Full Version: Obama VS McCain. JUST THE ISSUES
Compare and contrast their policies on foreign affairs and it is very obvious that Obama wins this catagory hands down.
QUOTE(Rock Enro @ Sep 15 2008, 01:07 PM) 
Compare and contrast their policies on foreign affairs and it is very obvious that Obama wins this catagory hands down.
"Hands down"????? Really? I'll be happy to read your proof of that statement.
Denny Crane!
QUOTE(Denny Crane @ Sep 15 2008, 04:26 PM)
"Hands down"????? Really? I'll be happy to read your proof of that statement.
Denny Crane!
His warmonger mentality does not allow him to make rational decisions regarding foreign affairs.
QUOTE(Denny Crane @ Sep 15 2008, 05:26 PM)
"Hands down"????? Really? I'll be happy to read your proof of that statement.
Let's try this for proof: McCain doesn't wish to negotiate with Iran (which doesn't have nukes yet), even though Ronald Reagan negotiated with the USSR (which had 12,000+ nukes pointed at us). By contrast, Obama will do what your hero Reagan did... using diplomacy!
Wanna go for double jeopardy, Hans?
QUOTE(Rock Enro @ Sep 15 2008, 01:07 PM)
Compare and contrast their policies on foreign affairs and it is very obvious that Obama wins this catagory hands down.
Wait to see. If there is any truth to the story told by Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari, I'd say Obama's policy in foreign affairs is not only inadequate, it is criminal. The allegation is so outrageous, I don't want to believe it.
QUOTE(boullan @ Sep 16 2008, 11:28 PM)
The NAFTA incident with the Canadians did not inspire me with confidence. His shifts on Iran and Jerusalem were not evidence of any expertise or well thought out policy.
The NAFTA incident with Canada didnt directly involve 08ama. It was a he said/she said thing wheer someone who was only associated with 08ama in a perifreal way was talking out their wrong hole.
As fo rhis shifts on Iran and Jerusalem, you need to be more specific. I'm not familiar with any shifts.
Well, disregarding McCain's tragically hilarious gaffes about Czechoslovakia, confusing Sunni/Shia, Iraq bordering Pakistan and what not, McCain doesn't really offer much that's new.
From his essay in Foreign Affairs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faes...on-freedom.html
Let us be clear, Iraq is NOT the central front in the war on terrorism. Iraq became a focal point for the war on terrorism solely because of the US Invasion. That John McCain does not seem to understand this is disturbing.
He also lacks specifics as far as a non military (or "soft power" strategy to fight terrorism):
Where McCain merely enumerates only on using "tools" at our disposal, Obama has a specifics:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faes...leadership.html
McCain wants to EXPAND the federal government:
The only notable things McCain says is a dedication to fighting malaria in Africa and a non specific commitment to Darfur.
Obama's proposed policy is practical and would be effective. For instance, he writes:
One notes of the Clinton policy of dialogue with North Korea kept them from building nuclear weapons. The Bush approach, essentially ignoring North Korea, allowed them to complete their weapons. McCain, on North Korea, says that they need to disarm and verify all their nuclear materials before "any lasting diplomatic agreement can be reached." In other words, preconditions. Preconditions which have already proved to be a failed policy.
From his essay in Foreign Affairs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faes...on-freedom.html
QUOTE
Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war's central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including al Qaeda's leadership.
Let us be clear, Iraq is NOT the central front in the war on terrorism. Iraq became a focal point for the war on terrorism solely because of the US Invasion. That John McCain does not seem to understand this is disturbing.
He also lacks specifics as far as a non military (or "soft power" strategy to fight terrorism):
QUOTE
Defeating the terrorists who already threaten America is vital, but just as important is preventing a new generation of them from joining the fight. As president, I will employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal to aid moderate Muslims -- women's rights campaigners, labor leaders, lawyers, journalists, teachers, tolerant imams, and many others -- who are resisting the well-financed campaign of extremism that is tearing Muslim societies apart. My administration, with its partners, will help friendly Muslim states establish the building blocks of open and tolerant societies. And we will nurture a culture of hope and economic opportunity by establishing a free-trade area from Morocco to Afghanistan, open to all who do not sponsor terrorism.
Where McCain merely enumerates only on using "tools" at our disposal, Obama has a specifics:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faes...leadership.html
QUOTE
Finally, we need a comprehensive strategy to defeat global terrorists -- one that draws on the full range of American power, not just our military might. As a senior U.S. military commander put it, when people have dignity and opportunity, "the chance of extremism being welcomed greatly, if not completely, diminishes." It is for this reason that we need to invest with our allies in strengthening weak states and helping to rebuild failed ones.
In the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy. We need to deepen our knowledge of the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism. A crucial debate is occurring within Islam. Some believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development, and democratization. Others embrace a rigid and violent intolerance of personal liberty and the world at large. To empower forces of moderation, America must make every effort to export opportunity -- access to education and health care, trade and investment -- and provide the kind of steady support for political reformers and civil society that enabled our victory in the Cold War. Our beliefs rest on hope; the extremists' rest on fear. That is why we can -- and will -- win this struggle.
In the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy. We need to deepen our knowledge of the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism. A crucial debate is occurring within Islam. Some believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development, and democratization. Others embrace a rigid and violent intolerance of personal liberty and the world at large. To empower forces of moderation, America must make every effort to export opportunity -- access to education and health care, trade and investment -- and provide the kind of steady support for political reformers and civil society that enabled our victory in the Cold War. Our beliefs rest on hope; the extremists' rest on fear. That is why we can -- and will -- win this struggle.
McCain wants to EXPAND the federal government:
QUOTE
I will set up a new agency patterned after the erstwhile Office of Strategic Services. A modern-day OSS could draw together specialists in unconventional warfare, civil affairs, and psychological warfare; covert-action operators; and experts in anthropology, advertising, and other relevant disciplines from inside and outside government. Like the original OSS, this would be a small, nimble, can-do organization. It would fight terrorist subversion around the world and in cyberspace. It could take risks that our bureaucracies today rarely consider taking -- such as deploying infiltrating agents without diplomatic cover in terrorist states and organizations -- and play a key role in frontline efforts to rebuild failed states.
The only notable things McCain says is a dedication to fighting malaria in Africa and a non specific commitment to Darfur.
Obama's proposed policy is practical and would be effective. For instance, he writes:
QUOTE
Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel.
One notes of the Clinton policy of dialogue with North Korea kept them from building nuclear weapons. The Bush approach, essentially ignoring North Korea, allowed them to complete their weapons. McCain, on North Korea, says that they need to disarm and verify all their nuclear materials before "any lasting diplomatic agreement can be reached." In other words, preconditions. Preconditions which have already proved to be a failed policy.
I dont see anything wrong with meeting with other world leaders without any pre-conditions. Can someone explain to me why that is "naive"?
Seems to me it just improves communications. I dont see how it legitimizes another leader's radical or unusual views. Like 08ama said, he's not just gonna meet with some leader and let them spout off ignorant statements without putting them in check. And if he cant put them in check, and they can't make any progress, then you go to the next phase of diplomacy, whatever that may be. But ti seems only natural that you would go to the leader and get some kind of communication started first, doesnt it???
Seems to me it just improves communications. I dont see how it legitimizes another leader's radical or unusual views. Like 08ama said, he's not just gonna meet with some leader and let them spout off ignorant statements without putting them in check. And if he cant put them in check, and they can't make any progress, then you go to the next phase of diplomacy, whatever that may be. But ti seems only natural that you would go to the leader and get some kind of communication started first, doesnt it???
QUOTE(AmtrakMatt @ Sep 16 2008, 09:09 PM)
Let's try this for proof: McCain doesn't wish to negotiate with Iran (which doesn't have nukes yet), even though Ronald Reagan negotiated with the USSR (which had 12,000+ nukes pointed at us). By contrast, Obama will do what your hero Reagan did... using diplomacy!
Wanna go for double jeopardy, Hans?
This is one point I was always in agreement with Reagan on. Just like JFK, Reagan believed in bargaining from strength. You have strength, you bargain. No strength, you beg.
Obama understands it too, to bargain from strength. Conservatives today just want war, lots of war.
GoU
QUOTE(gounion Hussein @ Oct 3 2008, 10:11 PM)
This is one point I was always in agreement with Reagan on. Just like JFK, Reagan believed in bargaining from strength. You have strength, you bargain. No strength, you beg.
Obama understands it too, to bargain from strength. Conservatives today just want war, lots of war.
GoU
Bush has cost us a large deal of our strength--when are Republicans going to start realizing that???
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.