Nuclear cargo being smuggled out of Iran?

Besides the US Navy offering up $7 million as a bride to inspect the ship, what has GW done to handle this issue, that has happened under his every vigilant watch?
 
TheDude said:
Besides the US Navy offering up $7 million as a bride to inspect the ship, what has GW done to handle this issue, that has happened under his every vigilant watch?
Click to expand...

What would you suggest he do?
 
I'm not a foreign policy/terrorist expert (wouldn't want to cause chaos in Somalia that could spill over onto our shores, oh noes!), but the point was that Obama; even if you believe he's a spinless Liberal, could easily do exactly what was done here, ie nothing much.

What do you think Bush should have done in regards to this?
 
Joeychgo said:
I dunno, apparantly, Bryan thinks Obama will mess it up -- yet you think GW can do nothing. So how could obama screw it up?
Click to expand...

You're misrepresenting the situation, but even still, you're logic is demonstrably .... ignorant.

You can find yourself in a situation where there is no prudent action that can be immediately be taken. Knowing when to WAIT to do something, or working to change the situation behind the scenes, is a critical foreign policy skill. The U.S. just launched targeted strikes into Syria. We didn't telegraph these plans prior to doing so, we're not even talking about the military success now. Syria even came out publicly and pretended to be outraged... The other day, international newspapers were leaked a story the indicates that the Syrian government had full knowledge of the attack and had actually provided assistance, the public outrage was done to provide the government political cover.

Obama doesn't understand these things. That's why he has telegraphed his intention to move military forces into Pakistan in an extremely overt manner.

So even in a situation where there's nothing that can be publicly done at the moment, DOING SOMETHING WRONG can have catastrophic results.
 
I agree - but Bryan seems to imply there is a way to handle it - and that Obama will do the wrong thing. I agree with you - there isnt much to do publically right now.
 
Joeychgo said:
I agree - but Bryan seems to imply there is a way to handle it - and that Obama will do the wrong thing. I agree with you - there isnt much to do publically right now.
Click to expand...

And there is- it just might not be publicly known.
And waiting is doing something. But waiting is critically different than being paralyzed with indecision, as was the case with Jimmy Carter.
 
Calabrio nailed it (as usual)!

Obama is heavy handed when it comes to foreign policy. He has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the subtleties of foreign policy/international relations. He cannot see the signs let alone interpret them properly.

Bush on the other hand has demostrated that he can understand those subtleties (as pointed out earlier in this thread). When he needs to change policy, he has (the surge, new generals, replacing Rummy, etc. etc.). Bush has shown that he can realize mistakes and correct them. Obama still won't admit that the surge is a success.

Obama has said that Iran is a small country that doesn't pose much of a threat. Bush called Iran part of the "Axis of Evil". Which view does this new information support?

When it comes to international politics, Obama is immature at best, and naively foolish at worst.
 
shagdrum said:
When it comes to international politics, Obama is immature at best, and naively foolish at worst.
Click to expand...

The best case scenario is that he surrounds himself with a ground up like Brzezinski and that was a huge failure. But judging from his associations, that's a long shot.
 
Calabrio said:
And there is- it just might not be publicly known.
And waiting is doing something. But waiting is critically different than being paralyzed with indecision, as was the case with Jimmy Carter.
Click to expand...

In this very scenario, what makes you certain Obama would be "paralyzed with indecision" (or repeat past mistakes) and not just do what you assume Bush is doing here, something right; it's hidden though?
 
TheDude said:
What makes you certain Obama would be "paralyzed with indecision" and not just do what you assume Bush is doing here, something hidden?
Click to expand...

I can't be certain of any hypothetic, particularly one like this where most of the information isn't even available to us. However, I can make generalizations based upon a person's associations, political philosophy, foreign policy philosophy, and his history of reactions. These things cause me great concern regarding Obama.

I didn't say that Obama would be paralyzed, I said Carter's foreign policy was. I say that based on historic fact.
 
Originally Posted by TheDude
What makes you certain Obama would be "paralyzed with indecision" and not just do what you assume Bush is doing here, something hidden?
Click to expand...
Probably this quote by Biden:

Mark my words...It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate...And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you -- not financially to help him -- we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 149 (members: 0, guests: 149)
Back
Top