U.S. policy typically might fluctuate from President to President, although when it comes to foreign policies, they tend to be inherited by one Administration then passed down to the next.
In other words, Obama did not create the political turmoil in the Middle East and the Mediterranean region, at least not in the overall sense.
Yes, he did.
He has given speeches that empowered certain fundamentalist countries.
And his actions even spoke louder than words.
And I believe he has personal ideological motivations.
He did inherit an ongoing war on terror,
Absolutely not. The exact opposite.
The Obama administration rolled red carpets at the fundamentalist countries and destroyed the Arab socialist countries that have always fought against fundamentalism and terrorism: Syria and Libya.
The arc of history is long, but it won't ever judge the president's Syria policy kindly.
foreignpolicy.com
Mounting evidence supports allegations that Saudi Arabia helped fund the 9/11 attacks.
theintercept.com
Syria and Libya were destroyed by those elites in those fundamentalist countries who also fund terrorists like Hamas.
Because they cannot tolerate that there are prosperous Arab countries where women are free not to wear the veil.
They are radicals that want to drag all the Arabic-speaking world back to a world where women are treated like men's property.
Because if you kill a woman just because she wore a miniskirt, that's horrific.
I m saddened by how deceived the American citizens are.
I was disappointed that he didn't withdraw the US from Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden was killed. Once that had taken place, the original reason for the US invasion was no longer relevant, and we could have declared victory and brought the troops home. But because we stayed longer to do nation-building, it's now seen as a dismal failure and defeat. Trump could have pulled them out, too, but he didn't.
Exactly. Bravo.
Libya was another debacle, though again, Obama didn't really create US policy towards Libya, as Gaddafi was viewed as an enemy by the US for decades prior to Obama. They said he was behind a terror attack on a Berlin nightclub which killed many American servicemen. But I don't know if they ever actually proved that, though. Getting rid of Gaddafi would not be uncharacteristic or unprecedented in US policy, regardless of who happens to be in the White House at the time.
Lies, lies, lies.
Libyans have always been great partners to us Italians. It was a former colony of Italy. Libyans have always appreciated the fact that we never imposed our language on them.
Gaddafi was a great socialist leader. I advise you to read the Green Book.
Very wise. People can change. After the nineties, he became a great, wise leader. He fought terrorism. He wisely supported the Palestinian nationalism, but condemned fundamentalists in his country.
Libya was a paradise before Obama.
Women were free, they were not veiled.
There was employment even for Italians who went to work there.
Italians know what Obama and Hillary did to Libya.
If there was bungling in the execution, then I guess it would ultimately fall upon the Commander-in-Chief to take the blame. But if the President has no military experience and is not really a military or geopolitical strategist, then they're mostly going to rely on the various experts who would advise him on how to proceed. That would appear to be the wiser course, depending on who the advisors and generals are. But then again, Trump seemed to think that he was smarter than the generals, but I think the generals are just a little bit smarter than Trump. Not much, but just a little bit smarter.
Trump has never started any war.
He focused on economics. On internal affairs.
Obama was often in the old continent... doing God knows what.
Obama was smart enough to keep his nose clean, and now he's living a life of luxury and enjoying all the privileges and prestige of a former US President and elder statesman. History will be the ultimate judge.
I am a person who can read people's mind.
