Page 44 of 51 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 501

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

  1. #431
    Sage
    Roadvirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,134

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Until Bush's blunder**** Maliki destroyed the Nation .
    Now how is Maliki "Bush's Blunder"? Maliki was elected by the people of Iraq.

  2. #432
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    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.

    Yeah well I think Obama would have a difficult time coming up with a "strategy" to make a sandwich.

    The only real strategy Obama had was to destroy capitalism and get as many people and families dependent on the government dole as possible.

    Obama is about as aristocratic as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Barney Frank and the rest of the nuts. They view us as their "children" and they believe they're smarter and know better than the typical US citizen....

    This clown can't come up with a strategy because he has no idea what he is doing or got himself involved in... All he cares about is domestic policy in the US and social policies while the world goes to ****...

    Obama doesn't have the skill, intelligence or balls to do his job....

  3. #433
    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
    You need only go back to 2011 to see what the Obama Administration had to say on stability.
    You mean, Joe Biden of all people issued a gaffe??? No kidding! I'd never have imagined that! How atypical of him! [insert sarcasm here].
    No, I wouldn't base my entire assessment of the situation on something Joe Biden said.
    If that's what you want to do, you might look at a certain George W. Bush and the Mission Accomplished panel.

    Now, about the ambassador issue, both accounts have her saying this:

    "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." The other account has very similar phrasing with a minuscule bit of nuance that is easily lost in translation. The fact remains that she seems to have told Saddam that this was an Arab-Arab issue, and not America's problem.

    However you based your doubt about it on what some journalist said, that "more likely Saddam invaded because" bla bla bla.

    I'll tell you something: when the freaking United States of America ambassador says something, it has consequences. I would take the view that this was determinant and influential, rather than what some journalist is saying.
    Last edited by GreatNews2night; 09-02-14 at 06:30 PM.

  4. #434
    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 Originally Posted by GreatNews2night View Post
    You mean, Joe Biden of all people issued a gaffe??? No kidding! I'd never have imagined that! How atypical of him! [insert sarcasm here].
    Is it was a gaffe barrack Obama made the same one. And you can read what Hillary had to say as well. Obama Announces Complete Withdrawal of U.S. Forces From Iraq by End of 2011 | Fox News
    If that's what you want to do, you might look at a certain George W. Bush and the Mission Accomplished panel.
    Do you understand what that referred to?
    Now, about the ambassador issue, both accounts have her saying this:
    "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." The other account has very similar phrasing with a minuscule bit of nuance that is easily lost in translation. The fact remains that she seems to have told Saddam that this was an Arab-Arab issue, and not America's problem. However you based your doubt about it on what some journalist said, that "more likely Saddam invaded because" bla bla bla. I'll tell you something: when the freaking United States of America ambassador says something, it has consequences. I would take the view that this was determinant and influential, rather than what some journalist is saying.
    It doesn't matter what an Ambassador said if Iraq was as stable as you said it was during Saddam's dictatorship.

  5. #435
    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
    Is it was a gaffe barrack Obama made the same one. And you can read what Hillary had to say as well. Obama Announces Complete Withdrawal of U.S. Forces From Iraq by End of 2011 | Fox News
    Do you understand what that referred to?
    Now, about the ambassador issue, both accounts have her saying this:
    It doesn't matter what an Ambassador said if Iraq was as stable as you said it was during Saddam's dictatorship.
    1. Politicians say stuff for political gain: no kidding! Who would have thought?

    2. Mission Accomplished - yeah, I'm familiar with the excuses GOP apologists have proposed ("it was just that ship that had accomplished its mission, Bush was only trying to praise our brave soldiers and sailors," etc.). Still, it was a big, big, big gaffe and blunder. There's no denying it.

    3. Don't be disingenuous. I said, Iraq was stable regarding terrorism against us. They were actually sort of friendly toward us (in a sort of opportunistic way, of course, since we were helping them - but they definitely weren't against us at the time). There was no terrorist threat from Iraq toward the United States at the time. Really stable as in no dictator, no skirmishes with neighbors, no sects waiting for the first opportunity to kill each other? Of course not! I said from the beginning, the Middle East is a centuries-long mess. There's not a single really stable country there (don't think that Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are stable - they are just better at repressing any opposition). But as far as *we* are concerned, the situation was stable enough and there were no anti-American terrorists there in Iraq, whatsoever, before the first Gulf war, and actually before the second one too. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist. ISIS didn't exist. No sponsorship of anti-American terrorism existed. No link with 9/11. No nothing. That's a historical fact. Get informed. By the way, your definition of "Iraq was stable after Bush" is the same situation. Stable, my a$$. Full of sects vying for power. Do you call a powder barrel waiting for a lighted match in order to explode, stable? If you think that Iraq was stable before Obama, then you must also acknowledge that by that standard it was also "stable" before the first Bush.

    You know, it's not that I like Putin at all... but in one thing, he was right. In a debate on Russian TV a few months ago, he said "I don't understand the Americans. They complain that some of these Arab countries have dictators. Then they want to bring down the dictators [I should add, the same ones we had been propping up, before], and what do they leave behind? Chaos."

    I mean, these Arab countries are only relatively stable under dictators. Remove them (from Iraq, from Libya, from Syria, from Egypt) and what you have is a huge mess with thriving jihadists and anti-Western terrorists. I'd rather have the dictators.

    I'm not a naive leftist who thinks democracy is the ultimate goal. I'm very pragmatic. I think PRIMARILY AND ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY about the national interest of my country, the United States. If it's good for us to have some dictators there in nations that have been under dictators for centuries and have no concept of democracy, so be it; I couldn't care less.

    This is one of the reasons why I'm against Obama's foreign policy: too naive and idealist. It's a tough world out there. I only really care for what is good for the United States.

    I'm slightly liberal, I said. Yes, I am, in terms of some domestic issues. In international issues and foreign policies many of my positions - which I call pragmatic - would be called right wing.

    Look, leftists everywhere were delighted when the Ayatollah Khomeini brought down Shah Rheza Pahlevi (spelling?). I was living in France at the time, and people there were ecstatic, and leftist newspaper Liberation was full of praise for the good cleric who would rid the Iranian people of the nasty dictator Pahlevi. Yeah, right. We now know how that turned out.

    No, democracy is not for the Middle East. What these countries need is a strong central regime. Maybe a few centuries from today they'll embrace democracy. Don't hold your breath, though. It's not happening anytime soon. These countries are still stuck in the Middle Age and will take centuries to evolve.

  6. #436
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 09:18 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Roadvirus View Post
    Now how is Maliki "Bush's Blunder"? Maliki was elected by the people of Iraq.
    After decapitating the Iraqi leadership, with no plan for what would happen next, Bush in fact does bear responsibility for the election of the partisan hack Maiki. Generally you shouldn't invade a nation and destroy all its political institutions without having some forethought. But Bush and conservatives aren't known for forethought. They wanted to arm the Syrian opposition -- i.e., ISIS. Thank God Obama resisted continuing the Bush record of foreign policy fiascos.

  7. #437
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,541

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    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".
    That one was a joke.
    "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

  8. #438
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,541

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Yeah well I think Obama would have a difficult time coming up with a "strategy" to make a sandwich.

    The only real strategy Obama had was to destroy capitalism and get as many people and families dependent on the government dole as possible.

    Obama is about as aristocratic as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Barney Frank and the rest of the nuts. They view us as their "children" and they believe they're smarter and know better than the typical US citizen....

    This clown can't come up with a strategy because he has no idea what he is doing or got himself involved in... All he cares about is domestic policy in the US and social policies while the world goes to ****...

    Obama doesn't have the skill, intelligence or balls to do his job....
    I really feel that Obama doesn't care much about foreign policy. He doesn't want to bother with other countries, and I think he gets annoyed when things get to a point like ISIS is at now, because then he has to do something. That is why things have spun out of control, there's been no one at the wheel for the past five years. That's how he can talk about ISIS beheading Americans, then head to the golf course minutes later, like he hasn't a care in the world. Totally unaffected.

    He has stated, over and over, that he wants to fundamentally change our country, much like our revolution broke away from tyranny, he wants to break away from what the founders did. He cuts the military, because he needs that money for social programs, and to change our country in that way. He certainly doesn't want to spend any more than he has to on our security, but will spend billions on people coming into the country illegally.
    "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

  9. #439
    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 Originally Posted by FaceofBachmann View Post
    After decapitating the Iraqi leadership, with no plan for what would happen next, Bush in fact does bear responsibility for the election of the partisan hack Maiki. Generally you shouldn't invade a nation and destroy all its political institutions without having some forethought. But Bush and conservatives aren't known for forethought. They wanted to arm the Syrian opposition -- i.e., ISIS. Thank God Obama resisted continuing the Bush record of foreign policy fiascos.
    Saddam Hussein was 'the political institution'. You must be familiar with his record. The Iraqi people elected Maliki, not George Bush.

    The responsibility for what's happening now in Iraq is the responsibility of Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and the entire Democrat Party. You can read their comments here. Obama Announces Complete Withdrawal of U.S. Forces From Iraq by End of 2011 | Fox News

  10. #440
    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 Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I really feel that Obama doesn't care much about foreign policy. He doesn't want to bother with other countries, and I think he gets annoyed when things get to a point like ISIS is at now, because then he has to do something. That is why things have spun out of control, there's been no one at the wheel for the past five years. That's how he can talk about ISIS beheading Americans, then head to the golf course minutes later, like he hasn't a care in the world. Totally unaffected.

    He has stated, over and over, that he wants to fundamentally change our country, much like our revolution broke away from tyranny, he wants to break away from what the founders did. He cuts the military, because he needs that money for social programs, and to change our country in that way. He certainly doesn't want to spend any more than he has to on our security, but will spend billions on people coming into the country illegally.
    He may have realized that the job is too big for him but still wanted to win the election. Now he will just coast to the end, playing golf, writing his memoirs, jetting around the world a la Hillary, and that's about it. I think it's foolish to expect him to respond to the world's difficulties as we would from any other world leader.

Page 44 of 51 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... 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
  •