Obama's foreign policy: New wars, unprecedented level of terror threats & nuclear proliferation
 

And the co-architect of this, Hillary Clinton, is embracing this record while asking for a promotion to commander in chief.

Being weak leaves us friendless - The Washington Post


that's what the USA gets in return for Obama forging the way for iran to get nuke capability.

thanks Obama

it's gotta be worse than we even suspect, because the press is actually saying negative stuff about black jesus... :(

and this article is from the Washington Post, very liberal. :warning

is.. the underlying message for this article suggesting the US should support the ISIS in order to appease saudi interests?

In order to answer your question, I'll need to know which part(s) of the article made you think this.

US Imperialism and Aggression = Fuck the USA
No USA assistance in our ''national crisis'' = Fuck the USA
Send aid money = Fuck the USA Send More!

You cannot win it seems today.

That said, would it be a better world if China and India told the world what to do? They represent 2.6+- billion of the world's 7 billion people? Truth is, half of them have to shit in a bucket.

Obama has no foreign policy and only reacts to the latest crisis.
John Kerry is just a tool.

well, there is a lot of very peculiar parts of this article, but:

'see Washington doing Iran?s bidding: helping Bashar al Assad stay in power; playing middleman to Iran as it hopes to take over Yemen via proxies; providing air cover for Iranian led militias in Iraq, and more.'

the air cover being provided is the air strikes on the ISIS.. ISIS/ISIL that has been created directly in relation to supporting 'rebels' that were attempting to remove Assad from power.

based on that, i don't see the underlying message here being that USA should support ISIS to appease SA.

so you feel the US stopping its bombing campaign of the ISIS is a good thing? cause that would appease the saudis..

why are you concerned about my view on an arcane tangent that has nothing to do with this topic?

and that's after i respectfully tried to answer your question.

Think about what toppling the Assad regime would mean, specially right now. The country is already in ruins and torn apart in war. The rebels alone can not stand up to ISIL or what ever they are called this week.

Lets say Assad is taken down.. then what? A race to fill the power vacuum by the Rebels & ISIL? Even at best case if the Rebels managed to get control of most of what is left of the Assad regime how long do you think they could continue on against ISIL while taking full brunt of their attacks?

Look how hard it was for the US to deal with the insurgency in Iraq and Afghan with all our military weight to throw around. Even Iraq has not been able to hold their own since we left and they had many years to get prepared.

As screwed up as it is for the people there, I think military strategist have likely decided it's best to let groups like ISIL get tied up in a drawn out fighting so they are at least distracted until they start wearing down.

either way the mess will still be there in 5 years or 10. That area of the world never seems to stop fighting and doesn't seem to ever progress. As long as they are ruled by Religious law all of those countries will be doomed to failure..

Anyway you can thank Obama all you want but Bush did no better there.. He left Afghan back in the hands of the Taliban and was paying off what is now ISIL to not attack. So why blame Obama for shit he didn't start and had to try to clean up?

i'm also not seeing anywhere in the article or my comments about appeasing Saudi Arabia. the article doesn't hide its' thesis- BO's failed foreign policy as exampled by his forging the way for Iran to get nuclear capable and how that is disrupting the entire region.

look at everything you just pointed out and ask yourself if BO's focusing on forging the path for IRan having nuclear capability makes sense while ignoring allies in the region and consequential disruptions and promises by other countries to get nukes if the iran deal is finalized. and do you really want the next president to be the primary backer of this failed policy?

You forgot something else.

When President Obama took office he had the most unique opportunity in history to ease any racial strife.

Now, the country is more racially divided than I can remember since the 1960's/early 1970's

arcane tangent that is directly quoted in the article and what we're currently discussing? might be why i am 'concerned'

Thanks Obama. And to think if he just started even more wars AND cut taxes for billionaires how much better we would be doing

.Wait..you are blaming Obama for racism? Tell me more about the Tea Party and how accepting they are?

Tell me more about how willing the right has been with their open arms to work with Obama..

so you're 'concern' is if i think the US stopping its bombing campaign of the ISIS is a good thing? cause that would appease the saudis..

again, this thread isn't about me and my foreign policy. I'm not the president. I didn't run for president. i didn't and don't claim to have a better foreign policy than any president. I never claimed ME foreign policy is not complex and that doing one thing can fuck up another.

an arcane tangent can most certainly be a phrase from a sentence culled and taken out of context and spun around to ask me about appeasing SA by having the US stop fighting ISIS.

My taxes were cut during the Bush years too. As they should have been...before he decided to ramp up the military and start invading other countries.

It wasn't just "billionaires" who got their taxes lowered. It was everybody.

The problem was in Bush invading other countries. These aren't "wars". Iraq never declared war on the U.S.

Neither did Afghanistan.

And in the Obama years: Libya never declared war on us. Matter of fact Gaddafi had voluntarily given up his nuclear program and chemical weapons during the Bush years and "sided" with us. In fact, they were even removed from the "State Sponsor Of Terrorism" list in 2006 because of their cooperation. And yet, Pres. Obama used our airforce to bomb the hell out his country, his military, his homes, and even his motorcade which led to him being slaughtered in the streets by the rebels.

We currently fly drones over several countries in the mideast and bomb them and kill people (spending tons of money doing so).
Even now "ISIS" is baiting and trolling us to get deeper and deeper into their fight.

Letting people keep more of their money isn't the problem. The govt. finding ways to continue to overspend it is the problem.
And all of this military adventurism is the top of the list of things we should NOT be doing.

was thinking that very same thing recently. in fact, race issues have never been a part of his agenda, other than his race-baiting comments such as if he had a son he'd look like a thug kind of comments.

alright.

for the record, an article stating the US shouldn't fight the ISIS, aka 'supporting iranian lead militias', because it may anger the Saudis, is hilarious.

convenient that the saudis would have so little concern with an armed group fanatics taking over huge swathes of countries right on her doorstep

I'm not defending the article. and i'm certainly not looking for underlying messages in it because i got THE message in it. the simple fact is anyone with 2 brain cells should have considered the vast repercussions resulting from forcing through Iran's nuclear capabilities and more importantly, the next potential president being a central figure in a very failed foreign policy.

The TEA Party? What does the TEA Party have to do with racism?

Dude, you watch too much MSNBC and too many liberal blogs. The TEA Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already"

And no, The TEA PARTY has no ability to polarize the nation OR help heal the nation.
President Obama can do both from his bully pulpit.

He hasn't raised a finger to actually HELP the black population.
BUT...he has certainly jumped in with both feet on every controversial black issue with statements that have further fueled the fire and rioting and making black people more "angry".

And the Democrat Party and Pres. Obama have spent a long time playing "race" politics.
The party line is that Republicans hate blacks, hate clean air & water, want everybody to die.

If you're black and NOT a Democrat...then you are labeled an Uncle Tom and attacked viciously.
Just look at how they tore Herman Cain apart in the election. The very second he was shown leading the polls for the Republican nomination...every liberal organization in the world went after him and his "womanizing". And it pretty much destroyed him.

Didn't see them do that to Jesse Jackson back when he ran for the Democrat nomination.

And now, they are all over this guy Ben Carson. He's considered another "uppity" one who isn't a Democrat.

Now if he WERE a Democrat...he would be the darling of the party. But since he's a Republican...he is EVIL.

I'm not saying I would have voted for Cain or Carson. Both of them are far too socially conservative for my taste.

But I make my decisions based on the man and his policies for a candidate.

The 2 RULING parties simply expect their sheep to follow.

Back to racial tensions and Pres. Obama:
He came to office with "YES HE CAN" and "HOPE AND CHANGE"

Now either he is a complete FAILURE and incompetent.
Or he didn't have the skills to stop those GENIUSES like McConell and Boehner from spreading "racism".

I say it's NEITHER of those.

Quite simply Pres. Obama could have done what NO other President has ever been able to do. By his very presence in the White House he could have given the black community hope for the future & his words to them could have lifted them with inspiration.

Instead...between himself and Eric Holder, I see that they did nothing that was positive to help with racial tension.

And by opening their mouths and saying things that caused the black community to get even more angry in a tense situation...they actually caused more tension.

Go ahead and make excuses. It doesn't matter.
I'm not even sure WHY the Pres. Of The United States seems to feel the need to comment on local crime before any of the facts have been gathered or any real info is out there.

Can you even imagine Bush commenting on a black cop killing a white guy in some town?

The cops ARE out of control. They have WAY too much power and apparently every local police dept. is actually TRAINING cops to shoot to kill under every situation.

Maybe instead of making incendiary comments, or having Eric Holder make them...maybe the President should have DONE something.
Maybe call on Congress to enact a federal law that would make it illegal for local police dept.'s to be shooting unarmed citizens (of course it would be more complex than that).

Or call on the Supreme Court to take a look at the constitutionality of police dept.'s having policy of "shoot to kill"

But we will never know.

What I DO know is...when Pres. Obama leaves office, the country will be more racially divided than I have ever seen it in my adult lifetime.

whole thread is bullshit. USA does not control what foreign countries do. shit, even the countries we support do whatever they want.

& we tried not to meddle when afghanistan went taliban, did nothing even with al quedas bombing our warship USS cole. We tried to leave them alone. What happened next is well known.

no matter what the USA does, we are wrong. Obama will catch shit either way. if we invaded syria, or ukraine, you think the US public would be OK with that? LOL!!!

clownthread. :clown

if you think the USA does not control what [some] foreign countries do this is a clown post.

the simple fact is there is a framework agreement in negotians between the USA and Iran that would allow Iran to manufacture nuclear.

that's textbook control.

can't argue with you ....

WTF. your libertarian. but you suggest obama/congress should, or can, fix race relations by neutering cops? you should reconsider how libertarian you really are.

race relations are simply screwed. we live in a time that saying blacks should study more makes you racist. & if you flirt with a woman & she thinks your ugly, your sexually harrassing her.

:helpme

thats not control. thats an agreement, which is easily ignored, which is what your worried about. that iran will break the deal. so no, not textbook control in any way, at all.

you are completely negating why the iranians are negotiating. do you think the USA would negotiate with iran for us to manufacture nuclear? of course not, that's because iran does not control the USA re: nuclear, we control them and that's why they are negotiating and consequently, the rest of the ME is in disruption, because we are losing control of the situation and the potential accord clearly reveals that.

You live in a completely diffrence world than the rest of us. Considering some of the most extreme right tea party guys come from AZ, perhaps it just seems normal to you..


Seriously Robbie if you think there is no racism involved with the Tea 0arty, perhaps you should spend 5 mins Googlen tea party signs...

Perhaps you should realize that fringe lunatics showing up at rally's to lower taxes do NOT mean that is what the TEA Party stands for.

Wanting smaller govt. and lower taxes hasn't a damn thing to do with racism.

And the crazies showing up with signs doesn't make it so, no matter how you want to see it or the fake-liberal press wants to portray it.

Damn straight I'm libertarian. And you're damn straight the cops are out of control BECAUSE of the Federal Govt.'s failed "War On Drugs"

The Govt. is using "terrorism" to give all law enforcement the ability to take away our privacy and our personal freedoms...and of course in between doing "sting operations" where the govt. agents actually concocts plans for terrorism and then arrests the idiots who agree to do it with them...they spend most of that new "power" going after drug arrests to fill up the prison industry. That's not freedom.

"Neutering" the cops? That's a dumb thing to say.

And don't worry about me "reconsidering" my ideas of personal FREEDOM. I know what I believe and what I have seen happen with changes to police & govt. power over my lifetime.

The 5th POTUS in a row with a NeoCon foreign policy. What a non-shocker. Feeding the Military-Industrial Complex beast is bipartisan.

Yep, Baby Jesus Obama turns out to be no different than The Devil Bush when it comes to killing people around the world with an overbloated giant military.

Obama is definitely a fucktard :2 cents:

I don't think so. I think he's incredibly intelligent.
I also think things are happening just as he wanted them to.

Racial division is big business...and BIG politics. His political party would have no chance in an election if there were no racial tension and blacks actually voted for the candidates as opposed to straight party lines as Democrats.

well US imperialism and aggression created the clusterfuck, and then you guys strategically move out when things are too peaceful and stoke more violence...you have a loooooong history of perpetuating conflict: korea/vietnam/avghanistan/iran/iraq/balkans/south america...you name it, the US has bombed it...

and you never give aid...your media may report that it is "aid" but this money goes to bribe the next generation of local politicians in to submission and put the population in debt slavery repaying your "aid" and "loans" and "rebuilding"....it is what the USA does...

quit pretending that the US corporate government is some sort of altruistic organization that is misunderstood and just trying to help the world...

the communists do not trust you for a reason
the muslims do not trust you for a reason
the 3rd world does not trust you for a reason
the USA spends money on war like the rest of humanity combined for a reason
the Arabs are turning to ISIS instead of the USA for a reason (they are better than the USA LOL)

war inc. is too big to fail in the USA...after war profits and exploitation are too big to fail also...

wanna hear a good joke?: "US aid" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

good points Robbie ... right now the 4 cities IN THE WORLD with the highest murder rate are black controlled democratic cites... and that include war areas...

that's is sad really :2 cents:

Maybe the Tea Party itself isn't racist, but...

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...tysign1sm1.jpg
http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/FoxNew...rty-racism.jpghttp://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...jpg?1359771397http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com...ty_protest.jpg