• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Obama thread

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
@Stevicus

Basically the US waged war against Syria and Libya that have always been striving for the defense of women's rights.


assad-wife.jpeg
gettyimages-124379986-1024x1024.jpeg



And has always rolled red carpets at the countries where women are humiliated, segregated, treated as second class citizens.
Or even third class citizens.

C6A5D799-28F6-4ACD-8C40-740EFF4BB987.jpg
 
Last edited:

Yazata

Active Member
Try to convince me that the Obama administration did something good for world peace and for the stability and peace of the Mediterranean area, that includes the Arabic-speaking world, Turkey, Israel and many other countries.

I'm not sure how involved Obama was with international affairs, as his interests were more with a Putin-style weaponization of the civil service against political enemies. He seems to have largely left international affairs to his foreign policy establishment. Which for much of the time in question was Hillary and her people.

Their big disaster was over idealization of the "Arab spring". They believed that this upheaval in so many Middle Eastern countries was powered by young internet-savvy "progressives" who shared their own (so-called) "liberal values". The error wasn't unique or original to them, George W. Bush and his people shared it when they invaded Iraq. It's shared to day by Biden and by Republican "neo-cons" like Nikki Haley and Mike Pence.

So just like George W. Bush before them, Obama, Hillary and the permanent impossible-to-fire 'deep state' foreign policy establishment all assumed that if a ruler that they (often correctly) percieved as a "tyrant" in a particular country was removed, then that country's people would happily and peacefully transform the country into some kind of an approximation of the US or Europe. They called it "promoting democracy", even if most of the people in these countries didn't share their vision and wanted something else, often theocracy or simply settling ancient scores.

So in country after country, they pursued policies of destablization. The result was turning Libya and Yemen into failed states, overthrowing a friendly pro-American regime in Egypt, and fueling a brutal civil war in Syria that damn near destroyed that country and led to the deaths of hundred of thousands of Syrians. (Remember "Assad has to go!"?) Ultimately it led to the rise of the utterly crazy Islamic State. Total disaster.
 
Last edited:

tytlyf

Not Religious
Try to convince me that the Obama administration did something good for world peace
Sure, the Iran deal.
The Iran nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is a landmark accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in July 2015. Under its terms, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program and open its facilities to more extensive international inspections in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I'm not sure how involved Obama was with international affairs, as his interests were more with a Putin-style weaponization of the civil service against political enemies. He seems to have largely left international affairs to his foreign policy establishment. Which for much of the time in question was Hillary and her people.

Their big disaster was over idealization of the "Arab spring". They believed that this upheaval in so many Middle Eastern countries was powered by young internet-savvy "progressives" who shared their own (so-called) "liberal values". The error wasn't unique or original to them, George W. Bush and his people shared it when they invaded Iraq.

So just like George W. Bush before them, Obama, Hillary and the permanent impossible-to-fire 'deep state' foreign policy establishment all assumed that if a ruler that they (often correctly) percieved as a "tyrant" in a particular country was removed, then that country's people would happily and peacefully transform the country into some kind of an approximation of the US or Europe. They called it "promoting democracy", even if most of the people in these countries didn't share their vision and wanted something else, often theocracy or simply settling ancient scores.

So in country after country, they pursued policies of destablization. The result was turning Libya and Yemen into failed states, overthrowing a friendly pro-American regime in Egypt, and fueling a brutal civil war in Syria that damn near destroyed that country and led to the deaths of hundred of thousands of Syrians. (Remember "Assad has to go!"?) Ultimately it led to the rise of the utterly crazy Islamic State. Total disaster.
And do you really believe that the destabilization of the Mediterranean area, the destruction of a wealthy, prosperous, low-unemployment country like Libya was done in good faith?
 

Yazata

Active Member
And do you really believe that the destabilization of the Mediterranean area, the destruction of a wealthy, prosperous, low-unemployment country like Libya was done in good faith?

Yes, I think it was. I think that it was the result of well-intended but largely unrealistic assumptions.

Self-serving assumptions certainly. But that often happens when people perceive themselves as the "good people" whose self-appointed mission is to bring 'good' to everyone else. (Whether those others welcome it or not.) We see the same thing with religious missionaries.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Yes, I think it was. I think that it was the result of well-intended but largely unrealistic assumptions.
Absolutely not.
Libyans could freely travel to Italy. If there had been unemployment and discomfort, Libyans would have migrated to Italy.
And yet it was Italians who went to find work in Libya.

So the narrative that Libya was "a poor country" that needed an Arab spring for social justice is a big lie.

The fundamentalist countries (the same who are now funding Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS or whatever they call themselves) destroyed Libya because they couldn't bear the fact that an Arabic-speaking nation was modern, prosperous, rich and with free women. Women free not to wear the veil.
Aided and abetted by the United States.

Now Libya looks like a destabilized, fractured, unstable, impoverished country where slavery is legal in some regions.

Please read post #23 and give me an answer.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Self-serving assumptions certainly. But that often happens when people perceive themselves as the "good people" whose self-appointed mission is to bring 'good' to everyone else. (Whether those others welcome it or not.) We see the same thing with religious missionaries.
There were oppressive regimes, but not in Syria or in Libya.
The Arab springs took place in Tunisia, Egypt.

But the United States instead of supporting the heirs of Pan-Arabic Socialism, they supported the fundamentalists, the same who gave life to Hamas.
Their destructiveness is showed by the fact that Saied outlawed them. Tunisia’s Islamists under siege as Saied rolls back democracy


Just think that Christian Syrians were tranquil before Obama.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
So anyway, why do Obama's war crimes deserve condemnation, but Putin's do not?
Of course Russia deserves condemnation.

That is why I hope Ukraine joins the EU as soon as possible, so Europeans can rebuild the country and protect it from future aggression.
:)

Now it's your turn to judge Obama's deeds. The topic of the thread.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
After hundreds of threads about Trump, I guess it's time we discuss Obama...and his legacy.
I was watching this video...made by Ben Shapiro.



Try to convince me that the Obama administration did something good for world peace and for the stability and peace of the Mediterranean area, that includes the Arabic-speaking world, Turkey, Israel and many other countries.

Thank you in advance. :)
You lost me at "Ben Shapiro". Sorry, my time is not infinite.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Barack Obama was actually everything a U. S. president is SUPPOSED to be. Namely, a figure-head. The president's job is to represent the nation, not rule over it. U. S. presidents were never intended to be law makers, or law enforcers, or the deciders of the course of the nation's future progress. They were not meant to be the U.S. or the world's policeman. And Barack Obama understood this far better than most presidents before or after ever have because Barack Obama was a bonafide constitutional scholar. He actually studied the Constitution in law school and understood it through and through. And he fulfilled the role of president in exemplary fashion.

Unfortunately, the American people have not studied the Constitution, and neither have the vast majority of our politicians. And so far too many of us/them think they are electing and running for the position of "ruler", and then can do as they please once they get the job.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Barack Obama was actually everything a U. S. president is SUPPOSED to be. Namely, a figure-head. The president's job is to represent the nation, not rule over it. U. S. presidents were never intended to be law makers, or law enforcers, or the deciders of the course of the nation's future progress. They were not meant to be the U.S. or the world's policeman. And Barack Obama understood this far better than most presidents before or after ever have because Barack Obama was a bonafide constitutional scholar. He actually studied the Constitution in law school and understood it through and through. And he fulfilled the role of president in exemplary fashion.

Unfortunately, the American people have not studied the Constitution, and neither have the vast majority of our politicians. And so far too many of us/them think they are electing and running for the position of "ruler", and then can do as they please once they get the job.
May I kindly know what all this interesting consideration about his home policy has to do with this thread?
Which is about the Middle East, and his warlike policies in the Mediterranean area (where I live).
Eight years of wars.

Thank you. :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Nothing has been worse for US than putting a trump into office.
Putting trump in jail will do further damage even if HE deserves it.
Putting Trump in prison would do great good.
It's time to send a message to high officials
that they're not above the law, & that when
they commit crimes, they too will be subject
to the same laws the rest of us must obey.

Clinton, Obama & Holder should've been
investigated & tried for selling presidential
pardons.
 
Top