Page 43 of 51 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 501

Thread: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

  1. #421
    Educator GreatNews2night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    04-07-17 @ 01:26 AM
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    699

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It was Obama who pulled the troops. No one else. In fact during the Bush Administration t was expected that up to 70,000 troops might remain. This was the prediction at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_t-YCnZKg8
    Why are you insisting with this? I just said that I agree with you on this, and that it is the main reason why I blame Obama.
    It was a terror state and there is no indication that Saddam Hussein was friendly with any western nations.
    He was friendly with us. As a matter of fact we were helping him, against Iran.
    Just think about this for a moment. If a US Ambassador was to say to any leader of the world that it is okay to invade their neighbor, then it's okay to invade? And despite this, you still think Saddam Hussein was "stable"? Stable people don't invade their neighbors just because an Ambassador gives them a wink and a nudge. I know millions enjoy criticizing the US but blaming them for Saddam Hussein attacking Kuwait is a leap in logic that is borderline crazy.
    Borderline crazy? It's called facts. It's been published in memoirs from the ambassador and multiple other accounts. Saddam was being supported by us because he was up against Iran. He met with the US ambassador and consulted about invading Kuwait. The ambassador told him "It's an Arab-Arab issue, not our problem, we have nothing to say or do about it." Saddam then decided to invade. Obviously if the US had told him at the time "Don't even think about it. If you do we will not only withdraw our support, but will come down really really hard on you. Expect 500,000 of our troops on the ground plus thousands of tanks. We'll decimate your army and bring you down from power. Furthermore, you may very well get killed." Well, most likely, Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait, then. In one phrase, we'd have avoided the first Gulf War (in which we did put 500,000 men on the ground and thousands of tanks). See what I mean? To ignore that this was a diplomatic blunder is just incredible. You're doing it, I'd guess, just because the then president was from the GOP. Had a Democratic president's ambassador committed this blunder, you'd be all up in arms against it.
    We go with the last, most significant, factor.
    I know you do, and that's why you are wrong. Try to dig a bit deeper and have a broader understanding of history and geopolitics. You'll then understand better that immediate causes are preceded by remote causes and they are both important.
    It's not as complex as you make it out to be. Just follow the chronology.
    Maybe you don't see the complexity but mostly everybody else who looks at the Middle East does. In that region of the world, things are never simple. Sure, we can follow the chronology, which is what I'm doing. Just, I'm starting the line further back in the past while you're just considering the very recent past, which is a certain way to be mistaken and narrow-minded about stuff.

  2. #422
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    You definitely need to work on your reading comprehension skills if you got that from what I typed. But nice try there son, you still lost.
    My skills are just fine. If you think that's the problem, you need to take a step back and reevaluate your posts. You need to throw a little bit of logic and facts in there, and stop the name calling. You are basically vomitting on the thread. A word to the wise.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  3. #423
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    My skills are just fine. If you think that's the problem, you need to take a step back and reevaluate your posts. You need to throw a little bit of logic and facts in there, and stop the name calling. You are basically vomitting on the thread. A word to the wise.
    Take your own advice there son.

  4. #424
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Take your own advice there son.
    Sorry, I forgot the parroting part. Carry on.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  5. #425
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Take your own advice there son.
    Maybe you are getting better, at least you left off the ...of a b*tch part.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  6. #426
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Maybe you are getting better, at least you left off the ...of a b*tch part.
    Since I have never said that phrase to you, not sure why you would post that. If I am going topost something to get an infraction, I assure you it won't be for a mild thing like "son of a bitch".

  7. #427
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,584

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    No, I'm not. In fact, I'm unable to find any reference to any unanimous decisions against W Bush policies.

    Before I throw the B.S. flag , would you care to back up your claim?
    I noticed you didn't have much to say about the 15 rulings against W Bush, but I wanted to point out something really, really funny. Of the 13 unanimous rulings against Obama, 9 of them originated while Bush was in office! Only 1 of the unanimous rulings against Obama had anything to do with his overreach, which was the NLRB case that I suppose was literally the case in point for your argument.

    Also, Bush made more executive orders than Obama. I think the more important point is that Clinton was a more effective President than either Bush or Obama, but it doesn't matter because the President's power is largely imaginary.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I don't know the answer, but just out of curiosity, how many of the so called Bush defeats at the hands of the Supreme Court involved the Bush administration supporting/protecting legislation passed by Congress, as is the responsibility of the Justice Department and how many involved executive action taken by the Bush administration?

    I ask because President Bush seemed to take his Presidential responsibility to uphold the laws of the nation more seriously than the current President seems to do.
    Well, I think that's a joke. The President takes it seriously to uphold the laws they agree with and the laws the millionaires, billionaires, lobbyists and corporations ask them to uphold. Like I mentioned above, only 1 unanimous ruling against Obama had anything to do with him doing something (executive action) that was clearly illegal (the NLRB case).

    As to the Bush administration, Guantanamo is the obvious example of executive action that was clearly illegal.

    Here's another:
    In one of the Bush-era cases, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the administration contested a Lutheran church’s claim of a ministerial exemption to an employment-related suit involving a teacher of secular subjects.
    2 more of the rulings against "Obama:"

    Two of the cases were Fourth Amendment law enforcement cases, not presidential authority questions. United States v. Jones, a case that began under Bush, concerned whether the FBI could use GPS tracking devices without a warrant, and United States v. Wurie concerned whether police could search cell phones without a warrant, a case that began with a 2007 Boston police case.
    Here's the point:
    STOP BELIEVING THINGS SOLELY BECAUSE YOU LIKE THE PERSON WHO TELLS YOU THEM because very often YOU ARE BEING LIED TO

    excerpts from: factcheck.org: obama and executive overreach
    Last edited by Mustachio; 09-02-14 at 03:14 PM.
    A working class hero is something to be

  8. #428
    Professor
    Jaygodmedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    City of angles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,283
    Blog Entries
    16

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria | Fox News

    Is anyone surprised? This is what you get when you put a completely unqualified community organized in office as president.
    as suppose to a coke head lair and puppet who was there before talk about unqualified.... guess we will try a woman next?

  9. #429
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaygodmedia View Post
    as suppose to a coke head lair and puppet who was there before talk about unqualified.... guess we will try a woman next?
    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    About the last part... I don't care if it's a man or woman, that doesn't matter. We need a qualified individual who is a leader and will have fidelity to the Constitution. Is that too much to ask for?
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  10. #430
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    re: Obama under fire for admitting no 'strategy yet' for ISIS in Syria [W:446]

    [QUOTE=GreatNews2night;1063709559]Why are you insisting with this? I just said that I agree with you on this, and that it is the main reason why I blame Obama.

    He was friendly with us. As a matter of fact we were helping him, against Iran.
    Helping one side against the other does make make for 'friends', It is realpolitik and often involves choosing the least evil.

    Borderline crazy? It's called facts. It's been published in memoirs from the ambassador and multiple other accounts. Saddam was being supported by us because he was up against Iran. He met with the US ambassador and consulted about invading Kuwait. The ambassador told him "It's an Arab-Arab issue, not our problem, we have nothing to say or do about it." Saddam then decided to invade. Obviously if the US had told him at the time "Don't even think about it. If you do we will not only withdraw our support, but will come down really really hard on you. Expect 500,000 of our troops on the ground plus thousands of tanks. We'll decimate your army and bring you down from power. Furthermore, you may very well get killed." Well, most likely, Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait, then. In one phrase, we'd have avoided the first Gulf War (in which we did put 500,000 men on the ground and thousands of tanks). See what I mean? To ignore that this was a diplomatic blunder is just incredible. You're doing it, I'd guess, just because the then president was from the GOP. Had a Democratic president's ambassador committed this blunder, you'd be all up in arms against it.
    April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I know you do, and that's why you are wrong. Try to dig a bit deeper and have a broader understanding of history and geopolitics. You'll then understand better that immediate causes are preceded by remote causes and they are both important.
    We can go back as far as you want but the fact remains that Iraq was 'stable' wen Obama pulled the troops from Iraq.
    Maybe you don't see the complexity but mostly everybody else who looks at the Middle East does. In that region of the world, things are never simple. Sure, we can follow the chronology, which is what I'm doing. Just, I'm starting the line further back in the past while you're just considering the very recent past, which is a certain way to be mistaken and narrow-minded about stuff.
    You need only go back to 2011 to see what the Obama Administration had to say on stability.

Page 43 of 51 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •