POLL: Shold US foreign policy become more aggressive?

So you think that Israel should leave, seal the border and bomb them back to the stone age at the first sign of agression? You might be right but it is a little harsh for my taste,

 

They're both equally as dangerous. This is not the YMCA pool, there are sharks in these waters.

The Islamist Thugs have a special problem, don't you think? If they weren't part of a religion we might almost be supporting them (at least until they start beheading our people on international TV).

I happen to believe that the two most important words in our Declaration of Independence are "to them", but this becomes a real problem when "to them" involves homicidal brutality. We pay lip service to democracy even when we don't like the outcome - and while we're paying said lip service, our CIA is in there overthrowing elected governments and installing puppet dictators.

I don't think "aggressive" is really the issue. I would say "smart" is more the issue. Bush walked around the planet like a bull in a china shop, and Obama fears to tread "at all" sometimes, and both of those approaches have a considerable downside.

 

and I think Obama has been handling it, we got Bin Laden even, now if Obama is considered "wimpy" then "wimpy" is ok, as it seems well balanced, I though would not call it wimpy, the poll did

.

 

I don't think Obama is "wimpy", I just think he isn't used to dealing with people like Putin.

I agree that wimpy is a whole lot better than evil (in most cases). But for specifics, the last guy thought he could look at Putin's soul, and this guy claims Putin is an "amateur". I'm not sure which one is more dangerous...

And, I would really like to know the extent of Obama's involvement in the "retaliation" against North Korea. What happened there, was he just trusting the information his FBI gave him, or was there something else in play?

 

Russia and the USA are just play acting, they both want anouther cold war so everyone else will leave them alone thinking the two big guys are at each other again

it will probably be decades before we know what really happened in with the NK thing, they wont release that, that will be classified top secret for sure

.

 

It should have been less agressive, and I am saying that as an "islamophobe". Iraq, Syria, even Iran are relatively tolerable. If those regimes were to fail, what would appear in their place would more likely resemble the Islamic State than any pro-western government. US interventions should have ended with Afghanistan.

Even Israel is often doing more harm than good with its policies. Public perception of Israel is more important than who gets a meaningless patch of desert over there. Give most of the disputed territories to Palestinians, treat them a little better, then when they attack (and they probably will), you can play the victim.


One exception is ISIS. It must be crushed. Thats where more aggression is a good idea.

 

Actually, he's improving, at least this one offers an actual choice.

Either he is a real troll (and he's not at all funny while keeping character better than Colbert) or the best example EVER of why we must NEVER again let there be a Republican Administration.

 

Sorry, I don't support military entitlement spending.

 

More efficient in endorsing American interests, may be [and not in endorsing the interests of others when not this generates advantages also for the US, for example to give aid to allies can be a good policy, but in some contexts Washington could decide to remain an observer ...], like the foreign policy of any power should be.

In the last years the United States have had a curious foreign policy without a clear and straight global strategy and this has created confusion in the American sphere of influence. I do wish to US that next administration will do better.