12
   

Is Obama the most Inept Foriegn Policy President Since Carter?

 
 
Reply Sat 17 Aug, 2013 10:53 pm
Egypt being just the latest in a long string of abysmal failures....

We might argue with what George The Second did but we can not deny that he was often successful in implementing his plan where as with Obama nearly nothing ever seems to work out in translating his mind/will into reality. Bill Clinton had a general record of ineptitude but he did have Northern Ireland and he did after years of doing the wrong thing finally get around to doing the Balkans right where we cant really say that Obama has had any successes.

What sat you? Is Obama the worst in over 35 years??

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 3,306 • Replies: 58

 
joefromchicago
 
  6  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 08:59 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Egypt being just the latest in a long string of abysmal failures....

How so?

hawkeye10 wrote:
We might argue with what George The Second did...

No, there is no reasonable argument to be made in favor of what GWB did.

hawkeye10 wrote:
... but we can not deny that he was often successful in implementing his plan...

What plan? What success?

hawkeye10 wrote:
... where as with Obama nearly nothing ever seems to work out in translating his mind/will into reality.

Like what?

hawkeye10 wrote:
Bill Clinton had a general record of ineptitude...

Well, he didn't get us involved in a land war in Asia. That has to count for something.

hawkeye10 wrote:
What sat you? Is Obama the worst in over 35 years??

No.
Ragman
 
  4  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 09:28 am
@joefromchicago,
Trying to blame Obama for the poor policies of generations of poor foreign policies is akin to sticking your head in the sand. Obama is no more or less able to handle USA foreign policy with a fair amount of competency. Also you need to recognize who are the others to blame ...FWIW, amongst several others in Congress, Hillary can take her share of blame, too.

Complexities aside, there is no consistency and precious little backbone in Wash DC....when it comes to dealing with dictators...and that lack of direction has gone on for decades.

I've always thought that the office of US Presidency is far bigger job than the capabilities of any of the candidates or players in the last 50 or so years. The current convoluted and dangerous world situation particularly in Middle East, as far as a nation's role of being a 'Super Power', is plain impossible. USA gov't is incapable of acting even in it's own best interests with foreign policy. It should stop trying to be policeman for the world's conflicts and just act responsibly and consistently... once it makes up its collective mind and resolves, that is.

As for Egypt, it has to work out it's own internal civil strife either without outside interference (not possible) or a lesser one imposed by the policies of USA gov't. Spending all that time since Mosi was deposed by the military NOT calling it a coupe was just fantasy.

Now Wash has to decide whether removing $1.5B in aid is useful to the cause ... especially when Saudi's and about 10 other Arab countries they're sending (far more) in their billions.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 10:20 am
@Ragman,
where you have a good point is that we used to try hard to present a united front to the rest of the world even though we were arguing at home, now we dont. it has gotten so bad that Obama had to send two senor GOP Senators to Egypt to inform the Egyptian Military that washington is in agreement that a Military government is not acceptable to the USA.....they were not going to believe it if only Kerry said it.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 10:51 am
In my opinion, the President enjoys giving the nation his solutions to domestic policies. But, in my opinion again, he is sort of an introvert in international affairs. Perhaps, because he realizes that while the U.S. was ready to be led by an ex-community organizer from his background, the world respects a different sort of U.S. President. That can have nothing to do with race, since if the President was an ex-military officer of high rank, he might be getting a different reaction from the world. Just my opinion.

It is really the fault of the voting public, in my opinion, since we did elect someone that was either in the streets of the community, or in the ivory towers of academia, for the most part. And, if the Democratic Party could not find someone else that would have some international panache, what does that say about the Democratic farm teams (using a baseball analogy)?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 11:55 am
@hawkeye10,
Would you care to provide a list of Obama foreign policy failures? Then I will provide an equal list of George Bush foreign policy failures; starting with 9/11 and proceeding through the Guantanamo torture photos scandal.

I think any sane person would agree that Obama is doing wonderfully compared to George Bush. I am not too happy with Obama foreign policy, but saying that is anything close to the disaster that was the George Bush presidency is ridiculous.

But I offer the challenge, let's compare your list of Obama failures with my list of Bush failures.... if you dare.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 12:11 pm
Whackeye is an ignorant and doctrinaire reactionary. He never lets anything like facts stand in the way of his hysterical and melodramatic rhetoric--which is a good thing as he knows so few facts. He is apparently ignorant of the Camp David accords. Ignorance on his part doesn't surprise me. Carter began working for a peace agreement between Egypt (the most populous Arabic-speaking nation on earth, and the most potent military threat to Israel) and Israel shortly after his inauguration in 1977. He spent more than a year working on this agreement, which was the first lasting peace agreement in the middle east since the Israelis went rogue in 1947. Yet Wackeye's thread title, tendentious and an inferential straw man (a common practice of his) claims that Carter's foreign policy was inept. No one should attempt to argue this with this idiot troll, because it is effectively a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. If one attempts to answer it, they accept the brain-dead premises.

What a clown.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 12:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Obunga is by far the worst there's ever been. Jimmy Carter was not deliberately trying to harm the United States.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 01:19 pm
@gungasnake,
Gunga,

I offer the same challenge to you that I offer to Hawkeye. Give me your list of Obama foreign policy failures, and then we will see how it matches up to the list of George W. Bush's failures.

If you dare.

RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 01:31 pm
@maxdancona,
Wont happen. He will just throw some straw man at you.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:14 pm
@RABEL222,
the Palestinian Israel conflict
egypt
spreading democracy in Libya...the failure of which has further destabilized africa and now syria with weapons
influencing China
influencing Russia
influencing Europe
stabilizing Iraq
doing anything positive with Afghanistan
drawing North Korea toward civility
salvaging the wrecked global economic system
dealing with ocean pirates
drawing India towards being a modern state
stopping the slide of Pakinstan towards the Taliban
making Somalia into a functioning state
stopping Mali from becoming a failed state
stopping Iran from any of their goals
stopping Lebanon from once again being a failed state
improving the lives of the palistinians

just off the top of my head for a list of Obama failures.
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:35 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I offer the same challenge to you that I offer to Hawkeye. Give me your list of Obama foreign policy failures, and then we will see how it matches up to the list of George W. Bush's failures.

If you dare.


Funny, but I don't really picture anything Bork has done as a failure or a mistake, I believe his **** is deliberate.

But let's talk about George W. Bush's mistakes and/or failures, that at least is not an empty set...

  • W. urgently needed to root out and eliminate all dug-in KKKlintonistas immediately on taking office. That was mistake #1. 9/11 Was mainly brought about by the so-called "Gorelick-Wall", which had been implemented to keep the FBI out of Chinagate and which deliberately destroyed lines of communication between our FBI and CIA.
  • Mistake 2. W. reacted to 9/11 by eliminating the Saddam Hussein regime (for supplying anthrax to the 9/11 jackers) and trying to establish a model democracy in Iraq, and launching a sustained attack on Al Quaeda while proclaiming I-slam to be a "Religion of Peace(TM)". A better approach would have been to simply tell the world the truth i.e. that we'd been attacked by a religion, incinerate Mecca and Medina, proclaim a planetary ban on the practice of I-slam, and inform the world that any mosque or madrassa which didn't have a Christian cross over it 24 hours hence, would be bombed.
  • 3. Likewise it was essential that all trade with OPEC nations cease after 9/11 and that the floodgates for exploitation of our own (real) energy resources be opened.


That's about the whole list of meaningful foreign policy failures as far as W. was concerned, most of the things you'd call W. failures involved domestic policies.

Again if you want to talk about Obunga, you're not talking about failures or mistakes, I believe the guy has generally accomplished what he's set out to do.

If you're not clear as to why all of that is harmful to the United States, I'd recommend you start with Dnesh D'Souza's little documentary film, 2016:

maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye,

Is this your list for Obama, or for Bush?

I would think it was the list for the failures of Bush, except you omitted the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil.

0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:38 pm
@gungasnake,
"Mistake 2. W. reacted to 9/11 by eliminating the Saddam Hussein regime (for supplying anthrax to the 9/11 jackers) and trying to establish a model democracy in Iraq, and launching a sustained attack on Al Quaeda while proclaiming I-slam to be a "Religion of Peace(TM)". A better approach would have been to simply tell the world the truth i.e. that we'd been attacked by a religion, incinerate Mecca and Medina, proclaim a planetary ban on the practice of I-slam, and inform the world that any mosque or madrassa which didn't have a Christian cross over it 24 hours hence, would be bombed."


Wow.

they woulda loved you during the crusades...
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:49 pm
Sequel to 2016;

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/dinesh-dsouza-making-follow-up-to-2016-obamas-america/

Many, including myself, view D'Souza as a sort of a heavyweight, basically in the same sort of league as Mencken, Ayn Rand, or Churchill. His 1991 "Illiberal Education" was the first description of the problem of political correctness at American universities, available to the public.
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 02:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
I guess it depends on what you consider success. I think our Egyptian policy has been successful in that we have no connection to their pending civil war. The winner will likely dislike us, but not enough to not work with us. I thought our very limited involvement in Libya was also a smashing success as I define success as not getting involved. I go to China regularly and I based on business on the ground there I think the US-China relationship is doing very well. For example, I think we tip-toed around the South China Sea issue between Japan and China very smoothly. We're not in Iraq and that's a win. Leaving Afganistan will equally be a win. I'm not sure what your expectations are in N. Korea but I don't see failure there. Our non-response to N. Korean sabre rattling was right on target and our following S. Korea's lead is a very welcome change in approach. I think our Iran policy has been a smashing success with no military action and a moderate elected and I think just about any other action would have resulted in another hardcore conservative in office. I'm not sure what you want via "the wrecked global economic system", but stopping the free fall of the US economy goes a long way towards stabalizing the world and the Obama administration did that so I'd call that a win. In all, I think the US does better by not sticking its hand in every beehive that starts to buzz and Obama seems to think the same. Is that because of philosophy or paralysis I don't know.

If I had to hit Obama I'd use this list. I think the NSA fiasco is a foreign policy debacle. The repeated and increased use of drones will probably be considered in a negative light. The Russian relationship clearly has problems. I'm not sure what I would have done differently, but that doesn't mean that Obama shouldn't be dinged for it. I'm not sure what our Syria policy should be so I can't call that a failure yet, but it doesn't seem like we have a plan (even if our plan is to do nothing and let the locals decide their future) so I'd call that a negative right now.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 03:56 pm
Gorelick Wall:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/15/20040415-094758-5267r/

Obviously, Jamie Gorelick being on the 9/11 commission represented another policy failure of the Bush administration....
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 04:51 pm
@engineer,
there will be no civil war in Egypt because the Brotherhood does not have the power to make one and because the people can not tolorate a civil war. a nation that needs tourism to feed itself does not have the will to support an insurgency.

what has happened on Obama's watch is that just abiut no one in Egypt cares anymore what America thinks or does..now if you want having no power to ve a plus for america as you do with Iraq fine, but succesful foreign policy assumes that the one being spoken of has power. look at all the places around the wirld where we have no power now, and remember that just a few years ago we were a superpower.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 05:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
Iraq, were we now dont have the power to prevent Iran from using the airspace to supply their alies in Syria. what did 4500 Americans die for? did Obama have the ability to put these ended lives to good use and piss it all away? I think the answer is yes.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 11:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
the Saudis have told the Egyptian military that they will make up any money lost in Western Aid dollar for dollar....WTF? these guys are supposed to be our friends?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is Obama the most Inept Foriegn Policy President Since Carter?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 07:56:45