Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 90 of 90

Thread: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    foreign entanglements entered with domestics politics as the driving feature … weak and morally questionable leadership.
    Well, this idea that Obama's foreign policy has "domestics politics as the driving feature" is, as far as I'm concerned, just something dreamed up by his critics. As you say, it's by necessity a consideration. You can't lead if people aren't willing to follow. We may agree that that's a good thing — an important check on presidential power and action.

    The mindless, anti-Obama robots at Faux and other right-wing media outlets claim the The Obama Doctrine is Lead From Behind. As far as I know, that was employed in one setting — Libya. I'd say we got a pretty good cost/benefit out of that. The "he's just a golf-playing, fundraising incompetent" chorus screams "Benghazi!" I say yeah, Benghazi, an important city where thousands of innocent civilians would have been slaughtered if NATO hadn't run air strikes against loyalist armour and artillery that were moving on it.

    I might agree that the Red Line thing with Syria was kinda clumsy, but we had to do something, right? And would we have been better off going after Assad at that time? Seems t' me Syria is a real tough nut. I agreed with McCain very early on for carefully selected targeting of Assad's air defence assets in response to his attacks on civilian populations. But what do I know about it? Actions like that can certainly escalate into big trouble.

    In my view, we're doing what we can with Iran. The new government there could be a big plus. I'd say we made it more likely that they would come to power by not being too hardline.

    Ukraine? Very difficult. Seems clear t' me that the rest of Eastern Europe is safe. Putin is a pain in the ass, but may in the end be semi-reasonable if only for his own domestic economic and political limitations.

    Egypt and Pakistan are major concerns. I do NOT think that a lot of happy talk about "projecting force around the world" is gonna help. The idea that "America is retreating from the world, creating a vacuum that will be filled by evil" sounds like foolish rhetoric t' me.

    The Cold War is over. We won. I'd say that was pretty much an inevitability. I think we can win the fight to limit terrorism (good luck trying to end it) if we play our cards right. I do agree with Obama, and with the very much unfairly maligned James Earl Carter, that moral leadership is important.

    You referenced "moral leadership" yerself. How is Obama falling short on that? How is he being "weak"?
    Last edited by mmi; 06-07-14 at 01:20 PM. Reason: a little editing

  2. #82
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Well, this idea that Obama's foreign policy has "domestics politics as the driving feature" is, as far as I'm concerned, just something dreamed up by his critics. As you say, it's by necessity a consideration. You can't lead if people aren't willing to follow. We may agree that that's a good thing — an important check on presidential power and action.

    The mindless, anti-Obama robots at Faux and other right-wing media outlets claim the The Obama Doctrine is Lead From Behind. As far as I know, that was employed in one setting — Libya. I'd say we got a pretty good cost/benefit out of that. The "he's just a golf-playing, fundraising incompetent" chorus screams "Benghazi!" I say yeah, Benghazi, an important city where thousands of innocent civilians would have been slaughtered if NATO hadn't run air strikes against loyalist armour and artillery that were moving on it.

    I might agree that the Red Line thing with Syria was kinda clumsy, but we had to do something, right? And would we have been better off going after Assad at that time? Seems t' me Syria is a real tough nut. I agreed with McCain very early on for carefully selected targeting of Assad's air defence assets in response to his attacks on civilian populations. But what do I know about it? Actions like that can certainly escalate into big trouble.

    In my view, we're doing what we can with Iran. The new government there could be a big plus. I'd say we made it more likely that they would come to power by not being too hardline.

    Ukraine? Very difficult. Seems clear t' me that the rest of Eastern Europe is safe. Putin is a pain in the ass, but may in the end be semi-reasonable if only for his own domestic economic and political limitations.

    Egypt and Pakistan are major concerns. I do NOT think that a lot of happy talk about "projecting force around the world" is gonna help. The idea that "America is retreating from the world, creating a vacuum that will be filled by evil" sounds like foolish rhetoric t' me.

    The Cold War is over. We won. I'd say that was pretty much an inevitability. I think we can win the fight to limit terrorism (good luck trying to end it) if we play our cards right. I do agree with Obama, and with the very much unfairly maligned James Earl Carter, that moral leadership is important.

    You referenced "moral leadership" yerself. How is Obama falling short on that? How is he being "weak"?
    Gotta run. I'll be back later. Now, don't go interpreting this as a non-response, as many do. RL intervenes, and that's where I live.

  3. #83
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,255

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosby View Post
    "Charles Krauthammer"s real name is "Shekky Kraummer" or something. I wonder why he selected "Krauthammer" for his new name......
    Fox News makes me want to vomit the way they worship him like he's some kind of an Einstein genius or something. And all you Foxnews viewers believe everything he says without question.

    "Krauthammer" is nothing but a Pro-Israel (which is why he supports the exchange because Israel does it) neocon warmonger just like the rest of the Foxnews "Contributors".
    I'm amazed that people still post that lie.

  4. #84
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,255

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    SHOCKER!!! Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO.com

    Charles Krauthammer says he supports President Barack Obama’s deal to bring Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl home.
    “Had the choice been mine I would have made the same choice,” Krauthammer told Fox News’ “Special Report” on Wednesday. “It’s a difficult decision, and I would not attack those who have done otherwise.”




    Read more: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO.com
    Why do you think it's a shocker?

  5. #85
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Why do you think it's a shocker?
    Because he doesn't normally support something President Obama has done.


  6. #86
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,255

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Because he doesn't normally support something President Obama has done.
    Not true, Pete. I've seen him do it quite a bit.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Powhatan County, VA.
    Last Seen
    08-01-14 @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    657

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    The reason that "Charles Krauthammer" supports the exchange is because Israel exchanges prisoners. And as a jew who is rabidly supportive of Israel in every utterance and every writing, and as someone who has won the "Guardian of Zion" award given by the "Bar-llan University" in Tel Aviv, he would never dare take a position that's contrary to his beloved Israel, ever.

  8. #88
    Educator
    mtm1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    05-25-17 @ 04:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,067

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    It's good for those in the discussion to read ALL of Krauthammer's position on the issue. He in no way approved of the way Obama handled/botched this whole operation.

    Charles Krauthammer: Free Bowe Bergdahl, then try him - The Washington Post


    (Hey MTM...nice to see you.)




    //
    hey the "good" prag. good to see you too.

    stay awhile!!
    Go Vols

  9. #89
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,090

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The Viet Cong weren't designated as a Terrorist group
    .... yes... because official designation of such groups only began in 1997. Foreign Terrorist Organizations

    However, they (the Vietcong) were referred to as such by US officials/media/Vietnamese sources on a number of occasions. I'm not really sure what you're arguing - that the US not fighting a war against the Taliban, that the Taliban aren't in bed with Al-Qaeda and such groups or that the Taliban being designated or not being designated as terrorists makes an ounce of difference as to whether or not soldiers captured by them are POWs. Your focus on platitudes is worrying. We're fighting a war against Islamists in Afghanistan. Most of these Islamists are members of the Taliban. People captured by them are POWs.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    .... yes... because official designation of such groups only began in 1997. Foreign Terrorist Organizations

    However, they (the Vietcong) were referred to as such by US officials/media/Vietnamese sources on a number of occasions. I'm not really sure what you're arguing - that the US not fighting a war against the Taliban, that the Taliban aren't in bed with Al-Qaeda and such groups or that the Taliban being designated or not being designated as terrorists makes an ounce of difference as to whether or not soldiers captured by them are POWs. Your focus on platitudes is worrying. We're fighting a war against Islamists in Afghanistan. Most of these Islamists are members of the Taliban. People captured by them are POWs.
    That's Right......that's when they did come up with the designation

    Perhaps you should hang out more in International Affairs and dealing with Foreign Policy. This way you wont be confused about who you are talkin about. Or what I know of them . Seems.....I am up on most of what is out there and being presented..

    Thanks for the Info on NAM.....although I am sure where I lost my soul, I pretty much know all about it.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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