Obama worst foreign policy president ever

[P@triot]

Like Romney when he came to the UK and insulted us a few weeks ago.

Romney only told the truth and repeated what the British said anyway. Which is nothing like sending the bust of Winston Churchill back, giving the PM a cheap plastic model of a helicopter as an official present, giving a collection of DVDs that can't be used in England, or giving the Queen an IPod preloaded with obama speeches.

All wonderful testaments to the close relationship that obama has with the UK.

I'm no fan of Obama but he's been ripped on here and non of you have offered an alternative.

Why do you keep saying the same stupid thing over and over? Every single one of us has an "alternative". Here, read it stupid...

1.) Don't support a rogue terroirst state like palestine

2.) Don't offend and isolate our close ally Isreal

3.) Don't offend and isolate our close ally England

4.) Don't support the "arab spring" uprising which has brought the radical terrorist group the muslim brotherhood into power

5.) Annihilate Iran before the complete their work on nuclear missiles

6.) Don't remove the missile defense system in Europe which further alienated our allies (really pissed off Poland).

7.) Don't sign the Salt II Treaty, caving into Russia

8.) Don't promise Russia everything they want if they will just back off until after your second election

9.) Don't go speak at every filthy muslim nation in the world while refusing to go to Israel

10.) Don't insult England by sending back the bust of Winston Churchill - a gift sent to us by our friends after 9/11 - because you have a personal vendetta against that nation for something that never even happened (ole grand pappy told him that England took him into custody and tortured him - turns out that NEVER happened).

Is that enough "alternatives" for you or do you need more?

 

[J.E.D]

Four years of President Obama's foreign policy are having their full effect. After squandering time in sham "negotiations" with Iran and Palestine and abandoning Iraq to al-Qaeda, the President has made many situations more difficult—and urgent.

Under Obama's leadership, America's position in the Middle East has weakened considerably. We were unprepared for the "Arab Spring" uprisings, and the President's response has been dangerously indecisive. For example, he continues to champion a Palestinian state while denouncing the current Syrian state—and the two are eerily similar. If Palestine were a state, it would be another corrupt enemy of Israel, our most important ally in the region, and would be a state sponsor of terrorism like Syria. While the Administration dithers on its Syria position, a growing Islamist extremist presence in that country presents the danger of an extremist dictatorship that becomes a base for international terrorism.

Sanctions and strong words are no longer enough. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that time is running out for international efforts to end Iran's nuclear defiance through diplomacy. Netanyahu said, "Things that affect our fate, our very existence, we don't entrust to others—not even to our best friends."

Morning Bell: Israel and Iran, the Middle Eastern Time Bomb

So, you would have the US stay in Iraq, invade Syria and Iran, and pretend that Palestinians don't exist and have no right to their land. Got it. Sounds like a great plan

 

[P@triot]

But let's look at Obama's Middle East policy sensibly.

Bin Laden - DEAD!!!!!!

Because of intelligence gathered by the Bush Administration through policies that Obama adamantly opposed (ie enhanced interrogations) and because of national security rebuilt by GWB after 8 years of neglect by another idiot liberal make-love-not-war with vicious enemies administration - Clinton.

Al Qaeda - Effectively broken.

Thanks to a comprehensive strategy by the Bush Administration which brought the battle to Al Qaeda's front door by killing or capturing Al Qaeda operatives, disrupting communications (which prevented them from recruiting and training new terroists), and seizing bank accounts and other assets. Funny how you idot liberal Dumbocrats demonized Bush when he was in office, but are now desperate to take credit for his accomplishments

Egypt- Now a democracy.

Really? So you call a nation under complete control of the terrorist organization - the Muslim Brotherhood - and operating under the oppresive Sharia Law a "democracy"? Women can't vote, are actually killed for being raped (as if it's their fault), and must cover their face. Yep, that sounds like a liberals vision of "democracy". After all, you all raped dozens and dozens of women during the OWS protests. But just so you now, if 50% of the population is forbidden from voting or otherwise taking any roll in the political process, it is NOT a "democracy". But then again, you never were one to let facts get in the way of your radical marxist ideology, were you JoeB.?

Qadaffy- DEAD!!!

And replaced by the oppresive terrorist organization - the Muslim Brotherhood. And they have implemented Sharia Law. Meanwhile, Qadaffy - after 9/11 - voluntarily turned over his nuclear arsenal to the US and cooperated with every request.

Oh, you can go into the hysterics about Iran having a bomb, but frankly, so what?

LMAO! There's no denying this one, so you say "so what that a madman, a terrorist, and an arch enemy of the US develops a nuclear weapon"? That's as ignorant as saying "you can boast about Bin Laden being dead, but so what"? See how asinine that is? Ahmadinejad wants to "bring back" the 12th Imam, and believes the only way to do that is for blood to run in the streets in a massive world war. What better way to do that than to launch a nuclear weapon? Unlike our rational enemies such as Russia, Iran has a death wish based on radical religious muslim ideology. He will use a nuke if he develops one.

 

[P@triot]

So, you would have the US stay in Iraq, invade Syria and Iran, and pretend that Palestinians don't exist and have no right to their land. Got it. Sounds like a great plan

No. I would properly finish the job in Iraq. If that's done already, then I would move out. If it's not, then I would stay in.

I would stay the hell out of Syria's business. Trading a dictator for muslim radicals is jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Until the palestinians can act like humans instead of animals, I would absolutely pretend like they don't exist.

That is NOT their land. The UN granted that to Israel about 70 years ago. If anyone has a problem with it, they need to go before the UN and work it out civilally. Not kill Israeli babies for something that had nothing to do with and know nothing about. Only you would defend logic so flawed and vicious.

 

[Dissent]

Oh I see what ya mean! How dare he! He hasn't attacked Iran or Syria,he backs the 1967 borders of Israel and pulled us out of Iraq. DAMN HIM!

Exactly! He sells out our ONLY ally in the middle east while backing the terrorist regime known as the palestinians. He wants to take Israel back to indefensible borders and reward terrorists for their actions of slaughtering innocent civilians, including children.

By the way, the "pulled us out of Iraq" talking point is hilarious. First of all, we are still very much in Iraq, stupid. Second, we've been in Iraq for over a decade. did you think we would stay there for 3,000 years? Obama just happened to be president when the initial objectives were completed. It is no credit to him on any level that the time frame just happened to occur well after a decade and when he just happened to be in office.

Neo Conism at its worst. Oh and this ally you talk about the same ally that stole state secrets from us and tried to sink our ship the USS Liberty in 1967? Mmm yes everyone would love an ally like that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. Obama has kicked ass in foreign policy far better than most of us had hoped. The last thing the GOP wants to do is debate FP with him, particularly after my boy's woeful showing in the ME; I mean really, MR was atrocious.

If we can stay on economy, we can beat Obama. If we can't, Obama may very well win.

Congressman Allen West: "Let’s be very honest. The President has gone to speak in Turkey. He has gone to Saudi Arabia. He has gone to speak at University of Cairo. As President, he has never gone to Israel and that is our greatest ally and that’s a true teller of where his allegiances lie."

Allen West prepares to face primary challenge in Flordia – Glenn Beck

 

[Unkotare]

A Nazi would defend Iran getting nukes aimed at Israel. We've seen your kind here a lot, defending Iran's right to nukes because the "US and Israel" have nukes, as if we're equal on the world stage.

Oh idiot, the US could have nuked Tokyo if we were sooooooo evil. We chose 2 smaller cities to make our point to save millions of lives, asswipe.

It took "2" nukes to force the Japanese to quit fighting us, idiot. Not 1, but 2 nukes because they were run by madmen. We warned them after the first one and they didn't surrender.

So it shows you're a scumbag being against the US military saving millions of Japanese and Americans from a drawn out invasion of Japan.

Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit.

Oh no, a piece of shit like you doesn't think we're relevant in nuke discussions.

You can't even figure out the difference between the US using nukes against Japan in WWII and Iran wanting to use nukes against Israel today, because you are fucking insane...or some closet Nazi.

Here's a hint, Japan should not have killed Americans and Asians all over Asia if they didn't want the big bat upside the head to force them to stop.

I guess your argument is that Israel shouldn't exist if they don't want Iran to nuke them.....

So I'm a nazi because I don't anything the USA says about nuclear weapons seriously? They used them. No one else ever has. I don't think Iran should have them. I don't think anyone should have them. But for a country that has actually used them to lecture anyone about them is pure hypocrisy.

This is an entirely separate question and should be taken up in a separate thread.

 

[Unkotare]

Sigh. Obama has kicked ass in foreign policy far better than most of us had hoped. ]

Your hopes must have been very, very, very low to start with.

 

[rabbitthekitten]

He didn't insult you. He was talking to his audience at home, it had jack shit to do with the UK. And, he was right, was he not? There was a clusterfuck with the security company, G4S.... and your military and police forces from around the UK had to step in and provide the security, did they not?

He spoke the truth. That's never insulting.... but it might hurt a tad. Regardless, his remarks were to play to his home audience... and it worked. Tim Stanley at the Telegraph wrote a very good article about it.

Security was fine. I was there. He made out it was going to be a disaster. But then the biggest city in the EU is just as easy to organise as Salt Lake City. The guy's an idiot.

First of all, you call Romney an "idiot" yet in two posts of yours that I've read so far, you've spelled favor "favour" and organize "organise" - so who is the real fucking idiot? It's pretty clear you are one of the typical uneducated socialists of England.

Second, England's own leadership is the one who came out and said that security was a cluster fuck and that the private security company contracted to provide the security came up over 1,000 personnel shy of the proper number. So don't sit there like an asshole, deny the truth, and claim that "security was fine".

So the way the English spell the English language is wrong? Or should we change 1000 years of the English language because the Americans have decided to spell a few words wrong? I'm a native speaker, you have borrowed it from us, so don't lecturing me on my own language. I'm not the uneducated one here.

 

[rabbitthekitten]

Quit being pussies.


Dont you have another camera to put up?

Pussy? Because we don't allow criminals and corporate giants to walk all over us? You want to take a look at your priorities.

Considering your nation is collapsing under the weight of your idiot European socialism, and England is scrambling like mad to decentralize everything (like their government controlled medicine), perhaps you need to take a look at your priorities (which of course, is to suck the UK tax payer of everything they are worth so you can live off of other people).

One quick question - what is it with assholes like you sticking your nose in American politics? We have asshole socialists from Canada, Australia, and England on this US Message Board all of the time. Why don't you guys worry about your own fucking nation and leave the US up to Americans?

Trust me when I tell you - we don't want you here and we don't give a fuck about what an english socialist thinks about the direction of our nation.

The EU has a higher GDP than the USA. We're richer. I'm not a socialist I vote for the conservative party in the the UK. It's just our idea of conservatism isn't linked to fascism like it is in the USA.

 

[rabbitthekitten]

He didn't insult you. He was talking to his audience at home, it had jack shit to do with the UK. And, he was right, was he not? There was a clusterfuck with the security company, G4S.... and your military and police forces from around the UK had to step in and provide the security, did they not?

He spoke the truth. That's never insulting.... but it might hurt a tad. Regardless, his remarks were to play to his home audience... and it worked. Tim Stanley at the Telegraph wrote a very good article about it.

Security was fine. I was there. He made out it was going to be a disaster. But then the biggest city in the EU is just as easy to organise as Salt Lake City. The guy's an idiot.

First of all, you call Romney an "idiot" yet in two posts of yours that I've read so far, you've spelled favor "favour" and organize "organise" - so who is the real fucking idiot? It's pretty clear you are one of the typical uneducated socialists of England.

Second, England's own leadership is the one who came out and said that security was a cluster fuck and that the private security company contracted to provide the security came up over 1,000 personnel shy of the proper number. So don't sit there like an asshole, deny the truth, and claim that "security was fine".

The Olympics, I was there, you were not, Romney was not. I was, security was fine. Because they outsourced it American style to a private company it went to shit, but the armed forces stepped in and it was fine. End of story. Nothing happened, no incidents, nothing.

 

[rabbitthekitten]

Foreign policy may not be a popularity contest but it does involve diplomacy. Alienate the rest of the world and you won't achieve anything except less business, less strategic help and less favours. It doesn't take a genius.

So you and Obama don't care that you've alienated our closest allies (England and Israel) but you are concerned about "alienating" rogues nations like Iran? Man, if that's not vintage liberal "logic".

You're doing a pretty good job of alienating the British with your personal outbursts.

 

[JoeB131]

So, you would have the US stay in Iraq, invade Syria and Iran, and pretend that Palestinians don't exist and have no right to their land. Got it. Sounds like a great plan

No. I would properly finish the job in Iraq. If that's done already, then I would move out. If it's not, then I would stay in.

I would stay the hell out of Syria's business. Trading a dictator for muslim radicals is jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Until the palestinians can act like humans instead of animals, I would absolutely pretend like they don't exist.

That is NOT their land. The UN granted that to Israel about 70 years ago. If anyone has a problem with it, they need to go before the UN and work it out civilally. Not kill Israeli babies for something that had nothing to do with and know nothing about. Only you would defend logic so flawed and vicious.

But it's perfectly okay by you that the Zionists kill Palestinian babies, then?

We should stay out of the whole fucking region, and take that 900 billion we spend on expensive toys and invest it in new energy technologies.

Or we would do that, if the Koch brothers didn't have our politics by the balls.

 

[JoeB131]

Mitt Romney went to europe to tour while the olympics were on.

He insulted leaders during the Olympics.

He took a perfect situtation to make a good impression and gaffed his way into idiocy.


you people are insane

Insulting foreign Olympic committees versus allowing a terrorist madman to build nuclear weapons.

Mmmm, gee, let me think here - which one is worse? Wow, this is a tough one here.

The only insane one is YOU and your ignorant fucking allegiance to Obama under any and all circumstances.

If Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, their ain't much we are going to be able to do about it.

Frankly, what you need to do is look at it from Iran's point of view.

Saddam gave up his nukes, and now he's dead.
Khadafy gave up his nukes, and now he's dead.
Pakistan kept its nukes, and the whole world is pretty much kissing its ass.
North Korea got a nuke, and the whole world is kissing their asses as well. Pretty much propping up their failed economy with food aid to keep it behaved.

For Iran, having a nuke means the rest of the world won't bully it anymore.

 

[editec]

If the point is that our foreign policy is inconsistent morally?

I quite agree.

The fact that this inconsistency has been part of our policy since forever.

For example, we claim that terrorism is immoral, yet we have created and funded terrorist organizations throughout much of our history.

Consistency of moral behavior isn't to be expected from sovereign governments.

Nations are essantially amoral, and will do whatever they believe it takes to thrive.

Such is the nature of nation states.

Hell let's be real, such is the nature of POWER.

 

[rabbitthekitten]

Mitt Romney went to europe to tour while the olympics were on.

He insulted leaders during the Olympics.

He took a perfect situtation to make a good impression and gaffed his way into idiocy.


you people are insane

Insulting foreign Olympic committees versus allowing a terrorist madman to build nuclear weapons.

Mmmm, gee, let me think here - which one is worse? Wow, this is a tough one here.

The only insane one is YOU and your ignorant fucking allegiance to Obama under any and all circumstances.

If Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, their ain't much we are going to be able to do about it.

Frankly, what you need to do is look at it from Iran's point of view.

Saddam gave up his nukes, and now he's dead.
Khadafy gave up his nukes, and now he's dead.
Pakistan kept its nukes, and the whole world is pretty much kissing its ass.
North Korea got a nuke, and the whole world is kissing their asses as well. Pretty much propping up their failed economy with food aid to keep it behaved.

For Iran, having a nuke means the rest of the world won't bully it anymore.

Couldn't have put it better myself. The fact is, I don't think Obama is 'letting' Iran build a bomb. He's just not going to invade. Trust me, if the USA invaded Iran they'd do it alone and probably get a kicking. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it's a lot more powerful and a lot better trained. Plus I doubt the Russians or the Chinese would allow it. As powerful as the neocons think the USA is, they can't bully Russia or China like they can bully most other countries.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most of our hopes were very low, and he exceeded them far better than most of us would realize. Leave this alone, Unkotare. We can't beat Obama on this, only on the economy.

Sigh. Obama has kicked ass in foreign policy far better than most of us had hoped. ]

Your hopes must have been very, very, very low to start with.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama worst foreign policy president ever

"Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces."

Supporting Right-Wing Dictators = Status Quo​

​

 

[GoneBezerk]

This coming from a dumbfuck that thought invading Japan and killing millions on both sides was a better plan than killing thousands with nukes to end the war quicker....

I thought you ran away and hid.

Could the British Navy defend Ireland today? If the IRA started up again...could the British Army stop them?

Where did your vast English Navy go to? To the bottom of the English channel? To build The Tube rail system?

It's frightening isn't it.

You're doing a far better job than me at making yourself look stupid.

 

[P@triot]

Nothing happened, no incidents, nothing.

And this, my friends, is what they call vintage idiot liberal "logic" at it's finest...

First of all, Romney made the statement BEFORE the military stepped in and when the government of England was agreeing with him.

Second, and more importantly, just because there were "no incidents" due to blind fucking luck, doesn't mean that security was handled properly. See, that's how liberals operate. Do everything half-assed and then, should you get lucky, make the claim that doing things half-assed is the way to do things based on that outcome.

There is a right way to do things, and a wrong way to do things, and regardless of the actual outcome of the olympics (ie lucky nothing happened), the security situation was an epic cluster-fuck. Period. End of story.