General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat do you think about Bernie's foreign policy ability?
When it comes to domestic economic policy, he's saying exactly what I want to hear.
... but I think I need to look at a bigger picture. Bernie has never managed any organization bigger than his Senate office staff, and his plain spoken nature might not be a diplomatic virtue.
Bernie supporters: let's talk about this now so we are prepared talk about it later.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)"We came, we saw, he died" approach in his foreign policy.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)I don't know the answer.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Bill was a governor. So what makes you think Bernie can't?
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)I said it was an issue that will have to be addressed, because it will be raised.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Sure the Republicans are making a lot of noise about it, because they've got squat for good ideas, so talking about things far away as opposed to domestically is safer for them. Plus of course, it's their eternal scare tactic of fear and hate, killing brown people and 'terror'.
He has basically the same Israel policy as everybody else in Congress, so that's a wash.
I suppose you can call the TPP a foreign policy issue if you want, although I think it will have massive repercussions domestically.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The primary debates will prominently feature foreign policy lines of questioning. "I voted against the IWR" is a good start, but I'd like more.
This is going to be an interesting primary.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)office? I had thought you meant electorally, but maybe that's not what you're after? I would say most Americans are damn tired of sending money overseas while the country crumbles around us. If we had spent the trillions we've wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan on infrastructure, we'd have far better bridges, far better roads, far better schools, and a roaring economy for everyone, not just the richest of the rich. Instead, we have war hawk after war hawk in the White House, funneling tax dollars to drones, to missiles, to planes that spend most of their time being repaired.
I think he'll be less belligerent, more diplomatic, more insistent that the US be a part of a multinational solution to world problems as opposed to the biggest bully on the block.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Honestly, his domestic economic creds are so good that I'm willing to cut him some foreign policy slack, but I'm a bit of an isolationist and everyone has a different tolerance level.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Answer: None.
What sort of foreign policy experience did Ronald Reagan have before becoming President? None.
What sort of foreign policy experience did GHW Bush have before becoming President? First ambassador to Communist China, Vice President and head of the CIA
What sort of foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have before becoming President? None.
What sort of foreign policy experience did Dubyah have before slithering into the White House? None.
What sort of foreign policy experience did Barack Obama have before becoming President? Committee on Foreign Relations (2 years).
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)before becoming President:
George HW Bush
For his part, Carter's foreign policy was pretty good-- it was modeled after JFK's, and emphasized human rights. But he got some horrible foreign policy advice from one Henry Kissinger, who persuaded him to let the deposed Shah of Iran enter the US, with terrible consequences.
Henry Kissinger-- the whole-hearted supporter of the 1973 Chilean coup and Operation Condor, and the man whom Hillary considers to be a "mentor".
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seem to become very supportive of whatever we do because their livelihood depends on it. Outside the city, I'm not seeing the same anti- war sentiment and it troubles me greatly.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I would call my stance the 'nonviolent stance'. Don't disengage from the world, but don't be the bully or the arms dealer either. Got an urge to intervene in another country? Do it with medical aid, food aid, construction aid, lots of open slots for refugees to seek asylum. Build up roads, hospitals, schools at home and abroad.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's not an either/or equation.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)But my sense is he'll do better than any other candidate.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And he had the good sense to vote against allowing BushCo to wage war. Good enough for me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The people you are representing come into play as you vote as you think most of them would want.
He is lucky to be from Vermont which allowed him to do this. Had he been from New York, it would have been a lot harder. Most of 911 happened in New York.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He was born and raised in Brooklyn.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He obviously made his way to Vermont and was so into Vermont he not only resided the but got himself elected from there. The people who voted for him are from Vermont.
Where he was born and raised is immaterial.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But I think he would do well politically in NYC as well.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)where it's coming from. These trade deals, wars and interventions - the whole world is literally sick from decades of dishonesty, secrets and deals that kill. The planet - environment, species populations, human beings suffering horribly - is begging for change, from every nation with power, especially from those whose foreign policy has greatly contributed to it all. And yes, I include my own.
Any politician who is honest and sees the suffering around the world for what it is, is going to appeal to people just tired of it or who simply cannot function any more within it ....... and I would hope those tired of it are a majority of people everywhere. All one needs to do is BE honest, and speak it.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)and listen to the conversation, then make a common sense decision...based on his principles. As posters have pointed out, the President isn't as powerful as we think.
But, pretty sure he won't bungle us into another war, and will probably try and make peace...what a concept...and cooperation with our foes. That'll show them.
Instead of sanctions and starving people and their institutions, may be we could have a program where a certain number of their youth could get scholarships to US colleges...Just a thought.
Oh, and neither had Obama as he didn't even finish his first term. He was a Community Organizer and Law Professor, as I recall.
And what experience did GWB have? Less than none. So I don't consider it a litmus test, by any means
silverweb
(16,402 posts)and I believe he would be fantastic.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)He doesn't claim to know everything...he has 50 years of political record that speaks quite well. I think he'll pick up on it pretty quickly, find some honest cabinet members like himself, appoint same to SCOTUS, et al if he's elected.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)they were governors or senators mostly
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Purity Party...finding the One Reason why the Candidate is problematic. Have no clue what that has to do with former presidents. Of course they, too were flawed in many minds. Surely mine, as a Left Liberal...hell, they were all flawed to me since McGovern.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Surround himself with smart people, and use his SoS for their intended purpose: to advise and execute foreign policy.
He was smart enough to read the Iraq intelligence report and see through its bullshit.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)which cost them billions and is at the command of the Saudi royals.
They need to get off their asses and handle the situation.
He has a lot of guts labeling the Saudi Royals that plainly. It's one of his most appealing attributes to me.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Seems to me, foreign policy needs to be mutable as there are many diverse and evolving challenges. Due to our post 9/11 mindset, there's an inclination to place everything, appropriate or not, under this Orwellian Islamic terror rubric. Bernie seems like the kind of person who would logically and dispassionately assess, distill, and formulate solutions apart from the irrational fearmongering of demagogues and desire$ of the MIC.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)ananda
(28,780 posts)You ask this in light of the absolute horrors of
the policies and actions of the admins of
Reagan, both Bushes, and Obama?
Sanders will do fine.
Cha
(295,899 posts)people are allowed to ask questions about Bernie.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)America Has Been At War 93% of the Time 222 Out of 239 Years Since 1776
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html
" Below, I have reproduced a year-by-year timeline of Americas wars, which reveals something quite interesting: since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.
To put this in perspective:
* Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
* No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered war presidents.
* The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
* The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression"
End quote.
The newest hot spot...ISIS...does not appear. Every President has to protect, if not enlarge our Global Manifest Destiny at whatever cost, and they full well know it before they take the job. It comes with the territory...literally.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)Every President has to protect, if not enlarge our Global Manifest Destiny at whatever cost, and they full well know it before they take the job. It comes with the territory...literally
Manifest Destiny has been the root of of all out wars and aggression. I'd love to see that attitude go away.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)and on. I give Obama a shout-out for trying to pull troops out of the desert sands, but there's that "we broke in and we own it" thing that always bites us in the political butt.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It should not be to pave the way for US corporations to colonize and extract value from other countries.
We should have a people-oriented foreign policy, that aims to help the working class people all around the world, not the billionaire class.
And honestly I do think we need more plain speaking and less double-talk in all facets of government, including international relations.
Bernie is the best qualified for this type of foreign policy.
The so-called US foreign policy experts have turned the middle east into a terrorist hell hole with their interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. That is what happens when we trust neo-cons and neo-liberals to run foreign policy. Every word out of their lying mouths needs to be held up to scrutiny.
Hillary is the best foreign policy candidate if you think the US did a good job by intervening in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the result of which was the birth of ISIS and flooding the middle east and Africa with US made weapons.
cali
(114,904 posts)on national security and foreign policy
peecoolyour
(336 posts)We have a lot of fences to mend there.
And he has been outspoken about our meddling in that region.
TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)globalist nor does he advocate destabilizing countries for profit and won't be pushing toxic trade agreements to fatten the bottom lines of the few at the expense of the many and the environment.
Clinton is least trustworthy on foreign policy though this is supposed to be a strength.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)napi21
(45,806 posts)the people he puts in his cabinet. I trust him to make lots better choices than. say, Jebbers!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)be drawn into it, just based on the Cluster F### he, or any new president, is inheriting. I do believe he will be more thoughtful, a bit more resistant and "stubborn" in his views, than most.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)foreign policy now.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Seriously, what a bubble.
cali
(114,904 posts)Lilith Rising
(184 posts)I guess it depends on who he would bring in as SoS?
moondust
(19,917 posts)He's not one to abuse the powers of government to help line the pockets of billionaires and cronies at the expense of less fortunate Americans. TPP is a notable example.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)already decided "foreign policy" before getting there.
That's why Presidents are briefed continually...by pro and cons in the federal bureacracy, the FBI, the CIA and other agencies and his own cabinet. Just a candidate does not get to have that level of input. I value having an Open Mind as opposed to to barging in with a pre-conceived notion as a literal Presidential Newbie.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Also, the vast bureaucracies of the State Department, the Defense Department, the military, the intelligence community - these aren't going to change drastically in their missions and practices, regardless of who is President.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)political plus, but that cuts both ways. The insiders can get things done if they have a history with the "players" in these bureaucracies and know who and where to go, how to apply the pressure, etc.
lookatme
(54 posts)They certainly can change drastically with EO
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)He's hard-headed, sensible and has his feet on the ground. I can't imagine he wants an imperialistic US as so many others do.
lookatme
(54 posts)Things change when you take a seat behind that desk .
Look at Obama
lookatme
(54 posts)Not only will this answer your question on foreign policy but it will
also leave no doubt on his domestic agenda.
Obama = Wall Street Fat cats and War mongers
Bush = same damn thing
The most interesting time will be when he chooses his cabinet positions .
That will be all telling
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)
Non-existent compared to the former SoS.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The war machine come equipped with really huge inertia.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Under pressure from republicans she may do the hawk thing and follow the Bush-Cheney path?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)made to the Congress after Boener invited Bibi, that was a pretty good indication that Bernie follows politics.
He is for a 2-State solution in the Mideast, but I don't know where he stands on the ISIS stuff, etc.
His socialistic stand on many domestic issues shows an admiration for European countries which he wants to emulate....
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)You may be surprised!
It's obvious that Hillary has been Secretary of State and knows the ropes but Bernie has been heavily involved in American foreign policy. He is certainly not weak in his military and security stance.