Skip to comments.Making Sense of an Apparently Senseless Foreign Policy
Posted on 03/07/2014 7:29:23 AM PST by Tugo
A segment of the American public must be yelling expletives whenever the results of our apparently incoherent foreign policy show up on their TV screens. Many can only react to our dealings with Syria, Iran, Libya, Israel, and now Russia with bewilderment and anger.
The news outlets that are balanced keep replaying the words of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, four years apart, predicting Russias intentions toward Ukraine. Watching those statements leaves us baffled as to why the mainstream media lampooned them when they accurately and perceptively anticipated Russias deviant move.
But let me explain whats going on. It does make sense if you understand the perspective:
Obama/Clinton/Kerry, et al, represent a segment of society with a worldview that churns the stomach of anyone with a Judeo-Christian worldview. Their worldview was known in the 20th century as secular humanism. Now it is called progressive ideology, but the only thing progressive about it is its name.
During the 1930s and 40s, that worldview began to invade the church. In 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, alerted Christendom to the danger, warning that it would result in some churches retaining Christian values without Christian faith.
How prophetic was that?
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelyoussef.squarespace.com ...
Those who believe in an all-powerful God who rules the universe can still take comfort. They must keep insisting that there is good and evil, for surely Judgment Day will come and prove them right.
It doesn’t matter which party is in power. We’ve had a senseless foreign policy for two decades. The one objection I have with the criticism of Obama’s foreign policy is that it implies that Bush’s was any better.
If you think that criticism of Obama’s foreign policy is an implication that Bush’s was somehow better, you sure have been ignoring the consensus on FR to the contrary, I think.
a) Weakens America/AmericansI have yet to have anyone raise a single substantive counter example in several years of posting this.
b) Distances America's allies
c) Strengthens America's enemies
d) Serves Islam
e) Harms Israel
Or some combination of the above.
The Democrats have taken the old saying, “In order to govern you must first win the election” to heart. They understand that saying backwards and forwards. What they fail to understand (or perhaps intentionally ignore) is that this saying is supposed to be built on a foundation. That foundation is that the election process is meant to give us the best person for a job. The “best person” used to be defined as the person who would get the most efficiency and effectiveness for the country/state/county/city from every hard-earned American taxpayer provided dollar. Winning the election is not the ultimate goal. Good governance is the ultimate goal. The Democrats run candidates who can win elections, but aren’t good at governing. Obama is proof of this. Think about Hillary, too. This leaves the Democrat party open to Con Men. If your party really doesn’t care about good governance, then a Con Man without any experience or training can be the party’s candidate. Why spend the time and effort to find a well-rounded, well-qualified and well-prepared candidate? Just find the candidate who can win. I give you Barack Obama and the Democrat Party and this comedy-of-errors they are trying to pass off as governance while they raid the treasury.
Did the previous emperor have on ragged cloths?
Hey, I was just going to post most of those very points.
Obama will ALWAYS choose who he supports based on who he hates; ranked according to his level of hatred for Israel and love of Islam...
If America against Israel, choose America.
If America against a European democracy, choose the Euro democracy.
If Euro-democracy against Euro-socialist nation, choose the Euro-socialist policy.
If Euro-socialist against Euro-Communist, choose the Euro-Communist state.
If Euro-Communist elected leader against Communist dictator, choose the Communist dictatorship.
If Communist-dictatorship against Euro/democratic Muslim state, choose the Euro-democratic Muslim state.
If Euro/democratic Muslim against Statist Muslim, choose the Statist Muslim leader.
If Statist Muslim against Muslim dictator/king, choose the Muslim dictator/king.
If Muslim dictator/king against Muslim theocracy, choose the Muslim theocracy.
If Muslim theocracy against Muslim fundamentalist theocracy, choose the Muslim fundamentalist.
If Muslim fundamentalist theocracy against Muslim extremists, choose the Muslim extremists.
Wow, you’ve got him pretty well pegged!
Yes, and if it is not initially clear which side is the most radical, stay out of it until it is. See Libya, Syria, Egypt...
It’s a joke.