Is Obama a Foreign-Policy Failure?

1. 31

   Writer Foxposted 9 years ago

   Is Obama a Foreign-Policy Failure?
   
   Obama has no success in relations between Ukraine and Russia, in the Middle East, or in the African continent's Egypt, Libya, Central African Republic, Congo, Somalia or Sudan. His outreach to Cuba (credited to the Vatican) has not stopped the terrorist-supporting Venezuela regime from dominating Cuba. He wants US ground troops to push back ISIS expansion, but does not want new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear development program. He failed to address yesterday's Iranian-sponsored takeover of Yemen. Does Obama have any foreign-policy successes or is he a complete foreign-policy failure?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 77

   lovemychrisposted 9 years ago

   Yes--he has successfully stopped the Likudnics from forcing us into 2 new wars....Syria and Iran. He has successfully overcome years of tired thinking where families get hurt--Cuba. And any serious thought on Africa has to start from Africom.....which raised huge red-flags when it began.
   Ukraine is State dept. and Cheney stay-behinds such as Robert Kagan. And the irony is staggering.....US and Israel supporting Neo-Nasis.
   We also support Syrian rebels fighting Assad.
   I only see things getting worse,with neo-cons now in charge of Congress--once again.
   Obama has been the levvy preventing the insane typhoon...and a small minority has put it back in power.

   replyreport
   1. 31

      Writer Foxposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I think the president is required to do more than put his finger in the dike.  Can you point to anything he has actually accomplished with his foreign policy?

      replyreport
   2. 77

      lovemychrisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Putting his finger on the dyke is major in this climate of RahRah's pushing for war!

      replyreport
3. 60

   fpherj48posted 9 years ago

   Good Evening Writer Fox.....good to see you and read your question.  When I saw the TITLE, I knew I wanted to pop in for a moment.
   IMHO, you could have actually left out the words, "Foreign-Policy" from your question......but my answer is "YES," either way.
   Have a good night & keep smiling........Peace, Paula

   replyreport
   1. 77

      lovemychrisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Awwwwww, more freebie insults for the mom?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      fpherj48posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Awww yeahhhh..Then there are always those who need to check their damaging egos at the door, accept that ALL have the right to opinions & free speech.. & "think" B-4 using a nude breast for attention rather than their intellect.

      replyreport
   3. 77

      lovemychrisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hey--I raised 3 girls,now 2 grandsons....I must be entitled to a LOT of freebie insults. Except when you use them against a Republican--you're called anti-American.

      replyreport
4. 81

   dashingscorpioposted 9 years ago

   I suppose it depends on one's politics and if they believe the U.S. should police the rest of the world. No matter who is president there will always be a crisis going on. World peace is a dream.
   Generally speaking history will reflect whether or not a president made the right moves. One can only imagine if 9/11 had happened on Obama's watch! Some people would have blamed him!
   I believe people who don't like the guy feel he hasn't done (anything) right! You could compare the economy from 2009 to where it is today and show them the lower unemployment rate, GDP growth, lower foreclosures, the stock market at all time highs, home values increasing, killing Osama Bin Laden, lower oil prices, and the deficit reductions...etc None of that matters if you dislike the guy!
   Truth be told there are good things and bad things that happen on every president's watch. If one dislikes a president he gets all of the "blame" for the bad things and none of the "credit" for the good things.
   If you like the president he gets (all) the credit for the good things and (none) of the bad things are his/her fault!  Most people see what (they) want to see. They're not interested in hearing different views.
   Very few people are (independent or unbiased) when it comes to grading politicians. Not many watch both FOX News and MSNBC.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      fpherj48posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      As always dashing...you're absolutely correct.

      replyreport
   2. 31

      Writer Foxposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Domestic policy (economy, etc.) and foreign policy are two different things. Can you point to any foreign policy achievements of this administration?

      replyreport
   3. 81

      dashingscorpioposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The vast majority of Americans are more concerned with having a job, home, and able to enjoy their lives. If everything were rosy in foreign policy with a bad economy he'd be called a failure. Few presidents have lasting foreign  "achievements"

      replyreport
5. 71

   Marie Flintposted 9 years ago

   I listened to the State of the Union on YouTube last night, and I'm probably the worst person to ask about politics, since I generally avoid them.
   
   Overall, I thought the President did a good job in his address, but that's how he got elected, isn't it, because of his public-speaking ability.
   
   Interestingly enough, the book contract I was supposed to have was with a middle-aged Eritrean, a Muslim, who is striving to free his people of the despots who are abusing his people. Although, he didn't think much of the United States' covert support of the ruling dictatorship, he claimed to be an American and came to this country for amnesty.
   
   Having spoken with him and experiencing portions of his "autobiography" (more of an historical policital rant), I assessed him to be a good person--sincere, hungry for peace and freedom.
   
   In high school, I was on the debate team. The issues? Whether Congress should ban unilateral military intervention in foreign countries. It's a debate that has never been resolved and is as pertinent today as it was decades ago. (Actually, it would change our system of checks and balances with respect to the president as commander-in-chief.)
   
   I believe our president to be sincere, if nothing else. No, he has not been the most effective president we've ever had.
   
   One nice thing I remember from the address was NASA's Mars mission. (I had just finished watching Bradbury's MARTIAN CHRONICLES on YouTube.) It will be interesting to follow our astronaut's year-long space flight.
   
   Can we, as a people world-wide, learn  to be more diplomatic and less militant? I hope so.
   
   Thank you for posing the question, Writer. Maybe I haven't really answered it. Whatever efforts have been made by this administration won't be seen in this generation, but maybe, just maybe in our children's children time.
   
   Salom.

   replyreport
6. 90

   Dr Billy Kiddposted 9 years ago

   Obama did not bomb Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli PM Natanyahu is in Washington to push the war on the U.S. Congress. Thus, Obama avoided yet another country sponsoring jihad. (The Iranians meanwhile are fighting the Islamic State).
   Americans now have the opportunity to mend relationships with Cuba by vising there legally.
   Obama did not push Russia into a war because of his not sending the U.S. military to Ukraine. (Russia's seizing of the Crimea is nothing compared to George W. Bush's attempt to seize the Iraqi oil fields.)
   Obama has kept U.S. ties to Egypt's secular government, and that has helped to keep the Israeli-Egypt peace accord working.
   Obama ended two wars, despite the destabilization of the Middle East caused by George Bush, by his attacking Iraq, thereby unleashing the dogs of war.
   Obama has worked with China to keep that country as a friend rather than as a foe.
   Obama is confronted by push back by Venezuela because George W. Bush tried to overthrow it's government.
   One can't be an Obama hater and think he is the cause of all the world's problems. That's fine. It allows a person to ignore the facts and to have no knowledge of international politics.

   replyreport
7. 0

   Larry Wallposted 9 years ago

   The simple answer is in two parts.
   1. What defines a foreign policy failure?
   2. Can anyone be credited with being a foreign policy success.?
   
   To further the discussion, Nixon, who was removed from office, open relations with china.
   
   The U.S. fought a costly war in Viet Nam and now the country is not divided, doing well economically and the U.S. is buy back helicopters that were left behind when we gave up and left.

   replyreport