this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
739 points (88.7% liked)
Political Memes
8917 readers
2522 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No rebuttal for the war criminal thing, I see.
The only credible war criminal accusation towards Obama that comes to mind is the practice of 'double-tapping' which, at the very least, is something that Obama deserves a trial in the Hague for, even if I wouldn't necessarily bet on the outcome even with an impartial court.
Every other major accusation I've seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of 'war crime' as 'anything that's bad'.
He gets tons of flak for his heavy use of drone attacks - which is completely valid - but people usually ignore that:
Okay let's see:
Everything about the drone strikes other than double-tapping. See: all those weddings he bombed.
Supporting Saudi Arabia's war crime-riddled intervention in Yemen.
Everything to do with Guantanamo bay.
Everything to do with Israel.
Acceptance of collateral damage is a well-established principle in international law. While bombing weddings has a clear argument with regards to the immorality of it, it would be difficult to argue that it's a war crime to target enemy combatants simply because they're in a civilian context. As the civilian casualty ratio of the drone strikes, as assessed by outside and critical sources, was around 15%-20%, which fits pre-drone strike numbers, it would be extremely difficult to make any serious argument that the drone strikes were exceptionally careless about collateral damage relative to the military gain by current standards and thus constitute a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: "Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’."
Selling weapons is not a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: "Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’."
You mean... trying to close it, restoring the standards to that of an ordinary prison instead of a torture camp, and releasing the vast majority of the prisoners when Congress refused to let him close it?
If you think the president, and for that matter one of the least pro-Israel presidents since I've been alive could have easily "just done more" to prevent Israeli war crimes, you're out of your gourd.
Again, I reiterate: "Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’."
If there's a military purpose proportional to the damage inflicted. Bombing a wedding because a few attendants are enemy combatants is not that.
That would simply mean only some were war crimes compared to a majority that were legal. Even if you're hitting one wedding for every nine enemy training camps, that one wedding is still a war crime. Also, I'd like to point out that the CIA is literally on record claiming international law is inapplicable to their drone strikes (back when they were still done by the CIA). Those are not the words of people not committing war crimes.
Which is not the only thing America was doing under Obama.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_operations_in_Yemen
Sounds real war crime-y to me.
Obama did a lot to improve the conditions at Guantanamo bay, but still:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#International_law
This is one thing Obama didn't change to my knowledge. See also:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
This one is on the light end to be fair, but still a war crime.
I mean, Reagan did it, literally with a phone call. US presidents can "just do more" to prevent Israeli war crimes that they fund, arm and protect. Also least pro-Israel in what way? The only instance of him going against Israel that I know of is JCPOA, which does nothing to absolve him of Israel's war crimes in Palestine.
Killing enemy combatants isn't a military purpose?
When drone strikes of weddings are discussed, individuals are targeted while the wedding is ongoing, the wedding itself isn't being fucking carpet bombed.
Again, the wedding is only a war crime if the creation of civilian damage is excessive in comparison to the intended military damage inflicted. Considering that the civilian casualty ratio of drone strikes was not significantly different from prior non-drone military action, it would be a very fucking tough sell.
The CIA is absolutely committing war crimes - that's not the same as saying Obama is a war criminal. The CIA, in fact, has repeatedly and blatantly violated direct orders from the executive, to the point there was a whole hearing over it during the Obama administration.
I would have objected, but I read the cited source in the wiki article
That makes the accusation of war crimes more credible over supplying the Saudis against Yemen. I concede that there is a valid argument there, though I would contend that the discussion involved is still primarily cautious and over there being an argument for liability, rather than a clear-cut case that assistance to a war-crime committing belligerent, even with exhortation to show greater restraint and precision, was absolutely without question a war crime.
... and also that that ruling is startlingly broad.
The citation is over the Bush Administration, and explicitly says as much. The Obama administration performed an extensive review of prisoners and changes of policy, resulting in some being tried, many being released, and those retained retained under internationally agreed-upon standards for military detention under the laws of war.
The DOJ claiming the president has the power to do something he hasn't and did not do (as Obama added no detainees to Gitmo) is a war crime?
If I hear this shit take on Lemmy one more time, I'm going to fucking explode. In other words, please attend my funeral to be held within the next week (closed casket).
Would you like to remind me what the powers of the US president are, again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Obama_administration_(2009%E2%80%932017)
In the land of the blind, the one eyed is king...
Maybe that's true, but even so that's no excuse to glorify him. Obama was a step towards, not away from, fascism, and a decisive one at that.
How was he a step towards fascism?
Glorifying maybe is a strong word, but assuming war crimes as a constant of American history basically, we can appreciate the good things he did, specially in the context of bush before him and trump after him. Yes, it's praising someone for not shitting his pants, but we are at that level unfortunately.
I mean, Obama did shit his pants, hard. He did do some good things, but he failed the test given to him by history same as Biden by not ending the War on Terror after the death of Bin Laden. America was going to have to reckon with the rot at the heart of its society sooner or later, but that rot was rapidly metastatizing fast through the War on Terror, and Obama had a golden opportunity to stop that but he didn't. Compared to this one gigantic failure, all his successes (and most of his other failures) are footnotes. I view him the same as Biden: Someone who would've been a good or good-ish president in saner times, but who was woefully inadequate for the hour. The consequences of his failure weren't as immediate as Biden's so it's harder to notice, but Obama shitting his pants is why we're living through Trump 2 right now.
Youre right in that war crimes are a constant in american history, but America desperately needed Obama to be the peace president he'd said he'd be.
In what way did you want him to 'end' the 'War on Terror', itself an immensely nebulous term for a broad range of foreign policy issues regarding non-state actors?
Perhaps nonintervention against ISIS? Or giving Afghanistan over to the Taliban ten years ahead of time? What form of 'ending' the War on Terror are we looking at? What 'golden opportunity' did he have?
Obama was an insufficient solution to America's post-Bush problems. But the urge to counter the hagiography of some liberals about Obama with a broad-spectrum condemnation of the Obama's administration's policies is not really a reasonable response.
You replied to me in another comment asking how Obama was a step towards fascism, so consider this a response to that too.
Stop fighting and bombing people in the Middle East for the sake of American imperialist ambitions, undo authoritarian post-9/11 legislation (see: ICE), return American society and politics to normalcy and not contribute to the expansion of executive power.
Anti-ISIS intervention is more complicated, not the least because it started more than two full years after the death of Bin Laden, but Afghanistan? Absolutely, unequivocally yes. Afghanistan was never America's to "give over" to anyone.
Again, the death of Bin Laden. There was absolutely no reason for the war in Afghanistan to turn into an anti-Taliban crusade; he absolutely could and should have said "our job here is done" and left. Not doing so, alongside his expansion of the war on terror into new fronts, protected fascism in America from what should've been a leftward swing following Bush's presidency.
Insufficient is an understatement. American fascism (what will go on to become MAGA) grew through two main vectors: war and economic uncertainty. Obama did basically nothing to address the former and only took halfhearted measures to address the latter. He did some good things, but in the face of what he paved the way for, his accomplishments are about as important as whatever Hindenburg was up to before appointing Hitler as chancellor.
Again, I asked for specifics, not generic descriptions which are passed around between people with a poor understanding of US foreign policy. What 'fighting and bombing people in the Middle East' are we talking about, if not ISIS?
You... you do realize that the President doesn't have the power to do that unilaterally, right?
The same American society and politics which was spiraling into chaos over having a dreaded Black man as president? Goodness me, why didn't Obama just make society and politics normal again??
This is a legitimate criticism.
So with the government of Afghanistan specifically requesting that we not leave and let the country fall to foreign-funded fighters who wanted to impose a brutal authoritarian regime which was promising such delightful things as banning elections, women's education, and speaking in public, that the US, morally, should have pulled out anyway against the will of Afghanistan because [checks notes] we are Bad Camp and Isolationism is the only route, even for ongoing issues.
As Ukraine is not our's to 'give over' to anyone, should we cut aid to them as well? After all, it would be terrible if we were meddling in things that didn't involve us again.
"To turn into"
Bruh, are you being serious?
Do you not remember the Afghanistan War at all?
So your argument is that America has no duty to assist countries after invading them; that after an invasion, the correct response is not to attempt to ensure stability by reinforcing a democratically elected government, but instead hand over all locals who helped or were indifferent to us to reactionary paramilitaries so they can be tortured to death and their families brutalized with them?
For that fucking matter, do you understand the power that the US President has with regards to wars? Executive power makes forcing a war relatively easy, but wars are approved and directed in great detail by legislation from Congress.
What new fronts were those, again?
Insufficiency in opposition is a far fucking cry from a step towards towards fascism.
That's a grotesque comparison without merit. If you want to make comparisons to Weimar Germany, Marx or Muller would be more correct.
I don't give a damn about arguing Obama's "good things", as those wouldn't wash away the bad anyway; my point is that playing the mirror image of liberals who put on nostalgia glasses for Obama is not really a reasonable alternative. My argument is against incorrect condemnations of Obama's policy on the grounds that the condemnations are incorrect, not that Obama deserves a C instead of an F on his report card, or that Obama did Really Great Work, Honest elsewhere.
Ok, so let me appreciate him for shitting his pants less than the guys before and after him. Yes, he didn't stop it, arguably accelerated a bit, but the other guys where pedal to the metal while punching you in the face. Obamacare was bad, but it was better than injecting bleach. Droning weddings was bad, but better than ethnic cleansing. Not prosecuting Cheney was bad, but better than selling pardons for 2M a pop. You get the idea.
I bet you were a genocide Joe voter.
Go back to hexbear you fascist cuck.
Well I'm not American so voting for anyone would've been a pretty egregious case of election fraud, but why so?