Obama–International Leader or Community Organizer?

It’s an important and defining question. Can Obama Act Decisively? Words. Actions. Consequences. Does Obama understand?

But it seems as though you are the only idiot who doesn’t truly understand the power of words. Especially when they come from the mouth of the President of the United States of America.

Democrats are right to feel upset about President Bush’s appeasement accusation. It is their Achilles’ heel in this election and they know it. The foreign-policy mantra of the Obama campaign amounts to this: Talk is cheap.
Over the next five months we will see the many tentacles of such a strategy emerge and the comeback “that’s political” — as Obama has objected — will be treated with the disdain it deserves. Determining how to deal with the enemies of freedom and democracy is as political as it gets.

When a POTUS speaks to someone. When a POTUS sits at a table with someone. When a POTUS breaks bread with someone. It confers legitimacy upon the person or party. It tells the world that this is a serious person. This is someone who should be noted. Someone to whom we should pay attention.

The Soviet Union. China. We had no choice but to notice them. They were a reality and their decision and actions had the effect of creating realities.

Iran. North Korea. Lybia. These countries leaders. These are not serious people. Their decisions are usually petty. They are usually destructive. They are more often than not aimed toward a purpose to disrupt rather than to create or assist or build. These are nations with the sole intent of destroying with their actions.

These are Nations that support, create and carry out terror.

If the POTUS meets with these nations, that signals to the world that these are serious nations with whom the world should treat. With whom the world should break bread.

If Obama becomes POTUS, he needs to act as if he knows the gravity of his choices. If Iran truly is no threat, as Barack states, then there is no reason to meet with the mad, little Iranian aspirant to mass murder. Yes, I speak of Mahmood Ahmadinejad.

North Korea should be treated as a belligerent state. It should not be rewarded. I think we should back out of the North Korea sweepstakes completely. Let the South and Japan take the lead for the West.

The world wants the US to back off some from our World Police mentality. North Korea and Iran would be perfect places to do so in my opinion. Back off. Let the other Nations deal with them.

But if attacked by either. Our reaction should be swift and hard. Deadly. Destructive. Decisive. The Full Force of American Might and Resolve.

I know McCain can be those things. Will Obama waver? Is Obama but a Carter redux? A fearful and irresolute foreign policy President who will blink when faced with a crisis. We may face that question in the years to come. Will a President Obama pass the test?

In other words, talk isn’t cheap at all. And a President Obama’s stunningly specious foreign policy will be paid for in blood, sweat, and tears.

16 comments on “Obama–International Leader or Community Organizer?

  1. “All politics is local ” Tip O’Neil

    In 2002 many with “vast experience” in foreign affairs (Hillary, McCain ) got it wrong about the Iraq invasion.

    Obama was smart enough to get it right.

  2. I disagree with you. We were right to do something about Iraq. Now Bush and Cheney have made numerous mistakes after the initial war/invasion. If we stick with Iraq and finish out there as opposed to tucking tail and running away, we will have done some good. If we leave it loose and roll out precipitously, there will be negative consequences. Those consequenes could be as bad as what occurred in Afghanistan after the Russians left.

    We need to finish the job in Iraq. We need to maintain a partnership with Iraq.

    We’ve made too many mistakes thus far. Some of those mistakes can be laid at the foot of that idiot Bush but not all.

  3. We had to do something about Iraq???

    Why was it so urgent to do something about Iraq?

    We were lied into thinking that we had to do something about Iraq.

    Was the loss of 3 trillion dollars and over 4000 lives and many thousand maimed for life and the international bad will generated worth what was accomplished?

    Yes …A lot of people trusted the man the GOP put its stamp of approval on.

    Iraq is a job that never should have undertaken.

  4. I disagree. It was time to move on with Iraq. I said in 2002 and before that it was time to either stop with the sanctions or to remove Saddam Hussein. One or the other.

    Things of this scale never filter out immediately. This may be the greatest mistake of America. It may turn out to be one of our greatest accomplishments.

    Alaska was considered Seward’s folly. What were the true consequences of World War II? No one knows what may happen. If Iraq calms down and we achieve a peace within those borders, it could lead to greater achievements.

    It may well be the beginning of the end of the United States as a world power. I’m sure that will make many people within and without the United States immeasurably happy.

    Point is. We won’t know the full consequences of our actions for years, decades.

  5. It was time to get >4000 killed etc

    You ,sir ,are in denial.

    You have blind faith in something. Good luck!

  6. Bush and Co. did not deliberately lie to get us into Iraq. They didn’t even lie. A lot of people in the intelligence community and the military believed that Iraq possessed WMD. It made sense to me to invade Iraq when you consider some of the factors in 2002:

    Saddam probably has WMD.
    Saddam HAS used WMD against his enemies
    AlQaeda has declared war on us and has attacked
    The old muslim proverb “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
    (So although Saddam’s Iraq is a secular state he is the enemy of AlQaeda’s enemy)

    Based on those factors there existed a possibility that the resources of a WMD possessing nation state could be paired with a globe spanning terrorist network with the ability to deliver those WMD in a probable non-attributable way.

    Makes perfect sense to me to preemptively strike to ensure that scenario never happened. Even if it was a slim possibility we needed to do it. The consequences of just one attack by a WMD are just too horrific to be weak kneed. We must be preemptive in our defense.

    Yes we’ve lost 4,000 troops over 5 years and the lose of just one is a tragedy. Put things in perspective though, in one battle in WWII twice that was lost, just one battle. Now had we not invaded and the above scenario took place we could have lost ten times that in an instant.

    So quit you’re belly achin gasdocpol and be thankful you’re not the one that has to live with the burden of initiating that invasion and subsequent occupation.

  7. EVEN IF SADDAM HAD WMDs HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STUPID AND CRAZY ENOUGH TO USE THEM AGAINST THE USA.

    THE WAR WAS UNECESSARY, COUNTER PRODUCTINE AND DUMB.

    BUSH/CHENEY LIED TO PLUNDER IRAQI OIL

    IRAQ NEVER DID TERRORISM AGAINST THE USA.

  8. Ok, obviously you didn’t get the “non-attributable” part of what I posted. Non-attributable means we wouldn’t have known who had used the WMD to attack us.

    I think its pretty plain now that you’re not rational. “PLUNDER IRAQI OIL”? You’ve got to be kidding me. If that had been the plan I wouldn’t be trading in my Mustang for a damn HYBRID.

    I must admit though I am entertained by your use of UPPER CASE.

  9. Terry

    Would Saddam go to the trouble of develloping WMD then turn them over to terrorists over whom he would had no control.

    Bin Laden and Saddam were enemies.

    Iraq had never committed terrorism against the USA

    Just because Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld screwed up the war does not mean that the motive was not oil.

    You are rationalizing “The gang who could not shoot straight”

  10. Key statement above: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” That is an ARAB saying. They live by that. To think that the two (Saddam and Bin Laden) would not have collaborated given the chance against us is just naive. You bet Saddam would have turned over WMD to Bin Laden to use against us.

    Sure, Iraq never committed an act of “terrorism” against the US, however, Iraq was engaged in combat operations against the US for several years. US and Coalition Air Forces were being fired upon daily since Operation DESERT FOX in December of 1998. Daily as USAF aircraft patrolled the Southern and Northern No Fly Zones Iraq’s Air Defense and Air Forces attempted to shoot down our aircraft. Note the date of Operation DESERT FOX, that was during Clinton’s term in office. No act of “terrorism” need be perpetrated to prove Saddams animus towards the US, it was quite clear by his aggressive actions in the NFZs.

    The same applies in reverse, just because they mismanaged the occupation doesn’t mean the motive WAS oil either.

  11. Terry Jr, you should know by now that liberals are emotion centered rather than fact or knowledge centered.

  12. alphaheretic

    Emotion centered?

    In October 2002 when many Americans had the emotionally motivated support for “the need to do something about Iraq” because bush/cheney were inplicitly and explicitly saying that iraq “had something to do with 9/11.

    Obama was coolly saying

    I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

    McCain is emotional. Obama is cool.

  13. Obama is a marxist fool.

    al Qaeda is on it’s last legs. Sputtering on the brink of the abyss. This is so precisely because we took the war to them rather than waiting for them to attack again in America.

    I suppose you would rather have made an empty speech, lobbed a couple of missiles and then forgotten about the whole 9-11 affair. You know Bill Clinton style. Big Willie Style. lol

    And please just call me Dave

  14. Dave (aka alphaheretic)

    !. Why do you say that Obama is a marxist ?

    2. Does the expression “Post hoc ergo propter hoc ” have any meaning for you?

    3.. Do you think that the Iraq invasion was an appropriate response to 9/11 ?

    Don

  15. Obama associates with Marxists. He spouts Marxist rhetoric. You “collectivize” it. lol Hell, his Soviet Uncle liberated Auschwitz. So says Obama. I’m sure that’s where he learned it. lol

    Iraq was not a response to 9/11. Iraq is/was about so much more than 9/11. I have always been of the opinion that anyone who needed WMD as justification for the removal of Saddam Hussein was a coward. Husseins attempted murder of a FPOTUS was in and of itself cassus belli. It should have been at any rate. But at the time, we had a coward for a President.

    Afghanistan was the response to 9/11.

    So you are correct in your assumptions of a logical fallacy. The logical fallacy exists in your reasoning, not mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.