Is Obama good for Africa?

Muinteoir Laura

Hi all,
we have a school debate coming up and I would be interested to hear other people's opinion on whether they thought Obama was good for Africa. We are opposition so we are looking for failures he may have or policies which he should but has not introduced.

Any ideas, thoughts would be appreciated, plus I think it's pretty interesting!

Thanks

matthew8

Indifferent tbh. Pursuing the same policy there as the other guys would've.

Amerika

Engagement in African commercial endeavors has never been a priority here in the states, and President Obama has done little to change that attitude. Africa isn’t considered significant to US security, and little effort has been made regarding trade and investments. Obama’s involvement has for the most part simply been responses to crisis situations, famine and disease – just like those before him. So personally I would say President Obama has been no better, or worse, than his predecessors.

And in all fairness, if a president with British heritage is expected not to make UK interests more significant just because of ancestry, neither should Obama be expected to over Africa. (originally said Irish and Ireland... but Obama's got that also, so not a fair analogy)

Since your role is "opposition," this might be a good source for you:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0706_africa_policy_obama_kimenyi.aspx

Matt Holck

Libya is in africa (NATO bombed that)

davoxx

simple answer, no.
complex answer is, no american politician is good for a continent that has resources that the americans want for free ... well except for ron paul, but he's nto getting any coverage in the media in usa, almost like he is being censored in the land of the free

jackiebaron

Considering that the US has fomented carnage in Libya and continues to do so in Somalia and Sudan then I very much doubt that any president is 'good' for Africa. Under Obama's watch the US continued to arm that savage Mubarak in Egypt and were very silent when his thugs were cracking skulls in Tahrir Square.
Africom will be busy slitting throats and destabilising any area that doesn't allow unfettered access to natural resources for western corporations. Make no mistake, Uncle Tom Obama may bleat on about Mother Africa but it's a charade. He doesn't give a toss about Africans any more than he gives a toss about the Afghans, Pakistanis and Yemenis that he whacks on a daily basis.

Your question is like asking "will Nixon be good for South East Asia?"

Amerika

jackiebaron wrote: »

Your question is like asking "will Nixon be good for South East Asia?"

Wouldn't LB Johnson be a better analogy to your point?

jackiebaron

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn't LB Johnson be a better analogy to your point?

No not really. I said South East Asia. Don't try and play the Republican versus Democrat crap with me, pal. I lambasted Obama for his record on Africa.
I dragged Nixon into the fray because of his escalation of the carnage and his savage bombing of Cambodia after he bleated out his "peace with honour" nonsense.
Johnson was another murderer but why are you bringing him up? Amerika, your postings are predictable and banal. Someone could bring a politician to task for paedophilia, or theft, or murder, or any number of transgressions and if that politician is a Republican, you will never say "yeah! You're right! This guy is a piece of sh'it!" You'll just childishly bring up a Democrat's failings as if anybody is denying them.
That kind of debating style is as weak as a sh!thouse fly.

Amerika

Come to think about it jackiebaron... you’re right, Nixon is a better comparison to Obama. After promises of stopping the conflict from both in order to get elected, they both escalated the carnage and savagery of the conflicts.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Considering that the US has fomented carnage in Libya and continues to do so in Somalia and Sudan then I very much doubt that any president is 'good' for Africa. Under Obama's watch the US continued to arm that savage Mubarak in Egypt and were very silent when his thugs were cracking skulls in Tahrir Square.

I know Jackie doesn't like when I do this but lets just analyse that statement for a sec.

Obama is wrong for supporting a nasty dictator in North Africa.
Obama is wrong for attacking a nasty dictator in North Africa.

Poor guy can't catch a break

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

I know Jackie doesn't like when I do this but lets just analyse that statement for a sec.

Obama is wrong for supporting a nasty dictator in North Africa.
Obama is wrong for attacking a nasty dictator in North Africa.

Poor guy can't catch a break

and i know you won't like it when i do this but lets just analyse that post for a sec.
Obama is wrong for supporting a nasty dictator in North Africa. => correct => he has no business interfering, it's not his country, he just wants the oil/resources.
Obama is wrong for attacking a nasty dictator in North Africa. => correct => he has no business interfering, it's not his country, he just wants the oil/resources.

cases you forgot to mention ...
Obama is wrong for attacking a nice leader in North Africa. => correct => he has no business interfering, it's not his country, he just wants the oil/resources.
Obama is wrong for supporting a nice leader in North Africa. => THIS NEVER HAPPENS

poor guy can't catch a break, he wants to 'fix' the world but can't sort his own sh!t out. :eek:

here's a helpful tip for him ... bugger off and fix your own country mr obama dude, you know like how you were 'voted' to power to do? remember your catchphrase CHANGE? time to bring it ...

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

I know Jackie doesn't like when I do this but lets just analyse that statement for a sec.

Obama is wrong for supporting a nasty dictator in North Africa.
Obama is wrong for attacking a nasty dictator in North Africa.

Poor guy can't catch a break

Nice try but your statement reveals the true motives of American foreign policy quite clearly but you're probably too blind to see it.

But for the sake of argument hat does your posting tell you?

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Nice try but your statement reveals the true motives of American foreign policy quite clearly but you're probably too blind to see it.

Sidestep.. doesn't explain the contradiction in your post.

southsiderosie

Muinteoir Laura wrote: »

Hi all,
we have a school debate coming up and I would be interested to hear other people's opinion on whether they thought Obama was good for Africa. We are opposition so we are looking for failures he may have or policies which he should but has not introduced.

Any ideas, thoughts would be appreciated, plus I think it's pretty interesting!

Thanks

Unlike most of Western Europe, Africa doesn't share a common currency.

Unlike most of South America, Africa doesn't share a common language or colonial heritage.

On what grounds should the U.S. have a policy on 'Africa'? The continent is vast, and the issues facing oil states/Mediterranean countries/Horn of Africa countries, etc. are very different.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sidestep.. doesn't explain the contradiction in your post.

There is no sidestep and no contradiction in my post. It was your mistake.

I'll try to simplify it for you. A town mayor puts his backing and endorsement behind the local rackateer and credits him for being a pillar of the community in turn for kickbacks.

The same mayor runs a campaign of smear, harassment and violence against a community activist who is assisting local businesses to qualify for loans that are not controlled by the mayor or the racketeer.

Poor mayor can't catch a break.

Your post painted you into a corner, mate.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

There is no sidestep and no contradiction in my post. It was your mistake.

I'll try to simplify it for you. A town mayor puts his backing and endorsement behind the local rackateer and credits him for being a pillar of the community in turn for kickbacks.

The same mayor runs a campaign of smear, harassment and violence against a community activist who is assisting local businesses to qualify for loans that are not controlled by the mayor or the racketeer.

Poor mayor can't catch a break.

Your post painted you into a corner, mate.

Nope you support one dictator and are against another - something you accuse the US of - that's contradictory and hypocritical.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope you support one dictator and are against another - something you accuse the US of - that's contradictory and hypocritical.

you are right there!!! the us is contradictory and hypocritical ... i feel like we made a break through

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope you support one dictator and are against another - something you accuse the US of - that's contradictory and hypocritical.

I don't "support" any dictator. Your glorious US....the "free-est" country in the history of the planet.....so said....claims to have bombed Afghanistan to powder and your feeble excuse is that you want to have Afghan peasant women liberated from their veils and burhkhas....and you expect anyone with an IQ above room-temperature to believe that crap. Saudi women are routinely stoned to death if they express a longing for another man, Uzbeck citizens can be boiled to death by Karimov and anally raped ON CAMERA, with broken bottles...a state that is called "an ally" by Hillary Clinton......and you talk about dictators?

You feeble weakness for "America's" love of the rest of the world is beginning to look and smell very nauseating.

US troops urinate on corpses.....and it's not an isolated incident.

jackiebaron

But they have no problem with a soldier-thug killing children and getting 3 months detention?

How come most Americans can't speak for themselves? How come the majority of them have no individuality...no strength to go against the norm or the grain? How come they're so easy to con and manipulate?
It really is a brilliant exercise.

AngryBollix

He has been lacklustre at best as a US president. His importance to Africa takes a back seat to this

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't "support" any dictator. Your glorious US....the "free-est" country in the history of the planet.....so said....claims to have bombed Afghanistan to powder and your feeble excuse is that you want to have Afghan peasant women liberated from their veils and burhkhas....and you expect anyone with an IQ above room-temperature to believe that crap. Saudi women are routinely stoned to death if they express a longing for another man, Uzbeck citizens can be boiled to death by Karimov and anally raped ON CAMERA, with broken bottles...a state that is called "an ally" by Hillary Clinton......and you talk about dictators?

You feeble weakness for "America's" love of the rest of the world is beginning to look and smell very nauseating.

US troops urinate on corpses.....and it's not an isolated incident.

Couldn't fool me

I mean Obama helped get rid of that nasty dictator Gaddafi, that's a plus don't you think.

Lights fuse.. stands back...

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Couldn't fool me

I mean Obama helped get rid of that nasty dictator Gaddafi, that's a plus don't you think.

Lights fuse.. stands back...

No I don't think it is a plus.

The Libyan people are now facing occupation and / or civil war but of course you know what's best for them don't you? You know what's best for bloody everyone.

The US got rid of democratically elected Mossadegh and installed the Shah in Iran who made Gadaffi or Saddam look like altar boys.....but of course that was for their own good too, wasn't it oh benevolent one? Same with Pinochet.

Your arguments are just looking increasingly hollow and represent the bleatings of someone who just can't bring themselves to admit when they're wrong.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

No I don't think it is a plus.

The Libyan people are now facing occupation and / or civil war but of course you know what's best for them don't you? You know what's best for bloody everyone.

Occupation by who?

Civil war - they've just been through.

I just don't see any glaring faults in Obama's attitude/policy toward Africa. He has handled the Arab spring fairly well, and is actively helping in other areas, e.g. Uganda.

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

I just don't see any glaring faults in Obama's attitude/policy toward Africa.

Ok, leaving aside Libya and military interventions/invasions for a second, what about Obama's economic policy towards Africa? You don't see any glaring faults in that under his watch?

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

Ok, leaving aside Libya and military interventions/invasions for a second, what about Obama's economic policy towards Africa? You don't see any glaring faults in that under his watch?

What invasions?

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

What invasions?

:)I'll rephrase that then.

Leaving aside Libya etc and political meddling/covert policies of regime change for a second, what about Obama's economic policy towards Africa? You don't see any glaring faults in that under his watch?

Manic Moran

ed2hands wrote: »

what about Obama's economic policy towards Africa? You don't see any glaring faults in that under his watch?

Has he had one?

On the news two days ago:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Africa-Policy-Watchers-Lose-Hope-in-President-Obama-138259974.html

Africa Policy Watchers Lose Hope in President Obama

[...]

Since making a speech in Ghana in 2009 about how the United States would hold African leaders accountable to good governance and respecting democratic institutions, President Obama has not returned to the continent.

Emira Woods from Washington-based Foreign Policy in Focus says actual change though is more important than visits and speeches.

"Wonderful words, but very much unfulfilled," said Woods. "Those words have to be lived in terms of U.S. foreign policy and we are still waiting for them to be realized."

ed2hands

Manic Moran wrote: »

Has he had one?

Not any good ones apparently. Interesting article. As for his trade policies and tariffs, well that's another story.

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

:)I'll rephrase that then.

Leaving aside Libya etc and political meddling/covert policies of regime change for a second, what about Obama's economic policy towards Africa? You don't see any glaring faults in that under his watch?

Woah, there you go again Ed...

"political meddling/covert policies of[/I] regime change"

Care to explain what exactly you're referring to?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Woah, there you go again Ed...

"political meddling/covert policies of[/I] regime change"

Care to explain what exactly you're referring to?

way to avoid the question ... almost seems like you are looking for an excuse ...

Ballyfornia

Is Obama good for Africa? no. American Imperialism will never be good for any region it doesn't matter what colour of skin the president has.

housetypeb

Ballyfornia wrote: »

American Imperialism will never be good for any region it doesn't matter what colour of skin the president has.

Agreed,America were quick to recognise the new president in the Maldives after the coup -and to dampen any calls for elections there, all in the name of democracy of course.

jackiebaron

housetypeb wrote: »

Agreed,America were quick to recognise the new president in the Maldives after the coup -and to dampen any calls for elections there, all in the name of democracy of course.

They also cry about Chinese/Russian vetoes (which were only employed 13 times since the 70's ) yet have used their own veto for such petty shït as preventing Vietnam from joining the UN (just being bitchy) and fück knows how many blocked rulings to allow Israel to continue to smash the Palestinians. Bunch of bullshïtters.