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

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Many of you know what I think about our current president...... but I give Obama a pat on the back for the Bin Laden kill. I'm not sure I entirely agree that it was a kill mission rather than a kill-if-we-can't-capture mission..... but it is what it is.

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.

Planet_Pluto

Of course, since there was no intention of providing and '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.

[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. Nobody even came close to disputing that.

Advisers can disagree and they did in this situation. His advisers were split and each option had its pros and cons.

He made the decision to go with the half of his advisors that recommended the raid and that is why somebody like Planet_Pluto, who dislikes Obama, can give him props.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The military advises the president over the options and which have the best chance for success. Which seems to be getting lost in here....LJS9502_basic

Of course, since there was no intention of providing and '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.

It's the same.

coolbeans90

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

Planet_Pluto, who dislikes Obama, can give him props.

(kidding) :P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]....Planet_Pluto

Planet_Pluto, who dislikes Obama, can give him props.

(kidding) :P

Planet_Ploto, who dislikes Obama, can give him praise.

*waits for the convulsions* :P

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Planet_Pluto, who dislikes Obama, can give him props.

GreySeal9

(kidding) :P

Planet_Ploto, who dislikes Obama, can give him praise.

*waits for the convulsions* :P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]I shuddered when I read that.

(kidding) :P

Planet_Pluto

Planet_Ploto, who dislikes Obama, can give him praise.

*waits for the convulsions* :P

Go take a bath in some hope and change. That will clean you right up.

Many of you know what I think about our current president...... but I give Obama a pat on the back for the Bin Laden kill. Planet_Pluto

Did he gather the intelligence that led to finding him? No.

Did he gather the intelligence that gave us the layout of the compound, the daily routines, the best ways in and out? No.

Did he plan the raid? No.

Did he execute the raid? **** no!!!

All he did was give the "okay"... and I doubt that it was even necessary to do so, merely a courtesy.

Kiss his *** if you want to... my "attaboys" are saved for the people who did all the real work, while C3P-Obama planned his next vacation.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Many of you know what I think about our current president...... but I give Obama a pat on the back for the Bin Laden kill. OrkHammer007

Did he gather the intelligence that led to finding him? No.

Did he gather the intelligence that gave us the layout of the compound, the daily routines, the best ways in and out? No.

Did he plan the raid? No.

Did he execute the raid? **** no!!!

All he did was give the "okay"... and I doubt that it was even necessary to do so, merely a courtesy.

Kiss his *** if you want to... my "attaboys" are saved for the people who did all the real work, while C3P-Obama planned his next vacation.

Fox News and the hardcorest of conservatives can. Also racists I guess, not that I'm linking them all or anything.

They are pretty different though so you can't compare them. Different times, different things going on.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Many of you know what I think about our current president...... but I give Obama a pat on the back for the Bin Laden kill. OrkHammer007

Did he gather the intelligence that led to finding him? No.

Did he gather the intelligence that gave us the layout of the compound, the daily routines, the best ways in and out? No.

Did he plan the raid? No.

Did he execute the raid? **** no!!!

All he did was give the "okay"... and I doubt that it was even necessary to do so, merely a courtesy.

Kiss his *** if you want to... my "attaboys" are saved for the people who did all the real work, while C3P-Obama planned his next vacation.

Well Obama could have redirected a lot of the funding for the search for Bin Laden, could have pulled us out of Afghanistan, could have done a lot of things so that we never would have found him. He didn't. He stayed the course that the previous administration had laid down and actually increased our efforts.

Minus the extra drone attacks, this current administration done quite well in the middle east.

Remember when Bush was constantly criticized for giving contracts to the evil Halliburton? Why is it that nobody seems to mind that Obama has continued to issue no-bid contracts to Halliburton? Did Halliburton have a sudden change of heart?

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Many of you know what I think about our current president...... but I give Obama a pat on the back for the Bin Laden kill. Planet_Pluto

Did he gather the intelligence that led to finding him? No.

Did he gather the intelligence that gave us the layout of the compound, the daily routines, the best ways in and out? No.

Did he plan the raid? No.

Did he execute the raid? **** no!!!

All he did was give the "okay"... and I doubt that it was even necessary to do so, merely a courtesy.

Kiss his *** if you want to... my "attaboys" are saved for the people who did all the real work, while C3P-Obama planned his next vacation.

Well Obama could have redirected a lot of the funding for the search for Bin Laden, could have pulled us out of Afghanistan, could have done a lot of things so that we never would have found him. He didn't. He stayed the course that the previous administration had laid down and actually increased our efforts.

Minus the extra drone attacks, this current administration done quite well in the middle east.

[QUOTE="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="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.

EsYuGee

but then again do you think bush would have done any diffrent? he would've kept at it in find osama as well. he nearly ruined the world to start the war I'm pretty sure he would've kept at it. its not like he showed any plans of slowing down as his administration came to an end.mayceV

Bush probably would have too but the fact remains that Obama stuck with it when he could have not.

[QUOTE="mayceV"]but then again do you think bush would have done any diffrent? he would've kept at it in find osama as well. he nearly ruined the world to start the war I'm pretty sure he would've kept at it. its not like he showed any plans of slowing down as his administration came to an end.Wasdie

Bush probably would have too but the fact remains that Obama stuck with it when he could have not.

Still an Embargo on Cuba because Cuba won't allow the US corporations to sink their hands into Cuban soil, but since China lets US corporations do shady business in China the trade channel is wide open even though China has a horrible record of treating their people.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] 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. Wasdie

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="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Many of you know what I think about our current president...... but I give Obama a pat on the back for the Bin Laden kill. LJS9502_basic

Did he gather the intelligence that led to finding him? No.

Did he gather the intelligence that gave us the layout of the compound, the daily routines, the best ways in and out? No.

Did he plan the raid? No.

Did he execute the raid? **** no!!!

All he did was give the "okay"... and I doubt that it was even necessary to do so, merely a courtesy.

Kiss his *** if you want to... my "attaboys" are saved for the people who did all the real work, while C3P-Obama planned his next vacation.

You have no way of knowing this.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]Why?

Did he gather the intelligence that led to finding him? No.

Did he gather the intelligence that gave us the layout of the compound, the daily routines, the best ways in and out? No.

Did he plan the raid? No.

Did he execute the raid? **** no!!!

All he did was give the "okay"... and I doubt that it was even necessary to do so, merely a courtesy.

Kiss his *** if you want to... my "attaboys" are saved for the people who did all the real work, while C3P-Obama planned his next vacation.

GreySeal9

You have no way of knowing this.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]This is true. The work was done by the military/intell field. Doesn't matter who was president when Bin Laden was found....the outcome would have been the same. Yes the president is the commander in chief...but it's the military that completes the operation and who I give credit.

MetallicaKings

You have no way of knowing this.

What exactly does this have to do with my post?

I was just pointing out that one can't know if the outcome would have been the same with another President. It's merely an assumption.

Would another President have done something similar? Probably, but we really don't know how things would have gone down under another President.

Just thought I would post this article (link: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/23/a-new-era-in-u-s-foreign-policy/?hpt=hp_c1 highlighting important differences Obama has put in place regarding America's foreign policy. It says:

But now that these critics are confronted with the success of the Libya operation, they are changing their tune and claiming paternity of the operation. They are further arguing that if their advice had been heeded, the intervention in Libya would have been swifter and even more successful. But the Libya intervention is so significant precisely because it did not follow the traditional pattern of U.S.-led interventions. Indeed, it launched a new era in U.S. foreign policy.

The United States decided that it was only going to intervene in Libya if it could establish several conditions:

1) A local group that was willing to fight and die for change; in other words, "indigenous capacity".

2) Locally recognized legitimacy in the form of the Arab League's request for intervention.

3) International legitimacy in the form of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

4) Genuine burden sharing with the British and French spelling out precisely how many sorties they would be willing to man and precisely what level of commitment they would be willing to provide.

It was only when all those conditions were fulfilled that the Obama Administration agreed to play a pivotal but supporting role in the Libya operation.

It goes on to say:

The new model does two things:

First, it ensures that there's genuinely a local alliance committed to the same goals as the external coalition. This way, there is more legitimacy on the ground. And if there is anything Afghanistan and Iraq have taught us, it is that local legitimacy is key.

Second, this model ensures that there is genuine burden sharing so that the United States is not left owning the country as has happened so often in the past.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It's the same.

SilentFireX

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It's the same.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"] Yup. There are very few differences between their foreign policies.Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"] Yup. There are very few differences between their foreign policies.Planet_Pluto

While it seems apparent that Cheney was helping out a company he had worked for by giving them these contracts, no such motivation could exist for Obama, so then the question becomes why would obama continue to do it? If Halliburton is giving lots of money to Obama and he can't offer any logical explanation then I will go from there. If his motivation does turn out to be greed at the expense of our country then I would be upset about it.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] one gets applauded for it, the other gets boo'd for it

EntropyWins

While it seems apparent that Cheney was helping out a company he had worked for by giving them these contracts, no such motivation could exist for Obama, so then the question becomes why would obama continue to do it? If Halliburton is giving lots of money to Obama and he can't offer any logical explanation then I will go from there. If his motivation does turn out to be greed at the expense of our country then I would be upset about it.

The reason Halliburton was out there to begin with is because they were the company best able to handle the size, scope and time-line of the situation out there (which I believe is still the reason they are out there today).

I just find it hilarious that suddenly there is:

- No mention of this contract (from a while ago) and others since Obama took office

- If I'm correct in my assessment (and the original assessment of people back in the time) that Halliburton was best suited for the tasks at hand, and having Obama continuing to award them no-bid work would suggest this, I would have liked to have seen some retractions to some of the vicious accusations made by various people in the media during the Bush years.

I suppose you can make the argument that Obama is doing a better job of conducting Bush's foriegn policy. But I don't really see how you can point to an Obama foriegn policy that has any major differences from his predecessor's.

And yes, I saw the link/copy-paste to the GPS blog. But quite frankly I couldn't care less what Fareed Zakaria has to say. He'd praise Obama if he was caught red-handed stomping on puppies.

I think anybody can. Obama has alienated our closest allies, far worse than anything Bush had done.

I think anybody can. Obama has alienated our closest allies, far worse than anything Bush had done.

QuistisTrepe_

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]Why?

Did he gather the intelligence that led to finding him? No.

Did he gather the intelligence that gave us the layout of the compound, the daily routines, the best ways in and out? No.

Did he plan the raid? No.

Did he execute the raid? **** no!!!

All he did was give the "okay"... and I doubt that it was even necessary to do so, merely a courtesy.

Kiss his *** if you want to... my "attaboys" are saved for the people who did all the real work, while C3P-Obama planned his next vacation.

GreySeal9

You have no way of knowing this.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]This is true. The work was done by the military/intell field. Doesn't matter who was president when Bin Laden was found....the outcome would have been the same. Yes the president is the commander in chief...but it's the military that completes the operation and who I give credit.

LJS9502_basic

You have no way of knowing this.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]This is true. The work was done by the military/intell field. Doesn't matter who was president when Bin Laden was found....the outcome would have been the same. Yes the president is the commander in chief...but it's the military that completes the operation and who I give credit.

LJS9502_basic

You have no way of knowing this.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]I'm disappointed that nobody replied to my previous Halliburton post. Not surprised though.

Planet_Pluto

While it seems apparent that Cheney was helping out a company he had worked for by giving them these contracts, no such motivation could exist for Obama, so then the question becomes why would obama continue to do it? If Halliburton is giving lots of money to Obama and he can't offer any logical explanation then I will go from there. If his motivation does turn out to be greed at the expense of our country then I would be upset about it.

The reason Halliburton was out there to begin with is because they were the company best able to handle the size, scope and time-line of the situation out there (which I believe is still the reason they are out there today).

I just find it hilarious that suddenly there is:

- No mention of this contract (from a while ago) and others since Obama took office

- If I'm correct in my assessment (and the original assessment of people back in the time) that Halliburton was best suited for the tasks at hand, and having Obama continuing to award them no-bid work would suggest this, I would have liked to have seen some retractions to some of the vicious accusations made by various people in the media during the Bush years.