Big Stick vs Obama's Noodle

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lumpy 1, Dec 18, 2009.

  1. Lumpy 1
    Offline

    Lumpy 1 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,136
    Thanks Received:
    8,541
    Trophy Points:
    1,370
    Ratings:
    +14,857
    Obama's foreign policy of, "making nice" has proved rather fruitless to date. He's becoming the Rodney Dangerfield of foreign policy on the world stage, foreigners laugh and seem to embrace him but he gets no respect. Who knows how he will stand the test of time?

    I prefer the "Big Stick" approach and question whether America can rebound from this this new approach and lose it's status in the world.

    “God save us always from the innocent and the good”

    That leaves Mr Obama with a burden to shoulder on his own. In the coming weeks he could prove the doubters wrong. He could lead the way towards a brave deal on the climate. He could press Iran to negotiate over its nuclear programme before his own end-of-year deadline—or secure Russian backing for sanctions. He could agree to cut nuclear arms with Russia. He could bully the Palestinians and Mr Netanyahu to agree to talk. And he could get Mr Karzai and Pakistan to show that they mean to make Afghanistan governable. Even part of that list would set up Mr Obama as a foreign-policy president. But if there is no progress, then Mr Obama will be cast as starry-eyed and weak. He himself recognised the danger of that in one of those golden speeches: “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

    Barack Obama's foreign policy: The quiet American | The Economist
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Lumpy 1
    Offline

    Lumpy 1 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,136
    Thanks Received:
    8,541
    Trophy Points:
    1,370
    Ratings:
    +14,857
    Now I thought this was a reasonably good post..
     

Share This Page