If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   AWOL from Obama's speech: US Foreign Policy direction for the next 4 years   (wired.com) divider line 87
    More: Interesting, obama, AWOL, foreign policy, Osama bin Laden, U.S., conflicts in the Middle East, Vice President Joe Biden, global powers  
•       •       •

659 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 4:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 01:46:15 PM
So? He's done a good job in foreign policy so far. What needed clarification is domestic policy.
 
2012-09-07 01:47:11 PM
As opposed to the Republicans demonstrated policy of pissing off pretty much everyone?
 
2012-09-07 01:53:46 PM
Obama has no (public) plans to start a land war in Asia, he hasn't gone around telling Olympic host cities that they can't do as good of a job of hosting a Games as a glorified rest stop in the middle of a salt flat, and he sics ninjas on terrorists.
 
2012-09-07 01:58:18 PM
Obama kills pirates, too.
 
2012-09-07 01:59:12 PM
I just assumed it would be the same foreign policy he's used the past few years. Don't go around pissing on people and rattling sabres, treat people with respect and earn theirs, try to ensure that when our muscle is flexed it is proportionate to the need for it, and keep blasting fool terrorists.
 
2012-09-07 02:00:17 PM
Well, now, only people who haven't made up their minds whom to vote for already would be interested in that, and they don't count.
 
2012-09-07 02:00:28 PM
Don't invade more countries in the Middle East? If we get attacked by someone, don't invade someone else? Listen to your generals and don't be an idiot? Don't relay on faked information?

I think he's already on those, and good for him.
 
2012-09-07 02:04:45 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I just assumed it would be the same foreign policy he's used the past few years. Don't go around pissing on people and rattling sabres, treat people with respect and earn theirs, try to ensure that when our muscle is flexed it is proportionate to the need for it, and keep blasting fool terrorists.

 
2012-09-07 02:05:30 PM

Nabb1: Well, now, only people who haven't made up their minds whom to vote for already would be interested in that, and they don't count.


Doubtful. Foreign policy ain't exactly a swing voter issue.

/Well, he really supports gay rights, but I don't like what I'm hearing about Turkey's admission to the EU...
 
2012-09-07 02:06:41 PM
Its a little different when you've been President for 4 years.  Anything omitted from his speech can be taken as "we'll persue the same course of action."
 
Agree with it or don't, but its pretty obvious that he's going to stay with his same policies in that department.
 
2012-09-07 02:07:23 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Obama kills pirates, too.


I actually forgot about that. He really has done a lot.
 
2012-09-07 02:08:15 PM
What about other things that are important but he didn't mention because he didn't want a 20 hour speech like:
The war on drugs
Homelessness
Scarecrow's Brain.
 
2012-09-07 02:08:47 PM
AWOL from Romney's speech: Any direction for next 4 years.
 
2012-09-07 02:08:59 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Doubtful. Foreign policy ain't exactly a swing voter issue.



Yep, pretty much this.  People who understand and have an opinion on foreign policy (logical or bat shiat crazy) have most likely decided their vote.
 
"swing voters" are most likely waiting to decide to vote for which President they believe will impact their lives positively ASAP.
 
2012-09-07 02:13:05 PM
Well, that's probably because he has this strange thing called a record. I don't really expect a change in that record unless one of the parties control both Houses of Congress. The Republicans have no foreign policy experience on their ticket and their hardline stance on everything doesn't help in a delicate world.
 
2012-09-07 02:15:36 PM
Seeing as the DNC totally lacked the batshiat insane hawkish speeches that McCain and Rice gave at the RNC, I think we can infer quite readily that the Democrats will be taking the opposite tack.

/which is enough to vote for them right there
//and, in itself, is closer to mainstream Republican thought than the RNC was
 
2012-09-07 02:20:12 PM
As long as it's not "let's start another war!" then that's all the difference he needs.
 
2012-09-07 02:21:47 PM
I didn't think he needed to really discuss that. Just read the international news and you'll hear all about Obama's foreign policy, praises and criticisms.
 
2012-09-07 02:28:09 PM
I didn't hear: "Let's get into an unnecessary and deadly pissing match so we can get a bunch of our own people killed just so we can wave our weiners in front of Mission Accomplished banner!" So I'm pretty much OK with that.
 
2012-09-07 02:33:21 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Nabb1: Well, now, only people who haven't made up their minds whom to vote for already would be interested in that, and they don't count.

Doubtful. Foreign policy ain't exactly a swing voter issue.

/Well, he really supports gay rights, but I don't like what I'm hearing about Turkey's admission to the EU...


You may be right. I think those conventions are basically preaching to the converted, anyway. Both parties get the undivided attention of the networks to air hours and hours of political ads for free. I've never much cared for them. And don't get me started on the "debates."
 
2012-09-07 02:33:46 PM
He mentioned leaving Afghanistan in 2014; Israel; dealing with the European economic crisis; and not doing any more stupid shiat like Iraq. What more then you want. Most Foreign policy issues are based on hypotheticals which you cant anticipate.
 
2012-09-07 02:36:54 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Nabb1: Well, now, only people who haven't made up their minds whom to vote for already would be interested in that, and they don't count.

Doubtful. Foreign policy ain't exactly a swing voter issue.

/Well, he really supports gay rights, but I don't like what I'm hearing about Turkey's admission to the EU...


The EU's problems are much more extensive than them adding Turkey, but at this point one has to wonder why they didn't just give NATO a central bank and be done with it.
 
2012-09-07 02:38:10 PM

make me some tea: I didn't think he needed to really discuss that. Just read the international news and you'll hear all about Obama's foreign policy, praises and criticisms.


The *International* press? Isn't that entirely run by terrorists and communists?
 
2012-09-07 02:39:15 PM
He's probably gonna keep drone striking people, and continue the draw down in Afghanistan.
 
2012-09-07 02:49:43 PM

mrshowrules: He mentioned leaving Afghanistan in 2014; Israel; dealing with the European economic crisis; and not doing any more stupid shiat like Iraq. What more then you want. Most Foreign policy issues are based on hypotheticals which you cant anticipate.


He didn't lay out every detail of a 20-year plan for peace in the Middle East, so it's exactly as if he didn't talk about foreign policy at all.
 
2012-09-07 02:50:18 PM
I thought ending wars and rebuilding alliances was a good foreign policy so far.
 
2012-09-07 02:51:31 PM
What exactly is his position on Scarecrow's brain?
 
2012-09-07 02:56:30 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: make me some tea: I didn't think he needed to really discuss that. Just read the international news and you'll hear all about Obama's foreign policy, praises and criticisms.

The *International* press? Isn't that entirely run by terrorists and communists?


Yes.
 
2012-09-07 02:57:33 PM

edmo: I thought ending wars and rebuilding alliances was a good foreign policy so far.


The latter of which Hilary has spent much of her time working on for her entire time at State.

I was sardonically amused when the RNC kept repeating that line about trade agreements being signed, comparing the US to China, as if it wouldn't be sensible for a country with a developing economy to be signing new trade agreements at a faster pace than a country with a largely post-industrial economy.
 
2012-09-07 02:57:46 PM

qorkfiend: He didn't lay out every detail of a 20-year plan for peace in the Middle East continuing to let Israel do whatever the fark it wants, so it's exactly as if he didn't talk about foreign policy at all.


FTFY
 
2012-09-07 03:01:49 PM
That's because officially (with every president) there is no openly stated foreign policy.
 
2012-09-07 03:09:17 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: That's because officially (with every president) there is no openly stated foreign policy.



Not sure what you mean.  Agree with him or not... G. W. Bush stated his all the time.  Again, maybe it was BS, maybe it was unachievable, but he did state it openly.
 
2012-09-07 03:27:51 PM
He seemed to be pretty clear about ending the War in Afghanistan in 2014. And, he mentioned insulting our allies, dealing with Israel, and a bunch of economic stuff related to Europe.

Should he have just made a checklist of countries he was going to apologize to so it would help with the talking points?
 
2012-09-07 03:31:50 PM

mrshowrules: He mentioned leaving Afghanistan in 2014; Israel; dealing with the European economic crisis; and not doing any more stupid shiat like Iraq. What more then you want. Most Foreign policy issues are based on hypotheticals which you cant anticipate.


he didn't mention who we are going to bomb. WE NEED TO KNOW WHO ARE ARE GOING TO BOMB!
 
2012-09-07 03:55:21 PM

ManateeGag: mrshowrules: He mentioned leaving Afghanistan in 2014; Israel; dealing with the European economic crisis; and not doing any more stupid shiat like Iraq. What more then you want. Most Foreign policy issues are based on hypotheticals which you cant anticipate.

he didn't mention who we are going to bomb. WE NEED TO KNOW WHO ARE ARE GOING TO BOMB!


Plus it should be sung in a clever way like like McCain.

How about:

"Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy
But here's my number, will bomb you Haiti."
 
2012-09-07 03:57:18 PM

downstairs: Because People in power are Stupid: That's because officially (with every president) there is no openly stated foreign policy.


Not sure what you mean.  Agree with him or not... G. W. Bush stated his all the time.  Again, maybe it was BS, maybe it was unachievable, but he did state it openly.


Well, there are stated policy objectives in wartime.

When I was in High School during the Reagan administration, I had a project that required me to research foreign policy. I wrote a nice business letter to the State department in Washington and got a reply (almost too late to turn in)... The nice letter signed by by someone under Haig but on nice letterhead that had Haig's name on it said something to the effect that there was NO foreign policy.

This actually makes sense if you consider foreign policy to be strategic. -Don't disclose it unless you absolutely have to.
 
2012-09-07 04:09:19 PM
Obama gave us specifics. Romney's the one who thinks he can win with "direction" and other such vague positions that tell you nothing.
 
2012-09-07 04:10:38 PM
he said the war in Afghanistan is over in 2014.
sounds good to me.

what kind of policy was Romney wanting to see? Follow Mitt's lead in relaunching the cold war?
 
2012-09-07 04:15:20 PM

I_C_Weener: What exactly is his position on Scarecrow's brain?


Romney needs to give it back now.
 
2012-09-07 04:19:43 PM

Diogenes: Obama gave us specifics. Romney's the one who thinks he can win with "direction" and other such vague positions that tell you nothing.


How arrogant is your campaign that you won't give up any details on the foreign policy,tax plan,jobs plan or even your own taxes?

this is simply vote for us we're republicans.

it's like they think they owe the people nothing. not any insight into their plan for your future.
 
2012-09-07 04:29:11 PM

Hobodeluxe: Diogenes: Obama gave us specifics. Romney's the one who thinks he can win with "direction" and other such vague positions that tell you nothing.

How arrogant is your campaign that you won't give up any details on the foreign policy,tax plan,jobs plan or even your own taxes?

this is simply vote for us we're republicans.

it's like they think they owe the people nothing. not any insight into their plan for your future.


I think much of it is arrogance. But there's also a bit of this:

The Romney campaign has from the beginning believed they could win simply on the economy and people's deflated expectations of Obama. The visceral hate that some in their "base" have had for Obama since before he won, combined with disenchanted Americans, they felt would be sufficient to carry the election. They didn't need a real candidate or candidacy -- just an alternative. A "Not Obama." It's a common political miscalculation. Unfortunately for Romney they never corrected course. Rather, they're doubling down.

"Why state specifics if they can be used to hammer you? We have enough negatives about Obama we can use. We don't have to state who we are or what we stand for, we can just attack the other guy."

It's terribly naive. And it's a lesson the Romney campaign failed to learn from McCain's. Or Kerry's, for that matter. And now it's too late for the Romney camp to change the fundamental character of their campaign. They're going for broke on a losing campaign strategy and are hoping they have enough money and cheap shots to destroy Obama.
 
2012-09-07 04:44:09 PM
Pragmatism, how does it work?
 
2012-09-07 04:47:43 PM
AWOL for the Presidents speech....how is he going to pay for everything he promises?
 
2012-09-07 04:48:34 PM

ferretman: AWOL for the Presidents speech....how is he going to pay for everything he promises?


He mentions it in his speech. Somehow I suspect you don't actually know what he said.
 
2012-09-07 04:49:19 PM
Keeping the US Economy on the smooth recovery covers the international and foreign policy elements rather well.

A more stable world, economically, is a more stable world politically and militarily.

The 'not starting any wars and, avoiding being a colossal dick to anyone' also has merit.

As opposed to the GOP foreign policy position of 'War'.
 
2012-09-07 04:50:06 PM
You think that's bad; Romney didn't even mention the troops or the War in Afghanistan, that got on national television this morning and said it wasn't important:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQKmGYggADM&feature=player_embedded

If Obama did this Fox news would literally be having an aneurysm of glee.
 
2012-09-07 04:51:10 PM
AWOL from everything Romney/Ryan: substance and detail.
 
2012-09-07 04:51:56 PM
Around the world, we've strengthened old alliances and forged new coalitions to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We've reasserted our power across the Pacific and stood up to China on behalf of our workers. From Burma to Libya to South Sudan, we have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings - men and women; Christians and Muslims and Jews.

But for all the progress we've made, challenges remain. Terrorist plots must be disrupted. Europe's crisis must be contained. Our commitment to Israel's security must not waver, and neither must our pursuit of peace. The Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions. The historic change sweeping across the Arab World must be defined not by the iron fist of a dictator or the hate of extremists, but by the hopes and aspirations of ordinary people who are reaching for the same rights that we celebrate today.

So now we face a choice. My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy, but from all that we've seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.

...

After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it's time to do some nation-building right here at home.



I see foreign policy.
 
2012-09-07 04:52:22 PM
I'm thinking that, after you kill Osama bin Laden, you don't really have to talk much about your foreign policy accomplishments.
 
2012-09-07 04:53:33 PM

Lurking Fear: So? He's done a good job in foreign policy so far. What needed clarification is domestic policy.


I think the problem for the author is that non-Scands still exist. He reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh went on a rail against some minority and it turned out his (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th gf; honestly can't remember) had been the 'victim' of having to wait in line at a grocery store for more than 30 seconds (it was a "Whole Foods", which he made clear to everyone).
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report