?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
25 July 2007 @ 09:06 am
wayback wednesday: Obama vs. the isolationists  
I fail to see why Obama stating that he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Iran is so controversial. How did refusing to talk to the people you disagree with become the only advisible foreign policy option? I'm certainly no expert on conflict resolution, but I'm pretty sure that "Oh yeah, well, I can't hear you, nananananana!" isn't a clever policy.

Obama's not saying that he'd skip all the other diplomatic steps in the process. He's just saying that he wouldn't act like a petulant child.

 
 
Listening to: Ben Folds - "In Between Days"
 
 
 
Professor Mortis: Timprofessormortis on July 25th, 2007 01:56 pm (UTC)
No, that's crazy talk man. Why would you ever engage in diplomacy?
xterminal on July 25th, 2007 02:05 pm (UTC)
Isolationism is yet another word that has been corrupted by the current government. This is one of the reasons I was cautiously optimistic about W (as much as I loathed him) back when he was originally on the campaign trail; I assumed, wrongly, that what he meant by "isolationism" is what I, and many before me, have meant by the term.

Isolationism has fuck-all to do with foreign policy, free trade, or anything else. Hell, isolationism encourages trade and good relations pretty much by definition unless your nation is completely self-sufficient (which ours obviously isn't). All isolationism is, as a stance, is the prime directive. "We won't mess with your culture. Please try to avoid messing with ours." It was Wilson's doctrine before we got into WWI, and it was a good'un. (Without it, Japan might still be a closed nation...)

Bush's definition seems to be "the whole world should look exactly like us. That way, when I say 'bring the troops home' on the campaign trail, what I really mean is we're going to make Iraq the fifty-first state."
Jumpo Kinkytailmonkey on July 25th, 2007 02:08 pm (UTC)
If I could vote down south, he'd get my nod.

Dialog is whats needed, around the world. Even if that is "geez chavez, yer an asshole"

:D

doNUT!donutgirl on July 25th, 2007 02:16 pm (UTC)
I had such high hopes for Obama, but it seems like so many people (mostly democrats) are doing anything in their power to make him appear the fool. My best hope now, I think, is that Clinton wins the primary (ugh), but Obama runs as an independent. Maybe he could beat her. But I don't know.

saint_boner: hstsaint_boner on July 25th, 2007 02:45 pm (UTC)
All you have to do is read Bush's campaign promises in 2000 or the Democrat Congressional promises in 2006 to see how much water truth holds for people trying to get elected.

If you vote Dem. or Pub. You are part of the problem.
glossolalia black: breastsautodidactic on July 25th, 2007 03:06 pm (UTC)
When I saw it on CNN this morning, I rolled my eyes. "Hillary's answer was more nuanced and cautious," or something like was uttered by Madeline Albright.

So, apparently it was a test with a correct answer! And you have to deliver a caveat with your yes.

*rolls eyes again*
...: Coulterwyndebreaker on July 25th, 2007 03:07 pm (UTC)
Obama's critics, especially in the Republican Party don't want peace or diplomacy. They want more wars. Hasn't that been made clear?

Supporting the military-industrial complex is big business. You only need to look at Halliburton's stock.
Pallaspallasathene8 on July 25th, 2007 04:13 pm (UTC)
Hear hear!