What “incredibly tough” foreign policy actions is Obama preparing?

Now I know I havent posted from my faivourite news site in a while, but it has troubled me for a while that their has been no discussion on what Biden is talking about here, indeed if there are Democrat plans that are going to be unpopular given current or calculated future circumstances one should clearly state it on principle.
In fact it looks like sections of the democrats are suffering from republican "phantom soviet syndrome" with the comparison of JFK and "engineered"crisis .
Given Bidens age I guess that shouldnt be a surprise, but given the shit your country is in already, it is hard to imagine a some sort of foreign"test" that would lead to a whole sale slide in popularity throughout the country. Unless the democrats are in fact lying to the public on their current platform, then it seems rather unreasonable to ask supporters who are democrats to support this presidency in the future because of the lies they told to get their support in the past!



WSWS

Sorry ran out of time beofre I noticed an error:

Given Bidens age I guess that shouldnt be a surprise, but given the shit your country is in already, it is hard to imagine a some sort of foreign"test" that would lead to a whole sale slide in popularity throughout the country; Unless the democrats are in fact lying to the public on their current platform. If this is indeed the case then it seems rather hypocritical to ask democratic cadre to support this presidency in the future because of the lies they told to get their support in the past!

I think maybe you should've kept it that way.

I believe lying and hypocrisy are non-partisan

From what i took from what Biden was saying, is that there are going to be some decisions made by the administration that are not going to be perceived as popular, but the decisions being made are so because they're in the best interest of the United States. Kind of "Just trust us, you're not going to like it, but trust us".

To tell you the truth, i can imagine a foreign "test" that would lead to a whole sale slide in popularity. I am still kind of worried about something happening between now and the 4th that would change the polls entirely.

Well if you have a different source for the biden comments I would most certainly read it as well, I only heard about the comment from word of mouth and this was the only site I found an actual article on.

You gotta admit that I have shown remarkeable restraint over the last little while though....

I mean this was my thing, this was how I attracted attention, I dip into the sauce once in a blue moon does that not show I have control over my habit?

-"the decisions being made are so because they're in the best interest of the United States. Just trust us, you're not going to like it, but trust us"-.

Well this is the kind of anti democratic logic I have expected from the likes of Dick Cheney and could very well have been the motto for the bush administration in what their legacy will be.

It's tantamount to saying:

People of america for 8 years our nation was run by heroin addicts and unfortunetly if our administration comes into office , it is our duty to take up the sauce within the next 600 days......

I mean you do realise the contradiction in the statement that biden made versus what you are worried about, they possibly cant be the same thing as it was those certain events that you worry about actually carried the bush administration in their anti democratic response (at least through 2004)and yet was profoundly bad for america as a whole, yet Biden alludes to a situation and a response after the democrats take the administration that will have the opposite effect.

Yet so far everyone seems to be talking about the same thing even as the ground changes underneath our feet.....

I think it's pretty clear that if Obama is going to make the kind of progress he proposes that he must find a way to shift the discussions from what they have been for the past 30 years. Topics that will make people feel uneasy might include:

- Israel and Palestine
- The relationship with Saudi Arabia
- The US dollar as a standard in trade
- Creating balance with China's beliefs and global role
- The importance of competing for natural resources
- Tax rate distribution and capital gains tax rates
- Guantanamo
- The evolution of NATO
- Relationships with Cuba
- Nuclear non proliferation
- Revisiting trading agreements like NAFTA

I'm sure others could add more; but my point is, many of these issues fester like untreated sores and detract from our health as a nation and our ability to focus on what is important - for the nation and its people.

Well. Yeah. Look at the reality of our situation.

Most of the people supporting Obama are against the war in Iraq. There's not a lot of excitement about any future wars. Meanwhile, the people who are less likely to protest the very concept of war have generally decided to hate Obama.

To make things interesting, we have a world on the edge of massive conflict. We're irritating Pakistan, Russia decided to be evil again, and we occupy two unstable countries. Obama's a realist, if something happens he's going to work to fix it. A lot of his supporters will probably turn on him for that, and, until he proves that he is literally the second coming of Christ, his detractors won't support him on anything.

I didn't read past the first paragraph.

Actually what you have stated makes more sense then what biden alludes to in an engineered "foreign policy" test, I can see dealing with all those issues effectively could mean stepping on a broad enough number of toes......
Though it is a pretty diverse amount of issues(which would cover alot of time to deal with as well) to be considered effective for a sudden and broad national decline in polls within the 1st 2 years of a presidency, now to get a near full spectrum ruling class hateon for your party that is a different matter, never the less this does not elevate what biden has said from the bowels of conspiracy theory...

Both Clinton and Bush were 'tested' early in the presidencies. Both times, the WTC was bombed. So, it's not much of a conspiracy as it is history.

Oh good now that their is no WTC, you can breathe a sigh of releif- though it is also worth mentioning that their hasnt been an "alqaeda" attack in the U.S since 9/11 , even though they were the organisation that was bombing in both instances you refered to- the bush administration has never shyed away from giving alqaeda another reason to attack the united states again, yet it hasnt? Please tell me why the bush administration has been so effective in dealing with terrorism, but once Obama takes the white house; Alqaeda will return with such vigor and effectiveness?

I'm an independent. I only lean slightly left. Regardless, anyone put into office, McCain or Obama, are going to have to make unpopular decisions to correct what has been left to rot, or has been turned rotten by the last 8 years.

The difference between the two administrations in my opinion, after reading everything i have, i trust the democratic presidential ticket to make the right decisions for the right reasons and not for monetary or oil purposes.

The damage done to our popularity globally may be irreversible in a lot of cases. We have a lot more people pissed off with us in 2008 than we did in 2000. Mostly due to the decisions that have been made according to the foreign policy of the current administration.

Our current administration only briefly attempted diplomacy before rushing us into a war. In my opinion, what he was alluding to was a situation in which we would normally deploy mass numbers of troops may be handled differently. A different style game to meet the "test".

That in itself initially is not going to be popular. We've become used to using our military power prior to anything else, even though there are a multiplicity of things that we can do prior to sending in our military.

Diplomacy with the current administration isn't something that is used greatly, i think the "test" may be a situation that most citizens may not fully understand. That we're not going to use brute force and send the military in.

I would trust them to use diplomacy longer, and in more amplitude that what has been used in the past.

That's just my opinion though.

Al Qaeda did not bomb the WTC in 93. Might want to read up on your history.

I don't think the Bush administration has been even slightly effective in dealing with al Qaeda or terrorism, unless you consider creating more terrorists dealing with terrorism.

Recent history indicates this may happen. Not sure why you don't see that.

So effective?

We're throwing 10 million dollars a month at a nation where the inhabitants basically don't want us there, a good portion of our population doesn't want our military there and there have been a multitude of terrorist attacks in that country.

The only thing he effectively did was give Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations a target that isn't on U.S. soil. It just requires a payment of 10 million dollars a month to keep it that way. That is not efficient by any means, and he has done nothing to eliminate the problem of terrorism.

He hasn't actually gone after Al Qaeda, the current administration has made the point that there was Al Qaeda in Iraq to further the spending on the war, while we keep minimal soldiers in Afghanistan, where it seems there is more terrorist activity and training than in Iraq.

I hope what you state about the use of diplomacy is true, though considering how unpopular the war is in your country at this point and the effects it is having on your economy I am certain your mis evaluating how the average american would react to a change in foreign policy tactics by a new administration in the event of such a test.

Call it the inertia of popular conciousness, the same forces that let the bush administration of the hook for 6 years, I.E the stability of their economic situation have now dramatically accelerated in the opposite direction and will not react very readily to fear mongering or moral outrage of events outside your concern when the #1 priority is trying to feed your self and your family and trying to keep yourself from being evicted.

If Obama was going to do what he promised to do as president, one shouldnt be calling for the cadre (already envigorated by those promises) to be strong in the face of popular backlash while implementing those promises, (thats just kind of a no brainer speech better suited for the time when the back lash is actually occuring ). If anything going back on fundamental promises will demoralise cadre and would explain why biden has to resort to teleogical "faith" in the democratic parties future decisions as the presidency.

The average American still isn't certain why we gave Wall Street 700 Billion dollars. They're assuming that it only helps the rich. The average American doesn't understand that stashing currency in your mattress, so that when the banks fail, they will still have money, that the currency will be worth nothing if the banking industry is failed.

To tell you the truth, the average American, as sad as this is to say, probably couldn't point out Iraq on a map. I think you're giving our general populous entirely too much credit.

This goes back to my first point, and this one is probably going to get backlash, but the Average American doesn't understand that there were democrats involved with the instability of the economy just as much as there were republicans. It's probably not dead-heat even, but what the Average American sees is a Republican in the White House, and the economy tanking.

The Average American has viewed the last 8 years in retrospect and realized that it's just not working, some of them are voting on the premise of change, and don't really even see the issues, some of them just want something different because the Republican for the last 8 years hasn't done anything right in their eyes, and we are now suffering because of it.

You have to have some faith in your candidate. That's just the way it works. Campaign promises are just that, promises. You have to have faith that he is going to do everything possible in order to uphold those promises. there is no guarantee that he will. That's where the faith comes in.

oops my faux pas on what happened to clinton, dont care enough about his presidency either way to read up, never the less quantity doesnt magically turn into quality and despite what supposed fertile grounds Nato has made afghanistan into or that the coalition of the willing for Iraq for terrorists, their is no conclusive evidence that alqaeda is the sole benefactor from this proccess- or more dynamically that their has congealed an organisation that can deal the destruction on american soil that alqaeda managed against the WTC.

Afghanistan has warloads as well as the Taliban competing, A Taliban which merely harboured Alqaeda in their brief stabile period when they had finally defeated the other factions vying for control of Afghanistan.
Iraq of course now weighs between Sunni groups and Shiates, these groups hate each other so much (or more realistically their is more regional interests to encourage violence against each other) that it cant even match the IRA in its decline in attacking their respective occupying nation with bombs(though Ireland is alot closer to britain geographically).

So the fact that you might be absolutely right on the # of supposed terorist spawned by the escapades of the bush adminstration means absolutely nothing about their capabilities and level of organisation let alone their goals.

the only part i don't like about his comments is how he wants us to have blind faith in the Obama administration since doing just that gave us the Iraq war. Although i do agree that there will be some sort of test on the next administration and Obama will have to do some unpopular choices but saying we need blind faith is stupid.

Their assumptions will be pretty much correct given that paying down that debt will be coming out of their tax money, given you current tax regime they will be paying the lion share.
Unless all that capital stays put in the U.S the prices of their house will still deflate just as it would had their not been an injection of cash, if the banks had been expropriated without compensation ; the price of their house would be their only problem not a combination of investment deflation with upward pressure on raising the average workers taxes, which of course is the historical tendancy.

Well I agree with eveything you said here, though it seems to agree more with my analysis about a deadening effect on a popular reaction to a foreign policy event then a backlash from the majority.

I understand the no gurantee part and faith, but if his 2nd in command has already perceived shifts in what he will be capable of doing on the current and near term, he should clarify the shift that will be necceessary to do "all that is within their power" but ineviteably lengthen the time for certain goals or what modifications will be needed to achieve or partially achieve.
Again biden has not given up any details worth anything to anyone but conspiracy theorists.

Wow.

You managed to out-cynic Ambrose Bierce.

I think part of it came from returning to college at 30 and dealing with the 19-20 year old people that are there on Daddy's dollar, who put little to no effort into educating themselves. It's rather disturbing.

We have a kid in our physics class whose policy is nuke everyone that challenges the United States. The physics teacher brought in a map without names and asked him who we should start with Afghanistan or Iran and then asked him to point it out on a map.

If this kid were in the Oval Office we would have bombed the UK He then later turned to "Well i know it's on the other side of the Atlantic". To which the Physics teacher replied with "Well technically it's on the other side of the Pacific too" which utterly confused him. I think he was having trouble grasping the fact that the world is round.

If he were the only one, i wouldn't be so cynical, but he's not.

I think more a "slight fuckload" more than a whole one. If there's a case for aggressive action that's better than a concocted story about yellowcake and imagined WMDs, I suspect a bunch of people will shrug and go "OK."

In all seriousness now, the bar has been set so low for what constitutes credibility in military actions by the US that Obama will look good sinmply by appearing to stop and think first.