Here
and
Now

opinions

Obama thrust into role as leader of West

43 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

But wider questions about Obama’s global authority surfaced last year after he balked at enforcing a red line over chemical weapons use in Syria.

Noise machie bs. Because of the US's insistence on enforcing the red line, Syria agreed to coff-up its chemical weapons.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It was the same Obama during last years debate that told Romney this:

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”

http://youtu.be/T1409sXBleg

And who can forget this famous embarrassment from the President when Obama was talking to former president Medvedev about the "Space Missile Defense Shield."

http://youtu.be/iYGsadcBiFA

Putin was probably thinking, YES! Please elect Obama again! Also, he owes Romney an apology.

The man failed with Iran, they are still building nukes, Ok, at a more slower pace, but they haven't given up anything!

Syria, Obama had the chance to dispose of Assad, blinked and now Assad is not only deeply entrenched, that window of opportunity is long gone, it is virtually impossible to remove him, NOT only that, but we might have to help him if we don't want Al Qaeda to take over that country, on the other hand, Assad is being backed up by Hezbollah doesn't sit well in the craw either. He's still in power, that helps Russia and Iran, they still have stockpiles of the stuff and you think, they turned it all over? Of course not. Assad is NOT that dumb, neither is Putin. That entire debacle made the president look so overly stupid and pathetic, so now which poison will you pick? Either way, we will help one of these terrorist groups.

Obama has a fundamental problem for seeing the world NOT as it is, but as he would like it to be. The man didn't enforce his RED LINE with Syria, with Iran and now with Russia. Silence. He's weak, he doesn't see the urgency when it comes to foreign policy or the bigger picture. He's too busy ramming down his crappy Obamacare (which also is failing miserably and WILL continue to do so) down our throats willing or unwilling. If he would have the same fortitude and fire in his belly to deal in a harsh decisive manner from the beginning, maybe a lot would be different, maybe Putin would have thought twice before going into Ukraine. Because of this, he's lost traction, the OBL went to his head and the man became complacent, comfortable. And now the 3AM clock is ringing, so now what? Libs think if you criticize this president, you are either a racist or the race card is thrown in! All day, libs want to rehash and bash Bush on everything, but now these same libs want us to support Obama, if you don't, you're unpatriotic and yet, libs want to give him a pass on everything. If Obama would have allowed the Keystone pipeline to come through the US, not only could that get us out of this financial ruins we're in, thanks to him, but at least it would send a message to Vlad that if he wants to play strongman jerk with Natural gas and oil, then screw him, let the Europeans buy from use, but Obama is focused on Algae and other green gook! Sure, I wanted to believe in this president, I hate his polices and I personally didn't believe he has the guts to deal with foreign policy, (same goes for Hilary) but at least, I was willing to give him a chance, because he is our president, but all he did was make matters worse, everywhere! Whether libs want to take their medicine or not, they need to come to the harsh realization that this president is weak, pure and simple. He should have never cut the military so drastically, we are scaling down and Russia, Iran and China are building up, they know this, they are watching with great interest how this president responds. And it seems like libs and this president are underestimating China as well and don't thing that the possibility for China doing the same thing is some far fetched fantasy and could NEVER happen, thinking so is completely delusional!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Interesting to see the look on Obama's face in the news this week, it was like a dear caught in the headlights of an 18-wheel truck. He is like a pee-wee league football player who just found himself quarterbacking in the NFL playoffs.

God help the west if Obama is the best we can do for a leader,

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Zounds! An American president expected to have some cajones? Astounding! Obama had no qualifications when he was elected, and his true colors are now showing. He surrounded himself with yes-men, basked in his own limelight, listened to his own voice… and now when he has to actually DO something, he's dead in the water.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

But wider questions about Obama’s global authority surfaced last year after he balked at enforcing a red line over chemical weapons use in Syria.

Then he shouldn't have drawn it, nor should he have declared last week that there 'would be consequences' if he isn't intending to follow through.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Good on Obama for leading the West's response to Russia. The EU has virtually no power with diplomatic pressure when it comes to Russia.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Putin was probably thinking, YES! Please elect Obama again!"

More like, please, a third term for Bush Junior! Remember the Russo-Georgia War in mid-2008, against America's ally Georgia... and Washington's hilarious response? Here's Wiki: "Bush opted for a softer option by sending humanitarian supplies to Georgia by military, rather than civilian, aircraft."

Wow, I guess Putin was really scared by that. No wonder he feels so confident in going into Ukraine. LOL.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Good on Obama for leading the West's response to Russia. The EU has virtually no power with diplomatic pressure when it comes to Russia.

Huh, did I miss something??? Maybe I fell asleep on my sofa. Where is Obama leading??!

@Jeff

More like, please, a third term for Bush Junior! Remember the Russo-Georgia War in mid-2008, against America's ally Georgia... and Washington's hilarious response? Here's Wiki: "Bush opted for a softer option by sending humanitarian supplies to Georgia by military, rather than civilian, aircraft."

Hey, IMHO both botched it! Bush messed up with Georgia, underestimated Putin as well as Obama did. But still Putin was more careful with Bush, with Obama, he's not even acknowledging him. Both on that end get a straight F-. Also, you are quoting Wiki, come on, guy....really?

Wow, I guess Putin was really scared by that. No wonder he feels so confident in going into Ukraine. LOL.

Probably and Obama had just made it that much easier.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is Europe's problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@JeffLee: Good point, but it's not politically correct to criticize and put down people with mental handicaps like Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As leader of the alliance’s most powerful member and effective guarantor of a weakened Europe’s security, it falls to Obama to lead the West’s response.

No. No it doesn't. Other leaders can fill those shoes. They just cannot prevent Obama from filling them if he so chooses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The headline is bizarre...he hasn't just become President and he just hasn't become aware of the fact that all eyes are on the President of the US, and that his words go around the world almost as soon as he utters them. This headline would be accurate if it were from 2008. He hasn't suddenly been 'thrust into' anything.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Also, you are quoting Wiki, come on, guy....really?"

Yes, really. Is the information wrong? Because i don't recall any kind of response from the Bush administration.

"But still Putin was more careful with Bush,"

How and why exactly? The Bush administration did nothing during the Russo-Georgia War. Just like it did nothing after North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapon in 2006 and while Iran started to exploit the regional power vacuum as the Iraq War bogged down in quagmire from the mid-2000s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@jeff

How and why exactly? The Bush administration did nothing during the Russo-Georgia War.

Correct. As Obama is doing right now....Nothing.

Just like it did nothing after North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapon in 2006

Both presidents don't have to worry for now too much about NK. As long as they can get money and Hennessy they can be somewhat contained.

and while Iran started to exploit the regional power vacuum as the Iraq War bogged down in quagmire from the mid-2000s

No thanks to the overwheming sectarian violence.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Obama the leader of the West? God save us.

The man hadn'T led so much as a lemonade stand before he was elected President. It's hardly fair to expect him to man up now. The best we can do is hope the next two years aren'T too disastrous around the world, and vote in somebody who actually has a pair of stones.

He is the Scold of the West, but hardly a leader.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oh dear, not good. It could lead to trouble like most of America's recent exploits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem here is Obama is a very, very weak leader, and Putin sees this and that encourages this kind of action.

RR

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

He's not my leader.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The man failed with Iran, they are still building nukes, Ok, at a more slower pace, but they haven't given up anything!

The United States has been failing with Iran since the Shah was overthrown in a revolution in 1979. No democratization or breakthrough in relations has ever been just around the corner, either through persuasion, coercion, or by military force. See also Vietnam (1975), Libya (1969), Cuba (1959), North Korea (1953).

Syria, Obama had the chance to dispose of Assad, blinked and now Assad is not only deeply entrenched, that window of opportunity is long gone.

The United States has been failing with the Assad regime, which began with the current president's father, since 1966. The idea that Obama "had a chance to dispose of Assad" is pure guesswork, and the mess left behind after supposed victories in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lesson that America desperately needs to learn from. Analysts have been suggesting since the early days of the uprising in Syria that an overthrow of Assad would lead to ethnic bloodshed on a very large scale - it's a matter of Syria's demographics, which if anything are more complicated than Iraq's. We also have the long drawn out Lebanese civil war to remind us of where Syria is headed.

Obama has a fundamental problem for seeing the world NOT as it is, but as he would like it to be.

The United States has a fundamental problem with dividing up people inhabiting complicated areas of the world into "good guys" and "bad guys", a comic book approach that does not work and never has worked with countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan, or with entire regions like the Middle East and North Africa. This is how you get a 13-year occupation of Afghanistan that fails to eradicate the Taliban and fails to make a dent in the opium trade, despite the US vowing to do both.

If he would have the same fortitude and fire in his belly to deal in a harsh decisive manner from the beginning, maybe a lot would be different, maybe Putin would have thought twice before going into Ukraine.

Putin (and he's certainly not the first Russian leader to do this) never gave a damn what America thought about anything. He predates Obama by a long way, and would have felt similar contempt for Bush, as he appears to do for all his opponents. He has that luxury, as he leads a large, resource-rich, and powerful country that doesn't care and never particularly did care about making enemies.

Obama should have never cut the military so drastically, we are scaling down and Russia, Iran and China are building up, they know this, they are watching with great interest how this president responds.

They would be doing this no matter who was in the White House, and they will continue to do it no matter who becomes the next Republican president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and Putin sees this and that encourages this kind of action.

He's a problem, isn't he!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's not problem of Obama, the problem is this case happened in the backyard of Russia who is not Iraq kind of weak ones, suppose any US general suggest to send US force there, that guy must have his brain be checked! Can anyone tell me when the US ever send his force to against Russia near his border by any preisdents?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Russia with the Warsaw Pact and United States and NATO and their cold war really gave the entire world a hard time for decades and stopped other nations from advancing. Both nations should just stay within their own borders take care of their own houses and let the rest of us have some peace and quite for a change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The right has no credibility when it comes to who is or who is not a strong leader.

First, their guys suck. All of them. Bush, Cheymey, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitzes, the Grahams and the McCains were not an anomaly of what the right throws up: they were backed the whole way by the Rush Blowhards, the Charles Krauthammers and the George Wills. Even the David Brookses, until it became so obvious to all that right wing blowhards think talking tough is enough to hide the very simple and indisputable fact that though they think the solution to every problem is Look Strong, they couldn't invade their way out of dime store paper bag.

The Right is a farce. They get everything wrong, try to blame the Democrats for their failures, and with staggering lunacy claim Democratic victories as there own.

We Dems got OBL. That is fact. Obama made the call that McCain and every other chicken hawk would not have and could not have, because they lack the nerve and the imagination. This very simple fact, that Obama got OBL is so offensive to the right wing mind, that they pul a VGER out of Star Trek, and self-detonate when confronted by it. It is pathetic

And We Dems brought Syria to the bargaining table. Because We Dems know how to use force to achieve tangible diplomatic and strategic results.

The Right is joke. They have NO credibility when it comes to defense. For Gawd Sakes, they demanded and got the single most unqualified person in modern history on the Presidential ticket because she was talk and strut and no substance.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Dan, I believe the SEALs got Bin Laden. Not sure what the specific political feelings of the team members were, though. Good on the president for authorizing the mission. Other than that... "their guys suck" is hardly a cogent analysis.

As for the most unqualified person on a ticket, that prize may well go to the current inhabitant of the White House. Palin, for her myriad faults, at least had some years of leadership/executive experience on her resume. As well, she wasn't at the top of the ticket. Obama was. A partially filled term as Senator hardly seems equivalent.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"The Right is a farce. They get everything wrong, "

They have a legacy of being weak, lazy, and stupid in that area. It originates from the disorganized and embarrassing Fall of Saigon, to Reagan negotiating with terrorists for hostages and secretly selling terror state Iran hi-tech US warplane parts, to sending 250 Marines to their deaths in Beirut with no bullets in their rifles.

US conservatives talk loudly but when it comes to action, everything they attempt falls apart and ends up in shambles. And then they start crying like little French girls, as the Dems try to repair all the damage.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Obama can only be a leader to his group of bootlickers. They make him look good no matter what he does. As for real world leader/bad boys (like Putin), he has no chance. His BSing skills won't be of any use.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I just love seeing the Right, lost in their furious anger, confusion and desperation, actually praising Putin as a "leader"

See how far the worms have spread.

No serious person can either bleat the Republican taking points or the damn party as anything other than a hate cult.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Dan, you fail to see that this is not a partisan political issue. Asserting that other presidents/politicians may have been worse than the current ones is not relevant. It's a very weak argument if all you can do is fingerpoint and stammer, "but..but... but the OTHER guys were worse..."

The current president is failing in this test of his nerve and guts. THAT is the most important thing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Palin, for her myriad faults, at least had some years of leadership/executive experience on her resume.

Her leadership as governor of Alaska - she hadn't been in office quite two years when selected as VP candidate - involved some very unorthodox behaviour, like pursuing personal vendettas and bringing her husband to Cabinet meetings

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/12/nation/na-todd12/2

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35238034/ns/politics/t/palin-e-mails-reveal-powerful-first-dude/

Unfortunately, that heavy reliance on her husband bears out the impression she gave of total incompetence when interviewed by the media, or indeed, just opening her mouth at rallies or public events. She was completely floored by the following from Katie Couric: "When it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?"

This is a perfectly fair question to ask a presidential or vice presidential candidate - in fact it would be fair if, at an interview for a middling desk job, you were asked the same by your interviewer. Yet apparently Palin's leadership and executive skills deserted her at this point, and Todd wasn't around to help.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The United States has been failing with Iran since the Shah was overthrown in a revolution in 1979. No democratization or breakthrough in relations has ever been just around the corner, either through persuasion, coercion, or by military force. See also Vietnam (1975), Libya (1969), Cuba (1959), North Korea (1953).

And there were failures, admitted and acknowledged, it is not a secret, but sometimes, when you deal with democracy, you have to make a deal with the devil, happens all the time, happened for thousands of years and will keep on happening.

The United States has been failing with the Assad regime, which began with the current president's father, since 1966. The idea that Obama "had a chance to dispose of Assad" is pure guesswork, and the mess left behind after supposed victories in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lesson that America desperately needs to learn from. Analysts have been suggesting since the early days of the uprising in Syria that an overthrow of Assad would lead to ethnic bloodshed on a very large scale - it's a matter of Syria's demographics, which if anything are more complicated than Iraq's. We also have the long drawn out Lebanese civil war to remind us of where Syria is headed.

Well, that is NOT true, the US had a strong foot in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama was the one that didn’t want to old up and ensure a proper SOFA agreement with either countries, thus you now see a slide back to what these countries were and worse. Many military analysts have said this time and time again. Gates also eluded to that Obama was weak and never even believed in his own strategy, but would allow a surge and allow men and women to go out in the field and die, just to prove a point that he has the fortitude to engage in a military conflict.

The United States has a fundamental problem with dividing up people inhabiting complicated areas of the world into "good guys" and "bad guys", a comic book approach that does not work and never has worked with countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan, or with entire regions like the Middle East and North Africa. This is how you get a 13-year occupation of Afghanistan that fails to eradicate the Taliban and fails to make a dent in the opium trade, despite the US vowing to do both.

You can thank the British for that.

Putin (and he's certainly not the first Russian leader to do this) never gave a damn what America thought about anything. He predates Obama by a long way, and would have felt similar contempt for Bush, as he appears to do for all his opponents. He has that luxury, as he leads a large, resource-rich, and powerful country that doesn't care and never particularly did care about making enemies.

Very true, however, Putin was very careful around Bush, he didn’t show him the disrespect he is showing Obama and he knew Bush wouldn’t rule out using military force. Obama, he read his card, he sized him up and he knows Obama is far to weak, to stupid to oppose him in any way. Had Obama been more of a strong assertive leader, he could have at the very least given Putin a bit of angst or slight apprehension if going into the Ukraine is worth the effort. But Obama didm’ project that image. Putin took him to the cleaners. So would I had I been him.

They would be doing this no matter who was in the White House, and they will continue to do it no matter who becomes the next Republican president.

True, I will give you that, but with a Republican President that is NOT afraid to use the military, the Russians would take a second think before doing anything rash.

@JTDan

The right has no credibility when it comes to who is or who is not a strong leader.

So where is Obama strong, EXACTLY where. Obviously, Putin is laughing at him, the whole world doesn't take him seriously. Obama spent 90 min. the other day, trying to talk Putin to leaving the Ukraine, seriously?

First, their guys suck. All of them. Bush, Cheymey, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitzes, the Grahams and the McCains were not an anomaly of what the right throws up: they were backed the whole way by the Rush Blowhards, the Charles Krauthammers and the George Wills. Even the David Brookses, until it became so obvious to all that right wing blowhards think talking tough is enough to hide the very simple and indisputable fact that though they think the solution to every problem is Look Strong, they couldn't invade their way out of dime store paper bag.

So you just bloviate about Bush once again? What is with Dems that you guys cant rid of your Bush obsession? You guys tow the liberal partisan line, never admitting that this guy is nothing but a joke. Now, the whole world knows it and if you don't believe me, just read every newspaper. So let me ask you, it would be presumably an indisputable fact that Obama and as well as the entire Democratic party has pretty much destroyed the country within if you are so willing to excoriate Bush and give Obama a pass. I will say, Bush was on a roll to ruin relations internationally with many of our allies, but Obama did a "double for your pleasure." NOT only did he destroyed relations with our closest allies, but embolden our enemies and in the process, is destroying America as well.

The Right is a farce. They get everything wrong, try to blame the Democrats for their failures, and with staggering lunacy claim Democratic victories as there own.

What?? The left are the saviors of the world now all of a sudden. So let me ask you, is Iran quaking in their boots, how is Assad these days? And Vlad is going about his business in the Ukraine and doesn't even acknowledge that Obama is even present. Democratic victory at its best ROFL

We Dems got OBL. That is fact. Obama made the call that McCain and every other chicken hawk would not have and could not have, because they lack the nerve and the imagination. This very simple fact, that Obama got OBL is so offensive to the right wing mind, that they pul a VGER out of Star Trek, and self-detonate when confronted by it. It is pathetic

He called. 90 min. Of loose hot air. The KGB agent vs the Community organizer, pathetic! How'd that ever happen that we got stuck with this guy? Oh, and OBL was caught with the advisory help from Bush, just to let you know, so give him thanks to as well.

And We Dems brought Syria to the bargaining table. Because We Dems know how to use force to achieve tangible diplomatic and strategic results.

So much so that NOW because Obama didn't follow up on the SOFA agreement with Iraq and with Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is flooding the country once again, they control now more than 45% of the country and many of the fighters are with the Syrian opposition army, so if we want to stop Al Qaeda from becoming a much bigger threat than before, we have to probably align ourselves with Assad, who is backed by Hezbollah and Iran, Yeah, nice work, but as you say, "you Dems own it."

The Right is joke. They have NO credibility when it comes to defense.

So what great war historically have the Left won on numerous occasions and how many?

For Gawd Sakes, they demanded and got the single most unqualified person in modern history on the Presidential ticket.

That's for d*** sure, NO arguments here!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wipeout

When righties try to defend Palin, they are losing.

McCain's choice of her for VP convincing proof that the Republican is broken.

Everyone outside of the Republi.., er, "independent conservative, "bubble" knows this.

The right's refusal to distance themselves from her means one thing and one thing only:

They will continue to lose elections in all but the most conservative, gerrymanderd House seats.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

When righties try to defend Palin, they are losing.

She's not running for anything, nothing to lose. One thing she could see and that she could see Obama was being hoodwinked from vlad.

McCain's choice of her for VP convincing proof that the Republican is broken.

Everyone outside of the Republi.., er, "independent conservative, "bubble" knows this.

The right's refusal to distance themselves from her means one thing and one thing only:

Why are you still talking about 2008, at that time Yosemite Sam could have won. Republicans, were toxic then as how Democrats are toxic now.

They will continue to lose elections in all but the most conservative, gerrymanderd House seats.

NEWSFLASH!! From the looks of things now, you guys are probably going to have to bid Adieu to the Senate soon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/20/computing_democrats_risk_of_losing_the_senate_121640.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/democrats-2014-election-strategy-102832.html

Their calculation is uncomplicated. With only so much money to go around in an election year that is tilting the GOP’s way, Democrats need to concentrate resources on preserving the chamber they have now. Losing the Senate, they know, could doom whatever hopes Barack Obama has of salvaging the final years of his presidency.

You can spin it any way you want to, but no matter how much make up you put on a pig, it's still and always will be a pig. For the Dems to keep a hold on the Senate a miracle would have to happen and since you guys don't believe in such things, it probably won't happen.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You can thank the British for that.

The British didn't dream up the war in Afghanistan. It was an American war, to extract vengeance for 9/11 and divert attention from the uncomfortable and highly embarrassing fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and three more were from Middle Eastern countries that supposedly have a good relationship with the US.

US drug policy in Afghanistan is a failure, though blaming the British for that is about the level of understanding to be expected from you.

The war, and the "missions" are American, no matter who they dupe into joining them in these futile projects. British politicians go along with the US in almost everything - though it must have been a cruel shock when they balked over a military response to Syria's use of chemical weapons. Unlike the politicians, the British public are much more skeptical, and the desire to join American in its military adventures is practically nonexistent.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@wipeout

The British didn't dream up the war in Afghanistan. It was an American war, to extract vengeance for 9/11 and divert attention from the uncomfortable and highly embarrassing fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and three more were from Middle Eastern countries that supposedly have a good relationship with the US.

No, but they divided the Middle East, which by definition means, they screwed it up by regulating and deviding various tribes,

US drug policy in Afghanistan is a failure, though blaming the British for that is about the level of understanding to be expected from you.

And yet, you talk about Bush, but fail to mention how Afghanistan was Obama's war, the war that should've been fought. That's a fact.

The war, and the "missions" are American, no matter who they dupe into joining them in these futile projects. British politicians go along with the US in almost everything - though it must have been a cruel shock when they balked over a military response to Syria's use of chemical weapons. Unlike the politicians, the British public are much more skeptical, and the desire to join American in its military adventures is practically nonexistent.

Without us, they'd all be speaking German.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

`Bass4funk

No, the Americans joined in the war at half time when the Germans had decided not to invade Britain and were concentrating on the Easter Front.Also the countries they invaded were not forced to speak German.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@falseflag

Somewhat true, in the beginning, but had the US not intervene in the war, Hitler had a grander vision for his future Germania where every country that was annexed would have to speak German as a main language.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No, but they divided the Middle East, which by definition means, they screwed it up by regulating and deviding various tribes

Which makes you wonder why 100 years later the United States would go wading into these areas that it hasn't got a clue how deal with. Afghanistan is the most obvious example, as the fairly recent (back in 2001) Soviet invasion showed that foreign occupiers don't do well. But foreign occupiers have never done well there.

The British learned lessons from their empire and its subsequent breakup slowly and painfully - Afghanistan in 1842 being one of the most painful of all - but the Americans are still repeating those mistakes. Unwavering self-belief can be your own worst enemy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Which makes you wonder why 100 years later the United States would go wading into these areas that it hasn't got a clue how deal with. Afghanistan is the most obvious example, as the fairly recent (back in 2001) Soviet invasion showed that foreign occupiers don't do well. But foreign occupiers have never done well there.

The reasons for the US entering in Afghanistan and the Russians were completely different. So basically, when the US realized that OBL was hiding out in Afghanistan, we should've just let him go and NOT do anything about it.

The British learned lessons from their empire and its subsequent breakup slowly and painfully - Afghanistan in 1842 being one of the most painful of all - but the Americans are still repeating those mistakes. Unwavering self-belief can be your own worst enemy.

The US doesn't have an empire. Afghanistan would've been managagle if Obama would've followed the SOFA agreement that was already in place, but he chose to cut and run without realizing the longterm repercussions. But how would a community organizer realize that?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The reasons for the US entering in Afghanistan and the Russians were completely different.

They always are. But the results were about the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If that is the case, since there was no direct connection between OBL and Saddam, take away the security apprehensions following 9/11, why did Bush take the risk of invading Iraq? If you look at it, U.S. policy and justification is not any different than Russians.

I get your point, but we had every right to dispose that tyrant, unlike the interest of what the Russians were trying to do. It was a known fact that Saddam was allowing Al Qaeda train in Iraq and that was a threat that the US wanted to thwart. I don't want to try Iraq on this thread. If I had been president, I probably would have handled it differently, but still I would've gotten rid of both, the world is a better place, you can at least admit that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@bass4funk,

Is America really in a position to be lecturing other countries about "breaking the rules" or "violation of sovereignty" when insisting for so long that the rules don't even apply to U.S. The actions in Iraq, in a sense, codified the law of the jungle in global affairs and validated the worldview of Russian leader Putin, that in foreign affairs there's no right and wrong, just strong and weak. Iraq eroded away any moral high ground the U.S. can claim. What is more, Iraq revealed the U.S. as a paper tiger, a superpower whose reach far exceeds its grasp. That's the real lesson that the rest of the world took from that debacle.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think the US can lecture, because if you look at "breaking the rules" who broke the rules first, it wasn't the US that decided to launch an invasion just for the sake of boredom or to impose suffering on another nation. I have always believed as a supporter of the war and as a person that was there covering it was the right thing to do. My problem was the politics about the whole thing. Russians aggressions are completely different as Putin is trying to ANNEX another sovereign country and claiming it as essentially his. Come on guy, please don't compare US terror prevention to Russia's conquest of aggression.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Actually, Obama was facing a likely election defeat in Congressional elections this fall. The tendency for voters to rally around the leader in office, may have him sending a thank you note to Putin. As for Crimea as a part of Ukraine, actually only since Khruschev gave it to a Ukraine that he ruled anyway. Even in the USSR breakup, Russia has held onto the bases for its navy there. Now that Ukraine is a bankrupt welfare state, wonder how that vote will go with the Crimeans.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites