world

Obama vigorously defends foreign policy record

35 Comments
By JULIE PACE

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

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

“Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?”

That is a very good question for those war mongers in the states and abord to answer. I’d like to add two more question: What have the US gained by rushing to fight in Iraq and Afghan? Have Americans leared anthing from last 10 years?

Reminder: we left a huge mess in Iraq, today 20 people were killed by suicide bombers over there.

According to a new study by a Harvard University researcher last year, the price tag of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq costs American taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion when factoring in expenses of medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Totally agree that Obama's more diplomatic approach is the best way to go. It never ceases to amaze that there is still a vocal minority in the US who like to go in first without thinking about all the ramifications and then wake up when it's too late. How many times has this happened? Obama's cool-headed, intelligent and effective approach has saved the lives of all those civilians who would have been killed by US troops if they had been sent to Syria etc.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

the policy of diplomacy is good - - but the problem is, that even when Obama speaks he EQUIVOCATES.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@serendipitous

U.S. has been through two wars and they are tired of costly wars. Obama is at least starting to understand the sense of weariness.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Unfortunately his foreign policy record is dismal. There has been too many mistakes attributed to his regime with failures in Syria, Afghanistan, Benghazi, China, Eastern Europe, Israel and Middle East peace etc. Thus he has a very poor record on foreign policy.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

sfjp

True, though I think Obama was one of the war-weary ones before becoming president and he realises that war is not always the answer.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It is called "Obama's community organizer foreign policy" that view the world as such. The dictators across the globe has gone wild and the world is changing to worst. The idea that America is relying on war as John Wayne's gun power is out of date and an excuse for better approach to peace through strength. Obama wants to be known as war ending president, regardless any kind of endings including state of chaos in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan....and now Ukraine? When America is weak, the vacuum will be filled by many trouble elements that will cause further instability in the world. Putin knows Obama so well, for Crimea is thy first prize. Obama's war and country rebuilding in Afghanistan goes nowhere, and it would be better if he packed the tent six years ago. The world is more uncertain same as this symbolic president that many were lead to believe in symbolic peace. Deaths in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan continue to rise along the aggressor line of Putin, Communist China, theocratic Iran, oppression in S. America...Red line has been crossed and deceived.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Putin knows Obama so well, for Crimea is thy first prize"

Putin must know Xi Jin Ping so well too, as the Chinese aren't doing anything about it either, nor is any other country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not that I would expect an intellectually challenged politician like obumbler to read history, I have to point out the US has had some kind of war every decade of its existence and most decades before 1776 as well. So Obama's comment is either showing his ignorance or more likely his ridiculous progressive ideology about non-proliferation of war. The type ifvthinking which mistakenly believes thugs and despots who sign treaties will actually followed them.

Disastrous war? Where? Would that be the Democrat run world wars or Vietnam orchestra disaster Democrats Did starting a civil war to keep slavery? In comparison to those Democrat party disasters, the current wars are just not even close to that level if incompetence.

As far as Putin, he is gaming the liberal game the various progressive socialists around the world set up and have kept alive since the league of nations failure. Putin holds all the cards with a nuke ace in his sleeve. Problem with the socialists like Obama, Democrats, euro socialists is any one operating from reality is beyond their capacity to deal with. Putin gf as an army and nukes and oppressed people backing him. Plus as long as he pays lip Service to liberal ideology the progressives in the world are effectively ignored

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"Obama vigorously defends foreign policy record"

His record is obviously not strong enough to defend itself,

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Warhawks understand nothing but war. Peace makes them nervous. But 8 years of Obama and look! We are still in Afghanistan.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Obama has made a joke out of the U.S.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

" His record is obviously not strong enough to defend itself,"

His record speaks for itself. What a bumbler. Even makes Jimmy Carter look good!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

His record is obviously not strong enough to defend itself,

& his Nobel Peace Prize.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Obama said "if you don't believe our commitments, please ask Ukraine."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

His record is obviously not strong enough to defend itself,

These pundits only read the bits of his record they think they can spin against him.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's true that the US can't afford wars (and this is the result of many decades of squandering tax payers' money.) This is the perfect excuse for Obama to use so that he won't look so bad (because he doesn't know how to deal with the bad boys anyways.) There's a price for everything unfortunately. If the US can't afford to play big anymore, it should stay quietly in a corner as its opinion no longer matters in the world stage.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Some 800 of those activists burned mock U.S. flags and chanted "Nobama, no bases, no war" on the road leading to the gates of the palace where Obama met with Aquino. Others burned an effigy of Obama riding a chariot pulled by Aquino, depicted as dog.

Yes saw this on youtube! It's a sign that the wounds of the military bases and rape of American military remains fresh to the them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0siyMsCK98A

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614715/Obama-signs-security-deal-Philippines-aimed-greater-cooperation-angry-protesters-say-step-BACK-country.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/getty/article/ALeqM5h2ERNRuOhjX3WVafLXiugYGf8oSw?docId=487171429

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obamas foreign policy record is one string of unmitigated disasters. It is only thanks to an extremely supportive media that the general populace is so relaxed (or in most cases uninformed) about it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Obama's foreign AND domestic so-called "policies" are very bad jokes. And the joke is on the U.S.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

After nearly a decade of diplomatic, political, economic and foreign policy failures wrought on America by the Republican-backed Bush administration, it's been great to see someone - finally - who is actually smart and who knows which way up to hold a book. 

The numbers are in: how many senseless, costly and pointless wars has this president started or entered into? 

Zero. 

Write that down Republicans.

Calling Obama's foreign policies a 'joke' in light of the still-ongoing disaster that Bush's foreign policy (if you can call it that) was is to proclaim to the world that your grip on reality is as tenuous as Bush's grip on English. 

Bush - backed by Republicans/conservatives sent U.S. prestige into the trash heap and now - nearly a decade later - it STILL isn't back to where it once was. 

Republicans have proven again and again they are not fit to govern. Their pathetic no-ideas opposition to Obamacare, their ongoing whining over Benghazi, their complete and utter failure to do anything constructive for voters - is more than enough evidence to convince American voters to shut them out of power again in 2016.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What about that pointless mission to Lebanon that resulted in the death of 241 American and 58 French servicemen, after which the US petulantly bombarded the country with heavy artillery from the Missouri only to abandon the country to its fate? And then illegally selling weapons to Iran and diverting the profits to a war in Central America? - Oh, that was Reagan.

Really, the only Republican president with a sensible foreign policy in my lifetime was GHWB, and look where it got him. Better to leave the important things to the adults.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I voted for Obama twice, and must admit that his foreign policy strategy, although well intentioned, has been a disappointment. As much as the neo-cons mis-calculated in Iraq, believing all the people there would just welcome the U.S. with open arms, following Hussein's being overthrown, so has Obama mis-calculated them being open to a more soft approach. And he has gotten nowhere with NK, Iran, or even with Karzai in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, they all read his "measured approach" as weakness. But I'm not sure anyone else could have done much better, since the people in the U.S. are sick of wars after the last decade.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The US is indeed wary of wars after Iraq and Afghanistan, But both of those were drawn out wars where the enemy was an insurgency and no clear exit route in sight. Unfortunately some countries have decided that this means that the United States is wary of any kind of war. This is a mistake that may lead to more aggressive behavior on the pat of our adversaries. The current POTUS attempts at diplomacy, while correct, is interpreted as weakness.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Warhawks understand nothing but war. Peace makes them nervous. But 8 years of Obama and look! We are still in Afghanistan.

Well, Dems understand only capitulation, surrender, backing off on promises and ultimately giving in to the enemy. They can't fight wars, they can't and don't understand how to make lasting peace. Yes, 8 years of Obama and what? And libs if you guys still want to blame coalition forces rather than the true cause which was sectarian violence then you just need to take another blue pill and lay down. Syria is out of control. Peace will not work now and never as long as Assad is in that country. I don't think the rebels would be much different, but that is just one example of the U.S. not putting boots on the ground and still the country is collapsing. Sometimes in order to keep the peace, you need to have a war. NOT advocating, just stating the obvious fact. Russia any better or is Putin more emboldened? Iran wanting to give peace a chance, I don't think so. Bashar Assad going to stop gassing his people? After all he promised Obama he wouldn't. I'm not a war guy, but for all you flower picking lefties, Obama's foreign policy isn't doing Jack. Even if you don't believe in war and you are a hippie reject of a president, at least have some strength when you talk, NEVER show weakness, which this President has done.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

NON-Americans criticizing the lack of US Military power is a joke!

After a decade of war zones, American GI's are coming back home wounded, both physically and mentally. It's time to bring the GIs home.

Even after the war is over, the American Taxpayer are left with bill of executing the war and rebuilding the war torn areas. Obama is right to be prudent with the use of American military.

With regards to Ukraine, blame the European! Everybody knows the Russian energy exports is their bread basket. But the EU is gun shy about imposing sanctions on the Russian energy sector. Don't blame the Americans for the feeble European reaction.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obama has been faced with some complex situations with no real solutions. Syria and Russia are the two biggest examples of that. The people who criticize him will begrudgingly admit that they don't have any easy answers themselves, but they criticize him anyway because it's politics. In the end they resort to some fuzzy "projecting weakness" because they know they can't outline a clear course of action themselves.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Obama has been faced with some complex situations with no real solutions. Syria and Russia are the two biggest examples of that. The people who criticize him will begrudgingly admit that they don't have any easy answers themselves, but they criticize him anyway because it's politics. In the end they resort to some fuzzy "projecting weakness" because they know they can't outline a clear course of action themselves.

There were many people that advised Obama to put serious hard hitting sanctions on Russia and not these laughable penalties he's been hitting some of these Oligarths with. He could completely as well as Europe block every Russian from coming in, have every major credit company not accept the Rouble. They own so much property in the States, block them from accessing it and everything in the U.S. Or Europe, financially starve them, it'll bite and hurt the U.S. To an extent, but it would be the best successful way of slowing and ultimately stopping Russia, Obama was advised by many to do this approach, but as typical perplexing as this man is, he won't do it. So yes, he is projecting weakness. Lasting solutions were given and Obama wants to do things his way which always produces no results.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Blame each and every POTUS, if you like, but be honest and ask yourselves: "Who voted FOR taking military action outside of US borders?" You'll find a bi-partisan answer. The pols are beholden to the corporate special interests.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

“Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?” Obama said during a news conference in the Philippines.

Obama keeps shouting that he won't go to war as his excuse for inaction.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"Obama keeps shouting that he won't go to war as his excuse for inaction."

Not going to war is a good policy. Going to war doesn't serve American interests very well, modern history shows: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. All produced unsatisfactory results despite massive loss of American life and massive amounts of gov't funding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sometimes in order to keep the peace, you need to have a war. NOT advocating, just stating the obvious fact.

Ah, so you're saying there is an obvious fact that leads to peace, but in case someone actually holds you to it, you want to make sure that you add a disclaimer that you're not actually advocating it. So you want to throw that out there and say that Obama isn't doing it while at the same time saying you might not do it yourself, but since it's an obvious fact then Obama should be doing it, but not that you actually support it, or something like that.

Like I said, fuzzy Republican statements that don't amount to much. But I suppose that's the luxury of the party who doesn't hold the White House.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Todd Topolski: "Not that I would expect an intellectually challenged politician like obumbler to read history, I have to point out the US has had some kind of war every decade of its existence and most decades before 1776 as well."

That could have something to with a lot of the world is not under the control of dictators now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, but, but ...... the liberals told everyone a U.S. foreign policy would not be necessary because once Obama was in office the entire world would love us again.

RR

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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