President Obama is not appeasing or apologizing. He is restoring damaged US foreign political capital which is a crucial component in the way we do business and conduct wars. If you don't understand that then I suggest you talk with some of the other members from other countries. Also, the FP differences between Carter and Reagan are not hardly as pronounced as extreme conservatives believe. US FP has changed VERY LITTLE for about 60 years. I'm not talking about public statements either. I'm talking about actions.

 

-DA

 

What do you call his Germany and Cairo speech. What do you call his South America trip. What about Georgia, Iran and Hondures. What do you call this?

You think Reagan would of done this. All of this is nothing but appeasing and apologizing and making America look like a joke. Remember what Fredrick the Great said "diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments" Now as far as Reagan being compared to Carter, I think it's a joke. Comparing this two is like comparing Chamberlin to Churchill. You can not compare one of the Greatest presiednts of all time to a foreign policy desaster, Jimmy Carter. History and public oponion during their respective presidencies shows the big diffrence between the two. Carter was a very samart and person with a good heart, but was a bad president. Reagan was and average person who had a good heart, but was a great president. You just need to know basic history to know the diffrence between the two. With todays economic and foreign troubles, we need another Reagan and not Jimmy Carter.

I think Obama has done a great job so far, I have many friends who agree. And personally if things keep going as they are and he continues policies I agree with I will give him a second term. That bow does not bother me in the least. So if you intend to make an argument against Obama and his speeches to me, then I'll save you some time if you think I disagree with any of it so far because I don't. You would be much better off trying to discuss the RESULTS of his actions vs the actions themselves because I agree with them. The problem is it's still too soon to accurately assess things well enough to make a non biased judgement with regard to effectiveness. That's why I qualify my approval and pledge to vote for him again with "IF" because I know that we will need at least another 6 to 12 months before tangible effects manifest themselves with any certainty with regard to effectiveness.

Unlike you and others who to me it seems would generally disagree with any Democratic President no matter what they did. 

-DA 

Hmmm...after a search through Heralds latest tantrum I've noticed just about ZERO content related to the thread, more chest beating and of course the usual vitriol. Adding insult to injury Herald keeps claiming to be some sort of physics expert yet didn't even know that it's possible to use a touch screen in a fighter cockpit or that MG do work out to tactically useful ranges on water from boats and ships. Hmmm...who doesn't know physics again? I think I'll just sit back not even bother to continue this nonsense Herald is insistent on driving...

-DA 

Outclassed in what exactly Herald? I submit I can't match your vitriol. This is a recreational activity for me when I'm not engineering stuff or serving drill weekends. I don't come here to get in personal arguments. I've noticed that you have posted a link. In order to avoid any misinterpretation of the reason you posted it, would you care to try articulate IN YOUR OWN WORDS why you found that like relevant to anything we have been discussing here? I would hope that you can do that and focus solely on this DATA rather than further inflicting a personality issue on the other members.

-DA 

Unlike you and others who to me it seems would generally disagree with any Democratic President no matter what they did. 

 

Not true, in the 20th centuary I think FDR was a great president, I also like Woodrow Wilson, and Truman, and for every Roald Regan, Eisenhower there is a Nixon and Hoover.

Well then in your case I stand corrected. However, I still have the opinion that your judgement of President Obama is premature and you should give this a bit more time before coming to definite conclusions. The key actions that will define the next decade or so with regard to strategy and procurement are still in

progress. Patience...

-DA 

Herald,

 

you really are flogging a dead horse. at first it seemed funny to view from the outside, but it has gotten way beyond the point of humour, actually it is way beyond anything now...

 

you are left looking more and more like a over opinionated tosser.

 

give it a rest, i think we all know your views on DA now.

 

Stick to posting what you are good at, knowledge. Or learn to argue - one of the keys to agruing in a open forum is to know when you've won.

Time will indeed tell, from an international perspective he has solved the problem of somewhat expiating the misadventures in Iraq. The idea of someone as vacant and clueless as Sarah Palin having to make strategic decisions in the event that McCain snuffed is hardly an idea that many people would welcome. 

He has without question improved the perception of the US overseas, whether that is important to you or not (and that is a question for each individual to make) is not for me to say. In terms of foreign policy, we will see if he is able to stop countries like Iran from developing nuclear warheads. A lesson we should have learned from WW2 is that you don't win fights against extremists/theocratic fascists by demonstrating weakness, and the newfound "language of diplomacy" can only work if it is not the "only option considerable", if the worst ramifications for simply stalling (in Iran's case) until they have a credible threat are greater isolation from the west, then they have very little reason, in my opinion; to do anything whatsoever.

 

Diplomacy is a tool but is not a fail-safe argument, there are times that showing strength help, there are numerous examples of regimes who will sign anything and honour none of it, the rise of Nazi Germany is a sad example of countries sitting back and deluding themselves of the intentions of a man who was so obviously and openly gearing up for war. Neville Chamberlain was a ditherer, he couldn't accept the ramifications and reality of war, and viewed any option other than hoping  for diplomacy and peace as unacceptable. The point is, pre-emptive action can be far less costly in the long run, and without that option on the table, we allow regimes and tyrants to pick and choose their conflicts, or simply sit back and develop weapons that are capable of mass destruction.

 

I don't see why we sit back and allow NK to continue to tread its population down into the mud, we pretend that talks will work, meanwhile, they developed nuclear weapons. We invaded a country that pretended to have WMD's whilst engaging in measured, soft dialogue with a dictator who was at that very point in time developing his first, clumsy nuclear warheads.

 

Force is not always the wrong solution, as diplomacy is not always the right one, it's the balance and thresholds which determine their respective uses that provide the difference between a good leader and a bad one. I think B.O has qualities that are to be admired, but when diplomacy is no longer an option, he must be able to use other measures.

 

 

ReactivE

 

Because NK is geographically insignificant by comparison to resource rich ME. Because we have treaty's and diplomatic tools to contain and inhibit NK progress such that it isn't necessary to enter into physical war over it. The Iraq/WMD thing was a failed attempt by the GWB admin to frighten the public into supporting the war. At the time it seemed a reasonable method since there was consensus that he had weapons. In most cases, a POTUS can't just up and go to war, in a first term, without broad public and international support. The nations that support OIF have economic and national security interest in the ME. That isn't the case with NK so we have the luxury of time and can use Lawfare against them.