Stop playing games, Pentagon shooter was a registered Democrat

[pghin08]

Actually, yes it does. I didn't say we are or aren't pursuing the right foreign policy, I said the American people think we aren't. If they think we are less respected internationally, they most likely don't think we're doing the right things. I'm not saying anything about what other countries think, only that Americans think we aren't pursuing the right policy. And I happen to believe what Americans think about our government is quite important.

But foreign policy is quite literally about our relations with other nations. Maybe we think we're on the wrong track with our policies, but if other nations don't, then who is right? If, as an American, I don't care for my foreign policy, but England, Germany, the Saudis, whoever- if they do, then I should probably concede that argument.

As Americans, one of our main issues is our inability to listen, whether it be to other nations, or just other Americans. We need to step back and analyze what we do from all perspectives (and you're right, including our own), and then make our decisions based off of that collective understanding. We get so caught up in numbers and stats that we lose a part of what made our country great to begin with; an ability to understand and relate to others. It's what is missing in our government and our people as a whole.

[OnePimpTiger]

That's not completely true. Other countries have different agendas and different things they would like to see us do, many of which may be bad for America. Just because another country likes what we're doing, that doesn't make it the right thing for America to do. Our government is supposed to be representatives of the American people...therefore, it should serve the interests of the American people before the interests of other countries.

[theonedru]

Indeed what does it matter what party affiliation he had, the only people it would matter to would be followers of top of the line news parties like the Huffington post, National Enquirer, Fox News. Any real sain person realizes that Democrats and Republicans are one in the same these days.

[pghin08]

That's not completely true. Other countries have different agendas and different things they would like to see us do, many of which may be bad for America. Just because another country likes what we're doing, that doesn't make it the right thing for America to do. Our government is supposed to be representatives of the American people...therefore, it should serve the interests of the American people before the interests of other countries.

But in a post-9/11 world, what most people want is to be safe. We can better achieve that by have policies in place that foster relationships between our country and others. Therefore, it would be more beneficial to see how others see us, because it gives us a far better idea if our policies are benefitting us or not. Taking Iran for example, we've predominately ignored them since the Shah was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeni in '79. It's a policy that has driven a stake further and further between us and them, which in turn has fostered fear of Iran in America (although I must say, them having a ridiculous leader doesn't help the matter). But if you look at what the people of Iran actually want, the majority couldn't care less about the US. Their main concern is their own economic policy.

My whole point with that is that maintaining a foreign policy based off of what Americans think they want can actually be HAZARDOUS to Americans. We trust the government to be better equipped to make decisions like this than an average joe. If we were to have had a more open policy towards Iran for the last 30+ years, maybe things would be different. As of now, it's probably the country we fear the most, when most of that fear is honestly baseless.

Harkening back to the poll, it's the responsibility of all Americans to make an attempt to understand WHY our foreign policies are what they are, and NOT to use a partisan approach to them. If you look at that poll, it closely mirrors how Americans feel about Obama, Congress, and the direction of the country as a whole. There is a "grass is always greener" pattern in America: whatever party is in power is doing a bad job, and the other could do it better. It's what Dems said under Bush II, it's what Republicans say under Obama. That poll has far more to do with the person/party in power than it does with our foreign policy. Mostly because the majority of Americans really have no idea what many of our policies are. I hope that I'm wrong, and I'm not giving most Americans the credit they deserve, but I'm a student of the power that rhetoric has in this country, and boy does it skew public opinion in a heartbeat.

Just a bit of a cynic's view I guess. I do understand where your coming from, I just don't think that it's a very credible poll...and to be fair, I don't think most polls are.

[theonedru]

It doesnt matter how many parties there are as they are all the same scum covered turds with different names

[OnePimpTiger]

I understand where you're coming from as well. If the majority of America wanted to start annexing surrounding territories, by force if necessary, obviously what the American people wanted would be wrong. But, like you said, what most people want is simply to be safe...so that kind of thinking is not involved here.

Iran is the perfect example of what's wrong with current foreign policy. Iran has developed ICBM-capable rockets, within just the past few months have reached weapons grade nuclear capability, and are in the process of building a massive launch area for the rocket. And we're fairly certain they're working with another major problem, North Korea, to develop all of this. And what has the current administration done to combat this? Nothing substantial.

Obama's foreign policy is trying to make everyone happy...but that's impossible when some countries are hellbent on destroying each other. With the Israel/Iran situation, he's trying to walk down the middle just to show Iran he's not Bush. But Iran could care less...all we're doing is estranging a very strong ally in Israel trying to capitulate an insane fanatic who does not care about the same things our government cares about. If we try to appease both, we're just going to allow them to start the next world war. To treat Iran as if they're playing by the same rules as the US or Israel is naive, irresponsible, and dangerous.

[pghin08]

I understand where you're coming from as well. If the majority of America wanted to start annexing surrounding territories, by force if necessary, obviously what the American people wanted would be wrong. But, like you said, what most people want is simply to be safe...so that kind of thinking is not involved here.

Iran is the perfect example of what's wrong with current foreign policy. Iran has developed ICBM-capable rockets, within just the past few months have reached weapons grade nuclear capability, and are in the process of building a massive launch area for the rocket. And we're fairly certain they're working with another major problem, North Korea, to develop all of this. And what has the current administration done to combat this? Nothing substantial.

Obama's foreign policy is trying to make everyone happy...but that's impossible when some countries are hellbent on destroying each other. With the Israel/Iran situation, he's trying to walk down the middle just to show Iran he's not Bush. But Iran could care less...all we're doing is estranging a very strong ally in Israel trying to capitulate an insane fanatic who does not care about the same things our government cares about. If we try to appease both, we're just going to allow them to start the next world war. To treat Iran as if they're playing by the same rules as the US or Israel is naive, irresponsible, and dangerous.

It's tough man, Israel is by far and away the most problematic country on the planet (given its post-WWII birth, how could it not be). My one problem is this, Israel is NOT as strong an ally as we think it is. The Israelis have the most extensive spy system within the United States. I agree with you though, you can never have a foreign policy where you simply try to appease others.

In the case of Iran, it is just as dangerous to treat them as if they do not play by the same rules. One of the main issues though is Ahmedinijad. Truly, he is not extensively liked in his own country. The majority of Iranians don't hold war against Israel and the west as highly as our old buddy Mahmoud does. In regards to their nuclear proliferation, it is a matter of the old security dilemma, if your neighbor arms to protect themselves, you then want a bigger arsenal to protect you from your neighbor, so on and so forth.

I specialized in Terrorism in college, and I think we both can understand that there is no simple answer to what to do about Iran. This is just something that shouldn't be partisan though. All presidents from 1980 up to this point have failed in regards to Iran, Dems or Republicans. We simply need to keep re-evaluating our strategies, trying to figure out what works better and what doesn't. Complicity is our real enemy here.

In a slightly unrelated note, I appreciate the back and forth, I always enjoy talking with someone who has educated views that are far different than mine. After all, how can we practice what we preach if we can't get along?

[OnePimpTiger]

I'm not sure there is a proper, effective response to people like Ahmedinijad...but I'm pretty sure the Obamastration's response is wrong. In the past, we would support his opponents, give them money and weapons, help them overthrow the current regime and set them up as the new boss in town...only to have them turn on us a few years later (as we did with Afghanistan when Russia invaded). And that course of action was born out of trying to be everyone's friend as well. We wanted to influence wars, countries, conflicts, etc to our favor, but didn't want anyone to know about it.

But obviously, trying to reason with people like that rarely works as well. Economic influences are one of the strongest on the planet...but religious influence is often much stronger. I don't think economic sanctions (at least anything short of a total blockade) will ever work with people like Ahmedinijad or groups like Al Qaeda because they are fighting for what is in their perception more fundamental values than wealth and prosperity. That's why I don't think the weak sanctions and empty threats of the Obamastration will achieve anything. Maybe a total blockade would help...but America doesn't have the backbone for that anymore.

I'm all for reason and diplomacy with countries who abide by them. But many countries don't...and for that reason, they're often the most dangerous as well. Sometimes the only respected deterrent is the threat of (or possibly the use of) extreme force. A lot of people cry warmonger at a statement like that, but nothing could be farther from the truth. I, as most people do, despise war...I want nothing more than to live and let live. But I realize there are people in this world who are different, who don't want to just live and let live. And, as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would rather use necessary force to end things quickly than draw them out in time, resources, and lives. I don't think we're to that point with Iran yet, but I do think it is drawing nigh.

And I completely agree about the back and forth. I appreciate people who can discuss these topics rationally and reasonably...our country would be much better off if there were more.

[OnePimpTiger]

Pelosi: We Must Pass The Health Care Bill So That We Can Find Out What’s In It

(From Pelosi's Remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties)

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Now this is a new tactic, I can honestly say I've never seen this before. "If you let us pass this bill, then we'll tell you what it is!" I have a revolutionary idea...now this may shock some, so hold on to your britches...how about we find out what is in it before it's voted on? I know, wild right?

[Aikman_TheGreat]

I hope that is taken out of context. There is no way anyone can be that stupid as to want to PASS something just to find out what it is. Just read it first, then find out if you want it passed or not.

Its like "Lets Make a Deal", open door 1, 2, or 3, before you even know what is behind them.