He did one thing became the first black president end of
US Presidents since World War II ranked in order*:
- Carter
- Obama
- Kennedy
- Eisenhower
- Clinton
- Bush I
- Johnson
- Ford
- Truman
- Nixon
- Reagan
- Bush II
*This is a favourite topic of Marian Finucane’s SoDuCoMo, especially in the middle years between US Presidential elections.
I understand that we need to make deals with despots but it was really just housekeeping. If it was truly groundbreaking from him we might be looking forward to the first free elections in Cuba in 55/56 years, instead the former dictator’s brother is still in charge. Considering the number of Cubans forced to flee from their homeland to the US and who are now citizens of the US, I would have liked to have seen a better deal for them and their families. It is not an important country geopolically anymore. A bit of housekeeping, but not something to hang your legacy on.
Overall, the ME is in its worst state in decades. The guy has had 8 years to build his foreign policy. He had enormous political capital domestically and abroad. His foreign policy has been aloof and he has not led from the front. Flip flopping on action in Libya and then Syria. He gave a couple of nice speeches on the Arab Spring but overall was reactive. It doesn’t matter if you’re liberal or conservative, you want to see some decisivness in foreign policy.
But why do you think the US should be able to bully a peaceful country in order to have diplomatic relations with it?
The Middle East is in the state it’s in primarily because the US went to war in Iraq. They were warned that would open a Pandora’s Box of uncontrollable forces, but didn’t heed those warnings.
It’s now pretty much impossible to put those forces back in that box.
Syria is an extension of the Shia/Sunni divide which the Iraq War opened. What has happened is not Obama’s fault. It is not his fault that three sides want to destroy each other.
The US destroyed any remaining credibility it had left as any sort of honest outside actor when it invaded Iraq. It has had no credibility in the region since then, and any significant military interventions by it will only make things worse.
US boots on the ground would more than likely have resulted in an even worse and more intractable quagmire than has occurred, with Islamists gaining the upper hand.
It’s telling that none of Obama’s critics seem to have the slightest idea of what he should have done about Syria, and in that situation doing nothing is better than doing something.
I’ll happily take “indecisiveness” and largely non-interventionism on foreign policy over idiots wielding “decisive” foreign policy, thanks.
I happen to think staying out of it was the least worst option. US public opinion would agree, I think - certainly, one of Trump’s main plays was to invoke non-interventionism (as did Bush II). But as with Bush, I expect Trump will be the opposite of non-interventionist and we’ll see some sort of mutation of neo-conservatism come to the fore again. But nobody really knows what will happen and there will likely be unexpected events which will change the situation again, this may not be limited to the Middle East but could involve Eastern Europe or China.
Lazarus cunningly deflects netbound rasper out for a 65.
The crafty fucker.
1 Like
I really have no idea what you are trying to say here or in your last few posts. Clinton was better on foreign policy, how? Nonsense. Either Bush? Lol. Your posts are contradictory and stupid.
One of your poorer ones.
I made it perfectly clear. Obama has nothing on his foreign policy CV worth talking about other than killing Osama and the Nobel Peace Prize.
What American president since WW2 has? They have all murdered and butchered in the name of capitalism
Who in recent history has done better than that?
None of them have done anything but start wars and murder - America is an empire and it is in the business of acquisition, not policy.
The Iran deal, Cuba and no starting no more idiotic wars abroad are a damn sight more than any US president since World War II has.
Only Jimmy Carter and to a lesser extent Bush I were anywhere near as good on foreign policy.
Bill Clinton helped bring peace to Northern Ireland
Ronald Reagan tore down the Berlin Wall
Nixton has detente
You can moan about Bush all you like - but ultimately he didn’t up sticks and leave Iraq when the going got tough. He made the troop surge which reduced violence and helped get the country going a bit. The American people wanted troops out and Obama followed through fair enough, but Bush didn’t cut and run. Obama has admitted to fucking up in Libya. He intervened and then had NFI what to do. He then flip flopped over Syria remembering he was supposed to be non interventionist again.
Ronald Reagan did not tear down the Berlin Wall.
He had no hand, act or part in it.
1 Like
What about the US influence in Syria? Once more looking to over-throw a government they don’t agree with - He has as much blood on his hands as his predecessors
What US influence in Syria?
US influence in Syria was miniscule.
What the fuck was Bush doing in Iraq in the first place, you gowl?
Again Cuba, minor housekeeping which left a despot’s family in charge. Embarrassing that you would still bring it up as some kind of true legacy
The Iran deal is fatally flawed, it will not prevent Iran making a nuclear bomb, something which Obama has admitted.