The Obama Years- A GOP love story

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok ,then what is it the you think should be done ?

As CRed has stated, first and foremost, acknowledge that the majority of the world does not believe western liberal democracy (again, little l, little d) is the be all and end all of governmental forms. In the trade off between individual freedom and security, the majority of nation-states choose security. Only western European countries and those govts. established or nurtured by them (Japan for example) have bought into the US/European ideal.

Once this is acknowledged, stop playing nice and stop playing policeman. Clearly state our policy interests and, essentially, play the game of real-politik that China and Russia are now doing. In addition to our overwhelming military might, we have considerable economic strength through diverse and global economic alliances and, with it, we can, and should, act to protect our economic interests and partners. Our military should be engaged only to the extent it clearly benefits these economic and national security interests.

Primary among those interests should be the limitation of Putin's attempts to undermine the Ukraine and through the Russian sponsored attacks on that country, undermine our relationship with Germany, the fundamentally strongest and best European partner we have (Where does the majority of Germany's gas come from - hint, from a pipeline running through a country that begins with U and ending in a country that begins with an R). Provide air support wtihin the Ukraine with a promise that any fire upon US planes from outside Ukrainian borders will be returned with overwhelming force (so, Mr. Putin, better make sure none of your tanks are near rebel forces firing at US planes from within your borders).

As to China, publicly reaffirm our alliances with Japan and Taiwan. Park a carrier group or two in their territorial waters and let the Chinese bitch. Then, impose a prohibitive tariff on all Chinese imports until and unless they unpeg the yuan.

In essence, make it clear we are no longer the world's policeman but will, instead, use both our military and economic might to protect clearly defined policy goals. Regardless of what the actual policies may be, clarity and consistency are incredibly important. If you disagree with my proposed policies on China and Russia, fine. I am not wedded to either. Whatever our policy is, however, our line in the sand and the penalty for crossing it must be clear. Lacking the recognition that a line must be drawn and that it must be clear invites the destructive misunderstandings that triggered WWI one hundred years ago.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

In essence, make it clear we are no longer the world's policeman but will, instead, use both our military and economic might to protect clearly defined policy goals. Regardless of what the actual policies may be, clarity and consistency are incredibly important. If you disagree with my proposed policies on China and Russia, fine. I am not wedded to either. Whatever our policy is, however, our line in the sand and the penalty for crossing it must be clear. Lacking the recognition that a line must be drawn and that it must be clear invites the destructive misunderstandings that triggered WWI one hundred years ago.

So we aren't the Worlds Police (i agree) but then we draw a line in the sand and say cross it and we will fight you , the only way that works is to back it up, sorry nope . The people in this country are tired of fighting wars ,they are tired of sending their Fathers/Mothers and Sons/Daughters off to die in another country to protect a policy .Obama knows this so his options are limited .

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So we aren't the Worlds Police (i agree) but then we draw a line in the sand and say cross it and we will fight you , the only way that works is to back it up, sorry nope . The people in this country are tired of fighting wars ,they are tired of sending their Fathers/Mothers and Sons/Daughters off to die in another country to protect a policy .Obama knows this so his options are limited .

You want isolationism? Fine. Announce it. Cede our economic interests to China & Russia and the ME to extremists. I am fine with that (basically). Just make clear where the GD line is. What are our national interests? Where do we draw the line?

For Europe, Obama has just announced it is not in Ukraine. Is the Danube? The Oder? The Elbe? The Rhine? Brooklyn? With this administration, I just don't f'ing know and, more importantly, I don't think they know either.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So we aren't the Worlds Police (i agree) but then we draw a line in the sand and say cross it and we will fight you , the only way that works is to back it up, sorry nope . The people in this country are tired of fighting wars ,they are tired of sending their Fathers/Mothers and Sons/Daughters off to die in another country to protect a policy .Obama knows this so his options are limited .

Good leaders can draw appropriate lines, AND explain to tired fathers/mothers/sons/daughters WHY the line is drawn, and why we need to be prepared for all eventualities. You can do this with phrases like, but not limited to:
- the United States upholds the long standing belief that civil society depends on free trade, and respect for a country's soveriegn borders. What is happening today in Ukraine is unacceptable for a neighboring country to take another country's land and resources through military force. We as a nation cannot let that aggression go undeterred, because through the course of history, we have learned that agressors rarely stop with one bite. And Russia is already on it's 2nd, having seized portions of Georgia in 2008. To this end, we will, with Ukrainian support place a F-18 squadron temporarily in Kiev. And we will begin regular patrols over Ukraine sovereign air space. We do not want war, but if our forces are attacked on patrol we will respond. We call on Russia to stand down from their aggressive advances in Ukraine. And we call on nations around the world to work with us in order to deter them from any further incursions.
-- end statement
Now before you cry that this will start a war -
a) a war is already started
b) we are clearly stating a long held US and international principal of sovereignty
c) we are not saying that we will attack, only that we will respond. if Russia doesn't want a war, then they will step back.

obviously, you have to have Ukrainian buy in. And you have to present it to the US public as a valid policy requirement. If the US is not willing to then the President should make the following (or equivalent):

Russia has determined that it is going to seize portions of a sovereign nation. When Iraq did this to a US Ally with recognized treaties of protection, we responded by driving Iraq's forces out within months. We hold our treaties and friends in high regards and will support them always. To the Ukrainian citizens who Russia has deemed to invade, we express sympathy. To the world at large, we ask that the UN General Assembly immediately vote to strip Russia of any and all guarantees as they have broached the UN charter. And we proclaim to our treaty allies of Estonia, Poland, Latvia, that we stand with you as we stood with Kuwait. You will not fall under a Russian territorial grab. To US citizens, we are members of NATO because it gives us a common protective force that keeps aggressors away from us, our friends, and our allies. We must always remember that our way of life and prosperity comes in many ways from the protective alliances which have allowed markets to grow and economies to be resilient. We do not want to see troubled waters, but we cannot allow our long time friends and allies to return to the days of shadows and doubt. We say to Ukraine that we see your struggle, and for now, offer the hope that one day Ukrainians will join side by side in the EU, and NATO.


Sure, I am not a politician, so there are multiple layers in both those things that diplomats and their ilk would iron out. But the point is that you be decisive and you lay out the national political values of why, if it is, this fight needs to be fought, or you let the world know that this is not our fight, but if you want to make it our fight, we will do our best to kick your a$$

Instead, what we get is a mad parent setting curfews, withholding allowances, waggling his finger at what he sees as a rebellious child. Putin is not a rebellious child, he is an attack dog, and he will attack (when the moment is best in his judgement) until he has a reason not too.

[tshile]

i love 'trade deficit' arguments.

[CRedskinsRule]

If you don't want to argue trade deficits, you should take note of the international attempt of the brics nations to remove the position of the dollar. Russia has taken the ruble back to a gold standard and is talking about only selling oil in rubles. China has enough US Treasury notes to force quite a run if they were to demand repayment instead of floating new loans.

When we as US citizens think of the world we are in some ways similar to Marie Antoinette (or Marie Therese if some accounts are believed) when she uttered her line "Let them eat cake". Meaning we really don't see the world as other countries view it. For example, while I think the ice bucket challenge was for a great cause, I know I saw one tweet of unique pain showing a group doing the ice bucket challenge juxtaposed with a group of African children holding out hands for drops of safe drinking water.
Also, not everyone is striving to follow in the US style of government more than half of the foreign leaders have never considered putting themselves out of a job at the whim of their populace and consider the US style folly.

To reference G1: I would like the leadership of the US to behave like they understand the nature of this world and not like we are all one group hug (or on the other side one new advanced weapon) away from utopia.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by tshile

i love 'trade deficit' arguments.

Way to cherry-pick. Of course, it ignores the actual point of my economic argument: China engages in aggressive trade and economic policies to enhance its economic standing and, in doing so, is not interested in “cooperative” trade with the US. Rather, it is conducting old-style mercantilism and accruing ownership interest in US financial instruments through a policy of monetary manipulation. Trade deficits in and of themselves are not necessarily dangerous, but the manner in which they are created may be – and, in the case of China, is.

But, hey, aggressive trading policy is capitalism at its best. China’s trade policies would be fine if the US acknowledged their manipulative monetary and piracy policies in our own economic trade policies and attempted to combat them. We could do that any number of ways - either buy back the interest, find a way to force the Chinese to unpeg the yuan and/or impose retributive import fees to counteract the aggressive Chinese monetary policies. However, since most people – and certainly this administration - seem to think as you do that “Hey, we’re trading with them. It must mean they want to work with us on some level,” such policies stand little chance of being enacted.

Very simply, there has been no:

Originally Posted by tshile

significant progress made in relations between us and China in terms of trade and cooperativeness.

China does not engage in “cooperative trade.” It engages in economic warfare including piracy of intellectual property at the drop of a hat.

Explain the basis for you assertion that “significant progress” has been made in US/China relations. Based on everything I have read from govt. and various policy study groups, China has been more combative in its economic policies. Further, in addition to their confrontational economic policies, and in the last 10 years, China has become much more aggressive in asserting their regional military might (i.e. their confrontational stances with both Taiwan and Japan and territorial claims).

And I’m sorry but this statement is completely without merit:

Originally Posted by tshile

There are many that view China as a communist-in-name-only country that's on the verge of officially moving into a more democratic state.

Please provide some reliable source materials indicating that China is in anyway approaching “democracy” as that term is defined in the US. It is a one party country that stifles opposing views and strictly controls information access. It is a brutal and repressive regime that brooks no dissent. As I said previously and which you ignored, the Chinese govt. is not bound by the Rule of Law and not responsible for its actions to its populace.

The idea that we're constantly on the brink of war with China is one that seems to be about a decade or two out of date.

Are we on the brink of a shooting war with China as we were with the Soviet Union during the cold war when two super powers, who were fundamentally and philosophically diametrically opposed, formed a bipolar world and any perceived imbalance between them - such that one might be able to gain world-wide dominance over the other – threatened cataclysmic confrontation? No. Not even close.

Is our relationship with China, however, one in which the Chinese may mistakenly believe that the US will not aid Japan or (more likely) Taiwan if it were to dangerously encroach on Japan's territorial sovereignty or attempt to "reclaim its lost province" of Formosa and force the US’s hand as Germany did with Britain in WWI and the invasion of Belgium (Unaware of certain secret treaties, the German military elite believed Britain would stay neutral in any continental war)? Or as Germany did in WWII with Britain and France in the invasion of Poland (After they sold out Czechoslovakia, Hitler was convinced that B&F would not declare war over Poland)? Possibly.

Your take on China strikes me as incredibly naïve and far removed from reality. But, hey, show me what you got and I’ll listen.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You mean the same foreign policy they've had for about 50-60 years now?

Well, no. Our policy in the 50's 60's and early 70's was a continuation of the Truman Doctrine formed in the bipolar power world with global containment of the Soviet Union's hegemony while expanding our own through the creation of client state governments friendly to us even if they were undemocratic (such as Chile and Iraq) and confronting Soviet client states through our own(S. Korea, Vietnam, Israel) being the primary goal.

In the late 70's Carter repudiated the Real Politik of Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon and made human rights primary in our foreign policy actions.

In the 80's and 90's, the Reagan/Bush Doctrine returned to a policy of containment but with an element of economic confrontation and escalation not previously used in the 50/60/70's era. The confrontation toppled the Soviet Union because it simply could not compete on the economic battlefield.

Clinton. Welcome to the role of the world's policeman. The Balkans, Haiti, the Middle East. Is there a conflict - we'll referee.

Bush II and post 9/11: Bang, bang, shoot, shoot. FU world if you don't like it. We have the biggest stick and we will use it to impose our world view on you!

Obama: <in my best Bill Lumberg voice> Umm, yeah ... we're just gonna, gonna hug it out. Okay? good. Umm, you're going to have to move your tanks out of the Ukraine, Okay? ummmm. Oh, and we're going send some drones all over the place. Okay? ummmm. yeah.

Our foreign policy has changed and morphed over the last 50 years considerably. Quite frankly, it is time to morph again and to recognize the new realities created by the multi-power world we now live in.

[CRedskinsRule]

This is the type of statement that I am talking about:

Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews 7m

President Obama says military confrontation between Russia and the US is 'not in the cards'

In a liberal democratic ideal world, this is a tension easing statement. Can't we all just get along, group hug, and group think to solve a problem. That works well for internal US politics, because we have a national history and similar core beliefs that say, Yes, we should not use military confrontation to resolve our issues. (Hence why Ferguson blew up when it looked like the local police were going military - though interesting that national guard troops helped quiet it, but even in that case the national guard was seen as limiting militarized police, in addition to force against the public unrest).

BUT, to put that statement out there for global politics is to tell those who don't share that mentality, that it's ok to carve Ukraine up. We will be very mad and disappointed, but there won't be any "real" consequences. And if you think Putin cares about his people - a) he has a 80% popularity rating (I heard it will be 85% after the next KGB sweep ), b) his response to our sanctions was to take food off his foodstore shelves with his own sanctions.

[JoeRedskin]

^^ This +1

[CRedskinsRule]

When I gave the 2 ways a President could react, I said, if it's NOT worth fighting for then the president should clearly express where (if any where) that line is. I get that Ukraine isn't, we don't have any specific alliances with Ukraine, we don't have any direct national resources dependent on them. That's fine. I disagree that a country being invaded, particularly when the nation doing the invading has shown a propensity for it, but I get it. You draw the line somewhere else. But where we disagree is that if this isn't a line in the sand point, with non -allies (or potential adversaries) like Russia and China, you can't speak in group huggeese, and you don't just take one of your biggest advantages (a strong military) out of the equation at the onset, because that emboldens them. You have to come out, and not in 30 second radio quips, or even Saturday morning shows. No matter what you believe our response should be on the ground, a country has had one part of it forcibly removed (Crimea) and another under siege by the same style tactics. The President of the United States should address the US on National television, as a whole, setting aside political bickering and draw a rousing bipartisan speech that unites the country to understand that this is a bad thing, and IF Russia or China continue to behave in that manner, it will become a US national issue at x point, (ie invading Estonia), and why. And should condemn nationally, and follow it up in the UN General Assembly, the attack on sovereign territory unambiguously.

Originally Posted by GiantOne

... all I kept asking is why are we there and no one could answer me , tell me policy and I would have punch you in the mouth...

In fact you outline exactly what I am saying this President should do when you say no one could tell you why we were in Vietnam. In the bipolar world, that ambiguity was hid a little because the USSR was a useful threat. In the unipolar world, the US could protect a state like Kuwait because well we were top dog, and US citizens felt pretty near invincible, and we were. But in the world we are heading into, we need our leaders to be decisive, and clear in their stance (and I don't mean by simply saying "let me be clear"), and in their actions. Develop our national stance with both sides of the aisle, draw up a clear unambiguous statement of national policy and find the common core values that all US citizens can understand and believe in, and then go before the nation, and world, and tell it to those who are acting in ways that might bring confrontation, This is where we as a nation stand. Read my second one (not the one where we actively defend Ukraine, but where we set our principles in tangible actions), I believe that the President could make that speech, with minimal diplomatic coverage, and imo 70% of both sides of the aisle would cheer him. (minus the far right warnicks , and the far left peaceniks).

[JoeRedskin]

G1, so when would you commit US troops? I get Ukraine is not the place and, while I think it will only encourage Putin to be more aggressive, I am okay with saying "Sorry Ukraine, if economic sanctions don't stop him, we're out."

When Putin sends people troops to "support" the Russian enclave in Western Estonia, claims the Estonian govt. is repressing their freedoms, etc., will we honor our NATO treaty commitment?

What is your line in the sand?

[over the mountain]

one thing is for sure - i think everyone in hindsight is glad obama pulled back from his red line with syria after the chemical use and didnt do missile strikes to assist the "rebels" against assad like everyone wanted .... as it appears that would have just cleared the way for ISIS "rebels" to control all of syria.

im glad obama didnt listen to the media and pundits who were calling him weak and indecisive. man - could you imagine how hard those same pundits would be now blaming obama for helping ISIS if he had listened to them!!

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

one thing is for sure - i think everyone in hindsight is glad obama pulled back from his red line with syria after the chemical use and didnt do missile strikes to assist the "rebels" against assad like everyone wanted .... as it appears that would have just cleared the way for ISIS "rebels" to control all of syria.

im glad obama didnt listen to the media and pundits who were calling him weak and indecisive. man - could you imagine how hard those same pundits would be now blaming obama for helping ISIS if he had listened to them!!

To be clear, the line in the sand was one of his good moments, imo. That clarity resulted in chemical weapons being destroyed, without us firing a shot.

[JoeRedskin]

Obama made his initial Red Line comment in an unscripted statement. I don't think he was ever particularly comfortable with it. It was a sound bite that sounded good but then he realized it boxed him in. Not sure he was being particularly "decisive" in backing down from it - he waffled his way away from a remark he never particularly liked, and it just happened to break his way.