My point is that Libya was clearly a war, and we’re clearly at war in eight other countries. It would be inaccurate to say that Clinton kept us out of war. She kept us out of ground wars, and that’s only true as long as we keep denying the reality that we can’t win without ground troops.
Okay, I’ll bite. Which of our friends or neutral countries do we have better relationships with now than before?
…all of them?
Not Britain. We had a better relationship with them under Bush. Too close, actually, for British voters’ tastes. Not Obama or Clinton’s fault, but given that they are our closest ally and Obama is more popular with British voters an effort probably could have been made to build a relationship as close as that between Blair and Bush.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Bush had a great relationship with Blair, for sure, but not the British people, which is why Blair became so unpopular and was driven to an ignominious resignation. Bush was the reason American tourists in Europe were sewing Canadian flag emblems on their backpacks. Obama is the guy who made the US popular again all over.
Actually, the picture is mixed:
We are more popular in Europe, except for Russia, where we are deeply unpopular. In the Arab world, we are actually less popular. The rest of the world hasn’t seen much of a change.
The same could be said for every president since Johnson, or arguably, Eisenhower. The American people (or technically the Electoral College) has selected for a succession of stunningly mediocre candidates for the position of chief executive of the nation.
Stranger
In general we can’t win, and in fact usually lose in a much more costly way, with ground troops.
It boggles my mind that you continue to advocate for ground troops after the Iraq war. How would it make the situation better anywhere?
We’re generally more popular in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, while opinions in the Arab world are mixed, compared to the Bush years. So it’s better for the most part and with a few exceptions, per your link.
If we’re at war and it takes ground troops to accomplish the mission, then you use ground troops. If the mission isn’t worth that it shouldn’t be undertaken in the first place. We agree on that part at least. This bombing only shit needs to end. Either go to war or do not go to war. The problem with air power is that we use it too much because it seems cheap to us, and liberals are not helping by forgetting that we’re even at war because body bags aren’t coming home.
When are you enlisting?
Ground troops wouldn’t accomplish this mission. They would only make things worse and weaken America.
I’m fine with ending the “bombing only shit”, but not if the alternative is ground troops. As far as your second sentence, no – just don’t go to war. Bombing is bad, and I’d prefer usually we didn’t do it at all, but ground troops are much much worse.
Maybe you disagree, but are you really not getting that my point is ground troops are necessarily much, much worse in terms of outcome?
Still better than ground troops. No thank you to dead Americans, weakened America, less popular America, poorer America, and strengthened enemies.
You think bombing people and being unwilling to face the enemy eye to eye makes countries like us or respect us?
Certainly more so than ground troops. Even better would be no US bombing at all, in most cases. I’m leaning towards the idea that we should leave ISIS alone, while logistically supporting our allies who choose to engage them. Let the region deal with what is a regional problem.
So you don’t believe the President’s rationale for war? He gave a very strong speech when the bombing started explaining why we had to fight.
No, I don’t. Has that not been clear? I’d prefer no bombing at all, but I’ll take bombing over ground troops any day. And fewer ground troops is better than more ground troops, if it comes to that. Fewer chances of dead Americans is my goal here.
How many of them did we start? And on what basis?
Exactly. The idea that Bush was more popular with Britain than Obama is so far removed from reality that it may involve fairies and unicorns. Bush was loathed in the UK, and as noted Blair’s linkage to Bush dragged him down to the point where Blair’s scorned by all sides of the political spectrum these days, and many Labour voters still consider him to be an actual war criminal. Obama is far more popular - even the Queen likes him.
I spent years getting asked by British people how on Earth the US could have elected someone as stupid as Bush, and now they’re asking me how someone like Donald Trump could be a serious contender for President. So if you want the US to return to being the laughingstock of the world: bring on President Trump.
But you know who did much prefer Bush over Obama? Al Qaeda. Bush’s rhetoric was the best recruiting tool they could have hoped for.
Ah, the “it’s not blatantly partisan my way, so it must be blatantly partisan the other way” argument. Never gets old.
As noted above, there was a lot of damage to repair in terms of our relationships with other countries. There are still a lot of issues, but things are much better than they were in 2008.
she managed to get other European governments to honour America once again, and convinced people to get rid of Qaddafi. Thats a lot, given how most of Obama’s foreign policy is crap.
She’s not Republican, that’s enough for me to vote for her
Nothing of the sort. She’s just another SoS. If she wants to run on her accomplishments in that job she’ll look no better than anyone else did. Improving relationships with other countries after the Bush mispresidency is hardly an accomplishment.