As of late, vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden has made some interesting statements in the media. He is Obama’s running mate and everyone would think that he would mostly agree with what Obama has to say. But recently he made a comment about Obama’s problems he will face if he wins the election, and he also commented on the Iran and Israel issue.
Apparently Biden was quoted saying “Israel would have to ‘reconcile’ itself with a nuclear Iran” That got huge attention in the media and of course a spokesman for Biden denied that he ever said that. Someone in the Israeli foreign ministry said that wouldn’t sound like a comment Biden would make, so I thought that was a very controversial incident.
On top of all of that Biden also mentioned that Obama could have some tough times right away if he gets into office. The news of this first broke on ABC about a week or two ago. Biden was quoted saying “Barack Obama will be tested by a major international crisis in the first potential six months of his presidency.” That fueled McCain’s argument and he asked if America should elect someone that invites testing from other countries. Could it be Iran that does that testing? Biden seems to be saying things he might end up regretting in the future.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama week 4 pt 1 by Ryan Hanson
The country of Israel is a very touchy subject because it relates to Iran. Israel obviously has their own issues going on with the Palestinians but if Iran ends up building nuclear devices it becomes a threat to Israel, which is one of the United States only allies in the Middle East. So with Iran as a possible threat to ‘blow Israel off the face of the earth,’ that eventually means the U.S. will have to step in at some point, but how will we intervene?
Senator Obama agrees that Israel is one of our strongest allies and we shouldn’t let anybody jeopardize their safety. He mentioned that President Ahmadinejad wanted to try to have another holocaust. Israel is a fellow democracy and we have learned in class the usually democracies do not fight with each other so it is important to have an ally in that part of the world.
Obama said “President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.” Having a president that even mentions the word holocaust is never a good thing. Obama’s plan is to obviously sanction Iran, but also to try and talk with them, maybe settle this in a peaceful way so no innocent people have to die. Whomever wins the election will have to realize that Iran is possible threat and this situation will be a hot topic in the administration.
Senator Obama agrees that Israel is one of our strongest allies and we shouldn’t let anybody jeopardize their safety. He mentioned that President Ahmadinejad wanted to try to have another holocaust. Israel is a fellow democracy and we have learned in class the usually democracies do not fight with each other so it is important to have an ally in that part of the world.
Obama said “President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.” Having a president that even mentions the word holocaust is never a good thing. Obama’s plan is to obviously sanction Iran, but also to try and talk with them, maybe settle this in a peaceful way so no innocent people have to die. Whomever wins the election will have to realize that Iran is possible threat and this situation will be a hot topic in the administration.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Week 3 pt 2 by Ryan Hanson
Unlike Obama’s running mate, he has kept the option on the table to meet with Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This blog is going to be about how the two candidates feel about this man. Everyone knows that McCain doesn’t even want to talk to the president because he thinks that anyone he threatens to blow Israel off the map shouldn’t be tolerated with. In my opinion I don’t think that is the right thing to do because it could make the hatred between these two countries even worse and therefore make the tension increase.
Obama on the other hand has kept the option on the table to meet with him. Obama says that Iran has been acting irresponsible by supporting militant groups in Iraq.
“"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said."I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior.” Obviously he still thinks their needs to at least be a change in attitude there, but he isn’t going to go all ‘Bush’ on Iran and force a regime change. In my opinion I think that’s the right idea and talking never hurt anyone, plus it make our allies look at us in a different, more respectful view.
Obama on the other hand has kept the option on the table to meet with him. Obama says that Iran has been acting irresponsible by supporting militant groups in Iraq.
“"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said."I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior.” Obviously he still thinks their needs to at least be a change in attitude there, but he isn’t going to go all ‘Bush’ on Iran and force a regime change. In my opinion I think that’s the right idea and talking never hurt anyone, plus it make our allies look at us in a different, more respectful view.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Week 4, Item 1
by Jared Behrend
Sarah Palin and the Media
Sarah Palin has routinely made it a habit to claim the biased "filter" which the media represents. In a recent campaign speech she spoke of her desire to explain herself "without the filter of the media." Palin's repeated claims of the "unfairness" of the media, and its supposed bias hearkens back to President Bush's statements that the history will regard this period of time as successful, no matter what the current approval ratings and general state of dissaray show. If Palin is to become Vice President and have the possibility of being President with an aging McCain, do we as a country want another prominent politician that sees others, including well-educated members of the media, as merely biased, crass, misinformed, unfaithful traitors. Imagine a scenario with Iran that involves scores of members of the media reporting national as well as international thoughts on how best to handle a country like Iran and their nuclear proliferation, and Gov. Palin shunning those thoughts for her own inner circle of ideologues. This is dangerous, and Iran is in a delicate situation right now that requires diplomacy and exploration of many avenues, as is the case with many aspects of national and foreign policy. For Palin to turn her back on the media now reveals a fear of those who present a differing view of what is best for country and each citizen, and it is the necessity of these different views which keeps a democracy running.
here is a video of her recent reaction to the media's "outing" of her wardrobe costs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xoKfee4MpQ
Sarah Palin and the Media
Sarah Palin has routinely made it a habit to claim the biased "filter" which the media represents. In a recent campaign speech she spoke of her desire to explain herself "without the filter of the media." Palin's repeated claims of the "unfairness" of the media, and its supposed bias hearkens back to President Bush's statements that the history will regard this period of time as successful, no matter what the current approval ratings and general state of dissaray show. If Palin is to become Vice President and have the possibility of being President with an aging McCain, do we as a country want another prominent politician that sees others, including well-educated members of the media, as merely biased, crass, misinformed, unfaithful traitors. Imagine a scenario with Iran that involves scores of members of the media reporting national as well as international thoughts on how best to handle a country like Iran and their nuclear proliferation, and Gov. Palin shunning those thoughts for her own inner circle of ideologues. This is dangerous, and Iran is in a delicate situation right now that requires diplomacy and exploration of many avenues, as is the case with many aspects of national and foreign policy. For Palin to turn her back on the media now reveals a fear of those who present a differing view of what is best for country and each citizen, and it is the necessity of these different views which keeps a democracy running.
here is a video of her recent reaction to the media's "outing" of her wardrobe costs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xoKfee4MpQ
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Week 3, Item 3
By Jared Behrend
An article in today's New York Times, titled "Rivals Split on U.S. Power, but Ideas Defy Labels," McCain's and Obama's views on Iran's attempts at enriching uranium are outlined. John McCain's position is bolstered by his experience with war, his interest in war, and certain jokes he has made about war, "bomb bomb bomb Iran," as the article reports. The preponderance toward war, as well as McCain's support of Bush's Iraq War and the statements that the war "was easy" and that we were "greeted as liberators" show a mistaken idea of what war is and when the U.S. should become involved in it. In the case of Iran, a conflict over nuclear proliferation could ultimately lead to military action in a McCain led government it appears. This is not the right direction for our country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23policy.html?hp
An article in today's New York Times, titled "Rivals Split on U.S. Power, but Ideas Defy Labels," McCain's and Obama's views on Iran's attempts at enriching uranium are outlined. John McCain's position is bolstered by his experience with war, his interest in war, and certain jokes he has made about war, "bomb bomb bomb Iran," as the article reports. The preponderance toward war, as well as McCain's support of Bush's Iraq War and the statements that the war "was easy" and that we were "greeted as liberators" show a mistaken idea of what war is and when the U.S. should become involved in it. In the case of Iran, a conflict over nuclear proliferation could ultimately lead to military action in a McCain led government it appears. This is not the right direction for our country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23policy.html?hp
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Week 3, Post 1 by Ryan Hanson
A big decision topic dealing with Iran is if, or when we should sanction them. McCain is hard pressed to sanction Iran and basically cut them off from dealing with our country and other U.N. countries. Obama on the other hand, seems to have a different out look on the sanctioning process.
He agrees with wanting to sanction Iran but he seems to be looking at it in a bigger picture. What McCain fails to realize is that if we cut Iran off they will probably just end up looking to deal with other countries, countries that may not be the best of allies with the United States. For example, countries like China and Russia may be prime options for Iran to deal with. The huge fact in this is that Russia as a lot of nuclear material that Iran could get their hands on.
Obama wants to make sure the ties between the U.S. and these two countries are strong and reliable. Russia is a huge country and could be a power threat, and China’s economy is growing rapidly. These are concerns to the United States and I think that Obama will try to make a connection with them.
Although Obama and McCain seem to have the right idea on what to do with Iran, they still seem to have different outlooks and Obama seems to be looking at the situation in a more reasonable way than McCain.
He agrees with wanting to sanction Iran but he seems to be looking at it in a bigger picture. What McCain fails to realize is that if we cut Iran off they will probably just end up looking to deal with other countries, countries that may not be the best of allies with the United States. For example, countries like China and Russia may be prime options for Iran to deal with. The huge fact in this is that Russia as a lot of nuclear material that Iran could get their hands on.
Obama wants to make sure the ties between the U.S. and these two countries are strong and reliable. Russia is a huge country and could be a power threat, and China’s economy is growing rapidly. These are concerns to the United States and I think that Obama will try to make a connection with them.
Although Obama and McCain seem to have the right idea on what to do with Iran, they still seem to have different outlooks and Obama seems to be looking at the situation in a more reasonable way than McCain.
Week 2 Post 2 by Ryan Hanson
On October 7th the second presidential debate took place. The questions were asked by audience members and although it seemed like the questions were geared more towards issues in our own country, until there was a question about protecting Israel. That then opened up the option of talking about Iran.
McCain answered his “his friend’s” question by being very stern on how they should go about protecting Israel. Mentioning that he wouldn’t wait for the U.N. to help, he thinks that China and Russia will be a problem. He was basically looking at it in a realist’s perspective.
Obama on the other hand seemed to look at it in a more liberal way. “We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. When President Bush decided we’re not going to talk to Iran, we’re not going to talk to North Korea, you know what happened? Iran went from zero centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons to 4,000.”
He points out that the republicans way of dealing with this international issue hasn’t seemed to be working so far, so how would McCain’s point of view be any different. Obviously we need to take a different direction on this topic and it seems like Obama is the man for that job. He is open for talking with other countries, and maybe that will make other countries look at the United States in a different, yet better way.
McCain answered his “his friend’s” question by being very stern on how they should go about protecting Israel. Mentioning that he wouldn’t wait for the U.N. to help, he thinks that China and Russia will be a problem. He was basically looking at it in a realist’s perspective.
Obama on the other hand seemed to look at it in a more liberal way. “We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. When President Bush decided we’re not going to talk to Iran, we’re not going to talk to North Korea, you know what happened? Iran went from zero centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons to 4,000.”
He points out that the republicans way of dealing with this international issue hasn’t seemed to be working so far, so how would McCain’s point of view be any different. Obviously we need to take a different direction on this topic and it seems like Obama is the man for that job. He is open for talking with other countries, and maybe that will make other countries look at the United States in a different, yet better way.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Week 3, Item 2
McCain Links Iran to Al-Qaeda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynz02_UWyw
In making claims to the danger of a nuclear threat in Iran as well as a threat in general to peace in the Middle East, John McCain has made links between Al-Qaeda and Iran that have been proven false. In these attempts, McCain has misused information in order to try to link Iran directly in Al-Qaeda, directly in opposition to facts that there is no "significant evidence" of this link, or any Iranian financial or other support of Al-Qaeda's operations. By tying Al-Qaeda's actions and goal to Iran's, it appears Senator McCain attepts to make Iran's goals to be part of the same extremist identity that Al-Qaeda subscribes to, and in turn makes the claim that Iran is making actions that go beyond its state boundaries by supporting terrorist groups. Seeing a war on Iran as an extension of the so-called "War on Terror," Senator McCain may feel compelled to act in military offense toward Iran, though there is no evidence that this is supported by a great majority of officials in Washington. McCain's view of Iran's ties do not show any grounding in reality, and therefore should be very carefully examined. Identifying a country as a terrorist supporter is no small statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynz02_UWyw
In making claims to the danger of a nuclear threat in Iran as well as a threat in general to peace in the Middle East, John McCain has made links between Al-Qaeda and Iran that have been proven false. In these attempts, McCain has misused information in order to try to link Iran directly in Al-Qaeda, directly in opposition to facts that there is no "significant evidence" of this link, or any Iranian financial or other support of Al-Qaeda's operations. By tying Al-Qaeda's actions and goal to Iran's, it appears Senator McCain attepts to make Iran's goals to be part of the same extremist identity that Al-Qaeda subscribes to, and in turn makes the claim that Iran is making actions that go beyond its state boundaries by supporting terrorist groups. Seeing a war on Iran as an extension of the so-called "War on Terror," Senator McCain may feel compelled to act in military offense toward Iran, though there is no evidence that this is supported by a great majority of officials in Washington. McCain's view of Iran's ties do not show any grounding in reality, and therefore should be very carefully examined. Identifying a country as a terrorist supporter is no small statement.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Week 3, Post 1
By Jared Behrend
McCain's Identity Divisions - U.S. vs. "Arabs"
At a recent rally, John McCain faced questions regarding the safety of Barack Obama's potential presidency. At this rally he faced questions that revealed a certain identity he has credited with "Arabs" and the Middle East in general.
"Last week in Ohio, a woman at a rally expressed fear of Obama and called him "an Arab," McCain shook his head gravely and said "no, ma'am" and again defended Obama's character: "He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with."
-Newsday http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/opinion/viewsday/2008/10/the_decent_arab.html
In McCain's refutation of Obama's "Arab" background, he states Obama's "decent, family man" nature. Setting up this dichotomy of the "decent" Americans and therefore Indecent Arabs is the first step to completely discrediting a whole population of people, and in turn potentially discouraging any type of discussion between the nations. This surely is part of McCain's approach to Iran. Seeing them as non-democratic, indecent people, McCain's view of their legitimacy is greatly lessened, and therefore results in a completely black-and-white, us-versus-them identity conflict. Through building up negative attributes of the "enemy," Arab countries are separated from the U.S., and chances of any diplomatic gains are lessened. Each side then has more reason to disagree with the other side and both sides in turn are further from each other's identities. In addition, the message McCain sends to Americans is that Arabs are less than human, unfit for our western ideals. As some have said, with McCain's help, those of Middle Eastern descent have become the new ethnic group misunderstood and hated for their identity, showing an America moving in the wrong direction.
McCain's Identity Divisions - U.S. vs. "Arabs"
At a recent rally, John McCain faced questions regarding the safety of Barack Obama's potential presidency. At this rally he faced questions that revealed a certain identity he has credited with "Arabs" and the Middle East in general.
"Last week in Ohio, a woman at a rally expressed fear of Obama and called him "an Arab," McCain shook his head gravely and said "no, ma'am" and again defended Obama's character: "He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with."
-Newsday http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/opinion/viewsday/2008/10/the_decent_arab.html
In McCain's refutation of Obama's "Arab" background, he states Obama's "decent, family man" nature. Setting up this dichotomy of the "decent" Americans and therefore Indecent Arabs is the first step to completely discrediting a whole population of people, and in turn potentially discouraging any type of discussion between the nations. This surely is part of McCain's approach to Iran. Seeing them as non-democratic, indecent people, McCain's view of their legitimacy is greatly lessened, and therefore results in a completely black-and-white, us-versus-them identity conflict. Through building up negative attributes of the "enemy," Arab countries are separated from the U.S., and chances of any diplomatic gains are lessened. Each side then has more reason to disagree with the other side and both sides in turn are further from each other's identities. In addition, the message McCain sends to Americans is that Arabs are less than human, unfit for our western ideals. As some have said, with McCain's help, those of Middle Eastern descent have become the new ethnic group misunderstood and hated for their identity, showing an America moving in the wrong direction.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Week 2, Item 2
By Jared Behrend
The Second Presidential Debate this week once again brought up foreign policy questions, including a question from an audience member regarding Iran and their seeking of nuclear arms, and how this relates to our ally Israel.
The question: "If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?"
McCain's answer:
"Let -- let -- let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles."
McCain again states his intentions to act outside of the international community's established forum of the UN Security Council, asserting his assumption that in such an extreme case of actual Iranian aggression on Israel that Russia or China would not support U.S. or coalition involvement. McCain's view, as well as Obama's view is that we cannot provide ultimate veto power to the UN Security Council. This is an obvious and not surprising view for the candidates, as each country's sovereignty is important to maintain. Later in McCain's response, he again mentions the key part of his policy on Iran, which creates a "league of democracies." It is here that McCain reveals his realist perspective, maintaining that a rising nuclear power in Iran will upset the region and balance of power in the world, stating "It's a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East." By depriving Iran of economic means of survival as a country, McCain hopes Iran's aims of nuclear proliferation will be discouraged. With Israel the one real democracy in the Middle East, its existence surrounded by non-democratic nations is seen by realists as a force of change and potential "game-changer" in the region.
The Second Presidential Debate this week once again brought up foreign policy questions, including a question from an audience member regarding Iran and their seeking of nuclear arms, and how this relates to our ally Israel.
The question: "If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?"
McCain's answer:
"Let -- let -- let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles."
McCain again states his intentions to act outside of the international community's established forum of the UN Security Council, asserting his assumption that in such an extreme case of actual Iranian aggression on Israel that Russia or China would not support U.S. or coalition involvement. McCain's view, as well as Obama's view is that we cannot provide ultimate veto power to the UN Security Council. This is an obvious and not surprising view for the candidates, as each country's sovereignty is important to maintain. Later in McCain's response, he again mentions the key part of his policy on Iran, which creates a "league of democracies." It is here that McCain reveals his realist perspective, maintaining that a rising nuclear power in Iran will upset the region and balance of power in the world, stating "It's a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East." By depriving Iran of economic means of survival as a country, McCain hopes Iran's aims of nuclear proliferation will be discouraged. With Israel the one real democracy in the Middle East, its existence surrounded by non-democratic nations is seen by realists as a force of change and potential "game-changer" in the region.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Week 2, Item 1
By Jared Behrend
Vice Presidential Debate: Sarah Palin's Policy on Iran
The recent Vice Presidential debate on Thursday the 2nd presented an opportunity for Sen. John McCain's running mate, Alaska Governer Sarah Palin to bolster her delegation's stance on important issues, including our nation's view of our relationship with Iran. In many ways she reiterated McCain's official view on Iran, when she stated "An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period." She discusses the inherent threat to Israel this will create, aligning the United States' interests again with Israel's. Palin in this instance draws a distinction of identities between the U.S. and Iran, which is used to show that Iran is not a nation which believes in the Western ideals of democracy, as she relates President Ahmadinejad to dictators such as Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il. She also alludes to the disruption of a balance of power between democratic nations and theocratic nations and dictatorships. The realist ideals of McCain's form of Republicanism shine through in Palin's descriptions of the necessity of foreign policy, characterized by her discounting of Obama's plan to meet diplomatically with nations such as Iran, albeit by mischaracterizing Obama's statement by stating that he would meet without any lower-level diplomatic preparations. She stated that Obama's ideas on Iran go "beyond naivete" and "beyond poor judgment" including her ideas of their "downright dangerous" nature. It seems that Palin has twisted this issue to make political gains for herself and her running mate, discounting the options available for dealing with the rise of a nuclear Iran.
Full transcript of the Vice Presidential Debate can be found at:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=84382
Vice Presidential Debate: Sarah Palin's Policy on Iran
The recent Vice Presidential debate on Thursday the 2nd presented an opportunity for Sen. John McCain's running mate, Alaska Governer Sarah Palin to bolster her delegation's stance on important issues, including our nation's view of our relationship with Iran. In many ways she reiterated McCain's official view on Iran, when she stated "An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period." She discusses the inherent threat to Israel this will create, aligning the United States' interests again with Israel's. Palin in this instance draws a distinction of identities between the U.S. and Iran, which is used to show that Iran is not a nation which believes in the Western ideals of democracy, as she relates President Ahmadinejad to dictators such as Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il. She also alludes to the disruption of a balance of power between democratic nations and theocratic nations and dictatorships. The realist ideals of McCain's form of Republicanism shine through in Palin's descriptions of the necessity of foreign policy, characterized by her discounting of Obama's plan to meet diplomatically with nations such as Iran, albeit by mischaracterizing Obama's statement by stating that he would meet without any lower-level diplomatic preparations. She stated that Obama's ideas on Iran go "beyond naivete" and "beyond poor judgment" including her ideas of their "downright dangerous" nature. It seems that Palin has twisted this issue to make political gains for herself and her running mate, discounting the options available for dealing with the rise of a nuclear Iran.
Full transcript of the Vice Presidential Debate can be found at:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=84382
Week 2, post 1 By Ryan Hanson
This week’s vice presidential debate was interesting to say the least. I was really looking forward to hear what the candidates had to say about their opinions and views on certain topics. When Iran was brought up, I could tell that they both had there own opinions on the matter. When both candidates were asked if Iran or Pakistan was the greater problem, neither of them happened to say Iran. Sarah Palin said Iraq was their main problem, while Senator Biden said that Pakistan was more important than Iran.
Biden mentioned that Pakistan was more of a serious threat than Iran because Pakistan has a huge amount of Al Qaeda members, could be hiding Osama Bin Laden, and harboring terrorist activities. Both candidates did mention about sitting down and talking the Iran’s president and both candidates supported their running mates views. Palin backed up McCain and said there would be no sitting down and talking with president Ahmaddinejad, while Biden agreed with Obama and said that there needs to be some sort of talking going on with Iran. Biden also mentioned that our allies have wanted us to talk with Iran and we should listen to them if we want them to back us up on our decisions. Another interesting point Biden made was, McCain wouldn’t even sit down and meet with the president of Spain. Spain happens to be one of our allied countries too.
So I believe both candidates did well in the debate and I enjoyed hearing their opinions. This was the only debate that the two will have so from now on America will just be hearing from the presidential nominees.
Biden mentioned that Pakistan was more of a serious threat than Iran because Pakistan has a huge amount of Al Qaeda members, could be hiding Osama Bin Laden, and harboring terrorist activities. Both candidates did mention about sitting down and talking the Iran’s president and both candidates supported their running mates views. Palin backed up McCain and said there would be no sitting down and talking with president Ahmaddinejad, while Biden agreed with Obama and said that there needs to be some sort of talking going on with Iran. Biden also mentioned that our allies have wanted us to talk with Iran and we should listen to them if we want them to back us up on our decisions. Another interesting point Biden made was, McCain wouldn’t even sit down and meet with the president of Spain. Spain happens to be one of our allied countries too.
So I believe both candidates did well in the debate and I enjoyed hearing their opinions. This was the only debate that the two will have so from now on America will just be hearing from the presidential nominees.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
By Ryan Hanson
Last Fridays presidential debate touched a lot on foreign policies, but the one specific topic was how the United States are going to deal with Iran and their nuclear proliferation, which just happens to be our group topic. Throughout the debate Senator McCain and Senator Obama shared a lot of similar views, until it came down to discussing Iran. Obama seemed to have more of a liberalist perspective compared to McCain’s more realist ideas. One interesting point that Obama made was that Iraq was one of Iran’s biggest enemies and the Bush Administration took Iraq out. So that means we just gave Iran more confidence to build up on their nuclear weapons.
Where the two candidates disagreed the most was on meeting with Iran to talk about their nuclear plans. McCain wouldn’t want to sit down with President Ahmadinejad at all, Obama said he would sit down and talk with him because he mentioned that the ‘no talking’ idea with North Korea doesn’t seem to be working right now, so why would the United States continue that plan with Iran. McCain said that we should team up with ONLY democratic states to impose sanctions on Iran. I have to agree with Obama on this topic because Obama said we need more countries then just the democratic ones. We need China and Russia because if we went on without those countries then Iran can just work with them, and who knows if Iran wouldn’t be able to get a hold of more nuclear supplies through Russia.
It was a very interesting debate and both candidates made their points made. Senator Obama did a great job and we will have to see how his vice presidential candidate does Thursday night on his debate.
Where the two candidates disagreed the most was on meeting with Iran to talk about their nuclear plans. McCain wouldn’t want to sit down with President Ahmadinejad at all, Obama said he would sit down and talk with him because he mentioned that the ‘no talking’ idea with North Korea doesn’t seem to be working right now, so why would the United States continue that plan with Iran. McCain said that we should team up with ONLY democratic states to impose sanctions on Iran. I have to agree with Obama on this topic because Obama said we need more countries then just the democratic ones. We need China and Russia because if we went on without those countries then Iran can just work with them, and who knows if Iran wouldn’t be able to get a hold of more nuclear supplies through Russia.
It was a very interesting debate and both candidates made their points made. Senator Obama did a great job and we will have to see how his vice presidential candidate does Thursday night on his debate.
Week 1, Item 2
By Jared Behrend
McCain foreign policy points at September 26 Presidential Debate
In outlining his ideas of the American role in Iran, Senator McCain invokes the Holocaust to warn of the possibility of this occurring again if a nuclear weapon-equipped Iran rises in the Middle East. He insists that a UN Security Council resolution is difficult because of Russia’s presence in that forum, and sees the solution being a “League of Democracies” in which “a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world's economic power… impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect.” An important question to raise is whether there is significant support from other democracies. Some countries he names as potentially being part of the League, “with the French, with the British, with the Germans” have shown much hesitance, mainly the French and Germans, in American goals and aggressions in the Middle East and throughout the world. Assuming that democracies share common ideas on foreign policy is flat-out wrong and the “League of Democracies” would just become another “Coalition of the Willing” as the American-led invasion of Iraq was billed. That is, it would mainly be the United States’ own coalition. What McCain’s plan leaves out is the potential multinational support the U.S. might receive if McCain’s plan reached out to non-democratic countries in support of economic sanctions on Iran. As raised in class, an important question to ask is what countries the U.S. sees as being “Democratic” and in what way do they judge the “democraticness” of a state.
Full transcript of September 26th's debate available at
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78691
McCain foreign policy points at September 26 Presidential Debate
In outlining his ideas of the American role in Iran, Senator McCain invokes the Holocaust to warn of the possibility of this occurring again if a nuclear weapon-equipped Iran rises in the Middle East. He insists that a UN Security Council resolution is difficult because of Russia’s presence in that forum, and sees the solution being a “League of Democracies” in which “a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world's economic power… impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect.” An important question to raise is whether there is significant support from other democracies. Some countries he names as potentially being part of the League, “with the French, with the British, with the Germans” have shown much hesitance, mainly the French and Germans, in American goals and aggressions in the Middle East and throughout the world. Assuming that democracies share common ideas on foreign policy is flat-out wrong and the “League of Democracies” would just become another “Coalition of the Willing” as the American-led invasion of Iraq was billed. That is, it would mainly be the United States’ own coalition. What McCain’s plan leaves out is the potential multinational support the U.S. might receive if McCain’s plan reached out to non-democratic countries in support of economic sanctions on Iran. As raised in class, an important question to ask is what countries the U.S. sees as being “Democratic” and in what way do they judge the “democraticness” of a state.
Full transcript of September 26th's debate available at
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78691
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
