First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Our Spineless President Obama Is Spineless.
25640 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

BlueOni wrote:
Which would have entailed his doing ____________.


Hmm, there are a few options, I guess. Starting a larger arms race, embargo, blockade. A combination of those three should bankrupt any country in the world. The third act, blockade, would likely only come into effect after a significant military lead was established by the first two measures.

At some point, they're going to be forced to give up their military build-up and will probably want to negotiate to remove embargo, which means they're going to be a bit nicer.

That's the standard way of dealing with this sort of thing, as far as I know. Not sure if there are other methods.
Ejanss 
16435 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
Our redundant poster is redundant.
17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
You forgot to mention that Trump will fix all of our problems
3696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
Trump already ruins it with china through the last speak with them?
Also the Russians should be "Forced" back.

Them Russians can be quite the bullies and looking for trouble.
But who isn't?

Also why you shouldn't depend on "one guy" to do the work...
Silly USA.
Humms 
11793 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
Did he recently fight Sub Zero?
37069 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16

Kavalion wrote:

Hmm, there are a few options, I guess. Starting a larger arms race, embargo, blockade. A combination of those three should bankrupt any country in the world. The third act, blockade, would likely only come into effect after a significant military lead was established by the first two measures.

At some point, they're going to be forced to give up their military build-up and will probably want to negotiate to remove embargo, which means they're going to be a bit nicer.

That's the standard way of dealing with this sort of thing, as far as I know. Not sure if there are other methods.


Well, the arms embargo the US had with Vietnam was lifted in response to Chinese regional aggression, and Seoul has been purchasing weapons and vehicles like crazy in response to North Korean sabre rattling and nuclear arms development. Shinzo Abe has been working toward some changes in the Japanese constitution to allow for greater freedom for their defence forces. It looks like the arms race wheels have already been turning. An embargo with China probably wouldn't be possible without seriously injuring the US economy simultaneously, and considering the Chinese government is a major purchaser of US bonds I don't think it would be an especially good idea to piss them off too much even if the US also cannot simply capitulate to them. Not because they'd "call in the debt" (that sort of borrowing doesn't work that way), but because it would sever future lines of credit with a major US creditor. As for a blockade, the Chinese navy has proven itself to be pretty obstinate and aggressive in the past from what I understand, even going to the point that they surrounded an unarmed US vessel and harassed it for days at one point. I'm not sure what to read from those tea leaves beyond "It's risky", and honestly that's just a laywoman outsider's view. A foreign policy expert I am not.

But anyway, my broader point was that the Obama administration has been particularly aggressive in its pursuit of foreign policy objectives. That remains true whether one believes that pursuit is driven purely by genuine concern for US interests (as the Obama and Clinton wing of the Democratic Party asserts), purely by global economic actors' whims (as the OP asserts), or a combination of the two (as I'm inclined to believe). To say that Obama has been spineless and weak just doesn't make any sense given his record. The man's been more interventionist than W. Bush. That's one of the things I don't like about him.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.