Foreign Relations - the Chicago Way

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Putting our national interests in the region in jeopardy in the process. Lovely.

What are our national interests in the Middle East other than oil? And with the world oil glut, our interests there are less than ever. Moreover, the more we try to assert any national interests there, the worse off our nation is.

I think it's high time that Middle Eastern countries deal with their own self-defense instead of sitting on the sidelines while we expend our blood and treasure. It seems they agree:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/david-sc...war-1427662165

I understand that it troubles the GOP not to have a wellspring for future overseas wars. They'll just have to get used to it, along with lesser contributions from the MIC.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

Screw that. Apparently no one bothered to even try to educate themselves slightly, instead clining to their worn out and indefensable policial talking points. Let me post it again. The rise of sectarian battles in the Middle East was forseen over 20 years ago.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorri...gton_Clash.pdf

Gotta come up with something better that the above post Finn. In this case, the Dear Leader arsonist has a foreign policy that may only be pouring gasoline on the fire.

Sorry cannot find your link.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Screw that. Apparently no one bothered to even try to educate themselves slightly, instead clining to their worn out and indefensable policial talking points. Let me post it again. The rise of sectarian battles in the Middle East was forseen over 20 years ago.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorri...gton_Clash.pdf

Gotta come up with something better that the above post Finn. In this case, the Dear Leader arsonist has a foreign policy that may only be pouring gasoline on the fire.

If a long term re-construction project (say, rebuilding the infrastructure) is going to take more than ten years to complete, is it a lame talking point in year seven to suggest that what has started has not yet been completed? And, if seven years down the road someone asks why it isn't finished yet, is it not accurate to say the the current state of completion is directly related to the starting point?

Regards,

D-Ray

[bobabode]

Isn't it precious when cons complain about anyone bringing up the fact that the last time they held the White House, they set fire to trillions in treasure and destabilized the ME because Gee Dubya had a thang for Saddam and Cheney wanted his company Halliburton to make billions in no bid contracts.

These guys want another wack at leading the country?

Pass....

[whell]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Sorry cannot find your link.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-with-benefits

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If a long term re-construction project (say, rebuilding the infrastructure) is going to take more than ten years to complete, is it a lame talking point in year seven to suggest that what has started has not yet been completed? And, if seven years down the road someone asks why it isn't finished yet, is it not accurate to say the the current state of completion is directly related to the starting point?

Regards,

D-Ray

The topic is current events and foreign policy, not road construction my confused friend.

Hey, off topic, did you happen to notice that a team from East Lansing knocked off Oklahoma and Louisville this weekend to reach the Final Four?

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Isn't it precious when cons complain about anyone bringing up the fact that the last time they held the White House, they set fire to trillions in treasure and destabilized the ME because Gee Dubya had a thang for Saddam and Cheney wanted his company Halliburton to make billions in no bid contracts.

These guys want another wack at leading the country?

Pass....

And your guy came in and threw gas on the fire. Bravo.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What are our national interests in the Middle East other than oil? And with the world oil glut, our interests there are less than ever.

Yes, oil is one. The free flow of oil at market prices is a world interest, not just a U.S. interest. A "glut" is temporary (and it may also be a tool that the Saudis are using to screw up Iran's economy). Keeping the region stable advances that interest. Keeping the shipping lanes in that region open, not just for oil but because the Middle East is a growing financial and logistics hub with a significant impact on the economy of the region and the world is also critical.

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think it's high time that Middle Eastern countries deal with their own self-defense instead of sitting on the sidelines while we expend our blood and treasure. It seems they agree:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/david-sc...war-1427662165

I think it's high time too. Too bad the no one else in the region is quite capable of doing it yet...if ever.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

And your guy came in and threw gas on the fire. Bravo.

Oh please, no one outside of the conservative bubble buys that nonsense.

Sorry Whell, this stain won't wipe, wash or wish off and no amount of perfume will mask the stench that clings to the Tea Party caucus and their neocon enablers. Even your Senate Majority leader McConnell-R hates their guts with a blinding hate while declaring all out war on the Teabaggers. Too bad that he hates Obama almost as much.

Your party has become synonymous with traitors. Look no farther than little Tommy Cotton who got 47 US Senators to sign on to trashing our country's international standing and reputation that President Obama and his team have worked so hard to repair during the last six years.

It's going to be sweet to watch many of them get sent down in the next election while the country elects the first woman president.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-with-benefits

A real schmooze. Ironically co-written by one Pollock.

No mention here of Israeli theft of American technology.