HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Whoever you support for p...

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:35 AM

Whoever you support for president in 2016, what foreign policy plank do you want Dems to run on?

It's possible to back a particular candidate without being in agreement with his or her foreign policy ideas.

So what kind of a policy do you think we should have in our platform, regardless of what your preference for the nomination is?

Should we stay with the fairly-hawkish status quo, get MORE hawkish, or dare to be less-hawkish?
And

(this is not, repeat NOT, meant to be a debate on the merits of any particular candidate...so please, for the love of God, DON'T go there...ok?)
9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Status quo(the foreign policy we effectively have now...drones, alliances with bad guys, "free trade", torture's ok)
0 (0%)
More right-wing(war with Iran, active efforts to oust elected left govt's, more war spending, austerity enforcement)
0 (0%)
More progressive(lower war budgets, pull back from international military involvement, less pro-corporate domination)
7 (78%)
Other(lay out what YOU specifically want)
2 (22%)
No opinion
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

34 replies, 1617 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Whoever you support for president in 2016, what foreign policy plank do you want Dems to run on? (Original post)
Ken Burch Feb 2013 OP
graham4anything Feb 2013 #1
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #12
graham4anything Feb 2013 #31
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #32
graham4anything Feb 2013 #33
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #2
davidpdx Feb 2013 #5
davidpdx Feb 2013 #6
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #19
davidpdx Feb 2013 #20
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #22
davidpdx Feb 2013 #25
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #30
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #13
pampango Feb 2013 #3
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #14
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #4
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #9
LWolf Feb 2013 #7
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #8
Gorp Feb 2013 #11
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #16
pampango Feb 2013 #27
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #10
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #17
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #21
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #23
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #24
Recursion Feb 2013 #15
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #18
OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #26
patrice Feb 2013 #28
elleng Feb 2013 #29
white_wolf Feb 2013 #34

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:23 AM

1. I care about social issues, domestic issues. the war stuff I don't care one way or another

 

we will always have bad guys.

Which is why LBJ is my 3rd favorite president ever.

anyone would have done what happened in Vietnam (and as JFK picked McNamara in the first place, Mac would have done to JFK what he did to LBJ),and Vietnam anyhow was Ike's start.

BUT
ONLY LBJ did the liberal things he did on social issues/domestic issues.

Wars have been fought since the first Dinosaur was born after the big bang.
Wars will be fought a million years from now.

I accept what I cannot change
change what I can
and hope I have the wisdom to know the difference at all times.

BTW, all the candidates are on the same Team.
Matters little which one is on the ticket, I will vote for any of them as long as it is
THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET.

The worst democratic presidential candidate is a zillion times better than the one on the only other party, the republican party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:25 PM

12. All the candidates are on the same ticket...but you have primaries and a convention

to decide who will be on that ticket. And various candidates will be competing against that ticket.

As to Vietnam...you are obviously too young to understand how damaging Johnson's insistence on staying in Vietnam was and how that made it impossible, after 1966 or so, to carry out much of any remaining liberalism. He was great on civil rights...he should just have focused exclusively on domestic issues or, if he had to involve himself in the larger world, should have let go of the idea that the only thing that mattered in the world was whether "we" won or whether "the Commies" won. The world was never THAT simple.

And is any domestic liberalism worth looking the other way about what our country's leaders do to people in other countries? Or about wars that send our own young off to kill and die for no real reason?

A re-elected LBJ would have been just like Nixon's first term...we all know that-also, we know that Johnson had made himself terminally unpopular by the time of the 1968 election precisely by staying in Vietnam when the world was begging him to get out and accept reality there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:17 PM

31. ah no, I am not too young. I do indeed understand.

 

and in the 1960s, losing was NOT an option in the cold war vs. the USSR.

Why do you think we had to get to the moon before they did?

There was no feasible way to lose. He didn't start the war, McNamara was picked by JFK and would have done the same thing to anyone else.

because losing was not an option.

and I disagree. It would have been ugly had LBJ stayed in, but he would have long term prevailed against the other candidates(after all both Bobby and HHH wouldn't have run against him), he would have gotten alot of Wallace's votes (Wallace had it easier with HHH being from the upper north), and he would have creamed Nixon.

In retrospect, and again, I say in retrospect-it would have been better all around, and Bobby could have run in 1972 and 1976 and Teddy after that.

It was better than nixon winning which allowed the Bush's and their style in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:29 PM

32. The race to the moon thing was just silly

especially since, by the time the Apollo flights started, it was clear that the Soviets were never going to get a MAN on the moon anyway(it really wouldn't have mattered if they'd landed the unmanned craft first, since everybody knew that Neil and Buzz were going to get there and nobody named Yuri would).

And yes, there was a feasible way to get out of Vietnam...LBJ could have said this:

"The United States is the nation of the people. We are a great nation. The mark of a great nation is the ability to admit that there are times when a war cannot be won and when preserving life and hope comes first. The people have made it clear that they want this country to be a nation of life, not death. We respect their wishes and will use the resources of this great nation to make life better for all rather than to end lives by the hundreds of thousands. Accordingly, we will accept the creation of a coalition government for a unified Vietnam, because that is the only workable solution".

The world would have rallied to us had we done that. And, in the Brezhnev era, the USSR was on the decline. Most people in the developing world didn't want to ally themselves with the USSR, and only did so tactically(as the Vietnamese did)because the U.S., during that era, made it clear that we weren't going to allow social change or independence from colonial occupation by any means OTHER than such an alliance. LBJ was one of a long line of U.S. leaders who refused to tolerate democratic change in the developing world and refused, for example, to have anything to do with the democratic opposition in South Vietnam.

If nothing else, Johnson, once out of the race in '68, could have done what he was supposed to do and get the hell out of the way...allowing Humphrey to do what he needed to do to win in November. Why couldn't LBJ be man enough to do that?



By the way...it's now 2013...it's no longer 1968. Are you arguing that we STILL can't have a real, open debate about what role our country should play in the world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:39 PM

33. HHH was not a good politician. Sad but true. Great man, not a great politician.

 

He would have been better off not being VP but with all the baggage, and none of the assets, and with the same divide in the country, there was no real way for him to get more votes with Wallace in the race.

You say the moon race was silly, but it was there.
And losing was not a viable option.

Yes, he could have said all that, but do you think USSR would have rallied to it?

Also, at that time, how possibly would there have been a unified Vietnam?

The peace candidates had it easy as they (then and now) don't have to find a way to just get out without doing more damage than it did.
A president has it tough as he has to see the big picture.

And LBJ showed he had a heart by having it broken and he did not run.
Someone like Nixon (ironically) would not have not run
Bush would not have not run

but in retrospect, and you have to admit, LBJ would have beaten Nixon, dirty and nasty and bloody as it would have been had he fully ran (remember had he run it would have been with full publicity and if he got the nomination, the contest was no longer dem. vs. dem.
It would have been the two titans, and an up and down choice from the people.
And there were plenty who did not like or want Nixon at any cost.
(and in retrospect, as HHH lost, would have been nice to see it)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:41 AM

2. I want more push polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:21 AM

5. Seems like it to me too

I encourage people to choose the sixth option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #5)


Response to davidpdx (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:32 PM

19. The poll included an option to suggest what YOU think our foreign policy should be.

It can't be a push poll if you are given that kind of choice.

What is it that you two find so threatening about this discussion?

Do you really believe the question of what the U.S. does with and to the world should be limited solely to the MIC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:49 PM

20. Even with the "add your own option"

It pretty much leaves it open to you (or someone else) jumping on someone you don't agree with.

I do believe there could have been other options added as two of the options were framed as right-winged (one far right and one moderate right) and only one left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:11 PM

22. What options would you have liked?

Also, I only described one option as "right wing"...I described one as "status quo".

And you, I might add, are the one who jumped on me by labeling this as a "push poll". It looks as if you are uncomfortable with the fact that the foreign policy status quo wasn't given some sort of special deference in the way it was described...wasn't called, for example "the only 'Real American' choice" or something like that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:21 PM

25. Nope that was Buzz Click that said that

I only agreed with him.

I don't buy the whole "Real American' Choice" it sounds like what happened after 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:54 PM

30. What views did you want to express in this thread that you felt you couldn't?

Just say what you'd want here, already. Nobody's going to persecute you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:26 PM

13. This isn't a push poll. It's about sparking a real debate.

If it had been a push poll, it wouldn't have included space for people to suggest their OWN foreign policy priorities.

It sounds like you're just afraid of open discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:17 AM

3. Some 'status quo' with more progressive policies.

"lower war budgets - , pull back from international military involvement - nothing unilateral military involvement, but support the UN when it authorizes such, less pro-corporate domination" - - which would lead to stronger legislative support for unions in line with the EU and Canada and stronger environmental legislation.

Other progressive foreign policy objectives: increased reliance on international diplomacy and binding, enforceable agreements in areas of global concern like climate change and international finance (a financial transaction tax and coordination of 'taxing the rich' policies so they have no place to hide) and trade (labor, environmental and human rights standards included in trade agreements).

Elements of the "status quo" (yes I know what a push poll is ): "drones - only when and where we are at war, alliances with bad guys - as little as possible, but FDR had an alliance with Stalin whom most of us would classify as a 'bad guy' so there should be some flexibility, "free trade" - trade is good, but agreements would be much better if amended as detailed above so more negotiations are necessary, torture's ok" - I don't think that 'austerity' is a foreign policy, but it is a stupid domestic, economic policy.

Since we cannot split our vote, I'm voting for the 'status quo' since it looks like a 'lonely' category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:27 PM

14. That was a thoughtful response.

I included a space for people to suggest their own ideas if they weren't comfortable with the first two choices, btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:02 AM

4. I voted other.

 

Climate change policies should be globally enacted by the United Nations and countries not complying should face heavy sanctions or regime change.

We should also focus on bringing an end to things like the sex slave trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:10 AM

9. can you explain regime change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:56 AM

7. Other.

#3, with a few key changes:

Distinctly left of center(no war budgets, end international military involvement, no pro-corporate domination/involvement)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:07 AM

8. non-interventionist

isolationism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:23 AM

11. I'm with you on that one. We've got our noses in too many other people's business.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:29 PM

16. It's not "isolationism"-that word implies that the only way we can be involved in the world

is to threaten force or actually use it to bend the world to "our" will.

Could we not find positive, non-arrogant methods of engaging with the rest of the planet? Ways that included the people as well as the elites?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:25 PM

27. Agreed. You can engage with the world without invading it. Many countries do just that.

There are all kinds of global problems that can be dealt with by negotiation and agreement rather than throwing one's weight around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:49 AM

10. Military intervention only when our national interests are clearly at stake or an ally is attacked.

No more creative engineering, propping up regimes, toppling regimes, or drone warfare against supposed terrorists who don't have a clear and immediate connection to a plot to attack this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:30 PM

17. What do you see as our "national interests"?

Please elaborate there. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:01 PM

21. Attacks on our military personnel or citizens, or imminent attacks that can't be deterred

via diplomacy, sanctions, etc. Either by a state or an organization within a state. I'd have to give a lot of thought to intentional disruption of resources, cyber attacks, that sort of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:14 PM

23. Would you agree that the public should be told, at all times, What our "interests" are seen to be?

At present, we usually only find out what our leaders consider to be our interests once they decide they want to go out and kill some more people somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:19 PM

24. Of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:29 PM

15. Drones *are* the lower-budget, less hawkish policy, unfortunately

That's how we got here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:32 PM

18. Non-violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:24 PM

26. For the US to stand up to bullies - but also not be a bully oneself.

 

I would like to see the United States take a strong, principled stance against aggression, unjustified territorial claims and bullying by nations of one another - while at the same time not being a warmongering bully oneself. I would like to see America stand up boldly for the weak and downtrodden.


In particular, I think China is going to try to test and see how much it can push America around, and I would like to see the United States not budge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:30 PM

28. More progressive... PLUS Deliberate pressure to reform, at minimum, the UN's connection to the IMF

More progressive(lower war budgets, pull back from international military involvement, less pro-corporate domination)
PLUS Deliberate pressure to reform, at minimum, the UN's connection to the IMF or in some other manner halt the spread of Disaster Capitalism, and hence the potential for instabilities and terrorism, around the world.

Oh, and pony up our part of those kinds of bargains, which would be to cease being the largest government and private sources of weapons, including assault rifles, ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:32 PM

29. This one, from Wes Clark:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:19 PM

34. Formal declaration of war for all military action.

These police actions are too easily abused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread