David Rothkopf
 

My first question is what is this "unprecedented squeeze" Israel faces? Last I heard they were (again) expanding settlements in the West Bank, which is one of the bad things that keeps making it harder to find peace. I haven't heard much from Obama about it.

I think the missile shield was an unnecessary provocation in the beginning for minimal gain. So I don't think we lose much by dismantling it, except possibly good will in Poland & Czech Republic.

The corrupt election is definitely a problem, but it isn't like Bush would have done anything different. How long did we buddy up with a dictator in Pakistan? I definitely think we should do something about Kharzi & the election, but I don't think Obama is the only one who would have gotten that wrong.

I agree about Pakistan, but again, just continuing the policy of the last administration. Though I've heard more talk (and action) about bombing Al Qeida inside Pakistan, which is something Bush never seemed willing to do.

NK went nuclear under Bush's watch. Talking isn't a reward.

Myanmar? Burma!

For Iran, again, talking isn't a reward. Obama was smart to stay out of the street demonstrations. Bush would have opened his mouth, or worse, and the reform movement in Iran would be identified as puppets of America. So good for Obama on that.

20 years from now it will still be all Bush's Fault. That regime is over, Obama has to make the decisions now. (or not make any as seems to be what is being said here)

Forcing such an outcome would be admitting the Afghan regime is under our control. It is, but for political reasons this can not be said.

Whatever the legal procedure in the country (assuming they have one) for resolving rigged elections, we should be vocal about encouraging that. That is what is happening now.


Edit - I'm not at all trying to pick a fight with you Ozzy. Quiter frankly I have been surprised by the complete lack of debate here on this subject by Americans. I'm curious to hear your opinions.

I think most people in the country assume the regime is under our control already (and sure, perhaps it is). Better they hold us responsible for fighting corruption than rigging an election.

But I don't think we should just force a change. But if we start openly calling this a rigged election, that might be a step in the right direction.

I'm not really an Obama loyalist though, so I'm interested in hearing any defenses of his record so far.

The best defense is that, while Obama hasn't really done anything good in foreign policy, he hasn't really done anything that bad, either. Obama really doesn't seem to care that much about foreign policy, quite frankly.

The Germans don't beat readheads; they push them into the gas chambers with the rest of the untermenschen... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/neeschud.gif

You're absolutely right. Obama's handling of Latin America, and the whole Chavez situation has been a complete boondoggle.

Zelaya broke the rules and was punished. But don't try explaining that to the State Department.

20 years from now it will still be all Bush's Fault. That regime is over, Obama has to make the decisions now. (or not make any as seems to be what is being said here) You know, I fondly remember the Generallissimo's third term. It was really the best!