Obama and the "War On Terrorism"

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Well, we heard fine speeches and statements from him. They must have been convincing.

His first major speech on foreign policy was delivered on April 23, 2007 to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He identified the problems that he believes the current foreign policy has caused, and the five ways the United States can lead again, focused on "common security", "common humanity", and remaining "a beacon of freedom and justice for the world":[90]

• "Bringing a responsible end" to the war in Iraq and refocusing on the broader region.
• "Building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it."
• "Marshalling a global effort" to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
• "Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats," including global warming.
• "Invest in our common humanity" through foreign aid and supporting the "pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force."

During the speech Obama called for an expansion of the United States Armed Forces "by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines", an idea previously introduced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.



In a Washington, DC speech entitled "A New Strategy for a New World"[91] delivered July 15, 2008, Obama stated five main foreign policy goals:

• ending the war in Iraq responsibly;
• finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;
• securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states;
• achieving true energy security; and,
• rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

And what will he do in foreign policy, especially with the ongoing "War on terrorism"?

Wait, wait, let's get back to that quote. This line makes me wonder.

"Marshalling a global effort" to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

:hmmm:

Isn't that the same propaganda the Bush administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction had been found?

[Delvecchio1975]

i said "i don't know" because the correct option is not in your poll (in my opinion) - it should be "will change". it won't be a war in the litteral sense, bombing the crap out of so called rogue states, and then get shot to pieces with kalashnikovs in protracted guerilla wars, but more of a fight on a different level, using diplomatic and economic leverage to solve problems that form the basis for terrorism.

[The Dude]

Since Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, I don't think its a good way to argue that Obama will tone the war down. I do think he will though, but thats more through handling Afghanistan in a responsible manner and not passing retarded laws like the Patriot Act.

[Justice and Mercy]

Since Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror,

It doesn't? There aren't terrorists in Iraq fighting American forces?

Whether or not we made it so Iraq IS part of the War on Terror.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Killing terrorist does nothing to further the war on terror it only encourages them silly boy.

[Valiant Champion]

Since Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, I don't think its a good way to argue that Obama will tone the war down. I do think he will though, but thats more through handling Afghanistan in a responsible manner and not passing retarded laws like the Patriot Act.

If Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror than why did Al Queda fight so fiercely for it?

[Zephyrus]

Since Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, I don't think its a good way to argue that Obama will tone the war down. I do think he will though, but thats more through handling Afghanistan in a responsible manner and not passing retarded laws like the Patriot Act.

Which he still hasn't revoked...:hmmm:

First of all, it is obvious, that US is fighting ghosts here. "War on terrorism" was just an excuse to expand american influence into Middle East and Central Asia. If US cared so much about real terrorism, they should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

"Terrorist" is a pretty broad and useful term to designate as a threat when your making an overt power grab.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

i said "i don't know" because the correct option is not in your poll (in my opinion) - it should be "will change".

AKA toned down from unilaterlism to multilaterlism.

it won't be a war in the litteral sense, bombing the crap out of so called rogue states, and then get shot to pieces with kalashnikovs in protracted guerilla wars, but more of a fight on a different level, using diplomatic and economic leverage to solve problems that form the basis for terrorism.

Why do you think this will happen? :hmmm:

[Delvecchio1975]

AKA toned down from unilaterlism to multilaterlism.

okay, i thought you meant 'toned down' in the sense of just investing less in the military war - withdrawing from iraq and such ... so then i agree with you.

Why do you think this will happen? :hmmm:

because the current strategy (bush doctrine with all its consequences) has proven not to work. although for instance europe is not anti-american at all (no matter what some people imagine), i think there were few american presidents who got so little done from their allies. (EDIT: i'm not sure if i understood your question correctly - does this answer it?)

[Rush Limbaugh]

Anyone see the story the otherday that Obama now thinks covert operations are fine and dandy? Or that the largest bombing in Iraq in a year is a good sign?

[Каие]

I am coming from two directions towards this point. The war on terror does not exist, and therefore cannot be won. Ever.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I am coming from two directions towards this point. The war on terror does not exist, and therefore cannot be won. Ever.

So true, that's why I used quotation marks. And USA doesn't even aim to "win" that war. The aim is total global military dominance, and the demonstration of military potential by bringing down easy-to-beat regimes. That's why they won't mess with Iran.

[Каие]

or North Korea.

[Dance the older]

I personally think it will continue... Somebody has to stop it. I feel, that in my mind, it won't stop. I think it will continue through Obama's term, because the one thing worse then stopping the fight over there, is bringing the fight back here... I know Obama is anti-war or w/e you wanna call it, but this war needs to continue.

Screw the Iraq mission, get out as soon as possible, but the war in Afghanistan, Somalia, the Philipines, Indonesia, Lebanon, etc, etc, needs to continue. Though many criticize that it is difficult to win this war, possibly more difficult then any before it because of the immensity of where the war is being fought, on practically every continent in the world, but better to continue contributing to end it, then to sit idly by and watch them grow in number and spread their ideals openly and eventually win it. This is definitely a war worth continuing.

[The Cobra]

Obama...he's going to continue with this


For a long time that is

[Carach]

Well, we heard fine speeches and statements from him. They must have been convincing.





And what will he do in foreign policy, especially with the ongoing "War on terrorism"?

Wait, wait, let's get back to that quote. This line makes me wonder.



:hmmm:

Isn't that the same propaganda the Bush administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction had been found?

this seems like unnecessary obama bashing to me.

while the policies appear to be pretty similar, the reality is a lot different..

i love this american politics crap though, the massive hatewars that go on in an election, and then afterwards the losing side start bashing the winner for policies their own side would have been using anyway.

In reality neither mccain nor obama could realistically change the stuff that really matters.

Tell me wizard, what would ur foreign policy have been? what else does america have to direct its attention to?

[Rush Limbaugh]

Obama...he's going to continue with this


For a long time that is

Rememeber al that sneaky stuff Bush was doing behind our backs? Obama and his staff now say their needed so that the president can have the flexibility to act LOL. As long as their doing it its for the right cause it seems.

[Каие]

Rememeber al that sneaky stuff Bush was doing behind our backs? Obama and his staff now say their needed so that the president can have the flexibility to act LOL. As long as their doing it its for the right cause it seems.

lol when he got the daily CIA briefings he probably crapped himself. I thought that's what you wanted? No change?

[Rush Limbaugh]

lol when he got the daily CIA briefings he probably crapped himself. I thought that's what you wanted? No change?

Do you ever pay attention. I voted for Ron Paul not Bush not Mc Cain. I wanted change because Bush was a liberal spender, big government buffoon. Yes he did some things right. I have far less faith in Obama will do anything right.

The problem, was Mc Cain offered much the same change as Obama just not as radical. I hated them both.

[Каие]

Do you ever pay attention. I voted for Ron Paul not Bush not Mc Cain. I wanted change because Bush was a liberal spender, big government buffoon. Yes he did some things right. I have far less faith in Obama will do anything right.

The problem, was Mc Cain offered much the same change as Obama just not as radical. I hated them both.

I know, I know, I was goading you. As for Obama history will tell, but he's not off to a good start on his change crap. Chose a partisan Zionist former Clinton man as his CoS, changed his mind on the war on terror. tsk, tsk.