- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 33,000
- Reaction score
- 13,973
- Location
- FL - Daytona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I think you are headed in the right direction, but aren't completely seeing Kissinger's point. The U.S., like most countries in the "world order" are experiencing a paradox. It is this paradox that is undermining the established world order. The U.S.'s role in all of this is to reevaluate its position in the world, and determine what it can do, when, how, and to what end. This is a transitional presidency and a transitional geopolitical experience.
You may think so now until you see more of his "no strategy" foreign policy.
Better than Bush's failed strategy.
Why ?
But why is Obama's "vote-Present" strategy better than Bush's strategy?Why? Maybe because Bush invaded the wrong country, ****ed it up and then went to clean brush up in Crawford, Texas.
Is the paradox based on Nations individual concerns are not aligned with global cooperation towards trade and peace?
And we have the wrong man in the WH for this transition.
But why is Obama's "vote-Present" strategy better than Bush's strategy?
Yes, that's largely Kissinger's point. The nation-state has largely promoted economic liberalism and globalization as both good for the world's population and good for itself, although economic globalization erodes the interests of the nation-state.
America's exceptional nature seems to have taken a wrong turn somewhere when invading Iraq for preconceived notions. Now we're directionless as a world power, trying to desperately hold together failed democracies in the ME, and fight terrorism with the wind.
Putin must of seen the lack of conviction in the current admin to gamble attacking the Ukraine. We should've been watching out for the real threats to our security and financial progress and not wasting so much money, lives and resources chasing dessert ghosts for decades.
Yeah yeah, it's Bush's fault. :roll: How about something new. Trotting that out everyday isn't going to solve the problem.
Thus far, I don't know what Obama's strategy is going to be. I do know that Bush's strategy was to invade the wrong country.
Kissinger should have no credibility. He accomplished little and is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands, maybe millions.
Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order - WSJ
Obama better get his **** together. He should be calling in some experienced people.
Kissinger should have no credibility. He accomplished little and is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands, maybe millions...
Kissinger should have no credibility. He accomplished little and is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands, maybe millions.
We can not impose order on the world. At best we can aim for a relatively peaceful and safe time. America does not have the right, ability or credibility to impose our sense of order on the rest of the world and attempts to do so will only create more violence and disorder. Besides defending ourselves, the best thing and only thing we should do militarilly is to try to reduce the amount of genocide. Developing an American culture that is a healthy and fair and sets a good example that others will want to follow is also a reasonable goal.
Why? Maybe because Bush invaded the wrong country, ****ed it up and then went to clean brush up in Crawford, Texas.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063705858 said:What about Obama's Arab Spring? Liberals don't seem to remember the violence Obama perpetuated in the ME, overturning secular rulers and allowing Islamists to infiltrate many of those countries. Now they want to instill Sharia law, declare caliphate and spread jihad across the world.
Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has invaded most of the Middle East.
Yep, great plan alright.
Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order - WSJ
Obama better get his **** together. He should be calling in some experienced people.
If anyone knows about the New World Order it would be Kissinger. I hear he is a member of their inner circle.
I'm not entirely convinced of that. I think the Arab Spring rally was over-exaggerated from interventionist liberals (of which Obama was mostly symbolically pandering to) and conservatives (who wanted to temporarily revive the reputation of the previous Bush administration), but in many regards, the U.S. is in this position because that's about all it wants to do and can do. It can neither entirely dismiss the last 10 years of military interventionism, nor the past 20-30 years of democratic internationalism, but it can't brazenly believe that its exceptional nature endows it with the power to reshape a region of the world without a liberal tradition from those it wishes to aid and reform. In many regards (though certainly not in all ways), a GOP presidency would resemble an Obama Presidency: stuck trying to maintain some semblance of what it sought to do in the past decade, but no longer willing to continue the march forward.
He's the wrong man because he doesn't like foreign policy and doesn't want to deal with it. His primary objective is social justice within the US, and foreign policy stuff is of no interest. He came to office with no experience in it, and it wasn't part of his agenda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?