What are Obamas Foreign Policy Achievements?

[blackhawk]

What are Obamas Foreign Policy Achievements?

5 years out of the way. What can Obama boast as his foreign policy achievements? I can only think of the following:

His "Pivot towards Asia" has successfully filled a vacuum that the Chinese and hoped to fill in and around the South China Sea, effectively preventing China from claiming the disputed territory for themselves at the expense of 7-8 other countries.

Any other nominations?

Outside of the Bin Laden raid nothing comes to mind but foreign policy was never a major concern of Obama's to start with.

 

[Publius1787]

I listed one achievement in the op. Indeed, it is an achievement that liberals are unaware of, because, lets face it they are foreign policy novices. What is striking is that this post seems to substantiate that liberals either know nothing about foreign policy, don't understand why foreign policy is important, don't understand that foreign policy was among the most important aspects of being president upon this countries founding (Where getting the Secretary of State position propelled you to the Presidency), or have no foreign policy achievements they can point to with respect to President Obama.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bush was respected? By whom?

To the OP's question:

http://theweek.com/article/index/25...ely-be-most-remembered-for-his-foreign-policy

 

[Publius1787]

Bush was respected? By whom?

To the OP's question:

Why Obama will likely be most remembered for his foreign policy - The Week

Didn't read it. What did you deduce from that article?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bush was respected? By whom?

To the OP's question:

Why Obama will likely be most remembered for his foreign policy - The Week

Didn't read it. What did you deduce from that article?

**** you. Third paragraph. Take a look.

 

[Publius1787]

Bush was respected? By whom?

To the OP's question:

Why Obama will likely be most remembered for his foreign policy - The Week

Didn't read it. What did you deduce from that article?

**** you. You arrogant shit. Third paragraph. Take a look.

From the third paragraph

Consider the following successes. During his first term, Obama signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, which decreased strategic nuclear stockpiles by about 30 percent and renewed inspections of both countries' arsenals. He ordered the strike that killed Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted man, after a 10-year search. He played his cards right in Libya, helping end Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year reign with minimal cost to the United States.

Do you mean the same START treaty whereas Obama leaked the British nuclear capabilities to get? The same START treaty he got by turning his back on our allies with respect to strategic nuclear defense capabilities? All for what? Nuclear arms reduction? How does nuclear arms reduction among the big 3 even register a blip on the map as a foreign policy achievement? Are we at threat of going to nuclear war? I don't think so. In the end we got less nukes with damaged relations and even our relations with Russia are lower now than ever before.
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets - Telegraph .
WikiLeaks claim the US are set to reveal British nuclear secrets to Russia | Mail Online

OBL? You call that a foreign policy achievement? What are you going to give him credit for? Bravely ordering other people to do the intel and take out a terrorist for him? What? Did you think that Obama did anything other than simply give the "go" order? He did not.

Moammar Gadhafi? You mean the guy who was cooperating with the US because he shit his pants when Bush started the Global War on Terror (Renamed by Obama "contingency operations")? Listen, there is a time when we should have taken out Gadhafi. After he started to cooperate with the US was not the time. And unlike under Gadhafi, Libya now poses a major threat to US foreign policy interests as a safe haven for terror. After Bush broke Gadhafi into cooperation, he was no longer a threat. Obama reversed Bush's foreign policy achievement on this one!

Like ducks in a row, 1, 2, 3. Got anything else other than a tired old publication that looks at Obamas "foreign policy achievements" through the lenses of how uneducated people will look politically , not substantively, at his foreign policy? Care to perhaps make your own feakin argument instead of recycling someone else's garbage?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Foreign policy successes are foreign policy successes. Someone of mediocre intelligence, such as yourself, can find things to ***** about regardless of the subject. It is easy to do. Perfection is very rare when it comes to public policy or foreign policy. You capitalize on that fact as you draw your plans for partisan threads.

Your OP suggests no foreign policy victories for Obama. The facts say otherwise.

The overall flavor of the Obama foreign policy record is one of success. Period.

 

[percysunshine]

This may seem like a dumb question, but doesn't an administration actually need a foreign policy before said policy can be deemed a success or a failure?

 

[Publius1787]

Foreign policy successes are foreign policy successes. Someone of mediocre intelligence, such as yourself, can find things to ***** about regardless of the subject. It is easy to do. Perfection is very rare when it comes to public policy or foreign policy. You capitalize on that fact as you draw your plans for partisan threads.

Your OP suggests no foreign policy victories for Obama. The facts say otherwise.

The overall flavor of the Obama foreign policy record is one of success. Period.

You obviously have not read the OP. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-foreign-policy-achievements.html#post8475963

I find it funny that you think you are making a successful argument by posting articles for me to destroy with no original thought of your own. After I destroy them you have the audacity not to defend the articles you posted. You just read what I posted, say "ho hum," call it a success in light of everything I posted (Which you don't refute with any evidence), tell me no ones perfect, call me a partisan (Foreign policy isn't really partisan), and launch a few ad-hominems.

Of course, no one is perfect in foreign policy, but traditionally we like to think a successful foreign policy is one that leaves us in a better position after implementation. I have asserted that Obamas Libya experiment is regressive for US foreign policy. The START treaty was as well and not worth the price we paid for it. Foreign policy successes? No!

 

[LoneLaugher]

This may seem like a dumb question, but doesn't an administration actually need a foreign policy before said policy can be deemed a success or a failure?

You want a name given to it?

Like "Bush Doctrine", Charlie?

 

[percysunshine]

This may seem like a dumb question, but doesn't an administration actually need a foreign policy before said policy can be deemed a success or a failure?

You want a name given to it?

Like "Bush Doctrine", Charlie?

Shouldn't the administration at least write it down somewhere so we have a reference point to argue about?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Foreign policy successes are foreign policy successes. Someone of mediocre intelligence, such as yourself, can find things to ***** about regardless of the subject. It is easy to do. Perfection is very rare when it comes to public policy or foreign policy. You capitalize on that fact as you draw your plans for partisan threads.

Your OP suggests no foreign policy victories for Obama. The facts say otherwise.

The overall flavor of the Obama foreign policy record is one of success. Period.

You obviously have not read the OP. http://www.usmessageboard.com/8475963-post1.html

I find it funny that you think you are making a successful argument by posting articles for me to destroy with no original thought of your own. After I destroy them you have the audacity not to defend the articles you posted. You just read what I posted, say "ho hum," call it a success in light of everything I posted (Which you don't refute with any evidence), tell me no ones perfect, call me a partisan (Foreign policy isn't really partisan), and launch a few ad-hominems.

Of course, no one is perfect in foreign policy, but traditionally we like to think a successful foreign policy is one that leaves us in a better position after implementation. I have asserted that Obamas Libya experiment is regressive for US foreign policy. The START treaty was as well and not worth the price we paid for it. Foreign policy successes? No!

You did not destroy anything.

I am not a foreign policy "wonk". It is not my primary interest. I am not going to play the part of a blowhard when I can submit links to articles that serve my purpose.

It is clear that the Obama administration has several foreign policy achievements. Your OP is shit. We are in a better position now than we were in January 09. Anyone.....even a dummy like me....can see that.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Correcting the GOP mistake of the Iraq War.

The Iraq War mistake is why he won in 2008, and his success at ending it got him re-elected in 2012.

 

[Publius1787]

This may seem like a dumb question, but doesn't an administration actually need a foreign policy before said policy can be deemed a success or a failure?

You want a name given to it?

Like "Bush Doctrine", Charlie?

There is not such thing as the "Bush Doctrine." Its a name that the media gave us which has changed its meaning quite a few times. Now liberals just throw it out there hoping it will have a negative connotation when everyone in the room has no idea what it means as it has never really been defined by anyone other than the media elite.

Generally, the media claims the Bush Doctrine mean any or all of the following.

Attacking countries that harbor terrorists: NOT NEW In fact, very old. See Thomas Jefferson
Pre-emptive strikes: NOT NEW Look up the history of US military engagements
Democratic regime change: NOT NEW See CIA
Unilateralism: NOT NEW See nearly any and every president since FDR

They just reported negatively on Bush, said the above things are all bad, called it the "Bush Doctrine" as a means of slander, and turned their heads/ignored as Obama did the same. Lemmie give you a perfect example. What is the "Obama Doctrine?" Look that up and you will find a mess of stuff that no one has agreed upon and the media has not seen fit to define!

 

[percysunshine]

Correcting the GOP mistake of the Iraq War.

The Iraq War mistake is why he won in 2008, and his success at ending it got him re-elected in 2012.

Finally. A nomination for a potential foreign policy.

It is kind of out of date and geographically limited...assuming it was actually written down somewhere.

 

[velvtacheeze]

He let the Seals kill the Head Lunatic Muslim. That's about it. And that's not foreign policy...its just all I could think of.

The most embarrassing was that Reset Button with Russia. Putin realized right then that he was dealing with rank amateurs....and he has toyed with them ever since.

The most damaging will likely be the deal he has made with Iran. Its not surprising that he would make it. He will tell the American people that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear bomb...but that is exactly what he means to allow. He is a Liar you see.

He particularly likes to lie to the American people. He has learned that they are stupid enough to believe him.

Tough three years coming up with America's foreign policy.

Americans would probably be more in favor of hawkishness towards Iran over it's nuke program if the idiotic Iraq War had not been started by the oafish and all-thumbed Bush White House. The GOP's Iraq War mistake has changed America's mind about the value of aggression. Most Americans oppose hawkishness now, and if Iran does get a nuke, it will really be the fault of the GOP and the mistake it made in 2003.

 

[Publius1787]

Foreign policy successes are foreign policy successes. Someone of mediocre intelligence, such as yourself, can find things to ***** about regardless of the subject. It is easy to do. Perfection is very rare when it comes to public policy or foreign policy. You capitalize on that fact as you draw your plans for partisan threads.

Your OP suggests no foreign policy victories for Obama. The facts say otherwise.

The overall flavor of the Obama foreign policy record is one of success. Period.

You obviously have not read the OP. http://www.usmessageboard.com/8475963-post1.html

I find it funny that you think you are making a successful argument by posting articles for me to destroy with no original thought of your own. After I destroy them you have the audacity not to defend the articles you posted. You just read what I posted, say "ho hum," call it a success in light of everything I posted (Which you don't refute with any evidence), tell me no ones perfect, call me a partisan (Foreign policy isn't really partisan), and launch a few ad-hominems.

Of course, no one is perfect in foreign policy, but traditionally we like to think a successful foreign policy is one that leaves us in a better position after implementation. I have asserted that Obamas Libya experiment is regressive for US foreign policy. The START treaty was as well and not worth the price we paid for it. Foreign policy successes? No!

You did not destroy anything.

I am not a foreign policy "wonk". It is not my primary interest. I am not going to play the part of a blowhard when I can submit links to articles that serve my purpose.

It is clear that the Obama administration has several foreign policy achievements. Your OP is shit. We are in a better position now than we were in January 09. Anyone.....even a dummy like me....can see that.

Claims with no evidence all. Exactly what has Obama achieved? My OP conceded one achievement. I can think of no others. Evidently, neither can you. If you cannot make a claim and argue your claim then why bother posting at all?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You obviously have not read the OP. http://www.usmessageboard.com/8475963-post1.html

I find it funny that you think you are making a successful argument by posting articles for me to destroy with no original thought of your own. After I destroy them you have the audacity not to defend the articles you posted. You just read what I posted, say "ho hum," call it a success in light of everything I posted (Which you don't refute with any evidence), tell me no ones perfect, call me a partisan (Foreign policy isn't really partisan), and launch a few ad-hominems.

Of course, no one is perfect in foreign policy, but traditionally we like to think a successful foreign policy is one that leaves us in a better position after implementation. I have asserted that Obamas Libya experiment is regressive for US foreign policy. The START treaty was as well and not worth the price we paid for it. Foreign policy successes? No!

You did not destroy anything.

I am not a foreign policy "wonk". It is not my primary interest. I am not going to play the part of a blowhard when I can submit links to articles that serve my purpose.

It is clear that the Obama administration has several foreign policy achievements. Your OP is shit. We are in a better position now than we were in January 09. Anyone.....even a dummy like me....can see that.

Claims with no evidence all. Exactly what has Obama achieved? My OP conceded one achievement. I can think of no others. Evidently, neither can you. If you cannot make a claim and argue your claim then why bother posting at all?

The successes have been posted in the thread. Your thread is shit.

Time for you to start a new one with another bullshit nutter meme.

 

[Publius1787]

You did not destroy anything.

I am not a foreign policy "wonk". It is not my primary interest. I am not going to play the part of a blowhard when I can submit links to articles that serve my purpose.

It is clear that the Obama administration has several foreign policy achievements. Your OP is shit. We are in a better position now than we were in January 09. Anyone.....even a dummy like me....can see that.

Claims with no evidence all. Exactly what has Obama achieved? My OP conceded one achievement. I can think of no others. Evidently, neither can you. If you cannot make a claim and argue your claim then why bother posting at all?

The successes have been posted in the thread. Your thread is shit.

Time for you to start a new one with another bullshit nutter meme.

They are? Where?

 

[velvtacheeze]

Correcting the GOP mistake of the Iraq War.

The Iraq War mistake is why he won in 2008, and his success at ending it got him re-elected in 2012.

Finally. A nomination for a potential foreign policy.

It is kind of out of date and geographically limited...assuming it was actually written down somewhere.

There is just no way that conservatives can credibly say the Democrats have a worse foreign policy, with more problems and mistakes, then the GOP had with it's foreign policy during the failed Bush Presidency. Sure, conservatives convince other conservatives that Democrats are wrong, but who cares? Conservatives need to convince independents, moderates and liberals, and they have been unable to do that.

The Iraq War was a huge mistake, and most blame the GOP for it, and refuse to return to the White House a member of the party they blame the most for the mistake of that stupid, costly war of choice.

Conservatives need to stop cheerleading the Iraq War, need to fess up that it was a mistake, need to moderate their counterproductive warmongering, need to promise not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush years in order to get their credibility back. Screaming about Benghazi isn't working for conservatives.