Election time, who did you vote for?

[fordy]

Slimebeast said:

fordy said:

Slimebeast said:

fordy said:

Slimebeast said:

No, Im not facetious.

Yes, America absolutely is powerful! But Obama is too weak in his foreign policies. He's a bad negotiator, giving away American interests for free without getting something in return, not even much respect. America needs to be tougher against rogue states, tougher against Russia and China and against corrupt institutions such as the UN. And America needs to take back the global initiative, to become pro-active again in international conflicts.

So in other words, you want America to tell other countries what to do, right? The UN is suddenly corrupt because China and Russia's voices count, too. Well how about we remove their veto power from the security council, as long as America loses theirs, too. It's only fair...

You're talking as if America decides things without an agenda, but this is far from the case. they have just as much of an agenda as China and Russia do. Russia defends the Syrian reigime because it's their last air base in the middle east. America opposes the Syrian reigime because it's Russia's last air base in the middle east. You can go ahead and say it's all about human rights all you want, but where was America when Egypt were in the process of evicting Mubarak, who was in Israel's (and therefore America's) pocket? America only enacts when it's in THEIR interests.

First, American interests happen to be my interests .

Second, American interests are much more often morally right than Chinese and Russian interests, no matter the original motive.

Same with the UN. More than half of its members are dictatorships or very primitive democracies who don't know right from wrong. Their barbaric thinking is "blame America first" and condemn Israel no matter what.

So yes I want America to tell other countries what to do when it comes to important matters where they're right.

America stopped the genocide in Bosnia.

America tried to stop the genocide in Somalia.

America crushed the Talibans of Afghanistan.

America eliminated Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

America stopped the genocide in Kosovo.

America stopped the genocide and eliminated Muammar Khadaffi in Libya.

America eliminated Usama Bin Ladin.

And with Mitt Romney in power America would also eliminate Assad in Syria and prevent Iran from getting nukes.

None of these things would have been achieved without America. The EU and the UN have done nothing to solve international conflicts.

Happy with your informative media? All you need are a few alertist reports stating that the leader of a country you've probably never even heard of before is bad, and does bad things, and you're right on board. What happened to those Iraqi WMDs huh? And let's not forget who SUPPORTED Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. I'll give you a hint, it's the same people you're talking up right now.

Yeah just what we need. You didn't think that if America gets more involved with Syria, Russia's last ally of the middle east that it would be a good precursor to WW3? Tell me, were you for or against the Occupy movements in Washington, because you appear to have taken sides with Syria already. And what if the revolutionaries of Syria that you're willing to support decide to adopt a theocratic government like Egypt did? Would you still be behind them?

Keep reading that alarmist news that Iranian nukes are just around the corner, or perhaps it was Netanyahu's intricate diagram that persuaded you?

What are you trying to say, that the Iranian regime are good people and we should respect their decision to ignore the IAEA and aquire nukes?

It's a fact that Iranian nukes are around the corner, less than five years and there's no going back.

The Syria-Russia issue. Obama is making the wrong analysis here. He's too soft on Russia. Russia is flexing its muscles and being angry because it lost so much of the respect it once had and because Russia's opinion was ignored about the Kosovo war in 1999 and Libya in 2011. But it's just a show because Russia's muscles are in reality very thin. USA could easily bully Russia back into submission (with the help from the EU) like they were pre-Putin. Instead Obama is giving the Russians much more space than they deserve.

Any talk about a WW3 is laughable. Russia is far too weak. They're just using strong words but in reality they don't have any muscles. Obviously they don't have any interest in a conflict, but I mean weak in the sense that they wouldn't even try to scare. The Russia show is all about words and obstruction in the Security Council, they don't have the resources to send aircraft carriers to show true strength. They will never become a huge geo-political power again, even though they are very determined to try.

It's not about Russia's military base in Syria because it's lost already and in reality it has no big strategic importance (because Russia's influence in the Middle East is already so small compared to the past). Russia too knows that Assad's days are numbered and that the base is lost, they just want to lengthen and obstruct the process and not make it too easy for the West, like it was in Libya. The Syria issue and Russia's veto is all about Russian pride and how Russia is working to get its respect back in world politics.

About Syria and the revolution. Yes, the Sunni muslims will come to power and retaliate on the Alawites and Christians and we will get a second humanitarian crysis, and the future state will resemble a theocracy, and that's all very unfortunate, but I still support that process because it reflects the true will of the people in Syria. It's the nature of that region. We in the West can deal with that when that time comes. Dictatorships to keep unstable societies in check is an artificial solution that needs to end.

You do realise that a lot of the theocratic rule over in the middle east is a response to Zionist activities around the area, right? How exactly do you know the "true will of the people in Syria"? For all we know, it could be their version of the Occupy movements. The point of this is, both America AND Russia picked their sides before this conflect grew to such a size, and they did it based on what they think was best for them. As such, the media of both countries is working freverently to create theis image of Syria to suit the respective agendas of America and Russia. Would you still be for the rebels if there were fewer of them? How many are needed to declare a state is "out of control", or are you basing this on something else? Should East Timor have NOT become independent because of the few rebels who were still fighting to keep it as part of Indonesia? By your reasoning, that's the will of the people, the ones who are fighting.

Dictatorships need to end, huh? So you're all for America invading their ally Saudi Arabia and relieving people of the dictatorship there? Remember that there were protests there, except their government had a lot more control over the situation and quickly silenced it. We can't go cherry-picking on who we want to liberate, right? If America wants to look like a selfless country, they should liberate countries that they also have alliances with, not just ones they believe will create a western-friendly leadership there.

What about Africa? Plenty of dictatorships there, but for some reaosn, America doesn't seem as concerned with liberating those. Why could that be?