Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I think a relationship with Iran is completely unrealistic. Same could go for North Korea as well.
Obama seems popular with most of the world, but much of that is just because he isn't Bush.
I see little purpose in assessing a president, especially during their term.
That's not true. A lot of foreign countries liked Bush. Were you personally there at the meetings?
Since I have been around since before FDR croaked, and have been aware of our Presidents and their foreign policies since Eisenhower, my assessment of this President's foreign policy is that it is the worst since Jimmy Carter sat in the rose garden. In a word . . . it SUCKS!
Yes, that is a very harsh and cruel statement bordering on being vulgar. Unfortunately it is just plain fact.
No leader of any nation should go around apologizing for his countries so-called "arrogance", nor should that leader cater to the avowed enemies of his country like this President is doing.
Barack Hussein Obama is nothing short of the most embarrassing political figure that this country has ever produced.
I am ashamed to say that he is our President.
And that is my not-so-humble opinion. :$
That's a bit harsh there. I'm not an Obama fan either (especially his foreign policy) but the worst ever? Surely Carter was worse.
Only time will tell which one of those idiots ends up being worse than the other.
Both thumbs down, way down.
Other than parts of Africa (other than Sudan, most of West Africa, and Libya) and probably Israel, which countries would you say had a favorable opinion of the US and its foreign policy over the period from 2001-2008?
Promising, but mostly ineffective (other than maybe Libya and eventually Cuba). This seems to be the net reaction of our erstwhile enemies in the Middle East or even Russia. It does seemed to have worked pretty well in Pakistan (so far). Which is important since we're still bombing that country without a clear legal precedent that permits it. Even the perception of engagement of our interests does not seem to be very popular in Israel. Which means nothing much of importance will happen on that front. The level of independence offered by diplomatic rows in Turkey, Japan, and Brazil is something I'd like to see more of, if only because it means that other developed nations (other than parts of Europe) should be free to express their national interests as sometimes clearly distinct from America's hegemonic tendencies. I suspect that bodes well for better relations with India, among other things.
I don't think "engagement" with Iran is the idea, but rather they're intending to isolate the country diplomatically. I'm pretty sure that won't work (since it never has with Cuba), but I'm also not sure that there is a policy choice in the form of government action in the current policy "briefcase" that I like better. Attacking Iran directly for example strikes me as even worse than the stupidity of an unenforceable and unsupported international embargo. The various deals that were supposedly on the top have been rejected. By us, the body that offered them…. I would prefer doing nothing and waiting to let Iran burn itself out on its rhetorical claims and offering nothing other than our rhetorical support for free elections and the rights of protesters.
The repeated flaps with China over the last two months is rather less promising. Neither is the hostility to free trade. Though from discussions here and elsewhere, such protectionist sentiments are hardly amenable to the usual left-right political divide, they merely take different flavors to express their xenophobia.