Two contrasting opinions on foreign policy expressed, one quite astute and succinct while the other is naive and pandering. You decide which one is which.
The second video...
I am sure most people would be on the same page as to which video fit which category.
However...there are a few things to add.
First is that while Abdullah speaks truth about the threat ISIS poses and the actions which should be taken in regards to their aggression, he is speaking in the context of the Middle East and specifically Jordan. ISIS in its present form poses no existential threat towards the United States. Of course this fact is no reason not to be pro-active, nor turn a blind eye to ISIS.
Hug Offensive
On Hillary Clinton...well, what can you really say??? This is one of the more inane statements expressed in the foreign policy realm I have heard in some time. Vicariously feel and envisage the enemies' emotional state so we can understand their point of view and reach out to them? Sigh...
It's wondering that with the amount of history and the huge number of tyrants and oppressive regimes known to the human consciousness, to hear our potential leaders and intellectuals utter such nonsense is mind-blowing. Subsequently when dealing with organizations such as ISIS et al extreme violence and unadulterated savagery--in the Maori sense--seems an appropriate course of strategy. Not making our center of gravity some neo-Freudian Einfühlung based hug-fest with a bunch of murderous, depraived, psychopaths. This isn't policy or "smart power" it's disaster.
Now we know that the average Occupier might buy into this frayed end of reasoning. After all, who knows more about foreign policy than a recent unemployed graduate from Skidmore with a gender studies degree under their belt? But...Hillary Clinton? No, HRC doesn't buy into this poppycock, but she is politically savvy enough to know that the average Progressive is naive enough to believe it. Consequently she is fully invested in trying to prove her Proggie bona fides by engaging in the most ridiculous of statements to gain the Democratic base's support for 2016.
Whichever political camp you might fall into or whatever your view on foreign policy we all must agree projecting this naive viewpoint, even just to score political points with your base, is dangerous. The precedent it sets vocalizes our potential leaders' willingness to seemingly capitulate to our worst enemies' perspectives. And that no matter how you slice it is alarming.
Continue reading ...
The second video...
I am sure most people would be on the same page as to which video fit which category.
However...there are a few things to add.
First is that while Abdullah speaks truth about the threat ISIS poses and the actions which should be taken in regards to their aggression, he is speaking in the context of the Middle East and specifically Jordan. ISIS in its present form poses no existential threat towards the United States. Of course this fact is no reason not to be pro-active, nor turn a blind eye to ISIS.
Hug Offensive
On Hillary Clinton...well, what can you really say??? This is one of the more inane statements expressed in the foreign policy realm I have heard in some time. Vicariously feel and envisage the enemies' emotional state so we can understand their point of view and reach out to them? Sigh...
It's wondering that with the amount of history and the huge number of tyrants and oppressive regimes known to the human consciousness, to hear our potential leaders and intellectuals utter such nonsense is mind-blowing. Subsequently when dealing with organizations such as ISIS et al extreme violence and unadulterated savagery--in the Maori sense--seems an appropriate course of strategy. Not making our center of gravity some neo-Freudian Einfühlung based hug-fest with a bunch of murderous, depraived, psychopaths. This isn't policy or "smart power" it's disaster.
Now we know that the average Occupier might buy into this frayed end of reasoning. After all, who knows more about foreign policy than a recent unemployed graduate from Skidmore with a gender studies degree under their belt? But...Hillary Clinton? No, HRC doesn't buy into this poppycock, but she is politically savvy enough to know that the average Progressive is naive enough to believe it. Consequently she is fully invested in trying to prove her Proggie bona fides by engaging in the most ridiculous of statements to gain the Democratic base's support for 2016.
Whichever political camp you might fall into or whatever your view on foreign policy we all must agree projecting this naive viewpoint, even just to score political points with your base, is dangerous. The precedent it sets vocalizes our potential leaders' willingness to seemingly capitulate to our worst enemies' perspectives. And that no matter how you slice it is alarming.
Posts
