PDA

View Full Version : President Obama says we are not losing in Iraq.



bobbys
06-05-2015, 11:31 AM
assessing his war on ISis after the group took Ramadi Obama said his "strategy " is not failing.

...I do not think we are losing......

John of Phoenix
06-05-2015, 11:32 AM
...I do not think we are losing...... Good. What are we winning?

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2015, 11:34 AM
Powerball what else?:)

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2015, 11:53 AM
Someone needs to remove the choke hold their rectum has on their craniumBobbys is in charge of that!

Norman Bernstein
06-05-2015, 12:50 PM
assessing his war on ISis after the group took Ramadi Obama said his "strategy " is not failing.

...I do not think we are losing......

There is simply nothing to 'win'... and there never was. Only a dictator could hold together, shakily, a land area with three distinct tribes who despise one another... and lacking that dictator, there is NOTHING to prevent one tribe from warring on the others. It was completely hopeless from the beginning, and it's hopeless now... and there is nothing, NOTHING, that either Obama, or the idiot neocons advising Jeb Bush, can do, to change that fact....

....short of militarily occupying Iraq, and by default, becoming Iraq's dictator government... and even then, the suicide bombings and decapitations would continue.

Does that idea appeal to ya?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 12:58 PM
As Norman says, there was nothing to win. Saddam Hussein was likely the best option for the country, but Dubya had to invent something to finish his fathers war. The result is significantly more instability in the region than there was before, and it only cost a couple of trillion American dollars and thousands of lives to do it.

The middle east debacle is probably one of the greatest no win scenarios an incoming president could have to deal with. Americans wanted the troops out of there, yet this undoubtedly would result in the collapse of the Iraqi armed forces. If the troops stayed, the cost was becoming too much to bear, in both dollars and lives. Obama was screwed royally right from the start. I hear lots about how badly the current president is handling Isis and middle east situation , but very little about what is the correct course of action. America started this current crisis, and should have known there was no solution to it after the fact.

Norman Bernstein
06-05-2015, 01:01 PM
I hear lots about how badly the current president is handling Isis and middle east situation , but very little about what is the correct course of action.

The armchair warriors and chickenhawks have the solution:

1) Blame it all on Obama, and
2) Launch another invasion... and this time, stay there in perpetuity.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 01:05 PM
3) When the American public turn against the occupation, elect a democrat president to shoulder the blame.

Sky Blue
06-05-2015, 01:20 PM
If there is "nothing to win," then why is the President stating that "we aren't losing?"

If the "nothing to win" analysis is correct, then obviously the President is either lying or has no idea what he is talking about. True?

Norman Bernstein
06-05-2015, 01:29 PM
If there is "nothing to win," then why is the President stating that "we aren't losing?"

If the "nothing to win" analysis is correct, then obviously the President is either lying or has no idea what he is talking about. True?

Go ahead, blame him for bad rhetoric.

What do you EXPECT him to say? If you're going to assign some portion of 'blame' to Obama (and I won't argue that he doesn't deserve a very minor part of it), then you have to expect at least a little bit of political spin to try to save a little face....

....but the broader view is completely different. The overwhelming and monstrous portion of the blame belongs where it belongs:

...on George W. Bush, and the idiot neocons who started the whole ball rolling.

switters
06-05-2015, 01:32 PM
always amazed that Saddam H. never gets any blame.

Norman Bernstein
06-05-2015, 01:35 PM
always amazed that Saddam H. never gets any blame.

He may have been an evil dictator.....

....but we have to be honest: only a dictator could have preserved ANY semblance of 'cohesion' (territorial, if not in any other sense) in that 'country'.

The real question is whether deposing Saddam, at the cost of 4,000 American lives, 30,000 American casualties, nearly $2 TRILLION, and 100,000 dead Iraqis (many innocent civilians) resulted in a BETTER solution, than when Saddam was in power....

Are you sure that's the case? Because I don't see it... at all.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2015, 01:36 PM
Another Tito!

Boater14
06-05-2015, 01:36 PM
did the president say there was nothing to win? Saddam would have crushed ISIS like a bug.

Sky Blue
06-05-2015, 01:53 PM
Go ahead, blame him for bad rhetoric.

What do you EXPECT him to say? If you're going to assign some portion of 'blame' to Obama (and I won't argue that he doesn't deserve a very minor part of it), then you have to expect at least a little bit of political spin to try to save a little face....

....but the broader view is completely different. The overwhelming and monstrous portion of the blame belongs where it belongs:

...on George W. Bush, and the idiot neocons who started the whole ball rolling.



I expect him to tell the truth, Norman. If there is nothing to win, as you say, then why do we have several thousand troops there, and why are engaging in an aerial bombing campaign?

I am not disagreeing with you, necessarily, but if you are correct, then our current policy there, such as it is, makes no sense at all. Do you think Mr. Obama believes there is nothing to win?

Norman Bernstein
06-05-2015, 02:08 PM
I expect him to tell the truth, Norman. If there is nothing to win, as you say, then why do we have several thousand troops there, and why are engaging in an aerial bombing campaign?

Because after George W. Bush and the idiot neocons put the name of 'The United States' on the fiasco, Obama can't simply pull out even the 3,000 advisors there... and as much as he might like to, Obama cannot simply tell the truth: that the Iraq War was a disaster of huge proportions, and the US was simply wrong to have done it. Since we dragged other nations into the mess, such an admission would severely damage our relations with those other countries... which fought, and died, there, as well.

As for the air campaign, it's nothing more than a last ditch effort to try to limit civilian casualties and suppress ISIS attacks on the innocent. It's probably the only thing we've done that has a bit of a humanitarian slant on it.


I am not disagreeing with you, necessarily, but if you are correct, then our current policy there, such as it is, makes no sense at all. Do you think Mr. Obama believes there is nothing to win?

Yes, I believe the Obama thinks that there's 'nothing to win'... all he can do is try to limit the damage, using the reasoning above. NO American President in the last 50 years has buffed up his image or created a positive legacy through war... certainly not Truman (Korean War), Kennedy/Johnson (Vietnam), Reagan/Bush I (Afghanistan), and most certainly not George W. Bush, for whom, Iraq is a permanent black mark on whatever legacy he's left. The one exception might be Clinton, in eastern Europe... which was a mix of success and failure, at best.

One would think we might have learned a lesson, already, in foreign interventions.

Gerarddm
06-05-2015, 02:11 PM
Nothing to 'win' in Iraq. Thank you Cheney/Bush.

Obama should have stuck with his instincts to get us the hell out.

Concordia 33
06-05-2015, 02:29 PM
There is simply nothing to 'win'... and there never was. Only a dictator could hold together, shakily, a land area with three distinct tribes who despise one another... and lacking that dictator, there is NOTHING to prevent one tribe from warring on the others. It was completely hopeless from the beginning, and it's hopeless now... and there is nothing, NOTHING, that either Obama, or the idiot neocons advising Jeb Bush, can do, to change that fact....

....short of militarily occupying Iraq, and by default, becoming Iraq's dictator government... and even then, the suicide bombings and decapitations would continue.




+ 1

Waddie
06-05-2015, 03:12 PM
The fundamental problem in the Middle East is that Arabs didn't draw the lines on the map. The British did. Without regard for tribal boundaries and ethnic diversity. This was unworkable from the get go. Right now we're seeing it play out in sectarian warfare. I hope they eventually settle on who controls what territory, and I also hope the world would recognize the new boundaries. This is one case where self determination takes on a whole new meaning. I would be great if the Kurds could establish a secure homeland for themselves, even if it means Turkey has to give up a bit of territory.

The demise of the old Soviet Union and now the withdrawal of active engagement by the US (which I approve of) has opened a can of worms we call nationalism, which in turn is simply a form of tribalism. You see it happening all over the globe, you don't need a list of examples from me.But we are likely to see more "up-risings" if some of the current ones are successful. This process is long overdue; and it's inevitable, given that the powers that be in all those regions won't surrender autonomy willingly. And either the dominant group in these disputes decides to share power or we'll see a number of new small nations emerge from the ashes of it all. It's also why sending in the troops and/or drone attacks are actually counterproductive. We should lead with humanitarian aid and not bullets.

And that's what's going on with China, albeit on a larger scale; they feel now is the time to assert old claims and settle old disputes (in their favor, of course).

The world isn't going to suddenly become peaceful any time soon.

P)S. I chuckle when I hear someone say it takes a Saddam to keep the lid on things in Iraq. Since WWII the US and Soviet Union were the dictators that kept the lid on things (pretty much) worldwide, each in their own sphere of interest.

regards,
Waddie

Norman Bernstein
06-05-2015, 03:26 PM
T I would be great if the Kurds could establish a secure homeland for themselves, even if it means Turkey has to give up a bit of territory.
The Turks would never do it.

Waddie
06-05-2015, 03:37 PM
The Turks would never do it.

Therein the conundrum; they're not the only ones refusing to accept self-determination. H*ll, we don't accept it here, either.

regards,
Waddie

switters
06-05-2015, 05:12 PM
He may have been an evil dictator.....

....but we have to be honest: only a dictator could have preserved ANY semblance of 'cohesion' (territorial, if not in any other sense) in that 'country'.

The real question is whether deposing Saddam, at the cost of 4,000 American lives, 30,000 American casualties, nearly $2 TRILLION, and 100,000 dead Iraqis (many innocent civilians) resulted in a BETTER solution, than when Saddam was in power....

Are you sure that's the case? Because I don't see it... at all.


My post was not in response to your "real question", since there is no way I could have known ahead of time what the next strawman would be.

My turn. Saddam is responsible for killing roughly 100,000 Iraqis before the war, gassing Kurd and starting two wars with neighbors, including 1,000 Kuwatis and half a million Iranians. Saddam was not responsible for any of that? What would the death toll had been if no intervention had happened? We will never know, a successful invasion was botched by an incredibly inept state department. Plenty of blame to go around, but I have a hard time thinking that Saddam is blameless in all of this.

http://www.quora.com/Who-killed-more-Iraqis-Saddam-Hussein-or-George-W-Bush

bobbys
06-05-2015, 08:27 PM
Going by the liberals replies here it's terribly apperant Obama has only one strategy.

To keep losing, keep blaming Bush/ CHENEY in order to pin this on present day republicans to help the Democratic Party.

Democrats are invested in defeat .

Obama will do small token things like air strikes to give a image..

Notice the liberals started ranting about bush and telling us Obama was screwed from the start...

Poor Obama, wanted the job but none of the responsibility.

Yet liberals swallow this line from him like gospel ignoring the fact it's completly ridiculous .

Boater14
06-05-2015, 08:46 PM
there was a time when a dozen idiots here would defend the reeps in Iraq, now there's only one. tells you something.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 08:57 PM
He may have been an evil dictator.....

....but we have to be honest: only a dictator could have preserved ANY semblance of 'cohesion' (territorial, if not in any other sense) in that 'country'.

The real question is whether deposing Saddam, at the cost of 4,000 American lives, 30,000 American casualties, nearly $2 TRILLION, and 100,000 dead Iraqis (many innocent civilians) resulted in a BETTER solution, than when Saddam was in power....

Are you sure that's the case? Because I don't see it... at all.

Norman, you are off by a factor of 4 in terms of Iraqi lives. The Lancet used the figure of 500,000 based on deaths by direct collateral damage, war death, and death because of destroyed or poorly functioning infrastructure. Saddam Hussein was, by comparison, a far more benevolent ruler than the following war and its damage to the country.

bobbys
06-05-2015, 08:59 PM
there was a time when a dozen idiots here would defend the reeps in Iraq, now there's only one. tells you something..

there was a time here there were a dozen arm chair liberal generals all critizing Bush the surge, Bush on a aircraft carrier, Now the same liberals cannot muster up any "strategy" except to blame bush..

Still they sit wide eyed in utter amazement as Obama utters inane comments.

LOL.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 09:03 PM
Going by the liberals replies here it's terribly apperant Obama has only one strategy.

To keep losing, keep blaming Bush/ CHENEY in order to pin this on present day republicans to help the Democratic Party.

Democrats are invested in defeat .

Obama will do small token things like air strikes to give a image..

Notice the liberals started ranting about bush and telling us Obama was screwed from the start...

Poor Obama, wanted the job but none of the responsibility.

Yet liberals swallow this line from him like gospel ignoring the fact it's completly ridiculous .

You might benefit from reading some history of the middle east, but then again, I doubt it.

KMacDonald
06-05-2015, 09:07 PM
We all know what the military thinks of Obama-----deer in the headlights.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 09:09 PM
.

there was a time here there were a dozen arm chair liberal generals all critizing Bush the surge, Bush on a aircraft carrier, Now the same liberals cannot muster up any "strategy" except to blame bush..

Still they sit wide eyed in utter amazement as Obama utters inane comments.

LOL.

Yes, and the answer to that is quite simple: George jr will probably go down in history as one of the most incompetent presidents in the foreign policy arena that has ever taken office. His decision to invade Iraq and topple the Hussein regime was not only based on lies, but a mistake of magnificent scope. It may trigger an instability in the region that will have catastrophic consequences.

Since you don't seem to have any understanding of middle eastern history, I can spell it out for you. This area has been in conflict for thousands of years. It is a tribal culture ruled by strong men, and any destruction of a regime leaves a power vacuum of horrendous proportions...... Can you say ISIL?

Do some reading. You're making a fool of yourself.

KMacDonald
06-05-2015, 09:13 PM
The US could eliminate the problem there once and for all if we had the stomach to do so. Or we could let Israel do it.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 09:15 PM
...... and there is your answer. The only way to stop this is to make the area a parking lot.

KMacDonald
06-05-2015, 09:17 PM
...... and there is your answer. The only way to stop this is to make the area a parking lot.
Yup

bobbys
06-05-2015, 09:20 PM
Yes, and the answer to that is quite simple: George jr will probably go down in history as one of the most incompetent presidents in the foreign policy arena that has ever taken office. His decision to invade Iraq and topple the Hussein regime was not only based on lies, but a mistake of magnificent scope. It may trigger an instability in the region that will have catastrophic consequences.

Since you don't seem to have any understanding of middle eastern history, I can spell it out for you. This area has been in conflict for thousands of years. It is a tribal culture ruled by strong men, and any destruction of a regime leaves a power vacuum of horrendous proportions...... Can you say ISIL?

Do some reading. You're making a fool of yourself.
.

I'm a fool for pondering what Obamas plan might be?.

LOL..

Again as I stated he has none, The more his followers keep blasting Bush as you just did the more he will be invested in failure..

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 09:24 PM
You're a fool for making an extremely dangerous and unstable situation something that can have a solution scratched on the back of an envelope. You and Dubya make a pair. This isn't even Vietnam, this is far more serious. This situation has the potential to envelope a lot of the Middle East. The consequences to western nations could be enormous. Like I said, do some reading. What the biggest laugh about this is the number of ninglenorfs who keep yapping about Obama that don't have a minor understanding of what the history is, and how complicated this is.

LeeG
06-05-2015, 09:30 PM
always amazed that Saddam H. never gets any blame.

Darn that Saddam for tricking us into invading him on false pretenses with inadequate resources while cutting taxes. He's a bad, bad man!

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 09:32 PM
It's like arguing with the village idiot.

LeeG
06-05-2015, 09:35 PM
We will never know, a successful invasion was botched by an incredibly inept state department. Plenty of blame to go around, but I have a hard time thinking that Saddam is blameless in all of this.

http://www.quora.com/Who-killed-more-Iraqis-Saddam-Hussein-or-George-W-Bush

You're going to have to flesh that theory out as the State Dept. doesn't allocate military assets and the State Dept was undermined many times from pre invasion analysis to post war planning.

LeeG
06-05-2015, 09:45 PM
.

there was a time here there were a dozen arm chair liberal generals all critizing Bush the surge, Bush on a aircraft carrier, Now the same liberals cannot muster up any "strategy" except to blame bush..

Still they sit wide eyed in utter amazement as Obama utters inane comments.

LOL.

Goofball, your inane comments are over the top. Do you understand millions of Iraqi disenfranchised from government, leadership and military positions did not evaporate when Bremmer cut them loose? Do you understand our alliance with Shia paramilitaries to fight this insurgency of Iraqis set up a sectarian civil war long before Obama came on the scene. It's obvious you haven't read squat about this war except through TV pundits and their comic book world view where what happens in the world is defined in "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-05-2015, 09:49 PM
Uh, Lee...... no he doesn't.

LeeG
06-05-2015, 10:06 PM
Yup

The Final Solution

ccmanuals
06-05-2015, 10:20 PM
We all know what the military thinks of Obama-----deer in the headlights.

I have been working in the military for over 45 years and still do today. I can tell you in all confidence that you are 100% wrong.

David G
06-05-2015, 10:32 PM
It's like arguing with the village idiot.

On behalf of village idiots everywhere... I MUST protest!!!

bobbys
06-06-2015, 12:14 AM
You're a fool for making an extremely dangerous and unstable situation something that can have a solution scratched on the back of an envelope. You and Dubya make a pair. This isn't even Vietnam, this is far more serious. This situation has the potential to envelope a lot of the Middle East. The consequences to western nations could be enormous. Like I said, do some reading. What the biggest laugh about this is the number of ninglenorfs who keep yapping about Obama that don't have a minor understanding of what the history is, and how complicated this is..

Why all the insults? Perhaps you can state the Presidents strategy. It's confusing, Bush and me are not President now nor am I intrested in constant history lessons, I'm intrested in what his plan might be.

So far all I can gather from liberals here is to blame bush , insult anyone that dares to ask what his plan might be.

It seems it's impossible for you to reply without a insult or naming Bush.

hardly well thought out responses..

But then again maybe you are advising the President..

bobbys
06-06-2015, 12:20 AM
Goofball, your inane comments are over the top. Do you understand millions of Iraqi disenfranchised from government, leadership and military positions did not evaporate when Bremmer cut them loose? Do you understand our alliance with Shia paramilitaries to fight this insurgency of Iraqis set up a sectarian civil war long before Obama came on the scene. It's obvious you haven't read squat about this war except through TV pundits and their comic book world view where what happens in the world is defined in "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints..

We were told ad nauseum bush had no exit plan and we were just making more bad guys.

Now liberals call goofball, other names for asking the same questions...

Obama came to the job to take responsibility and form plans.

He was/is not up to the job..

Yet he wanted complete credit when things looked good.

epoxyboy
06-06-2015, 12:41 AM
The US could eliminate the problem there once and for all if we had the stomach to do so. Or we could let Israel do it.
Please elaborate, but can you wait a mo while I grab some beer and popcorn, coz this will be good.

OK General MacDonald, shoot! What's the plan? I trust it is something that will neither morally or financially bankrupt the US, or result in it becoming a pariah state with a jumbo deluxe target on its back.

C'mon, my beer is getting warm.

Pete

LeeG
06-06-2015, 01:18 AM
.

We were told ad nauseum bush had no exit plan and we were just making more bad guys.

Now liberals call goofball, other names for asking the same questions...

Obama came to the job to take responsibility and form plans.

He was/is not up to the job..

Yet he wanted complete credit when things looked good.

You aren't asking questions you are making nonsense statements.

Haven't you learned, not told but learned that GWs mentors and advisors had no adequate plan for the post invasion environment ? That the push to sell the war required a disregard for institutional knowledge across the spectrum from intelligence to military to statecraft. Disregard of facts about Iraq and it's makeup. Disregard about force levels to secure a conquered people and territory. "We were told", you aren't a child needing to be told, the stove is hot. Jesus man rub some brain cells together and learn.
Obama was elected to be the president, that doesn't mean he can fix your marriage, plug an oil rig blow out or bring together a country that was blown apart. You don't appear to have any sense what a fuster cluck occured with the invasion. Things never looked good there.

U.S. Policy has inevitably shifted from containment to engagement during Obamas administration.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/saudi-arabia-is-heading-towards-war-118656_Page2.html#.VXMPOHD3arU

President Obama is in the process of replacing the policy of containment with a policy of limited engagement with Iran. In effect, the United States has indicated that it will no longer be responsible for keeping Iran in “a box,” to use the metaphor Madeleine Albright applied to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. This policy shift has attracted vociferous opposition from almost every regional state, from Israel to Saudi Arabia. Countries in the region long ago grew accustomed to the U.S. acting as the regional sheriff, single-handedly ensuring that Iran remained isolated, politically neutralized and under pressure.
The Sunni Arab states of the region, ironically, adopted the rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning that Iran was actively seeking development of a nuclear weapon and that would potentially represent a threat to any state that opposed Iran’s actions in the region. Partly in response to such concerns, the United States pursued negotiations to cut off Iranian access to a nuclear weapon. To the surprise of almost everyone, that effort resulted in a detailed preliminary agreement in November 2013 and a formal declaration of the parameters of a final agreement in Lausanne on April 2, 2015. The drafting of the final agreement is well underway.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/saudi-arabia-is-heading-towards-war-118656.html#ixzz3cIZq6M7y

epoxyboy
06-06-2015, 04:35 AM
Please elaborate, but can you wait a mo while I grab some beer and popcorn, coz this will be good.

OK General MacDonald, shoot! What's the plan? I trust it is something that will neither morally or financially bankrupt the US, or result in it becoming a pariah state with a jumbo deluxe target on its back.

C'mon, my beer is getting warm.

Pete

Sigh. No interesting discourse from General MacDonald on his foolproof military strategy for the middle east. Popcorn's all gone, beer too. I'm on to a Yalumba "The Guardian" Eden Valley Shiraz. Those Aussies do make a damn fine red. And no, I dont mean communists.
Maybe it's a timezone thing.
C'mon KMac, whats on your mind? Nuke em till they glow? Pour a couple of million troops with shoot to kill orders into the region? Or just pull out, seal the borders, stop buying their oil and let them have at it.
The first option, you'd have the Russians and Chinese all over your derrières, the second option is probably not financially or politically viable, and the third option youd have to *gasp* cut Israel loose and live with the humanitarian fallout. I'm hoping for a much more creative solution..........

Pete

skuthorp
06-06-2015, 05:28 AM
Agree epoxyboy. 'Nuke 'em all' sounds simple eh? If the US showed itself to be willing to do that to half a dozen states in the ME, forgetting that fallout knows no boundaries of course, then the Russians and Chinese might suppose that there'd be no compunction in thm being next and act appropriately, and quickly. Might solve all our worries re climate change though.
Agree also re the Shiraz, might fine drop at a reasonable price.

Tribes of varying origins have been warring with each other in what we call the Middle East since well before 5000BC. Cities have risen and fallen, religions have come and gone, the whole landscape and climate has changed beyond recognition. Sea levels have risen and fallen, whole large bays have silted up, rivers have dried up. We are just another pimple on the areas history, so don't let us get too big headed about it all.

David G
06-06-2015, 10:40 AM
.

Why all the insults? Perhaps you can state the Presidents strategy. It's confusing, Bush and me are not President now nor am I intrested in constant history lessons, I'm intrested in what his plan might be.

So far all I can gather from liberals here is to blame bush , insult anyone that dares to ask what his plan might be.

It seems it's impossible for you to reply without a insult or naming Bush.

hardly well thought out responses..

But then again maybe you are advising the President..

In wondering what the president's strategy is - you're finally asking a coherent question. Kudos. And because I like to encourage that sort of behavior (instead of your usual)... I will venture a serious answer.

I don't know.

Of course, I'm no ME expert. And I don't track it particularly. Heck... I'm so ignorant about it that I was easily fooled by the lies that led us into the latest mess. And maybe no one knows because Obama is not broadcasting his strategy - for security reasons... or so as no to close off his options in a fluid situation. Or because he is not enamored of any of the choices left to him by his predecessor's actions. But the true answer is: I don't know. Maybe someone will chime in with more knowledge.

But here's what I do know --

Obama doesn't seem at all inclined to re-insert us into a losing situation. I'm good with that. Obama seems to have no family skin in the game that he feels he needs to redeem (unlike Shrub). Good with that. Obama doesn't seem to have pre-conceived notions about the region. Good. Obama is smarter and more careful than Bush was. Good & bad. I sometimes think he's TOO careful, in general. I think his age/inexperience may just come into play there. Possibly bad. But at least he's not letting that inexperience lead him into the sorts of horrendous, ill-considered precipitous actions that the equally inexperienced/less apt Bush did. Good. Very good.

So... while I don't know what the Obama administration strategy is... I see few, if any, signs that I should be worried about it.

I don't see him beating the drums of war, and issuing hard-edged martial comments/ultimatums. I don't hear him demonizing some party in the ME, in preparation for attacking them. I don't see him asking for big increases in the military budget. I see no sign that he's inclined to put trillions of dollars of war costs on the national credit card. Etc. Etc.

So... since you don't seem to know either what Obama's strategy is... let me ask - do you see signs that we should be concerned? If so, can you share them? Or are you just desperately digging for something/anything to criticize him about - whether you understand what's actually going on, or not?

You'll notice that - in the spirit of your efforts at asking a serious question - I have, once again, made an attempt to respond in a serious and respectful fashion. I hope you come back in like manner. Because, to tell the truth, your normal M.O. is getting old. I think this may just be my last attempt with you. Very possibly... if you come back with insults, false indignation, whining, ducking the question, or unsupportable assertions in lieu of a logical and respectful continuation of this discussion... the next stop will be the Ignore List. And that would be too bad. You used to be funny. And you have shown signs - like now - of being capable of carrying on a conversation. I would welcome more of those two, but am weary of the bs.

And - to loop back to your original question... why the insults?, that's why. When you only contribute ridiculous, fact-free, badly-reasoned bs... and refuse to engage on an adult level... you invite, nay BEG, to be ridiculed. Many have told you that already. I hope you can finally hear it this time... and your wonder at the phenomenon can be satisfied.

KMacDonald
06-06-2015, 11:30 AM
I'm hoping for a much more creative solution..........

Pete

Well what is it? We are waiting!!!!!

KMacDonald
06-06-2015, 11:33 AM
There's nothing in Russia that can't be bought including support. China----same thing.

epoxyboy
06-06-2015, 03:13 PM
The US could eliminate the problem there once and for all if we had the stomach to do so. Or we could let Israel do it.

So how about you answer my original question, instead of trying to spin it? What are you proposing?




06-07-2015, 04:33 A KMacDonald

Re: President Obama says we are not losing in Iraq.
There's nothing in Russia that can't be bought including support. China----same thing.


Right. Its just that I'm not seeing that working too well with Russia in the Ukraine, or China in the South China Sea.
I think you are grossly over estimating the ability of the US to influence the foreign policy of either of those countries in any way that is going to have a positive outcome, ie. a non military solution.
You'll note that both Russia and China were against US led military action in the ME, and that advice was ignored - so clearly it goes both ways.

Pete

bobbys
06-06-2015, 03:15 PM
In wondering what the president's strategy is - you're finally asking a coherent question. Kudos. And because I like to encourage that sort of behavior (instead of your usual)... I will venture a serious answer.

I don't know.

Of course, I'm no ME expert. And I don't track it particularly. Heck... I'm so ignorant about it that I was easily fooled by the lies that led us into the latest mess. And maybe no one knows because Obama is not broadcasting his strategy - for security reasons... or so as no to close off his options in a fluid situation. Or because he is not enamored of any of the choices left to him by his predecessor's actions. But the true answer is: I don't know. Maybe someone will chime in with more knowledge.

But here's what I do know --

Obama doesn't seem at all inclined to re-insert us into a losing situation. I'm good with that. Obama seems to have no family skin in the game that he feels he needs to redeem (unlike Shrub). Good with that. Obama doesn't seem to have pre-conceived notions about the region. Good. Obama is smarter and more careful than Bush was. Good & bad. I sometimes think he's TOO careful, in general. I think his age/inexperience may just come into play there. Possibly bad. But at least he's not letting that inexperience lead him into the sorts of horrendous, ill-considered precipitous actions that the equally inexperienced/less apt Bush did. Good. Very good.

So... while I don't know what the Obama administration strategy is... I see few, if any, signs that I should be worried about it.

I don't see him beating the drums of war, and issuing hard-edged martial comments/ultimatums. I don't hear him demonizing some party in the ME, in preparation for attacking them. I don't see him asking for big increases in the military budget. I see no sign that he's inclined to put trillions of dollars of war costs on the national credit card. Etc. Etc.

So... since you don't seem to know either what Obama's strategy is... let me ask - do you see signs that we should be concerned? If so, can you share them? Or are you just desperately digging for something/anything to criticize him about - whether you understand what's actually going on, or not?

You'll notice that - in the spirit of your efforts at asking a serious question - I have, once again, made an attempt to respond in a serious and respectful fashion. I hope you come back in like manner. Because, to tell the truth, your normal M.O. is getting old. I think this may just be my last attempt with you. Very possibly... if you come back with insults, false indignation, whining, ducking the question, or unsupportable assertions in lieu of a logical and respectful continuation of this discussion... the next stop will be the Ignore List. And that would be too bad. You used to be funny. And you have shown signs - like now - of being capable of carrying on a conversation. I would welcome more of those two, but am weary of the bs.

And - to loop back to your original question... why the insults?, that's why. When you only contribute ridiculous, fact-free, badly-reasoned bs... and refuse to engage on an adult level... you invite, nay BEG, to be ridiculed. Many have told you that already. I hope you can finally hear it this time... and your wonder at the phenomenon can be satisfied..

You are welcome to ignore me if you wish, I notice with liberals it's as ...How dare you question Obama.

But be that as it may another factor is Obama is cutting deals with Iran, If Iran wishes territory from Iraq it's in their interest to see it carved up, Even if Obama wanted to do something he hamstrung himself as to do what Iran wishes..

Do try and converse without a little lecture.

LeeG
06-06-2015, 03:59 PM
.

You are welcome to ignore me if you wish, I notice with liberals it's as ...How dare you question Obama.

But be that as it may another factor is Obama is cutting deals with Iran, If Iran wishes territory from Iraq it's in their interest to see it carved up, Even if Obama wanted to do something he hamstrung himself as to do what Iran wishes..

Do try and converse without a little lecture.

Mrbobbys if you talked as though you had some idea of what's going on over there on their terms and not a U.S. Lib/Con duality you'd get fewer lectures.

Btw Iraq is already carved up. You speak as though there weren't long standing connections between Iran and factions in Iraq.

bobbys
06-06-2015, 04:30 PM
Mrbobbys if you talked as though you had some idea of what's going on over there on their terms and not a U.S. Lib/Con duality you'd get fewer lectures
.

So far all I get is Bush sucked Obama cannot do anything ,Bobbys is this name or that name.

obama must have SOME plan, all Im trying to do is figure out what.

We had all sorts of liberal arm chair generals and liberal perfect hind sight 2020 folks here.

The only thing that is obvious is Obama is invested in failure to advance the democrat political agenda..

Can you tell me other wise?

KMacDonald
06-06-2015, 04:52 PM
Looks like another one for the win column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Memphis Mike
06-06-2015, 04:58 PM
.

So far all I get is Bush sucked Obama cannot do anything ,Bobbys is this name or that name.

obama must have SOME plan, all Im trying to do is figure out what.

We had all sorts of liberal arm chair generals and liberal perfect hind sight 2020 folks here.

The only thing that is obvious is Obama is invested in failure to advance the democrat political agenda..

Can you tell me other wise?

If you don't like Liberals so much why do you hang out with them? All of the old whitey racist right wing wacko republicans that I know of hang out in their own little groups. That way they can use the "N" word and say whatever they want to without fear of repercussions. I think you would be much happier if you did the same.

bobbys
06-06-2015, 05:00 PM
Looks like another one for the win column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

Well it's only a win because liberals have resorted to calling me names, blaming bush, not giving any rationalization for the Presidents non action or lack of any plan

I tried to have a rational discussion but it's obvious it cannot be done...

These are the same people that said Sarah Palin had no foreign policy.

And to look at the actions or non actions of this President one can only conclude he is missing in action.

bobbys
06-06-2015, 05:03 PM
If you don't like Liberals so much why do you hang out with them? All of the old whitey racist right wing wacko republicans that I know of hang out in their own little groups. That way they can use the "N" word and say whatever they want to without fear of repercussions. I think you would be much happier if you did the same.
,

Classic exsample of a liberal when completly stumped goes right to the , You must be a racist card and you must use the N word..

That's the way to debate.

LOL.

Next....

skuthorp
06-06-2015, 05:06 PM
The US and it's supporters are wedged, let alone the president. We are going to lose this one to, and whilst it is a continuation of the areas past history we started this episode on a lie or worse, and now it is well out of our control. e can walk away now, or walk away later. We have squandered any remaining good will and in my humble opinion Saudi Arabia and Israel will melt into the mix, or the Israeli's will 'drop the big one' as Tom Laira sung. Either way it's a loss, another one. Re Obama's management of the situation, you should be grateful that you haven't lost a few thousand more young American lives in the ongoing defeat. Whether drones are just another war crime to add to GW's admin's. crimes is a moot point.

epoxyboy
06-06-2015, 05:35 PM
.

Well it's only a win because liberals have resorted to calling me names, blaming bush, not giving any rationalization for the Presidents non action or lack of any plan

I tried to have a rational discussion but it's obvious it cannot be done...

These are the same people that said Sarah Palin had no foreign policy.

And to look at the actions or non actions of this President one can only conclude he is missing in action.
OK Bobby, seeing as KMac has a solution that he doesnt want to talk about, and you dont like what Obama is (isnt?) doing, what do you think should be done?
Before going all gung-ho, remember that there are actual real people involved, and the desired end result is a win-win - something the people in the ME can live with in the long term, something that isnt going expand into an even larger and less winnable conflict, and something that isnt going to trash the global economy or result in a generation of young American men growing up with war as the social norm.

Pete

skuthorp
06-06-2015, 06:45 PM
I don't think that anything that the bobby construct says is of any relevance whatsoever and for the life of me I do not know why anyone ever takes any notice of it.

PeterSibley
06-06-2015, 06:49 PM
The trouble Jeff is that based on previous US elections the ''bobby construct'' seems to make up quite a significant proportion of the US electorate ..... bringers of death and carnage to the world.

skuthorp
06-06-2015, 06:52 PM
There is point in arguing with a fictional character, no matter how typical. It's not going to alter the section of the US population you refer to.

LeeG
06-06-2015, 06:53 PM
The trouble Jeff is that based on previous US elections the ''bobby construct'' seems to make up quite a significant proportion of the US electorate ..... bringers of death and carnage to the world.

I am ashamed to say you are correct. That proportion is led by fear and cultivated ignorance

LeeG
06-06-2015, 07:08 PM
.

So far all I get is Bush sucked Obama cannot do anything ,Bobbys is this name or that name.

obama must have SOME plan, all Im trying to do is figure out what.

We had all sorts of liberal arm chair generals and liberal perfect hind sight 2020 folks here.

The only thing that is obvious is Obama is invested in failure to advance the democrat political agenda..

Can you tell me other wise?

Yr an idiot if you think the POTUS is invested in failure in the Middle East to advance the Democratic Party Agenda as well as saying earlier DAESH/ISIS is advancing Liberal Americans agenda. Ok, you've represented yourself well.

Apparently you haven't read anything I've submitted to you. The U.S. Is no longer trying to contain Iraq and Iran, Iraq is scrambled and screwed so now we have to engage with Iran because is it is a player in the region and "containing" it is unrealistic. Seriously man have you bought and read a book about any of these issues? I find learning about something helps to understanding it.

KMacDonald
06-06-2015, 07:24 PM
Didn't you libs determine the cause of global warming to be over population? Fix two problems with one stone so to speak.

PeterSibley
06-06-2015, 07:37 PM
Didn't you libs determine the cause of global warming to be over population? Fix two problems with one stone so to speak.

No, global warming caused by increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, CO2 being the primary. There is no necessary correlation between population and global warming but if you fancy genocide as a solution speak up.

David G
06-06-2015, 10:08 PM
.

You are welcome to ignore me if you wish, I notice with liberals it's as ...How dare you question Obama.

But be that as it may another factor is Obama is cutting deals with Iran, If Iran wishes territory from Iraq it's in their interest to see it carved up, Even if Obama wanted to do something he hamstrung himself as to do what Iran wishes..

Do try and converse without a little lecture.

So... I wrote all that. And I addressed you far more respectfully than you probably deserve. Then I invite you to respond in like fashion. And I underline a nice, open-ended softball question to which you can specifically respond.

And the above is your best effort?

Ok. BuhBye.

LeeG
06-07-2015, 03:30 AM
.

So far all I get is Bush sucked Obama cannot do anything ,Bobbys is this name or that name.

obama must have SOME plan, all Im trying to do is figure out what.

?

Try this, read something about the ground reality over there then you might be able to figure out what. Here's a short article about a Shia militia leader who has popped back up in the on going civil war. Your view of what options the U.S. has seems to be framed in two ways "GW did this, what is Obama doing?" completely avoiding ground reality over there. Iran has connections to the "Iraqi" gov't we recognize. The "Iraqi" military we poured billions into can't fight where it doesn't have support. The "Iraqi" gov't we recognize in Baghdad used resources available to it to eliminate Baathist Iraqis from day one and those resources happen to be Iranian supported militias. If you are unclear why there are connections between Iran and Iraq Google up "Shia Iran Iraq relations".

Do you see it's impossible to continue prior foreign policies of containment against Iran ? It's like thinking you could screw a coworkers wife then thinking you can continue the same relationship as before. The options are kind of limited, you can't unscrew history and you can't pretend it doesn't matter.



http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/06/nemesis-shia-militias-and-death-squads-in-iraq-1.html#more

In June 2014, Mosul was conquered literally overnight by the “Islamic State”. The next day, the US woke up to the fact that the war in Iraq wasn’t over. In a state of shock and disbelief, Average Joe “politico” began to realize – very much like in Faulkner’s quote – that the past was never dead, not even past. What most pundits and analysts in DC have been doing since is underlining the barbaric nature of ISIS, describing it as a modern day death cult, insisting – quite rightfully – on its many crimes and atrocities, but without contributing in any way to solving the actual problem. However, what has gone unnoticed in the debate, is that the “Islamic State” is in fact just one side of the coin, the Sunnis of Iraq being now stuck between pledging allegiance to the new "Caliph" or contemplating life as second class citizens in a State that has been confiscated by a faction of Shia politicians and their “enforcers”, Shia militias and death squads who have been implementing a sectarian agenda ever since the start of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. These groups, a Shia mirror image to the Sunni Jihadis, are as much in the way of solving Iraq as ISIS. They are the Islamic State’s nemesis, just as the Islamic State is theirs. Here is the story of one of their most fearsome leaders.