"Foreign policy credientials" - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

creekster · 09-19-2008, 05:35 PM

I iwll add one thing, however, as much as Truman did well in his time, his time was unique. We were the benevloent conquerors of the world. The rest of the industrialized world was destroyed and/or demorlaized and the Soviets talked big but no one liked them. Plus, we had the bomb and had undeniable proof we were willing to use it. So it was a lot easier to do something like create NATO under those circumstances than it would be today.

Travis Henry · 09-19-2008, 05:36 PM

The funny thing is Truman was regarded as a rube throughout his presidency, not unlike W. I know this is not exactly an original point.

Things are likely to be ruled against W's favor 40-50 years from now- unlike Truman who experienced a reputation makeover. It's one thing holding the Soviet Union in check and ensuring that Western Europe and Japan remain free and democratic. It's another thing invading a relatively inconsequential country (besides the oil) and establishing a stable government (which remains to be determined).

The only possibility that Iraq turns out okay for Bush and is deemed to have been worth the trouble is if Iran starts causing more serious problems and military action is necessary. At that point having a large military presence on both sides of Iran will look like strategically brilliant moves (even though probably not intended). Of course, it also appears as if Iraq became the killing grounds for the US against islamic terrorists. Instead of having them crash planes into major landmark buildings and killing a few thousand people over here, they killed a lot more of their own people and allowed our military to annihilate them. So maybe there is some more hope for W.

BTW, I'm extremely curious to find out about the technology or method that Bob Woodward is referring to that has allowed the military to start wiping these guys out. I think the Times had a story on Predators being able to track these guys inside buildings somehow- is that possibly what Woodward is referring to. Is it the way the Predators track these guys that is so top secret?

SeattleUte · 09-19-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This comment once again underscores what should be obvious: with the presidency, judgment and intelligence are the critical factors we should look for. Experience is not. You have argued with me on this point in the past, but you are conceding the point here. If foreign policy can be learned "on the job," can't domestic policy too? What is the distinguishing factor in your mind?

I think you've got the wrong guy. I've never argued Obama lacked experience. Please don't mix me up with tex again.

SeattleUte · 09-19-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This comment once again underscores what should be obvious: with the presidency, judgment and intelligence are the critical factors we should look for. Experience is not. You have argued with me on this point in the past, but you are conceding the point here. If foreign policy can be learned "on the job," can't domestic policy too? What is the distinguishing factor in your mind?

Experience matters for your trial lawyer, your heart surgeon, or your military commander or football coach. It matters for the professions. Not for leadership. Note that businesses don't put the same premium on gray hair and experience as the professions do.

Archaea · 09-19-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Experience matters for your trial lawyer, your heart surgeon, or your military commander or football coach. It matters for the professions. Not for leadership. Note that businesses don't put the same premium on gray hair and experience as the professions do.

I disagree that the most difficult management position in the world doesn't require adequate experience in order to be qualified.

Is it a lone disqualifier? Apparently not.

But it is much different being a junior senator than being President.

Why do you believe we've had so many bad to average presidents if experience is not important? Bush had executive experience, so it's not the end all be all but it is important and NONE of the current candidates has appropriate executive experience.

SeattleUte · 09-19-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I disagree that the most difficult management position in the world doesn't require adequate experience in order to be qualified.

Is it a lone disqualifier? Apparently not.

But it is much different being a junior senator than being President.

Why do you believe we've had so many bad to average presidents if experience is not important? Bush had executive experience, so it's not the end all be all but it is important and NONE of the current candidates has appropriate executive experience.

As a practical matter W. Bush's experience was nil. Experience is good, it's just overrated for the presidency and Truman is a good example.

creekster · 09-19-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As a practical matter W. Bush's experience was nil. Experience is good, it's just overrated for the presidency and Truman is a good example.

Is a good example or the execption proving a rule?

Jeff Lebowski · 09-19-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

I guess you can say those things happened under him, not sure I would give him credit for them. It is, after all, the marshall plan, not the Truman plan. Btw, I give him credit for dropping the bomb, not blame.

They originally were going to call it the "Truman Plan". But Truman decided it would be easier to sell with the US public (who were initially overwhelmingly against giving all of that money to Europe when the US was rebuilding too) if they called it the "Marshall Plan". George Marshall carried tremendous gravitas at the time. I am not saying it was all Truman's idea, I am just saying that we shouldn't make too much of the name. Again, it is evidence of Truman's judgment.

Tex · 09-19-2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Carter had plenty of executive experience. How do you think he did as president?

I thought we were talking foreign policy experience. Care to elaborate on how much of that he had?

This from the guy who said, "What we need is a leader with some guts who will do what Carter did."

creekster · 09-19-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I thought we were talking foreign policy experience. Care to elaborate on how much of that he had?

I think he sold penauts to sum furriners, once.

09-19-2008, 05:35 PM	#21
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	I iwll add one thing, however, as much as Truman did well in his time, his time was unique. We were the benevloent conquerors of the world. The rest of the industrialized world was destroyed and/or demorlaized and the Soviets talked big but no one liked them. Plus, we had the bomb and had undeniable proof we were willing to use it. So it was a lot easier to do something like create NATO under those circumstances than it would be today. __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.

09-19-2008, 05:36 PM	#22
Travis Henry Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 63	The funny thing is Truman was regarded as a rube throughout his presidency, not unlike W. I know this is not exactly an original point. Things are likely to be ruled against W's favor 40-50 years from now- unlike Truman who experienced a reputation makeover. It's one thing holding the Soviet Union in check and ensuring that Western Europe and Japan remain free and democratic. It's another thing invading a relatively inconsequential country (besides the oil) and establishing a stable government (which remains to be determined). The only possibility that Iraq turns out okay for Bush and is deemed to have been worth the trouble is if Iran starts causing more serious problems and military action is necessary. At that point having a large military presence on both sides of Iran will look like strategically brilliant moves (even though probably not intended). Of course, it also appears as if Iraq became the killing grounds for the US against islamic terrorists. Instead of having them crash planes into major landmark buildings and killing a few thousand people over here, they killed a lot more of their own people and allowed our military to annihilate them. So maybe there is some more hope for W. BTW, I'm extremely curious to find out about the technology or method that Bob Woodward is referring to that has allowed the military to start wiping these guys out. I think the Times had a story on Predators being able to track these guys inside buildings somehow- is that possibly what Woodward is referring to. Is it the way the Predators track these guys that is so top secret? Last edited by Travis Henry; 09-19-2008 at 05:39 PM.