52 replies to this topic

[freedom78]

Funny that people are now realizing that Obama is nothing more than a continuation of the "Bush Doctrine".

Enjoy the "change"....

Actually, as far as the Bush admin's policies, quite a few things have changed.

Not enough, perhaps, but it's still only been a couple of months.

I assume you're using Palin's definition of "Bush Doctrine"?

[Gomer Pyle]

[

I assume you're using Palin's definition of "Bush Doctrine"?

Let's see.....

Advocates NATO expansion.....check

Supports a "missile shield" in Europe to protect us from Iran....check

Advocates missile strikes into sovereign nations(Pakistan) to further US interests....check

Advocates(well, his advisers do) the further isolation of Russia....check

Wont "rule out" strikes against Iran...check

Thats just basic elements of the doctrine. His spending policies are eerily similar to Bush, and he also supports the continued outsourcing of US jobs, which helped put us in this mess we are currently in.


Who said this, Bush or Obama?

“no other nation on earth has a greater capacity to shape that global system,” to “expand the zones of freedom, personal safety, and economic well-being” and that a “global system built in America’s image can alleviate misery in poorer countries".

----

You can drop the Palin crap because I'm not a partisan hack. Both these clowns make me want to vomit.

[cousin it]

""I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al-Qaida." -Obama on the campaign trail.

His policies now are little different than the Bush administration's.

[Gomer Pyle]

His policies now are little different than the Bush administration's.

If the country wasn't on the verge of collapse I'd die from laughing.



Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss....

[freedom78]

[

I assume you're using Palin's definition of "Bush Doctrine"?

Let's see.....

Advocates NATO expansion.....check

Supports a "missile shield" in Europe to protect us from Iran....check

Advocates missile strikes into sovereign nations(Pakistan) to further US interests....check

Advocates(well, his advisers do) the further isolation of Russia....check

Wont "rule out" strikes against Iran...check

Thats just basic elements of the doctrine. His spending policies are eerily similar to Bush, and he also supports the continued outsourcing of US jobs, which helped put us in this mess we are currently in.


Who said this, Bush or Obama?

“no other nation on earth has a greater capacity to shape that global system,” to “expand the zones of freedom, personal safety, and economic well-being” and that a “global system built in America’s image can alleviate misery in poorer countries".

----

You can drop the Palin crap because I'm not a partisan hack. Both these clowns make me want to vomit.

^^^and none of those things are the Bush Doctrine so, yes, I suppose you're using the Palin definition of it being Bush's "worldview"

[cousin it]

Obama shows fealty to his liege.

[Gomer Pyle]

NONE of them are? Actually, each of those things fit into that doctrine. I think you need to go read about the Bush Doctrine before labeling me with Palin comparisons.

Just because I don't lick Obama's ass doesn't make me a moron.

Advocates missile strikes into sovereign nations(Pakistan) to further US interests


Wont "rule out" strikes against Iran

The doctrine literally revolves around these two issues, which is preemption and what would obviously be unilateral military action.

Supports a "missile shield" in Europe to protect us from Iran


Advocates NATO expansion.

Advocates(well, his advisers do) the further isolation of Russia

All three of these issues fall under Bush's strategy(yes, its in the doctrine) of US supremacy at just about any cost. Russia is(and always will be) a threat to U.S. imperialism. For years Russia has threatened us and certain Euro countries with military action(and a new arms race) if this expansion continues, and in 2009 we are practically on their border. The missile shield has nothing to do with Iran. Its an attempt at neutering elements of Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Bush pulled us out of the ABM treaty(a huge stepping stone to the realization of this doctrine), Obama is continuing down the same path on several fronts, yet you claim none of this is Bush Doctrine.

I'd like to know which of the five points I listed isn't part of the doctrine, because it'll be news to me, and also news to those like Wolfowitz who played a major role in crafting it and implementing it into reality.

[freedom78]

^You read WAAAAAAYYY more into anything I wrote than was actually there.

[Gomer Pyle]

^You read WAAAAAAYYY more into anything I wrote than was actually there.

If thats how you feel, then don't label someone as a Palin drone that doesn't know jack shit about the doctrine.

I listed issues in the doctrine that are being continued, then you claim I don't know what the doctrine is. Not sure how I could "read way too much" into your statements.

Each point I listed in that post is part of the Bush Doctrine. My jaw hit the floor when I first saw the post from someone obviously intelligent trying to claim I don't know what I'm talking about.

I read the "manifesto"(or whatever you choose to call it) Project for a New American Century years before "Bush Doctrine" was even a commonly used term.

I know what the doctrine and its goals are. If that makes me a blood relative of Sarah Palin, then so be it.

[TAP]

Each point I listed in that post is part of the Bush Doctrine.

I would tend to disagree with all of them except possibly strikes on Iran - and that seems more like keeping your options open rather than a march towards preventive war. Preventive and preemptive are far from the same thing too.

Missile strikes on terrorists in Pakistan would not be Bush doctrine as I understand it whether it's unilateral or not. Missile strikes against Pakistan (military/industrial/infrastructure) itself would be......I assume Obama was talking of the former but I'm prepared to be corrected.

Not sure how NATO expansion fits into the Bush doctrine, sounds almost the opposite to me.

[freedom78]

^You read WAAAAAAYYY more into anything I wrote than was actually there.

If thats how you feel, then don't label someone as a Palin drone that doesn't know jack shit about the doctrine.

I listed issues in the doctrine that are being continued, then you claim I don't know what the doctrine is. Not sure how I could "read way too much" into your statements.

Each point I listed in that post is part of the Bush Doctrine. My jaw hit the floor when I first saw the post from someone obviously intelligent trying to claim I don't know what I'm talking about.

I read the "manifesto"(or whatever you choose to call it) Project for a New American Century years before "Bush Doctrine" was even a commonly used term.

I know what the doctrine and its goals are. If that makes me a blood relative of Sarah Palin, then so be it.

Your belief that I labeled you a Palin drone is among the things you read into anything I wrote.

[Gomer Pyle]

I would highly recommend Project for a New American Century. It uses a broad stroke and is not the typical streamlined version of the doctrine you see when using a search engine, various media outlets discussing it, or like we saw during the Palin controversy over the doctrine. Been years since I read it myself so I obviously cant go through it line by line, but its an interesting read and its actually shocking how such a thing so quickly became reality. The few issues I raised are certainly in this doctrine, but if the two of you don't see it, then we're just gonna have to agree to disagree because I don't have it on hand and wont spend hours on end digging for excerpts from it.

[Gomer Pyle]

Your belief that I labeled you a Palin drone is among the things you read into anything I wrote.

Each of your posts towards me in this thread contained the word Palin. The only point of using Palin in the context of this discussion was to insinuate I don't know what I'm talking about.

Comparing my stance to that of someone who not only never researched the doctrine, but probably didn't even read her brief before being asked about it is a bit of a stretch.

[freedom78]

I would highly recommend Project for a New American Century. It uses a broad stroke and is not the typical streamlined version of the doctrine you see when using a search engine, various media outlets discussing it, or like we saw during the Palin controversy over the doctrine. Been years since I read it myself so I obviously cant go through it line by line, but its an interesting read and its actually shocking how such a thing so quickly became reality.

The few issues I raised are certainly in this doctrine, but if the two of you don't see it, then we're just gonna have to agree to disagree because I don't have it on hand and wont spend hours on end digging for excerpts from it.

My thinking is this...there are things that may have been part of Bush's foreign policy but they weren't necessarily unique, extraordinary, or any of that. So, yes, missile strikes may have been part of Bush's policy, but they were the policy of nearly every other President, too (umm...technology caveat). In other words (to make up a completely irrelevant and simple example) , if Obama crafts a policy of "winning elections is good", then I wouldn't call that the Obama doctrine. Some things are too common to consider the Doctrine of any one President, and Obama lobbing missiles could just as easily be called the Clinton Doctrine as the Bush Doctrine. Similarly, the missile shield has been a work in progress since Reagan (at least).

Thus, the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is more about the use of war in a preventative fashion. And I distinguish between preventative wars and preemptive wars, whether the media does or not.

[TAP]

I would highly recommend Project for a New American Century. It uses a broad stroke and is not the typical streamlined version of the doctrine you see when using a search engine, various media outlets discussing it, or like we saw during the Palin controversy over the doctrine. Been years since I read it myself so I obviously cant go through it line by line, but its an interesting read and its actually shocking how such a thing so quickly became reality.

The few issues I raised are certainly in this doctrine, but if the two of you don't see it, then we're just gonna have to agree to disagree because I don't have it on hand and wont spend hours on end digging for excerpts from it.

I wouldn't be surprised if stuff like that is in there but those points don't really seem anything new or different from previous US foreign policy and don't really sound very controversial. The stuff in the streamlined version is what divided opinion.