Support NeoGAF

[amanset]

That's why we couldn't deal with Libya.

We "couldn't deal with Libya" because all the EU leaders know that there is no will for it in their electorate as, frankly, the electorate is fed up with this shit.

Especially in the UK, going all in, the same way they did with Iraq and Afghanistan, would be political suicide.

 

[Quixzlizx]

The US will never leave the Arab world so long as Israel keeps pulling the leash on its foreign policy.

The popular internet analysis that the only reason the US is involved in the Middle East is due to their Zionist puppetmasters is intellectually lazy at best and bigoted/sinister at worst.

The US was involved in the region decades before Israel and the US were allies due to something called the Cold War that you may have heard of.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

Term Limits

I thought a former president could re run for a 'third term' non consecutively? so say a gap of a terrible term with Trump in charge and then Obaman the dark knight returns to as the hero America deserves (to continue the hilarious analogies in this thread and article)

We do realize how good he is, that's why he's won every election he's ever run in.

Okay so not all American's - Republican American's dismiss him entirely despite any good because he's not on their political team

 

[okaay]

I didn't suggest that Germany is free riding, I was trying to say that they don't take part at all. And yes Germany should have the ability to project more military power abroad. That doesn't mean that they have to, the ability to do so in and of itself is what's important. The more apable the rest of Europe is militarily the less the US has to fill in the gaps. Which will lead to a more balanced foreign policy approach from the US. That change is sorely needed, and yes Germany should play a big part in helping to make it happen.

I agree, your first post just made it sound like Germany is coming off easy out of this "situation", which is just completely wrong since the costs will exceed the one the other powers are spending combined by a multiple times.

And i am by no means a fan of Germany's policy, especially of the past few months.

 

[MikeDown]

This guy is delusional when it comes to foreign policy, he said he wants to extract the US from involvement in the Middle East, yet he and his administration played key roles in what has happened in Syria, Libya & Egypt.

 

[theignoramus]

That's not true in the slightest.

Watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/netanyahu-at-war/

Yup, there was an era when that "attack dog" analogy was consice, the era right after the October war, when Israel established total dominance over the Soviet backed Arab states, but since the 80s (starting with the '82 Israeli invasion of Lebanon) Israel has been America's rogue stepchild.

 

[Ogodei]

Give no fucks Obama continues to amuse.

 

[Anduron]

Yeah this article is making me worry about Hillary as well. That aside The Atlantic has been killing it of late, great piece.

 

[Nivash]

We "couldn't deal with Libya" because all the EU leaders know that there is no will for it in their electorate as, frankly, the electorate is fed up with this shit.

Especially in the UK, going all in, the same way they did with Iraq and Afghanistan, would be political suicide.

That's part of the problem. The EU was the closest major power, we have a responsibility to protect life in our immediate backyard. If we don't, we end up with massive refugee streams like what we're seeing now and which are on the verge of toppling the union. But that's not even my point, my point is that we couldn't have intervened even if we wanted to because we don't have the ability - we couldn't even do a proper air campaign. In our own backyard.

I'm not suggesting that the EU should try to become the next world police and intervene willy nilly on a global scale but when there are wars raging on your own border you need to intervene out of sheer self interest if nothing else, because that kind of situation is destabilising and opens you up for getting hit by the fallout. Which we have already seen to some extent with the ISIS terror attacks.

 

[ant_]

Yeah this article is making me worry about Hillary as well. That aside The Atlantic has been killing it of late, great piece.

The Atlantic is by far one of the best publications. Their writing is fantastic.

 

[Curufinwe]

Oh yes. That's what latin america wants. More US fuckery. Yes sir. Because we didn't get enough of it the other times they tried.

Pretty sure he's talking about trade and investment, not the CIA helping with military coups.

 

[Abinash117]

Here's an politico article that is more about the ME http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/we-caved-obama-foreign-policy-legacy-213495

 

[shintoki]

The UK & France have enough to stop Russia from doing anything stupid and that's all that is needed.

Not really. It's enough to prevent them from using their nuclear arsenal(And I don't think anyone would use it anyways), but judging how aggressive Russia has become with the strongest deterrent being NATO, not the EU. And NATO falls apart without the US. In the article, Obama is even stating that Britain and France are reliant on US ordinance and weaponry for Syria.

That is an absurd oversimplification, and largely incorrect.

Do you think that the average person enjoys living in a barbaric theocracy?

After Desert Strike, the US had the option of pursuing in Iraq. The original Bush had this to say,

"Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. "

I believe one of the generals at the time put it bluntly, if we went into Iraq back in the 90's, it would take 10 years and the place would still be a mess. That is one country.

Obama has been doing a lot of good the past few years or at least trying. Our continue support to Israeli needs to be cut off. Its the Achilles heels in everything the US does. Its better to work with them with how we're are doing with Iran and the Nuclear deal, because out military actions have only fucked up shit more. It's not saying that we should assist them at times, but the US should not be there as an occupational force. Its going to come down to the people needing to change. Which is funny, because the first Bush said that too.

So no, me saying the US needs to fuck out of there is not incorrect. Our military does, our economical support, investments, infrastructure, and assistance with modernizing does not.

 

[Kyzer]

Who cares, he couldn't even fix any of Americas problems never mind anywhere outside it.

He's yesterdays news and on his way out.

The world has Donald or Hilary to look forward to now...can't wait.

lol somebodys salty...

Well I have health insurance thanks to ACA (and Im a small business owner who has no qualms with it), police body cameras are becoming standard, his stimulus package at the end of the day did its job, unemployment is at an all-time low after being at an all-time high, Dodd Frank made SOME sort of move toward wall-street regulation and putting an end to bailout situations (not enough though!), apologized for torture and other situations that have made us the bane of the eastern world, and Osama was assassinated under him.

But hey. He couldnt fix any of our problems lmfao

Was he perfect? No. Did he solve everything? No.

Sure he made ISIS worse but its really Iraq's fault, I dont think he was wrong for not FORCING the Iraqi's to accept out help and stay there even though they didn't want us, so meh. I think its better to give Bush the blame on that one.

All in all, he's probably been one of the more productive Presidents especially considering the gridlock in DC.

This is politics. Stats and objective historical analysis are infinitely more accurate than archetype-ing politicians in your head. To say you know how Hillary would be as president, or even Trump (even though youd have some evidence to back it up), and further, insinuate that she would try to act tough like a man is pretty ridiculous. You should probably not follow politics as if its a movie with characters, even though thats how it seems through the lens of media. Obama did a lot of things in his position, not just smile for the cameras. Out of curiosity, why do you feel this way? That he didn't solve any of America's problems, I mean. Is it possible you just don't like him as a person/character? I feel like you have similar views on Hillary and Trump too lol

 

[Curufinwe]

This guy is delusional when it comes to foreign policy, he said he wants to extract the US from involvement in the Middle East, yet he and his administration played key roles in what has happened in Syria, Libya & Egypt.

How many US troops are in those countries?

 

[amanset]

How many US troops are in those countries?

What's that got to do with it?

Or do you honestly think that's the only way things work?

 

[Jezbollah]

I'm glad to hear what Obama really thinks about all this stuff.

I personally know a few people both in the armed forces and ex who will gladly be of the opinion that they should no longer go in harms way for him and his successor.

 

[noshten]

Who in their right mind is supporting Hillary at this point? 😮

Israelis Prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders by 2-1 Margin

The Israel Democracy Institute’s Peace Index survey released Sunday found that 40.5 percent of Jewish-Israelis see former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as “preferable from Israel’s standpoint,” while only 16.5 percent prefer Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish.
The survey of 600 Israelis also found that 61 percent of Jewish-Israelis believe Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s positions on Israel are “very or moderately friendly.” In addition, 34 percent of Jewish-Israelis surveyed believe a Republican president would be better than a Democratic one for Israel and 28 percent think a Democratic president would be better, while 38 percent had no opinion or did not know.

 

[Abounder]

Even goddamn Trump talks about this. Americans are being exploited by our weak allies, meanwhile these countries try to steal away $billion fighter jet trade deals ala France.

USA should just dump cold war tanks into Germany and be done with expanding into the Middle East, it's time to rebuild our own infrastructure and send support vs China

 

[MikeDown]

How many US troops are in those countries?

Foreign policy is more then ground troops.

USA should just dump cold war tanks into Germany and be done with expanding into the Middle East, it's time to rebuild our own infrastructure and send support vs China

At the very least though, do you think we have a moral/ethical obligation to remain present in the Middle East to the extent of providing stability/aid to the regions we have destabilized?

 

[East Lake]

LOL, you mention like the one Middle East deal Israel was against, to say nothing of the literally thousands of pieces of legislation they have drafted and influenced. Yea, Obama seems to be the only president who stood up to Israel a little.

But otherwise, Israel influences and controls American foreign policy on the Middle East. Same in Britain. No one was pushing America to take out Assad more than Israel, not even Saudi. No one was pushing for the Iraq War more than Israel. No one was pushing against the Iran deal more than Israel. And if Hillary comes into power I expect her to continue to do Israel's bidding, as she has signaled she will. I don't think she will let Russia dictate what happens.

And considering all the troops Obama has sent all over the world, especially Africa, and considering how he has made JSOC into a crazy killing machine, a lot of what he says is pretty dishonest. Seems like he has just made some shrewd decisions to protect his legacy.

Israel itself has very little influence on US politics, it only tends to look that way because it happens to align with US corporate FP interests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1oRqCcmg9w&t=41m25s

 

[aeolist]

He then offered a critique that sounded more in line with the rhetoric of Cameron and Hollande. “There is also the need for Islam as a whole to challenge that interpretation of Islam, to isolate it, and to undergo a vigorous discussion within their community about how Islam works as part of a peaceful, modern society,” he said. But he added, “I do not persuade peaceful, tolerant Muslims to engage in that debate if I'm not sensitive to their concern that they are being tagged with a broad brush.”

he is absolutely right and it's why republicans will always be worse equipped to counter threats like isis. overt racism and xenophobia only helps their cause.

 

[Macam]

I thought a former president could re run for a 'third term' non consecutively? so say a gap of a terrible term with Trump in charge and then Obaman the dark knight returns to as the hero America deserves (to continue the hilarious analogies in this thread and article)

Just to answer this, you are correct. Presidents are limited to two consecutive terms (FDR is the only one to have managed that).

Okay so not all American's - Republican American's dismiss him entirely despite any good because he's not on their political team

Well, that's definitely part of the reason, but there's more to it than that.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

American President: "Why can't you Europeans be as warmongering as us?"

Mischaracterization. More like, "Why do you expect us to protect your interests in the region on the backs of our soldiers while you sit back and do little to assist?"

 

[jerry1594]

Pretty sure he's talking about trade and investment, not the CIA helping with military coups.

Trade and investment only helps the super rich and thieving politicians in that region.

 

[triplestation]

Obama is one of us

 

[Macam]

Also, people should sit down and read the original Atlantic article. It's long, but quite good.

It really does highlight the moral complexity of dealing with something like Syria and when/where/how to use military power. I still disagree with the lack of action on Syria -- just purely on a humanitarian level, this is very much what the post-WWII order was designed to help prevent -- but there really aren't any "good" answers on Syria, regardless.

I was glad to see Obama's thinly veiled contempt/skepticism for the foreign policy think tanks, and reference to the usual "playbook", which is spot on. I wish Clinton would learn from that.

 

[andythinkpad]

Again? Obama has already called China "free rider". Looking forward to hear him call Putin free rider in 3 months.

 

[parmanu]

Who would Obama want to win? Hmmm

US-Superman, Russia-Batman

 

[Miles Quaritch]

The popular internet analysis that the only reason the US is involved in the Middle East is due to their Zionist puppetmasters is intellectually lazy at best and bigoted/sinister at worst.

The US was involved in the region decades before Israel and the US were allies due to something called the Cold War that you may have heard of.

It's more about the reasons why they continue to be be involved in the region now rather than the past.

And are you suggesting that Israel's influence in US politics isn't a big driver for continued US involvement in the region?

 

[Mr Git]

Mr. Obama’s frustration with much of the Arab world is not new, but rarely has he been so blunt about it. He placed his comments in the context of his broader struggle to extract the United States from the bloody morass of the Middle East so that the nation can focus on more promising, faster-growing parts of the world, like Asia and Latin America.

So US spheres of interest are cyclic then? What does 'focus' mean in this context? On the end of a statement about the Middle East the inference is basically 'meddle with and bomb them', although in the case of Latin America that's pretty much deja vu. It's refreshing to see a current President call out how nefarious foreign policy usually is, though.

 

[amanset]

Mischaracterization. More like, "Why do you expect us to protect your interests in the region on the backs of our soldiers while you sit back and do little to assist?"

Because our interests are only at threat due to the US's actions, maybe?

Honestly, it is more seen as the US's mess so the US should clean it up.

 

[sploatee]

We already know, one will act like an asshole because he is, the other will act like an asshole just to try and prove she's as tough as any man.

Yes. Of course. Hillary wouldn't be able to exist if she didn't define herself by reference to men.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to finish baking a cake, cleaning the house and making myself look pretty for when my husband comes home from his tough day.

 

[spekkeh]

These deliciously candid quotes go well with watching the season finale of House of Cards tonight. Thanks Obama!

That's part of the problem. The EU was the closest major power, we have a responsibility to protect life in our immediate backyard. If we don't, we end up with massive refugee streams like what we're seeing now and which are on the verge of toppling the union. But that's not even my point, my point is that we couldn't have intervened even if we wanted to because we don't have the ability - we couldn't even do a proper air campaign. In our own backyard.

I'm not suggesting that the EU should try to become the next world police and intervene willy nilly on a global scale but when there are wars raging on your own border you need to intervene out of sheer self interest if nothing else, because that kind of situation is destabilising and opens you up for getting hit by the fallout. Which we have already seen to some extent with the ISIS terror attacks.

Well even if we could we wouldn't really be able to. E.g. Turkey doesn't allow EU ships to patrol the Greek waters.

 

[pigeon]

This article is excellent, but it's also terrifying, because it makes it pretty clear that the one, single voice in all of the Obama administration that put our foreign policy on a sustainable, less interventionist, less colonial mindset is Barack Obama, and he's the one guy we can't get back.

Obama for SecState under Hillary? He seems to be the only dove in Washington, D.C.

 

[amanset]

Obama for SecState under Hillary? He seems to be the only dove in Washington, D.C.

He's not even remotely a dove. He's a less hawky hawk.

 

[theignoramus]

This article is excellent, but it's also terrifying, because it makes it pretty clear that the one, single voice in all of the Obama administration that put our foreign policy on a sustainable, less interventionist, less colonial mindset is Barack Obama, and he's the one guy we can't get back.

Obama for SecState under Hillary? He seems to be the only dove in Washington, D.C.

Hillary does not come off looking good in that essay.
Joe Biden says she "wants to be Golda Mier", she wanted to bomb Syria, she pushed for the intervention in Libya and she apparently goes around saying "I dont want my grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese"

 

[Red Blaster]

Obama for SecState under Hillary? He seems to be the only dove in Washington, D.C.

fucking LOL

 

[Visualante2]

The UK & France have enough to stop Russia from doing anything stupid and that's all that is needed.

The UK can't even guard it's own coast line from Russian submarines without calling in air support from NATO.

 

[pigeon]

He's not even remotely a dove. He's a less hawky hawk.

I mean, it's a continuum? What would characterize somebody as a dove to you?

Hillary does not come off looking good in that essay.
Joe Biden says she "wants to be Golda Mier", she wanted to bomb Syria, she pushed for the intervention in Libya and she apparently goes around saying "I dont want my grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese"

That's why I would want Obama as her Secretary of State, to control her hawky impulses. What did you not understand about that?

 

[theignoramus]

So US spheres of interest are cyclic then? What does 'focus' mean in this context? On the end of a statement about the Middle East the inference is basically 'meddle with and bomb them', although in the case of Latin America that's pretty much deja vu. It's refreshing to see a current President call out how nefarious foreign policy usually is, though.

Yeah, he pretty much destroyed the "Nixon/Kissinger" doctrine that American needs to "get crazy" once in a while to instill fear in its enemies.

“But let’s examine the Nixon theory,” he said. “So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I’m going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?”

When you think of the military actions that Reagan took, you have Grenada—which is hard to argue helped our ability to shape world events, although it was good politics for him back home. You have the Iran-Contra affair, in which we supported right-wing paramilitaries and did nothing to enhance our image in Central America, and it wasn’t successful at all.” He reminded me that Reagan’s great foe, Daniel Ortega, is today the unrepentant president of Nicaragua.

Obama also cited Reagan’s decision to almost immediately pull U.S. forces from Lebanon after 241 servicemen were killed in a Hezbollah attack in 1983. “Apparently all these things really helped us gain credibility with the Russians and the Chinese,” because “that’s the narrative that is told,” he said sarcastically.

 

[Nesotenso]

American President: "Why can't you Europeans be as warmongering as us?"
.

yeah that's exactly what he said.....

 

[Kibbles]

Hillary does not come off looking good in that essay.
Joe Biden says she "wants to be Golda Mier", she wanted to bomb Syria, she pushed for the intervention in Libya and she apparently goes around saying "I dont want my grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese"

Hilldawg should fit right in the Big Don's administration.
Actually cancel that, even he is against Mideast intervention.

 

[KingK]

This article is excellent, but it's also terrifying, because it makes it pretty clear that the one, single voice in all of the Obama administration that put our foreign policy on a sustainable, less interventionist, less colonial mindset is Barack Obama, and he's the one guy we can't get back.

Obama for SecState under Hillary? He seems to be the only dove in Washington, D.C.

This has been how I've felt for years now, and why a big part of me genuinely wishes Obama could have a third term. It's my biggest fear of a Clinton presidency, and a big part of why I won't vote for her in the primary. I don't have nearly as much faith in Bernie's competence in foreign policy, but I at least believe he would more closely follow Obama's ideology and direction there.

But yeah, regardless of who the next president is, I'm going to feel much more uneasy about our foreign policy than I am with Obama.

 

[Quixzlizx]

It's more about the reasons why they continue to be be involved in the region now rather than the past.

And are you suggesting that Israel's influence in US politics isn't a big driver for continued US involvement in the region?

I think it has more to do with Cold War inertia and energy policy than it does Israeli lobbyists tricking America into acting against its own self-interests.

Israel is, however, a good public excuse for American politicians to support policies they would've favored anyway.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I think it has more to do with Cold War inertia and energy policy than it does Israeli lobbyists tricking America into acting against its own self-interests.

Israel is, however, a good public excuse for American politicians to support policies they would've favored anyway.

That's a very good point. I do agree that some of the policies are probably ones that the US would have favoured and pursued anyway.

 

[pigeon]

This has been how I've felt for years now, and why a big part of me genuinely wishes Obama could have a third term. It's my biggest fear of a Clinton presidency, and a big part of why I won't vote for her in the primary. I don't have nearly as much faith in Bernie's competence in foreign policy, but I at least believe he would more closely follow Obama's ideology and direction there.

I can understand that perspective, and if there were a Democratic candidate who was basically Clinton but with a much more dovish foreign policy attitude, I would immediately support them.

The problem I have with Sanders is that he has demonstrated both a lack of preparation and a lack of interest in foreign policy. I would much, much rather have somebody with a strong opinion and philosophy about engagement who is more hawkish than I'd like than somebody who doesn't really care about foreign policy, because their ultimate actions will be even worse. As evidenced by this article, the biggest danger in Washington is the warping effect of the military-industrial complex and its inherent drive towards war. I need somebody with the will to manage that, because if you come in without knowledge and focus, you're not going to be able to deal with the Joint Chiefs of Staff when they say "there's no choice but to invade." So I have a lot less confidence in Sanders's ability to stay out of unnecessary wars than I do in Hillary's ability.

 

[aeolist]

Obama said that to achieve this rebalancing, the U.S. had to absorb the diatribes and insults of superannuated Castro manqués. “When I saw Chávez, I shook his hand and he handed me a Marxist critique of the U.S.–Latin America relationship,” Obama recalled. “And I had to sit there and listen to Ortega”—Daniel Ortega, the radical leftist president of Nicaragua—“make an hour-long rant against the United States. But us being there, not taking all that stuff seriously—because it really wasn't a threat to us”—helped neutralize the region's anti-Americanism.

The president's unwillingness to counter the baiting by American adversaries can feel emotionally unsatisfying, I said, and I told him that every so often, I'd like to see him give Vladimir Putin the finger. It's atavistic, I said, understanding my audience.

“It is,” the president responded coolly. “This is what they're looking for.”

imagine president trump in this situation

 

[Nabbis]

Im not sure US would actually want a strong EU, military wise. I somewhat doubt our foreign policy would align with US if we had good power projection.

 

[NimbusD]

It's funny to me how Obama is probably as much of an "anti-politician" as we've ever had in the white house (I honestly can't think of any president who'd call out allies on their bullshit publicly, I'd love it if someone knows otherwise), at least in modern times and so a large swath of America hates him for and then go and support trump because he's not a politician?