Obama foreign policy

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    there is not much of a debate. Already Hillary is critical of Obama's weak "do nothing" policy and the current condition of the world on fire is evidence enough that a weak disengaged America only leads to the bad guys becoming more aggressive and threatening. Peace through strenght continues to echo through the decades since Reagan penned it. Teddy Roosevelt
    walk softly but carry a BIG stick also reminds us of the need for strength - overwhelming strength. Obama is wrong - has never been right and no one is willing to defend his backwards foreign policy. Running and deserting is not a foreign policy. It is abandonment. Imagine Hilter facing a policy like we have today. YOu would see the Nazi flag flying over the US capitial today.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    Your statement that President Obama's foreign policy is in a state of free fall is ludicrous and ridiculous. It really is. Must you always parrot the far right wing?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 17, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    Hey Thid Baker –

    “I did look it up and . . . the only foreigners who love him are ISIS and Al Qaida. “

    That is a COMPLETE falsehood.

    You are used to referencing Lying Right Wing Websites, and you're not going to find any real information there.

    “Obama Most Popular Leader” - New York Times, May 29, 2009

    “Many publics around the world have confidence in President Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. At least half in 24 of the 39 countries surveyed give the American leader high marks . . . “ Pew Research, July 18 2013

    “Though his popularity is down from its peak in 2009, President Obama remains the world’s most popular leader among the world’s citizens” – The National Memo September 4, 2013

    Obama and the Pope top list of world leaders on Twitter
    Christian Science Monitor June 26, 2014

    The Most Popular Leader in Canada is . . . Obama
    Yahoo News, August 11, 2014

    In other words, “Conservative” claims of Obama’s alleged unpopularity around the world are COMPLETELY FALSE.

    . . . . No surprise there.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    The Middle East has multiple infections that can flare up with little notice. The DN implies that Obama should have the answer to the Middle East. When has the US ever had the answer to problems in the Middle East. Not 10 years ago, not 20 years ago, not 30 years ago. It is not that simple.

  • Utahhikerdad TOOELE, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 4:39 a.m.

    Most present conflicts worldwide are funded by petrodollars. End our dependence on fossil fuels and we end the conflicts. We have the technology to do this, and it's cheaper than lurching from one war to another. There's simply no downside to ditching fossil fuels. The time to do it is now.

  • Haiku Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    @The Educator "Surely, over the course of 6 years, he's done something right, hasn't he?"

    Yeah, you would think, right?
    To be this wrong, this often
    Is a special gift.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Aug. 16, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    @ Gary O: "Obama is STILL the most popular world leader in the eyes of World Citizens, and GW Bush was REVILED by this same group. Look it up."

    I did look it up and Obama's approval numbers are at record lows (around 30% approval) in America and the only foreigners who love him are ISIS and Al Qaida. They never had it so good since Obama took office! They felt very different about President Bush however!

    @ Maverick. You know don't you that jijhadists have vowed to fly their flag over the White House and kill every Christian in the world? What do you think we should do to defend ourselves? Pretend they don't exist?

  • The Educator South Jordan , UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    Out of curiosity, has the dnews gone more than 2 days without criticizing the President?

    Surely, over the course of 6 years, he's done something right, hasn't he?

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    Former President Bush squandered America's standing in the world, trillions of dollars, and thousands of American soldiers in his personal agenda in Iraq, allowing militant organizations to gain a foothold around the world from which America and President Obama have yet to heal from. American dominance in education, public health, research, and even social services to stabilize the middle class have all declined with our growing inequality in our Country. With conservative politics swayed towards less fairness and towards profit, America can no longer hold the global cards as the mainstay of the American middle class becomes smaller and smaller. The foreign policy goals of America still require a reordering of policies and perhaps being more open to our new Pope Francis's call for caring for others and the welfare of our planet may be the best place to start.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    As "David King" suggests; our foreign policy police actions (or lack thereof)MIGHT be a way that liberals and conservatives can agree - for once!

    Why should we continue to be the worlds policeman? (disregarding of course, the fact that John "lets have a war" McCain thinks we should invade everybody/anybody that talks "mean" to us?

    For all intents and purposes Europe is bankrupt, (at least militarily)IF Russia does decide to invade Ukraine - they won't have much pushback from Europe, but then, Europe WILL hope the U.S. does all the heavy lifting as we've always done anyway!

    What SHOULD happen is that the U.S. make energy dependency a foreign policy and military issue.
    Why not spend some of the billions/trillions that we are spending on the military to become more energy independent?
    Basically the reason we have such a presence in the Middle East is to guarantee the flow of oil.
    What if we could END that dependence?

    Wouldn't that make BOTH liberals and conservatives like myself happy that we could simply disregard all the tribal wars in the middle east and save some money while we're doing it?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    Repubs, for a political party which touts "small government" and "less intrusion" you sure do like to get us involved in every country in the world.

    Why can't we stop intruding in the middle-east? Why do we feel an addiction to constantly he meddling over there?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 16, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    That was quite a slanted diatribe against President Obama, don’t you think?

    “Indeed, the Obama administration has seemed to stumble from one crisis to the next . . . “

    Really? Well, even so, that’s a much better record than the record of the previous Republican administration who seemed to CREATE one crisis after another.

    Face it, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the Middle East if GW Bush and his certitudinous Republican administration had not committed an unprovoked assault and occupation of Iraq, killed over a hundred thousand of their people, and completely destabilized the Middle East for years, possibly decades, to come.

    If you’re wondering about American foreign policy, perhaps we should ask the people who are most affected by it . . . The citizens of the world.

    Obama is STILL the most popular world leader in the eyes of World Citizens, and GW Bush was REVILED by this same group. Look it up.

    That should tell us something about the viability and worth of foreign policy decisions.

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    Aug. 16, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    The mixed up world of conflict is not the fault of Obama / Hillary Clinton / Kerry as it is the fault of mixed up world governments. And the US needs not be the military policeman everywhere any more. I am a Viet Nam vet, I thought I was serving my country, after I got there and then back home, I protested that war in the public square and I applauded Kerry telling the Senate back then what a mess.
    Today the US needs to be the world's example of good democratic government, not the top gun. The Ukraine is clearly not our problem. Afghanistan is clearly a problem of nobody can be in charge. Pakistan, gimme a break, they've lost their brain. Iraq is clearly stumbling but maybe there's a light in that tunnel. Egypt needs to practice democracy. ISIL is a rag tag rabble rouser.
    And here in the US our gov't is stymied by tea partiers. And the rich get richer. Our Congress needs term limits in order to be a representative gov't. And be a good example.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    I think I'll go with Obama's "ambiguous" foreign policy rooted in avoiding more war and boots on the ground over Bush's "clear" foreign policy of "war on terror" that left us in two costly, and unpaid for, wars that helped drive the American economy off the cliff and has created much of the chaos we see in the Mideast today.

    Yes, I know we need Mideast oil to preserve our American "way of life." Can't allow domestic renewable energy development to hurt "jobs" in the fossil fuels and military sectors. Just how "our oil" got under the Mideast's lands is baffling. But we'll continue to fight for it... while President Bush paints portraits.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    I consider myself pretty conservative politically. In fact, I've been labeled as "extreme right wing" before for my comments, but foreign policy is not an area where I think President Obama deserves a lot of criticism. "Don't do stupid stuff" isn't a bad place to start when it comes to foreign policy. My main criticism would be Obama's continuation of certain Bush-era policies, like re-upping the Patriot Act.

    We conservatives love to talk about small government, but often fail to realize that an attitude of perpetual warfare encourages government overreach at home and costs tons of money. The most negative consequence is the loss of human life, something that any "pro-lifer" should reject. It's a real tragedy that the neoconservative movement has convinced us that unless a US soldier is dying somewhere, we have a "weak" foreign policy.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 4:11 a.m.

    What foreign policy? When did we will see what happens become policy. But then the Presidency is junior varsity so it fits.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 12:59 a.m.

    American presidential election are never determined by foreign policy unless the country is actually at war.

    I would also like to point out that all of the critics who have been carping about President Obama's Middle East policies have been wrong on every single prediction they previously made about the Iraq war. The truth is that absolutely no one knows what will or won't work there.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 12:22 a.m.

    "Each foreign crisis demands a singular response, but each response should be consistent with principles outlined in a coherent governing policy."

    Oh by all means let's get back to a "big think" foreign policy, like "make the world safe for democracy," which gave us the wholly unnecessary WWI, which set the stage for Hitler and WWII. Let's eliminate socialism, which gave us the equally unnecessary Cold War, which led to Korea and the tragic Vietnam War. At let's not forget Middle Eastern nation building which gave us the unnecessary Iraq War. I think Obama's foreign policy is refreshingly different.

    But the foreign policy of all administrations is driven by the need to sustain American capital which keeps us from addressing the looming environmental crisis. Obama's foreign policy is a nice change from what went before, but it can't escape from the tracks left by previous administrations.

  • apm22 sparks, NV
    Aug. 16, 2014 12:19 a.m.

    The dn basically excoriates Obama's lack of principled foreign policy while at the same time stating that we as a nation should respond to foreign issues on a case by case basis using proper "principles." As I read it, the dn apparently does not know what a proper foreign policy should be. How about a foreign policy that does not say that everything that happens around the world is a matter of "national security?" How about a foreign policy that says we have a sovereign nation and that the US Constitution is what we adhere to, not some foreign or world law or political trick? How about we have a foreign policy that says we are not going to put our lives and our treasure at risk for nations that have no regard for us in the first place? How about it?