What Ticked you off Today - The political offshoot

[mjmjr25]

Well Mike, here's the thing: The US is not really in a position to involve itself in everyone's affairs. We literally lack the money AND the prestige to influence the world as much as we would like, or at least enough to be effective.

In most of those countries (Turkey being the nominal exception), Russia and China are the geopolitical leaders and undoing their influence would be more difficult / dangerous that necessary.

Prestige comes from strong, unwavering, and right action. Our inaction, primarily in Syria only weakens our wavering prestige. The beacon of light, that if we stand up, if we sacrifice, if we show we are willing to sacrifice it all, then the support will come. It hasn't, and it is sad, because we can. Support doesn't have to be 200,000 boots on the ground. Support can be loud, but more importantly, sound and articulate information at the UN and hammered in daily pressers that sink out into the global media.

Undoing influence and/or actively instigating - I would agree with you, that is not necessarily appropriate policy. Firmly supporting allies, is not this.

The indecisiveness in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria will haunt us, and their peoples in the future. Missed opportunities for those peoples.

A tyrant in Iran, and clerical tyrannical leadership, the imprisoning of rightful election winners - a true chance and need for strong US leadership and support was met with a loud vacuum. Missed opportunities for those peoples.

A social tyrant and racist (toward non-indigenous Venezuelans) in Venezuela, but because Mr. Chavez is smart and doesn't condemn Mr. Obama, our State Department does not bring up Venezuela, or the current sham in another election year in that country. Our state department should be holding daily pressers on this intimidation and state of affairs. It will be another missed opportunity.

A financial crisis with no intelligent response, other than throwing more non-existent money at problems and providing bailouts against the same fortune 500's he espoused in the run up to the first election needed "to be held accountable" for poor practices.

I'm not saying anyone should vote for Mr. Romney or anyone else - I am saying I am baffled that anyone, particularly with children, believes Mr. Obama is a good thing for this country, both foreign and domestic.

[Flake]

You're oversimplifying things, Mike.

Let's use Syria as an example. We have not done a whole lot there except for a bit of financial assistance and maybe some small arms for the rebels. Now why is that?

Well, Syria's rebel forces are called 'rebel forces' for a very good reason: There is no single entity for us to negotiate. There are so many factions involved with no unified leadership. Worse yet, many of these factions have ties to known terrorist groups who are hoping to use the situation to their advantage once Al Assad is removed.

So what would you have us do? Send in the troops? I'm tired of that. Aren't you?

Arm the rebels and hope for the best? We did that in a little country called Afghanistan. Watch Rambo III some time.

We have done nearly nothing in Syria because there is (sadly) almost nothing we CAN do. We are NOT the world's police.

As for Libya and the other Arab Spring countries you mentioned, what did we do that was indecisive? NO ONE saw Arab Spring coming. NO ONE. And now that it has happened, no one knows what to do with it. We don't even know if it was a good thing! Waiting for a course of action to present itself is not the same as being indecisive.

You say that keeping the country safe and secure is the President's job. Sometimes you keep your people safe by not getting them involved in things that we don't need to be involved in.

@Boringsupreez: Texas Weather is awesomely random. It will either be 95 degrees or 35 degrees. Your drill instructor will have fun yelling at you to wear whatever they want you to wear!

[mjmjr25]

Oversimplifying is not fair - this is an off-shoot of an off-shoot, we aren't writing essays here. Syria would need it's own thread - probably multiple threads

More than ever we realize how small this massive world is. It is all intertwined. We should in fact be involved in all movements we can be involved in.

Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News during the Bush Administration we should be prepared for these populaces to uprise, and it will be a swell when it happens. Granted, there was no timeline given - but it was a thought. You and I both know there are highly capable and highly paid persons who's only job in the DoD is to come up with scenarios and a contingency scenario, and then stretch that out...and then stretch it out in the other direction. Once the waves started in Tunisia - that's when all of the contingency planning begins.

I simply disagree that we can't be more involved in Syria - again, that would require an offshoot of this thread.

World's Policeman, yeah, tough one. I don't like the term either, but I can't argue it, we may not be the policeman, but we are and should be the worlds moral authority. I know that won't be a popular thought on this particular site.

You'll recall what Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither."

More than any other country in the world we have the political openness, the military prowess, and the moral judgement to be the worlds Ben Franklin, and it would be a sad thing to skirt away from that responsibility.

[dsheinem]

I can't think of a worse idea than basing contemporary foreign policy on the ideas of Charles Krauthammer and Ben Franklin.

[Flake]

Dude, we're not the world's moral authority, either.

We need to get our own house in order. Now is not the time for us to look to changing the worlds and lives of others. If it's easy and cheap, I am there. We are practically funding the polio vaccination efforts in the Niger, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That's the type of world leadership I can get down with.

Convincing the oldest civilizations on earth to adopt our lifestyle? Sorry, that doesn't interest me. You can't force democracy on people. They have to find it themselves. Once they are there, I say help 'em out. But they have to find it themselves for it to matter.

[mjmjr25]

I can't think of a worse idea than basing contemporary foreign policy on the ideas of Charles Krauthammer and Ben Franklin.

I'd be happy to sub in George Will. Three of the most brilliant minds i've been exposed to.

@Colin, i'll hit you up PM style for more eventful discourse.

[MrPopo]

I'd argue that it's impossible for any country to be the world's moral authority, because morals are a human construct that changes as the years pass.

[dsheinem]

I can't think of a worse idea than basing contemporary foreign policy on the ideas of Charles Krauthammer and Ben Franklin.

I'd be happy to sub in George Will. Three of the most brilliant minds i've been exposed to.

@Colin, i'll hit you up PM style for more eventful discourse.

You need to be exposed to more minds.

And don't take it to PM, please, I think all interested parties deserve to see the discussion play out.

[dsheinem]

I'd argue that it's impossible for any country to be the world's moral authority, because morals are a human construct that changes as the years pass.

+1

[Stark]

I wouldn't mind seeing this shift back to Benghazi and how that was handled. Moving beyond word play with "terrorist act" vs "acts of terror." How does this look good for the President? Why does it seem that nobody involved is on the same page (ie. Rice, Clinton, Carney, Obama)? What is the reason for going to LV for a campaign event, rather than investigating? I'm hoping we hear more answers surrounding this at the last presidential debate.