Quote (bogie160 @ Jun 10 2019 06:30am)
It's past time that we sat down and had a honest national dialogue on what an abject failure his foreign policy was.
i dunno I feel like I'm just beating a dead horse at this point. I started saying it circa 2014 and have been just saying the same thing over and over again
I could build a bingo board for my posts. Obama Doctrine = Say 'Don't do stupid shit', do stupid shit anyway. Legacy built on quicksand, used authoritarian loopholes to construct his policy vision by circumventing democracy, promptly got torn down by his successor (except for the liberal courts that keep stubbornly saying Trump doesn't have the authority to undo what Obama had authority to do- on that note, watch SCOTUS today lol) Where was I? Oh yeah, listing the dead horses I keep beating. Like saying that Obama was a cynical pragmatist who rationalized cover-ups and deals with the devil and had no ethical qualms about making any dirty plays in order to achieve his greater good, and instead we paid the price and made things
worse each time.
blah blah blah, the dialogue is so trodden for me at this point
I see this story and think gee, its just one more notch under Obama's belt.
Quote (IceMage @ Jun 10 2019 06:43am)
Halting Iran's nuclear program for 10-15 years and preventing a major war in the Middle East was well worth it.
People who criticize a president's foreign policy never seem to offer any alternatives. There's always an assumption that there was clearly a better route to take, when in reality a president is usually faced with several bad options. And of course we can't know where we'd be now if the US and Britain hadn't swept some of that stuff under the rug.
well at risk of treading over that ground so much we excavate a hole that cuts all the way down to china and poses questions about gravitational forces along the path-
The alternative was to be aggressive enough in sanctions and mossad operations like stuxnet that we could apply enough stick that taking the carrot became in their rational self interest
as long as we made the costs of pursuing nuclear tech high enough and the breakout capacity far enough away, we could make it in Iran's own interest to not build centrifuges.
Having Mossad and the CIA tear apart their capabilities with viruses, sticky bombs, double agents and raids was undoubtably acts of aggression, but ones they simply weren't equipped to retaliate against and risk open conflict- especially after Hezbollah's shellacking in Syria. Even if they came out on top with Assad in the long run and expanded their sphere of influence due to Obama's bungled foreign policy against Russia, Iran was in no shape to stand off against Israel's prodding. And when we would threaten outright obliteration if they got close enough, and disrupted their operations that it would always be a long way off, we would make it just too costly to pursue.
The Obama strategy of burying Iran in money in exchange for promises had only the effect of both delaying a breakout and making it more inevitable. Because the wealthier iran has the infrastructure to reach that capacity in a shorter and more affordable timeframe. The Iran Deal didn't just make Iran's nuclear breakout circa ~2025 inevitable, it also made the calculation of breaking off the deal even worse than had we never pursued it in the first place. Hillary thought so, Trump thought so- it didn't matter who won in 2016, Obama's deal was a catastrophic miscalculation.
This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 10 2019 07:00am