Can anyone dispute that Obama's foreign policy > Bush's?

Under Obama so far we have raised our prestige in the world, killed the most wanted man in the world, and assisted a country in overthrowing their leader that actually wanted help. I won't say Bush was a total failure with his foreign policy and some may even be too harsh on him, but cmon Obama sure has shut up a lot of conservastive naysayers who claimed Obama was going to kowtow to the rest of the world.

People can and do.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/09/06/obamas-foreign-policy-fails-on-afghanistan-israel.html

It's the same.

It's the same.

coolbeans90

Can? No; will? Yes.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It's the same.

Planet_Pluto

It is mostly the same as Bush, although the problem I had with Bush wasn't necessarily with his foreign policy per se, but how it was horribly implemented (largely because of the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney). And then there's the torture that for some reason has just been swept under the rug...-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It is mostly the same as Bush, although the problem I had with Bush wasn't necessarily with his foreign policy per se, but how it was horribly implemented (largely because of the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney). And then there's the torture that for some reason has just been swept under the rug...EntropyWins

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It is mostly the same as Bush, although the problem I had with Bush wasn't necessarily with his foreign policy per se, but how it was horribly implemented (largely because of the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney). And then there's the torture that for some reason has just been swept under the rug...EntropyWins

And flat out lying and manipulating intelligence reports in order to start a war, and then not putting the war expenses on the books, and then not properly outfitting military personnel.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It is mostly the same as Bush, although the problem I had with Bush wasn't necessarily with his foreign policy per se, but how it was horribly implemented (largely because of the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney). And then there's the torture that for some reason has just been swept under the rug...fidosim

Yes, we're the most powerful military nation on the face of the earth, but we don't choose where we go, we're simply pushed into conflicts. We haven't been isolationists since before Pearl Harbor.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It is mostly the same as Bush, although the problem I had with Bush wasn't necessarily with his foreign policy per se, but how it was horribly implemented (largely because of the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney). And then there's the torture that for some reason has just been swept under the rug...fidosim

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It is mostly the same as Bush, although the problem I had with Bush wasn't necessarily with his foreign policy per se, but how it was horribly implemented (largely because of the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney). And then there's the torture that for some reason has just been swept under the rug...EntropyWins

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It is mostly the same as Bush, although the problem I had with Bush wasn't necessarily with his foreign policy per se, but how it was horribly implemented (largely because of the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney). And then there's the torture that for some reason has just been swept under the rug...EntropyWins

If Obama wasn't president then "the most wanted man in the world" wouldn't have been killed? Bullets don't work that way, you know.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="EntropyWins"] I forgot about the torture, which is another point. However, I don't agree with people claiming it is the same. Sure his policy in the current wars seem to continue where Bush left off, but that is because it is largely the only responsible way to try and wind down the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to remember that the Bush administration started those wars. There is a difference between handling conflicts you are already in responsibly (like Obama is doing), and starting unnecessary and costly conflicts willy nilly (like Bush did). theone86

Yes, we're the most powerful military nation on the face of the earth, but we don't choose where we go, we're simply pushed into conflicts. We haven't been isolationists since before Pearl Harbor.

And apologized to every single country we've gone to.

And apologized to every single country we've gone to.

airshocker

That's just to make them let their guard down :P

It's just like Teddy Roosevelt's natural conservation programs. He only saved the animals so he could kill them later while they didn't suspect a thing.

Yes, they ware both terrible Obama is continuation of Bush presidency.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It is mostly the same as Bush, although the problem I had with Bush wasn't necessarily with his foreign policy per se, but how it was horribly implemented (largely because of the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney). And then there's the torture that for some reason has just been swept under the rug...-Sun_Tzu-

So you think Obama would have charged headstrong into Afghanistan the way that Bush did, basically declaring war on the taliban, the same taliban that we are now in negotiations with to help end the war? I understand that his political stance is to support the war, but he also takes the political stance that Bush effed up. I know there is no way to tell for sure what Obama would have done, but just looking at both his foreign policy and his ideology so far, Obama seems much more hesitant to get involved in conflicts and much more willing to work with the world community than Bush ever was.

I'd say Obama is doing good with the Foreign Policies. Bush did a crappy job even in our own country like with Katrina he didn't do **** to help our people that were trapped etc during the Katrina storm Bush should have been Impeached from that!

Absolutely not. He's essentially having the same foreign policy system like Bush, and every other president before him for about the last 50 years..

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="EntropyWins"] EntropyWins

So you think Obama would have charged headstrong into Afghanistan the way that Bush did, basically declaring war on the taliban, the same taliban that we are now in negotiations with to help end the war? I understand that his political stance is to support the war, but he also takes the political stance that Bush effed up. I know there is no way to tell for sure what Obama would have done, but just looking at both his foreign policy and his ideology so far, Obama seems much more hesitant to get involved in conflicts and much more willing to work with the world community than Bush ever was.

Obama needs to learn that you can't spread democracy by dropping bombs. :(fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Obama needs to learn that you can't spread democracy by dropping bombs. :(Bloodseeker23

[QUOTE="Bloodseeker23"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Obama needs to learn that you can't spread democracy by dropping bombs. :(LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Bloodseeker23"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Obama needs to learn that you can't spread democracy by dropping bombs. :(LJS9502_basic

Under Obama so far we have raised our prestige in the world, killed the most wanted man in the world, and assisted a country in overthrowing their leader that actually wanted help. I won't say Bush was a total failure with his foreign policy and some may even be too harsh on him, but cmon Obama sure has shut up a lot of conservastive naysayers who claimed Obama was going to kowtow to the rest of the world.

EntropyWins

Pretty much the only thing Obama did was give our forces the go.

It's the same. I don't know why the rest of the world thinks it's any different just because there is a new man behind the desk.

If any, Obama has stepped up the number of unmaned drone attacks which have killed way more civilians. Something I greatly disagree with. I hate when machines do the fighting for us.

It's the same. I don't know why the rest of the world thinks it's any different just because there is a new man behind the desk.

If any, Obama has stepped up the number of unmaned drone attacks which have killed way more civilians. Something I greatly disagree with. I hate when machines do the fighting for us.

Wasdie

I think the world still pretty much hates us.

Also I like Obama's policy a bit more. He seems to be taking a back seat into things and being more conservative, instead of leading the charge.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

Under Obama so far we have raised our prestige in the world, killed the most wanted man in the world, and assisted a country in overthrowing their leader that actually wanted help. I won't say Bush was a total failure with his foreign policy and some may even be too harsh on him, but cmon Obama sure has shut up a lot of conservastive naysayers who claimed Obama was going to kowtow to the rest of the world.

Pikdum

Pretty much the only thing Obama did was give our forces the go.

That's not true.

Obama was given two different options by his advisors, to do a raid or to bomb the compound.

Obama made the decision to do the raid instead of bombing the compound because they wanted to make sure that OBL was dead.

Also, they were not even completely sure Bin Laden was there (they say it was 54/55 situation), so Obama made a risky move in ordering the raid.

Obama's foreign policy hasn't been anything close to perfect and he hasn't fixed some of the fundamental issues with our foreign policy, but there's really no need to downplay the Bin Laden thing.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It's the same. I don't know why the rest of the world thinks it's any different just because there is a new man behind the desk.

If any, Obama has stepped up the number of unmaned drone attacks which have killed way more civilians. Something I greatly disagree with. I hate when machines do the fighting for us.

sherman-tank1

I think in our current war, those machines have killed more civilians than lives they could have saved. The Taliban and other terrorist groups don't have anti-aircraft capabilities that can shoot down our F-16s that would carry out the runs. The people in real danger would be the forward air controllers who call in the bombs.

Still they could make much better decisions than a guy looking through the camera on an unmanned drone.

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

Under Obama so far we have raised our prestige in the world, killed the most wanted man in the world, and assisted a country in overthrowing their leader that actually wanted help. I won't say Bush was a total failure with his foreign policy and some may even be too harsh on him, but cmon Obama sure has shut up a lot of conservastive naysayers who claimed Obama was going to kowtow to the rest of the world.

GreySeal9

Pretty much the only thing Obama did was give our forces the go.

That's not true.

Obama was given two different options by his advisors, to do a raid or to bomb the compound.

Obama made the decision to do the raid instead of bombing the compound because they wanted to make sure that OBL was dead.

Also, they were not even completely sure Bin Laden was there (they say it was 54/55 situation), so Obama made a risky move in ordering the raid.

Obama's foreign policy hasn't been anything close to perfect, but there's really no need to downplay the Bin Laden thing.

Well the whole Bin Laden thing was a matter of time. It's not like President Bush was all buddy-buddy with Pakistan. During his terms he was pressuring Pakistan to hunt the terrorists just like Obama did. He would have probably done the same thing instead of just bombing it. It was worth the risks.

Obama is the only person to ever with the Nobel Peace Prize will continuing a war. He has a near identical forgien policy to Bush.

Dick Cheney, on the other hand, was the real problem.

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

Under Obama so far we have raised our prestige in the world, killed the most wanted man in the world, and assisted a country in overthrowing their leader that actually wanted help. I won't say Bush was a total failure with his foreign policy and some may even be too harsh on him, but cmon Obama sure has shut up a lot of conservastive naysayers who claimed Obama was going to kowtow to the rest of the world.

GreySeal9

Pretty much the only thing Obama did was give our forces the go.

That's not true.

Obama was given two different options by his advisors, to do a raid or to bomb the compound.

Obama made the decision to do the raid instead of bombing the compound because they wanted to make sure that OBL was dead.

Also, they were not even completely sure Bin Laden was there (they say it was 54/55 situation), so Obama made a risky move in ordering the raid.

Obama's foreign policy hasn't been anything close to perfect and he hasn't fixed some of the fundamental issues with our foreign policy, but there's really no need to downplay the Bin Laden thing.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It's the same. I don't know why the rest of the world thinks it's any different just because there is a new man behind the desk.

If any, Obama has stepped up the number of unmaned drone attacks which have killed way more civilians. Something I greatly disagree with. I hate when machines do the fighting for us.

sherman-tank1

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

Pretty much the only thing Obama did was give our forces the go.

Wasdie

That's not true.

Obama was given two different options by his advisors, to do a raid or to bomb the compound.

Obama made the decision to do the raid instead of bombing the compound because they wanted to make sure that OBL was dead.

Also, they were not even completely sure Bin Laden was there (they say it was 54/55 situation), so Obama made a risky move in ordering the raid.

Obama's foreign policy hasn't been anything close to perfect, but there's really no need to downplay the Bin Laden thing.

Well the whole Bin Laden thing was a matter of time. It's not like President Bush was all buddy-buddy with Pakistan. During his terms he was pressuring Pakistan to hunt the terrorists just like Obama did. He would have probably done the same thing instead of just bombing it. It was worth the risks.

Obama is the only person to ever with the Nobel Peace Prize will continuing a war. He has a near identical forgien policy to Bush.

Dick Cheney, on the other hand, was the real problem.

Maybe so, but regardless of what Bush would have done, Obama still made he decisions that he did and he still showed leadership as far as Bin Laden is concerned (sadly, he can't seem to make those kind of bold decisions on domestic policy).

I'm not even comparing Obama to Bush. I'm just saying that Obama did more than say "go".

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

Pretty much the only thing Obama did was give our forces the go.

LJS9502_basic

That's not true.

Obama was given two different options by his advisors, to do a raid or to bomb the compound.

Obama made the decision to do the raid instead of bombing the compound because they wanted to make sure that OBL was dead.

Also, they were not even completely sure Bin Laden was there (they say it was 54/55 situation), so Obama made a risky move in ordering the raid.

Obama's foreign policy hasn't been anything close to perfect and he hasn't fixed some of the fundamental issues with our foreign policy, but there's really no need to downplay the Bin Laden thing.

If you want to disingenuously simplify what I said, yeah. If you want to look at the entire picture, then no, not quite.

He gave the go, but he also chose between two different options (that could have led to do different outcomes) and going through with the raid had its own risks.

There was decision making involved. It's not like he simply said "go." He weighed options, etc.

Drone strikes lead to a lot more civilian causalities (which are particularly costly when fighting against an insurgency) compared to putting boots on the ground and raiding these compounds. -Sun_Tzu-

Exactly this. Unmanned drones killing civilians only makes an insurgency worse. We want to get out of Afghanistan, not keep prolonging the conflict.

We already know diplomacy can't work directly on terrorist cells. That said our reconstruction efforts in that region are top-notch adn they do win over people's opinions on us. However every 10 good deeds by us can be erased by a single civilian causality. You take more steps back than you move forward thus prolonging the conflict.

Also the idea of de-humanizing war scares me.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

That's not true.

Obama was given two different options by his advisors, to do a raid or to bomb the compound.

Obama made the decision to do the raid instead of bombing the compound because they wanted to make sure that OBL was dead.

Also, they were not even completely sure Bin Laden was there (they say it was 54/55 situation), so Obama made a risky move in ordering the raid.

Obama's foreign policy hasn't been anything close to perfect and he hasn't fixed some of the fundamental issues with our foreign policy, but there's really no need to downplay the Bin Laden thing.

GreySeal9

If you want to disingenuously simplify what I said, yeah. If you want to look at the entire picture, then no, not quite.

He gave the go, but he also chose between two different options (that could have led to do different outcomes) and going through with the raid had its own risks.

There was decision making involved. It's not like he simply said "go." He weighed options, etc.

In any event, yeah it was dozens of people and agencies that got us to that point, but in the end he gave the go-ahead. And this was not a guaranteed success. We lost one chopper in that raid (which the Chinese got their mitts on), and we very easily could have lost some or the entire team. It was a big decision to make and I give him props for that.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So basically he gave the go....like the person you quoted said.Planet_Pluto

If you want to disingenuously simplify what I said, yeah. If you want to look at the entire picture, then no, not quite.

He gave the go, but he also chose between two different options (that could have led to do different outcomes) and going through with the raid had its own risks.

There was decision making involved. It's not like he simply said "go." He weighed options, etc.

In any event, yeah it was dozens of people and agencies that got us to that point, but in the end he gave the go-ahead. And this was not a guaranteed success. We lost one chopper in that raid (which the Chinese got their mitts on), and we very easily could have lost some or the entire team. It was a big decision to make and I give him props for that.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So basically he gave the go....like the person you quoted said.Planet_Pluto

If you want to disingenuously simplify what I said, yeah. If you want to look at the entire picture, then no, not quite.

He gave the go, but he also chose between two different options (that could have led to do different outcomes) and going through with the raid had its own risks.

There was decision making involved. It's not like he simply said "go." He weighed options, etc.

In any event, yeah it was dozens of people and agencies that got us to that point, but in the end he gave the go-ahead. And this was not a guaranteed success. We lost one chopper in that raid (which the Chinese got their mitts on), and we very easily could have lost some or the entire team. It was a big decision to make and I give him props for that.

And I give your props for acknowledging Obama's role even though you don't like the man.

I mean, of course he shouldn't get the lion share of the credit (the Seals and the intelligence agencies deserve that), but the President does make decisions in these sort of situations and to just simplify it to a "he just said go" is pretty disingenuous.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If you want to disingenuously simplify what I said, yeah. If you want to look at the entire picture, then no, not quite.

He gave the go, but he also chose between two different options (that could have led to do different outcomes) and going through with the raid had its own risks.

There was decision making involved. It's not like he simply said "go." He weighed options, etc.

LJS9502_basic

In any event, yeah it was dozens of people and agencies that got us to that point, but in the end he gave the go-ahead. And this was not a guaranteed success. We lost one chopper in that raid (which the Chinese got their mitts on), and we very easily could have lost some or the entire team. It was a big decision to make and I give him props for that.

Of course, since there was no intention of providing any 'evidence' to the public later on, I'm not sure what the difference would have ulitmately been if he'd gone the less-risk route of incinerating the whole place.