Oh come on, of course you know what criteria he's using.Originally Posted by Julio3000
Think about what else (and who else) was going on during those years he mentioned.
Oh come on, of course you know what criteria he's using.
Think about what else (and who else) was going on during those years he mentioned.
North Korea = Stronger now since 2008 because: Continued development of nuclear program, purported development of hydrogen bomb (granted, this is dubious), ICBM, etc.
China = Stronger now since 2008 because: Needs no explanation, hopefully
Russia = Stronger now than in 2008 because: Crimea, The Middle East, ability to freely tamper with our elections sans retribution
Iran = Stronger now than in 2008 because: No longer crippled with multinational sanctions, able to fund Hezbollah, rebuild infrastructure ... still acutely anti-West.
Alternatively, you could demonstrate where Obama's State Department made inroads toward weakening these countries and/or meaningfully improving our strategic (or even diplomatic) relationships with them.
Last edited by Hawk; 04-08-2017 at 10:53 AM.
Wouldn't a critique of Obama's foreign policy ... involve Obama?
Of course, and I have no problem with that, since I disagreed with more of his foreign policy stuff than I did his domestic policy stuff. But be honest here, you were just as much looking back to "the good old days" of 2008 as you were the "bad old days" of 2009-2016.
I know this is going to shock you, but not everything in this world boils down to American political partisanship.
Bush's second term was a foreign policy nightmare replete with negligence and idiocy. Noted and affirmed.
Now, can we get back to discussing what Obama did/did not do to improve things in this realm? :)
Last edited by Hawk; 04-08-2017 at 11:15 AM.
Hahaha
Russia is stronger? Russian GDP when Obama took office was 1.6 trillion, when he left office 1.3 Trillion. Compared to US who was at 14.7 Trillion before and 18.3 after. I don't think that's a net gain. Only aspect Russia gained was Crimea which given the instability is probably not a net gain yet.
China was bound to get stronger, no matter who was president, CHina has a brilliant plan to get more money and they're the second most powerful nation for a reason.
ISIL didn't exist before Obama. So it's a given they'd be stronger. And they wouldn't have existed without BUsh's Iraq intervention.
Iran is stronger in only the smallest way, and they're stronger because of the Syrian conflict.
Threat of terrorism makes me laugh. Could you sound more warhawkish?
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Is it even possible to deny the threat of terrorism is higher?
HOw about the overall safety and security of Europe? That has decreased rapidly under Obamas presidency. That is a clear and present danger to the US as many countries within the EU are our strongest allies.
Natural Immunity Croc
I'm not arguing with you about Obama's negatives. I'd probably agree with you on at least most of them, if not all of them. The problem with someone my age is that I can remember stuff from 5 or 6 years ago or even 10+ years ago better and easier than I can remember last week. Of course since last week sucked that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is also why when the Repubs on this board talked the "we all need to put our differences aside and work with this new president like all of us did to work with the new president 8 years ago and the returning president 4 years ago I called bull****. You guys may really not remember all the stuff I read back then, but I do.
I also remember how any discussion with a particular individual around here over our real reasons for going into Iraq had to BEGIN with us admitting that our only motivations for going into the Iraq war were 100% legitimate and honorable and that there could be no talk of "Crooked Cheney" having an ulterior motive. Remember those "good old days"?
So yeah, bash on Obama. His foreign policy moves were for the most part questionable at best and terrible at worst. I tend to think he fell into that "what would W do and once I find out I"ll do the opposite" trap but that's just me. In either case I agree that the world is less safe now than it used to be and that Obama is not totally to blame by any means, he didn't exactly help things either. I could say the same thing about the positive numbers that are present in the economy after his 8 years.
Oh and THE real reason why we as a nation do just about everything we do it money, pure and simple. We may not be getting any of it, but those who call the shots certainly are.
I don't deny the danger is greater now or that Obama didn't do much to make things better, but what about Zeet's question about ISIL? Is Obama the creator of ISIL/ISIS like the current president claimed back during the campaign?
'Creator' is more all encompassing than any singular individual should bear the responsiblity for. Islam has always been a violent religion that has led to radicalization. If it wasn't ISIL it would be someone else. However, Obamas weakness did lead to the strengthening of ISIL in that the global desire for a worldwide caliphate became realistic in their eyes. They have been emboldened to export their brand of terror all across the globe and terrorist actions in their name are being perpetrated around the world.
Natural Immunity Croc
I don't think Obama created ISIS, but he definitely didn't do anything to stop it from growing either.
Hawk (04-08-2017)
You know who wouldnt have put with ISIS's ****? Sadaam Hussein.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Obama pulling out of iraq, gave isis room to grow and get stronger.
If the troops stayed, isis wouldn't had spread
How long would you have liked the troops to stay there? Indefinitely?
Forever Fredi
I think that's a fair statement, though it doesn't address whose policies were responsible for their creation.
That's your argument? GDP? You are really trying to assert that Vladimir Putin, who is perhaps the wealthiest individual on this entire planet, has been made weaker by a trifling hit to Russia's ledgers? Then, you explain away Crimea as 'probably not a net gain' for no logical reason whatsoever while completely ignoring his not unimportant bed-buddy status with Erdogan and Assad. OK.
Yes, China is stronger. Not just financially, but also militarily. They are a major threat to our relevance in East Asia. How did Obama improve relations with China? How did America's relationship with China materially evolve in a positive way during Obama's presidency?China was bound to get stronger, no matter who was president, CHina has a brilliant plan to get more money and they're the second most powerful nation for a reason.
Oh, come on. Al Qaeda did exist before Obama, Obama ignored ISIL as it metamorphosed and dismissed it as a "JV Team" ... but let's forget all of that entirely because Bush. Right.ISIL didn't exist before Obama. So it's a given they'd be stronger. And they wouldn't have existed without BUsh's Iraq intervention.
That's bull****.Iran is stronger in only the smallest way, and they're stronger because of the Syrian conflict.
Alright.Threat of terrorism makes me laugh.
Um, yeah, I could.Could you sound more warhawkish?
Provide me a single example of a 'warhawkish' comment that I've made in this thread so I can mock you relentlessly.
OK but you're spinning the narrative to stay away from whose actions caused them to be created.
And our going into Iraq created the miracle grow soil that caused them to be planted and grow like they did.
Cajun is absolutely right, if we don't go into Iraq Saddam would never have allowed them to form in the first place. I know that wasn't intentional on our part but the truth is the truth, right?
Every president for the last 20 years.
ISILas a name isnrrelevant. It's Islam that is causing all of this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
