Who are Obama's friends in the international community, again?

[hyakku]

We're discussing Obama's approach to Iran.
At the time many people, including John McCain ridiculed the approach as unproductive and destined to fail.
Guess what. They were all right. It was destined to fail and it did.
Why would we believe that his next path is going to be any more successful? And he has caused us to be less respected in the Middle East, an area that understands power and force, making the job that much harder.

Ok. Everything about this statement is ridiculous. His engagement policy did not work. Yes. What it did do, is provide us with LEGITIMACY. Do you not understand this? The reason why Iraq is a failure now is because we lacked LEGITIMACY, not military power or strength.

What do you mean why would his next path be any more successful? If Bibi hasn't nuked Iran yet, why the fuck should WE nuke/bomb/invade Iran for Israel's sake? That makes, NO SENSE.

If the Middle East understand power and force, why did the amount of terror attacks exponentially increase under Bush's administration, which only utilized POWER and FORCE. History doesn't support your assertions, you're just talking out of your ass. The only thing that's changed in the Middle East is essentially our relations with Israel and Pakistan, and Pakistan's aid is proving FAR more valuable in the fight against terrorists that actually threaten AMERICA rather than Israel. Once again, maybe it's because your Jewish, but I think it's ridiculous that we should put Israeli security over American security.

Obama promised that he could negotiate with Iran on their nuclear program by offering to sit down and talk to them.
The rejected that at every turn. That promise was false, that program was a failure. All it did was allow the Iranians more time to develop their nuclear weapons, giving them even less incentive to negotiate.
We aren't talking about Pakistan, Israel, or any other country. We are discussing Obama's failed policies in regard to Iran.

What? He said he would engage with them, he didn't promise it would work. Once again, your ass talking is showing itself. You sound like an upset third grader, "B-But he pwomised mommy."

You haven't presented ONE feasible alternative. Not one. Once again let me remind you, ISRAEL, Iran's hated enemy who knows they are developing nukes, haven't bombed them yet, but you're implying that WE should take the initiative and bomb them, becoming the scapegoat for all of Israel's issues? Good one.

 

[hyakku]

Please show me where I said that. It's true. But show me wherre I said that and why that is significant.

We're discussing Obama's approach to Iran.
At the time many people, including John McCain ridiculed the approach as unproductive and destined to fail.
Guess what. They were all right. It was destined to fail and it did.
Why would we believe that his next path is going to be any more successful? And he has caused us to be less respected in the Middle East, an area that understands power and force, making the job that much harder.

That charge is even worse than my paraphrased "is unpopular." Obama is NOT "less respected" in that region. Since you made the allegation, you can just post your sources therefor.

I'm curious as to how you got EVERY Mid-Eastern country from that line. Have to agree with Rabbi...he's not very popular in the region.

Yes, all American presidents are quite popular in the middle east, especially after taking over a war thats ravaged the region. Yes, yes, you've got it figured out, Obama's an anomaly.

 

[The Rabbi]

We're discussing Obama's approach to Iran.
At the time many people, including John McCain ridiculed the approach as unproductive and destined to fail.
Guess what. They were all right. It was destined to fail and it did.
Why would we believe that his next path is going to be any more successful? And he has caused us to be less respected in the Middle East, an area that understands power and force, making the job that much harder.

Ok. Everything about this statement is ridiculous. His engagement policy did not work. Yes. What it did do, is provide us with LEGITIMACY. Do you not understand this? The reason why Iraq is a failure now is because we lacked LEGITIMACY, not military power or strength.


What? He said he would engage with them, he didn't promise it would work. Once again, your ass talking is showing itself. You sound like an upset third grader, "B-But he pwomised mommy."

You haven't presented ONE feasible alternative. Not one. Once again let me remind you, ISRAEL, Iran's hated enemy who knows they are developing nukes, haven't bombed them yet, but you're implying that WE should take the initiative and bomb them, becoming the scapegoat for all of Israel's issues? Good one.

Does he get some kind of Legitimacy Card for his efforts? Who issues it? Is it voted on in the U.N?
Bush got numerous resolutions with threat of military force from the U.N and a Congressional resolution before invading Iraq. That isn't legitimacy? Obama got what? A speaking invitation in Istanbul and Cairo?
You admit his approach is a failure and yet it gives him "legitimacy". That is a joke, a sick one.
It is not my job to determine foreign polivy for the U.S. I merely point out his widely publicized big advance in U.S. policy is an abject failure. Why do you think any other approach from them will succeed?

 

[Douger]

You mean likes or likes more than Dubya's regime, IsNtReals personal whores ?

Read betwixt them thar lines if'n you have the ability.

 

[hyakku]

We're discussing Obama's approach to Iran.
At the time many people, including John McCain ridiculed the approach as unproductive and destined to fail.
Guess what. They were all right. It was destined to fail and it did.
Why would we believe that his next path is going to be any more successful? And he has caused us to be less respected in the Middle East, an area that understands power and force, making the job that much harder.

Ok. Everything about this statement is ridiculous. His engagement policy did not work. Yes. What it did do, is provide us with LEGITIMACY. Do you not understand this? The reason why Iraq is a failure now is because we lacked LEGITIMACY, not military power or strength.


What? He said he would engage with them, he didn't promise it would work. Once again, your ass talking is showing itself. You sound like an upset third grader, "B-But he pwomised mommy."

You haven't presented ONE feasible alternative. Not one. Once again let me remind you, ISRAEL, Iran's hated enemy who knows they are developing nukes, haven't bombed them yet, but you're implying that WE should take the initiative and bomb them, becoming the scapegoat for all of Israel's issues? Good one.

Does he get some kind of Legitimacy Card for his efforts? Who issues it? Is it voted on in the U.N?
Bush got numerous resolutions with threat of military force from the U.N and a Congressional resolution before invading Iraq. That isn't legitimacy? Obama got what? A speaking invitation in Istanbul and Cairo?
You admit his approach is a failure and yet it gives him "legitimacy". That is a joke, a sick one.
It is not my job to determine foreign polivy for the U.S. I merely point out his widely publicized big advance in U.S. policy is an abject failure. Why do you think any other approach from them will succeed?

What? You gain legitimacy through respecting and upholding the rules of the institutions you head as the hegemony, through implementing and then being the model for how you wish others to act. A hegemonic power needs to move with legitimacy, or it risks coalitions against it forming. Old HST didn't account for ideas like soft power or legitimacy, but it's becoming evident that hard power doesn't provide legitimacy in international eyes. If that's the case, the invasion of Iraq would have been seen as legitimate, since it accomplished its goals, but this is not the case obviously.

Bush engaged in a war without UN approval, I don't know what you're talking about. Congress can't provide legitimacy, it's a domestic institution. Legitimacy comes from a recognition of the other actors to acquiesce to your norms and values that is NATURAL.

The idea that primacy = hegemony needs to be killed. This is why you can't see the true nature of legitimacy and its uses for a hegemon. It seems counterintuitive to give up some autonomous policy making abilities, but if it ensures that the institutions that America controls and shapes endure, then it will overall provide us with more legitimacy and hegemonic rule.

Here the issue of legitimacy should be obvious. If we were to attack Iran without warning, without attempting to engage in diplomacy, and without sanctions, it would be a repeat of Iraq. Now we can move forward with legitimacy in any of the following actions:

1. Tougher sanctions. After resisting diplomatic talks and reneging on their promise with Russia, Iran has lost a bunch of their own legitimacy. In addition, Russia and China refusing to initiate tougher sanctions will infringe on their own legitimacy now that America has taken the correct steps in attempting to disband Iran's nuclear program. They recognize how detrimental this can be and thus will likely support all but the toughest sanctions (one's which would affect their developing economies. Don't expect Obama to be able to take Chinese and Russian national interest away entirely, harming Iran's oil and energy exports would be detrimental to their economies).

2. Precision strikes. Once again, we now have the legitimacy to say that we've exhausted diplomatic options, and soon, if increased sanctions prove to be negligible, this will only add credence to an Israeli or American airstrike. This would have been seen as reactionary and oppressive if executed by the Bush administration. Why? It's not because the policies would be any different, but the Bush Administration would have been acting without legitimacy and international consensus.

3. An actual invasion. This is highly unlikely and not necessary, but IF the situation escalates to this level, we once again avoid the Iraq situation by acting with increased legitimacy.

I'm sure you probably won't even read all of this so I'll just stop wasting my time. Nonetheless, it's apparent to me that the key failures of the Bush Doctrine was not necessarily its policies, but its procedure that resulted in the lost legitimacy that the current administration must rekindle if America will continue to lead on the international stage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your post is rambling and incoherent. Bush had numerous UN resolutions and international support from countries that weren't taking oil for food bribes. Sorry if you've forgotten this bit of history.
Your theories about "legitimacy" are absurd and a complete logical muddle. Go post to the conspiracy forum where this will make perfect sense.

 

[hyakku]

Your post is rambling and incoherent. Bush had numerous UN resolutions and international support from countries that weren't taking oil for food bribes. Sorry if you've forgotten this bit of history.
Your theories about "legitimacy" are absurd and a complete logical muddle. Go post to the conspiracy forum where this will make perfect sense.

Great, but those countries don't MATTER. Sorry to break it to you, but Russia and China are the ones heavily invested in Iran, and have security interests in the region. On top of that, the Euros are just shells of themselves on the international foreign policy stage. As an economic unit, the EU is significant, as a player in international relations, they've been significantly marginalized by the emerging nations, particularly those of the BRIC. In fact, if I remember correctly, the IMF projects that the BRIC nations GDP will be higher than all of the traditional Western World (if you exclude the U.S.).

As far my explanation of legitimacy's role in maintaining hegemonic power, it seems pretty straightforward to me. I'm arguing that you're idea that material preponderance translates directly into political influence is wrong. I'm arguing that legitimacy, a recognition and acceptance of American institutions, norms and values as natural, is essential in maintaining hegemonic order.

If we are going to be the leader in this new order, the way to do it isn't through domination and imposition. It's through legitimate rule of law, through the institutions we've fostered ourselves, and through a commitment to use force when needed to back up these institutions and norms up, not when we want to.

All empires and hegemonies that have fallen have fallen primarily due to a combination of military overstretch, economic mismanagement (usually due to diverting too many funds to the overstretched military), and last but rarely recognized in the case of hegemonies, a lack or abuse of the legitimacy they had, all leading to the decline and eventual demise of the hegemony.

Despite us vehemently disagreeing, I think we would both like to see America be the first permanent hegemony in the world and usher in a new era of international order. I'm looking at the pragmatic way of getting there, if you want to maintain all those ideals and niceties, do you man, but meanwhile the real world is happening outside. Too bad Bush and the Neocons didn't realize this and straighten out there ADD Wilsonian/Jacksonian policy before it was too late -_-.

 

[Jarhead]

Presidents come and go.

Americans are what counts.

We know who our firends are and they know who we are.

 

[hyakku]

Presidents come and go.

Americans are what counts.

We know who our firends are and they know who we are.

Although I'm not quite sure I agree with the last statement, I agree with the prior two spot on. It's for this reason I want us to always be making strides FORWARD on the international stage, not backwards.

History is literally handing us a blueprint on how to retake our hegemonic status and keep it. Time has ripened itself for the next few decades of inevitable change and unknowns.

We have all the tools, we have the know how, and we're finally executing. Although, as I've said before, despite the asshatery of Bushs Admin, it seems around 2005 they realized they had kind of fucked up, and we can thank them for some of our thawed relations with China (which, if we can foster this relationship further could be essential in reshaping the world to our liking), as well as some other successes.

 

[AllyAshanti]

Lets get the ball rolling again with the very first "Jewish Fist" video post. Join me as I attempt to deal with a vexing Pesach problem. The Hellenists who own the hotel that I am staying at, have decorated each room with two fat ..... President Barack "Hussein" Obama, yemach sh\ Jew-Hater, bigot, demagogue, black supremacist, socialist, Islam appeaser, friend of Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, & domestic "Weatherman" terrorist turned teacher, William Ayers. ..

 

[The Rabbi]

Lets get the ball rolling again with the very first "Jewish Fist" video post. Join me as I attempt to deal with a vexing Pesach problem. The Hellenists who own the hotel that I am staying at, have decorated each room with two fat ..... President Barack "Hussein" Obama, yemach sh\ Jew-Hater, bigot, demagogue, black supremacist, socialist, Islam appeaser, friend of Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, & domestic "Weatherman" terrorist turned teacher, William Ayers. ..

You should burn it as chometz.

 

[MaggieMae]

Lets get the ball rolling again with the very first "Jewish Fist" video post. Join me as I attempt to deal with a vexing Pesach problem. The Hellenists who own the hotel that I am staying at, have decorated each room with two fat ..... President Barack "Hussein" Obama, yemach sh\ Jew-Hater, bigot, demagogue, black supremacist, socialist, Islam appeaser, friend of Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, & domestic "Weatherman" terrorist turned teacher, William Ayers. ..

Is the hotel one that's catering to the Tea Party celebrants?

 

[ElaineAbigayle]

So if the Israelis want to push the Palestinians into Jordan, I don't see how that makes sense and how the international community will accept that because that would be an exodus of 1.8 million Palestinians from their homes into ... HM: Again, I look at it from a different angle. If there are those that are saying that Iran is playing mischief, then I say it is being allowed to play mischief. The platform they use is the injustice of the Palestinians and Jerusalem. ...