Actually, I disagree with just about everything you ever post. But that’s not the subject of this thread.
And, no… you aren’t Patrick Roy. You just have an incredible ability to ferret out any and all perceived “slights” against your “ideology” that you can’t have any civil discussion on any political subject. Your entire approach to any topic is if a person doesn’t agree with you, to type wildly on your computer to make your “points”. Being closed minded does not make you politcally savvy or especially sharp.
This would be a lot more convincing if you had ever answered his question about what you actually wanted to debate. As it is, it seems like you wanted to make this a pit thread* but for some reason didn’t want to just put it in the pit and be done with it.
a pit thread about what, I’m not sure. That Obama failed to bring anyone’s heads back on pikes?
That’s a fair comment. I didn’t mean for it to turn into a pit thread. I just don’t like Dio’s tone in this thread, where he claims to have outed the OP for not really asking a question to debate.
I think the OP was just fine and a topic to debate. I don’t think Dio’s approach is showing any interest to debate. Maybe I’m pointing out the obvious.
Well, I think the OP wanted to make this a pit thread too. But we’ll see if he (or anyone else) ever manages to make it something like an actual debate.
It seems unlikely, though, since most of the rest of us seem to be happy with “Obama went and did diplomatic stuff. That’s all he accomplished. And we’re fine with that.”
The Bush administration helped bring peace to Columbia through diplomacy and foreign aid.
The Bush administration greatly eased suffering in Africa through foreign aid, administering AIDS drugs to millions of people, and through the Doha trade negotiations helping to reform protectionist laws in China and other countries which were keeping Africans out of the marketplace. The Bush Administration’s anti-malarial programs cut the incidence of malaria in half in over a dozen African countries. Through these actions, Bush may have saved 5-10 times as many people in Africa than were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act. In addition, the Bush administration helped defuse the tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir that almost lead to a war. In general, India moved closer to the U.S. under the Bush administration and America’s popularity in India improved from 58% to 67% during the Bush Administration’s tenure. Favorability towards the U.S. also increased in Japan and China, making the Bush Administration’s Asia policies in general quite successful.
U.S. relations with China improved during the Bush administration. Remember the E3 spyplane incident? The Bush administration handled that deftly, and turned a potential conflict into a springboard for increased cooperation on trade and other issues.
Libya voluntarily abandoned its WMD programs and formally rejected terrorism, largely due to the hard diplomacy of the Bush administration and the example of the Iraq invasion.
Working closely with Israel, the Bush administration boxed in Syria, pushed much of their influence out of Lebanon, and helped eliminate an illegal nuclear weapons facility.
Bush pushed for the expansion of NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia were all brought into the western sphere of influence.
The Iraq war overshadowed pretty much everything else about Bush’s foreign policy, but he had plenty of successes.
No, I did not intend this to be a pit thread. Which is why I didn’t start it in the pit.
And while no, I did not structure the OP as a formal debate, doing so is obviously not a requirement to start a thread in this forum (based on the other active threads here, the OPs of which are also not structured as formal debates). Even so, there have been several interesting and differing opinions presented (as well as the predictable loads of manure from idiots blinded by their own idiology). I’d like to thank **hansel **in particular for valuable contributions.
If “Obama went and did diplomatic stuff. That’s all he accomplished. And we’re fine with that” is the best the rest of you can come up with, well then so be it.
You weren’t soliciting any kind of a debate at all. You just asked a passive-aggresive, partisan, empty, snarky question with no point to it, no sincere intent to seek information, and no contribution of any opinion of your own.
But that *wasn’t *the question I posed, now was it? So if *you’d *like to pose that question in a separate thread, feel free. Perhaps it will spark the debate you’re so desperately trying to have.
President Buckwheat’s administration is shaping up to be an even bigger disaster than Carter’s. Let’s take a look at that eight day tour.
At the APEC in Singapore, Obama admitted he won’t be able to get much international cooperation about greenhouse gases. That’s good news for the United States, but an an embarassment for him.
Afterwards he flew to Japan where he again embarassed himself by bowing improperly to the emperor. It was as though he had gotten his notions about Japanese customs from Karate Kid movies. It just goes to show you can get a Nobel Peace Prize and still be a rube.
In China, Obama again embarassed himself and his country. He needed three things from the Chinese: support for sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, controls on China’s fossil fuel emissions, and a halt to China’s undervaluation of it’s own currency. The Chinese listened, smiled politely, and dug in their heels on all three issues. Then they lectured him on America’s deficits and protectionist trade policies. They treated him with less respect than Clinton or Bush.
The tour was a disaster. Obama came home empty-handed and shamed. And this is pretty much the way his whole administration is going.
Hey **BrainGlutton **and begbert2, if you want to debate how about you take a stab at refuting the following:
But no, let me guess… you’re going to take the easy way out by sniping at the “President Buckwheat” comment (an admittedly easy target), but ignore the salient points, above.