Ah hell, the last President most definitely had a foreign policy, and look where that got us.
Give me measured over knee jerk responses any day of the week.
I would phrase the question slightly different: What is Obama's foreign policy? I assume that is what you meant.
From what I can tell there doesn't really seem to be one. I hear this complaint from those on both sides of the aisle, whether they be politicians or party strategists/commentators.
This complaint is also expressed as "Obama is disengaged" or that his foreign policy is rudderless.
Recently Obama gave a speech on his foreign policy and, again, the criticism was bipartisan. (Note: I'm not saying he doesn't have his supporters, just that criticism comes from both sides.) In short his remarks were vague if not confusing.
IMO, this is a fair question and much different that specific questions about individual situations (which is what many posters here have diverted to). Leaders generally have an over-arching foreign policy which is used to help formulate their response to specific incidents.
The lack of an over-arching foreign policy results in a reactive, disjointed series of decision/responses to foreign policy crises.
----------------------
The posters, such as Moonie, claiming that the Republicans are preventing foreign policy are wrong. The area of foreign policy is the responsibility of the President per the Constitution. The President is free to develop foreign policy as (s)he sees fit. Congress can, however, impede the implementation of the President's foreign policy by, say, refusing to go to war such as in the case of Syria. (Where both support and refusal were bipartisan. Ultimately, public opinion polls and Obama's own lack of conviction are probably what killed it.)
Fern
Once we get a white president all this nonsense for the last 8 years will go away. Then it will be politics as usual, like we had for decades.
If you think Republicans were crazy over Obama, imagine what they will do when another Clinton gets elected.
Not if we get a female. Every critic will be a misogynist instead of a raaacist. On second thought the racist angle will still apply. No sense discarding it until it's all used up.Once we get a white president all this nonsense for the last 8 years will go away. Then it will be politics as usual, like we had for decades.
And how is the exactly different from the foreign policy of any other president?
You are such a fool that you don't know how your own reasoning works. In the same paragraph that you label Obama's lack of 30 years in DC "inexperience," you call for him to make up his entire team of such people? Hmmmm... I wonder what label Texashiker would be using to describe them if he had done so?
Meh, I'm ok with Obama's foreign policy. However, I seriously wish he would disengage more. He should never have got involved in Egypt, Syria or Libya. His policy in the Ukraine is pretty good but probably a bit of overreaction. In regards to Israel-Palestine, he should just IGNORE it altogether. Not our problem or our business.
Bush would have Putin over to his ranch, they would visit and developed a real friendship.
Nope.
You questioned why he is NOT involved on a foreign front.
And, the answer - which is quite valid - is that he is too focused on ruining America, to worry about the rest of the world; specifically, via ACA.
As per his critics, his plan is to create Death Panels. And, I would think, that something like that takes time,.. since they are no where to be around. I mean, his critics wouldn't be feeding the public false and sensationalist information,.. now would they?
This. He contradicts himself so often in threads that it's hard to figure out what his argument is. One minute it was "Obama hasn't done or said anything about the downing of the jet liner." Another minute it was "China is claiming that Obama is over-reacting to the downing of the jet liner by blaming Russia too soon."You are such a fool that you don't know how your own reasoning works. In the same paragraph that you label Obama's lack of 30 years in DC "inexperience," you call for him to make up his entire team of such people? Hmmmm... I wonder what label Texashiker would be using to describe them if he had done so?
You are the ass end of conservative propaganda. You shit out what they feed you, but they change the direction of their negativity to suit what's in front of them, so you don't know what you're against until they tell you.
Obama gets hawkish? Why they're the voices of calm reason!
Obama doesn't see the need to get involved? Hear them say how he's weak and inviting attack!
Trade agreement? "Offshoring jobs." "Red tape."
Leave the government out? "Trade barriers." "Failing to do his job."
You have no real beliefs of your own. You are merely a product of what is fed to you.
And, then when a fairly easy to understand argument is made to point out his inconsistency, he doubles down.When the same people are in office, nothing will ever change. One of the reasons why obama failed is because he recruited people who are part of the problem.
edit: I've got it: TexasHiker has chosen the opposite of Obama. ANY thing that Obama does, or doesn't do, the opposite is preferred by TexasHiker. The problem is that TH can not keep up with the news, understand the news, or realize when multiplenewsopinion pieces about Obama are conflicting.
Don't you have a fence to repair?
Go feed your goats or collect the eggs,,,,, something.
didn't you ever build that fence to protect your chickens from your puppies?
or was that too late?
I can not think of a single post where you contributed, or even tried to contribute something of quality to this community. As much as I try to like you, I just can't.
When the same people are in office, nothing will ever change. One of the reasons why obama failed is because he recruited people who are part of the problem.
The problem is you believe conservative talk adjectives. Until you stop, there will never be a solution because you'll keep believing their interpretation of problems.
If Obama had recruited a horde of outsiders, the meme you'd be working with is that their inexperience is contributing to the new set of problems that conservative talk would be harping on. You'd believe it's the reason for the House intransigence: you'd be saying, "Obama's inexperience really shows in that he brought in an entire team of inexperienced people and expected to get things done! That's just not how things work in Washington!" Then we'd have: "The Obamacare website rollout really shows what happens when you have inexperienced people working for you. That fiasco never would have happened if he had hired people who know how to get things done!" In here we'd have: "Obama's foreign policy is a joke -- what do you expect when you hire outsiders with no foreign policy experience?"
It's hilarious that you're blaming all this on Obama's inexperience and you can't see that you would be using the exact same argument against an inexperienced cabinet, especially since it reinforces the original point -- "Obama's inexperience."
Your unexamined "feelings" on issues are a joke. Don't bore us with brain dumps of your retardation. Conservative talk has you programmed to think that anything Obama is actually doing is wrong, so don't come in here with "solutions" that, if true, you'd be whining about even harder. You just aren't interesting.
If you can't think, stop trying.
Nice post outlining your feelings. Quit trying to act like some super savior enlightened intellectual...you're no different than the conservatives you apparently loathe by being incapable of seeing a middle ground on anything. Keep drinking that alternative flavored Koolaid brand bullshit. Your post is boring and typical.
Ah hell, the last President most definitely had a foreign policy, and look where that got us.
Give me measured over knee jerk responses any day of the week.
If Obama had recruited a horde of outsiders, the meme you'd be working with is that their inexperience is contributing to the new set of problems that conservative talk would be harping on. You'd believe it's the reason for the House intransigence: you'd be saying, "Obama's inexperience really shows in that he brought in an entire team of inexperienced people and expected to get things done!
And here we have your same old faith that if two people hold different positions, the truth must lie in between. You really expect to hold my interest with a fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Find a better program. At least the conservatives' anti-Obamaism is creative in their invented particulars. "He's the antichrist." "He's a Muslim from Kenya." "He's weak." "He's a dictator." "He wants the government to run everything." "He refuses to uphold the law!"
You've presented this wiki BS before....it's not swaying my opinion. There are very few issues that are black and white, right or wrong. Compromise is the key to a successful American government; not stalemate as you apparently advocate. Interesting or not it's a reality.
There is no objective "compromise" position, moron, yet somehow you believe that it is the black-and-white "correct" position. (Yes, in case you were too stupid to notice, your belief is self-contradictory)
Let's look at what your system gets us:
I say zero, Texashiker says 8.
Angry Irishman: "Four is the correct answer!"
I move to four, Texashiker says 8.
Angry Irishman: "Six is the answer!"
I move to six. Texas now says, "Ten."
Angry Irishman: "If you're at six and he's at ten, you must compromise on 8!"
Wow, what a brilliant system you've come up with.
Listen up, fool; you don't assign "correct" to some abstract value and disassociate it from reality.
Read it, and stop boring me with your system which conveniently allows you to enter any debate and unilaterally declare all participants "wrong" no matter where they happen to stand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
You do not hold some philosophically superior position, nub. Solipsism does not nullify pragmatism.
Look, go start your Russian or equestrian revolution somewhere else...that should be less boring for you. What the fuck are you even babbling on about? Is English not your first language? I specifically said that taking an absolute side of any issue is fool hearty. There needs to be a compromising approach to politics or you have an ineffective stalemate system or worse in the long run. You've responded with the biggest pile of shit I've smelled, read, in a long time. Hurry along, you're going to miss your next political science class at the university of black and white, right or wrong.
Holy fuck! Try looking in the mirror next time and look yourself in the eye as you recite your bullshit and see if you, like everyone else that's reads your posts, can't stop from laughing.
Just so you know how fucking retarded you are, you are defending texashikers bullshit posts which dominion pretty much broke down as being completely pointless.