Can we Finally Conclude that Obama has Been a Foreign Policy Disaster?

[Publius1787]

Can we Finally Conclude that Obama has Been a Foreign Policy Disaster?

The Apology Tour
Pullout from Iraq and the rise of ISIS (The "JV Team")
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
Libya
Crimea
Ukraine
Syria ("Red Lines")
Cuba
Israel
Tunisia
Iran Nuke Deal
Arab Spring
Russian Reset
The Muslim Refugee Crisis
Expansion of Iranian Influence across the middle east
Chinese Expansion in the South China Sea
Expansion of Russian influence into Eastern Europe and the Middle East
Afghanistan turning into Iraq
Withdraw of Nuclear Defense Shield Plans from Europe
Using British Nuke Secrets as a bargaining chip for Putin's START Treaty
Deterioration of our Armed Forces
Supporting the Marxist President in Brazil
Failure to gain an Arab coalition against ISIS
Troops voted to fire him as their commander in chief in 2012 by a 2 to 1 margin
Contempt for the Department of Defense
Likely nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
75% of U.S. Casualties in the Afghanistan War happened under Obama's watch


.... Did I leave anything out? .....

 

[Never3ndr]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

I give him a four.

Bush is a Zero, Johnson is a Two, and Nixon is a one...

Reagan was horrible in Lebanon, but Bush Sr. was solid for his four years...

So, yeah I would give President Obama a four on a scale of 0 to 10, and Clinton ( Bill ) was a six to me...

 

[Publius1787]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

If I were to look at the world as it was on Bush's 8th year, then look at the world under Obama on his 8th year, I see a much more screwed up place today than I saw then. You disagree? For the sake of argument, lets say Bush was horrible. With all of the conflicts that Bush got us into aside, not taking into account anything Obama may have done to make the conflicts worse, is the world a better or worse place under Obama? I think we all know the answer. If you would rate Bush a zero you would need to go into negative territory for Obama. But then again, rating Obama against Bush wasn't the question now was it?

 

[Never3ndr]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

I give him a four.

Bush is a Zero, Johnson is a Two, and Nixon is a one...

Reagan was horrible in Lebanon, but Bush Sr. was solid for his four years...

So, yeah I would give President Obama a four on a scale of 0 to 10, and Clinton ( Bill ) was a six to me...

I can see a 4 as fair. I honestly boosted him up a bit because I consider a majority of his presidential foreign policy as having to recover from the disaster that was Bush's years. We wouldn't have to deal with ISIS and stretched military resources if Bush and Cheney had kept their claws out of Iraq and stayed in Afghanistan. On the other hand, given the circumstances that he was dealt with...especially considering the stretched state of our military resources and waning world opinion in the US...he could certainly have done much better. Having Clinton and Kerry as his Secretaries of State were shitty moves on his part.

 

[Publius1787]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

I give him a four.

Bush is a Zero, Johnson is a Two, and Nixon is a one...

Reagan was horrible in Lebanon, but Bush Sr. was solid for his four years...

So, yeah I would give President Obama a four on a scale of 0 to 10, and Clinton ( Bill ) was a six to me...

I love the redirect on the question as listed above. I don't recall anyone asking to rate one president against the next. I simply asked if Obama has been a foreign policy disaster. Of course, you're free to do as you like, but you aren't fooling anyone.

 

[Publius1787]

Can we Finally Conclude that Obama has Been a Foreign Policy Disaster?

The Apology Tour
Pullout from Iraq and the rise of ISIS (The "JV Team")
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
Libya
Crimea
Ukraine
Syria ("Red Lines")
Cuba
Israel
Tunisia
Iran Nuke Deal
Arab Spring
Russian Reset
The Muslim Refugee Crisis
Expansion of Iranian Influence across the middle east
Chinese Expansion in the South China Sea
Expansion of Russian influence into Eastern Europe and the Middle East
Afghanistan turning into Iraq
Withdraw of Nuclear Defense Shield Plans from Europe
Using British Nuke Secrets as a bargaining chip for Putin's START Treaty
Deterioration of our Armed Forces
Supporting the Marxist President in Brazil
Failure to gain an Arab coalition against ISIS
Troops voted to fire him as their commander in chief in 2012 by a 2 to 1 margin
Contempt for the Department of Defense
Likely nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
75% of U.S. Casualties in the Afghanistan War happened under Obama's watch


.... Did I leave anything out? .....

You're an idiot.

Uh oh, someone's feelings are hurt. Well ... well... you're a poopie head! There, take that. Now I'm at your level.

 

[Pogo]

Reagan was horrible in Lebanon, but Bush Sr. was solid for his four years...

Manuel Noriega.

 

[Never3ndr]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

If I were to look at the world as it was on Bush's 8th year, then look at the world under Obama on his 8th year, I see a much more screwed up place today than I saw then. You disagree? For the sake of argument, lets say Bush was horrible. With all of the conflicts that Bush got us into aside, not taking into account anything Obama may have done to make the conflicts worse, is the world a better or worse place under Obama? I think we all know the answer. If you would rate Bush a zero you would need to go into negative territory for Obama.

Is the world a better place? Nope. Fortunately, that has nothing (or very little) to do with US foreign policy. Hate to break the news to you, but the US isn't some intergalactic empire that runs the entire world.

Again, Obama wasn't great...I would contend that he wasn't horrible either however. Given American opinion on continuing the wars in both Iraq (that Bush forced us into) and Afghan (where we were legitimately fighting terrorism) he really couldn't do much but pull out...especially since both of those nations were also pushing us out as best they could. He has made some missteps though. I think his empty statements against Putin and ISIS (we haven't really committed large forces to combating either of these guys) are pretty horrid coupled with his absurd choices for Sec of the State.

 

[Pogo]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

I give him a four.

Bush is a Zero, Johnson is a Two, and Nixon is a one...

Reagan was horrible in Lebanon, but Bush Sr. was solid for his four years...

So, yeah I would give President Obama a four on a scale of 0 to 10, and Clinton ( Bill ) was a six to me...

I love the redirect on the question as listed above. I don't recall anyone asking to rate one president against the next. I simply asked if Obama has been a foreign policy disaster. Of course, you're free to do as you like, but you aren't fooling anyone.

It's impossible to even consider that question without a frame of reference.

 

[Publius1787]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

If I were to look at the world as it was on Bush's 8th year, then look at the world under Obama on his 8th year, I see a much more screwed up place today than I saw then. You disagree? For the sake of argument, lets say Bush was horrible. With all of the conflicts that Bush got us into aside, not taking into account anything Obama may have done to make the conflicts worse, is the world a better or worse place under Obama? I think we all know the answer. If you would rate Bush a zero you would need to go into negative territory for Obama.

Is the world a better place? Nope. Fortunately, that has nothing (or very little) to do with US foreign policy. Hate to break the news to you, but the US isn't some intergalactic empire that runs the entire world.

Again, Obama wasn't great...I would contend that he wasn't horrible either however. Given American opinion on continuing the wars in both Iraq (that Bush forced us into) and Afghan (where we were legitimately fighting terrorism) he really couldn't do much but pull out...especially since both of those nations were also pushing us out as best they could. He has made some missteps though. I think his empty statements against Putin and ISIS (we haven't really committed large forces to combating either of these guys) are pretty horrid coupled with his absurd choices for Sec of the State.

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

I give him a four.

Bush is a Zero, Johnson is a Two, and Nixon is a one...

Reagan was horrible in Lebanon, but Bush Sr. was solid for his four years...

So, yeah I would give President Obama a four on a scale of 0 to 10, and Clinton ( Bill ) was a six to me...

I love the redirect on the question as listed above. I don't recall anyone asking to rate one president against the next. I simply asked if Obama has been a foreign policy disaster. Of course, you're free to do as you like, but you aren't fooling anyone.

It's impossible to even consider that question without a frame of reference.

It's quite easy, you simply compare 2008 to 2012.

 

[S.J.]

I concluded that a long time ago, Publius.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can we Finally Conclude that Obama has Been a Foreign Policy Disaster?

The Apology Tour
Pullout from Iraq and the rise of ISIS (The "JV Team")
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
Libya
Crimea
Ukraine
Syria ("Red Lines")
Cuba
Israel
Tunisia
Iran Nuke Deal
Arab Spring
Russian Reset
The Muslim Refugee Crisis
Expansion of Iranian Influence across the middle east
Chinese Expansion in the South China Sea
Expansion of Russian influence into Eastern Europe and the Middle East
Afghanistan turning into Iraq
Withdraw of Nuclear Defense Shield Plans from Europe
Using British Nuke Secrets as a bargaining chip for Putin's START Treaty
Deterioration of our Armed Forces
Supporting the Marxist President in Brazil
Failure to gain an Arab coalition against ISIS
Troops voted to fire him as their commander in chief in 2012 by a 2 to 1 margin
Contempt for the Department of Defense
Likely nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
75% of U.S. Casualties in the Afghanistan War happened under Obama's watch


.... Did I leave anything out? .....

You're an idiot.

Uh oh, someone's feelings are hurt. Well ... well... you're a poopie head! There, take that. Now I'm at your level.

No, I drew a perfectly logical and rational conclusion based on your OP.

 

[sonic]

Ah, the myopic vision of the Right and their constant knee-jerk reactionary nonsense. Obama's foreign policy, although far from perfect, is light years ahead of anything you Right Wingers have going. But of course you'll never admit your incredibly devastating failures. You'd rather blame the black guy.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Is there really a poll that needs done? The answer is obvious by now isn't it?

 

[Pogo]

Is the world a better place? Nope. Fortunately, that has nothing (or very little) to do with US foreign policy. Hate to break the news to you, but the US isn't some intergalactic empire that runs the entire world.

That's what I notice too --- apparently the OP thinks that the POTUS runs not only the USA but... Egypt... Libya... Crimea... Ukraine... Syria... Cuba.... Israel.... Tunisia... The Arab World... Russia.... The traffic of Refugees.... Iran... China... Brazil... and even linear time itself ("75% of U.S. Casualties in the Afghanistan War happened under Obama's watch") ---- while the rest of the world and the leaders of those countries presumably sit on their hands eating Doritos and waiting to be told what to do, since that's apparently how he lives his own life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can we Finally Conclude that Obama has Been a Foreign Policy Disaster?

The Apology Tour
Pullout from Iraq and the rise of ISIS (The "JV Team")
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
Libya
Crimea
Ukraine
Syria ("Red Lines")
Cuba
Israel
Tunisia
Iran Nuke Deal
Arab Spring
Russian Reset
The Muslim Refugee Crisis
Expansion of Iranian Influence across the middle east
Chinese Expansion in the South China Sea
Expansion of Russian influence into Eastern Europe and the Middle East
Afghanistan turning into Iraq
Withdraw of Nuclear Defense Shield Plans from Europe
Using British Nuke Secrets as a bargaining chip for Putin's START Treaty
Deterioration of our Armed Forces
Supporting the Marxist President in Brazil
Failure to gain an Arab coalition against ISIS
Troops voted to fire him as their commander in chief in 2012 by a 2 to 1 margin
Contempt for the Department of Defense
Likely nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
75% of U.S. Casualties in the Afghanistan War happened under Obama's watch


.... Did I leave anything out? .....

What you left out were about 16 proofs of cause and effect, not to mention any proof whatsoever that the items you list were foreign policy disasters in the first place.

Take this:

Failure to gain an Arab coalition against ISIS.

1. why would that be Obama's responsibility?

2. The Saudis have formed a 34 nation coalition to fight terrorism.

The coalition includes Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Turkey, Chad, Togo, Tunisia, Djibouti, Senegal, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gabon, Guinea, the Palestinians, Comoros, Qatar, Cote d'Ivoire, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Mali, Malaysia, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria and Yemen.

 

[Publius1787]

Obama's foreign policy maneuvers are certainly lacking. However, all you have to do is look back to the guy before him, Bush, to realize that he's far from the disaster that he could have been. Overall, if you consider Bush to be a 0 and FDR to be a 10...Obama probably lands somewhere in the middle, like a 5 or 6.

If I were to look at the world as it was on Bush's 8th year, then look at the world under Obama on his 8th year, I see a much more screwed up place today than I saw then. You disagree? For the sake of argument, lets say Bush was horrible. With all of the conflicts that Bush got us into aside, not taking into account anything Obama may have done to make the conflicts worse, is the world a better or worse place under Obama? I think we all know the answer. If you would rate Bush a zero you would need to go into negative territory for Obama.

Is the world a better place? Nope. Fortunately, that has nothing (or very little) to do with US foreign policy. Hate to break the news to you, but the US isn't some intergalactic empire that runs the entire world.

Again, Obama wasn't great...I would contend that he wasn't horrible either however. Given American opinion on continuing the wars in both Iraq (that Bush forced us into) and Afghan (where we were legitimately fighting terrorism) he really couldn't do much but pull out...especially since both of those nations were also pushing us out as best they could. He has made some missteps though. I think his empty statements against Putin and ISIS (we haven't really committed large forces to combating either of these guys) are pretty horrid coupled with his absurd choices for Sec of the State.

I think your selling the US short on her ability to influence the world. Simply look at the fallout after Libya as one lone example. The US may not run the entire world, but we have traditionally been excellent in influencing the direction of world events, even if it is to curb them. More often than not the US is excellent at strong arming other countries into bending to her will. Indeed this is the prerogative of a superpower. It's not so much wrong as it is Machiavellian, and Obama chose not to utilize this power in Iraq. Now were heading back to Iraq bit by bit. ISIS is entirely and Obama phenomenon. They are the same people Bush booted out of Iraq and the same people Obama enabled to come back in. Moreover it is well documented that Iraq wanted us to stay but couldn't justify it with the minuscule amount of troops Obama offered. I honestly don't know about Afghanistan. i thought they were begging for an increased presence after the Taliban took over Kunduz. Bush won against the long drawn out insurgency in Iraq. Obama surrendered the gains.

 

[erinshavonne34]

I think we need to focus on are own racial and religious problems. Before we start nosing in to others. Why??? Because of be fair and just hear how do we solve another countries issue with lack of understanding when have serious right here in are own society.

Sent from my LG-H634 using Tapatalk

 

[Publius1787]

Is the world a better place? Nope. Fortunately, that has nothing (or very little) to do with US foreign policy. Hate to break the news to you, but the US isn't some intergalactic empire that runs the entire world.

That's what I notice too --- apparently the OP thinks that the POTUS runs not only the USA but... Egypt... Libya... Crimea... Ukraine... Syria... Cuba.... Israel.... Tunisia... The Arab World... Russia.... The traffic of Refugees.... Iran... China... Brazil... and even linear time itself ("75% of U.S. Casualties in the Afghanistan War happened under Obama's watch") ---- while the rest of the world and the leaders of those countries presumably sit on their hands eating Doritos and waiting to be told what to do, since that's apparently how he lives his own life.

Running? No. But controlling the geopolitical actions of other countries is what all countries do all the time. Call it the anarchist international standard of how things operate. Obama backed the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood (Indirectly), supported the Marxist Prez in Brazil, Legitimized the Communist dictatorship of Cuba, paved the way for Chinese expansion in the South China Sea (1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through there by the way), and basically showed Putin (A man who knows how to control the geopolitical actions of others) that the empty suit in the White House is a bitch he can play with. Of course, the refugees happened with the US led overthrow of Libya and the unrest in Syria.