252 replies to this topic

[chrisg]

Hmm,

 

There is no doubt Obama inherited a mess and in Foreign terms he was out of his depth, he did do a lot domestically though to repair the Bush years.

 

Is Trump really any better though ? He does not have any understanding of other cultures, he does not listen to his advisors, basically he is an idiot who is so stupid he doesn't realise how stupid he is. Then again America voted him in, says disturbing things about Americans in general. Apparently there is an impeachment process pending, good idea, that or shoot the bastard - not something I would normally endorse.

 

You know I pretty much agree with you on the UN Leo, It has come to or beyond its usefulness but we need to conceive of a replacement - it is dangerous to not have an international forum in today's world.

 

Cheers

[Leonid]

Trump's probably no better but let me put it this way: there are some encouraging signs.

1. Decision making on military matters has been handed largely back to the Pentagon.
2. The Syria strike authorisation - beautiful show of force without risk of escalation apart from typical Russian sabre rattling.
3. Re-engagement with Israel
4. Nikki Haley as US ambassador. Pure genius selecting a Sikh woman to tell Muslim States that they're assholes.
5. TPP terminated.
6. Forcing the 23 NATO members who haven't been paying their dues, to pay them.
7. Telling Merkel that she's stupid to her own face for the disaster and ticking time bomb she has created in Germany.

[scruffy1]

world domination : who is the hair apparent ?

 

both young kim and the donald rock hats as credible as their political pedigrees

[chrisg]

Hmm,

 

Mostly I agree with you Leo but having worked in the Big House your point one scares the living daylights out of me, mad bunch of warmongers that need to be kept on a very tight leash.

 

Cheers

[tastywheat]

 

 

President Bush managed at least two foreign policy successes - Sudan and Kosovo. Name one Obama success? You can't, can you?

 
Objectively, the Sudan policies were a failure.  The situation in Sudan is far worse now than it was during the Bush administration.

 

Yeah, because Obama pulled US assets out of South Sudan while the South Sudanese were begging for them to stay.

The situation unravelled after that.

It's worth remembering that when Bush came to power, there were civil wars going on in Sudan, Congo, Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone. By the end of his first term, all of them were over.

 

 

Leonid, if you're going to source your information from tabloid-level websites like The Daily Wire, and repeat their arguments essentially verbatim without any form of fact checking, you can't expect to be taken seriously.

 

It's as if you're completely ignorant of the fact that South Sudan is a country that was only formed in 2011.  Bush had nothing to do with it, or the current players in the new civil war that started in 2013.  The conflict in Darfur (part of Sudan, not South Sudan) started during the Bush Administration in 2003, and is ongoing with no measurable improvements before 2009.  Finally, the Bush Administration had very little to do with the peace deal between the Sudanese government and the SPLA, which was essentially organised by Libya and Egypt.  

 

I'm not going to engage you on that last statement beyond saying that the connection you're trying to make, that the Bush Administration supposedly resolved these civil wars during his first term, bares absolutely no resemblence to reality or the established facts.  It's bullshit, and presuming you're not affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect, you're absolutely aware that what you're saying is bullshit.  So either you're profoundly ignorant, or you're trolling.

 

Example: Cite a credible source that corroborates the argument that Obama withdrew troops, material assets, or humanitarian aid from South Sudan that the Bush Administration had installed/provided to the region.

Edited by tastywheat, 15 April 2017 - 02:54 PM.

[Leonid]

First of all, polemics make you look like a retard when you have no idea what's going on.

Yes, South Sudan's formal referendum to become an independent state was indeed in 2011.

The peace agreement that ended the war (largely) was signed in 2005 thanks to GWB.

If you had bothered to read wiki, you'd have found that in 2012 Obama found he was allowed to send assets to South Sudan. So he did - 5 military officers and other unspecified military assets/equipment.

In 2013, after an incident where a V22 was fired on in Bor, Obama had all American assets (inc in UNMISS) removed or moved to the embassy against President Kiir's platitudes.

They returned briefly to the field in October 2015 but were pulled back again in August last year after South Sudanese troops raped and terrorised aid workers in Juba, Americans among them.

[tastywheat]

First of all, polemics make you look like a retard when you have no idea what's going on.

Yes, South Sudan's formal referendum to become an independent state was indeed in 2011.

The peace agreement that ended the war (largely) was signed in 2005 thanks to GWB.

If you had bothered to read wiki, you'd have found that in 2012 Obama found he was allowed to send assets to South Sudan. So he did - 5 military officers and other unspecified military assets/equipment.

In 2013, after an incident where a V22 was fired on in Bor, Obama had all American assets (inc in UNMISS) removed or moved to the embassy against President Kiir's platitudes.

They returned briefly to the field in October 2015 but were pulled back again in August last year after South Sudanese troops raped and terrorised aid workers in Juba, Americans among them.

 

Specifically, what large role did GWB play in in the SPLA peace agreement?

 

Specifically, why is there still conflict and genocide going on in Darfur, if Sudan was a  a foreign policy success under GWB?

 

Specifically, what assets did Obama withdraw from South Sudan that Bush had installed/implemented?

 

This is what I think is going on.  You did a Google search for Foreign Policy failures under Obama. You found The Daily Wire article, or some similar alt-right pro-Bush source, and now that you've been called on it, you're trying to work backwards to justify someone else's ignorant opinion.  

 

Here's the thing.  If the information from the article were actually true, you'd have no problem justifying your argument with proper sources.  But you haven't, which suggests you can't.  Because it's bullshit. 

 

I know about the situation in Sudan because I worked for 3 months in Kenya 700km from the South Sudanese border.  I've seen the refugee camp in Kakuma from the air, even from a distance it's clear the situation is utterly FUBAR.

[Leonid]

You don't provide sources worth a damn and your second-last sentence contradicts your first.

If you knew a thing about the issues of the Sudans from 700km away in Kenya, you'd probably know George Bush's role in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement - NOT the SPLA which is the Sudan People's Liberation Army.

I'll give you a hint, while you're in China - you may actually learn more from there than from Kenya.

Ready?:

John C. Danforth.

[tastywheat]

You don't provide sources worth a damn and your second-last sentence contradicts your first.

If you knew a thing about the issues of the Sudans from 700km away in Kenya, you'd probably know George Bush's role in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement - NOT the SPLA which is the Sudan People's Liberation Army.

I'll give you a hint, while you're in China - you may actually learn more from there than from Kenya.

Ready?:

John C. Danforth.

 

You made the claim Leonid, the burden of proof is on you to support it.  If you want evidence for any claims I've made, let me know, but it's difficult for me to cite sources that prove a negative.

 

You mean the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which failed after 2 years , and lead to South Sudanese independence?

 

This is what my research on John C. Danforth produced:

 

From Monica Duffy Toft's Securing The Peace:

 

In January 2002 U.S. special envoy Jon Danforth brokered a cease-fire between the government and SPLM/A rebels in the Nuba mountains.  Danforth hoped that this break in fighting could be expanded into an overall ceas-fire, but within six months it became clear that the government had used the armistice to redeploy its troops and aircraft to the oil-rich Western Upper Nile, where fighting and attacks against non-combatants escalated as a result.

 

From the Woodrow Wilson's Implementing Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement:

 

The Americans, who played a vital role in the CPA negotiations, put forth a proposal on the Abyei issue in March 2004. This proposal, which became the Abyei Protocol of the CPA, was written by the staff of U.S. Special Envoy Senator John Danforth. 

 

From Enough, The project to end genocide and crimes against humanity's Abyei: Sudan's West Bank report:

 

South Sudan’s July 9, 2011 Independence Day is fast approaching, but ongoing violence in Abyei, including the deliberate burning of villages by northern-aligned forces and the displacement of 20,000 people, threatens to undo progress toward peace in Sudan.  

 

So let's recap.  Your argument is that Bush resolved the civil war in Sudan during his first term.  This was achieved through the appointment of John Danforth as special envoy.  

 

Danforth brokered a failed peace deal in 2002 that lead to greater human atrocities by giving government troops an advantage.  Later, Danforth contributed one of the six protocols that made up the Comprehensive Peace Arrangement organised by the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development), which essentially created a new West Bank in Sudan claimed by multiple parties, which lead to further genocide and violence against civilians.  Danforth retired in late 2004, the CPA failed within 2 years (while Bush was still in power), and South Sudan became an independent nation as a result.  During this time, conflict continued in Darfur, while Libya and Egypt brokered a peace deal between Sudan and the SPLA (which has held to this day).  

 

You go on to claim that Obama is responsible for the new civil war in South Sudan, because he 'pulled assets' against the pleas of the South Sudanese President.  A claim that you haven't been able to substantiate in any way, which I've only found referenced in alt-right opinion pieces (which also failed to support the claim).

 

What am I missing?

[Leonid]

Wrong. Try again. This time with more research.

And I didn't claim that Obama is responsible for the war for pulling assets. I claimed that it was a foreign policy failure to pull assets out of the field in South Sudan.

I don't lay the war at his feet.

[tastywheat]

Wrong. Try again. This time with more research.

 

Put up or shut up?

[Leonid]

Wrong. Try again. This time with more research.

 
Put up or shut up?

Nope. You were 700km from Sudan. As the acknowledged expert, you are free to explore the wide world and determine the history circa 2005 for yourself.

I won't say there's a shitload of it, after all, TIA, but there should be more than enough for you to determine the history beyond the hint I've given you.

I will give you another hint though. You wanna look into that Osprey incident. It's one of two where Obama pulled assets back to the embassy but the only one where he also pulled American assets out of UNMISS.

[tastywheat]

 

 

Wrong. Try again. This time with more research.

 
Put up or shut up?

Nope. You were 700km from Sudan. As the acknowledged expert, you are free to explore the wide world and determine the history circa 2005 for yourself.

I won't say there's a shitload of it, after all, TIA, but there should be more than enough for you to determine the history beyond the hint I've given you.

I will give you another hint though. You wanna look into that Osprey incident. It's one of two where Obama pulled assets back to the embassy but the only one where he also pulled American assets out of UNMISS.

 

 

Put up or shut up.

[Leonid]

I already have.

[chrisg]

Hmm,

 

I have a strange habit in Africa of putting myself in harm's way without meaning to, it is not exactly a civilised place, but South Sudan is somewhere that even Red Cross, whom I used to fly for a long time back avoid. Over 25 years of civil war according to my sources, the U.S is very unlikely to be able to secure any lasting peace there and I'm not very sure why they should be sticking their nose in in the first place.

 

Africa is Africa, bits and pieces of it are slowly sorting themselves out, but not without a lot of conflict.

 

Thank whatever deity you might have any faith in but in the main they can't shoot to save their lives - even in the ME I've never ducked so much.

 

Those days are past me, just as well, my wife would kill me if I went back to them.

 

Cheers

[tastywheat]

Over 25 years of civil war according to my sources, the U.S is very unlikely to be able to secure any lasting peace there and I'm not very sure why they should be sticking their nose in in the first place.

 

Africa is Africa, bits and pieces of it are slowly sorting themselves out, but not without a lot of conflict.

 

Exactly.

 

The civil wars in Africa are disconnected from American politics, and really, there's not a lot the international community can do to meaningfully resolve them beyond supporting education.

 

Colonialism has contributed to some of it, but it's been going on long before the Dutch, French, Portuguese, and English got involved.  It's mostly driven by tribalism and power struggles.

 

In Kenya at least, the evangelical Christians certainly aren't helping.  The population has grown from ~ 1 million in 1900, to ~44 million now, and HIV infections are present in a quarter of the population.  They don't need more Catholic or Mormon abstinence education, they need fucking condoms, birth control pills, and an ideology that encourages them to have fewer children, not more.

 

Additionally, ambitious Africans have studied the methods missionaries used, and have commandeered them to accumulate wealth and power.  There's a massive splintering of the traditional Christian interpretations/groups into private organisations, advertised on massive billboards promoting heaven for followers, hell for everyone else, collecting donations and spreading their agenda every Sunday.

 

Christian ideology should be breaking down tribal allegiances (love thy neighbour etc.), but instead the opposite is true.  It's being used to reinforce them.  Tanzania got a lot wrong with their interpretation and implementation of socialism, but the best thing they ever did was shuffling the entire population geographically, which forced communication and interaction between disparate groups, and ended the tribalist mentality.

 

 

I already have.

 

Poor.  Form.

[Leonid]

I'll just drip feed you until your knowledge matches your claims.

Here's the United States' Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (first link): https://www.google.c...mobile&ie=UTF-8

This just goes to the instrumentality of the Bush WH to the Sudanese CPA

[tastywheat]

I'll just drip feed you until your knowledge matches your claims.

Here's the United States' Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (first link): https://www.google.c...mobile&ie=UTF-8

This just goes to the instrumentality of the Bush WH to the Sudanese CPA

 

I've already addressed this Leonid.  Danforth contributed 1 of the 6 protocols of the CPA, the CPA failed while Bush was still in power, and the Abyei protocol that Danforth wrote failed to prevent genocide.

 

Please stop your thread shitting, or justify your argument.

Edited by tastywheat, 17 April 2017 - 03:11 PM.

[Leonid]

Ah you know what... Fuck it.

There's no point leading a horse to water, if it's not in the least bit interested in learning to drink.

Might as well fucking drown it and get 50% of the way to my objective.

"Following the outbreak of the conflict in December 2013, the U.S. government suspended its program of non-lethal assistance to the SPLA. This program, which operated from 2006-2013, was designed to help professionalize the SPLA and was developed by the United States at the request of the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior"

http://www.gurtong.n...h.CBp9uMOe.dpuf

Are we good now? Do you want to study the conflict in more detail from China? It may provide you with more answers than from Kenya.

I gave you the dates you needed to do your research. You can't even do that.

There's no point talking about a co flict when the person you're talking to claims knowledge of political events because they worked 700km from the border.

The average refugee you met, doesn't know the geopolitical plays. They just know what happens to them and those they know.

Geopolitical is actually best studied afar.

For example - one of my aunt's is an orthodontics specialist in Tel Aviv. She had treated a number of Syrians with mangled faces.

Syria is like 300km away. Does that make her more informed on the sometimes on, sometimes off talks happening in Moscow between the different sides?

[tastywheat]

Yeah, because Obama pulled US assets out of South Sudan while the South Sudanese were begging for them to stay.

The situation unravelled after that.

It's worth remembering that when Bush came to power, there were civil wars going on in Sudan, Congo, Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone. By the end of his first term, all of them were over.

 

"Following the outbreak of the conflict in December 2013, the U.S. government suspended its program of non-lethal assistance to the SPLA. This program, which operated from 2006-2013, was designed to help professionalize the SPLA and was developed by the United States at the request of the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior"

 

Also from the link:

"The U.S. government has not resumed operation of this program and has not provided military assistance to the Government of the Republic of South Sudan (GORSS) or to the armed opposition since December 2013. The U.S. government, however, has provided on-going support to the regional effort led by the African Union to counter the Lord’s Resistance Army, which includes a limited SPLA role.

 

According to the statement issued by the Embassy in Juba, the U.S. government has also provided support to the security institutions established by the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan. 

 

The U.S. Embassy also wishes to clarify the position of the U.S. government with regard to the troubling phenomenon of child soldiers. The United States has long been engaged in dialogue with the relevant government and security authorities in South Sudan, objecting to the recruitment and use of child soldiers and pressing for a cessation of these practices. This policy is unchanged. Regrettably, the United Nations and international NGOs have recently confirmed the ongoing culpability of both government and armed opposition forces in the recruitment and use of child soldiers.

 

This waiver was necessary to ensure the U.S. government can continue to provide financial assistance to support implementation of the peace agreement, especially to the body known as the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Monitoring Mechanism (CTSAMM), which is charged with monitoring ceasefire violations. Without this waiver, the United States would be unable to support ceasefire monitoring, a critical activity given ongoing hostilities"

 

 

[Emphasis added to key points]

 

So just so we're clear, when you say Obama 'pulled assets' and caused 'the situation to unravel', you're specifically arguing that:

1. The motivation to withdraw support stems from an incident where US troops were injured when their V-22 was shot at on the 21st of December
2. The 'pulled assets' was a training program that was halted because the people being trained were employing child soldiers
3. You agree with the source you've posted that Obama maintained all other support programs that provided financial support and assets to the peace process.

 

So your logic is that Obama contributed to the civil war that started on the 15th of December (6 days before the V-22 incident), because he refused to train military groups using child soldiers, and the rest of the assets and support he contributed to the peace process should be ignored?

Edited by tastywheat, 17 April 2017 - 03:59 PM.