Obama's Foreign Policy

[Vel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWnwDtc_gJw&feature=player_embedded]American Crossroads: "World" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[uscitizen]

French fries.

 

[Vel]

French fries.

Doesn't hardly equate.

 

[OKTexas]

Maobama, eye candy, hope'n for some change. And always has that finger ready to point and blame the other guy. Who ever that might be.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Another Obama Epic Failure

 

[tyroneweaver]

valerie jarrett gets more security cause she's black and stevens was just a typical white abassador

 

[Oldguy]

So, American Crossroads is critical of Obama's foreign policy?

Gee...woulda thunk it?

AC was founded by Karl Rove and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie. In other words, they're among the very team of morons who crafted George Bush's foreign policy. You remember that policy, don't you? The policy that gave us Iraq and the "preemptive" invasion theory, that called Pakistan's Musharaff our friend, which spent billions to prop up the House of Saud and which mirrored the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party so perfectly that they were indistinguishable.

Obama has completely rejected that foreign policy and crafted a totally new one, focused upon containing China in the western Pacific and Indian Ocean. He's distanced us from Pakistan and drawn us closer to India, which is the key to the Indian Ocean. He's gotten us out of the Iraq debacle and is drawing down the war in Afghanistan, which the Rove/Bush team screwed up so badly that we'll be lucky to leave with our dignity intact. And, he's so far restrained Israel from kicking off WWIII.

No wonder Rove et. al. don't like him! He's repudiated just about everything they did! And good for him! We don't need to sacrifice any more of our young men and women on the altar of GOP/Likud ambitions.

But, you see, they hide all that behind American Crossroads, a Super-Pac spending millions to elect Mitt Romney who has made no bones about his willingness to take our foreign policies right back to the Bush era. In fact, many of his campaign advisors and political operatives CAME from the Bush White House!

So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that AC would be critical of the President, should it?

And, by the way, here's an indication of just how dumb they they y'all are. Not only are they convinced you won't take the time to find out who American Crossroads is or what they stand for, this little quote from their website reveals just how little they think of those of you who support them. They really must think you're uneducated, ill-informed morons.

"....Instead of confronting these challenges with realistic solutions, President Obama and his allies in Congress stubbornly cling to the same destructive policies that drove us into this economic and fiscal morass: Backbreaking tax increases. Job-destroying regulatory harassment. And gross fiscal incompetence...."

Destructive policies crafted by who, Karl? YOU! YOU and your minions did it and you have the gall to blame Obama for what YOU created?

Good Lord. Are Mitt and Bush's supporters really dumb enough to swallow that?

 

[copsnrobbers]

The left will find a way to blame Bush for the massive failure of Obama's policies or lack of.

and Lets not forget, Hillary SUCKS too. That bitch is in hiding.

 

[Decus]

So, American Crossroads is critical of Obama's foreign policy?

Gee...woulda thunk it?

AC was founded by Karl Rove and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie. In other words, they're among the very team of morons who crafted George Bush's foreign policy. You remember that policy, don't you? The policy that gave us Iraq and the "preemptive" invasion theory, that called Pakistan's Musharaff our friend, which spent billions to prop up the House of Saud and which mirrored the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party so perfectly that they were indistinguishable.

Obama has completely rejected that foreign policy and crafted a totally new one, focused upon containing China in the western Pacific and Indian Ocean. He's distanced us from Pakistan and drawn us closer to India, which is the key to the Indian Ocean. He's gotten us out of the Iraq debacle and is drawing down the war in Afghanistan, which the Rove/Bush team screwed up so badly that we'll be lucky to leave with our dignity intact. And, he's so far restrained Israel from kicking off WWIII.

No wonder Rove et. al. don't like him! He's repudiated just about everything they did! And good for him! We don't need to sacrifice any more of our young men and women on the altar of GOP/Likud ambitions.

But, you see, they hide all that behind American Crossroads, a Super-Pac spending millions to elect Mitt Romney who has made no bones about his willingness to take our foreign policies right back to the Bush era. In fact, many of his campaign advisors and political operatives CAME from the Bush White House!

So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that AC would be critical of the President, should it?

And, by the way, here's an indication of just how dumb they they y'all are. Not only are they convinced you won't take the time to find out who American Crossroads is or what they stand for, this little quote from their website reveals just how little they think of those of you who support them. They really must think you're uneducated, ill-informed morons.

"....Instead of confronting these challenges with realistic solutions, President Obama and his allies in Congress stubbornly cling to the same destructive policies that drove us into this economic and fiscal morass: Backbreaking tax increases. Job-destroying regulatory harassment. And gross fiscal incompetence...."

Destructive policies crafted by who, Karl? YOU! YOU and your minions did it and you have the gall to blame Obama for what YOU created?

Good Lord. Are Mitt and Bush's supporters really dumb enough to swallow that?

I will pass on asking you to explain bombing Libya in order to promote democracy in the Arab world, but please explain to me his policy towards Africa and our protection of ruthless dictators there.

"The creeping U.S. military involvement in long-simmering African conflicts, however, carries risks. Some State Department officials have expressed reservations about the militarization of U.S. foreign policy on the continent. They have argued that most terrorist cells in Africa are pursuing local aims, not global ones, and do not present a direct threat to the United States." This is a five page investigative report undertaken by the Washington Post.

U.S. expands secret intelligence operations in Africa - The Washington Post

"In the same spirit, last March, as the Arab Spring wave moved east from Tunisia, Obama backed the Djibouti regime of Ismail Omar Guelleh against pro-democracy protesters, apparently because the tiny dictatorship hosts several thousand US African Command (AfriCom) troops at Washington's only solely-owned base in Africa."

"Obama also infamously extended red-carpet treatment to world-class kleptocrat tyrant Ali Bongo 15 months ago, thanks to Gabon's oil reserves. This was followed by a similarly controversial invitation in April to Ethiopia's then prime minister Meles Zenawi, rebuffing valid complaints from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International leaders: "The US, World Bank, and other states and institutions have shown little or no attention to Ethiopia's worsening human rights record."

"And last year, citing US national security interests, Obama issued a waiver for more than $200m in military aid to allied regimes in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, South Sudan and Yemen in spite of a 2008 US law prohibiting such funding because of their armies' abuse of child soldiers."

An election win for Barack Obama would be best prospect for Africa | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[Decus]

Not sure if this went through the first time.

I will pass on asking you to explain bombing Libya in order to promote democracy in the Arab world, but please explain to me his policy towards Africa and our protection of ruthless dictators there.

"The creeping U.S. military involvement in long-simmering African conflicts, however, carries risks. Some State Department officials have expressed reservations about the militarization of U.S. foreign policy on the continent. They have argued that most terrorist cells in Africa are pursuing local aims, not global ones, and do not present a direct threat to the United States." This is a five page investigative report undertaken by the Washington Post.

U.S. expands secret intelligence operations in Africa - The Washington Post

"In the same spirit, last March, as the Arab Spring wave moved east from Tunisia, Obama backed the Djibouti regime of Ismail Omar Guelleh against pro-democracy protesters, apparently because the tiny dictatorship hosts several thousand US African Command (AfriCom) troops at Washington's only solely-owned base in Africa."

"Obama also infamously extended red-carpet treatment to world-class kleptocrat tyrant Ali Bongo 15 months ago, thanks to Gabon's oil reserves. This was followed by a similarly controversial invitation in April to Ethiopia's then prime minister Meles Zenawi, rebuffing valid complaints from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International leaders: "The US, World Bank, and other states and institutions have shown little or no attention to Ethiopia's worsening human rights record."

"And last year, citing US national security interests, Obama issued a waiver for more than $200m in military aid to allied regimes in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, South Sudan and Yemen in spite of a 2008 US law prohibiting such funding because of their armies' abuse of child soldiers."

An election win for Barack Obama would be best prospect for Africa | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[GoneBezerk]

Typical liberal liar.

Obamination didn't get us out of Iraq, the drawdown was put in place by Bush. Now if you want to claim Obamination didn't keep any combat forces in Iraq to kill terrorists, that is correct. Letting the terrorists win back Iraq isn't a big deal to him....just claiming he won Iraq is more important.

Your China rambling is laughable given Obamination is slicing up the DoD's ability to project power in the Pacific and he is spending so much money that the Chinese won't need to drop a kinetic bomb on us to beat us in the end, more like a cyber attack and financial meltdown.

Obamination's foreign policy is to let Russia and China gain more power in their parts of the world. Ignore Irans threats to the middle east and Israel. Prop up left-wing leaders in countries like Venezuela, Brazil, etc even helping them compete vs US fossil fuel companies to "spread the wealth."

You think you know what you're babbling about, but you don't know shit.

So, American Crossroads is critical of Obama's foreign policy?

Gee...woulda thunk it?

AC was founded by Karl Rove and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie. In other words, they're among the very team of morons who crafted George Bush's foreign policy. You remember that policy, don't you? The policy that gave us Iraq and the "preemptive" invasion theory, that called Pakistan's Musharaff our friend, which spent billions to prop up the House of Saud and which mirrored the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party so perfectly that they were indistinguishable.

Obama has completely rejected that foreign policy and crafted a totally new one, focused upon containing China in the western Pacific and Indian Ocean. He's distanced us from Pakistan and drawn us closer to India, which is the key to the Indian Ocean. He's gotten us out of the Iraq debacle and is drawing down the war in Afghanistan, which the Rove/Bush team screwed up so badly that we'll be lucky to leave with our dignity intact. And, he's so far restrained Israel from kicking off WWIII.

No wonder Rove et. al. don't like him! He's repudiated just about everything they did! And good for him! We don't need to sacrifice any more of our young men and women on the altar of GOP/Likud ambitions.

But, you see, they hide all that behind American Crossroads, a Super-Pac spending millions to elect Mitt Romney who has made no bones about his willingness to take our foreign policies right back to the Bush era. In fact, many of his campaign advisors and political operatives CAME from the Bush White House!

So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that AC would be critical of the President, should it?

And, by the way, here's an indication of just how dumb they they y'all are. Not only are they convinced you won't take the time to find out who American Crossroads is or what they stand for, this little quote from their website reveals just how little they think of those of you who support them. They really must think you're uneducated, ill-informed morons.

"....Instead of confronting these challenges with realistic solutions, President Obama and his allies in Congress stubbornly cling to the same destructive policies that drove us into this economic and fiscal morass: Backbreaking tax increases. Job-destroying regulatory harassment. And gross fiscal incompetence...."

Destructive policies crafted by who, Karl? YOU! YOU and your minions did it and you have the gall to blame Obama for what YOU created?

Good Lord. Are Mitt and Bush's supporters really dumb enough to swallow that?

 

[Oldguy]

I will pass on asking you to explain bombing Libya in order to promote democracy in the Arab world, but please explain to me his policy towards Africa and our protection of ruthless dictators there.

"The creeping U.S. military involvement in long-simmering African conflicts, however, carries risks. Some State Department officials have expressed reservations about the militarization of U.S. foreign policy on the continent. They have argued that most terrorist cells in Africa are pursuing local aims, not global ones, and do not present a direct threat to the United States." This is a five page investigative report undertaken by the Washington Post.

U.S. expands secret intelligence operations in Africa - The Washington Post

"In the same spirit, last March, as the Arab Spring wave moved east from Tunisia, Obama backed the Djibouti regime of Ismail Omar Guelleh against pro-democracy protesters, apparently because the tiny dictatorship hosts several thousand US African Command (AfriCom) troops at Washington's only solely-owned base in Africa."

"Obama also infamously extended red-carpet treatment to world-class kleptocrat tyrant Ali Bongo 15 months ago, thanks to Gabon's oil reserves. This was followed by a similarly controversial invitation in April to Ethiopia's then prime minister Meles Zenawi, rebuffing valid complaints from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International leaders: "The US, World Bank, and other states and institutions have shown little or no attention to Ethiopia's worsening human rights record."

"And last year, citing US national security interests, Obama issued a waiver for more than $200m in military aid to allied regimes in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, South Sudan and Yemen in spite of a 2008 US law prohibiting such funding because of their armies' abuse of child soldiers."

An election win for Barack Obama would be best prospect for Africa | World news | guardian.co.uk

It depends upon where in Africa you're talking about.

In the Horn of Africa area, including Somalia and the Sudan, we've been after al Queda affiliates there since George Bush was President and that has not changed. That's good.

In Sub-Sahara Africa, most of what we're doing there now is to counter Chinese expansion into the area. They've been spending money and buying friends there like drunken sailors for some time, mostly without interference from us or anyone else. Obama's refocus of our foreign policy to contain Chinese influence and expansion is happening there too. And, it must be working because it's really pissed the Chinese off.

Along the Mediterranean coast, events have outpaced our response, but we're not unique. Few in the west saw the Arab Spring movement coming and it's sudden blossoming in Tunisia caught most of the world off-guard and unprepared. Both we and Europe were playing catch up in Libya and Egypt, making it up as we went along. That there were failures and mistakes is hardly surprising.

Confronted with the reality of popular uprisings against long time dictators, Obama did what any President would have done (Yes, even Mitt Romney). He sided with The People of those states. No, it hasn't turned out exactly as we'd like, but the process is not yet completed either. Don't forget that it was 8 years between the end of OUR revolution and the crafting of the Constitution we still have. It'll take a period of time for those people too and Obama is doing the right thing by remaining involved, political posturing and grandstanding from the opposition not withstanding.

 

[Chris]

American Crossroads?

Karl Rove's billionaires.

 

[Oldguy]

Typical liberal liar.

Obamination didn't get us out of Iraq, the drawdown was put in place by Bush. Now if you want to claim Obamination didn't keep any combat forces in Iraq to kill terrorists, that is correct. Letting the terrorists win back Iraq isn't a big deal to him....just claiming he won Iraq is more important.

Your China rambling is laughable given Obamination is slicing up the DoD's ability to project power in the Pacific and he is spending so much money that the Chinese won't need to drop a kinetic bomb on us to beat us in the end, more like a cyber attack and financial meltdown.

Obamination's foreign policy is to let Russia and China gain more power in their parts of the world. Ignore Irans threats to the middle east and Israel. Prop up left-wing leaders in countries like Venezuela, Brazil, etc even helping them compete vs US fossil fuel companies to "spread the wealth."

You think you know what you're babbling about, but you don't know shit.

LOL You're not really a student of foreign affairs, are you? That's OK. Most American's aren't.

 

[Decus]

I will pass on asking you to explain bombing Libya in order to promote democracy in the Arab world, but please explain to me his policy towards Africa and our protection of ruthless dictators there.

"The creeping U.S. military involvement in long-simmering African conflicts, however, carries risks. Some State Department officials have expressed reservations about the militarization of U.S. foreign policy on the continent. They have argued that most terrorist cells in Africa are pursuing local aims, not global ones, and do not present a direct threat to the United States." This is a five page investigative report undertaken by the Washington Post.

U.S. expands secret intelligence operations in Africa - The Washington Post

"In the same spirit, last March, as the Arab Spring wave moved east from Tunisia, Obama backed the Djibouti regime of Ismail Omar Guelleh against pro-democracy protesters, apparently because the tiny dictatorship hosts several thousand US African Command (AfriCom) troops at Washington's only solely-owned base in Africa."

"Obama also infamously extended red-carpet treatment to world-class kleptocrat tyrant Ali Bongo 15 months ago, thanks to Gabon's oil reserves. This was followed by a similarly controversial invitation in April to Ethiopia's then prime minister Meles Zenawi, rebuffing valid complaints from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International leaders: "The US, World Bank, and other states and institutions have shown little or no attention to Ethiopia's worsening human rights record."

"And last year, citing US national security interests, Obama issued a waiver for more than $200m in military aid to allied regimes in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, South Sudan and Yemen in spite of a 2008 US law prohibiting such funding because of their armies' abuse of child soldiers."

An election win for Barack Obama would be best prospect for Africa | World news | guardian.co.uk

It depends upon where in Africa you're talking about.

In the Horn of Africa area, including Somalia and the Sudan, we've been after al Queda affiliates there since George Bush was President and that has not changed. That's good.

In Sub-Sahara Africa, most of what we're doing there now is to counter Chinese expansion into the area. They've been spending money and buying friends there like drunken sailors for some time, mostly without interference from us or anyone else. Obama's refocus of our foreign policy to contain Chinese influence and expansion is happening there too. And, it must be working because it's really pissed the Chinese off.

Along the Mediterranean coast, events have outpaced our response, but we're not unique. Few in the west saw the Arab Spring movement coming and it's sudden blossoming in Tunisia caught most of the world off-guard and unprepared. Both we and Europe were playing catch up in Libya and Egypt, making it up as we went along. That there were failures and mistakes is hardly surprising.

Confronted with the reality of popular uprisings against long time dictators, Obama did what any President would have done (Yes, even Mitt Romney). He sided with The People of those states. No, it hasn't turned out exactly as we'd like, but the process is not yet completed either. Don't forget that it was 8 years between the end of OUR revolution and the crafting of the Constitution we still have. It'll take a period of time for those people too and Obama is doing the right thing by remaining involved, political posturing and grandstanding from the opposition not withstanding.

To claim that the outcome of removing figures like Qaddafi and Mubarek wasn't understood is funny. Without time to prepare a transition, a vacuum of power was created. It was known that those countries would be ripe for more radical politics to move to the forefront – to suggest otherwise is laughable.

From what you say, our less-than-honorable activities in Sub-Saharan Africa can be excused by an attitude of realpolitik. The French have long been at the game of propping dictators throughout Africa to serve their needs – you should hear what Africans think of them. To read some of the posters on this site proclaiming that Obama's intentions are to spread real democracy around the world, simply underlines how ignorant they are.

 

[Duped]

In a word - capitulation

 

[Oldguy]

To claim that the outcome of removing figures like Qaddafi and Mubarek wasn't understood is funny.

I didn't say that. I said that the revolts themselves caught most of us by surprise.

Without time to prepare a transition, a vacuum of power was created. It was known that those countries would be ripe for more radical politics to move to the forefront – to suggest otherwise is laughable.

I didn't suggest that either. And, of course the sudden removal of ANY government, dictator or otherwise, leads to at least a temporary power vacuum which radical elements will always seek to fill.

I'd be curious to know just what you think Obama, or anyone else, could have done to delay the overthrow of those dictators in order to buy more time to manage the aftermath.

From what you say, our less-than-honorable activities in Sub-Saharan Africa can be excused by an attitude of realpolitik.

To me, real-politik is preferable to a foreign policy based upon ideological purity, in spite of the actual conditions on the ground. Do you disagree?

The French have long been at the game of propping dictators throughout Africa to serve their needs – you should hear what Africans think of them.

Yes, and you should've heard what they were saying about US during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years. We were almost universally despised for our ham-handedness and allegiance to global corporate interests.

In any case, you seem to be faulting Obama for helping to remove the dictators in Libya and Egypt, and then for NOT helping remove them in other places.

To read some of the posters on this site proclaiming that Obama's intentions are to spread real democracy around the world, simply underlines how ignorant they are.

No more ignorant that the right when they were saying the same thing about the Bush foreign policy. But, you won't hear me saying that about either one of them. I'm not that naive.

 

[Decus]

I am saying that the consequences of our actions in Libya and Egypt were foreseeable. The Libyan revolt was on its last legs before we decided to step in and assure the outcome in favor of the rebels. Qaddafi feared the military might of the US and would have had difficulty engaging in reprisals, had he put down the revolt - he said as much. Sanctions could have then forced a more orderly transition. Egypt might have gone a similar way - we pressured Mubarek to step down. Our actions were naive and amateurish to say the least.

Is it our role to remove dictators? If we do it for one country can we ignore the plight of another? Do it intelligently and consistently, or don't do it at all.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Boy, my security clearance is far above your tiny head.

I do laugh at your bullshit that we're "just now" dealing with islamic terrorists in the other parts of Africa outside the Horn of Africa....you've never heard of Mali, etc.

Typical liberal liar.

Obamination didn't get us out of Iraq, the drawdown was put in place by Bush. Now if you want to claim Obamination didn't keep any combat forces in Iraq to kill terrorists, that is correct. Letting the terrorists win back Iraq isn't a big deal to him....just claiming he won Iraq is more important.

Your China rambling is laughable given Obamination is slicing up the DoD's ability to project power in the Pacific and he is spending so much money that the Chinese won't need to drop a kinetic bomb on us to beat us in the end, more like a cyber attack and financial meltdown.

Obamination's foreign policy is to let Russia and China gain more power in their parts of the world. Ignore Irans threats to the middle east and Israel. Prop up left-wing leaders in countries like Venezuela, Brazil, etc even helping them compete vs US fossil fuel companies to "spread the wealth."

You think you know what you're babbling about, but you don't know shit.

LOL You're not really a student of foreign affairs, are you? That's OK. Most American's aren't.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Uh, Obamination helped cause the problems in Egypt by throwing Mubarak under the bus then running over him again.

In Libya he let the war drag on allowing terrorists and other thugs around Africa and the middle east to roll into town and set up shop once Qaddafi was finally killed. The people that killed the Ambassador were helped by the chaos caused by Obamination and Europe not having a good plan in place after removing Qaddafi.

You idiot liberals cause these kind of problems then act like you had nothing do with them.

To claim that the outcome of removing figures like Qaddafi and Mubarek wasn't understood is funny.

I didn't say that. I said that the revolts themselves caught most of us by surprise.

Without time to prepare a transition, a vacuum of power was created. It was known that those countries would be ripe for more radical politics to move to the forefront – to suggest otherwise is laughable.

I didn't suggest that either. And, of course the sudden removal of ANY government, dictator or otherwise, leads to at least a temporary power vacuum which radical elements will always seek to fill.

I'd be curious to know just what you think Obama, or anyone else, could have done to delay the overthrow of those dictators in order to buy more time to manage the aftermath.



To me, real-politik is preferable to a foreign policy based upon ideological purity, in spite of the actual conditions on the ground. Do you disagree?

The French have long been at the game of propping dictators throughout Africa to serve their needs – you should hear what Africans think of them.

Yes, and you should've heard what they were saying about US during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years. We were almost universally despised for our ham-handedness and allegiance to global corporate interests.

In any case, you seem to be faulting Obama for helping to remove the dictators in Libya and Egypt, and then for NOT helping remove them in other places.

To read some of the posters on this site proclaiming that Obama's intentions are to spread real democracy around the world, simply underlines how ignorant they are.

No more ignorant that the right when they were saying the same thing about the Bush foreign policy. But, you won't hear me saying that about either one of them. I'm not that naive.