which president had the better foreign policy?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:12:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  which president had the better foreign policy?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: ?
#1
w. bush
 
#2
obama
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 66

Author Topic: which president had the better foreign policy?  (Read 1392 times)
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 09, 2014, 11:56:42 AM »

no contest, bush. 
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2014, 12:33:49 PM »

Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2014, 12:54:47 PM »

Ew.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2014, 01:00:08 PM »

seriously...



...


like, seriously...




Obama (not a moron)
Logged
Panda Express
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,578


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2014, 01:05:38 PM »

Obviously George W. is the correct answer. Russia didn't invade sovereign nations when Bush was president.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2014, 01:35:24 PM »

Obviously George W. is the correct answer. Russia didn't invade sovereign nations when Bush was president.

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or you don't recall the invasion of Georgia by Russian forces in 2008. If it's the former, I apologize for not being able to detect your sarcasm on the Internet. Tongue

As to the question itself, I can't tell much of a difference between the two when it comes to foreign policy prerogatives. Obama still accepts the War on Terror as legitimate and still uses it as a foil by which to expand U.S. operations in the Middle East. He just does it in a way that is less brazen and focuses more on bringing the rest of the West onboard with it, rather than alienating everyone and confronting regimes targeted for destruction head on. I would say that on the whole a case could be made for Bush having at least a slightly better foreign policy in that he mangled the entire thing and made the US less respected and weaker abroad, thus sabotaging most real efforts at settling accounts in the Middle East in the favor of the United States. Plus, Bush at least made it possible for a liberal opposition to at least condemn his actions rhetorically and act against them in a limited fashion, thereby limiting his overall ability to implement his designs for the Middle East.

With Obama, liberals bend over backwards to support whatever imperialist project proposed by the administration, and conservatives really only condemn these insofar as they are not aggressive enough. This makes the Obama administration's foreign policy far more dangerous, as it can get a blank check for whatever it is it wants to do from liberals while not having to worry about any serious opposition.

Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2014, 03:37:35 PM »

seriously...



...


like, seriously...




Obama (not a moron)
Logged
I Will Not Be Wrong
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2014, 03:52:22 PM »

Bush of course.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2014, 11:43:59 PM »

Is there really a difference outside of motivation?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2014, 11:50:51 PM »

Is there really a difference outside of motivation?

Obama is clearly competent, while Bush was nothing of the sort.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2014, 01:54:25 AM »

R-MA.jpg
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2014, 01:57:17 AM »

Well, their foreign policies are functionally very similar, but Obama's waffling and lack of clear "raison d'être" for the United States puts him a hair behind Bush.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2014, 02:31:49 AM »
« Edited: August 10, 2014, 02:38:01 AM by Frodo »

Obama for the most part, though I have been disappointed by him on Syria (what red line?) and his refusal to secure a Status of Forces Agreement that would have kept at least a small number of US troops in Iraq, ensuring greater influence on the Iraqi government than what we have now.  

And on Afghanistan, imposing an arbitrary deadline on US forces in the country instead of basing troop numbers on conditions within the country.  I understand he had promises he had to keep to his base here at home, but there is such a thing called 'leadership'.

Since I am neither an isolationist or a trigger-happy interventionist, I expect Hillary Clinton to be more responsible than either Obama or Bush.  
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2014, 02:37:50 AM »

Obama for the most part, though I have been disappointed by him on Syria (what red line?) and his refusal to secure a Status of Forces Agreement that would have kept at least a small number of US troops in Iraq, ensuring greater influence on the Iraqi government than what we have now.  
And on Afghanistan, imposing an arbitrary deadline on US forces in the country instead of basing troop numbers on conditions within the country.  I understand he had promises he had to keep to his base here at home, but there is such a thing called 'leadership'.

I expect Hillary Clinton to be more responsible than either Obama or Bush.  

Wow, we actually... really agree here. To be honest, I'm especially disappointed at his handling of troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. In 2012, it seemed like he and Romney both had the same date in mind, but the difference was that Obama telegraphed his timetable to the world, while Romney was going to hold his cards a little closer to his chest. Now we've got the Taliban waiting in the wings and who knows what the situation will deteriorate to post-December. I'd also prefer some flexibility and a bit more tact for the schedule.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2014, 02:42:14 AM »

Obama for the most part, though I have been disappointed by him on Syria (what red line?) and his refusal to secure a Status of Forces Agreement that would have kept at least a small number of US troops in Iraq, ensuring greater influence on the Iraqi government than what we have now.  
And on Afghanistan, imposing an arbitrary deadline on US forces in the country instead of basing troop numbers on conditions within the country.  I understand he had promises he had to keep to his base here at home, but there is such a thing called 'leadership'.

I expect Hillary Clinton to be more responsible than either Obama or Bush.  

Wow, we actually... really agree here. To be honest, I'm especially disappointed at his handling of troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. In 2012, it seemed like he and Romney both had the same date in mind, but the difference was that Obama telegraphed his timetable to the world, while Romney was going to hold his cards a little closer to his chest. Now we've got the Taliban waiting in the wings and who knows what the situation will deteriorate to post-December. I'd also prefer some flexibility and a bit more tact for the schedule.

You seem surprised -I was never in league with the isolationists in my party.  Ever.  Though I have not been particularly vocal about it.  
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2014, 02:51:30 AM »

Obama for the most part, though I have been disappointed by him on Syria (what red line?) and his refusal to secure a Status of Forces Agreement that would have kept at least a small number of US troops in Iraq, ensuring greater influence on the Iraqi government than what we have now.  
And on Afghanistan, imposing an arbitrary deadline on US forces in the country instead of basing troop numbers on conditions within the country.  I understand he had promises he had to keep to his base here at home, but there is such a thing called 'leadership'.

I expect Hillary Clinton to be more responsible than either Obama or Bush.  

Wow, we actually... really agree here. To be honest, I'm especially disappointed at his handling of troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. In 2012, it seemed like he and Romney both had the same date in mind, but the difference was that Obama telegraphed his timetable to the world, while Romney was going to hold his cards a little closer to his chest. Now we've got the Taliban waiting in the wings and who knows what the situation will deteriorate to post-December. I'd also prefer some flexibility and a bit more tact for the schedule.

You seem surprised -I was never in league with the isolationists in my party.  Ever.  Though I have not been particularly vocal about it.  

It's just nice to hear. Wink
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2014, 05:59:47 AM »

Obviously Obama. 90% of the foreign policy problems today are because of Bush's screw-ups.
Logged
Rooney
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2014, 06:53:35 PM »

Obama is probably as good as we can get to a realistic American foreign policy. I would rather that our nation entertain a non-interventionist strategy but that is not possible. I like how President Obama refuses to use American soldiers in a far flung capacity, uses drones to do a lot of the heavy lifting and seems to think that working with other nations is a good thing.

Bush, on the other hand, broke the whole world. Obama is better by far.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2014, 07:53:09 PM »

Obama is continuing Bush's foreign policy except with less of a backbone.  I feel you're being biased if you can really say one is better than the other...
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2014, 07:59:00 PM »
« Edited: August 11, 2014, 08:14:58 PM by ElectionsGuy »

This is like saying, between dumb and dumber, which one is smarter?
Logged
PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald
Mr. Pollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2014, 08:14:03 PM »

The difference between Bush and Obama is militarism and racism; Bush uses ground troops far more than Obama and he will let anything a white person like Putin does slide.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2014, 08:27:03 PM »

The difference between Bush and Obama is militarism and racism; Bush uses ground troops far more than Obama and he will let anything a white person like Putin does slide.

This is so hackishly and mindlessly partisan that I don't know where to begin.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2014, 08:34:57 PM »

Both are Warmongers.  It's hard to tell.  Bush was an open warmonger, Obama pretends to be a peacemaker.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2014, 03:48:49 AM »
« Edited: August 12, 2014, 02:07:47 PM by CrabCake »

Both are kind of appalling, though not for the same reasons. Bush is more awful though: more of his missions were outright incompetent or delegated to outright morons like Tommy Franks and Paul Bremer; or other ambitious (bloodthirsty) underlings. Wins points for his moves against AIDS though.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2014, 01:57:49 PM »

Hearing Hillary Clinton talk and being reminded of George W. Bush has given me some perspective on the Obama foreign policy, and while he continues too much of Bush's foreign policy and makes vague threats and then backs away from them, I think he's doing a much better job than he's given credit for. I get the feeling he's more wary of foreign intervention and I think that's a very good thing for our country and our troops.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 14 queries.