PDF said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
PDF said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
PDF said:
I like Obama but I dissagree on him being ready. It takes more than just intelligence to be president. He is naive. He has demonstrated this in debates. Claiming he will meet with all of our enemies within his 1st year of office. It is a nice idea but it wont happen.
He talks of change but I dont see him producing it.
We need somone with strong Foriegn policy experience in a time like this. I have not seen him one acknowledge the surge working in Iraq. I like Huckabee but I dont think i could support him either because he does not seem to be strong in that area either. The War on Terror is one we cant afford to lose. |
The war on terror is such a sham, even during the cold war we met with the Soviets, its how we were able to ease tensions and prevent a neculear war, we have to be willing to meet with others and discuss thing, this will never be decided on the battlefield, we have to win it through changing hearts and minds, and that can only work if we are seen as a nation that isn't arrogant but is willing to work with others |
This is how we met with the soviets after not even talking with echother for a while. Reagan built up the US army to ridiculus size. He built tons of Nuclear Warheads put them in Europe pointed them at Russian cities. They even had the name of the cities on the rockets. He then told the Soviets he was ready to talk. That is called negotiating out of strength. The War in Iraq should of never of happend it had nothing to do with the War on Terror but now it does. The War on Terror is not a sham. It is one where we need to act in many different ways. We need to remove terrorist organizations through military power. We need to change the out look of America to a positive one through organization like the peace Corp. We need to remove political corruption by diplomatic negoations. If we lose and lay down and say we quit it will look like the USA is weak. We will be attacked again if we do not fight this war. We need to keep it on thier battlefield. |
Umm...they had nukes pointed at us, its called Mutually assured destruction, it wasn't negotionation out of strength it was negotiation because to do otherwise was stupidity, any nuclear conflict would have killed the human species. The war on terror is a sham, most people in the muslim world don't want it, but they view the US as arrogant and threatening, if we show them that we are looking for peace, not conflict then we give the the moderates the reason to step up and push for reforms and balance in their nations, if we try to settle this on the battlefield we will only drive more into the arms of the terrorists. You are right about the negotiations however we do need to neotate, but to negotiate we have to be seen as cooperative, not arrogant |
We already both had tons of nukes but Reagen increased out amount dramatically. He was the one who put them in europe and Japan. He is the one who started our anti nuke defense. He did all this before he was willing to meet with the Soviets. He made sure that when he met with them that he had the upperhand. Europeans view us as arrogant, people in the middle east view us differently. Some think we are good and are there to help(which we are). Others see us as a threat and as a imperalistic Empire trying to take over. They only think that because that is what they have been taught by terrorist propaganda. Many dont even want to join or help the terrorist but they have no choice. Afghanistan is a good example of this. Poor farmers have no choice but to grow opium it is the only way they can make a living. Terrorist organizations fund these farmers. Even tho it is agains the law they have to feed their family so they aid the terrorist. We did nothing to them. We left the middle east alone for the most part. We were involved in it a little bit but nowhere near what we are now. They attacked us. They hate us if we are there or not. It is propaganda that is fed into children to the point they are ready to die for a cause they dont even fully understand. The Iraq War did fuel the fire but to me that is a different war than the war on Terrorism. We had every right to go into Afghanistan and fix it. We did that but now it is falling apart again because we are distracted with a war that never should of happen. A War we cant leave for it will lead to chaos and any progress we made would be loss. We have to stay in Iraq but we must not forget the rest of the War on Terrorism which I explained earlier needs to be handle through many methods. |
I don't think you understand the concept of MAD, there is no upperhand, both nations could kill every human like a thousand times over. He negotiated because there was no other way to go about it. Also Reagan wasn't the first president to talk with the Soviets, we had been negotiating with them for years, Salt 1 and 2 were negotiated before him. No you give Regan too much credit PDF, next youll try and pass off that regan ended the cold war, another myth, since the USSR had been decaying economically for decades before Reagan.
Recent polls doent in the Middle east don't view us as favorably as you seem to think, most view the US as a bully and arrogant even there. Also we didn't do nothing, we were responsible for the rise of much of the radical forces in the arab world, our actions in Iran, and Afghanistan led to the rise of both of the current Iranian regime and the rise of rthe Taliban and Osama and his associates, US engineered a coup in Syria overthrowing a democratic government, US has supported corrupt regimes in Pakistan and Saudi arabia.
No your methods would only exacerbate the situation, we need to change our policies
... 
