Is Obama done?

[dr_mabeuse]

See ,my previous. I didn't even get any gas either/

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Yes.

But how.

In what direction do you see him taking things?

He's already said he believes in talking to your enemies as well as your friends. He'd put an end to this unilateral military adventurism and make America a diplomatic partner again instead of some insane Frankenstein monster. He'd regain American prestige. He'd open dialog with Cuba and the Islamic world, bring the US back to the treaty table (I'd hope) as far as nuclear non-proliferation and space weapons go and stop the new arms race that's been brewing, defuse tensions with the Soviets that have been fomenting over this ridiculous plan to mount an ABM system in Poland, and generally stop acting like an insane magalomaniacal Militarist cowboy.

Maybe he'd even end this absurd "War on Terror" and return some of our rights to us and get Israel and the Palestinians to take each other seriously.

EDITED TO ADD: You made me feel bad that I didn't know what his position actually was, so I went to his web site. I managed to avoid signing up, but I found his policy statements. They're pretty much what I said. The link is http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#diplomacy
His foreign policy's in the middle of the page.

I've become a hack.

 

[Belegon]

He's already said he believes in talking to your enemies as well as your friends. He'd put an end to this unilateral military adventurism and make America a diplomatic partner again instead of some insane Frankenstein monster. He'd regain American prestige. He'd open dialog with Cuba and the Islamic world, bring the US back to the treaty table (I'd hope) as far as nuclear non-proliferation and space weapons go and stop the new arms race that's been brewing, defuse tensions with the Soviets that have been fomenting over this ridiculous plan to mount an ABM system in Poland, and generally stop acting like an insane magalomaniacal Militarist cowboy.

Maybe he'd even end this absurd "War on Terror" and return some of our rights to us and get Israel and the Palestinians to take each other seriously.

EDITED TO ADD: You made me feel bad that I didn't know what his position actually was, so I went to his web site. I managed to avoid signing up, but I found his policy statements. They're pretty much what I said. The link is http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#diplomacy
His foreign policy's in the middle of the page.

I've become a hack.

All of his policy statements are laid out there for reading... plus there are his two books. It's what keeps giving me the "Huh?" moments when people keep trying to color him as just rah-rah and not taking a position on something.

BTW, Imp (who has been active in advocacy for over a decade) says his policy statement on disabilities was the strongest she's ever seen. I think that has a direct correlation to the issue of health care and his concern and focus regarding it.

In all seriousness, it's been so long since a candidacy focused on issues that I don't think people know how to react.

 

[Boxlicker101]

He's already said he believes in talking to your enemies as well as your friends. He'd put an end to this unilateral military adventurism and make America a diplomatic partner again instead of some insane Frankenstein monster. He'd regain American prestige. He'd open dialog with Cuba and the Islamic world, bring the US back to the treaty table (I'd hope) as far as nuclear non-proliferation and space weapons go and stop the new arms race that's been brewing, defuse tensions with the Soviets that have been fomenting over this ridiculous plan to mount an ABM system in Poland, and generally stop acting like an insane magalomaniacal Militarist cowboy.

Maybe he'd even end this absurd "War on Terror" and return some of our rights to us and get Israel and the Palestinians to take each other seriously.

EDITED TO ADD: You made me feel bad that I didn't know what his position actually was, so I went to his web site. I managed to avoid signing up, but I found his policy statements. They're pretty much what I said. The link is http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#diplomacy
His foreign policy's in the middle of the page.

I've become a hack.

I'm all for talking to your enemies, as well as your friends. The US always had full diplomatic recognition of the USSR and with Mainland China after the Taiwan pretense ended. You also must know that, even though we have no ambassador in Havana, we do conduct dialogues with Cuba in other ways. I believe it can safely be said that the US does have relations with almost every nation, even those who call themselves our enemies, and with ever quasi-nation, such as the PLO. One exception might be Iran. The last time we had an embassy in Tehran, it didn't work out too well.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm all for talking to your enemies, as well as your friends. The US always had full diplomatic recognition of the USSR and with Mainland China after the Taiwan pretense ended. You also must know that, even though we have no ambassador in Havana, we do conduct dialogues with Cuba in other ways. I believe it can safely be said that the US does have relations with almost every nation, even those who call themselves our enemies, and with ever quasi-nation, such as the PLO. One exception might be Iran. The last time we had an embassy in Tehran, it didn't work out too well.

Having embassies and using them are two different things, The present administration's antipathy towards use of any sort of diplomacy is notorious and has strained many alliances with old and dear friends. Our refusal to engage with Syria and Iraq has cost us lives and money in our Iraq fiasco and it was only after Bush's father's advisers came in and embarrassed GWB into opening diplomatic channels that his "surge" started showing results. Our diplomatic relations with the USSR are in tatters over this ridiculous ABM program, which has no point whatsoever, and the administration's Cuba relations are held hostage by the exile community in Florida, which gave GWB the 2004 election, as much as he can be said to have won it.

Under Bush, the US had single-handedly abrogated the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty and the peaceable-use-of-space agreement, giving the finger to the rest of the world. We've gutted the Geneva Convention and decided to condone the use of torture, something no civilized nation has done since Nazi Germany.

Condi Rice is a joke as secreary of state. She has no policy and is inept at the ones she attempts. We have no foreign policy except war and threat of war, and now we've shown how hollow that threat is. That's why the dollar has plummeted against the Euro and the Yen, because while European economies are fluorishing, we're pouring money we could be using for investments down this ass-sucking sinkhole of Iraq. The United States is a 20th century nation in a 21st century world. We need a leader who understands this.

 

[cloudy]

We have no foreign policy except war

sometimes bumperstickers are embarrassingly correct: "Yeehaw is not a foreign policy."

 

[rgraham666]

Actually I'd argue the U.S. is a 19th Century nation.

 

[Kev H]

Actually I'd argue the U.S. is a 19th Century nation.

I'd be most amused to hear this argument. I honestly tried to not comment on this, but it bugged me too much. How can you counterbalance our civil war and brutalities and (mostly) isolationist attitudes with our expansion across the continent? And this made us a 19th Century nation how?

 

[sr71plt]

I'd be most amused to hear this argument. I honestly tried to not comment on this, but it bugged me too much. How can you counterbalance our civil war and brutalities and (mostly) isolationist attitudes with our expansion across the continent? And this made us a 19th Century nation how?

I was going to demur too, but then I checked. Yes, Manifest Destiny, 1845. The Monroe Doctrine doesn't really count as "mine's bigger than yours," because that basically was "ve vant to be alone" isolationist. But Manifest Destiny, that was "we Americans are the hottest thing on two wheels and you need to tell us that daily."

 

[Pure]

question:

since many have compared obama to kennedy, in background and maybe vision, why not expect a Kennedy-esque foreign policy. like Kennedy, wouldn't Obama be in a position of having to prove how tough he is?

Kennedy, it will be remembered started the Vietnam intervention, and proposed, in early speeches, rooting out communist insurgents with 'special forces' elite units, and 'advisors.'

in short, wouldn't hegemonic objectives remain the same, perhaps pursued with more intelligence, Harvard flair, and consultation with allies.

 

[Belegon]

since many have compared obama to kennedy, in background and maybe vision, why not expect a Kennedy-esque foreign policy. like Kennedy, wouldn't Obama be in a position of having to prove how tough he is?

Kennedy, it will be remembered started the Vietnam intervention, and proposed, in early speeches, rooting out communist insurgents with 'special forces' elite units, and 'advisors.'

in short, wouldn't hegemonic objectives remain the same, perhaps pursued with more intelligence, Harvard flair, and consultation with allies.

Ike sent advisers to Vietnam as early as 1955.

 

[sr71plt]

since many have compared obama to kennedy, in background and maybe vision, why not expect a Kennedy-esque foreign policy. like Kennedy, wouldn't Obama be in a position of having to prove how tough he is?

Kennedy, it will be remembered started the Vietnam intervention, and proposed, in early speeches, rooting out communist insurgents with 'special forces' elite units, and 'advisors.'

in short, wouldn't hegemonic objectives remain the same, perhaps pursued with more intelligence, Harvard flair, and consultation with allies.

The Vietnam intervention was put on track by U.S. support for the French in Indochina--and getting sucked into trying to replace them in influence and aid--and then physical help--as they pulled out in the mid 1950s. That was Eisenhower's watch. JFK's sin was the same as most other presidents--American pride of "we are here now, we have to see it through." With getting ignominously thrown out apparently seen as more palatable than a readjustment-of-policy realignment (for some dumb reason having to do with "we have to honor our children by killing more of them").

Obama's comparison with JFK in this regard is that he has nothing to show that he wouldn't suck into what almost every other president has, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal.

(JFK did, however, get us into Laos all on his own. I served in conflict management for the administrations of eight presidents, and the liberal Democrats were just as bloodthirsty and secretive as the conservative Republicans were.)

 

[sr71plt]

Ike sent advisers to Vietnam as early as 1955.

Sorry. Didn't mean to step on your post. I was still composing mine when you posted.

 

[Belegon]

Sorry. Didn't mean to step on your post. I was still composing mine when you posted.

no worries. That and the Bay of Pigs were both things Kennedy made the same mistake with... a mistake that McCain has already promised to make again.

 

[Pure]

note to sr71 and belegon.

a question i posed was, isn't Obama likely to pursue "liberal interventionism," as did Kennedy? more finesse than Bush, perhaps, but equally misguided.

Liberal interventionism.
Kennedy increased the ‘advisors’ in Vietnam from under a 1,000, to more than 10,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

On Latin America, Kennedy criticized Nixon/Eisenhower as being too inactive.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historica.../JFK/JFK+Pre-Pres/fourth+televised+debate.htm

In this exchange in the fourth debate with Nixon, Kennedy is beating the drums to do something to contain communism. His proposal to use Cuban exiles is on the table. Ironically, Nixon is saying unilateral intervention would violate UN commitments and other treaties! (I don't doubt for a minute that the shoe might have been on the other foot. Dems and Repugs exchange roles as to who is deft and pragmatic in intervening against evil, who is lax, and who is foolhardy. See Clinton in Kosovo.)


"Face-to-Face, Nixon-Kennedy" Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy Fourth Joint Television-Radio Broadcast
Friday, October 21, 1960


Kennedy : [...]

Nor is the question that all Americans want peace and security an issue in this campaign. The question is: Are we moving in the direction of peace and security? Is our relative strength growing? Is--as Mr. Nixon says--our prestige at an alltime high, as he said a week ago, and that of the Communists at an alltime low? I don't believe it is. I don't believe that our relative strength is increasing, and I say that not as a Democratic standard bearer, but as a citizen of the United States who is concerned about the United States.

I look at Cuba, 90 miles off the coast of the United States. In 1957 I was in Havana. I talked to the American Ambassador there. He said that he was the second most powerful man in Cuba, and yet even though Ambassador Smith and Ambassador Gardner, both Republican Ambassadors, both warned of Castro, the Marxist influences around Castro, the Communist influences around Castro, both of them have testified in the last 6 weeks, that in spite of their warnings to the American Government, nothing was done.

Our security depends upon Latin America. Can any American, looking at the situation in Latin America, feel contented with what's happening today, when a candidate for the Presidency of Brazil feels it necessary to call, not on Washington during the campaign, but on Castro in Havana, in order to pick up the support of the Castro supporters in Brazil?

At the American Conference--Inter-American Conference this summer, when we wanted them to join together in the denunciation of Castro and the Cuban Communists, we couldn't even get the Inter-American group to join together in denouncing Castro. It was rather a vague statement that they finally made.

Do you know today that the Comm--the Russians broadcast 10 times as many programs in Spanish to Latin America as we do?

By 1965 or 1970 will there be other Cubas in Latin America? Will Guinea and Ghana, which have now voted with the Communists frequently as newly independent countries of Africa, will there be others? Will the Congo go Communist? Will other countries? Are we doing enough in that area?

And what about Asia? Is India going to win the economic struggle or is China going to win it? Who will dominate Asia in the next 5 or 10 years? Communism? The Chinese? Or will freedom?

The question which we have to decide as Americans: Are we doing enough today? Is our strength and prestige rising? Do people want to be identified with us? Do they want to follow the United States leadership? I don't think they do enough. And that's what concerns me.

In Africa these countries that have newly joined the United Nations, on the question of admission of Red China, only two countries in all of Africa voted with us: Liberia and the Union of South Africa. The rest either abstained or voted against us. More countries in Asia voted against us on that question than voted with us.

I believe that this struggle is going to go on and it may be well decided in the next decade.

I have seen Cuba go to the Communists. I have seen Communist influence and Castro influence rise in Latin America. I have seen us ignore Africa. There are six countries in Africa that are members of the United Nations. There isn't a single American diplomatic representative in any of those six.

When Guinea became independent, the Soviet Ambassador showed up that very day. We didn't recognize them for 2 months; the American Ambassador didn't show up for nearly 8 months. I believe that the world is changing fast, and I don't think this administration has shown the foresight, has shown the knowledge, has been identified with the great fight which these people are waging to be free, to get a better standard of living, to live better.

The average income in some of those countries is $25 a year. The Communists say, "Come with us; look what we've done." And we've been, on the whole, uninterested.
I think we're going to have to do better. Mr. Nixon talks about our being the strongest country in the world. I think we are today, but we were far stronger relative to the Communists 5 years ago, and what is of great concern is that the balance of power is in danger of moving with them.
They made a breakthrough in missiles, and by 1961, '2, and '3, they will be outnumbering us in missiles.

I'm not as confident as he is that we will be the strongest military power by 1963.



MR. SINGISER. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to pin down the difference between the way you would handle Castro's regime and prevent the establishment of Communist governments in the Western Hemisphere and the way that t Senator Kennedy would proceed. Vice President Nixon, in what important respects do you feel there are differences between you, and why do you believe your policy is better for the peace and security of the United States and the Western Hemisphere?

MR. NIXON. Our policies are very different. I think that Senator Kennedy's policies and recommendations for the handling of the Castro regime are probably the most dangerously irresponsible recommendations that he's made during the course of this campaign. In effect, what Senator Kennedy recommends is that the United States Government should give help to the exiles and to those within Cuba who oppose the Castro regime, provided they are anti-Batista.

Now let's just see what this means. We have five treaties with Latin America, including the one setting up the Organization of American States in Bogota in 1948, in which we have agreed not to intervene in the internal affairs of any other American country, and they as well have agreed to do likewise.

The charter of the United Nations, its preamble, Article I and Article II also provide that there shall be no intervention by one nation in the internal affairs of another. Now I don't know what Senator Kennedy suggests when he says that we should help those who oppose the Castro regime both in Cuba and without. But I do know this, that if we were to follow that recommendation that we would lose all of our friends in Latin America, we would probably be condemned in the United Nations, and we would not accomplish our objective. I know something else. It would be an open invitation for Mr. Khrushchev to come in, to come into Latin America and to engage us in what would be a civil war, and possibly even worse than that.

This is the major recommendation that he's made. Now, what can we do? We can do what we did with Guatemala. There was a Communist dictator that we inherited from the previous administration. We quarantined Mr. Arbenz. The result was that the Guatemalan people themselves eventually rose up and they threw him out. We are quarantining Mr. Castro today. We are quarantining him diplomatically by bringing back our Ambassador; economically by cutting off trade--and Senator Kennedy's suggestion that the trade that we cut off is not significant is just 100 percent wrong. […]


MR. KENNEDY. Mr. Nixon shows himself misinformed. He surely must be aware that most of the equipment and arms and resources for Castro came from the United States, flowed out of Florida and other parts of the United States to Castro in the mountains. There isn't any doubt about that, No. 1.

No. 2, I believe that if any economic sanctions against Latin America are going to be successful, they have to be multilateral, they have to include the other countries of Latin America. The very minute effect of the action which has been taken this week on Cuba's economy, I believe Castro can replace those markets very easily through Latin America, through Europe, and through Eastern Europe.

If the United States had stronger prestige and influence in Latin America it could persuade, as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940, the countries of Latin America to join in an economic quarantine of Castro. That's the only way you can bring real economic pressure on the Castro regime and also the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, and the others.

No. 3, Castro is only the beginning of our difficulties throughout Latin America. The big struggle will be to prevent the influence of Castro spreading to other countries--Mexico, Panama, Bolivia, Colombia. We're going to have to try to provide closer ties to associate ourselves with the great desire of these people for a better life if we're going to prevent Castro's influence from spreading throughout all of Latin America.

His influence is strong enough today to prevent us from getting the other countries of Latin America to join with us in economic quarantine. His influence is growing, mostly because this administration has ignored Latin America. You yourself said, Mr. Vice President, a month ago, that if we had provided the kind of economic aid 5 years ago that we are now providing, we might never have had Castro. Why didn't we?

[Pure’s note: Kennedy does NOT deny that he has a proposal to used the Cuban exiles against Castro]

 

[Kev H]

I think that discussing Obama as a JFK clone is an amusing-but-pointless exercise. I feel Obama is a little less sure in his tactics for stressful situations, perhaps, but that does not mean it's likely that he will abandon his "do whatever is necessary and no more" philosophy (which came out most clearly in his anti-Iraq-War speech(es?). If he does get into office, it will be interesting to see if his tactics against America-targetted terrorism will have any more success than Cheney's.

 

[sr71plt]

a question i posed was, isn't Obama likely to pursue "liberal interventionism," as did Kennedy? more finesse than Bush, perhaps, but equally misguided.

Liberal interventionism.
Kennedy increased the ‘advisors’ in Vietnam from under a 1,000, to more than 10,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

On Latin America, Kennedy criticized Nixon/Eisenhower as being too inactive.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historica.../JFK/JFK+Pre-Pres/fourth+televised+debate.htm

In this exchange in the fourth debate with Nixon, Kennedy is beating the drums to do something to contain communism. His proposal to use Cuban exiles is on the table. Ironically, Nixon is saying unilateral intervention would violate UN commitments and other treaties! (I don't doubt for a minute that the shoe might have been on the other foot. Dems and Repugs exchange roles as to who is deft and pragmatic in intervening against evil, who is lax, and who is foolhardy. See Clinton in Kosovo.)


"Face-to-Face, Nixon-Kennedy" Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy Fourth Joint Television-Radio Broadcast
Friday, October 21, 1960


Kennedy : [...]

Nor is the question that all Americans want peace and security an issue in this campaign. The question is: Are we moving in the direction of peace and security? Is our relative strength growing? Is--as Mr. Nixon says--our prestige at an alltime high, as he said a week ago, and that of the Communists at an alltime low? I don't believe it is. I don't believe that our relative strength is increasing, and I say that not as a Democratic standard bearer, but as a citizen of the United States who is concerned about the United States.

I look at Cuba, 90 miles off the coast of the United States. In 1957 I was in Havana. I talked to the American Ambassador there. He said that he was the second most powerful man in Cuba, and yet even though Ambassador Smith and Ambassador Gardner, both Republican Ambassadors, both warned of Castro, the Marxist influences around Castro, the Communist influences around Castro, both of them have testified in the last 6 weeks, that in spite of their warnings to the American Government, nothing was done.

Our security depends upon Latin America. Can any American, looking at the situation in Latin America, feel contented with what's happening today, when a candidate for the Presidency of Brazil feels it necessary to call, not on Washington during the campaign, but on Castro in Havana, in order to pick up the support of the Castro supporters in Brazil?

At the American Conference--Inter-American Conference this summer, when we wanted them to join together in the denunciation of Castro and the Cuban Communists, we couldn't even get the Inter-American group to join together in denouncing Castro. It was rather a vague statement that they finally made.

Do you know today that the Comm--the Russians broadcast 10 times as many programs in Spanish to Latin America as we do?

By 1965 or 1970 will there be other Cubas in Latin America? Will Guinea and Ghana, which have now voted with the Communists frequently as newly independent countries of Africa, will there be others? Will the Congo go Communist? Will other countries? Are we doing enough in that area?

And what about Asia? Is India going to win the economic struggle or is China going to win it? Who will dominate Asia in the next 5 or 10 years? Communism? The Chinese? Or will freedom?

The question which we have to decide as Americans: Are we doing enough today? Is our strength and prestige rising? Do people want to be identified with us? Do they want to follow the United States leadership? I don't think they do enough. And that's what concerns me.

In Africa these countries that have newly joined the United Nations, on the question of admission of Red China, only two countries in all of Africa voted with us: Liberia and the Union of South Africa. The rest either abstained or voted against us. More countries in Asia voted against us on that question than voted with us.

I believe that this struggle is going to go on and it may be well decided in the next decade.

I have seen Cuba go to the Communists. I have seen Communist influence and Castro influence rise in Latin America. I have seen us ignore Africa. There are six countries in Africa that are members of the United Nations. There isn't a single American diplomatic representative in any of those six.

When Guinea became independent, the Soviet Ambassador showed up that very day. We didn't recognize them for 2 months; the American Ambassador didn't show up for nearly 8 months. I believe that the world is changing fast, and I don't think this administration has shown the foresight, has shown the knowledge, has been identified with the great fight which these people are waging to be free, to get a better standard of living, to live better.

The average income in some of those countries is $25 a year. The Communists say, "Come with us; look what we've done." And we've been, on the whole, uninterested.
I think we're going to have to do better. Mr. Nixon talks about our being the strongest country in the world. I think we are today, but we were far stronger relative to the Communists 5 years ago, and what is of great concern is that the balance of power is in danger of moving with them.
They made a breakthrough in missiles, and by 1961, '2, and '3, they will be outnumbering us in missiles.

I'm not as confident as he is that we will be the strongest military power by 1963.



MR. SINGISER. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to pin down the difference between the way you would handle Castro's regime and prevent the establishment of Communist governments in the Western Hemisphere and the way that t Senator Kennedy would proceed. Vice President Nixon, in what important respects do you feel there are differences between you, and why do you believe your policy is better for the peace and security of the United States and the Western Hemisphere?

MR. NIXON. Our policies are very different. I think that Senator Kennedy's policies and recommendations for the handling of the Castro regime are probably the most dangerously irresponsible recommendations that he's made during the course of this campaign. In effect, what Senator Kennedy recommends is that the United States Government should give help to the exiles and to those within Cuba who oppose the Castro regime, provided they are anti-Batista.

Now let's just see what this means. We have five treaties with Latin America, including the one setting up the Organization of American States in Bogota in 1948, in which we have agreed not to intervene in the internal affairs of any other American country, and they as well have agreed to do likewise.

The charter of the United Nations, its preamble, Article I and Article II also provide that there shall be no intervention by one nation in the internal affairs of another. Now I don't know what Senator Kennedy suggests when he says that we should help those who oppose the Castro regime both in Cuba and without. But I do know this, that if we were to follow that recommendation that we would lose all of our friends in Latin America, we would probably be condemned in the United Nations, and we would not accomplish our objective. I know something else. It would be an open invitation for Mr. Khrushchev to come in, to come into Latin America and to engage us in what would be a civil war, and possibly even worse than that.

This is the major recommendation that he's made. Now, what can we do? We can do what we did with Guatemala. There was a Communist dictator that we inherited from the previous administration. We quarantined Mr. Arbenz. The result was that the Guatemalan people themselves eventually rose up and they threw him out. We are quarantining Mr. Castro today. We are quarantining him diplomatically by bringing back our Ambassador; economically by cutting off trade--and Senator Kennedy's suggestion that the trade that we cut off is not significant is just 100 percent wrong. […]


MR. KENNEDY. Mr. Nixon shows himself misinformed. He surely must be aware that most of the equipment and arms and resources for Castro came from the United States, flowed out of Florida and other parts of the United States to Castro in the mountains. There isn't any doubt about that, No. 1.

No. 2, I believe that if any economic sanctions against Latin America are going to be successful, they have to be multilateral, they have to include the other countries of Latin America. The very minute effect of the action which has been taken this week on Cuba's economy, I believe Castro can replace those markets very easily through Latin America, through Europe, and through Eastern Europe.

If the United States had stronger prestige and influence in Latin America it could persuade, as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940, the countries of Latin America to join in an economic quarantine of Castro. That's the only way you can bring real economic pressure on the Castro regime and also the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, and the others.

No. 3, Castro is only the beginning of our difficulties throughout Latin America. The big struggle will be to prevent the influence of Castro spreading to other countries--Mexico, Panama, Bolivia, Colombia. We're going to have to try to provide closer ties to associate ourselves with the great desire of these people for a better life if we're going to prevent Castro's influence from spreading throughout all of Latin America.

His influence is strong enough today to prevent us from getting the other countries of Latin America to join with us in economic quarantine. His influence is growing, mostly because this administration has ignored Latin America. You yourself said, Mr. Vice President, a month ago, that if we had provided the kind of economic aid 5 years ago that we are now providing, we might never have had Castro. Why didn't we?

[Pure’s note: Kennedy does NOT deny that he has a proposal to used the Cuban exiles against Castro]

What I responded to was this statement by you: "Kennedy, it will be remembered started the Vietnam intervention," which, as Belegon and I pointed out, was inaccurate. Don't really have the time and inclination to read this long rejoinder, as it isn't responsive to my post.

 

[Pure]

note to kev
i don't think so, kev. liberals have their own love of 'surgical interventions.' and kennedy clearly believed in his 'counterinsurgency approach.' there is every reason to think obama will carry out the tradition. (see, for example, Clinton in Kosovo).

liberals may not hamfistedly, in the neocon way, assert american primacy, but they will ensure american predominance and they believe in the metaphor Kennedy explicitly invoked, "the city on the hill." the american way as moral beacon and exemplar to the world.

kev I think that discussing Obama as a JFK clone is an amusing-but-pointless exercise. I feel Obama is a little less sure in his tactics for stressful situations, perhaps, but that does not mean it's likely that he will abandon his "do whatever is necessary and no more" philosophy (which came out most clearly in his anti-Iraq-War speech(es?). If he does get into office, it will be interesting to see if his tactics against America-targetted terrorism will have any more success than Cheney's.

==
sr71:

i gave some figures: Kennedy changed the character of the vietnam intervention by an exponential increase in 'advisers' many of whom were not. as well, he went with the foolish install-Diem strategy. the general pt being that liberals are NOT loath to intervene, install puppets or yes-men; they act in ways they consider wise. hence bay of pigs. hence the Diem disaster.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

since many have compared obama to kennedy, in background and maybe vision, why not expect a Kennedy-esque foreign policy. like Kennedy, wouldn't Obama be in a position of having to prove how tough he is?

Kennedy, it will be remembered started the Vietnam intervention, and proposed, in early speeches, rooting out communist insurgents with 'special forces' elite units, and 'advisors.'

in short, wouldn't hegemonic objectives remain the same, perhaps pursued with more intelligence, Harvard flair, and consultation with allies.

We have this goddamned huge military, and when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The "wars" we're engaged in are economic at heart.

I think most of the educated world knows now that you control markets and economies, not geographies. The US seems to be the only country that's still locked into this quaint 20th century notion of fighting over dirt and bodies. I think Obama knows the difference. We could have bought and sold Iraq several times over already,

Who else in the world is fielding invasion-sized armies these days? And why not? Because it doesn't work. It's too expensive and it doesn't work and there are better ways of doing it. You control a country's economy and you control what's important, and while we're pissing our money away in Iraq, China's buying the USA.

 

[sr71plt]

sr71:

i gave some figures: Kennedy changed the character of the vietnam intervention by an exponential increase in 'advisers' many of whom were not. as well, he went with the foolish install-Diem strategy. the general pt being that liberals are NOT loath to intervene, install puppets or yes-men; they act in ways they consider wise. hence bay of pigs. hence the Diem disaster.

My posting had a parenthetical phrase at the bottom that made exactly the same point about liberals not being loath to intervene. So, again, I don't see the need to read the tutorial you responded with. *shrug*

 

[sr71plt]

We have this goddamned huge military, and when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The "wars" we're engaged in are economic at heart.

I think most of the educated world knows now that you control markets and economies, not geographies. The US seems to be the only country that's still locked into this quaint 20th century notion of fighting over dirt and bodies. I think Obama knows the difference. We could have bought and sold Iraq several times over already,

Who else in the world is fielding invasion-sized armies these days? And why not? Because it doesn't work. It's too expensive and it doesn't work and there are better ways of doing it. You control a country's economy and you control what's important, and while we're pissing our money away in Iraq, China's buying the USA.

I think one of the main points is that we don't, in fact, now have "this goddamned huge military." We are engaged in two wars now with National Guard troops jerked out of the U.S. economy and social fabric that weren't designed to be foreign war forces--and we are forcing them to serve beyond their anticipated scope and time.

Everyone (in their self-centeredness) is now saying "it's all about the economy." But at the base of the economy headed south is this voracious pit of two (although Americans only seem to see the one) badly conceived and executed foreign interventions.

 

[Pure]

note to sr71

as to your paren:

(JFK did, however, get us into Laos all on his own. I served in conflict management for the administrations of eight presidents, and the liberal Democrats were just as bloodthirsty and secretive as the conservative Republicans were.)

point well taken.

and no reason to think Obama will be any different.

agree?

 

[sr71plt]

as to your paren:

(JFK did, however, get us into Laos all on his own. I served in conflict management for the administrations of eight presidents, and the liberal Democrats were just as bloodthirsty and secretive as the conservative Republicans were.)

point well taken.

and no reason to think Obama will be any different.

agree?

Yes, agree. I'd be happy to be pleasantly surprised--however I see the possibility with Obama of bending too far in the other direction as well. His "I'd talk directly with any leader" was telling of his naivete. He subsequently changed that to "we'd talk directly with any leader," though, which is a good sign.

I don't mind when a politician steps on his/her tongue from isolated time to isolated time--we're all human (and I wish Hillary were a little more human). What wins with me is a "Sorry, I mispoke/didn't process that fully--let me try again on that" or (in Hillary's case with the pro-intervention posts). "I did the best with the information/situation I had at the moment. I have more complete information (like, "They lied to us") now and am not going to stick to the old statements/actions because I think there's a better understanding available now." This isn't flip flopping (and I regret it when politicians let their opponents identify it as such); it's called flexibility and learning by doing. It's what a good leader actually does; I don't see why they can't help education the voters by giving an honest perspective of what actually happens in the formulation and execution of government policy.

 

[Pure]

there are some nice mea culpas from liberals re iraq. over at Slate.

some admit to various delusions and fantasies etc.

all revolve around the US as moral, delusions about the possible, failure to weigh alternatives: for example: it's good to bring down an evil dictator, but what is the resultant situation in terms of harms to various people.

hillary's being sold on WMD doesn't wash as a primary reason. (no reasonable person would, at that time, believe bush).

 

[sr71plt]

there are some nice mea culpas from liberals re iraq. over at Slate.

some admit to various delusions and fantasies etc.

all revolve around the US as moral, delusions about the possible, failure to weigh alternatives: for example: it's good to bring down an evil dictator, but what is the resultant situation in terms of harms to various people.

hillary's being sold on WMD doesn't wash as a primary reason. (no reasonable person would, at that time, believe bush).

Hillary wasn't sold on WMDs, I don't think. The Clinton White House was kept in the picture on where they went.

Hillary was a U.S. Senator from the city that got hit the hardest by 9/11. In the emotions of the time, just how well do you think it would have gone over for her to start thinking up reasons not to strike back at someone? Need to try to get real here. She was hemmed in by time/circumstance.

Speaking of the WMD, though, the Bush administration's dumbest thing, I think, was in not salting WMD in Iraq to be found so that all of this argumentation wasn't possible. Nixon would have figured this one out, so Cheney has a way to go yet in the diabolical, clever scheming realm.

And we have to be very careful about this "bringing dictators" down bit. Some of them are in our pockets and are helping us keep the status quo we want.