Thread: How could Hillary enforce foreign policy??

Originally Posted by andythegreat

I'm all for Hillary, but how would she enforce foreign policy???

Foreign policy is primarily enforced by economic trade agreements and diplomacy: quid pro quos.

These muslim extremists are gonna go apeshit if we have a woman president.

Which Muslim extremist said this? When? What publication?


Remember, the co-called War on Terrorism is not military but more Special Operational and legal. The War on T is not about nation-states, but finding, hunting down, prosecuting (apprehending) or killing individuals and organizations.

I'm talkin about the muslims in general, most of the key leaders over in that part of the world like mahmoud of Iran are a little nutty. I doubt they are pro Hillary. You know if they hold a grudge against jews for bullshit,wana pretend the hollocaust was fake, and try to say gays dont exist over there, then I think surely having a women in office isnt gona make us any more apealing to them. As alot of them see a womens place as strictly suboordinate. Dont get me wrong, my vote's for hillary. But honestly,

Sorry my edit took longer then 10 minutes to type.

Most of the key leaders over in that part of the world like mahmoud of Iran are a little nutty. I doubt they are pro Hillary. You know if they hold a grudge against jews for bullshit,wana pretend the hollocaust was fake, and try to say gays dont exist over there, then I think surely having a women in office isnt gona make us any more apealing to them. As alot of them see a womens place as strictly suboordinate. Dont get me wrong, my vote's for hillary.But really, How's this gona help our overall popularity over there.

I totally agree that special forces are more productive over there, as they will be in most any situation, otherwise they'd just be called forces.
But as far as it being a fight over legalities, it is a major legal phopa to blow up buildings, and harbor extremist groups that threaten our way of life. When the foreign governments mingle into donating to and nurturing these little sicko groups, and they become so entangled that its not uncommon for nation to be seen as a terrorist nation. Why exactly did we ass fuck Iraq? Because we thought they had "weapons of mass destruction". why would this be a problem? I meen we have weapons of mass destruction. Because They where considered corrupt and fully capable of terrorist action. so we actually have gone after countries if you think about it. When you capture a nations capital and execute its leader, I'd say you went after the country.

All this being said its probably got a big deal to do with oil also.

You're right. Dispite our values in the States, having a woman as president would be a serious hinderance with foreign affairs. Of course, it would be hard to do much worse than Bush has done. Unless you consider pissing off the world by playing World Police a success.

Enforcement is a seperate issue, but the world took Reagan seriously, and that helped prevent a few issues, in my opinion.

Dude... Unless the KKK assassinates him, Obama is the next president.

I wont vote for him out of principal, but no one is going to beat him...



ELECTILE DISFUNCTION:
The inability to become aroused by any current presidential candidate.

watch out for McCain. this guy is making a strong push. he could beat hillary or Obama. I still think too many independants will run from hillary. and Obama is going to get beat up on experience.

Funny how nobody calls her Clinton. Neither of the Democratic candidates are electable. A black man and a white woman? The GOP will take it, and it will likely be McCain. I wonder what country we will start the next war with. Hmmm, let's go spend over one-hundred billion dollars messing with foreign affairs we have no business to be in why our dollar value sinks and our standard of living decreases.

How could Hillary enforce foreign policy??

To put it simply, she couldn't.
Check this out

"Hillary... Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life."

(sorry, I couldn't find the original link)

Originally Posted by Pirate!

Funny how nobody calls her Clinton. Neither of the Democratic candidates are electable. A black man and a white woman? The GOP will take it, and it will likely be McCain. I wonder what country we will start the next war with. Hmmm, let's go spend over one-hundred billion dollars messing with foreign affairs we have no business to be in why our dollar value sinks and our standard of living decreases.

it will be Iran but only if they openly attack us

Originally Posted by andythegreat

I'm all for Hillary, but how would she enforce foreign policy??? These muslim extremists are gonna go apeshit if we have a woman president. Maybe she could send Bill? I dunno. I'm pretty sure this is the democrats year. Or else I'd vote for Huckabee since Thompson doesnt have a snowballs chance.

Of the dems, I'm definitely more for Hillary then Obama, she's got more experience and its 2 presidents for the price of one. I don't how welcome political posts are here, since politics often break out into arguements. so keep it friendly pole jockeys.=]

you say this as if no other countries have, or have had, female leaders, and would it really matter to the Muslims whether we have a male or female as president...I don't see how our leader would make a difference to extremists.

we're already veiwed as "the great satan" its just giving them one more thing to justify themselves by.

Originally Posted by Prince

you say this as if no other countries have, or have had, female leaders, and would it really matter to the Muslims whether we have a male or female as president...I don't see how our leader would make a difference to extremists.

its true. they had a female executive in pakistan

Originally Posted by bio-chem

its true. they had a female executive in pakistan

That was Bhutto.

Also, Indira Ghandi, Merkl in Germany, and Margaret Thatcher, and the new President in Argentina. Queen Noor is popular in Jordan, and she's even an American.

Huh, well even though I still think it wouldnt help, maybe it wouldnt hurt as much as I'd thought.

The US is the strongest nation, militarily in the world. (We agree on this, I think.)

Also, the influence diplomatically and economically is very strong.

You don't need to "enforce American foreign policy."

The WTO, World Bank, IMF, and trade agreements already enforce US policy.

The military is always there, too.

An additional question:

What is American Foreign policy?

Enforcing the economic interests of the United States.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

its true. they had a female executive in pakistan

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

That was Bhutto.

The key word = "WAS"

Just for the heck of it...
"Are we going to have more of these gems with Clinton II!?"


http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/wi...inton/tax1.wav

http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/wi...ton/inhale.wav

http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/wi...linton/sex.wav

Originally Posted by The Monkey Man

The key word = "WAS"

Yes, Bhutto is past tense, now.

And who whacked her?

Not really sure.

I don't think it was in Al-Qaeda or the Taliban interest to whack her. But we can only speculate.

Pervez Musharraf has resisted efforts for an international investigation. The Pakistani polls show a lot of distrust and suspicion over the official version of her assassination.

But as I stated before, she had a lot of enemies, for many reasons.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

An additional question:

What is American Foreign policy?

Enforcing the economic interests of the United States.

Well said.

Hillary couldn't do worse than Bush if she tried. How about saying "to hell with foreign policy." We have sucked donkey balls at foreign policy for over 50 years. Could we possibly just leave other countries alone and focus on our own problems for a little while? That would be nice.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Hillary couldn't do worse than Bush if she tried. How about saying "to hell with foreign policy." We have sucked donkey balls at foreign policy for over 50 years. Could we possibly just leave other countries alone and focus on our own problems for a little while? That would be nice.

isnt that how we got WW1 and WW2?

Originally Posted by bio-chem

isnt that how we got WW1 and WW2?

No, WWII happened because Germany was a powerhouse much stronger than us, especially with the help of Japan and Italy. They wanted to take over the world and nearly had the power to do it. They were a legitimate threat and were dealt with. We also happened to have had an incredible leader at that time.

Originally Posted by KelJu

No, WWII happened because Germany was a powerhouse much stronger than us, especially with the help of Japan and Italy. They wanted to take over the world and nearly had the power to do it. They were a legitimate threat and were dealt with. We also happened to have had an incredible leader at that time.

Germany came so far in WW2 because many countries, the US included, felt that Germany's attack on Poland "wasn't their problem". In the US, they felt it was a "European" problem. Eventually, Roosevelt had to use Japan to get America into the fight.

If the US hadn't been so ambivalent, and had joined the fray sooner, perhaps the war wouldn't have reached the proportions that it did.

It's not a good policy to ignore such threats. However, having said that, I think the US should stop giving money to other countries. Especially North Korea. Let all those people starve or, at least, let someone else foot the bill.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Germany came so far in WW2 because many countries, the US included, felt that Germany's attack on Poland "wasn't their problem". In the US, they felt it was a "European" problem. Eventually, Roosevelt had to use Japan to get America into the fight.

If the US hadn't been so ambivalent, and had joined the fray sooner, perhaps the war wouldn't have reached the proportions that it did.

It's not a good policy to ignore such threats. However, having said that, I think the US should stop giving money to other countries. Especially North Korea. Let all those people starve or, at least, let someone else foot the bill.

pretty close to the line of reasoning i had

Originally Posted by DOMS

Germany came so far in WW2 because many countries, the US included, felt that Germany's attack on Poland "wasn't their problem". In the US, they felt it was a "European" problem. Eventually, Roosevelt had to use Japan to get America into the fight.

If the US hadn't been so ambivalent, and had joined the fray sooner, perhaps the war wouldn't have reached the proportions that it did.

It's not a good policy to ignore such threats. However, having said that, I think the US should stop giving money to other countries. Especially North Korea. Let all those people starve or, at least, let someone else foot the bill.

Back then, the industrial and economic wealth of the US alone would have ground germany down much faster had they entered the war earlier. No other country could compete with the resources the US had.

Originally Posted by DOMS

It's not a good policy to ignore such threats. However, having said that, I think the US should stop giving money to other countries. Especially North Korea. Let all those people starve or, at least, let someone else foot the bill.

If we keep patching them up the people will never get pissed off enough to start a revolution and change the way their country is being ruined....

Originally Posted by goob

Back then, the industrial and economic wealth of the US alone would have ground germany down much faster had they entered the war earlier. No other country could compete with the resources the US had.

we were in a depression. and no one knew we had the industrial capacity to make what we did. The potential was always there we just hadnt really had the force behind it to make it happen.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Germany came so far in WW2 because many countries, the US included, felt that Germany's attack on Poland "wasn't their problem". In the US, they felt it was a "European" problem. Eventually, Roosevelt had to use Japan to get America into the fight.

Agree, DOMS.

Roosevelt needed a Pearl Harbor and he got one.

The British had intelligence that is still classified about Pearl Harbor and to this day it isn't released.

The British needed a major ally in WWII. PH helped.

Did the British keep the intelligence on PH to themselves? Or did the British send the intelligence to Roosevelt so he could order the most important Naval ships out to sea when the attack happened?

We may never know.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor for one reason and one reason only: OIL.

I think the US should stop giving money to other countries. Especially North Korea. Let all those people starve or, at least, let someone else foot the bill.

Agree.