So how will Obama react to surly leaders and sticky international crisis? Russia is now returning to its prior cold war ways and is saber rattling with Georgia. The Iranian leader vehemently discounts the holocaust, openly sponsors terrorists and would, in a heartbeat, annihilate Israel. Are we to believe that Obama who errantly insults a reporter with the demeaning term "sweetie" can somehow muster a diplomatic panacea leading to world peace? Will Obama step into Nigeria, wave his hand and instantly turn chaos into peaceful co-existence?

Again we have some vague, open ended promise of performance from Obama lacking proof in definition and in the absence of any prior experience. It is just more promise for "change" without any indication of what will, or how things will, change.

So McCains response is quite understandable. What does Obama want to discuss with the leader of Iran who seems quite willing to saw the heads from Obamas children? Obama has achieved NO diplomatic successes, ever. Why should we believe he's going to start doing so right now? Obama's most recent claim to fame has been installing and retracting his feet from his mouth and now he is supposed to be a diplomatic wonder boy?

"Talk to everyone about nothing and do nothing about everything"

Thats his approach, it will be followed by speeches that will make us feel all warm and fuzzy about hope and peace. In the end however we are running the real potential of having neither for sometime to come.

Oh sorry, I forgot that pre-emptive, mercenary-filled, economy-sapping, drawn-out, mis-informed wars that our country pays for with credit and loses anyways was a much better idea.

Morons.

Okay, first of all, what diplomatic success has the BUSH ADMINISTRATION achieved. I think the answer you're looking for is, "none." Vague, open-ended promises? Sir, the Bush administration has been built on nothing BUT vague, open-ended promises. Dealing with surly leaders and sticky international crisis? The Bush administration has failed miserably in this area too... I believe that Bush has exacerbated many of the problems that he inherited; his mantra seems to be: Sticky International Crisis? Threaten with force. Rinse. Repeat. Hardly effective...

...and then there is the comment about Obama calling a reporter "sweetie." That will negatively affect his ability to pursue diplomatic solutions to these problems how? I have a suspicion that many people (Scoot'r) just don't think an African American is smart enough to do anything... do you suppose he'll go over there and say, "Jeeza bawsss, I do whatevah you say sweetie, I be thee pre-so-dent! Please massa be nice to a po' lil' man lika me Obama." Idiot.

Also, I think I know what Obama wants to discuss with the leader of Iran. His hatred of Israel and his support for terrorists. If you think Iran is scared of the United States and this fear will produce some beneficial result, well, you can't be helped. Thanks for continuing to support ideas that are ruining our country and influence around the world... really, we all appreciate it.

As expected any criticism of Obama is construed as racially motivated. I suppose I should preface with "I would feel the same way if Obama were black, white or in-between".

Now I do not recall saying that I thought that Bush had done a wonderful job. So you can remove the conjecture that I prefer Bush to Obama or that I was drawing any comparison between the two men.

I am asking, plain and simple, how Obama, who is untried in international relations, thinks he's going to accomplish diplomacy? He has stated that he feels that increased foreign aid would help. Does he plan to buy off these people?

I would ask you to remember how the then Soviet Union envisioned and approached a young John Kennedy. They felt he could be coerced into concessions and they were wrong. Kennedy was a brave man and knew where and how to draw the line. Obama has never seen or experienced one whit of military training. How would he have managed nuclear missiles in Cuba? The presidency is no place for internships when it comes to international relations.

And regarding Bush and Iraq. How would you feel if Hussein had been left alone and orchestrated another 9/11. He had subverted to UN food for oil program. He hated America, he had the money and could make any connection he wanted. What we have in Iraq is certainly unsavory. What could have been might have been much worse. You assume things would have been better instead of considering that they may have turned out worse. I do agree that we could have gotten to where we stand today in better fashion. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Are we to believe that Obama who errantly insults a reporter with the demeaning term "sweetie" can somehow muster a diplomatic panacea leading to world peace? Will Obama step into Nigeria, wave his hand and instantly turn chaos into peaceful co-existence?

There's nothing wrong with criticism, and most Obama supporters are not opposed to it, nor do they regard him as a savior. All this savior talk comes directly from McCain and Clinton supporters. Making shit up as usual--that's what we take offense to. Inane claims that he's going to "waive his hands" and solve the problems. He never said or proposed anything like that, he supports diplomacy first, not willful inaction. To me that makes perfect sense: talk first, shoot second.

Also, why is military experience so important? Lincoln, FDR, they didn't have military experience, and Grant is often regarded as a shit president.

They felt he could be coerced into concessions and they were wrong. Kennedy was a brave man and knew where and how to draw the line. Obama has never seen or experienced one whit of military training.

You do not need military experience to be brave. Clinton doesn't have it.

I am asking, plain and simple, how Obama, who is untried in international relations, thinks he's going to accomplish diplomacy? He has stated that he feels that increased foreign aid would help. Does he plan to buy off these people?

McCain can't seem to get Sunni Shi'ia right? Does that not bother you?

Obama plans on talking to them. Answer me this, how does talking first make things worse? You can always follow up with military action (which Obama has said he would do), but why not try diplomacy and see what happens. Are we not suffering the effects of a military-first philosophy right now?

Are we not suffering the effects of a military-first philosophy right now?

I love how people treat the 12 years of us going back and fourth to the UN over Iraq (not to mention a low grade air war) as if it were a dream that did not happen.

So I guess a pre-emptive strike on Iraq and threating to go to war with Iran are equitable means of foreign policy.

Okay. You want us to say something silly that doesn't fit into your metric of worth which obviously is only "standard foreign policy experience" - negotiating as president or ambassador or commanding our military. What else applies that we can point to to prove foreign policy experience? Nothing. You posted it, so you get to frame the debate, and you did it well for your purposes.

We could go on about Obama's judgement - but you'll say "it's out of bounds."

We could talk about his obviously strong sense of right and wrong - and you'll say "it doesn't count."

We could point out the terrible FP of Bush, the GOP, McCain - and you'll say "I asked about Obama, not them."

We could outline Obama's stated plans (which make sense and will at least put our country in the right direction) - but you'll rebut with "that's only what he says he'll do, he won't do it"

We could argue that Obama has many FP experts on his side and some will undoubtedly fill his cabinet positions - you'll say then "we don' need HIM"

We'll argue other great presidents who excelled at FP despite NO experience and those who had great experience and sucked - you'll say "Obama won't be great"

My inclination? You have an incredibly short-sighted and dangerously self-serving view of what goes into making decisions be they international negotiations, domestic policy, or what the fuck you're going to make for dinner. There is no recipe book for what constitutes the appropriate foreign policy, each situation is unique. So, while you'd argue I'm a fool for not invoking the wisdom and experience of Rachel Ray when deciding what I should make myself for dinner, I'm happy knowing that I have ground chuck in the freezer, printouts of your lame posts to fuel my grill, and enough time for cheeseburgers (that I know I love) that aren't limited to enjoyment within 30 minutes.

I guess I just have to start a thread that allows big boy discussion of the complexity of foreign policy ability.