English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

US Foreign Policy Set to Change Dramatically

OneWorld.net - Thu Nov 9, 10:37 AM ET
Avg. Rating: 4.9
WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (IPS) - The abrupt replacement of Pentagon chief, Donald Rumsfeld, by former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Robert Gates, combined with the Democratic sweep in Tuesday's mid-term elections, appears to signal major changes in United States foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.

2006-11-10 00:23:17 · 11 answers · asked by MaSTeR 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

11 answers

If war was ever a worthwhile venture it would be different. But this is not war, it's a battle ground for control of a region and it's resources. Unfortunately it's still out of control with no real solution in sight. The Bush wealth wagon loaded with oil realizes that the loss of control means loss of wealth and the demise of an industry full of greedy corporate fat cats sucking blood from hard working commoners dependent on fuel to eke out a living. Democrats somehow always seem to botch something and lose their governmental footage leaving the people without a prayer and under the feet of the Corporate based mentality of the Republicans. Hopefully this will change and maybe the Democrats can keep their zippers up. Unfortunately the surplus was squandered by Bush and replaced with a national debt that will trickle down to your great grandchildren.

2006-11-10 00:45:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would certainly hope some common sense is engaged to stop Dubya, or at least slow him down a bit.
What a strange turn of events when Rumsfeld decided to "Cut andRun". I also noticed that other than Rumsfeld, his replacement Gates, Bush, and reporters were the only people present at the press conference Wednesday. Laura Bush was not there, nor was Cheney. Where were all of Bush's best buds? I guess they did the "Cut and Run" too.
Is it just me or did Dubya look like he ate crow, in his meeting with Pelosi. She was all perky, and happy. Bush on the other hand, did look very strange. He was slumped in his chair, his head hung low, and tilted rather oddly. Kind of like a child, who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, sitting on the time-out chair. He would not look at Pelosi directly in the eye.
I am thankful to my fellow Americans who had the sense to weaken Bush's dictatorial direction. On Tuesday, we may have avoided becoming The New Western Germany.

2006-11-10 23:45:37 · answer #2 · answered by Schona 6 · 0 0

Sure but lets not get ahead of ourselves. The first order of business will be to raise taxes increase regulations and stiffle the economy. A bad economy is good for the Democrat party, and will insure a victory in the 2008 elections. Lucky for us the sunset provisions on the Bush tax cuts will allow us to raise taxes by simply not extending the tax cuts.

Step two is to make sure we lose the war against the Islamo fascist. We can do that by undermining our troops in harms way and talking down their value. John Kerry will report for that duty for that job.

One way to insure economic ruin is to place more of the economy under government control. We'll do that the same way it was done in WWII Germany. We'll regulate wages and prices and increase pointless enviromental regulations to limit the contruction of additional industrial capacity to almost zero.

Bush is a lame duck. So we don't need to stop him. Republicans in Congress will do that for us.

2006-11-10 08:47:40 · answer #3 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0 0

I believe and hope that American voters fed up of the war in terms of its humanitarian cost and its effect on the national economy, combined with anti-war voices from around the world, can keep working to change US foreign policy. It happened with Vietnam, it can happen with Iraq.

The election of a number of pro-impeachment candidates suggests that things might get darn interesting...

2006-11-10 08:32:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

If what the world has just witnessed in the US and the vote primarily anti-bush-war. Yes, the US will remove it's self from the middle east with as little fanfare as possible-----Save face.

2006-11-10 08:29:49 · answer #5 · answered by aramara3010 2 · 0 1

I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, Bush has made such a mess in Iraq that there will be many more American lives lost there before it's over.

2006-11-10 08:47:23 · answer #6 · answered by redhairedgirl 5 · 0 0

Believe me, they have no desire to. They're all in it together. It's just a slight change in policy. They have to make it look real, you know. Caution must be taken so as to not move too fast, and arouse suspicion.

2006-11-10 18:39:06 · answer #7 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 0 0

they will have their work cut out for them repealing the acts recently passed and Bushs new legislation that hes trying to pass before congress exits

2006-11-10 10:25:25 · answer #8 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0 0

Run run run said the Democrat, those bad people hurt some of our troops. Where do we go to surrender?

2006-11-10 10:13:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

then why did they vote to give Bush the power to go to war

2006-11-10 20:39:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers