In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
is Comrade Barry the biggest bastard we've ever known?
I am confused. So they are mad that he is too repetitive in his generic praise for allied countries or not repetitive enough? THAT BASTARD!
or that barry is a professional liar? you do realise that not everyone can be the 'strongest and closest ally' at the same time? That's the whole point. And the superiority complex of this guy who is the worst president the US has ever had, possibly. Who gave him the right to judge what countries were 'punching above their weight' or not? Frankly he should critique his own performance.
Gonna agree with Daunt here, Obama is much worse than Bush. Obama's globalised drone terrorist campaign has made the enemies of Europe & the Anglophone world stronger and bankrupted the US of respect in the eyes of the nations of the world - a huge blunder going into the new multipolar 21st century world order: far from retaining 'superpower' status the American Republic is probably going to become the new 'sick man' of the world while they are paying off all the debt they've accumulated
perhaps giving more taxpayers' money to zombie energy firms that go bankrupt like Solyndra will kickstart the American economy, what have you got in the bag, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barry?
How long did it take you to program a bot that scoops up Fox News talking points and then joins them in a sentence? I find natural language processors pretty daunting and find your technical acumen quite impressive.
On November 15 2013 07:24 xDaunt wrote: I don't think that anyone pretends that Obama is good at international relations any more.
Not as good as Clinton being in bed with the Saudis, but no one can be worse than Bush.
Are you kidding? For as bad as Bush was, Obama is infinitely worse. He has alienated most of our key allies (UK, Israel, and Saudis immediately come to mind, not counting numerous other smaller nations like Poland) and ceded American influence in the Middle East to Russia. Obama's foreign policy has been about as disastrous as it can be in terms of managing diplomatic relations. The only thing that he has done a good job of is avoiding getting us entangled in additional wars. However, the way in which he has done it has been completely inept (see Syria).
what? how can you conceive of the infinite? what a load of hyperbole. bush alienated the entire world except uk israel and saudis. why are the saudis and israel key allies? you'd just love to pretend iraq didn't have any negative effect on US international relations, but face the facts and stop trying to dodge the issue. you've pointed out nothing that indicates to a functional brain that obama is infinitely worse than bush on international relations. but then to you international relations is equivalent to being a good empire (which is clear when you say he 'ceded' american 'influence' to russia, a complete joke of a statement). and no, he handled syria quite well. almost perfectly actually. but i dont have to give the reasons that are valid because to you spewing opinion and rhetoric is enough.
On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are not even close to as important American allies as Europe, not historically, not currently, and not anytime in the conceivable future.
Domestically, well, I'd guess it just depends more on perspective, and I can understand that if you hate the idea of ACA then you will also hate Obama, and he has seemed less "capable" than most american presidents in the sense of what he has managed to accomplish. But, I can't think of any president ever who has had to deal with even nearly as polarized political climate, and it seems hard to blame obama for that. The republican party of the past 15 years has turned into a completely ridiculous entity, and aside from israeli settlers it's hard to find anyone outside the US who actually prefer bush.
Obama's legacy as far as foreign policy goes will still probably be his speech in Cairo. The president has had numerous fopo faux pas for sure, but in general his foreign policy, particularly under clinton, has been exceptional. He has done an excellent job of walking the fine line when it comes to support for Israel, and his support of American interests throughout the Arab Spring has been very well done. Lastly the precedent set by the Libya intervention is incredibly important, and I think it will have a huge effect on shifting US military policy.
I don't think his foreign policy is perfect, and his domestic agenda definitely has a lot of flaws, but in general Obama has been doing a pretty good job in foreign policy.
On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are not even close to as important American allies as Europe, not historically, not currently, and not anytime in the conceivable future.
Domestically, well, I'd guess it just depends more on perspective, and I can understand that if you hate the idea of ACA then you will also hate Obama, and he has seemed less "capable" than most american presidents in the sense of what he has managed to accomplish. But, I can't think of any president ever who has had to deal with even nearly as polarized political climate, and it seems hard to blame obama for that. The republican party of the past 15 years has turned into a completely ridiculous entity, and aside from israeli settlers it's hard to find anyone outside the US who actually prefer bush.
Obama's legacy as far as foreign policy goes will still probably be his speech in Cairo. The president has had numerous fopo faux pas for sure, but in general his foreign policy, particularly under clinton, has been exceptional. He has done an excellent job of walking the fine line when it comes to support for Israel, and his support of American interests throughout the Arab Spring has been very well done. Lastly the precedent set by the Libya intervention is incredibly important, and I think it will have a huge effect on shifting US military policy.
I don't think his foreign policy is perfect, and his domestic agenda definitely has a lot of flaws, but in general Obama has been doing a pretty good job in foreign policy.
How can you possibly single out that Cairo speech as his greatest achievement when he subsequently pissed away all American influence in the Middle East?
Lol, xDaunt, the TL politics crowd has already moved away from Obamacare again to debate Obama's foreign policy legacy. But most of us do not seem to live in the US so there are few opinions about whether the website is really as bad as has been reported. It also doesn't affect anyone who doesn't live in the US.
On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
The difference is that Bush got most of the blame for Iraq. With NSA and drone strikes it is becoming increasingly understood that this is mainstream US policy and it will continue almost no matter who gets elected next.
So maybe US foreign policy was more unpopular under Bush, but the damage done in the last 5 years is more permanent.
On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are not even close to as important American allies as Europe, not historically, not currently, and not anytime in the conceivable future.
Domestically, well, I'd guess it just depends more on perspective, and I can understand that if you hate the idea of ACA then you will also hate Obama, and he has seemed less "capable" than most american presidents in the sense of what he has managed to accomplish. But, I can't think of any president ever who has had to deal with even nearly as polarized political climate, and it seems hard to blame obama for that. The republican party of the past 15 years has turned into a completely ridiculous entity, and aside from israeli settlers it's hard to find anyone outside the US who actually prefer bush.
Obama's legacy as far as foreign policy goes will still probably be his speech in Cairo. The president has had numerous fopo faux pas for sure, but in general his foreign policy, particularly under clinton, has been exceptional. He has done an excellent job of walking the fine line when it comes to support for Israel, and his support of American interests throughout the Arab Spring has been very well done. Lastly the precedent set by the Libya intervention is incredibly important, and I think it will have a huge effect on shifting US military policy.
I don't think his foreign policy is perfect, and his domestic agenda definitely has a lot of flaws, but in general Obama has been doing a pretty good job in foreign policy.
How can you possibly single out that Cairo speech as his greatest achievement when he subsequently pissed away all American influence in the Middle East?
By not fighting the Saudi's war for them? By getting involved with yet another pointless war where your choice is to support a dictator or terrorists? By not bending over to kiss Israel's ass?
You seem to equate "influence" with "ability to dictate". The reason why bush was so despised and so alienating to mostly all of Europe was that he completely disregarded diplomacy and rather acted like world dictator - equating lacking compliance with hostility. (e.g. either you're with us or against us. ) It was a drawback to cold-war thought and ideology where most countries indeed did have a strong allegiance one way or the other - and one of the best things that happened to the world during the late 80s and 90s was the abandonment of this thought and ideology.
Obama's legacy from his first year as president was literally that he undid the European impression of the US as a big bully deserving of ridicule. The fact that obama got the peace prize- which absolutely was ridiculous, which was ridiculed in contemporary norway and which has not seemed any wiser of a decision ever since - is testament to how much he succeeded in immediately changing the european perception of the US.. In truthfulness, he almost got the peace prize simply for not being George W Bush. This isn't me saying how great Obama has been, I just don't think you are even close to understanding how incredibly damaging George W Bush was to Europe's perception of the US. Now, the recent NSA scandal and discontent with drone warfare have certainly once again hurt the US' global image, but man, it's not even close to as bad as it was in 2004-2005.
For US foreign policy to Syria; my view is that it was a good try, but things are going sour, and now the moderate rebel faction isn't doing well. Between assad and the terrorist rebel, both are bad, though assad is slightly less bad. I'd say try to cut an adequate deal between the moderate rebels and assad; then let assad focus on fighting the terrorists.
On November 15 2013 09:09 coverpunch wrote: Lol, xDaunt, the TL politics crowd has already moved away from Obamacare again to debate Obama's foreign policy legacy. But most of us do not seem to live in the US so there are few opinions about whether the website is really as bad as has been reported. It also doesn't affect anyone who doesn't live in the US.
It is about as comfortable for a liberal/fan of Obama to talk about Obamacare right now as it is for a boyfriend to talk about the fact that his girlfriend has herpes.
On November 15 2013 09:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: You seem to equate "influence" with "ability to dictate". The reason why bush was so despised and so alienating to mostly all of Europe was that he completely disregarded diplomacy and rather acted like world dictator - equating lacking compliance with hostility. (e.g. either you're with us or against us. ) It was a drawback to cold-war thought and ideology where most countries indeed did have a strong allegiance one way or the other - and one of the best things that happened to the world during the late 80s and 90s was the abandonment of this thought and ideology.
Obama's legacy from his first year as president was literally that he undid the European impression of the US as a big bully deserving of ridicule. The fact that obama got the peace prize- which absolutely was ridiculous, which was ridiculed in contemporary norway and which has not seemed any wiser of a decision ever since - is testament to how much he succeeded in immediately changing the european perception of the US.. In truthfulness, he almost got the peace prize simply for not being George W Bush. This isn't me saying how great Obama has been, I just don't think you are even close to understanding how incredibly damaging George W Bush was to Europe's perception of the US. Now, the recent NSA scandal and discontent with drone warfare have certainly once again hurt the US' global image, but man, it's not even close to as bad as it was in 2004-2005.
Um...please support your narratives with data.
In most countries, Obama is doing better than Bush, certainly better than Bush at his trough around 2007. But support for Obama is also dipping in most countries too. He's not doing as well to improve support for the US as your narrative would suggest compared to Bush in 2005 (the year after his re-election).
what? that statistic absolutely backs up my statement, almost more than I expected it to. Look at the difference between 2008 and 2009. Obama's election makes france go from 42 to 75, germany from 31 to 64, spain from 33 to 58. scandinavian countries would tell the same story, and I expect the same from benelux.
If anything, I should have specified western europe. Poland and probably other eastern european countries had more people who favoured bush compared to obama because they wanted a stronger, more aggressive US to work as a counterpart to russia. Even with the dip since obama's first election (and like I said, obama HAS been disappointing to me and many other western europeans), in western europe it has moved from 53 to 58, 42 to 64, 31 to 53, 33 to 62, 53 to 76, 33 to 62. Considering that a significant amount of europeans would answer that they are favourably inclined or disfavourably inclined towards the US regardless of who the president was, these changes in perception are massive. Fluctuations of 5 percent on these types of polls are actually very significant, 30% in one year is incredible.
On November 15 2013 10:15 xDaunt wrote: I highly doubt that Obama is on the positive side of the ledger in Israel.
Israel is a fascist imperial state. Why should we care that they would preferred Romney?
I'm fascinated by the propaganda machine. At some point in the past 5 years Israel became a large conservative talking point. You can't be conservative nowadays without borderline advocating a Palestinian holocaust. To introduce reality into this conversation, Israel is our middle eastern colony. We can do whatever the hell we want with it, because without our support it stops existing. We can't 'lose' Israel's support. They've never given us any. We just don't want them to go under because then we lose our foothold in the region.
TL;DR We don't have any reason to give two shits what the Israeli's think. They need us.
On November 15 2013 07:24 xDaunt wrote: I don't think that anyone pretends that Obama is good at international relations any more.
Not as good as Clinton being in bed with the Saudis, but no one can be worse than Bush.
Are you kidding? For as bad as Bush was, Obama is infinitely worse. He has alienated most of our key allies (UK, Israel, and Saudis immediately come to mind, not counting numerous other smaller nations like Poland) and ceded American influence in the Middle East to Russia. Obama's foreign policy has been about as disastrous as it can be in terms of managing diplomatic relations. The only thing that he has done a good job of is avoiding getting us entangled in additional wars. However, the way in which he has done it has been completely inept (see Syria).
Your posts on U.S. foreign policy are basically a combination of Republican talking points and Krauthammer blog posts. Please stop pretending you have even any remote knowledge of how the U.S. diplomatic relations' have been going on under Obama. For example (and I've mentioned this before), if the U.S. under Obama has been so bad at managing diplomatic relations, how come it achieved all of its objectives and more during the extremely delicate 2010 IMF quota and governance reform? What's that, you've never heard of it? News flash: the media barely mentions anything of what U.S. foreign policy actually achieves. If you think for one second that most world countries are less likely to work with the U.S. under Obama, even after the NSA scandal, than they were under Bush, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. None. And I'm not only talking about bilateral relations either - the Obama administration is generally much more apt than the Bush administration at working with other countries in international organizations (which doesn't say much when Bush appointed someone like Bolton to represent the U.S. at the UN). Now, if you're only interested in listening to the Obama bashing that goes on in Krauthammer columns because it's cognitively comfortable to you, be my guest, but don't act you've got any actual understanding of international relations. If you're actually interested in learning about U.S. foreign policy, then open up a few IR academic journals instead.
On November 15 2013 02:36 xDaunt wrote: Why is there so much discussion about the esoteric around here when Obamacare is imploding in grand fashion on the world stage?
Concisely explain how it's 'imploding in grand fashion'
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/07/Balance-of-Power54.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/07/Balance-of-Power32.png)
