Obama's Foreign Policy: Ideology and Repercussions (Victor David Hanson)

In his lecture Hanson focuses on Obama's post-modern agenda (mainly his view on utopian pacifism, multiculturalism, and cultural relativism), his cynical anti-bush agenda, the ongoing appeasement of traditional enemies of the U.S. (namely Iran and Russia) and neglecting traditional allies (Britain, Israel and eastern Europe countries). Henson also criticizes the crippling effect of the U.S's debt which is spiraling out of control, etc.. Hanson also criticize the futile an ineffective focus on nuclear weapons from a military historical perspective and finally compares Obama's presidency to that of Jimmy Carter and the repercussions on world peace and the United States itself.

See the full lecture here:
http://www.davidhorowitztv.com/retreat/2010/297-hanson

About Victor David Hanson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Obama
• Foreign
• Policy
• Ideology
• Repercussions
• Outcome
• military
• history
• philosophy
• post-modern
• multiculturalism
• cultural
• relativism
• Bush
• allies
• enemies
• appeasement
• Iran
• Russia
• Britain
• Israel
• Europe
• debt
• nuclear
• weapons
• Jimmy
• Carter
• United
• States
• U.S.
• world
• peace
• Joniversity

[rollotwomassey]

This man's views should be the default position of this country's political, intellectual and media class.

[Nasiruddin84]

@spader49

No you're naive. P.S.: I am no leftist at all and I give a fuck about those political labels that have lost their meanings decades ago. Have a nice life.

[spader49]

@Nasiruddin84 Do you know the difference between a lie and a mistake? Or do partisan delusions make it just impossible for you to accept anything other than leftist confirmation bias? A majority supported the war in the US legislative, democrats and republicans (H clinton voted for it, B clinton thought WMDs were there). On October 2002, congress voted on 23 reasons to go into Iraq, jingoism genocide etc not 'just' WMDs, which he would eventually have gotten, and had/used before. Learn history.

[JulianThePhilosopher]

@atheistworstenemy For example clinton sent 50 k us troops to prop up S. korea in the last attack. Obama did send a carrier group. Which really pales in real comparison.

[atheistworstenemy]

@JulianThePhilosopher And just what about his foreign policy is doing that to our Asian allies? what would you propose to be able to reasonably balance all interests there, and what exactly has he been doing differently from anyone preceding him?

[Nasiruddin84]

@JulianThePhilosopher

I wouldn't radicalize it like this. The US of A protect their traditional spheres of influence just by the threat of their overwhelming military might. All NATO and SEATO states can truly rely on the US doctrine of nuclear deterrence which everyone must take seriously. Also the US are definitively not a harmless enemy. Italy is a harmless enemy or Senegal. But I would also like a more determined US federal administration.

[Nasiruddin84]

@JulianThePhilosopher

Sorry man, GWB was everything but a no-nosense president. He started a war with a lie, that actually didn't need a lie to start it. With a totally inefficient troop number dictated by his idiotic Sec of D despite the advice of all generals with half a brain. Also he alienated his traditional European allies. One thing that is positive about Bush that he was determined and did at least something. But I would not call him a no-nosense president ;-)

[JulianThePhilosopher]

@Nasiruddin84 In a nutshell, Obama's foreign policy is as Mark Styen says " America, harmless as an enemy, treacherous a friend."

[JulianThePhilosopher]

@Nasiruddin84 is a no nonsense president he makes it clearly known who America's friends are, and who America's enemies are. Obama's foreign policy is leaving its Asian allies thinking if America has the backbone to support them, if push comes to shove.

[JulianThePhilosopher]

@Nasiruddin84 Yes you are correct VDH is not by-partisan here, he is clearly on the republican side. Hes makes no secret of endorsing Sarah Palin, who i don't support because it think it is damaging to the conservative agenda in the long run. I also agree that having a date of pulling out = win for the taliban. It is like telling the taliban, just hold on till 2011 and then you can win. The main message VDH here is that the U.S should support its allies, and be harsher on its enemies

GWB (cont)