Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Let's keep it realistic, what can he really do 6 months from now. What is within the purview of the President and feasible. So no free ice cream days or DOW at 20,000 but what can he do?

For me... The prison in Guantanamo is closed, everyone currently there is in the conventional legal system. Everyone implicated in illegal torture or illegal wiretapping of US citizen is at least under investigation.

I'd agree with that.

Unforunately, not being familiar with the US procedure for legislation, I dunno if it's possible in that time frame.

Assuming Obama has only one term in Office, I think the best he can hope for is to start several very important balls rolling. Like a withdrawal from Iraq, to concentrate on Afghanistan. Sure, Iraq is a mess, but staying their longer will not change that. Nail down Afghanistan, and Iraq will settle down, as more and more fighters will be drawn to a single area. Much easier to concentrate there.

I think he can start to restore peoples faith in the Presidency, after Dumbass more or less wrecked it by being, well, a dumbass.

I like the fact he is more keen on dialogue with Iran and China than taking up arms against them. We are facing a new world order here, and unless the US plays it's cards right, it will not necessarily play a big part. In short? It's time for the US to stop biting the hand that feeds it (being bankrolled by a country you constantly threaten to bring to heel is incredibly stupid. All they need to is call in all debt and *poof* America crumbles). I think it is necessary to rattle the sabre once in a while to remind them not to take the pee, but running around with it out all the time is not the answer.

Honestly, from a bluntly realistic perspective, I do not believe there is much of anything that this (or any) president could do in a time as short as 6 months that would make a significant difference in my life.

Even Obama himself tried to tell people that in his victory speech.

I fear that many of his most ardent supporters might become disenchanted with him merely because he cannot move as quickly as people expect because of the mechanisms of government.

People need to understand that, especially with the economy being down (resulting in decreased tax revenue regardless of how high you raise taxes), many of the projects and proposals that Obama has put forth are a long, long time away from being financially feasible. This is not a reflection on him, but some people won't have the ability to grasp that and blame him anyway.

And yet, by trying to say it in his Victory (Acceptance?) Speech, he has surely played a blinder. Change takes time, and he did his best to illustrate this not only to supporters, but the entire country.

Even if he ultimatley ends up achieving very little in a single 4 year stint, as I said above I am very confident he will lay solid foundations for change to be built upon.

We should see troops start to come home from Iraq.

Unfortunately they will be redeployed to Afghanistan though hopefully it will help turn the tide there.

Talking to Iran instead of threatening would be a good idea and might help open a general rapprochement with the Arab world.

The Israelis and Palestinians need to be made to sit down and negotiate again. An eye needs to be kept on Israel's more extreme manoeuvres.

It is an opportunity to mend any remaining strained relations with allies like France and Japan.

Something has to be done about Pakistan and I don't like the bomb over the borders idea -- it reminds me too much of the campaign in Laos during the Vietnam War.

That's foreign relations, there's also the economy to look at.

This is where I think Obama will be on shakey ground. He is inheriting a badly damaged economy from Bush.

Something needs to be done to rationalise the Paulson Plan and get it under control. It's outrageous that a major bank can accept 7 billion in federal aid and use it to pay this year's round of bonuses amounting to 6 billion. There should be investment bankers hanging from lampposts because of that.

The national debt needs to be got under control and this can't happen by giving tax cuts to the lower classes so tax needs to go up for the wealthy. If the borrowing can be stabilised, tax cuts for lower income earners will feed through into reduced private debt and economic growth.

Financial regulation needs to be examined and revised. There should be a long term plan about how to divest the government of whatever nationalisations it has had to do.

No major social issues can be tackled until the economy is stabilised and the nation is becoming more secure in the world.

Everything above can at least be started in the first six months.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think he can start to restore peoples faith in the Presidency, after Dumbass more or less wrecked it by being, well, a dumbass.

Don't pin the poor perception of the office of President on just GWB. Bill Clinton, who treated the Oval Office as party central, didn't do it any favors either. And as much as Reagan is admired today, the Iran-Contra and "I don't recall" answers didn't help. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being, but wasn't a very effective President. Ford, to quote Red Foreman, "How the hell could you pardon Nixon?". And Nixon - well, 'nuff said. LBJ was pretty admirable in some ways, but supposedly used to intimidate people by waving his large phallus at them. Kennedy, ah Camelot, and lots of women (I won't fault him for Marilyn Monroe) - apparently when he traveled, women would just show up at his hotel and spend the evening.

So, Bush the Elder (who went against his word and raised taxes), Ike, Truman, and FDR since the Depression. LBJ gets half a gold star, since the 'waving his penis' still isn't widely reported. And, overall, LBJ did a pretty good job with Civil Rights and while Vietnam was a quagmire, he replaced 'advisors' with soldiers making it more above-board than how Kennedy ran it.

As to the original question. I'd be happy if he gave the economy a boost by putting money into infrastructure - inspecting and repairing bridges and roads, building water treatment and sewage plants, building new sewer systems (and getting away from the older combined sewers - storm and septic), improving the electrical distribution grids, and building new nuclear and green electrical production plants.

Trouble is, having a moron at the head of your Government damages how your country is seen globally. After all, the President should surely represent the Zenith of your elite. And Dubya was the best you could manage?

It's about how that person deals with the world, and Bush was just an idiotic Warmonger. At least, that is how I and much of the world perceive him.

However, Obama has offered to *talk* to those who have a grudge against America. This is not kowtowing to them, as talks go both ways. An open dialogue means War is less of an option for both sides, but when all you do is rattle your sabre and label them evil, it becomes more attractive.

Did you see the other choices we had in 2000 and 2004? As South Park would say, 'often your choice is between a turd sandwich and a giant douchebag, because they're the only ones who kiss enough butt to get nominated.'

I'm not trying to defend Bush as a good president, he wasn't. But, he's not the only bad president the US has had either, and I'm amazed at how everyone is treating him like the only idiot to be there over the last 30 years. Clinton has a stack of academic credentials, but his inability to keep it in his pants, to me, is idiotic and shameful.

And I see the UN as a bunch of spineless bureacrats who do nothing to little to address international issues. Mostly because they have very poor ways of punishing any countries. "Stop that. Or I'll ask again." Where's been the UN in Dubai? How about the Balkans (10 years ago) or the Congo? They're slow to react and have to rely on (primarly the US) others to have any enforcement powers. While the decision to invade Iraq was based on flawed intelligence (but intelligence which was pretty widely accepted, at the time, as being mostly correct), waiting around for the international community to pull its collective head out of its collective hind-quarters, doesn't appeal to me either.

I'm curious if Obama would be willing to quickly deploy troops, or if he'll just wave a finger at someone and say, "please don't do that. No, really, I mean it. Hey, stop it." Military intervention should only be taken when all forms of diplomacy are exhausted. That's a very subjective criteria. But, it's like dealing with kids. If you tell them to do something three times before punishing them, they learn to ignore you the first two times. If you punish them after the first time, they learn to listen to you the first time.

I agree, that diplomacy should be the first step with Iran. But don't forget, that they let the hostages go after Reagan was in-office, and a lot of people felt it was because they were scared he would take military action against them (Iran). If everyone knows that Obama doesn't have the cojanes to take military action, all the talk won't do much good. I don't know if he does or not, but everyone knows that Bush certainly does.

And I love how the international community is now jumping on and bashing the US President. Dig your head of state through the mud, we don't need help dragging ours through it. Last time I checked, Blair was perceived as a warmonger, and who's the bigger fool - the fool or the one that follows the fool?

Thats the thing though. Bush was a 'Stick and The Stick' man whereas Obama is more 'Carrot and Stick' which is surely better suited to being a world leader.

It's like being a Black Belt, 2,000,000,000th Dann in Karate. No matter how hard you are, no matter how much you exude sheer Ninja, someone, somewhere, is going to start on you. And you have to give the three warnings of just how badly you are going to kick their ass, give them the chance to back down and walk away. This is (as I see it) Obama's approach. Everyone knows how big the US Military is, so surely having that behind you puts you in a strong bargaining position when exploring a dialogue.

He just needs to strike the balance. Yes, War is sadly necessary sometimes, as I am sure Iran and other countries know. But they would far rather seek a peaceful solution than a violent one. Bush did not offer that 'Do as I say or I'll kick your ass' breeds contempt and hatred. But 'look, I know I can kick seven shades out of you, but I don't think that is necessary'.

Besides, a unilateraly agressive stance suggests you feel threatened. And as anyone can tell you, the best way out of a fight is bravado!

The US military isn't currently big enough to handle more than it already has to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan, even while supported by the UK.

Until it admits Iraq is a lose/lose worse situation and pulls out. As many suspect, lockdown Afghanistan and give the Taleban a solid kicking, and Iraq will start to settle down.

I don't see how this man is going to do anything for me. I'm not saying he is or is not a good leader, I just don't see how it relates to me, good or bad.

What about a $400 tax refund?

And sounding irritatingly middle of the road, surely rather than not doing good, the fact you don't see anything bad is the important thing there?

Kilkrazy wrote:What about a $400 tax refund?

I take care of my own finances by not living beyond my means. If I don't have more than what I have it is my failure. I didn't earn that money. Who is paying for that tax refund?

You.

You paid the taxes, and you get a refund.

That said, my sister-in-law got a $370 refund a couple of months ago and hasn't lived in the USA for over four years.

Kilkrazy wrote:You.

You paid the taxes, and you get a refund.

That said, my sister-in-law got a $370 refund a couple of months ago and hasn't lived in the USA for over four years.

My understanding is that you're getting a refund because more money was witheld from your paycheck than what you owed. I'm getting that anyhow.

dietrich wrote:
And I see the UN as a bunch of spineless bureacrats who do nothing to little to address international issues. Mostly because they have very poor ways of punishing any countries. "Stop that. Or I'll ask again." Where's been the UN in Dubai? How about the Balkans (10 years ago) or the Congo? They're slow to react and have to rely on (primarly the US) others to have any enforcement powers.

True, no one will ever say the UN doesn't need the US, but it would be presumptuous to assume the inverse is not also true. Being able to sell a war is just as necessary as being able to prosecute it.

dietrich wrote:
While the decision to invade Iraq was based on flawed intelligence (but intelligence which was pretty widely accepted, at the time, as being mostly correct), waiting around for the international community to pull its collective head out of its collective hind-quarters, doesn't appeal to me either.

Actually, with the exception of the American media, very few people accepted the intelligence as correct. Moreover, just because you believe that the international community has its head 'in its hind quarters' does not make it so. There was no support for the Iraq conflict becayse Iraq was simple not a real issue.

dietrich wrote:
I'm curious if Obama would be willing to quickly deploy troops, or if he'll just wave a finger at someone and say, "please don't do that. No, really, I mean it. Hey, stop it." Military intervention should only be taken when all forms of diplomacy are exhausted. That's a very subjective criteria. But, it's like dealing with kids. If you tell them to do something three times before punishing them, they learn to ignore you the first two times. If you punish them after the first time, they learn to listen to you the first time.

Military interventions have to be correctly timed. You can't just rush off to war at the drop of a hat, unless the nation is in threat of imminent destruction, and even then only after the enemy has committed the initial act of aggression. That was the greatest failing of the Bush administration; going to war at a time when a weak economy would exacerbate their mistakes.

dietrich wrote:
I agree, that diplomacy should be the first step with Iran. But don't forget, that they let the hostages go after Reagan was in-office, and a lot of people felt it was because they were scared he would take military action against them (Iran). If everyone knows that Obama doesn't have the cojanes to take military action, all the talk won't do much good. I don't know if he does or not, but everyone knows that Bush certainly does.

Yep, that's when Iran had just come off a revolution and had little to no organizational structure. Now they have a government, and one that wants to survive, so they are responding to US aggression by developing nuclear arms.

Either way, military action has its place, and it isn't in a unilateral framework. If the Iranians invaded Iraq it would become very easy for the US, and the West as a whole, to justify smacking them back into place. Without that pretext you pretty much just have to let any perceived 'transgression' go by the wayside.

dietrich wrote:
And I love how the international community is now jumping on and bashing the US President. Dig your head of state through the mud, we don't need help dragging ours through it. Last time I checked, Blair was perceived as a warmonger, and who's the bigger fool - the fool or the one that follows the fool?

Well, our President is at the head of the most powerful state in the world. His decisions affect every nation, so I think the international community is entitled to a little bashing.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You.

You paid the taxes, and you get a refund.

That said, my sister-in-law got a $370 refund a couple of months ago and hasn't lived in the USA for over four years.

My understanding is that you're getting a refund because more money was witheld from your paycheck than what you owed. I'm getting that anyhow.

No, it's an economic stimulus package.

"Here's some money, now go and spend it."

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You.

You paid the taxes, and you get a refund.

That said, my sister-in-law got a $370 refund a couple of months ago and hasn't lived in the USA for over four years.

My understanding is that you're getting a refund because more money was witheld from your paycheck than what you owed. I'm getting that anyhow.

No, it's an economic stimulus package.

"Here's some money, now go and spend it."

Oh, ok. You said tax refund in your first post. I knew they were talking about another stimulus check in the works.

Refund uses up less electrons.

If I had to pick one thing related to homeland security / "terrorism"?

Hmm...

I'm OK with Gitmo - most of those guys are NOT good people, and it is safer for us that they're confined indefinitely.

The warrantless wiretapping is probably bad, but there's no way to know how big or bad it is. And besides, the relevant legislation is so exceptionally poor that it can can be persuasively argued to grant carte blanche to the Administration.

Given that the McCain-endorsed / Obama-opposed surge actually worked, it would be foolish to simply leave Iraq and hand it over to the bad guys.

However, security-wise, the whole airport thing is just stupid. So I'd revamp airport security to focus on the real issue of aircraft / cockpit security:
- *mandatory* cockpit doors on all flights in/out of the US
- *mandatory* firearms training and certification for all pilots and co-pilots
- *mandatory* handgun / shotgun in cockpits

That means we can roll back the clock on unnecessary screening in favor of hardening and defending the cockpit itself. So no more nonsense of checking shoes, confiscating bottled water, etc. No more "No fly list" that doesn't work. Just turn it off.

dietrich wrote:Where's been the UN in Dubai?

Why would we need the UN in Dubai?

Dubai is a prosperous middle-eastern country of the UAE experiencing explosive growth in recent years. I'm not aware of any UN peacekeeping needs there.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Given that the McCain-endorsed / Obama-opposed surge actually worked, it would be foolish to simply leave Iraq and hand it over to the bad guys.

You do know that eventually we have to leave, right? And that when we leave the Iraqi government will, no matter how long we're there for, in all likelihood be toppled.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
- *mandatory* firearms training and certification for all pilots and co-pilots
- *mandatory* handgun / shotgun in cockpits

Yes, let's put a gun in a confined space full of innocent people and sensitive avionics, and authorize a minimally qualified individual to use it. That makes a whole lot of sense.

If you want secure airlines you have to keep weapons off the plane. That means screening passengers.

So then, really, we're in a Korea situation?


Actually, it makes a ton of sense if you're not irrationally gun-phobic. I'm not suggesting that the people who are armed are as badly trained as the TSA monkeys at the airport. Nearly all airline pilots are ex-military - where do you think they got the hours of flight time to qualify as a commercial arline pilot? Most of them are *very* well-qualified and disciplined. I would feel a *lot* safer if I knew my pilot and copilot were armed behind an armored door.

Basically, this is a massive expansion of the existing sky marshal program that leverages existing flight professionals - the cockpit crew. Instead of having a small chance of having an armed Sky Marshal on a given flight, you are guaranteed of having 2 such individuals, one with a "long" weapon well-suited for close-quarters battle.

As long as you make it clear that their job is to defend the cockpit at all costs, then it is nearly impossible for a plane to be hijacked.

Also, TSA does a *terrible* job at screening passengers for weapons. Every time someone actually seriously tests the TSA's ability to keep weapons off the plane, they easily get weapons through the checkpoints. So for all the cost of screening, when you look at the effectiveness, it's almost totally not worth doing at all. The only thing screening needs to do is prevent hijackers from boarding with long weapons and large explosives. That is a fairly well-defined job that.

So, given that this doesn't work, it's better to armor and secure the cockpit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:So then, really, we're in a Korea situation?

We're in a great many similar situations. There are nearly 800 US military bases on foreign soil. Most of them do more to exacerbate tensions than to build security. Korea isn't one of them, but Iraq certainly would be.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Actually, it makes a ton of sense if you're not irrationally gun-phobic.

I'm not particularly gun phobic, but surely you can appreciate the problems inherent in taking point blank shots inside an aircraft. Especially with regard to shotguns. Bullets go through people man. You may kill the terrorist, but there is also a high probability for collateral damage.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not suggesting that the people who are armed are as badly trained as the TSA monkeys at the airport. Nearly all airline pilots are ex-military - where do you think they got the hours of flight time to qualify as a commercial arline pilot? Most of them are *very* well-qualified and disciplined. I would feel a *lot* safer if I knew my pilot and copilot were armed behind an armored door.

Actually, most Air Force pilots are not terribly well qualified marksmen, and they certainly have no experience relevant to the kind of close-quarters, high-sensitivity combat that would take place aboard an airliner.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Basically, this is a massive expansion of the existing sky marshal program that leverages existing flight professionals - the cockpit crew. Instead of having a small chance of having an armed Sky Marshal on a given flight, you are guaranteed of having 2 such individuals, one with a "long" weapon well-suited for close-quarters battle.

I already think that the Sky Marshal program is foolish in the extreme.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
As long as you make it clear that their job is to defend the cockpit at all costs, then it is nearly impossible for a plane to be hijacked.

So that terrorists can simply start killing passengers?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Also, TSA does a *terrible* job at screening passengers for weapons. Every time someone actually seriously tests the TSA's ability to keep weapons off the plane, they easily get weapons through the checkpoints. So for all the cost of screening, when you look at the effectiveness, it's almost totally not worth doing at all. The only thing screening needs to do is prevent hijackers from boarding with long weapons and large explosives. That is a fairly well-defined job that.

And yet there has not been a single hijacking in the US since 9/11. No amount of security will stop every determined individual with a death wish, and there are far fewer of them around than you seem to believe.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So, given that this doesn't work, it's better to armor and secure the cockpit.

Or admit that it isn't really that big an issue to begin with.

What can Obama do to make me happy? Move back to Chicago and leave me alone.

Seriously though, right now I do not see anything that he can do to make me happy. Stimulus anything - I will put it in the bank like the last one. Tax break - put it in the bank like the last one. Why not spend it to help the economy? What will I do 6 months later when the economy is still bad then? Still have money in the bank, thats what.

Spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow is the reason everything started tanking in the first place.

And as for 'talking' to 'hostile' nations - yeah right. Go ahead. Of course these rulers have gotten where they are by actually misleading, lying and by force. Even just a little bit of doubt that they can spark in any discussions will help their cause. Thats what they do. They didn't just get in their positions because of their happy dispositions. If discussion do happen though, I hope B.O.'s (or whoevers) will is strong enough to handle all the subterfuge.

Obama is in an odd position, because he has a hell of a lot of problems to fix, but an extremely low standard to live up to.

A set of goals that would allow for the withdrawal from Iraq, and a planned timetable to reach those goals would be good. He won't be out of Iraq at the end of the six months, but by the end of those six months people should have a reasonable idea about when troops will have withdrawn.

A new plan for Afghanistan, one that involves real infrastructure development and improvements in the lives of the Afghanis.

Steps towards improving relations with Iran.

Economically, well, who knows where the economy will be when Obama takes over?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I like the fact he is more keen on dialogue with Iran and China than taking up arms against them. We are facing a new world order here, and unless the US plays it's cards right, it will not necessarily play a big part. In short? It's time for the US to stop biting the hand that feeds it (being bankrolled by a country you constantly threaten to bring to heel is incredibly stupid. All they need to is call in all debt and *poof* America crumbles). I think it is necessary to rattle the sabre once in a while to remind them not to take the pee, but running around with it out all the time is not the answer.

You can't just 'call in' t-bills, they're fixed length debts. China also needs that debt as much as the US does. China's competitive international trading position is a result of keeping their dollar artificially low, which they maintain by putting more Chinese dollars on the market by purchasing US t-bills. The US is also a primary source of Chinese growth, their number one export market by far. If China was to try and sabotage the US economy, China would suffer more than the US.

dietrich wrote:Don't pin the poor perception of the office of President on just GWB. Bill Clinton, who treated the Oval Office as party central, didn't do it any favors either. And as much as Reagan is admired today, the Iran-Contra and "I don't recall" answers didn't help. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being, but wasn't a very effective President. Ford, to quote Red Foreman, "How the hell could you pardon Nixon?". And Nixon - well, 'nuff said. LBJ was pretty admirable in some ways, but supposedly used to intimidate people by waving his large phallus at them. Kennedy, ah Camelot, and lots of women (I won't fault him for Marilyn Monroe) - apparently when he traveled, women would just show up at his hotel and spend the evening.

So, Bush the Elder (who went against his word and raised taxes), Ike, Truman, and FDR since the Depression. LBJ gets half a gold star, since the 'waving his penis' still isn't widely reported. And, overall, LBJ did a pretty good job with Civil Rights and while Vietnam was a quagmire, he replaced 'advisors' with soldiers making it more above-board than how Kennedy ran it.

As to the original question. I'd be happy if he gave the economy a boost by putting money into infrastructure - inspecting and repairing bridges and roads, building water treatment and sewage plants, building new sewer systems (and getting away from the older combined sewers - storm and septic), improving the electrical distribution grids, and building new nuclear and green electrical production plants.

You're comparing starting a war on false pretenses and losing a whole city to flood and poor response management to sleeping around? Dude, seriously.

dietrich wrote:Did you see the other choices we had in 2000 and 2004? As South Park would say, 'often your choice is between a turd sandwich and a giant douchebag, because they're the only ones who kiss enough butt to get nominated.'

I'm not trying to defend Bush as a good president, he wasn't. But, he's not the only bad president the US has had either, and I'm amazed at how everyone is treating him like the only idiot to be there over the last 30 years. Clinton has a stack of academic credentials, but his inability to keep it in his pants, to me, is idiotic and shameful.

Nixon was worse. And it was Grant who killed all those Indians despite congress telling him not to? He was worse. Arguably Hoover as well. People might also make an argument for Carter being worse. But that’s probably it.

Your criticism of Clinton seems to be applying a criteria I just don’t understand. I have no idea why sleeping around would make someone a bad president.

And I see the UN as a bunch of spineless bureacrats who do nothing to little to address international issues. Mostly because they have very poor ways of punishing any countries. "Stop that. Or I'll ask again." Where's been the UN in Dubai? How about the Balkans (10 years ago) or the Congo? They're slow to react and have to rely on (primarly the US) others to have any enforcement powers.

You probably need to read more. For starters, the UN doesn’t have to do anything in Dubai, you’re thinking of Darfur. Many of these issues are vastly complex, and when you get ‘men of action’ who get stuck and start fixing things before they know how they work, you get the Bush administration. Stupid wars with no defined terms of success. And if you want a strong UN with greater resolve in fixing issues, I’d recommend your government support it properly.

While the decision to invade Iraq was based on flawed intelligence (but intelligence which was pretty widely accepted, at the time, as being mostly correct), waiting around for the international community to pull its collective head out of its collective hind-quarters, doesn't appeal to me either.

No, the evidence was broadly rejected. The only limits on the condemnation of the evidence put forward by the US was due to diplomacy, and the assumption that the US must really have some killer evidence, because they wouldn’t be stupid enough to invade a country if they didn’t absolutely know where the weapons were.

I'm curious if Obama would be willing to quickly deploy troops, or if he'll just wave a finger at someone and say, "please don't do that. No, really, I mean it. Hey, stop it." Military intervention should only be taken when all forms of diplomacy are exhausted. That's a very subjective criteria. But, it's like dealing with kids. If you tell them to do something three times before punishing them, they learn to ignore you the first two times. If you punish them after the first time, they learn to listen to you the first time.

Thinking of other nations as kids, and not complex actors with their own POVs and motivations is exactly what’s gone wrong with Bush admin foreign policy.

I agree, that diplomacy should be the first step with Iran. But don't forget, that they let the hostages go after Reagan was in-office, and a lot of people felt it was because they were scared he would take military action against them (Iran). If everyone knows that Obama doesn't have the cojanes to take military action, all the talk won't do much good. I don't know if he does or not, but everyone knows that Bush certainly does.

No, people know that US is currently incapable of engaging on a war on another front, because they’re committed to Iraq. It’s also very, very wrong to think of foreign policy as talking backed up by troops. There’s a lot of levels of debate before you get to military action.

And I love how the international community is now jumping on and bashing the US President. Dig your head of state through the mud, we don't need help dragging ours through it. Last time I checked, Blair was perceived as a warmonger, and who's the bigger fool - the fool or the one that follows the fool?

Meh, if you’re happy to be the big dog dominating world affairs, you should expect the rest of us to take an interest in your politics. And Blair was perceived as a war monger, his position became untenable and he left office. In Australia Howard was (eventually) voted out. They were smaller countries with vastly smaller relevance in starting the Iraq war, and far reduced international footprints so less people worldwide cared.