• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Foreign Policy- What Really Matters

ThinkingWithMyDeac

ThinkingWithMyDeac

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
8,035
Reaction score
844
Location
Atlanta, Ga
So amongst all the hate whenever Benghazi is mentioned from both sides, lets be honest in the grand scheme of things its a blip on the radar. Especially with almost 4 years of Obama foreign policy to look at and the many different positions Romney has given. As I mentioned before Benghazi is being used as a talking point with fake rage and inserted into every discussion where it gets passed off as a debate on foreign policy. Benghazi was bad, there was a lot of confusion, Obama called it a terror attack, then tried to sweep it away because any terror attack looks bad during an election year, fake rage ensued and here we are. Lets leave Benghazi off this thread because it is fucking stupid to pretend this is foreign policy. Instead lets talk what really matters and what you want to hear from the candidates?

To start I think foreign policy is being swept under the rug because of the economy and social issues and seems to take third precident, which in this day in age is really dumb because the world is so connected. Things I would like addressed are.

Middle East
1. Afghanistan. Why are we still there? How long will we stay there? What is you plan for moving on from there?
1b. You plan for the middle east in general. What is your idea of when to intervene and when not to, using Libya vs Syria as a prime example
2. Iran- a huge concern is Iran, nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear weapons. What is your plan to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Stopping an armed Iran. It seems inevitable that they get a nuclear weapon what is your response. Do you really want to invade Iran?
3. What is our continued role with Israel? What about a two state? What if Israel bombs Iran where do we stand?

Russia/China
1. Do you still view Russia as our number one threat to security? What about missile defense? What about reduction in nuclear weapons?
2. China how do you deal with China as a growing world power? What kind of relations are you looking for? Do you go after them for currency, trade etc...

Other
1. The role we will play with the European Crisis
2. Our general world goals going forward, do we continue to police the world?
3. How to deal with exploding populations, disease, global warming
4. Immigration- What are you policies for immigration. Deportations? Dream Act? What about people that continue to flood our Universities and then leave taking their talents back to their home country.
5. Education and the ability to compete in a global economy
 
While I certainly disagree on the important of Libya, this is a great thread with a lot of great questions. I would love for this thread to be tacked and for the Tunnels to take each of these questions and debate them on a topic by topic basis. One of the things I love about the Tunnels as opposed to the Sports board, is that I often gain real knowledge that can lead to wisdom in dealing with life or my outlook. Great topics....I have already spent too much time this morning browsing in and out, but I will come back to this thread later....

Would love a tack on this though so we don't lose the questions.
 
DEACisGO said:
More like whore-in policy amirite!??!
Click to expand...

bill.jpg
 
Should we add Mexico issues to this? I think cartel activity there, mexican corruption, etc is much more near and dear to me than all the crap we deal with many more thousands of miles away (just my opinion). I've seen Red Dawn, I know what that can lead to.
 
I'll add this one: What would your policy toward Iran be if you were just informed, tonight, that Iran had successfully tested a nuclear weapon, along with a missile capable of carrying the warhead to any target in the Middle East and Europe? To be clear: Iran now has a nuclear capability that cannot be deterred.

Because that is the problem we will face, likely sometime in the next administration. I want to hear how each candidate would specifically deal with that problem. A real diplomatic plan. One that isn't simply claiming "I'll keep Iran from getting a nuke" when we all know that isn't very likely to happen. Show me some depth.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
So amongst all the hate whenever Benghazi is mentioned from both sides, lets be honest in the grand scheme of things its a blip on the radar. Especially with almost 4 years of Obama foreign policy to look at and the many different positions Romney has given. As I mentioned before Benghazi is being used as a talking point with fake rage and inserted into every discussion where it gets passed off as a debate on foreign policy. Benghazi was bad, there was a lot of confusion, Obama called it a terror attack, then tried to sweep it away because any terror attack looks bad during an election year, fake rage ensued and here we are. Lets leave Benghazi off this thread because it is fucking stupid to pretend this is foreign policy. Instead lets talk what really matters and what you want to hear from the candidates?

To start I think foreign policy is being swept under the rug because of the economy and social issues and seems to take third precident, which in this day in age is really dumb because the world is so connected. Things I would like addressed are.

Middle East
1. Afghanistan. Why are we still there? How long will we stay there? What is you plan for moving on from there?
1b. You plan for the middle east in general. What is your idea of when to intervene and when not to, using Libya vs Syria as a prime example
2. Iran- a huge concern is Iran, nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear weapons. What is your plan to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Stopping an armed Iran. It seems inevitable that they get a nuclear weapon what is your response. Do you really want to invade Iran?
3. What is our continued role with Israel? What about a two state? What if Israel bombs Iran where do we stand?

Russia/China
1. Do you still view Russia as our number one threat to security? What about missile defense? What about reduction in nuclear weapons?
2. China how do you deal with China as a growing world power? What kind of relations are you looking for? Do you go after them for currency, trade etc...

Other
1. The role we will play with the European Crisis
2. Our general world goals going forward, do we continue to police the world?
3. How to deal with exploding populations, disease, global warming
4. Immigration- What are you policies for immigration. Deportations? Dream Act? What about people that continue to flood our Universities and then leave taking their talents back to their home country.
5. Education and the ability to compete in a global economy
Click to expand...

Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East. :geek:
 
I mentioned this in the other thread, but I'd like to hear the candidates address the Green on Blue killings that have occurred at an alarming rate this year. How can we effectively partner with the Afghans when we can't trust them?
 
it's actually considered "greater middle east", so you're wrong and right

plus any normal person would include it, for better or worse
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I'll add this one: What would your policy toward Iran be if you were just informed, tonight, that Iran had successfully tested a nuclear weapon, along with a missile capable of carrying the warhead to any target in the Middle East and Europe? To be clear: Iran now has a nuclear capability that cannot be deterred.

Because that is the problem we will face, likely sometime in the next administration. I want to hear how each candidate would specifically deal with that problem. A real diplomatic plan. One that isn't simply claiming "I'll keep Iran from getting a nuke" when we all know that isn't very likely to happen. Show me some depth.
Click to expand...

Do you think that Iran will move much quickly than North Korea in their ability to detonate a nuclear weapon and actually have a weapons ready nuclear weapon? It doesn't seem plausible that they would be able to test their nuclear capability without everyone clearly being aware of it just like North Korea. My policy is the do nothing more than what we are doing right now but also adopt the you lie you die policy. You have told us for years you are not developing a nuclear weapon. The first sign that you test actually detonate a nuclear explosion your country is turned into a parking lot. Is complete and utter annihilation off the table as soon as they detonate a single nuke. Seems the lag between we need to test this and weapons grade, we have enough to deter is fairly significant.
 
I would also add the question, what are your plans to deal with the continued increase in terror networks spreading worldwide? It seems like we are forever going to play whack a mole where we put out one brush fire and another one props up in a completely different part of the world. We concentrate on Pakistan and Afghanistan and we get terror networks forming in Yemen and now Mali. We don't have the money or manpower to run around the world fighting groups in only the 1000s. Also adding to this would be the continued use of drone strikes. It seems we have opened a can of worms where if Al Queda has the technological capacity of the United States they could "legally" use drones in the United States to target government officials.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Do you think that Iran will move much quickly than North Korea in their ability to detonate a nuclear weapon and actually have a weapons ready nuclear weapon? It doesn't seem plausible that they would be able to test their nuclear capability without everyone clearly being aware of it just like North Korea. My policy is the do nothing more than what we are doing right now but also adopt the you lie you die policy. You have told us for years you are not developing a nuclear weapon. The first sign that you test actually detonate a nuclear explosion your country is turned into a parking lot. Is complete and utter annihilation off the table as soon as they detonate a single nuke. Seems the lag between we need to test this and weapons grade, we have enough to deter is fairly significant.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go with a foreign policy of "murder 100 million people and obliterate ancient Persia" if the Iranian government tests a nuclear device.

I also think Iran has the internal capability to protect their nuclear program from anything but a full-scale invasion (something the US simply can't afford and Israel cannot accomplish). I believe that a nuclear-capable Iran is an inevitability because they have industrial capacity, technological ability, and scientific know-how to build the capability themselves, without outside help, and the corresponding resources necessary to do it, just as was true with Pakistan. We'd better start operating under that assumption, since Iran will likely not be the last antagonist to achieve advanced nuclear technology in the coming decades. The Nuclear Club is going to expand, and the US needs to implement policies, now, that account for that reality. A simple "we'll never let that happen" isn't going to cut it when it does happen. And a policy of vaporizing all nations that defy us isn't viable.
 
Last edited:
Terrific questions to ask. The problem is the average American voter doesn't give two shits about most of those issues and just wants to hear things like "tax cuts." So in an election year when the economy is struggling, its nearly impossible to generate a real discussion among the candidates about legitimate foreign policy matters.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
it's actually considered "greater middle east", so you're wrong and right

plus any normal person would include it, for better or worse
Click to expand...

First time I've heard this term. Is it code for "where Muslims live"?

Afghanistan has jumped the shark. Get out as soon as reasonably possible. The Taliban is a cultural/religious/political phenomenon that is not going anywhere. No reason to bleed ourselves dry pretending otherwise.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I'm not going to go with a foreign policy of "murder 100 million people and obliterate ancient Persia" if the Iranian government tests a nuclear device.

I also think Iran has the internal capability to protect their nuclear program from anything but a full-scale invasion (something the US simply can't afford and Israel cannot accomplish). I believe that a nuclear capable is Iran is an inevitability because they have technological ability and know-how to build the capability themselves, without outside help, and the resources necessary to do it, just as was true with Pakistan. We'd better start operating under that assumption, since Iran will likely not be the last antagonist to achieve advanced nuclear technology in the coming decades. The Nuclear Club is going to expand, and the US needs to implement policies, now, that account for that reality. A simple "we'll never let that happen" isn't going to cut it when it does happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was only joking about the you lie you die policy. Especially since despite what everyone wants to believe the majority of Iranian people don't hate the United States at all. That goes for most of the middle east. Its the equivalent to assigning the entire view point of countries to the "Lets put the white back in the white house" guy for the United States. I don't know why a plan isn't in place for what you propose because the inevitability is obvious. We seriously are going to work off the assumption that technology that is 60 years old will not eventually be figured out.
The only questions I would propose is how far does the Nuclear Club go? Who else gets nuclear weapons and then what happens. It just seems that the idea that more and more people join the nuclear club is a bad idea even despite claims that no matter what it is going to happen. The more countries that posses nuclear capability the more likely something very very bad will happen. What is the response if a nuclear device is used in a terrorist attack? We can pretend that nuclear weapons are the most guarded of things but shit happens, regimes fall, and the more countries that have them just by sheer numbers the more likelihood something bad happens.
 
It's a problem, as you eloquently state. I'd like to hear their answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top