Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WP op/ed indicates Obama would continue the neo-con imperialist foreign policy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
AJ9000 Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:01 AM
Original message
WP op/ed indicates Obama would continue the neo-con imperialist foreign policy
that has caused so much death and destruction in the world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Obama wants to increase military spending:

SNIP

... Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism."

END

He seems to buy into the bogus notion of a Global War on Terrorism:

SNIP

"He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

END SNIP

And the following is very close to the (neo-con) "Wolfowitz doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare and unilateral military action:

SNIP

"Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened."

END SNIPS

These statements equal the change we so yearn for?

Unless Obama has been taken severely out of context by Robert Kagan (which I doubt,) Americans can expect a continuation of Bush-like foreign policy moves by Obama if taken at his word. Hillary has made similar troubling statements, buying into the phony Global War On Terror, for example.

Contrast that with Edwards' talk of doing away with nuclear weapons. Although he voted for the war, he has said he was dead wrong, and has given no indication of continuing the neo-con imperialist foreign policy we all claim we want to end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mathewsleep Donating Member (824 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. stop
just stop, you won tonight, let this bullshit wait till tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. and he wants to invade Pakistan!
series!!11!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mathewsleep Donating Member (824 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. and he want's to outlaw fun
and decriminalize rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AJ9000 Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. He... wasn't kidding Mathew:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. Obama never said that he would send TROOPS in. That is distortion.
Instead of quoting the journalist and his interpretation, why didn't you just give the actual quote from Barack, further down in the article:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

This refers more likely than not to strikes. Pintpointed strikes to take out a specific target, and only if the national security is in danger, not to wage a "war" of some sorts...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mathewsleep Donating Member (824 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. so your saying
if bin laden was hanging out in pakistan, and we knew where he was exactly. you'd suggest we sit on our hands and let him escape again.
good idea.
you are so wrong, it's funny. this post is suggesting that he would invade the country and depose the leader. obama never suggested anything remotely like that. you people need to quit smearing. you fight so dirty. and now it sounds like you're soft on terrorists to.
i guess the republicans were right about us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
4. LIke Hillary as said anything different....
Edited on Wed Jan-09-08 01:06 AM by FrenchieCat
(or Edwards either, in reference to Pakistan, anyways).Sounds like Clinton's media is going to work early...and an Edwards supporter thinking that they can get Edwards elected this way! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. buy into the bogus notion of a Global War on Terrorism?
Why is that bogus. Just because we actually havent conducted it yet?

Sorrythis guy makes a lot of specious conclusions and seems to cherry pick quotes.

Obama wants to increase defense spending because he wants to increase our troop levels? Like that cant be combined with the eiliniation of the missle defense system or nuclear weapons building to offset the costs?

nope sory not buying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fabio Donating Member (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. just to set the record straight
increasing manpower in the military does not equate to more total defense spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
9. "Unless Obama has been taken severely out of context by Robert Kagan (which I doubt)"
Edited on Wed Jan-09-08 01:47 AM by ellisonz
Robert Kagan (born September 26, 1958 in Athens) is an American scholar and political commentator. He graduated from Yale University in 1980. He later earned a Masters from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a PhD from American University in Washington, DC. He is a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signers of the January 26, 1998, PNAC Letter sent to US President Bill Clinton. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Robert's brother Frederick and father Donald are also affiliated with PNAC and other neoconservatives.

Kagan worked at the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs (1985-1988) and was a speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz (1984-1985). Prior to that, he was foreign policy advisor to New York Representative and future Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp (1983). Kagan is a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kagan, who has written for The New Republic, Policy Review, the Washington Post (monthly), and the Weekly Standard, now lives in Brussels, Belgium, with his family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan

Kagan is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AJ9000 Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. That is a classic case of attacking the messenger (Kagen) and not the message. Kagen
may seem hypocritical here, but he also may be right on the money in this case. He certainly didn't invent this as I posted earlier:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists."

END SNIP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Dude, "By Robert Kagan Sunday, April 29, 2007; Page B07"
Why should I take some neocon fuckers analysis of my candidate as legit? Do you not see the loose interpretation of the quotes in the article? Obama is not an isolationist (thank God), but he's not some imperialist neocon. Are you saying that if you didn't know where Ayman al-Zawahiri or Osama Bin Laden was in the Tribal Regions of Pakistan you wouldn't authorize air strikes in conjuction with Pakistan?

For example (bias in bold):

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?


Kagan is no dummy. He's a well scripted neocon hack (and I don't throw that around loosely). What are you, 13?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Excellent response to Neocon bs, thanks
The only reason to listen to Neocons is to be forewarned of their mischief, not to make their arguments for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
10. Obama's a neocon? You need to get the hell out of here. You are wrong!
Alerting here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
13. Once again I feel let down by Obama...

this is exactly the type of change we need to begin with. Without shifting our priorities away from $trillion "offense" spending we will have little hope of achieving change with respect to any social programs that will fall by the wayside. What will be the incentive for shifting to alternative energy when we continue investing in fighting for our Persian Gulf interests?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Why is Hillary so Bloodthirsty?... Why bomb Iran?
Why cant Hillary stop warmongering? Why the hypocrisy?
Is it because of her husband's ties with the industrial-militay complex?
Why is she so BLOODTHRISTY?

We need to adress this as Democrats, this can't be accepted and a philosophy for our dealing with the rest of the world.

We need Obama to restore our moral standing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. The Clintons are, basically, the DLC...

and their foreign policy is (surprising to some) aligned with the neocons. It would be very disappointing to learn that Obama is right there with them. Is the media presenting us with two choices representing the same agenda? Obama needs to clarify his ideas for change with respect to foreign policy, if there are any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debatepro Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
19. a2: "obama is an interventionist"
Read the article and speech and try to use your critical thinking and common sense skills.

Kagan's quotes contradict his thesis which is Obama is an Interventionist all over the place.
All right, you're thinking, but at least he wants us to lead by example, not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world in America's image.

This is classic softpower rhetoric not neocon interventionism.
There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force."

That is totally a neocon argument...LOL
Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power.

Kagan:
Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened."

If you go by this logic Obama never said he believed in Pre-emptive war either. There were lots of things missing from Obama's speech like IMMINENTLY THREATENED!!! and PRE-EMPTIVE war!!! Where does Kagan get these quotes from.

1. If you think Obama doesn't think that military force is indeed a last resort then you probably can't be convinced.
2. Neocons and Students of Softpower (Obama) see Imminent Threats differently. For neocons/hardcore realist imminent threat is anything you can manufacture (Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq, speed boats in Iran, etc). FYI: Clinton and Edwards think the same thing... we all just have a different view of what is an imminent threat... at least in Obama's case he HAD THE JUDGMENT AND UNDERSTANDING TO KNOW THAT IRAQ WASN'T an IMMINENT THREAT. Can we say that about the other candidates?
3. Also here is a link to the speech Obama gave at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that Kagan is pulling his quotes from. Find "imminently threatened" in that speech.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/in...

Like i already said... Kagan cherry picks, then appropriates neocon definitions of threats and views of the world and then applies them to Obama. The only difference is that everyone on the planet knows that Cheney and Obama have a different definition of Imminent threat... heck look at Iraq ... Obama has a more credibility evaluating Iraq's as an imminent threat than Clinton or Edwards. (Thats Mate)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
20. You seem to suffer from a buzzword addiction. Neo-con? Imperialist?
Impressive. Lacking in substance, of course, but it sounds impressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. And you trust ROBERT FUCKING KAGAN to tell you the truth on foreign policy?
Edited on Thu Jan-10-08 11:20 PM by Occam Bandage
Now, I admit, I used to kinda like that guy. I read Of Paradise and Power a dozen times. But he's a neocon douche.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
22. And we should believe Kagan why? And we should believe the WaPo why?
Just asking.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC