implied that if you are white and don't vote for Obama you are a racist.

example 1 See 2nd definition.

example 2

example 3

example 4

example 5

Let me know if you need further clarification on the association between apes and racism. The bar owner is a racist. No question about it. BTW, take a look in the mirror if you have the courage.

If you think war can be avoided if we appease and submit to the wishes of the tyrants of Iran and Syria you are sadly mistaken. As the Democrats sell fear that Bush will launch on Iran, Iran continues to pursue the development of a nuclear bomb. Iran continues to threaten Israel’s with total annihilation. Iran continues to thumb their nose at the joke called the UN. The very idea that we need to polish our reputation with these tyrants in order to earn their respect is asinine. For Obama to conclude that Iran is a “tiny†threat speaks volumes to his inexperience and resolve to deal with them. You really think Obama even has a clue as to what he is doing. Scary !!

No one thought Egypt and Israel could make peace and yet by talking and negotiation they have had peace. Why are people so afraid of of verbal discourse? As if the previous 7 years of gunship diplomacy has worked so well. Who said anything about appeasement or submission? I only heard Obama say he was in favor of sitting down and talking? Perhaps you are not familiar with the difference between talking/negotiating and appeasement.

Iran does not yet have a nuke. Pakistan does. India does. And who knows who else is on that list. Iran is a tiny threat compared to what else is out there. With the way oil prices ($129 per gallon) are going, we will not have to worry about an out side millitary threat. I'd be more concerned about a financial threat.

 

[EastUS]

We are well on our way toward having him for a pres because the alternatives are useless. Clinton is out and McCain is Bush III and no one wants that.

i have not bitten into anything. I just believe that out of the 3 remaining candidates, Obama is the best option.

"There is a distinct number who will not vote for him due to his race." There's a distinct number that will do the opposite..also purely based upon skin coloring. Is it even rational for ANY voter to make their choices based upon such BS? I think not.

"I never said Obama was lying. I said he would not be able to accomplish most of what he wants to do and he probably knows it." There must be some subtle difference between the two that I'm missing. Either:

1) He's incapable of projecting what's likely possible within the governmental establishments...and thusly, fully inadequate to the taskings of President, or;
2) He's truly no dummy..and he fully knows he's promising a buncha' BS that he realizes he can't possibly deliver on. Some might equate that last behavior to politics as usual, and the only difference is by way of a more charismatic delivery.


"War can be avoided if we try a different approach." So thought Neville Chamberlain....Hitler evidently disagreed...a lot depends upon one's enemies....period.
"It will not be from lack of trying. It will be the lobbies and Congress who stonewall him." Well..if that's your estimation of this gentleman's future efficacy...what's the reasons for voting him in again?...So he can "try"?.

"Considering what the 'vast experience' in foreign relations in the current admin got us, I fail to see how much worse Obama could do." Almost all of us here have only lived in a post WWII period...enough said as for "how much worse" is actually possible within various nations at critical junctures in human history. "how much worse" almost included global thermonuclear warfare in 1962 for just one other example. "how much worse"...I never want to actually experience.

I'm not thrilled by any/all of the candidates myself, but must vote based on whom I suspect and hope will do the least damage to the nation..and that ain't any easy choice these days. Let's see now:

1) Hillary "landed under sniper fire"..while being pleasantly greeted by an 8 year old girl/posing for photo ops/etc, and routinely, otherwise lies like only a Clinton can it seems.
2) Obama simply hasn't the slightest clue, from any personal experience perspective, of much of anything it seems. heck..it took him HOW many years in that church to figure out that his beloved Pastor is a raging-racist/hypocrite-millionaire?
3) McCain understands the ugliness of war firsthand, and at least, actually has "guts".

None of these are thrilling prospects...but...etc.

"No one thought Egypt and Israel could make peace and yet by talking and negotiation they have had peace." Just going to Camp David and signing up with Menachem Begin cost Anwar Sadat his life..at the hands of his own people...and the middle east is still an insane cesspool of lunatics. "Why are people so afraid of of verbal discourse?" I wouldn't cast fear/being "afraid" as the damning element..It's more a case of: Does it actually WORK!? It certainly does NOT, and NEVER HAS with extremist types....period. Show me any point in international history where that proved untrue. With the current enmies/whack-jobs..we've even got the "benefit" of "religious" zealotry as an added demon to deal with...good luck being "reasonable". I wish that our species were a tad bit less insane..but..that's a wishful fantasy at this point in the evolutionary work-in-progress.

PS: I'm registered as a Libertarian..and I don't much like the corruption and overall stench from either major "party".

 

[Cosworth]

"There is a distinct number who will not vote for him due to his race." There's a distinct number that will do the opposite..also purely based upon skin coloring. Is it even rational for ANY voter to make their choices based upon such BS? I think not.

Not sure what you are asking/saying.

"I never said Obama was lying. I said he would not be able to accomplish most of what he wants to do and he probably knows it." There must be some subtle difference between the two that I'm missing. Either:

1) He's incapable of projecting what's likely possible within the governmental establishments...and thusly, fully inadequate to the taskings of President, or;
2) He's truly no dummy..and he fully knows he's promising a buncha' BS that he realizes he can't possibly deliver on. Some might equate that last behavior to politics as usual, and the only difference is by way of a more charismatic delivery.

OR: He knows what the establishment is capable of but will seek to initiate a change that will take longer than he has in office. Intent VS Likely hood for success.

"War can be avoided if we try a different approach." So thought Neville Chamberlain....Hitler evidently disagreed...a lot depends upon one's enemies....period.
"It will not be from lack of trying. It will be the lobbies and Congress who stonewall him." Well..if that's your estimation of this gentleman's future efficacy...what's the reasons for voting him in again?...So he can "try"?.

Yes. The first step must be taken. Everyone falls down when they first try to walk. At some point they succeed. So far very few have even tried. Israel and Egypt were the last that I can think of who seemed to have made a honest attempt at peace.

"Considering what the 'vast experience' in foreign relations in the current admin got us, I fail to see how much worse Obama could do." Almost all of us here have only lived in a post WWII period...enough said as for "how much worse" is actually possible within various nations at critical junctures in human history. "how much worse" almost included global thermonuclear warfare in 1962 for just one other example. "how much worse"...I never want to actually experience.

Good point. I did not think it could get worse after Nixon and then we got Regan. Thought that was bad and we got Bush I. Thought that was bad and we got his son. I guess out of the three I feel Obama is the best option.

I'm not thrilled by any/all of the candidates myself, but must vote based on whom I suspect and hope will do the least damage to the nation..and that ain't any easy choice these days. Let's see now:

1) Hillary "landed under sniper fire"..while being pleasantly greeted by an 8 year old girl/posing for photo ops/etc, and routinely, otherwise lies like only a Clinton can it seems.
2) Obama simply hasn't the slightest clue, from any personal experience perspective, of much of anything it seems. heck..it took him HOW many years in that church to figure out that his beloved Pastor is a raging-racist/hypocrite-millionaire?
3) McCain understands the ugliness of war firsthand, and at least, actually has "guts".

You seem to have forgotten that nice interview of McCain just out side the Green Zone in Apr 2007 surronded by over 100 soldiers and several gun ships saying it was perfectly safe. And he has a clue? Also the fact that he condemned Roberts and Fallwell in one breath then he goes sucking up for cash and votes. And the list goes on. You seem, to be under the delusion that McCains sh1t does not stink. They all stink and I believe Obamas stinks the least.

None of these are thrilling prospects...but...etc.

"No one thought Egypt and Israel could make peace and yet by talking and negotiation they have had peace." Just going to Camp David and signing up with Menachem Begin cost Anwar Sadat his life..at the hands of his own people...and the middle east is still an insane cesspool of lunatics. "Why are people so afraid of of verbal discourse?" I wouldn't cast fear/being "afraid" as the damning element..It's more a case of: Does it actually WORK!? It certainly does NOT, and NEVER HAS with extremist types....period. Show me any point in international history where that proved untrue. With the current enmies/whack-jobs..we've even got the "benefit" of "religious" zealotry as an added demon to deal with...good luck being "reasonable". I wish that our species were a tad bit less insane..but..that's a wishful fantasy at this point in the evolutionary work-in-progress.

No, Sadat knew the risks. Begin did not put a gun to Sadats head. They wanted peace and they put their lives on the line for it. Yes it is insane in the ME and yet Israel and Egypt have not broken their treaty. It would seem to be working with N Korea in regards to their nuclear program. Negotiations may or may not work. One would have to try in order to find out. Also, one does not necessarily have to negotiate with the terrorists in order to shut them down. They are being funded by countries who rely on other countries for trade. If you want to shut the ME down, deprive them of their revenue. Independence from oil should be job number one. The technology to make vehicles emission free exists. It is not in Congresses (or the current administrations) best interest to have than come to pass. None of the current crop of contenders ha the political power to make it happen either.

War is good business. Look at the money being made by all the corporations involved in Iraq. Look at all the still to be made. I do not believe the power that be are interested in ending this conflict. Colateral damage is something they are willing to pay in order to get their blood money. It's only a few thousand soldiers. Not a big deal. The people in the US are scared and can be easily manipulated. Hermann Goering said it very well.

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.


PS: I'm registered as a Libertarian..and I don't much like the corruption and overall stench from either major "party".



On that we can agree.

 

[EastUS]

"Sadat knew the risks. Begin did not put a gun to Sadats head. They wanted peace and they put their lives on the line for it."

I've the greatest admiration and respect for the late President Sadat and his courage, and have paid respectful homage at his tomb...but: Yes..they BOTH wanted peace..."aye..there's the rub", when dealing with such as those that want nothing of the sort.....

 

[Veritas]

PS: I'm registered as a Libertarian..and I don't much like the corruption and overall stench from either major "party".

Your opinions about foreign policy are anything but libertarian.

 

[Cosworth]

PS: I'm registered as a Libertarian..and I don't much like the corruption and overall stench from either major "party".

Offical Lib web site


American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

 

[Tug McGroin]

Barack Obama’s ad hoc, make-it-up-as-we-go foreign policy is so pathetic that even the Associated Press is beginning to notice.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_el_pr/obama_diplomacy_fact_check

 

[Cosworth]

Sounds more to me that people believe all the crap that McCain and Clinton are spewing. They seem to be equating sitting down and talking with people with capitulation. Unfortunately people believe that because fear is a powerful motivator. Sitting down and talking with someone is just that, talk.

If negotiations take place, then perhaps some progress can be made as in N Korea. You remember them right, "the axis of evil" who the US negotiated with.

You make it sound like the current policy of the US is so successful that it must not be tampered with. Castro has been in power since 1959, The Shah has been gone since 1979. N Vietnam and N Korea are still N Korea and N Vietnam. Iraq is a cluster phuck. Syria and Iran are laughing their collective butts off at our stupidity in the region. Yea, we have done a bang up job in the region.

So why not talk to them? Not like they are any less or more trustworthy than the US is (you already pointed out our 'transgressions' earlier. If any agreements come out of the talks, just make sure they are verifiable.

 

[EastUS]

So why not talk to them? Not like they are any less or more trustworthy than the US is (you already pointed out our 'transgressions' earlier. If any agreements come out of the talks, just make sure they are verifiable.

"Sounds more to me that people believe all the crap that McCain and Clinton are spewing." You're joking I assume? My thinking is more aligned towards : "If a politician's lips are moving..he/she's lying".

"So why not talk to them?" I've no problem with our doing that. I have little hopes of that proving out as anything productive though. "Talking" to Iran (for over a year) didn't convince those kind and noble folk to release the Americans they'd, illegally and treacherously, taken prisoner/hostage under Jimmy Carter though, and pretty much the same wonderful people are in charge over there now. Heck...imho; had it not been for the "touchy-feely" latte-liberal "brilliance" of that chicken-sh-t peanut farmer..we'd likely not have seen the fall of the Shah's regime, and not now have the fundaMENTAList whack jobs currently running Iran, and the middle east in general, to deal with. "If any agreements come out of the talks, just make sure they are verifiable." Ummm..."verifiable"? How do you propose to actually make that happen? "Sitting down and talking with someone is just that, talk." I couldn't agree more, and there unfortunately are regimes and persons which render such an exercise in futility. "Syria and Iran are laughing their collective butts off at our stupidity in the region." ......talking with them will change that..umm..how?Also: Without an American presence now poised right next door to Iran...What would their lunatic government's possible motivations now even be for ANY "talking" whatsoever?

"Iraq is a cluster phuck. Yea, we have done a bang up job in the region." A great many, many Iraqis would take ready exception to that. Not all of them were in love with Saddam....How soon we forget it seems.

"Not like they are any less or more trustworthy than the US is" Wow! I'm wondering what country you might have in mind for properly establishing the pinnacle point in diplomatic perfection? No matter: I'm simply unable to share that sort of self-loathing, although I'll freely note that ALL international relations..wherever and whenever performed throughout history by all nations..are indeed exercises in self interest. What's new?

"You make it sound like the current policy of the US is so successful that it must not be tampered with." Where you get that's a pure mystery to me. I think US foregin policy's a disaster as it stands...but would become yet more of a disaster under a "liberal" regime. We may well get the chance to find out, and, if it occurs..I certainly hope that I'll be proven wrong there.

 

[EastUS]

Your opinions about foreign policy are anything but libertarian.

OH Oh!..Busted! Ah...well..you have to understand that the nice thing about it is that I'm not expected, much less is it demanded of me to embrace ANY "Party Line" wholesale. Gosh...my bad for not allowing any/all others to "do my thinking" for me? Aw heck..just pass me some of that good old Hillary/Obama/McCain/Whomever koolaide then.

Seriously though. Help me out with my apparently heretical faults, under the reality of a post 9-11 world. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil." How's my thinking ill suited to that concept?..."and the defense -- against attack from abroad"???? Sipping lattes, talking, and just waiting for another attack to happen... hardly qualifies as any "defense".

 

[Cosworth]

"Sounds more to me that people believe all the crap that McCain and Clinton are spewing." You're joking I assume? My thinking is more aligned towards : "If a politician's lips are moving..he/she's lying".

What does that have to do with opening up talks with another nation?

"So why not talk to them?" I've no problem with our doing that. I have little hopes of that proving out as anything productive though. "Talking" to Iran (for over a year) didn't convince those kind and noble folk to release the Americans they'd, illegally and treacherously, taken prisoner/hostage under Jimmy Carter though, and pretty much the same wonderful people are in charge over there now. Heck...imho; had it not been for the "touchy-feely" latte-liberal "brilliance" of that chicken-sh-t peanut farmer..we'd likely not have seen the fall of the Shah's regime, and not now have the fundaMENTAList whack jobs currently running Iran, and the middle east in general, to deal with. "If any agreements come out of the talks, just make sure they are verifiable." Ummm..."verifiable"? How do you propose to actually make that happen? "Sitting down and talking with someone is just that, talk." I couldn't agree more, and there unfortunately are regimes and persons which render such an exercise in futility. "Syria and Iran are laughing their collective butts off at our stupidity in the region." ......talking with them will change that..umm..how?Also: Without an American presence now poised right next door to Iran...What would their lunatic government's possible motivations now even be for ANY "talking" whatsoever?

So the fact that Regan and his goons were caught selling arms to Tehran has nothing to do with the failure to free the hostages. Perhaps had the US not supported a vicious dictator such as Pahlavi, Batista, Pinochet to name a few and instead supported someone who had the support of the people the situation may not have happened either. And had it not been for that senile actor from CA dumping OBL on his ass after promises to help him out if he help get rid of the bad Ruskies maybe pigs would fly.

Not sure what sitting down with Syria and Iran will do. We won't know till we try. Perhaps there is something they want in exchange for ceasing nuke production. Beats what we are doing now. Right now they have no motivation to talk because we have a POTUS who does not know how to talk. That and the fact that we are so deep in crap over there that we are negotiating from a position of weakness. None the less, talking is far better option than the BS that is being done now.

"Iraq is a cluster phuck. Yea, we have done a bang up job in the region." A great many, many Iraqis would take ready exception to that. Not all of them were in love with Saddam....How soon we forget it seems.

Then perhaps they should have dealt with him them selves. So which is it? Did we go for oil or to nation build? What exactly did we forget? Did we forget that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? Did we forget that Al - queda had no presence in Iraq until the US invited them in after Saddam was removed and the military was dismantled? Did we for get that we would be invited in as liberators? Did we forget that we would only be there for a few months, or a year at most. Did we forget that we went in to get rid of the WMD that were never found? Did we forget that W has given up looking for OBL (who actually did cause 9/11)? Did we forget that now we are in Iraq to bring them democracy? Did we forget that Iraq was supposed to be paying for itself with all that oil money? Come sparky? What did we forget?

"Not like they are any less or more trustworthy than the US is" Wow! I'm wondering what country you might have in mind for properly establishing the pinnacle point in diplomatic perfection? No matter: I'm simply unable to share that sort of self-loathing, although I'll freely note that ALL international relations..wherever and whenever performed throughout history by all nations..are indeed exercises in self interest. What's new?

Maybe you should check the US history books to see how we uphold treaties we don't like

"You make it sound like the current policy of the US is so successful that it must not be tampered with." Where you get that's a pure mystery to me. I think US foregin policy's a disaster as it stands...but would become yet more of a disaster under a "liberal" regime. We may well get the chance to find out, and, if it occurs..I certainly hope that I'll be proven wrong there.


Sounds like you are content with what we have. I would prefer to try something different to see if it works. Your way with the 'conservative' regime is and well documented disaster. I believe that one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.

 

[Cosworth]

Seriously though. Help me out with my apparently heretical faults, under the reality of a post 9-11 world. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil." How's my thinking ill suited to that concept?..."and the defense -- against attack from abroad"???? Sipping lattes, talking, and just waiting for another attack to happen... hardly qualifies as any "defense".

Keep reading, I know you can do it. Try the second paragraph. If you are going to cast your self as a libertarian in regards to foreign relations, you ought to at least read up on it first.

Perhaps Independent would be more to your liking.

 

[Cosworth]

Another reason that talking to them might work.

James Baker Oct 6, 2006

I know, Baker is one of those naive little kids right?