On the bright side... [Archive] - Cain's Lair Forums

View Full Version : On the bright side...

MR_MADHATTER

21st Apr 2009, 03:08 AM

With Obama making kissy face with the dictators, calling everyone who disagrees with his economic plans an "extremist", trying to turn gun control into an international law issue, and puting a very weak face on the U.S., it can be a little depressing. So I'm trying to look on the bright side. All of this is likely to lead us into a conflict with one of these knukle-head countries so I can be assured of job security making weapons of war. The bad economy has made it possible for me to purchase a house. I hope I don't do too well under Obama, but the future is looking brighter for me all the time. Too bad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/ (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/obamas_radical_foreign_policy.html)
http://www.renewamerica.us/

Duke{CLR}

21st Apr 2009, 08:22 AM

Hammy

21st Apr 2009, 04:37 PM

ZERO foreign policy experience.

It was mentioned during his campaign, and buried everytime by the media.

ZERO.

So if this guy has ZERO experience, who is calling the shots and making reccomendations?

Does that not worry you?

Also- what I dont understand, is what this 'program' for Cuba would be. Apparently Guantanamo may be a necessary place for us to hold Pirates according to Clinton....

My how we contradict ourselves today.....

Rand{CLR}

21st Apr 2009, 07:45 PM

MR_MADHATTER

21st Apr 2009, 10:31 PM

So if this guy has ZERO experience, who is calling the shots and making reccomendations?

Does that not worry you?

Why shucks no....he's got the "All Powerful Hillary of OZ" to advise him on foreign policy not to mention "Hukleberry Biden".

http://www.liberallyconservative.com/?p=2823

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n233/glasscottage/Politics/OBAMAMistake.jpg

Hammy

22nd Apr 2009, 11:49 PM

And what foreign policy experience did Bush have when he came on board? Reagan?

How about smaller states or those that at least don't border another country: Clinton, Carter, FDR.

All five are less likely than a senator to have foreign contacts. The only one of the recent past with any true experience was Bush senior, and look where that got us. :twisted:

This is why Presidents bring on board people with experience to advise them. You fill the holes of what you don't know with people who do. That being said, Obama picked the wrong Clinton for sec state.

-Rand

Actually Rand- I love the question.

Reagan was already running what was at the time the Worlds 3rd largest economy as the Gov of California. Japanese, Korean, and Eastern European foreign policy advisement was something he was very familiar with.:wink:

Rand{CLR}

23rd Apr 2009, 10:14 AM

There's a big difference between trade agreements and foreign policy. Most states have trade agreements with numerous countries; heck, the egomaniac in charge of my county has made personal trade visits to a number of African countries, and that's just 1 county out of 3,000+.

Doesn't mean any of them are involved in foreign policy. Making a trade agreement is more like a giant business deal. Much like how I don't see or read about our presidents or Secretaries of State meeting with the governors of Silesia or People's Suburb of Beijing, or wherever, I don't see other world leaders and their prime ministers meeting with anyone below "Long-time Senator" status.

Despite meeting with those African countries, I wouldn't say our county executive has any foreign policy experience. Trade experience, yes; but I don't see any mutual defence agreements with Prince George's County any time soon. :)

-Rand

mapes

24th Apr 2009, 01:51 PM

I love this. Obama bows to the house of Suad and everyone freaks out. It's seems everyone forgets Bush Sr. appeasing to them and that ridiculous news shot of Bush Jr walking around some gardens hand in hand with the King looking like a freaking girl out on a date. Give me break selective memory people. Oh and lets not forget the House of Saud help Bush Jrs floundering oil company

As for Foreign Policy experience in case you hadn't notice the rest of the world (at least the minor players) are happy that they have some one who'll at least talk to them now.

mapes

24th Apr 2009, 01:59 PM

Well said MH. It's clear that BHO and liberals in general have little regard for our nations sovereignty. I just read a link from your second link and I found this article about a treaty that infringes on a parents rights. If I read this correctly I will have to abide by rules that UN politicians make. :scratch:

Mindless & Spineless: Congress Is Attempting To Take Your Parental Rights Away! (http://mindlessandspineless.blogspot.com/2009/04/congress-is-attempting-to-take-your.html)

Read the treaty it's nothing stop over hyping things. In the words of Jon Stewart "Thats Sh*t thats never gonna happen"

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225139&title=sh#t-thats-never-gonna-happen'>Sh#t That's Never Gonna Happen - Global Currency</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:225139' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the +Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

Hammy

24th Apr 2009, 03:06 PM

Here- let me do it your way - let's cut and paste up all the bits into a giant long response:

I love this. Obama bows to the house of Suad and everyone freaks out.

Why yes- we do. We dont bow to anyone. In our culture, that is a statement that means you are someone's b***, when in reality, we have been the first country they run to for financial aid or military assistance- we dont owe anyone anything other than the demand that they true up on past debts and considerations.

It's seems everyone forgets Bush Sr. appeasing to them and that ridiculous news shot of Bush Jr walking around some gardens hand in hand with the King looking like a freaking girl out on a date.

say hnnggh? Wah? Bush what ah what? Low hanging fruit- meanwhile I could pull out Jimmy Carter and just laugh my tail off all day long. But I didnt, and I wont even entertain you with why I think Bush Jr and Jimmy were cut from the same cloth when it comes to administration and World Politics.

Now the girl thing is interesting to me, because psychologically it is telling if you think of girls when two men hold hands....and yet I digress....

Give me break selective memory people. Oh and lets not forget the House of Saud help Bush Jrs floundering oil company

Selective memory - nice self description. I noticed that when you drop in positives, they are all pro-lib and pro-demo, and yet whenever you need the passive negative voice, you reach for Bush, Bush Jr., and etc.

House of Saud and the oil company...interesting conspiracy theory. I read that book too, and the funny thing I noticed is that no one involved in telling that story has a lick of business acumen or success. If you wanted to start a company, or if you owned a company that you wanted to be more successful, where would you go and who would be your partners? Just a simple question.

In the case of oil, who has the most, who is most successful and who is pro-western? WHY YES!! House of Saud. :2thumbs: No surprise there to me.

So with said investment and relationship, can you please tell me why it is so ugly that they would reinvest in a losing business and help their business partner out of a jam? I have personally seen, experienced, and been part of this infusion- but somehow, because it is a Republican and a Politician, this is all EVIL :shock:spooooky.

As for Foreign Policy experience in case you hadn't notice the rest of the world (at least the minor players) are happy that they have some one who'll at least talk to them now.

Since the 1940's, the US has given the world more resources and considerations than we have recieved. In a sense we have conditioned our world community to demand and expect from the US- resources, loans, military strength, and forgiveness.

In the last 8 years, since we were snubbed in terms of Post 9-11 support, we have basically ignored them. They get louder, and louder- kinda like my 4 year old - until the tantrum is so big that it is now a regular conversation at the UN Council meetings and etc.

In my opinion, we should continue to ignore them until they grow up and expect to give as much respect as they would want to recieve. This tendency to believe that we have no resources, that we are internationally dependent, and that we are losing our grip is horse.

We have ample resources, and our lands are rich with promise- however, the Environmentalists and those businesses that profit from International Business have become barriers in thought and excercise.

We cannot open Alaska, we cannot open factories in the US, we cannot mine, we cannot produce. We can only import components as a whole, and when we cannot, we must pay HUMONGOUS fees to the Government, who by the way, very much like that tax subsidy income on behalf of "environmental impact " fees.

So, to be perfectly honest, the world can shut their mouths and get on with it, because after we get used to your supplies not reaching our borders, and after we have shut off the California Agricultural corrider to the World (which produces 1/3 of all the worlds open market agriculture) then we will refocus our energy on making good use of our own private resources, open factories, harvest Alaska, pull the oil out of North Dakota that is being blocked, and enjoy ouir lives.

If they dont like our way of life, fine then. Stop trying to emulate our way of life at home then. I mean really. I am so freakin tired of the way people say we need to be "cogniscent" of "their culture". No I dont. I really dont. And I dont really expect them to understand because its all childish disrespect to Americans abroad anyways.

We need to be respectful, apparently, to the rest of the world because somewhere somehow Americans have inherited this idea that we owe the world our entire existence when in fact, most countries owe their entire existence and way of life to the diligence and willingness to invest by the Citizens and Government of The United States of America.

Tell you what- close your eyes, and then imagine this- we pull back 100% of our military, close our bases abroad and shut down the US border. Then the world goes on- countries are invaded, and etc. We sit on our hands. How different does the world get from 1944 to today without the US.

mapes

24th Apr 2009, 08:24 PM

My point was that the Bush Family has had as much currying of favor with the Royal house of Saud I would be more freaked out over that than a bow. I was trying to re enforce that point with the reference to the oil co biz. In and of itself i don't care. I just found it to be hypocritical

I didn't bring out Jimmy Carter but, if you want to sure lets compare a winner of the Nobel piece prize with the president with the worst approval rating EVAR...go ahead.

As for who has the most oil your prolly right it is SA. But, FYI the largest exporter of oil to the US and incidentally the most pro western is Canada

Since the 1940's, the US has given the world more resources and considerations than we have recieved. In a sense we have conditioned our world community to demand and expect from the US- resources, loans, military strength, and forgiveness.

While it's true a great amount of aid does come from the US also a lot of grief does as well. Numerous CIA coups overthrowing democratically elected governments, Supporting of crazy ass mofos who are notoriously bad men most who would come to oppose us later, Stuff like the school of the Americas. Look I believe in our country. I think we should just stop supporting the worst people cause it's convenient and stop walking around like the rest of the world owes us something.

Nomadicus

25th Apr 2009, 03:10 PM

While it's true a great amount of aid does come from the US also a lot of grief does as well.
Perhaps the most overlooked positive is that we freed 50 million Muslims from a cruel and murderous dictator.

Duke{CLR}

25th Apr 2009, 04:02 PM

Perhaps the most overlooked positive is that we freed 50 million Muslims from a cruel and murderous dictator.

Yeah but do they really deserve it? :roll:

My point is the double standard that is obvious here. Cheney goes over there and it's a big deal but BHO bows to a slave owner and its no problem at all.

Do you think that things like the treaty mentioned can't happen? We already have our supreme court justices looking to foreign law to make decisions. That is ridiculous when their job it to uphold OUR constitution. I guess John Stewart says it's not going to happen so I should just look away.

Mapes, don't you think it's also kind of funny how you mention Jimmy Carter and how you think the US should not make deals with bad guys in the same post? Did Jimmy Carter ever meet a dictator he didn't like? Also wasn't his Nobel prize for creating peace in the Middle east?

Hammy

26th Apr 2009, 08:58 PM

Yeah but do they really deserve it? :roll:

My point is the double standard that is obvious here. Cheney goes over there and it's a big deal but BHO bows to a slave owner and its no problem at all.

Do you think that things like the treaty mentioned can't happen? We already have our supreme court justices looking to foreign law to make decisions. That is ridiculous when their job it to uphold OUR constitution. I guess John Stewart says it's not going to happen so I should just look away.

Mapes, don't you think it's also kind of funny how you mention Jimmy Carter and how you think the US should not make deals with bad guys in the same post? Did Jimmy Carter ever meet a dictator he didn't like? Also wasn't his Nobel prize for creating peace in the Middle east?

And you are right about one thing Mapes-

Until George Jr came along, Jimmy had the WORST ever presidential rating- I guess the Democrats should be thankful that Bush got at least one thing done for them- he fixed the fact that the biggest bozo to hold a presidential post was Jimmy Carter.

mapes

27th Apr 2009, 04:41 PM

Yeah but do they really deserve it? :roll:

My point is the double standard that is obvious here. Cheney goes over there and it's a big deal but BHO bows to a slave owner and its no problem at all.

Where the hell is this slavery thing coming from? Last I looked Slavery was illegal in SA since 1962. So stop with the slave owner BS. It's just reactionary BS. Secondly as I pointed out before the Republican have had much more and or deeper business and political dealing with the royal house of Saud. I don't have a problem with that but, I do have problem with everyone freaking out over nothing. Look I realize Saudi Arabia is an important ally and needs to be dealt with I also realize they have a crap human rights record. They're are getting slightly better but, they have a long way to go.

Do you think that things like the treaty mentioned can't happen? We already have our supreme court justices looking to foreign law to make decisions. That is ridiculous when their job it to uphold OUR constitution. I guess John Stewart says it's not going to happen so I should just look away.

First off the treaty just says children have rights it goes on to enumerate some of those rights. Free from abuse, the choice of religion etc.. Nowhere does it say parent cannot spank they're children. Secondly out of all of the member states in the UN only Somalia and the US have not signed it. Thirdly you guy's in this forum who are on the right always bash the UN for being weak and impotent on everything. Anything that the UN does becomes fodder for the Right on how it's not going to work and yet some stupid treaty on BS comes out that say's don't abuse children and suddenly the UN is evil-number-one-bad-guy-mind-control-world-domination-megalomaniacs. Look pick one or the other ok. Either they are weak sauce or they're going to control the world but, not both.

Mapes, don't you think it's also kind of funny how you mention Jimmy Carter and how you think the US should not make deals with bad guys in the same post? Did Jimmy Carter ever meet a dictator he didn't like? Also wasn't his Nobel prize for creating peace in the Middle east?

Ok wow I'm flabbergasted... There is a huge difference between getting two sides of a war torn area to try and co-exist peacefully and say....

1. Arming the mujaheddin to fight the soviets ...oops they became the Taliban. Wow is that an American made stinger headed right for our Helicopters
2. Arming and providing intel to Saddam Hussein to fight Iran...Oh look he gased people. Hmm I wonder how Saddam knew how to hide scuds launchers from satellites... Oh yeah we showed him how to oops

The list can really go on and on....

Hammy

28th Apr 2009, 11:43 AM

Where the hell is this slavery thing coming from? Last I looked Slavery was illegal in SA since 1962. So stop with the slave owner BS. It's just reactionary BS.

So you think the importation of prostitutes is not a big deal? So women and the sex trade is sitting well with you?

Secondly as I pointed out before the Republican have had much more and or deeper business and political dealing with the royal house of Saud. I don't have a problem with that but,

Uh yes you do. You drop kick that arguement into every discussion and you have never really gone into anything other than "shadow" facts. It's time that you speak credibly or drop your point. The moment you follow a positive with an exception to the point, you are within an objection. Will someone please help Mapes discover the "no spin zone" ?

I do have problem with everyone freaking out over nothing. Look I realize Saudi Arabia is an important ally and needs to be dealt with I also realize they have a crap human rights record. They're are getting slightly better but, they have a long way to go.
I can agree with you, and I can also believe that SA is only going along with the people that can save them from the world they oppressed. If they didnt have such strong enemies, we would not have their friendship.

Secondly out of all of the member states in the UN only Somalia and the US have not signed it.

If you didnt hate the United States so much, you might be asking yourself better questions. One that came to mind when I read that was "well then there must be something wrong with it if we havent signed it...I wonder what the hell that is"

Thirdly you guy's in this forum who are on the right always bash the UN for being weak and impotent on everything. Anything that the UN does becomes fodder for the Right on how it's not going to work and yet some stupid treaty on BS comes out that say's don't abuse children and suddenly the UN is evil-number-one-bad-guy-mind-control-world-domination-megalomaniacs. Look pick one or the other ok. Either they are weak sauce or they're going to control the world but, not both.

The UN is a deterrent, but in the end the REAL influences in power (the actual countries) will be the ones that get things done. Thats it. Neighborhood Watch program at the global level. They deliver opinions and reccomendations- they have no power to enforce JACK SNOT (censored for your pleasure). The New World Order that was inspired by ideals of the post WWII, founded on April 25th in 1945 (I know this because it was on my birthday, 28 years befor I was born), in the middle liberal America. You cant actually believe that a peopless nation can make decisions do you?

Get out of the pipedream pal, the reason we dont like the UN is because they do not represent the United States of America, we are a nation of The People First. That means we come before everyone else . The UN is like a world-wide Home Owners Association.

They want my respect? Fine then- when they disarm Iran and North Korea, we'll talk. But at this point, they are the butt of those two countries' jokes.

Ok wow I'm flabbergasted... There is a huge difference between getting two sides of a war torn area to try and co-exist peacefully and say....

1. Arming the mujaheddin to fight the soviets ...oops they became the Taliban. Wow is that an American made stinger headed right for our Helicopters
2. Arming and providing intel to Saddam Hussein to fight Iran...Oh look he gased people. Hmm I wonder how Saddam knew how to hide scuds launchers from satellites... Oh yeah we showed him how to oops

The list can really go on and on....

yeah #1 is a stretch of the imagination in terms of context and reality. I mean yes, we armed them. But the reality isnt that they just poofed into Taliban. The reality is that when we pulled out, we didnt leave an infrastructre for the people we had armed. They believed they were going to get roads, hospitals,schools, and basic kick-start assistance.

Instead they recieved empty bases and the food supplies we were giving them were gone the next day (summary). Yeah well, welfare for the world is a different subject being that we do welfare at home so well.

Your list can go on, but then again, it's all retrospective and easily analyzed. Some of these decisions were made in absentia of the outcome, and that requires trust.

Bottom line here is that I dont really see a real line of reason behind your conversation other than that you think we should "give everything away" to the world because we "owe them our apologies" and that we "cannot be trusted".

It also sounds like a hard-line case for socialism.