• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Five years in, Obama and Bush poll numbers nearly identical

Perhaps. But Obama received no such approval for bombing Libya. And despite drawing a red line in Syria, or not investigating Benghazi, he still has his admirers. Obviously there is more at play here than just receiving Congressional approval. The Democrats have turned on the leadership of their own country and run away from the responsibilities of their own decision on Iraq. They were all for it before they were against it.

Where are you getting the idea that there was "no investigation" of Benghazi?
 
And that has happened quite a few times in this nation's history.

Maybe we should do away with elections and start selecting our leaders with a lottery.

If well constucted, it would certainly be fair.
 
more revision--why didn't it pop until just before GWB left ?

You are talking about the second wave. To understand what happened it is the first one we have to concentrate on.
 
With the approval of Congress and all the major political players of the day.

By the time that all happened it was the right thing to do. But we never should have so badly out maneuvered by Germany, France and Russia that invasion became necessary.
 
Where are you getting the idea that there was "no investigation" of Benghazi?

Oh so you feel there has been? Where is the link please for the results of this thorough investigation??
 
By the time that all happened it was the right thing to do. But we never should have so badly out maneuvered by Germany, France and Russia that invasion became necessary.

I can't see how it was even necessary. And of course we should not be surprised that an inexperienced community worker should be out maneuvered by experienced people who understand the dynamics of international politics much better than Barrack Obama. But in BHO's defense I'll bet none of the other world leaders could stop the ocean's rise just by being elected. Well maybe the little fat guy with the bad haircut in North Korea, but that's about it.
 
Oh so you feel there has been? Where is the link please for the results of this thorough investigation??

You're the one claiming there wasn't as if it's ironclad fact. Asking for links to classified information is kinda lame.
 
You're the one claiming there wasn't as if it's ironclad fact. Asking for links to classified information is kinda lame.

Oh there was an investigation but the results are all secret, huh? And you are satisfied with that.

You make a good citizen.
 
Oh there was an investigation but the results are all secret, huh? And you are satisfied with that.

You make a good citizen.

What are you yammering about now? You're just mad I caught you making yet another accusation against Obama you have no hope of backing up.
 
What are you yammering about now? You're just mad I caught you making yet another accusation against Obama you have no hope of backing up.
Go back and read your goofy posts. I certainly can't be bothered.
 
In other words, no response. SHOCKING.
 
I can't see how it was even necessary. And of course we should not be surprised that an inexperienced community worker should be out maneuvered by experienced people who understand the dynamics of international politics much better than Barrack Obama. But in BHO's defense I'll bet none of the other world leaders could stop the ocean's rise just by being elected. Well maybe the little fat guy with the bad haircut in North Korea, but that's about it.

You don't like his'do? ?!!
 
Perhaps. But Obama received no such approval for bombing Libya. And despite drawing a red line in Syria, or not investigating Benghazi, he still has his admirers. Obviously there is more at play here than just receiving Congressional approval. The Democrats have turned on the leadership of their own country and run away from the responsibilities of their own decision on Iraq. They were all for it before they were against it.

Yes, they did run away from Iraq after it became obvious that it was a huge mistake. Obama was an exception to that, however, as he didn't vote for the war.
 
Yes, they did run away from Iraq after it became obvious that it was a huge mistake. Obama was an exception to that, however, as he didn't vote for the war.

Yes, running away from a decision to go to war is a huge mistake. All it got was more Americans killed, more billions spent, and American credibility wasted. Does anyone believe in America anymore? When a government agrees to go to war the people of the country should remain united but instead the Democrats turned the people on each other and everyone lost. How many people would now be willing to suit up and risk their lives for this new America? They'd have to be blinded by patriotism.

And of course Barrack Obama didn't vote for the war or against the war. He was busy voting 'present' in the Illinois Senate at the time.
 
Yes, running away from a decision to go to war is a huge mistake. All it got was more Americans killed, more billions spent, and American credibility wasted. Does anyone believe in America anymore? When a government agrees to go to war the people of the country should remain united but instead the Democrats turned the people on each other and everyone lost. How many people would now be willing to suit up and risk their lives for this new America? They'd have to be blinded by patriotism.

And of course Barrack Obama didn't vote for the war or against the war. He was busy voting 'present' in the Illinois Senate at the time.

The problem is that the war against Iraq was never a war. It was called that, unlike the past undeclared war that was dubbed a "military action" among other things, but the fact of the matter is that there never was a declaration of war. The Congress foisted off their Constitutional responsibility of declaring war by passing a sort, of "OK, go to war if you must" sort of a resolution which was never even included in the budget, but did not declare war against Iraq.

The lesson learned (or that should have been learned) is that we never go to war without a clear and present danger to the US or its allies, never without a formal declaration, never without the people of this country being on board with the war, and never without a clear exit strategy. What did victory look like in Iraq? Like Iraq of today? Did we win or lose? What did we win? We spent a pile of money and spilled gallons of blood, and for what?
 
The problem is that the war against Iraq was never a war. It was called that, unlike the past undeclared war that was dubbed a "military action" among other things, but the fact of the matter is that there never was a declaration of war. The Congress foisted off their Constitutional responsibility of declaring war by passing a sort, of "OK, go to war if you must" sort of a resolution which was never even included in the budget, but did not declare war against Iraq.

The lesson learned (or that should have been learned) is that we never go to war without a clear and present danger to the US or its allies, never without a formal declaration, never without the people of this country being on board with the war, and never without a clear exit strategy. What did victory look like in Iraq? Like Iraq of today? Did we win or lose? What did we win? We spent a pile of money and spilled gallons of blood, and for what?

If Congress foisted off their Constitutional responsibilities then it remains the fault of Congress. But once they gave their approval for action they should stand by their decision and not run when there appears to be political advantage in doing so.

And as far as an 'exit strategy' is concerned, we exit when we win. That has always been the rule of war and how it ever became changed can probably be traced back to those Democrats who were for the war before they were against it.

America and democracy lost to Islamism in Iraq and this is having consequences throughout the world. They understand that America is weak of will and will use that to their advantage, as they are doing.

Everyone believed at the time that Saddam Hussein was a 'clear and present danger', and there are the quotes everywhere to prove it. But once the criticisms started coming in the political cowards began turning on the interests of their own country and it's Allies. Can the US ever be trusted in this situation again or will they always be 'leading from behind' in the future? My guess is that they will not be leading again in any real sense until they begin electing genuine leaders.
 
If Congress foisted off their Constitutional responsibilities then it remains the fault of Congress. But once they gave their approval for action they should stand by their decision and not run when there appears to be political advantage in doing so.

Exactly, and they did not stand by their decision.

And as far as an 'exit strategy' is concerned, we exit when we win. That has always been the rule of war and how it ever became changed can probably be traced back to those Democrats who were for the war before they were against it.

How do we know when we win? Did we win when they hanged Saddam Hussain? Why didn't we get out then? No exit strategy means we don't know when we've won.

America and democracy lost to Islamism in Iraq and this is having consequences throughout the world. They understand that America is weak of will and will use that to their advantage, as they are doing.

The ironic thing is that Iraq under the Hussain regime was a secular state, not an Islamist one.

Everyone believed at the time that Saddam Hussein was a 'clear and present danger', and there are the quotes everywhere to prove it. But once the criticisms started coming in the political cowards began turning on the interests of their own country and it's Allies. Can the US ever be trusted in this situation again or will they always be 'leading from behind' in the future? My guess is that they will not be leading again in any real sense until they begin electing genuine leaders.

Agreed. Genuine leaders would not have rushed into a war with no clear exit strategy and no will to win if we had.

But, the "trust" you speak of ended with the Fall of Saigon. It hasn't existed since the '70s.
 
How do we know when we win? Did we win when they hanged Saddam Hussain? Why didn't we get out then? No exit strategy means we don't know when we've won.
Perhaps the meaning of 'exit strategy' is the problem. I think the goals should be clear and no exit until those goals are achieved. Those goals have been met before and under much more difficult situation..
The ironic thing is that Iraq under the Hussain regime was a secular state, not an Islamist one.
Not entirely. Recall his last words. But in any case a strong foothold in Libya would have afforded a strong presence in the ME. just as the US (and other forces) kept bases in Europe after WWII.
But, the "trust" you speak of ended with the Fall of Saigon. It hasn't existed since the '70s.
Yes, and Richard Nixon said that US credibility would be lost at the time and it was, despite his "Peace With Honor" campaign. Since then there has been nothing done to recapture that credibility.
 
Perhaps the meaning of 'exit strategy' is the problem. I think the goals should be clear and no exit until those goals are achieved. Those goals have been met before and under much more difficult situation..
Not entirely. Recall his last words. But in any case a strong foothold in Libya would have afforded a strong presence in the ME. just as the US (and other forces) kept bases in Europe after WWII.
Yes, and Richard Nixon said that US credibility would be lost at the time and it was, despite his "Peace With Honor" campaign. Since then there has been nothing done to recapture that credibility.

That's what I mean by exit strategy: achieve the goals, t hen get out. The goals of invading Iraq were, what again?
 
Yes, running away from a decision to go to war is a huge mistake. All it got was more Americans killed, more billions spent, and American credibility wasted. Does anyone believe in America anymore? When a government agrees to go to war the people of the country should remain united but instead the Democrats turned the people on each other and everyone lost. How many people would now be willing to suit up and risk their lives for this new America? They'd have to be blinded by patriotism.

And of course Barrack Obama didn't vote for the war or against the war. He was busy voting 'present' in the Illinois Senate at the time.

Shocking that you'd find some way to blame the Democrats for the problems in Iraq.
 
Freedom for people who aren't asking for freedom? Maybe next time, we'll pick an achievable goal.

Yeah, yeah you didn't agree with Iraq. We get it. What does that have to do with Obama's dismal performance?
 
Yeah, yeah you didn't agree with Iraq. We get it. What does that have to do with Obama's dismal performance?

Obama did everything we expected of him. He announced a withdrawal while the fighting was still taking place both in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one he thought was the right war. How does a Community Organizer with no resume get to be able to make these decisions, and what does that say about the American people? They still have more sense than the Europeans but the growing similarities are worrisome.
 
Back
Top Bottom