Where is obama foreign policy?

[Texashiker]

That's only because your thread just screams POINTLESS!!!

Oh really? You mean like this?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101852007

State news agency Xinhua has called U.S. and Australian officials "rash" to blame Russia before the conclusion of a thorough investigation of the downing of MH17.

It seems like every week obama does something to push Russia and China closer together.

 

[werepossum]

I dunno--how is any of that unique in the history of US foreign policy? Why did your butt-buddy Dubya arm and aid terrorists in overthrowing Iraq? How's that working out? How many US soldiers died for that cause? You praised Saddam earlier, in that he kept that country under control--this was a popular argument before the invasion; why were you so blind to it, then?

Why did the Libyans act against Qadafi themselves, only later aided by airstrikes under US direction? lol--what fucking planes are you talking about? Do you think they were just left in some hanger or something?

Why did your homo-fantasy Regan commit multiple acts of real treason and sell our weapons to Iran?

Why has every president always sought to work with Iran diplomatically?

The Iran thing is a big shift from previous administrations. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I don't think we can prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon with sanctions, just make it more painful on the average Mustafa and take longer. Assuming you agree, easing sanctions that affect the average Mustafa while attempting to get some rational dialogue going is probably a sensible risk to take. Especially given the bipartisan dismantling of our military, if we're going to have to confront a nuclear-armed Iran I'd prefer it to be sooner rather than later when nuclear weapons may be all we have capable of taking them on.

If you believe the politicians that we can absolutely (or even probably) prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon with sanctions, then it's a stupid risk and Obama's a stupid man. Me, I think it's just one of those things politicians think they have to say to gain and retain political power, but none of them truly believe. The United States developed nuclear bombs (two different kinds!) when none existed; I don't think we can prevent a fairly industrialized nation full of smart people such as is Iran from developing nuclear weapons given enough time. I'm not even sure we can prevent them from developing nuclear weapons without our knowledge; when's the last time a nation announced nuclear capability without the CIA being caught flat-footed?

As far as Iraq, democracy is a good and just goal even if we aren't likely to benefit from its spread in the Middle East. Ditto for democracy in Egypt, Syria and Libya. I hate to lose a fairly moderate, rational, Western-leaning leader like Mubarak, but as we saw with the Shah we can only prop up dictators so far and the longer they rule, probably the more violent and fundamentalist are their replacements.

 

[Texashiker]

As far as Iraq, democracy is a good and just goal even if we aren't likely to benefit from its spread in the Middle East. Ditto for democracy in Egypt, Syria and Libya.

Democracy does not work with Islam.

The only law is GODS law.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It seems like every week obama does something to push Russia and China closer together.

you really can`t be that dense......
Have you ever been to Russia?? Half or even more of Russia`s population is Asian......you cannot honestly believe that there ever was a chance for the US and China or the US and Russia...hmmm....

 

[boomerang]

Two more years, just two more years and this nightmare will be over.

Thank GOD for term limits.

Umm, 913 days, 8 hours and 54 minutes, but who's counting? http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office

 

[Texashiker]

you really can`t be that dense......

You are avoiding the obvious.

obama can have a good relationship with russia and china. But like beer through an alcoholic, obama is pissing that opportunity away.

 

[smackababy]

There has to be a better option than violence.

But guess what, obama does not have a foreign policy to find out. Just drone strike them into submission.

Todays children, after seeing their parents killed by drone strikes, will be tomorrows terrorist.

Would you rather that child say the United States sent us food, clothing, medicine, vaccines,,,,,? Or would you rather those children talk about how a missile killed their family members?

Guess which path we are going down?

The actions of the obama administration today are ensuring future generations of terrorist. Maybe if we stopped killing them, they would stop hating us.

And how is the exactly different from the foreign policy of any other president?

 

[Fern]

Where is obama foreign policy?

I would phrase the question slightly different: What is Obama's foreign policy? I assume that is what you meant.

From what I can tell there doesn't really seem to be one. I hear this complaint from those on both sides of the aisle, whether they be politicians or party strategists/commentators.

This complaint is also expressed as "Obama is disengaged" or that his foreign policy is rudderless.

Recently Obama gave a speech on his foreign policy and, again, the criticism was bipartisan. (Note: I'm not saying he doesn't have his supporters, just that criticism comes from both sides.) In short his remarks were vague if not confusing.

IMO, this is a fair question and much different that specific questions about individual situations (which is what many posters here have diverted to). Leaders generally have an over-arching foreign policy which is used to help formulate their response to specific incidents.

The lack of an over-arching foreign policy results in a reactive, disjointed series of decision/responses to foreign policy crises.
----------------------

The posters, such as Moonie, claiming that the Republicans are preventing foreign policy are wrong. The area of foreign policy is the responsibility of the President per the Constitution. The President is free to develop foreign policy as (s)he sees fit. Congress can, however, impede the implementation of the President's foreign policy by, say, refusing to go to war such as in the case of Syria. (Where both support and refusal were bipartisan. Ultimately, public opinion polls and Obama's own lack of conviction are probably what killed it.)

Fern

 

[Victorian Gray]

Oh really? You mean like this?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101852007



It seems like every week obama does something to push Russia and China closer together.

Russia and China will *never* be 'together'. Read a history book or two.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The lack of an over-arching foreign policy results in a reactive, disjointed series of decision/responses to foreign policy crises.

...which also fosters the impression of incredibly weak leadership skills.

 

[boomerang]

Two terms of a "grand experiment". Here's to hoping we learn something from it.

 

[thraashman]

Every so often I find myself wondering what it must be like to be crazy. Then I read a few Texashiker posts and I realize "Oh, ok. That's what it's like".

 

[werepossum]

Democracy does not work with Islam.

The only law is GODS law.

Could be. Certainly they tend to replace it with theocracy, which tends to be no better than dictatorship.

I would phrase the question slightly different: What is Obama's foreign policy? I assume that is what you meant.

From what I can tell there doesn't really seem to be one. I hear this complaint from those on both sides of the aisle, whether they be politicians or party strategists/commentators.

This complaint is also expressed as "Obama is disengaged" or that his foreign policy is rudderless.

Recently Obama gave a speech on his foreign policy and, again, the criticism was bipartisan. (Note: I'm not saying he doesn't have his supporters, just that criticism comes from both sides.) In short his remarks were vague if not confusing.

IMO, this is a fair question and much different that specific questions about individual situations (which is what many posters here have diverted to). Leaders generally have an over-arching foreign policy which is used to help formulate their response to specific incidents.

The lack of an over-arching foreign policy results in a reactive, disjointed series of decision/responses to foreign policy crises.
----------------------

The posters, such as Moonie, claiming that the Republicans are preventing foreign policy are wrong. The area of foreign policy is the responsibility of the President per the Constitution. The President is free to develop foreign policy as (s)he sees fit. Congress can, however, impede the implementation of the President's foreign policy by, say, refusing to go to war such as in the case of Syria. (Where both support and refusal were bipartisan. Ultimately, public opinion polls and Obama's own lack of conviction are probably what killed it.)

Fern

That's a fair criticism. Perhaps in his zeal to re-manufacture the USA he never really formed a coherent foreign policy. Or perhaps he had a coherent foreign policy but events conspired to render it useless and it had to be abandoned. However, I've seen that in both forms from other Presidents as well. Although foreign policy is the one area where Presidents legitimately have a great deal of power, it's also the one area where the rest of the world gets a vote and a veto. At the end of the day Republicans have to get re-elected by Americans; Russians, Syrians and Iranians don't.

 

[Texashiker]

That's a fair criticism. Perhaps in his zeal to re-manufacture the USA he never really formed a coherent foreign policy. Or perhaps he had a coherent foreign policy but events conspired to render it useless and it had to be abandoned.

The honest truth, the people elected an in-experienced community organizer as president.

The people were so desperate they were grasping at straws. It just so happened we drew the short end of the straw.

Instead of bringing about real reform, obama encircled himself with people who are part of the problem. Instead of being the solution, he became part of the problem.

 

[werepossum]

The honest truth, the people elected an in-experienced community organizer as president.

The people were so desperate they were grasping at straws. It just so happened we drew the short end of the straw.

Instead of bringing about real reform, obama encircled himself with people who are part of the problem. Instead of being the solution, he became part of the problem.

I wouldn't disagree with that and Obama would not have been my first choice, but I seriously doubt that the economy or the world would be much different today with a President McCain (frankly I'd prefer Obama) or President Romney.

 

[Texashiker]

I wouldn't disagree with that and Obama would not have been my first choice, but I seriously doubt that the economy or the world would be much different today with a President McCain (frankly I'd prefer Obama) or President Romney.

Things would have probably been worse with mccain and romney.

The main problem I see with obama, he surrounded himself with the same ole names that have been in the news for decades.

How can there be change when the same people are in power decade after decade.

obama needed to come in, wipe the slate clean and start over. Instead of getting new people in the cabinet, he appoints clinton. Come on, really? Clinton? We all know her track record.

In all honesty I think obama really wanted to make a difference. But his inexperience in the political field was his achilles heel. Instead of getting new people in, he relied on the old established honor guard. That was is biggest mistake. Instead of bringing in fresh people and fresh ideas, he brought back the same ole same ole.

Putin was probably thinking "you appointed hillary? Really? There is no way I am going to let her give me a blowjob."

Instead of making a good faith effort to reach out to world leaders, I think power went to obamas head. I am the president of the worlds greatest nation, people have to do what I say. No, other nations do not have to do what you say.

 

[Thebobo]

Two terms of a "grand experiment". Here's to hoping we learn something from it.

Yep Clinton Warren 2016!

 

[werepossum]

Hey, look at Madeline Albright. Pretty sure Putin would pull out of Chechnya to avoid a blow job from her.

 

[Texashiker]

Hey, look at Madeline Albright. Pretty sure Putin would pull out of Chechnya to avoid a blow job from her.

Obama should have appointed Monica Lewinsky as secretary of state.

I bet after a few trips to Russia Monica would have eased a lot of "tensions".

 

[werepossum]

Obama should have appointed Monica Lewinsky as secretary of state.

I bet after a few trips to Russia Monica would have eased a lot of "tensions".

lol Probably.

 

[piasabird]

America has had these cycles of cheap labor. We have mistreated every minority group on the face of the earth.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Once we get a white president all this nonsense for the last 8 years will go away. Then it will be politics as usual, like we had for decades.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Things would have probably been worse with mccain and romney.

The main problem I see with obama, he surrounded himself with the same ole names that have been in the news for decades.

How can there be change when the same people are in power decade after decade.

obama needed to come in, wipe the slate clean and start over. Instead of getting new people in the cabinet, he appoints clinton. Come on, really? Clinton? We all know her track record.

In all honesty I think obama really wanted to make a difference. But his inexperience in the political field was his achilles heel. Instead of getting new people in, he relied on the old established honor guard. That was is biggest mistake. Instead of bringing in fresh people and fresh ideas, he brought back the same ole same ole.

You are such a fool that you don't know how your own reasoning works. In the same paragraph that you label Obama's lack of 30 years in DC "inexperience," you call for him to make up his entire team of such people? Hmmmm... I wonder what label Texashiker would be using to describe them if he had done so?

You are the ass end of conservative propaganda. You shit out what they feed you, but they change the direction of their negativity to suit what's in front of them, so you don't know what you're against until they tell you.
Obama gets hawkish? Why they're the voices of calm reason!
Obama doesn't see the need to get involved? Hear them say how he's weak and inviting attack!
Trade agreement? "Offshoring jobs." "Red tape."
Leave the government out? "Trade barriers." "Failing to do his job."

You have no real beliefs of your own. You are merely a product of what is fed to you.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

awww gee its another parade of the lock step liberals.

Gee its another useless ad hominem.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Umm, 913 days, 8 hours and 54 minutes, but who's counting? http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office

You mean the sitting around waiting for the next Democrat President has started already?