Remember when the US was a Superpower?

[corysold 0]

That was pretty cool.

[REMND 0]

That was pretty cool.

 

So, in your super power hierarchy, what is it now?

 

We may have gone a long way from the Marshall Plan to global economic meltdown but our influence is pretty substantial. We just have to akwAys be worthy of it.

[piratey 6]

So, in your super power hierarchy, what is it now?

 

We may have gone a long way from the Marshall Plan to global economic meltdown but our influence is pretty substantial. We just have to akwAys be worthy of it.

 

We're Mike Tyson at the end of his career. Consider Obama's foreign and economic policies to be the equivalent of the Holyfield ear bite.

 

What influence do we have again? Speak softly and carry no stick doesn't seem to be working on the national stage

[corysold 0]

So, in your super power hierarchy, what is it now?

 

We may have gone a long way from the Marshall Plan to global economic meltdown but our influence is pretty substantial. We just have to akwAys be worthy of it.

 

Yeah, I'm not convinced it is necessarily a bad thing, being the World police certainly had its downfalls and I honk a move towards a global society is a good thing.

 

While our influence is still substantial, it's nowhere near what it once was. Again, maybe not bad in the long run, as long as we re bringing others towards us ranted than us moving back towards them.

[piratey 6]

Yeah, I'm not convinced it is necessarily a bad thing, being the World police certainly had its downfalls and I honk a move towards a global society is a good thing.

 

While our influence is still substantial, it's nowhere near what it once was. Again, maybe not bad in the long run, as long as we re bringing others towards us ranted than us moving back towards them.

 

It never works like that though. The fading star. The "Sunset Boulevard" effect if you will. You already see the Ruskies posturing. The Chinese/Brasilians are attempting to form their own standardized currency to replace the dollar. The era of US Hegemony is coming to an end and it's not going to be pretty. We have a military benefiting of a super power and a consumer base/standard of living to match it. There will be a power vacuum, someone will step in to fill it and we're not going to like it.

[REMND 0]

We're Mike Tyson at the end of his career. Consider Obama's foreign and economic policies to be the equivalent of the Holyfield ear bite.

 

What influence do we have again? Speak softly and carry no stick doesn't seem to be working on the national stage

 

We spent the big stick in Iraq. Because of that, I do not think we were able to properly do the job in Afghanistan. Now, the public does not want to allocate our armed resources in Syria and Egyt unless the polls have changed since I last saw them. We are war weary, "enhanced interrogation weary", and war expenditure weary.

 

The big stick mentality requires a little foresight and reality thinking before our troops and goodwill are spent. I don't think that was done before we went into Iraq. At least we did not go into Iran. I couldn't believe it when people were advocating for that.

Edited August 29, 2013 by REMND

[piratey 6]

We spent the big stick in Iraq. Because of that, I do not think we wee able to properly do the job in Afghanistan. Now, the public does not want to allocate our armed resources in Syria and Egyt unless the polls have changed when I last saw them. We are war weary, "enhances interrogation weary", and war expenditure weary.

 

The big stick mentality requires a little foresight and reality thinking before our troops and goodwill are spent. I don't think that was done before we went into Iraq. At least we did not go into Iran. I couldn't believe it when people were advocating for that.

 

Better than this...

Syria=Yosemite Sam

Obama= Bugs

http://i.imgur.com/ZuimyZT.gif

[corysold 0]

We spent the big stick in Iraq. Because of that, I do not think we wee able to properly do the job in Afghanistan. Now, the public does not want to allocate our armed resources in Syria and Egyt unless the polls have changed when I last saw them. We are war weary, "enhances interrogation weary", and war expenditure weary.

 

The big stick mentality requires a little foresight and reality thinking before our troops and goodwill are spent. I don't think that was done before we went into Iraq. At least we did not go into Iran. I couldn't believe it when people were advocating for that.

 

Yes and no. I think Iraq, similar to Vietnam, was a war fought by poll numbers and political agenda rather than actual situations on the ground.

 

The "war" in Iraq was over fairly quickly, it was all the mismanagement of the next 10 years that really went awry, which had more to to with poor leadership, corruption and cultural clashes than it did military power. That might play into the foresight you mentioned of what do once the fighting is over, but after 15 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are basically where we started. I don't think that is "military fatigue", as much as "**** poor management fatigue" disguised as "military fatigue".

 

Piratey pointed out he pitfalls of the US falling out of its role, but it is inevitable unfortunately, it just seems to be happening in the blink of an eye rather than slowly.

 

Pretty much every president since the end of WWII has had to intervene on the world stage. Whether they did it correctly or not, every president basically gave the middle finger to the world and did what they thought best. Again, you can argue how much of what was done was correct in the long run, but they did it regardless of what anyone else thought.

 

Now it seems we need a permission slip to lob a few missiles into Syria to stop chemical genocide. That is a definite step down in power.

[corysold 0]

It never works like that though. The fading star. The "Sunset Boulevard" effect if you will. You already see the Ruskies posturing. The Chinese/Brasilians are attempting to form their own standardized currency to replace the dollar. The era of US Hegemony is coming to an end and it's not going to be pretty. We have a military benefiting of a super power and a consumer base/standard of living to match it. There will be a power vacuum, someone will step in to fill it and we're not going to like it.

 

Probably all true, unfortunately.

[stdntDrvr 12]

Do you blame Bush 1 for this? Instead of stepping in a squashing Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, he built a coalition, set a timetable for Iraq's withdrawal, and attacked once Iraq showed the world that they were not going to withdraw...and that seems to have set the precedent for all following conflicts.

[corysold 0]

Do you blame Bush 1 for this? Instead of stepping in a squashing Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, he built a coalition, set a timetable for Iraq's withdrawal, and attacked once Iraq showed the world that they were not going to withdraw...and that seems to have set the precedent for all following conflicts.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with utilizing other leaders in a conflict as large as that was, or any conflict, I don't mean to imply that the US should be a unilateral Judge Dredd type power. But in the end, the US and the coalition set a date, and when Iraq didn't withdraw, they acted.

 

In this case, we've set a "red line", but now that line has been crossed and it appears we'd rather hope everyone forgets what we had said then act on it.

[stdntDrvr 12]

ah, ok...I follow you.

[REMND 0]

Yes and no. I think Iraq, similar to Vietnam, was a war fought by poll numbers and political agenda rather than actual situations on the ground.

 

The "war" in Iraq was over fairly quickly, it was all the mismanagement of the next 10 years that really went awry, which had more to to with poor leadership, corruption and cultural clashes than it did military power. That might play into the foresight you mentioned of what do once the fighting is over, but after 15 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are basically where we started. I don't think that is "military fatigue", as much as "**** poor management fatigue" disguised as "military fatigue".

 

Piratey pointed out he pitfalls of the US falling out of its role, but it is inevitable unfortunately, it just seems to be happening in the blink of an eye rather than slowly.

 

Pretty much every president since the end of WWII has had to intervene on the world stage. Whether they did it correctly or not, every president basically gave the middle finger to the world and did what they thought best. Again, you can argue how much of what was done was correct in the long run, but they did it regardless of what anyone else thought.

 

Now it seems we need a permission slip to lob a few missiles into Syria to stop chemical genocide. That is a definite step down in power.

 

The last poll that I saw said that only 9% of our citizens wanted to intervene in Syria. Do you want the administration to ignore that!

 

What war did we enter into where the US populace was 91% against it? Why are we so against it? Its partly because Afghanistan and Iraq have exhausted us. Partly it is because we have dictators on one side and muslim brotherhood types on the other. The only side I want to align with is the common citizen in the middle who just wants a little peace and security. To get that I believe we would have to enter into an occupying role again. In the middle east!

 

How do you get around the US populace's reluctance? You need to get a coalition like we did in Libya. Yes, until we get that coalition (apparently aka permission) the 91% of Americans, or whatever the number is presently, have a huge voice in this decision that should not be ignored because of big stick foreign policy memes.

[corysold 0]

The last poll that I saw said that only 9% of our citizens wanted to intervene in Syria. Do you want the administration to ignore that!

 

What war did we enter into where the US populace was 91% against it? Why are we so against it? Its partly because Afghanistan and Iraq have exhausted us. Partly it is because we have dictators on one side and muslim brotherhood types on the other. The only side I want to align with is the common citizen in the middle who just wants a little peace and security. To get that I believe we would have to enter into an occupying role again. In the middle east!

 

How do you get around the US populace's reluctance? You need to get a coalition like we did in Libya. Yes, until we get that coalition (apparently aka permission) the 91% of Americans, or whatever the number is presently, have a huge voice in this decision that should not be ignored because of big stick foreign policy memes.

 

I think that is a tricky question. On one hand, no, going so totally against the populace would seem a bit worrisome.

 

But on the other hand, the general populace doesn't have the information the president and his advisers have. Now, I may not really like a lot of what Obama has done in office, but I don't want a president to base all of his decisions solely on poll numbers. Sometimes the right choice isn't the most popular choice. I full understand the fatigue you are talking about and don't really know if another protracted conflict is in the best interest of America.

 

That said, I also don't think you allow chemical genocide simply because past conflicts went poorly and the populace doesn't want further military intervention around the world. Basing presidential decisions solely on poll numbers is a terrible way to lead. Unfortunately, that is the way it seems all of our elected officials choose to lead these days.

 

All that said, in the end, Obama needs to make whatever decision he feels is best. The problem is, whether through inexperience, misguidance, arrogance or a combination of all three, he's painted himself into a corner he didn't want to be in. Assad basically thumbed his nose at the US, dared them to act, and now Obama is balking.

 

I've no problem if Obama doesn't want to be involved, I can understand the reasons why. But when you make comments like he has on a world stage, you'd better be ready to act on them, or everyone else is going to trample over you, which is what is happening right now.

[REMND 0]

Do you blame Bush 1 for this? Instead of stepping in a squashing Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, he built a coalition, set a timetable for Iraq's withdrawal, and attacked once Iraq showed the world that they were not going to withdraw...and that seems to have set the precedent for all following conflicts.

 

I don't. I thought he did a great job. We lost a minimum of lives and isolated Iraq while they did the job of keeping Iran busy. Many have said the big winner in the Enduring Freedom operation was Iran.

 

As far as going in and crushing Saddam after Kuwait, it would have been regime change. Maybe it would have worked but it seems unlikely to me. I was more disappointed that we did not protect the Kurds after telling them that we would.

[REMND 0]

I think that is a tricky question. On one hand, no, going so totally against the populace would seem a bit worrisome.

 

But on the other hand, the general populace doesn't have the information the president and his advisers have. Now, I may not really like a lot of what Obama has done in office, but I don't want a president to base all of his decisions solely on poll numbers. Sometimes the right choice isn't the most popular choice. I full understand the fatigue you are talking about and don't really know if another protracted conflict is in the best interest of America.

 

That said, I also don't think you allow chemical genocide simply because past conflicts went poorly and the populace doesn't want further military intervention around the world. Basing presidential decisions solely on poll numbers is a terrible way to lead. Unfortunately, that is the way it seems all of our elected officials choose to lead these days.

 

All that said, in the end, Obama needs to make whatever decision he feels is best. The problem is, whether through inexperience, misguidance, arrogance or a combination of all three, he's painted himself into a corner he didn't want to be in. Assad basically thumbed his nose at the US, dared them to act, and now Obama is balking.

 

I've no problem if Obama doesn't want to be involved, I can understand the reasons why. But when you make comments like he has on a world stage, you'd better be ready to act on them, or everyone else is going to trample over you, which is what is happening right now.

 

It sounds like you are advocating to make an executive decision contrary to 91% of the populace. That is not a precedent that I would embrace. Especially in the face of our middle east history. We all know about our support for Saddam during the Iran Iraq war. Our support for Al Queda during the Russia Afghanistan war. Our support for the Shah of Iran. Our support for Mubarak. Probably all started with good intentions but it is a place that defies any enduring success to our efforts.

 

Oh, as an aside, I think there will be a coalition of some sort to respond militarily to Assad. Assad would not be doing this except as a desperate measure because he does not see a good ending. It will probably get worse. How do you enter into that fray and get a better result post Assad? I am not sure how that is going to happen but it isn't by us doing it alone. Get a coalition because it is going to be an ongoing issue and I do not want us doing it alone with the "we do not have to ask permission" mentality.

 

Syria is regime change and both sides look pretty questionable to me.

[echo88 74]

The last poll that I saw said that only 9% of our citizens wanted to intervene in Syria. Do you want the administration to ignore that!

 

What war did we enter into where the US populace was 91% against it? Why are we so against it? Its partly because Afghanistan and Iraq have exhausted us. Partly it is because we have dictators on one side and muslim brotherhood types on the other. The only side I want to align with is the common citizen in the middle who just wants a little peace and security. To get that I believe we would have to enter into an occupying role again. In the middle east!

 

How do you get around the US populace's reluctance? You need to get a coalition like we did in Libya. Yes, until we get that coalition (apparently aka permission) the 91% of Americans, or whatever the number is presently, have a huge voice in this decision that should not be ignored because of big stick foreign policy memes.

 

That's because 91% of our population cannot identify the location of Syria on a map and promptly assumed it was a city in Afghanistan.

[GunSlinger 28]

That's because 91% of our population cannot identify the location of Syria on a map and promptly assumed it was a city in Afghanistan.

 

 

Map? Doesn't Syria go on pancakes?

[REMND 0]

That's because 91% of our population cannot identify the location of Syria on a map and promptly assumed it was a city in Afghanistan.

 

 

What are you talking about? Syria is a city in Afghanistan.

[corysold 0]

It sounds like you are advocating to make an executive decision contrary to 91% of the populace. That is not a precedent that I would embrace. Especially in the face of our middle east history. We all know about our support for Saddam during the Iran Iraq war. Our support for Al Queda during the Russia Afghanistan war. Our support for the Shah of Iran. Our support for Mubarak. Probably all started with good intentions but it is a place that defies any enduring success to our efforts.

 

Oh, as an aside, I think there will be a coalition of some sort to respond militarily to Assad. Assad would not be doing this except as a desperate measure because he does not see a good ending. It will probably get worse. How do you enter into that fray and get a better result post Assad? I am not sure how that is going to happen but it isn't by us doing it alone. Get a coalition because it is going to be an ongoing issue and I do not want us doing it alone with the "we do not have to ask permission" mentality.

 

Syria is regime change and both sides look pretty questionable to me.

 

No, I'm advocating the president make a decision based on his own beliefs and the best interests of America, despite what poll numbers suggest. If the thinks that means no action, fine, if the opposite, fine. But the problem is, he's spoken before he was ready to act, now he stuck, regardless of poll numbers.

 

Would you say let's go guns blazing right now if 91% thought we should? Basing decisions solely on poll numbers is a cowardly way to lead. As Echo pointed out, half those people couldn't point to Syria on a map, and I sure hope the President has some info we don't on the matter.

 

Besides, last I checked Obamacare isn't exactly a poll hit these days, yet he has no problem moving forward on that (sort of).

 

I'm not suggesting intervention in Syria is the best option. What I'm saying is that Obama is leading us our of unquestioned "World Leader" status right before our eyes.