[Hoijdxvh]

And Obama has only talked to his general in Afghanistan once.

News flash, Bush isn't in office any more. I don't care if he was awful or great or somewhere in between. The point remains.

The Democrats are so badly handling their foreign policies they aren't even wrong. They are incoherent just going with whatever way the wind takes you.

I never thought I would see the day when the president of France has more of a clue on foreign policy than the American president: RealClearPolitics - Sarkozy's Contempt for Obama

Why don't you respond to my post below instead or regurgitating attack lines?

BTW-Pakistan appears to be readying a major offensive in Waziristan. It was in the Inquirer today.
But those are just facts.

[Uhmavano]

And Obama has only talked to his general in Afghanistan once.

News flash, Bush isn't in office any more. I don't care if he was awful or great or somewhere in between. The point remains.

The Democrats are so badly handling their foreign policies they aren't even wrong. They are incoherent just going with whatever way the wind takes you.

I never thought I would see the day when the president of France has more of a clue on foreign policy than the American president: RealClearPolitics - Sarkozy's Contempt for Obama

Bush may not be in office but the results of His eight years will haunt us for a very long time. How can we answer the title of this thread if we don't compare the current administration to the prior administration(s). Perhaps Bush should have listened to other countries before charging into Iraq. Republicans would love to ignore Bush but they love to bring up Clinton, you remember the one with the balanced budgets and Carter.

Please tell me about the great foreign policy of number 43. The axis of evil is down to two with the third being an unmitigated disaster, what changed with the evil doers in Iran and North Korea ? Nothing. Did Iran and North Korea stop their production of nuclear weapons, no. Are they still a threat to their neighbors, yes. Did we kill, capture or neutralize Osama, Omar and the Taliban, no. Why bother to go after the ones who caused 9 11. How about that coalition of the willing ? Nothing like having your allies soldiers get killed for no reason at all.

Obama is tightening the screws on North Korea by limiting their exports and working with Russia and China who are the only countries who have influence with that nut case in North Korea. Obama is doing the same thing with Iran by exposing the nuclear installation at Qom and working with Russia and China to put in effect more trade restrictions. If the protests in Iran don't show that they are having internal problems nothing will, they are now being pressured both from the inside and outside. Obama is more action than posturing unlike 43. Bush had the boots but didn't have the cows.

I'll end this with a picture of the city of Qom where the recently disclosed nuclear installation is in Qom Iran, aka a Qom shot. (Daily Show)

[Uhmavano]

The intro is less than 2 minutes and the next 6 minutes (I think) are very funny. This will also explain my reference to the Qom Shot in the prior post. Enjoy !

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News

[9mm_fan]

Did Iran and North Korea stop their production of nuclear weapons, no. Are they still a threat to their neighbors, yes.

Don't even get me started with this one.

Bush was completely undermined by a leaked NIE which said Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It was obviously crap at the time, but the media and others pounced on it. That effectively killed any efforts Bush had with doing anything with Iran.

But look, I'm not in a Bush personality cult like many are in an Obama personality cult.

And here's my prediction: Russia and China are not going to do anything to Iran because they are knee-deep in Iran's efforts. At least not until it is too late. I mean what are we going to do to Russia and China. We already gave up a big bargaining chip with Russia prior to getting anything in return and China owns our debt.

But everyone is ignoring the overall point of this thread. Does anyone dispute my overall analysis about the Democrats? Back Afghanistan, sell 'em down the river, etc.

They lack a seriousness and are taking their foreign policy positions out of cynical politics. Not saying that hasn't been around since time began in many regards, but it is really breathtaking in its scope.

Could you really see Truman, JFK or any other number of Democrats abandoning West Berlin because it lacked support within their party? I can't.

[Uhmavano]

Don't even get me started with this one.

Bush was completely undermined by a leaked NIE which said Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It was obviously crap at the time, but the media and others pounced on it. That effectively killed any efforts Bush had with doing anything with Iran.

But look, I'm not in a Bush personality cult like many are in an Obama personality cult.

And here's my prediction: Russia and China are not going to do anything to Iran because they are knee-deep in Iran's efforts. At least not until it is too late. I mean what are we going to do to Russia and China. We already gave up a big bargaining chip with Russia prior to getting anything in return and China owns our debt.

But everyone is ignoring the overall point of this thread. Does anyone dispute my overall analysis about the Democrats? Back Afghanistan, sell 'em down the river, etc.

They lack a seriousness and are taking their foreign policy positions out of cynical politics. Not saying that hasn't been around since time began in many regards, but it is really breathtaking in its scope.

Could you really see Truman, JFK or any other number of Democrats abandoning West Berlin because it lacked support within their party? I can't.

OK, I believe that we should continue to pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda and attempt to replace the opium income with something else. If what I've read is true a good number of the Taliban are no more than mercenaries than followers and they are paid with opium money. In dirt poor countries a lot of loyalty is garnered with cash. I also am in favor to funding Pakistan's effort to keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the run and support them with the drones. We have to keep their feet to the fire to be sure they don't go back to their old ways.

Europe also has a major stake in this and should be encouraged to stay engaged because they are also a target. After saying all that I'm tired of spending the lives of our military and our resources being the policeman of the world. We police and they reap the benefits.

[Dwencejed]

I never thought I would see the day when the president of France has more of a clue on foreign policy than the American president: RealClearPolitics - Sarkozy's Contempt for Obama

And I never thought I'd live to see the day where Right Wingers expressed their undying love for the genius of the French PM. We live in strange times indeed.

[elton]

^

That's what I was thinking. So now the righties care what France thinks?

[disappointment2]

I prefer to call it "freedom country" to go with "freedom fries".

[Nutpoode]

HEY!!! I SEE THE F.A.G (film actors guild) meeting with Kim Jong Ill in the corner!!!!!!

[lookanddiscover]

Bush was completely undermined by a leaked NIE which said Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It was obviously crap at the time, but the media and others pounced on it. That effectively killed any efforts Bush had with doing anything with Iran.

Perhaps the real problem is the long-standing bi-partisan delusion that we can decide whether other countries should have nuclear technology OR weapons.

Jonathan Tepperman, Newsweek's former deputy managing editor of foreign affairs and current assistant managing editor, recently wrote a piece for the magazine which basically dismissed the entire concept of disarmament for anyone. (See "Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb: http://www.newsweek.com/id/214248.)

Tepperman's essential argument was that having nukes makes their owners responsible. It puts the fear of death into their leaders. Proof: No two countries with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war against each other. The best-known example was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Kennedy and Krushchev nearly went mano-a-mano with each other, then slowly backed away.

Meanwhile, there have been innumerable smaller wars between non-nuke states and between those with nukes and those without. When nuclear war is not an issue, leaders -- whether elected or dictators -- seem to feel they have less to lose. So, they go to war casually, even carelessly -- like Bush took us into Iraq.

Following this logic, perhaps the best strategy is to get out of Tehran's way. Recognize the right of the mullahs (who control Iranian foreign policy and, unlike Ahmadinejad, are not crazy) to have their bomb.

[Uhmavano]

Perhaps the real problem is the long-standing bi-partisan delusion that we can decide whether other countries should have nuclear technology OR weapons.

Jonathan Tepperman, Newsweek's former deputy managing editor of foreign affairs and current assistant managing editor, recently wrote a piece for the magazine which basically dismissed the entire concept of disarmament for anyone. (See "Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb: How Nuclear Weapons Can Keep You Safe | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com.)

Tepperman's essential argument was that having nukes makes their owners responsible. It puts the fear of death into their leaders. Proof: No two countries with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war against each other. The best-known example was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Kennedy and Krushchev nearly went mano-a-mano with each other, then slowly backed away.

Meanwhile, there have been innumerable smaller wars between non-nuke states and between those with nukes and those without. When nuclear war is not an issue, leaders -- whether elected or dictators -- seem to feel they have less to lose. So, they go to war casually, even carelessly -- like Bush took us into Iraq.

Following this logic, perhaps the best strategy is to get out of Tehran's way. Recognize the right of the mullahs (who control Iranian foreign policy and, unlike Ahmadinejad, are not crazy) to have their bomb.

The wild card in that argument is a terrorist or a state whose religious beliefs override commonsense. Never underestimate the power of virgins.

[preachadaq]

OK, I believe that we should continue to pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda and attempt to replace the opium income with something else. If what I've read is true a good number of the Taliban are no more than mercenaries than followers and they are paid with opium money. In dirt poor countries a lot of loyalty is garnered with cash. I also am in favor to funding Pakistan's effort to keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the run and support them with the drones. We have to keep their feet to the fire to be sure they don't go back to their old ways.

Europe also has a major stake in this and should be encouraged to stay engaged because they are also a target. After saying all that I'm tired of spending the lives of our military and our resources being the policeman of the world. We police and they reap the benefits.

A "target" for what? The Taliban are nationalists, not "terrorists". They have no agenda outside of a unflinching devotion to rid their country from foreign occupation... a job they're VERY good at as history illustrates. And no, what you read is completely false. The Taliban are mostly Pashtun, a religious group that vehemently prohibits the use of opium. It was the Taliban that completely eradicated the drug trade throughout the 90's thanks to a healthy stream of U.S. funding. The gravy train was derailed in early 2001 though after they cut a pipeline deal with an Argentinian firm instead of a preferred U.S. vendor. The brass tax here is Caspian Oil and pipeline politics.

The mercenaries you speak of are OUR current allies: The northern alliance. A motley crew of drug dealing rapists and warlords... primarily comprised of Uzbeks and Taijks with a close affiliation to Karzai and his cabinet. These cancerous individuals have corrupted whatever central government does exist.

What we need is exactly what you protest. The 'old ways'. Afghanistan is a TRIBAL entity and the dynamic is not one which will ever cater to a strong central government. The Uzbeks, Taijks, Pashtuns, and Hazaras will ultimately require a solid degree of autonomy linked by a weak central government. And spare me the harboring terrorism BS... 9/11 was hatched in Saudi Arabia, Hamburg, San Diego, UAE, Pakistan, and god knows where else. In most cases it would make more sense to leverage the sovereignty of strong nations than to roll the dice in despotic ones where foreign governments are free to meddle with impunity.

If you want to curtail Anti-American sentiment, we need to stop killing innocent men, women, and children with the utterly ineffective unmanned drones your hail as prudent policy and rely on police action and strong intelligence (i.e. the arrest of Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan in Somalia last week).

[Hoijdxvh]

Perhaps the real problem is the long-standing bi-partisan delusion that we can decide whether other countries should have nuclear technology OR weapons.

Jonathan Tepperman, Newsweek's former deputy managing editor of foreign affairs and current assistant managing editor, recently wrote a piece for the magazine which basically dismissed the entire concept of disarmament for anyone. (See "Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb: How Nuclear Weapons Can Keep You Safe | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com.)

Tepperman's essential argument was that having nukes makes their owners responsible. It puts the fear of death into their leaders. Proof: No two countries with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war against each other. The best-known example was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Kennedy and Krushchev nearly went mano-a-mano with each other, then slowly backed away.

Meanwhile, there have been innumerable smaller wars between non-nuke states and between those with nukes and those without. When nuclear war is not an issue, leaders -- whether elected or dictators -- seem to feel they have less to lose. So, they go to war casually, even carelessly -- like Bush took us into Iraq.

Following this logic, perhaps the best strategy is to get out of Tehran's way. Recognize the right of the mullahs (who control Iranian foreign policy and, unlike Ahmadinejad, are not crazy) to have their bomb.

This theory works for countries which have relatively stable governments-and which have something to lose.

The problem with Iran is you have a radical religious order running the country-and they support a leader who openly talks about wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

Not a good combination.

[Hoijdxvh]

A "target" for what? The Taliban are nationalists, not "terrorists". They have no agenda outside of a unflinching devotion to rid their country from foreign occupation... a job they're VERY good at as history illustrates.

You forget one very important point-the Taliban gave safe harbor to a man that provided the inspiration, funding, and manpower for the worst attack on US civilians in history. By doing so, they declared war on the US. There were no foreign occupiers on the Taliban's soil on Sept 11.

And no, what you read is completely false. The Taliban are mostly Pashtun, a religious group that vehemently prohibits the use of opium. It was the Taliban that completely eradicated the drug trade throughout the 90's thanks to a healthy stream of U.S. funding. That was then. The Taliban have sold themselves to the opium trade in order to finance their insurgency.

The mercenaries you speak of are OUR current allies: The northern alliance. A motley crew of drug dealing rapists and warlords... primarily comprised of Uzbeks and Taijks with a close affiliation to Karzai and his cabinet. These cancerous individuals have corrupted whatever central government does exist. Yes this is true. But these warlords assisted us in deposing the Taliban from power. They also defeated the Soviets with US-provided weapons.

What we need is exactly what you protest. The 'old ways'. Afghanistan is a TRIBAL entity and the dynamic is not one which will ever cater to a strong central government. The Uzbeks, Taijks, Pashtuns, and Hazaras will ultimately require a solid degree of autonomy linked by a weak central government. I agree.

And spare me the harboring terrorism BS... 9/11 was hatched in Saudi Arabia, Hamburg, San Diego, UAE, Pakistan, and god knows where else. This is wrong. Osama Bin Laden trained the 9-11 hijackers in Afghanistan. He raised money which funded the operation in Afghanistan. He provided the inspiration and ideology for it from Afghanistan. He was aided with freedom of movement in Afghanistan under the umbrella of the Taliban. After 9-11, the US demanded that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden and they refused. They are our enemy, and are partly responsibile for 3000 US civilian deaths.


If you want to curtail Anti-American sentiment, we need to stop killing innocent men, women, and children with the utterly ineffective unmanned drones your hail as prudent policy and rely on police action and strong intelligence (i.e. the arrest of Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan in Somalia last week). While I agree with eliminating civilian casualties-and the new US strategy in Afghan. is doing this somewhat effectively now, those drones are hardly ineffective. Baitullah Mehsud would probably disagree with you if he were alive.

[preachadaq]

This theory works for countries which have relatively stable governments-and which have something to lose.

The problem with Iran is you have a radical religious order running the country-and they support a leader who openly talks about wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

Not a good combination.

Ahmadinejhad never said that. That was a (IMO purposely) poor translation that served the political ends of Washington.

Property translated it reads as follows:

"I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world"

Not as incendiary eh? And FWIW, he's actually quoting Khomeini - Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1979.

[Uhmavano]

A "target" for what? The Taliban are nationalists, not "terrorists". They have no agenda outside of a unflinching devotion to rid their country from foreign occupation... a job they're VERY good at as history illustrates. And no, what you read is completely false. The Taliban are mostly Pashtun, a religious group that vehemently prohibits the use of opium. It was the Taliban that completely eradicated the drug trade throughout the 90's thanks to a healthy stream of U.S. funding. The gravy train was derailed in early 2001 though after they cut a pipeline deal with an Argentinian firm instead of a preferred U.S. vendor. The brass tax here is Caspian Oil and pipeline politics.

The mercenaries you speak of are OUR current allies: The northern alliance. A motley crew of drug dealing rapists and warlords... primarily comprised of Uzbeks and Taijks with a close affiliation to Karzai and his cabinet. These cancerous individuals have corrupted whatever central government does exist.

What we need is exactly what you protest. The 'old ways'. Afghanistan is a TRIBAL entity and the dynamic is not one which will ever cater to a strong central government. The Uzbeks, Taijks, Pashtuns, and Hazaras will ultimately require a solid degree of autonomy linked by a weak central government. And spare me the harboring terrorism BS... 9/11 was hatched in Saudi Arabia, Hamburg, San Diego, UAE, Pakistan, and god knows where else. In most cases it would make more sense to leverage the sovereignty of strong nations than to roll the dice in despotic ones where foreign governments are free to meddle with impunity.

If you want to curtail Anti-American sentiment, we need to stop killing innocent men, women, and children with the utterly ineffective unmanned drones your hail as prudent policy and rely on police action and strong intelligence (i.e. the arrest of Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan in Somalia last week).

A link about opium production in Afghanistan and the funding of their current operations.

Record Opium Crop Funding Resurgent Taliban | Mother Jones

[lookanddiscover]

This theory works for countries which have relatively stable governments-and which have something to lose.

The problem with Iran is you have a radical religious order running the country-and they support a leader who openly talks about wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

Iran is stable. The government of the mullahs has been in place for 30 years. Yes, it had a disputed election, but so did the United States in 2000. It's not Somalia. My take is that Iran is way more stable than nuclear-armed Pakistan.

As for Ahmadinejad's big mouth, lots of political leaders shoot off their mouths. You can't take every sound bite seriously. The relevant fact is that Iranian foreign policy isn't under Ahmadinejad's control.

[Dwencejed]

Not as incendiary eh? And FWIW, he's actually quoting Khomeini - Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1979.

You are aware that being made Time's "Person of the Year" is not always a positive accolade? They gave it to Hilter, too, right before the beginning of WWII, to highlight the threat that was to come.

[preachadaq]

That was then. The Taliban have sold themselves to the opium trade in order to finance their insurgency.

Not true. According to a recent report but the UNODC (UN office of drugs and crime), the Taliban rake in about 70 million a year from the $3.4 BILLION opium trade. That accounts to about 3%. Most of the largest drug lords have seats in Karzai's government. Hell, Karzai's brother is a HUGE player

This is wrong. Osama Bin Laden trained the 9-11 hijackers in Afghanistan. He raised money which funded the operation in Afghanistan. He provided the inspiration and ideology for it from Afghanistan. He was aided with freedom of movement in Afghanistan under the umbrella of the Taliban. After 9-11, the US demanded that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden and they refused. They are our enemy, and are partly responsibile for 3000 US civilian deaths.

First of all, the Taliban / Al Qaeda relationship was tenable at best. the Pashtun ideology doesn't exactly jel with the Salafi-jihadist worldview espoused by Osama's ilk. Not to mention Taliban leaders maintained close ties with the Saudi shieks, the same shieks whom Osama wanted to "literally" wipe off the map for selling out to Washington and other western nations. It's also worth noting that the Taliban didn't outright refuse to hand over Bin Laden. They simply asked for a modicum of evidence that he was involved. The clerics were to hold him under house arrest in Peshawar while reviewing evidence was presented against him. Musharraf scuttled these plans.

Regardless, our response in Afghanistan has been the wanton destruction of a country while delivering an exponentially greater death toll of innocent men, women, and children - an overwhelming majority of whom despise the Taliban and couldn't find Manhattan on a map.

These people certainly weren't responsible.

While I agree with eliminating civilian casualties-and the new US strategy in Afghan. is doing this somewhat effectively now, those drones are hardly ineffective. Baitullah Mehsud would probably disagree with you if he were alive.

Surely the murder of a few high profile targets doesn't justify a policy which, alone, has easily taken the lives of more innocent civilians than those lost on 9/11. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands who are internally displaced due to the indiscriminatory strikes.

Thousands flee bomb attacks by US drones - Times Online

[preachadaq]

A link about opium production in Afghanistan and the funding of their current operations.

Record Opium Crop Funding Resurgent Taliban | Mother Jones

Old. Read the 2009 UNODC report.