this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
765 points (88.8% liked)
Political Memes
8917 readers
2280 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
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.
To preface, I'm trying to make the argument that Obama continuing (and in some cases expanding) American operations in the Middle East contributed to fascism in America, not trying to pass moral judgement on him, so I'm going to keep my response to morality-based arguments short. Let me know if you want me a longer response to something.
Well aside from the obvious Afghanistan, you have Libya, Somalia and other places where America is/was conducting so-called counterterrorism operations. If Obama had stopped these conflicts, it'd have been possible to make a decision on fighting ISIS (which America started doing way after the death of Bin Laden) with less war on terror baggage.
Half the things I mentioned aren't strictly within the preview of the president. However, Obama was also the head of the majority party in Congress and came at the head of a hard leftward swing after Bush. He could've likely made significant progress on this front if he wanted. At the very least, he had a massive podium from which he could've pushed for de-Bushification.
I think it's obvious that this is not what I was talking about. Black man as president fever and war fever were separate phenomena, and while there was very little Obama could've done about the former short of ceasing to exist (and probably even then), there was a lot he could've done about the former, at least on the blue side of the political spectrum.
Making an exception here, though I probably shouldn't.
The so-caled government of Afghanistan was better described as the American-installed occupation government, and here's the thing: The people of Afghanistan were never going to accept an occupation government; as long as the American-installed government was fighting on behalf of and the Taliban were fighting against America, there was only one way this was going to end short of straight up American colonial rule. It's not pretty, but what we're seeing now is the start of the painful and sometimes bloody process of Afghans forging their own path forward, and within the context of that process the only thing American presence did was make the Taiban that much stronger by giving them very impressive and very real anti-imperial credentials. When the people of Afghanistan get rid of the Taliban, they'll have done it in spite of, not because of, American interference. Hell, what America turned into its so-called democratic government was the North Afghanistan Alliance, an organic anti-Taliban resistance organization; now 25 years later that doesn't exist and Taliban rule is unchallenged. Okay rant over, back on topic.
Nowhere does my argument imply that given that America isn't at war with Russia, probably for the good of everyone involved.
See the bit on Afghanistan.
Nope. If it was an anti-Taliban crusade from the start, then that was a futile endeavor from the start and never should've continued as long as it did and the point stands anyway.
Libya and Yemen?
He took the momentum against the factors that were building up fascism in the US (I focused on the war on terror here, but economic and cultural reasons were obviously just as important) and smothered it via his inaction. He was not just insufficient; in the areas that mattered, he did either nothing or basically nothing. My condemnation of his administration is based on the fact that he was fundamentally barking up the wrong tree while intentionally ignoring the right tree, effectively providing cover for the right from the left. He was a step towards fascism in the same away that throwing away your life jacket is a step towards sinking.
It's admittedly a very loose comparison, but he was a political leader whose career (I'm predicting) becomes historically irrelevant due to his failure to stop fascism.
Libya was not part of the War on Terror and American involvement was minimal. I guess unless your position is that the UN can go fuck itself.
Somalia you're looking at minimal involvement at the behest of the Somali government, the UN, AND the African Union, overwhelmingly not until 2015 and 2016. At some point, what you're arguing for isn't "Respect national sovereignty" but "National sovereignty does not grant the right to request help from Bad Camp"
Would it? What arguments made here would suddenly disappear if Obama had reduced our involvement in Somalia but fought ISIS anyway? What arguments would even be weakened?
That's not a realistic assessment of US politics in 2009. Not even close. Fuck's sake, have you seen the Dem party today, wherein not only are the average ghouls more left-amiable than they used to be (damnation by faint praise, mind), but with the Blue Dogs almost entirely massacred and tossed out of the party? You're saying that Obama, who struggled to pass the landmark legislation he campaigned on, could easily have made 'significant progress' on moving the country in some vague leftward direction when his own party was already balking at the very moderate proposals he was making away from right-wing shitheaddery? Not to mention the absolute opposition of the entirety of the GOP, which was unprecedented.
Jesus fucking Christ, what?
Oh, cool, so they haven't accepted the Taliban, the occupation government of Pakistan, right?
Oh, 'anti-imperialism' only counts against Bad Camp?
This utterly blinkered 'analysis' on the left is utter dogshit with no respect for the history of Afghanistan or its current society.
What the fuck.
No. We're fucking done here. I don't play games with Taliban apologists.
What the fuck? I'm pretty sure I implied that the process of "forging their own path forward" would imply getting rid of the Taliban, and that American interference was bad because it strengthened the Taliban. If that's Taliban apologia, then I'm Barack Obama. To repeat, fuck the Taliban and fuck the war on terror for helping the Taliban consolidate power. This isn't rocket science. Now that Uncle Sam is gone, Afghans have a real shot at getting rid of the Taliban and putting half-decent leadership in charge.
"The Taliban had to win for the Afghan people to be truly free because of Anti-Imperialism" is campist dogshit of the same fucking variety as apologia for the theocracy of Iran, or, from another ideological standpoint, the 'Vanguard State' of the USSR and PRC. Unless what you're arguing for is some variety of accelerationism, wherein the Taliban taking control of the major levers of power in the country will Invigorate The Heroic Resistance(tm), in which case it's slightly less vile, considerably more idiotic, and no less campist in regarding the actual occupation government of the Taliban as preferable to the Dogs Of The Great Satan. It doesn't fucking matter that you believe that in the long run the Taliban should be cast off if you think its appropriate in the 'short-term' of fucking decades of throwing acid on little girls' faces for receiving an education and banning women's voices from being heard in public by a totalitarian theocracy puppet state of a foreign intelligence agency without the slightest hint of democratic pretensions and an extensive history of extrajudicial murder in excess of the already-quite-violent situation in pre-2021 Afghanistan.
Would you like to fucking remind me what the position of the Taliban was like before 'American interference'.
I'll give you a little fucking hint - not fucking pretty.
Would you like to remind me what the position of the Taliban is now?
The primary difference is that the NRF doesn't have a figure like the Northern Alliance had in Ahmad Shah Massoud, a figure who could unite disparate personalities (and it is a matter in large part of personalities in coalition building in a country without a strong sense of nationhood (and if you say that Afghanistan does have a strong sense of nationhood, I will unfortunately not be surprised) or broader ideological unity) in resistance to the Taliban. And Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated before the American intervention in the country.
The whole fucking idea that the Taliban came into power because of 'anti-imperialist' credentials is a fucking armchair leftist take with no understanding of the history or society of Afghanistan at present, nor, for that matter, of social movements in general or of the practical position of the Taliban itself. The Taliban remained deeply unpopular in most of Afghanistan, and are a continuing contributor to the deep and declining dissatisfaction in Afghanistan today.
The deeper issue is that this is all in-line with your previous positions. This isn't some fucking fluke, just an especially stark display of how far you're willing to take your campism. The idea of the Afghan government, which constantly clashed with US interests, as an 'occupation' government is especially fucking absurd, but hey, whoever you need to play apologist for in the name of 'anti-imperialism' (here, of course, meaning campism, not being against governments which are puppeted by foreign powers or which sell off the natural resources of the nation to imperialist countries with no input from the citizenry of Afghanistan).
This is no different than simping for North Korea under the position that South Korea is an Amerikkkan puppet. "Sure North Korea is bad, but we need to kick out the foreigners, and THEN the People will Rise Up Against Oppression, like they have in the DPRK (they have risen up against oppression, right?)"
Thank you for affirming, with that edit, everything I saw implied by your previous statements.
So I reiterate - fuck your Taliban apologia, Mr. Obama.
Okay I'm about as interested in continuing this conversation as you are, given that you're obviously more interesting in unilateral condemnation than understanding, but like you do realize we're now living in the timeline where Obama didn't leave Afghanistan right? I mean dude, the US-installed government fell within four months of the US withdrawal. Four months from start to end. The so-called Afghan government was a corrupt mess only propped up by NATO pumping billions of dollars in money, supplies and troops, and as soon as NATO left it started falling apart. We're talking ghost battalions, preposterous amounts of bribery, billions of dollars in embezzled money. No matter how much you hate the Taliban (which, yeah, we all do), the Islamic Republic simply never provided a credible alternative. I mean what the heck is this? In the immortal words of Joe Biden:
And they fucking lost anyway. I mean I fucking hate that the group to succeed them had to be the Taliban, but when your government can't survive three months without support from the most powerful country in the world, well that is a fucking problem. This is even worse than I thought; there was simply no way to keep that house of cards standing, and who was the only group capable of filling the void? That's right, the Taliban, no thanks to Uncle Sam. And now that you don't have America giving the Taliban legitimacy with every bombing, drone strike or even their very existence, the people of Afghanistan are organically taking up arms against the Taliban. Wonder how that works.
PS: Not everyone who disagrees with you on topics you're strongly opinionated about is the devil (or a Taliban apologist, but those are basically the same thing).
PSS: More seriously, you show a serious lack of understanding regarding the attitudes of indigenous peoples towards foreign invaders. A foreign enemy is enough to turn anyone into a hero and anyone (or anything) into a villain.
Welp, guess I gotta go war crimin'.
Yes, it is a fucking problem that a government cannot survive without foreign support against a military with foreign support. That does not, however, equate to the idea that the military with foreign support winning is the only fucking way forward.
And how's that gone? And which people are taking up arms?
Oh, what's that? The same groups of people who defended the republic against the Taliban offensive?
Golly gee, it's almost like what happened isn't some new development of a base of support or the energizing of a new, previously passive group to take up arms, but a continuation of the same fucking fight but with vastly reduced resources. Luckily, as we all know, continuing a fight with the same base of support but vastly reduced resources results in the Underdog Bonus(tm) coming into play, and definitely isn't a delusion of accelerationist dipshittery that a worse position is a better one, actually.
And what about people who say, explicitly, that the Taliban taking power is the only way to free Afghanistan of Imperialist Chains(tm)? You know, like you explicitly said?
"It's not apologia because I don't like them, I'm just making apologies for why their rise to power was good and necessary!"
No, that's still apologia, sorry to burst your bubble. You can own up to it or you can lie to yourself, but don't expect other people to play asspat games with someone who plays apologist for a regime busy banning little girls from learning how to read and mutilating the ones who get too uppity.
'Indigenous peoples' jesus fucking Christ, this is exactly the kind of narrow pseudoacademic bullshit that gets passed around leftist circles as a universal truth that I was removed about. Who are the indigenous peoples and who are the foreign invaders, here? Do you know anything about Afghan ethnic groups, or how they regard one another? Do you understand the base of recruitment of the Taliban?
If I showed you data regarding the opinions of Afghans before 2021 on the Taliban and the US, would you change your mind, or would you find a convenient excuse to continue licking the Taliban's boots as some expression of 'anti-imperialist' sentiment (by being a representative of Pakistani imperialism, which is somehow immune to this notion you're peddling)?
Apparently, what you really mean is "Bad Camp is always the foreign invader, which means other foreign invaders are suddenly Expressions Of The Indigenous Will"
Did you read the article I linked? Pakistani support was only one item on a very long list of factors. I mean the Taliban expanded their reach massively by being like "we're gonna win anyway, wanna surrender now?" I'm also very much not convinced that foreign support for the Taliban was more than what the Republic was getting. The much more serious problem was that the Republic was unable to maintain the illusion of legitimacy necessary for a state to survive. If you want to condemn me as a Taliban apologist, you first have to confront the very real and ultimately fatal problems confronting the Republic even after 20 years of American money and airstrikes. Here's a hint:
On the other hand, the Taliban were united by a militant Islamist ideology.
And a bunch of independent militias and Taliban defectors, with more speculated to be on the way if those guys can hold on against the Taliban. So no, it is not in fact the same groups of people who defended the republic against the Taliban offensive.
I never said anything about Imperialist Chains™; my point was and is that Afghanistan was going remain stuck in political limbo as long as the US-backed government was in charge. Obviously they were running a much more tolerable operation than the Taliban program, but it wasn't and was never going to be stable enough to survive without being propped up by America and NATO. It was a band aid that did nothing to address, and was mutually exclusive to addressing, the wound festering under it. At some point Afghanistan was going to have to sink or swim; an eternal status quo was simply not tenable. To repeat, the Taliban takeover wasn't good, it wasn't desirable for a Better Future™; it was the unavoidable result of the inevitable US withdrawal, in which case delaying the inevitable hurt many and helped no one. Some band aids simply need to be ripped off, no matter how painful it is to do so. Here's one example: This failure to rip off the band aid early enough has now left Afghanistan woefully underequipped to deal with its climate change problems; Kabul's water resources (I think I got that right) will dry out by 2030 and in this critical period it's the fucking Taliban in charge. Rather than 10 years of war, X years of Taliban rule and 20-X of peacetime non-Taliban rule Afghanistan got 20 years of war and likely (though hopefully not) 10 years of Taliban rule before catastrophe hits, because the Republican government was too busy failing to stop America from dropping bombs on Afghan to be anything but an unstable rump with no legitimacy whatsoever. Also, may I remind you that we're living in the future where America stayed in Afghanistan? While I acknowledge that I might have some of the causes wrong, this is the reality Afghanistan is living. What we're now seeing is
Americans and everyone else, kind of and kind of, respectively.
I wouldn't characterize the fatal lack of legitimacy of the Republic as an anti-imperialist reaction if the data says what you're implying, and that would mean my bit about indigenous peoples was wrong, but that would do nothing to counter the fact that the Republic still fatally lacked legitimacy. You seem to know enough about Afghan ethnic groups that you should know that loyalty to a central administration that asserts its right to rule via a democratic mandate is not how Afghans do things. The short of it is that, no matter the reason, the Taliban had political legitimacy in the eyes of Afghans and the Republican government didn't. That's not a reality you can argue your way around. Edit: And to be clear, I don't mean the moral kind of political legitimacy; I mean political legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghans who are supposed to compose it and whom it's supposed to serve.
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.
Well I'm not American so voting for anyone would've been a pretty egregious case of election fraud, but why so?
So your opinion is irrelevant until you give your country of origin so we can all know the shithole you've created for yourself.
My shithole is run by a military dictatorship that took power in a coup when I was an elementary schooler, happy now?
Go back to hexbear you fascist cuck.