Barack Obama has just reached the White House, and he has the monumental task of bringing his country's economy back into line, sorting out his country's military and winning over the hearts of his nation... Its still early, but the topic which interests me is America's foreign policy. America's foreign policy has been a very greedy, sordid state of affairs that continues to annoy me today. With Obama, it would be foolish to expect any instant and radical changes, but there are some short term and long therm changes which he could implement which would perhaps reflect the Obama administration's intentions. AFAIK, Bush's little team of advisers was a largely Zionist affair whose personal agenda was the building of an Israeli state, which is visible in his (as well as his predecessors') choice to fund Israel's little battalion (like a 'Home City' would in an Age of Empires game) in order to establish Israel as the Jewish superpower in an otherwise Arab world. America's support in Israels little Hezbollah chase, and its interest in a potential attack on Syria also shows intentions from a source which has a slightly bigger nose than your typical American. (Sorry, I couldn't help it ) So what do you think Obama will do? Who will he shun, and who will he bring into his inner circles, and what might this suggest about his long-term intentions? When does he plan to pull his men out of Iraq, and what is his take on Iran. What is his strategy in Afghanistan? In my personal opinion, I would prefer if Obama strayed away slightly from his Israeli influences. I was never a big supporter of the Zionist movement, which almost always included the persecution and segregation of Arabs, and the walls they continue to build at Gaza continue to show how immoral the pro-Israel movement is. I'm not sure who has a better idea, but I certainly don't approve of these weak coalitions, and I don't approve of the killing, persecuting and displacing of innocent Arabs. In fact, as far as I was aware the existence of 'Israel' is technically an infringement of UN constitution... EDIT: As far as Iran and Iraq are concerned, I say, leave it alone. Leave them alone, let them sort their differences and end this crude oil stained Bush-ego vendetta. And Obama is correct to focus his attentions of Afghanistan, though I'm not sure if the issue would be better dealt with politically rather than with military force. No war is won with just the military... I don't approve of the US militaries actions in Pakistan. A man who works for my dad, recently lost his daughter to a US missile which hit her school... which apparently was hiding Osama Bin Laden in one of the lockers or something... The poor man has gone back home for her funeral. Happy discussions, MGT
Pull out of Iraq, and concentrate on Afghanistan. He's already said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and with Afghanistan providing fertile grounds for terrorists I would guess he'll pour the military resources into properly pacifying there instead. He'd be a fool to abandon the so-called war on terror - one legacy Bush has left is a destabilized Middle East. Regardless of his name, heritage and colour, America is still mired in an un-winable war against a faceless enemy and he can't just walk away from it all. The added problem is that I suspect the US will still need to support Israel as they are their only guaranteed ally in the region against the likes of Iran.
Sounds like a good idea. Obama should follow the rest of the world and be a big pansie-ass ***** about terrorism and give-in. That's what most of Europe has done and everybody seems happy to just be pussies about anything that requires stones. And when the terrorist are blowing up buses and killing civilians in the streets everywhere, all the time, we'll just ask ourselves "Gee, what did we do to upset them? What can we do to make them happy?" and the answer is simple: die. That's what will make them happy, just die.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook leeeeeeeet's get you back into your room and take your medication, mister 3d.
^ Obvious troll is obvious. From what I've read and seen, I think we can safely say that Obama's foreign policy will be superior to that of the current administration's.
Bitter about that bitch slapping you lot got last night, eh? Well brace yourself, the Republican party is going DOWN - this is just the beginning of the end.
OK now Mr. Bush, you had your turn. Now let someone else play President. Really, I hope you didn't expect a serious response.
True Israel is the only ally - and can certainly remain that way. But to dominate US foreign policy and government spending? If they lay off places like Iran for a while, they'll stop being attention whores and continue to develop like other third world countries. We can resume talks in 500 years time when they have developed beyond the medieval stages of society. Dude, what? Who is being a *****? I thought it was very common knowledge that America made up an imaginary enemy and scapegoat in 'Islamic Terrorists' who have as much firepower as a this guy in comparison to people like the US. Terrorism literally didn't exist - it was unheard of - until the US decided it was time to shift some troops into the mountains of Afghanistan, and then, rather randomly to Iraq. Now whereas Afghanistan might have had some mountain dwelling nutcases, Iraq was nutcase free until the Mr Bush decided it was time to stick his fat dick where it didn't belong. As a result, we now have a country in civil war, a country with no money, a country which was robbed of all its money by the country which now has no money, no WMDs, no social stability and unfortunately, a 50000% increase in anti-US terrorism. It would be the equivalent of the neighbour you didn't quite like, coming into your house, raping your wife, decapitating your children and setting fire to your curtains, all in the name of 'good will'. If that had happened to me, I know I most certainly would be a terrorist. Your line: made me laugh so much. You're clearly ignorant of what is going on in the world and are relying on Fox News to tell you whats going on. Even CNN isn't that ignorant. Nobody wants Americans to die, apart from their enemies. America's actions have caused a very large increase in the number of enemies they have, and because these are nutcases, they like blowing civilians up. If you want to blame anyone, he's sitting in a moving van on the way to Texas right now. Leave the nutcases alone. When they find they have no enemies and nobody to pay attention to them, they'll go back to camel-herding or whatever they do...
Don't argue with him, MGT. He's looking to get into a pissing match, and he'll likely drag you down with un-informed, petty insults. That type of rant post is best left unanswered. -monkey
he's asked rahm emanuel to be his chief of staff. somehow, i don't see US policy re: israel changing any time soon. edit: w00t - 2000
lol cc3d just wanted another bitchslapping Bit-Tech isn't the place for uninformed piss-fests.... As for Rahm... he's certainly capable. Though most definitely a Zionist. +1.... And I appear to be nearing the 2000 mark soon as well....
Iraq: Despite what you may see in the news, the insurgency in Iraq is pretty much over and we've won it. As a result the Iraqis are taking over their own security very rapidly indeed, and thus the requirement for US troops is shrinking fast. This is something the Bush administration, the US military and the Iraqi goverment all agree on. Expect a similar transition to what happened to the British forces in the south - moving from a security role to training & overwatch (being on call if the Iraqis need help in a hurry) - and US troops in the country to drop to around 50,000 over the course of the next year or so. Afghanistan: Small increase in US troop deployment, with a higher fraction of the US troops in country moving from US to NATO command. Expect Obama to make lots of diplomatic appeals to other NATO countries & Australia for additional troops/helicopters under the new touchy-feely foreign policy, and expect them to be politely ignored (in much the same way Bush's appeals have been). Those willing to make a significant contribution (the UK, Canada and the Netherlands) are pretty much maxed out, and the rest (Australia, France, Germany, etc.) want to be seen to be taking part but are sending all aid short of help.
Actually, Bush & Co. are not Zionist supporters but rather fundamentalist Christians who believe in Armageddon. The point is not to support a Jewish state but to corral a lot of Jews in the Middle East to facilitate the Rapture and the fabulous end of the world, during which time said Jews are slated for a tidy extermination and subsequent boatride to Hell. Besides which, murder occurs regularly on both sides of Israel's borders, where the word "terrorist" should be replaced by the more accurate "cult murderer" and apply to both Jews and Muslims who choose to respond to injustice with explosives. In fact, let's call it errorism (after the album by NOFX), since the goal is always Lilliputian and arbitrary. "They worship their God from the little end!" The really annoying part is this: the original advocate of a Palestinian state was completely harmless. Unfortunately, the U.S. chose to interfere for the expected reasons (oil, etc.) and forged a monster from local resentment, just as they did in pre-Ajax-Initiative Iran. My primary problem with Israel is not that it is "illegitimate according to U.N. standards," as you suggest (especially since said state was the U.N.'s invention and a convenient way for Britain, the U.S. and other less than benevolent countries to avoid being overrun with those awful declasse concentration camp survivors!). Rather, it is the state's incredible treatment of non-Jewish citizens. Arab residents of Israel are often at an unamusing ironic disadvantage. Imagine suggesting that only gnostic Christians could be full Scots and awarding only partial citizenship to the rest -- that's the kind of institutionalized intolerance that Palestinian/Syrian residents of Is are up against. Many compassionate Israeli citizens (they do exist) are against this. Have a look at novelist David Grossman's speech at the Rabin memorial in Tel Aviv, in which he all but berates Israel's Prime Minister for institutionalized prejudice and criminal military action: "And these are partly the cause of Israel's quick descent into the heartless, essentially brutal treatment of its poor and suffering: This indifference to the fate of the hungry, the elderly, the sick and the disabled, all those who are weak, this equanimity of the State of Israel in the face of human trafficking or the appalling employment conditions of our foreign workers, which border on slavery, to the deeply ingrained institutionalized racism against the Arab minority. When this takes place here so naturally, without shock, without protest, as though it were obvious, . . . I begin to fear that, even if peace were to arrive tomorrow, and even if we ever regained some normalcy, we may have lost our chance for recovery." I have rather mixed feelings about calling myself Jewish because (1) the assumption that Jews comprise a "race" rather than a mere religion is eugenics by the back door, (2) I don't believe in the Jewish law that deems me fully Jewish (Jewish mother = fully Jewish) and (3) I rejected the Jewish religion even as a child and refused to be Bar Mitzvah'd after I heard reference during Passover to the idea of "our" being a "chosen people." In my view, there is no such thing. Institutionalized Zionism seems to amount to little more than sneaking along borders and taking others' land in the name of security. Personally, I'd have liked Zionists better if they were satisfied with the land they'd been given. That said, you shouldn't nurse illusions about harmless feelings in Arab countries toward Jews. Many Zionist Israelis are guilty of prejudice and violence, but so are their so-called "Muslim" counterparts (technically, no true Muslim may commit a murder). I happen to have an Irish surname and am never thought to be Jewish; I wouldn't deny my lineage in most places, but it would be suicide not to in spots like Saudi Arabia, where a confession of that kind could invite alarming confrontations. And by the way: Many Jews happen to have small noses. "Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools." -- Village Voice writer Joe Woods (by way of August Ferdinand Bebel)
The war has been a drain on the financial front for all of those involved. Money spent on a war, which could have been spent better doing the following - Maintaining the global economy, before it all went belly up - Improving homeland security - stopping illegal immigrants, and undesirables from getting into countries, when they could be a terrorist threat -Intelligence, to find the ringleaders of these terrorist factions, and bring them to justice. A war is far to obvious for these purposes. If I was looking to keep away from being captured (and I'm not), and a war kicked off in the country I was hiding in, I'd make sure I got out of it, and fled to a safer place to continue my evil plans. Kill the chicken by cutting the head, not jabbing the body with cocktail sticks What did we do to upset them? I'm sure if you go back in History, you can find an answers, for at least most of the current conflicts. Invading Iraq / Afghanistan has probably converted a couple of people to extremists, just so they can get payback for their dead relation / friend / hamster Someone let me know if I'm making any sense...
Actually no, the Shiite won it. The reason why there is little fighting in Iraq anymore is because there is nobody left for them to fight. I think you're spot on here. That sums it up neatly (although I could add a few things like overthrowing Iran's democratic government in 1953; the whole Israel/Palestine issue and most recently, shipping bombs to Israel so they could kill more Lebanese civilians Hezbollah. But don't expect cc3d to make any sense of it --for some people the world is simply Cowboys vs. Injuns. And Prestidigitweeze: great post as usual.
my understanding after watching a couple of Obama debates is that he is going to sort out the US first, meaning that he is going limit free trade which will in turn affect us in the rest of the world by lowering global growth making things potentially difficult outside of the US (if anyone has any greater knowledge feel free to correct me) i dont begrudge the US this at all as they are in a right mess (health care, housing , Lending, jobs) my only concern is that they take it a little too far and we get into a situation similar to we where in prior to WW2, i howver would like countries in the so called 1st world (if that exists anymore) to be a little more selfish in their policies and not try to fix the rest of the world when there are problems of their own.
Well, i think Obama will try to move troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later (though not overnight), and station some of them in Afghanistan, as was already stated, under NATO command. That way, the US is directly involved, but not the sole commander of the whole operation. The war on "terror" (which is a matter of perspective), just like the war on any belief/ideal is a war that's bound to be unwinnable. So long as there's ONE person who knows about the ideal, there's going to be followers. The only resolution to that would be to go all fascist and wipe out everyone... which is not particularly smart, given the current global fear of anything that looks fascist (and one i agree with for the most part). After that, the foreign politics should take a back seat (seeing as the middle east is now "run by" the NATO), and internal politics should start... mind - that's a perfect world, and an ideal... aka - it's probably not going to happen in that way.
I got something right to do with politics? I don't usually do anything with politics on here - if anything try and avoid it due to lack of knowledge. Maybe I should take a look more often...
Thing is, it comes to the same thing - "victory" was redefined from "democratic government embracing the American way of life" to "democratic government capable of running it's own security affairs without major outside assistance and not hostile to western (US) interests". Any democratic government in Iraq was always going to be Shi'ite dominated (hence the south of the country being far quieter with the exception of JAM - they knew the coalition was working to take power from their enemies and give it to them. The insurgency has always been overwhelmingly Sunni, a mix of Iraqi and foreign fighters. What has happened recently with the Awakening in Anbar province is that the local Sunni have decided that taking part in the government in Baghdad is a better bet than continuing the fight, and so effectively switched sides. The foreign fighters (and there are quite a few - under the banner of Al Quaeda in Iraq or other groups) were beaten almost purely by these Sunni groups.
