Jump to content

Obama's Foreign Policy


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 621
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How can people that don't really create anything come up with a creative solution?

 

Or should the American people stop being lazy and create something so Obama can take credit for it?

 

Is this passive aggressively leading from behind?

The man came into office with an ax to grind. He'll leave office with an ax to grind. We should expect him to grind his ax publicly for many years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man came into office with an ax to grind. He'll leave office with an ax to grind. We should expect him to grind his ax publicly for many years to come.

He came into office with a foreign policy of outreach and conciliation as a counterbalance to Bush's previous two terms. He got a peace prize for talking about it. Then all his BS went in a swirl down the toilet and every bad-acting foreign nation has run roughshod over him and our country. It will take years for someone else to unravel his mess. And it comes down to (A) continue his policies with his former Secretary of State, (B) a real estate guy, © someone who could no care less about foreign policy - except to open up the borders and make free trade agreements with everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think way too many people watched the West Wing and mistook it for a reality show.

 

The world is full of dictators, bullies and thugs. Always has been. Today, one is literally a petulant sociopath child with nuclear weapons.

 

This isn't a world long for eloquent diplomacy. It's more for gunship/battleship diplomacy.

 

Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have been on the wrong side of history a lot. Clinton missing Al-Qaeda. Bush with his Iraq circus. Obama with his Egyptian, Libyan, Iranian and Syrian circuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think way too many people watched the West Wing and mistook it for a reality show.

 

The world is full of dictators, bullies and thugs. Always has been. Today, one is literally a petulant sociopath child with nuclear weapons.

 

This isn't a world long for eloquent diplomacy. It's more for gunship/battleship diplomacy.

 

Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have been on the wrong side of history a lot. Clinton missing Al-Qaeda. Bush with his Iraq circus. Obama with his Egyptian, Libyan, Iranian and Syrian circuses.

 

 

So its BO's circus that is the middle east? A region with a continuous history of religious and political strife? What do you suggest should be done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So its BO's circus that is the middle east? A region with a continuous history of religious and political strife? What do you suggest should be done?

 

No, not the entire middle east - I'm pretty sure he was referring mainly to Iran, Syria, Libya, and Egypt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So its BO's circus that is the middle east? A region with a continuous history of religious and political strife? What do you suggest should be done?

Act in our own best interests and that of our close allies only. If there are actions in the ME that suit us economically and our security, do it. Otherwise ignore the medieval governments and population over there. They aren't worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to laugh at the latest meme that The Donald is too friendly with Putin.

 

 

A lot of media types seem to have plum forgotten Obama's hot mic promise that he'd be much more flexible for Putin after that pesky second-term election.

 

 

 

:D

 

2012 MSM: Romney's nuts for thinking Putin is bad!

 

2016 MSM: Trump's nuts for thinking Putin is good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you suggest should be done?

 

Note to anyone thinking about responding to this question: let me save you the trouble and break it down for you.

 

Baskin: What should be done with (fill in the blank)?

 

Anyone Else: Here is a list of well-thought out suggestions, with links to articles and stats that back up my suggestions.

 

Baskin: Are you kidding me with this stupid stuff? Bananas are the new orange!

 

Anyone Else: Uhhh...what? I just answered your question in a thoughtful and reasoned way. Did you read what I posted?

 

Baskin: I don't have to read it to know you're wrong. Typical right wing stupidity. Don't you know the hawk at noon is the sum of all its dim? Good bye for now!

 

 

Nailed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Note to anyone thinking about responding to this question: let me save you the trouble and break it down for you.

 

Baskin: What should be done with (fill in the blank)?

 

Anyone Else: Here is a list of well-thought out suggestions, with links to articles and stats that back up my suggestions.

 

Baskin: Are you kidding me with this stupid stuff? Bananas are the new orange!

 

Anyone Else: Uhhh...what? I just answered your question in a thoughtful and reasoned way. Did you read what I posted?

 

Baskin: I don't have to read it to know you're wrong. Typical right wing stupidity. Don't you know the hawk at noon is the sum of all its dim? Good bye for now!

 

 

Nailed it.

 

You forgot:

 

Baskin: Why doesn't the right ever offer any solutions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So its BO's circus that is the middle east? A region with a continuous history of religious and political strife? What do you suggest should be done?

 

Since the region is so riddled with strife, a smart leader wouldn't throw gasoline onto the fire like 44 has repeatedly done:

 

They could stop selling arms to monsters in the region, but 44 has done that at a faster rate than any other president since WW2.

 

They could stop trying to force regime change on Libya, Syria, and Yemen -- it's been shown time and time again to be incompatible with our political system.

 

They could stop funding Al Qaeda in Syria.

 

They could stop funding ISIS in Syria.

 

There are so many things 44 could do but hasn't because he's just marching to the same beat Bush was and Hillary will because they surrendered their foreign policy to the whims of arms dealers, central banks, and private contractors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Since the region is so riddled with strife, a smart leader wouldn't throw gasoline onto the fire like 44 has repeatedly done:

 

They could stop selling arms to monsters in the region, but 44 has done that at a faster rate than any other president since WW2.

 

They could stop trying to force regime change on Libya, Syria, and Yemen -- it's been shown time and time again to be incompatible with our political system.

 

They could stop funding Al Qaeda in Syria.

 

They could stop funding ISIS in Syria.

 

There are so many things 44 could do but hasn't because he's just marching to the same beat Bush was and Hillary will because they surrendered their foreign policy to the whims of arms dealers, central banks, and private contractors.

Do you actually believe that Bush would have done things in the same manner as Obama?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think way too many people watched the West Wing and mistook it for a reality show.

 

The world is full of dictators, bullies and thugs. Always has been. Today, one is literally a petulant sociopath child with nuclear weapons.

 

This isn't a world long for eloquent diplomacy. It's more for gunship/battleship diplomacy.

 

Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have been on the wrong side of history a lot. Clinton missing Al-Qaeda. Bush with his Iraq circus. Obama with his Egyptian, Libyan, Iranian and Syrian circuses.

Yes, but he's a wussie though, and he has jug-ears too. But don't forget about Kim Jung Un either. He's a real wack-job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you actually believe that Bush would have done things in the same manner as Obama?

 

The biggest flaw in American political discourse is believing that the President has any actual say in foreign policy. They don't. To quote James Baker, they just do what they're told. And the same people who told Bush what to do are telling Obama what to do and will be telling Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The biggest flaw in American political discourse is believing that the President has any actual say in foreign policy. They don't. To quote James Baker, they just do what they're told. And the same people who told Bush what to do are telling Obama what to do and will be telling Hillary.

pr222100-2-2557016-640x640-b-p-ffffff.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The biggest flaw in American political discourse is believing that the President has any actual say in foreign policy. They don't. To quote James Baker, they just do what they're told. And the same people who told Bush what to do are telling Obama what to do and will be telling Hillary.

So, by your reasoning Bush has no real responsibility for the Iraq war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...