Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

-Troika- posted:

Obama doesn't really have a cohesive doctrine for international relations, he just kind of flops around limply like a fish, when he isn't actively ignoring the US's long time allies in order to suck Iranian and Russian dick.

The Iranian deal in particular is laughable-- they're openly flouting just about everything in it.

Fantastic reading of the article.

As to the flouting of the Iranian nuclear deal, please provide examples of the paranoid fantasy that exists only in your head.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

icantfindaname posted:

You keep insisting that things would have been as bad as Vietnam or WW1 if we had intervened, but guess what, it's that bad despite us not intervening. It turns out that non-intervention, like intervention, is a conscious choice with distinct consequences, no matter how hard you stick your fingers in your ears and scream you can't hear it

The problem is how successful an intervention can be. In Rwanda it was effective, in Kosovo it as effective. In Iraq it was an incredible disaster. Obama had to weigh the failures of GWB up when looking at the situation. Can you necessarily blame him?

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

icantfindaname posted:

It's almost like dictators don't actually rely on public opinion to continue ruling

"We'll be greeted as liberators." -George Bush, 2003


2016:

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

icantfindaname posted:

If the American president were assassinated, as mentioned in that post, the American people would double down in defense of the current American regime. Killing Saddam did not result in Iraqi people doubling down in defense of the Baathist regime. Can you figure out why that was?

That wasn't my point. Although I should point out that Saddam was Ba'athist in name only, and executed the actual Ba'athists long ago.

My point was that assassinating a head of state, even if it were supported by the people, is not a foreign policy ideal of worth. Such a leader may indeed be a tyrannical strong man, but assassinating them merely creates a power vacuum which causes other consequences. There are better ways to improve the lives of the citizens and transition them to democracy.

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

JFairfax posted:

If we're just going on pure numbers killed America is worse than ISIS by your metrics.

Careful now, we already lost one subforum for suggesting assassinating this head of state.

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

Xandu posted:

Saudi Arabia is none too happy with this article, and has pretty much accepted that their relationship with Obama is done.
http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/894826

Very classy of them to invoke Yemen when it's report after report of them committing war crimes against civilians there.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009

KaptainKrunk posted:

To be fair, we helped them, contrary to international and domestic law, to carry out those war crimes. There were plenty of policy options we had to lessen the carnage. Continuing to authorize the sale of billions of dollars worth of both guided and unguided munitions after ample evidence of war crimes emerged doesn't send a very strong signal.

Look, Obama had his red line and he used it in Syria. That line is in Syria right now and it's too dangerous to go and pick it up again, so we can't put it down in Yemen until Syria tidies up a bit so we can send in a courier.

  • Locked thread