Obama's Successful Foreign Failure

AngryOldGuy · Sep 9, 2013

We make things oh yes we do indeedy but since we are the world's reserve currency and can print money like drunken sailors wet dream
and run up the credit card like a teenaged daughter with a bad coke habit
we can import stuff like there's no tomorrow
cuz yanno
tomorrow never comes

Moot · Sep 9, 2013

Wehrwolfen said:
That's why Obama went to Congress for authorization for the Iraq war and the UN Then he had good and firm relations with most of the leaders in Europe unlike Obama.

Bush had to bribe and coerce the "coalition of the willing" to get their vote at the UN because most of them really weren't that willing. "Coalition of the Coerced" is probably accurate....

U.S. Arm-twisting Over Iraq War

Coalition of the billing — or unwilling? - Salon.com

Bush never did get a UN resolution. Thats why the Iraq war was illegal....

"....The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal....."

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian

Articles: Obama's Foreign Policy - American Thinker

www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/obamas_foreign_policy.html

This policy has been absolutely worse than ... Administration there were decent relations. The Bush policy was to ... nation Obama's foreign policy is a failure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama: Worse Than Bush, Less Successful | Poletical.com

www.poletical.com/obama-is-a-failure.php
Obama's presidency has been a failure. ... Worse Than Bush, Less Successful . ... along with the possible collapse of US foreign relations with Russia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It appears that others agreed with the failures of Obama rather than Bush even before his latest attempt to drag America into WWIII.

Wow, even the American Stinker and a conservative Canadian blogger agree. lol

Wehrwolfen · Sep 9, 2013

CalGun · Sep 9, 2013

I given Clinton and Gore credit for staying out of industries way on tech in the 90's. Gore at one time promoted A govt ran backbone for the net and was encouraged to back out and he did. The stagnation didn't start for me till 2008/9. I moved three times in the prior 10 years and profited so much off the homes I'm still debt free. I lost plenty on my business in 09. Still managed to be debt free tough.

A good example of Bush Jr was his stem cell stance. I disagreed with him but he stuck to his position and I could tell what it was. How so with obama? He changed on gay marriage, he opposed war now touts it, he said to us all " sacrifice" and acts more like a king with the people's money then a leader. He promoted obamacare but delays parts, and said before it would be transparent and it's not. He opposed the bush era tax rates before he was against it. You see the trend? If not you'd have to be blind.

specklebang said:
I'm not suggesting you respect him. I am curious what you think he should have done that would have had better results. We've been in stagnation for close to 15 years, which includes the 2 previous Presidencies as well as Obama.

I try not to post the same opinions over and over again here but I do feel that the greatest of our problems has more to do with globalization and automation than any actions by any President. I'd be hard pressed to say that whether we had a President McCain or a President Romney, that things would be noticeably different than they are today.

Do you remember how vibrant the economy was during the 90s? Do you think that was influenced by President Clinton or was it a more natural event because there was a boom in the technology industry? Did that very same technological development result in the losses of jobs and wages we saw through both the Bush and Obama administrations?

Just because everybody seems to hate anecdotes, I'll throw one in. From 1969 to 1974, I lived in Korea and my business was that of a buyer's agent for various US Corporations including Macys (the only one you've heard of). My job was to find a manufacturer, deliver the design, make sure it was made to specification and shipped in a timely manner. On those rare occasions I spoke with my American and Canadian clients, I would have to book the phone call hours in advance and it cost $3 a minute (about $30 a minute in todays "buying power").

Today, I could watch everything being made over my computer screen and communicate in real time for a few cents a minute. So, I think this has greatly impacted our economy since if I were going to produce something today, I would have no incentive to hire Americans, even at the lowest of wages.

CalGun · Sep 9, 2013

The govt spent $6 trillion more than it took in and what do we have for it? Seriously is our military better off? Is our health care system? How about our roads, bridges, power grid? Anything?

We have a baby boom about to be old, and you think we might invest in some extra doctors, nurses, and assistants for them? Not really we invested in redistributing the overburdened private health care system of the middle classes with the poor.

specklebang said:
No, we're as productive and industrial as we ever were. What's changed is how we make things. It's very hard to employ more and more people when there is less and less labor needed for output. If you need labor intensive production, you go elsewhere for lower wages.

That doesn't mean we're failing.

specklebang · Sep 9, 2013

CalGun said:
The govt spent $6 trillion more than it took in and what do we have for it? Seriously is our military better off? Is our health care system? How about our roads, bridges, power grid? Anything?

We have a baby boom about to be old, and you think we might invest in some extra doctors, nurses, and assistants for them? Not really we invested in redistributing the overburdened private health care system of the middle classes with the poor.

Actually, I was discussing the private sector, not the government. I'm sure you don't think I would call the government productive and industrial. Perhaps you could read posts 21 and 25 and my brilliant analysis of what's wrong with everything

AngryOldGuy · Sep 10, 2013

holy smokes Batman so we can expect more on the same from the next 6 trillion thrown down the rathole?
I can't wait!

Glowpun · Sep 10, 2013

AngryOldGuy said:
The only question I have is: what comes next after we are finally rid of this treasonous buffoon?
Will we allow this country to continue to be run into the dirt?

There was once a time when America had leaders of iron and ships but wood. But we now totally have the opposite.

That treasonous buffoon you refer too must include GW Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice.

The likes of Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and perhaps even Ghenghis Khan must be laughing at the Americans. America, the greatest country in the world with its vast array of military technology does not have the leadership equal to its means. American does not know how to win wars, must now plan on how to lose them.

AngryOldGuy · Sep 10, 2013

CalGun · Sep 10, 2013

Yes I saw your post regarding technology and globalization. And I understand. Our governments response to those has not been idea. My point on the $6 trillion is we didn't invest it - we just blew thru it. Would we not have been more productive if the money was used to invest in health care capital (education, facilities) so that it was not a scarce (expensive) commodity but readily available and lower priced? Why didn't we spend some of it making electricity more abundant, more affordable, and becoming independent from middle eastern oil? We have nothing to show for this rabid overspending. I would have supported such over spending if it had been for "something" we needed and not just the status quo.

specklebang said:
Actually, I was discussing the private sector, not the government. I'm sure you don't think I would call the government productive and industrial. Perhaps you could read posts 21 and 25 and my brilliant analysis of what's wrong with everything

specklebang · Sep 10, 2013

CalGun said:
Yes I saw your post regarding technology and globalization. And I understand. Our governments response to those has not been idea. My point on the $6 trillion is we didn't invest it - we just blew thru it. Would we not have been more productive if the money was used to invest in health care capital (education, facilities) so that it was not a scarce (expensive) commodity but readily available and lower priced? Why didn't we spend some of it making electricity more abundant, more affordable, and becoming independent from middle eastern oil? We have nothing to show for this rabid overspending. I would have supported such over spending if it had been for "something" we needed and not just the status quo.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. And both of us have veered off the OP. But I am trying to discuss the reasons we are NOT in a failure as a nation as opposed to discussing government efficiency:roll: which really is not much connected. Lets say the government had not spent a penny - we would still have increased our use of outsourcing and automation because they are the logical progression of modern technology.

CalGun · Sep 10, 2013

While you are correct the efficiencies and globalization are still bigger than govt - the later is 20% of GDP so when its not efficient and a failure we all suffer.

Also I disagree that outsourcing is the burden labor makes it out to be. I never have seen a calculation on how much money people saved thanks to outsourcing. How much has wal mart and other businesses that bring us those "cheap" Chinese products, how much have those India, Pakistani and Indonesia technology gains benefited American's? We look at them in terms of jobs / income last, but not in terms of money saved in our daily expenditures! How many jobs did we produce thanks to the savings? We as a nation will probably buy a 100 million cell phones a year (or more). We could make them here and employ several thousand people and those 100 million phones would have to be 50 million because they wouldn't be affordable - which means fewer people employed. They'd cost those 50 million people $5 billion more ($100 each) which wouldn't be invested or spent on something else here in America - which means more jobs lost. I've never been convinced outsourcing is the great evil labor makes it out to be.

specklebang said:
Yes, I understand what you're saying. And both of us have veered off the OP. But I am trying to discuss the reasons we are NOT in a failure as a nation as opposed to discussing government efficiency:roll: which really is not much connected. Lets say the government had not spent a penny - we would still have increased our use of outsourcing and automation because they are the logical progression of modern technology.

specklebang · Sep 10, 2013

CalGun said:
While you are correct the efficiencies and globalization are still bigger than govt - the later is 20% of GDP so when its not efficient and a failure we all suffer.

Also I disagree that outsourcing is the burden labor makes it out to be. I never have seen a calculation on how much money people saved thanks to outsourcing. How much has wal mart and other businesses that bring us those "cheap" Chinese products, how much have those India, Pakistani and Indonesia technology gains benefited American's? We look at them in terms of jobs / income last, but not in terms of money saved in our daily expenditures! How many jobs did we produce thanks to the savings? We as a nation will probably buy a 100 million cell phones a year (or more). We could make them here and employ several thousand people and those 100 million phones would have to be 50 million because they wouldn't be affordable - which means fewer people employed. They'd cost those 50 million people $5 billion more ($100 each) which wouldn't be invested or spent on something else here in America - which means more jobs lost. I've never been convinced outsourcing is the great evil labor makes it out to be.

I didn't say anything about "evil" in outsourcing. I just pointed out the role it plays in reducing the number of jobs available. I don't think robots are evil either. I'm simply pointing out that America has a decent and growing economy that has been a part of the changes of the modern world. This was in response to an earlier post where somebody implied that America was "failing".

Manufacturing things like cell phones domestically is no longer plausible. That's nobody's fault. Nor does it greatly harm the economy. It is, however, the reason we are short of blue collar jobs. Most of the value of overseas products is in design, shipping, packaging, handling and sales costs, which are American jobs. So we need to accept that we have too few jobs for the really dumb and uneducated. That's why welfare has increased and it';s just something that goes with the territory.

When the government "wastes" money, the bulk of that money goes to very few people, and other than providing white collar bureaucratic jobs, it does not circulate. If it circulated, you would have a 40% inflation rate.

Perotista · Sep 10, 2013

Wehrwolfen said:
By Norman Podhoretz
9/9/2013

It is entirely understandable that Barack Obama's way of dealing with Syria in recent weeks should have elicited responses ranging from puzzlement to disgust. Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as "incompetent," "bungling," "feckless," "amateurish" and "in over his head" coming from his political opponents on the right.

For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world?

*snip*

Summing up the net effect of all this, as astute a foreign observer as Conrad Black can flatly say that, "Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and before that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States."

Yet if this is indeed the pass to which Mr. Obama has led us—and I think it is—let me suggest that it signifies not how incompetent and amateurish the president is, but how skillful. His foreign policy, far from a dismal failure, is a brilliant success as measured by what he intended all along to accomplish. The accomplishment would not have been possible if the intention had been too obvious. The skill lies in how effectively he has used rhetorical tricks to disguise it.

(Excerpt)

Read more:
Norman Podhoretz: Obama's Successful Foreign Failure - WSJ.com

Obama's Fundamental Transformation of America. Massive failure in management, Massive Debt, Massive Unemployment, Massive failure in Foreign relations, overall Massive failure of competence.

I would say, "So far so good." But that was heard from a man who jumped off a 20 story building about the tenth floor. I don't think this has anything to do with the presidents expert handling of the Syrian question. I would chalk it up to blind luck so far. But there is also a saying by a gambler, "I would rather be lucky than good."

AngryOldGuy · Sep 10, 2013

gotta, know when to hold'em know when to fold'em?
hah when I went looking for that Kenny Rodgers tune I found this instead
I like it bettah

Wehrwolfen · Sep 10, 2013

AngryOldGuy · Sep 10, 2013

Wehrwolfen · Sep 11, 2013

TheNextEra said:
Yep the left screwed up having minors work in slave shop factories, slave wages, having women vote, and blacks having the right to vote as well. Yep, all screwed up. ****ing Yankee.

Therefore Republicans are at the forefront of doing away with all those horrible things that Democrats fed off. Show me one Civil Rights law that Democrats were in the majority of voting? BTW you just described China and ever Socialist state on violations of slave shop factories, slave wages, women not allowed to vote and eugenics.

Obama's Successful Foreign Failure

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation

Moot

Wehrwolfen

CalGun

CalGun

specklebang

Discount Philosopher

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation

Glowpun

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation

CalGun

specklebang

Discount Philosopher

CalGun

specklebang

Discount Philosopher

Perotista

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation

Wehrwolfen

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation

Wehrwolfen

Obama's Successful Foreign Failure

double secret probation

Discount Philosopher

double secret probation

double secret probation

Discount Philosopher

Discount Philosopher

double secret probation

double secret probation

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency