|
|
Post by aztecmusician on May 18, 2015 19:14:34 GMT -8
www.cbsnews.com/world/After repeated assurances from the White House that the situation was stable, ISIL forces have captured the key city of Ramadi in Iraq. In wake of the fallen city, ISIL has been murdering scores of Women and Children in Ramadi who were unable to flee the city after the collapse of the Iraqi Army. U.S. Air support has not been effective and ISIL is now in possession of the stragically important town only 70 miles from Baghdad. Every time the White House says the tide has turned or points to a success story (Yemen) the fallacy blows up in their face for all the World to see. They have been consistently wrong about everything in the Middle East. Unprecedented incompetence.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 19, 2015 6:07:00 GMT -8
We just keep making mistake after mistake. When will this Obama nightmare go away?
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 19, 2015 10:29:35 GMT -8
The "Unprecedented incompetence" is by the Iraqi Military not us. They need to stand and fight, not run away.
It sounds like you two chicken hawks would like us to send thousands of Americans back into Iraq to die.
I think it is time that the Arabs get off their well oiled asses and do it themselves. Or allow Iran to send in troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on May 19, 2015 15:18:44 GMT -8
The "Unprecedented incompetence" is by the Iraqi Military not us. They need to stand and fight, not run away. It sounds like you two chicken hawks would like us to send thousands of Americans back into Iraq to die. I think it is time that the Arabs get off their well oiled asses and do it themselves. Or allow Iran to send in troops. The levels of miscalculation and incompetence by the current administration is unprecedented. President Obama makes his military decisions based on political considerations, a disastrous strategy for any military leader. Thank God he wasn't the president during WWII, we would all be speaking Japanese and or German. |
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on May 19, 2015 15:34:24 GMT -8
The levels of miscalculation and incompetence by the current administration is unprecedented. President Obama makes his military decisions based on political considerations, a disastrous strategy for any military leader. Uhhh, wait, what? Do you actually believe that or are you going full Hannity? Were you alive for Bush's Iraq sell and subsequent ME invasion? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 19, 2015 15:35:24 GMT -8
The "Unprecedented incompetence" is by the Iraqi Military not us. They need to stand and fight, not run away. It sounds like you two chicken hawks would like us to send thousands of Americans back into Iraq to die. I think it is time that the Arabs get off their well oiled asses and do it themselves. Or allow Iran to send in troops. This is Obama's doing and no amount of dodging the facts will change that. We pulled out too soon and this was predicted. |
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on May 19, 2015 15:40:49 GMT -8
We pulled out too soon and this was predicted. Sorry little man, but we were there almost 9 years too long. Prez sold America on war based on fabrications and lies from him and his associates and shoulders the burden of the thousands who have lost their lives. Thank god we have learned our lesson. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on May 19, 2015 15:45:43 GMT -8
The "Unprecedented incompetence" is by the Iraqi Military not us. They need to stand and fight, not run away. It sounds like you two chicken hawks would like us to send thousands of Americans back into Iraq to die. I think it is time that the Arabs get off their well oiled asses and do it themselves. Or allow Iran to send in troops. This is Obama's doing and no amount of dodging the facts will change that. We pulled out too soon and this was predicted. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on May 19, 2015 21:24:21 GMT -8
The levels of miscalculation and incompetence by the current administration is unprecedented. President Obama makes his military decisions based on political considerations, a disastrous strategy for any military leader. Uhhh, wait, what? Do you actually believe that or are you going full Hannity? Were you alive for Bush's Iraq sell and subsequent ME invasion? Fact: Every general in the Joint Cheifs of Staff warned that the situation was too unstable to pull troops out of Iraq. Prez Obama ignored them and pulled the troops out anyway, resulting in the current disaster and the death and enslavement of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children. Fact: Most military experts were skeptical on how effective the an air campaign would be vs ISIL. It turns out that the experts were right as the air campaign has not been effective, a very expensive demolition exhibition. Fact: President Obama called ISIL "Jay Vee" completely underestimating his opponent, now they are a few months away from a comprehensive victory. Fact: On Jan. 11th, just 4 months ago, President Obama stated that we are winning and will win the war. Put down the Kool-Aide and face facts. Barring a major military effort from the United States, this conflict is over. It took years for our soldiers to occupy and control cities like Falluja and Ramadi, there is little chance the remaining Iraqi and whatever collection of Saudi forces will get the job done. Sorry, I'm not happy about it but the facts are the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 20, 2015 1:38:06 GMT -8
Obama is by no means responsible for everything that is happening in the Middle East. The question is, did he improve a bad situation or make it worse? Sometimes a President must lead the nation in directions that it is not particularly eager to go in. Think of Lincoln in the Summer of 1854. The North was very war weary, yet the Great Emancipator stayed the course.
What is particularly worrisome is that this administration simply can't tell the truth. It's as if, on Dec. 8th, 1941, FDR had gone on the radio and declared the previous day's events in Hawaii a great victory. Question: Is our VP embarrassed about his rosy statements regarding Iraq made in 2010?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on May 20, 2015 8:23:58 GMT -8
Obama is by no means responsible for everything that is happening in the Middle East. The question is, did he improve a bad situation or make it worse? Does sticking a band aid on a bullet wound improve a bad situation or make it worse? C'mon "libertarian", the only way to fix the problem is long term. Keeping the US military band aid in place and continuing to sacrifice trillions of dollars and thousands of lives for no real, long-term purpose is the height of short-sighted stupidity exhibited so well by our previous administration. The only way the neocon policy works is to keep a residual force of at least 20k in Iraq for good. Fck that. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 20, 2015 8:24:35 GMT -8
What is wrong with you neo-con chicken hawks. Don't have the guts to say that we should put thousands of American lives back on the line? Where is your backbone?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 20, 2015 9:43:26 GMT -8
We pulled out too soon and this was predicted. Sorry little man, but we were there almost 9 years too long. Prez sold America on war based on fabrications and lies from him and his associates and shoulders the burden of the thousands who have lost their lives. Thank god we have learned our lesson. Do you wear lace underwear? That kind of limp wristed narrative is getting old. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 20, 2015 9:47:25 GMT -8
Obama is by no means responsible for everything that is happening in the Middle East. The question is, did he improve a bad situation or make it worse? Does sticking a band aid on a bullet wound improve a bad situation or make it worse? C'mon "libertarian", the only way to fix the problem is long term. Keeping the US military band aid in place and continuing to sacrifice trillions of dollars and thousands of lives for no real, long-term purpose is the height of short-sighted stupidity exhibited so well by our previous administration. The only way the neocon policy works is to keep a residual force of at least 20k in Iraq for good. Fck that. The question was did Obama make it worse and the answer is yes. We needed a residual force until Iraq was able to fend for itself. That is not forever. Face it, Obama has no plan or idea of what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on May 20, 2015 9:48:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on May 20, 2015 10:08:40 GMT -8
The question was did Obama make it worse What, is he up for reelection or something? We know the root causes in Bush and his cronies. We know the lies, the sell, the blood on their hands, the collective realization that we can't be that naive again when being sold, etc. Questioning whether Obama bettered or worsened the foreign policy disaster he inherited (funny how that's a recurring theme in many different policy areas... economy too Bush, really?!) is ultimately as meaningful/less as rehashing the Bush administration blunders. Really the only thing that matters is how we handle what we've got in the short, medium, and long term. In the short term, it will be messy, but there is no good reason for American involvement. In the medium term, we need to use our soft power to influence existing processes and emerging Western-friendly governments as much as possible, while remaining vigilant as a country to resist hawks' calls for military intervention. In the long term, the ME itself must decide whether they want to evolve or revert by means of revolution and cultural shifts. American involvement in the short and mid term puts off the inevitable long term decisions that those people must make, and puts a target on our back as imperialistic exporters of 'Murica. American involvement in the long term creates untenable situations that eventually fall apart anyway and creates more radicalism and polarization that create movements like ISIL/ISIS. The answer is no. I'm sure you still think we're just building up the defenses of Germany and Japan too, right? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 20, 2015 10:33:00 GMT -8
Obama is by no means responsible for everything that is happening in the Middle East. The question is, did he improve a bad situation or make it worse? Does sticking a band aid on a bullet wound improve a bad situation or make it worse? C'mon "libertarian", the only way to fix the problem is long term. Keeping the US military band aid in place and continuing to sacrifice trillions of dollars and thousands of lives for no real, long-term purpose is the height of short-sighted stupidity exhibited so well by our previous administration. The only way the neocon policy works is to keep a residual force of at least 20k in Iraq for good. Fck that. Well, you should of course know the one word that any knowledgeable observer is going to use as a response to your reply. Korea! We have been in Korea since I was just finishing 2nd grade. We have actually lost a number (small though it may be) of soldiers killed in Korea since then, plus having spent many billions of taxpayer dollars. Has all that been worth it? South Korea is a thriving, democratic country with which we enjoy very friendly relations. North Korea, on the other hand, is a certifiable hell on earth lead by a hereditary monarchy of crazies. Oh, yes; Koreans are a couple of inches taller on average than the slaves struggling to keep food on the table in the Workers Paradise in North Korea. I might also add that we still have troops in Europe. Has it been worthwhile to maintain that force, first against the Soviet Union (which without our forces remaining there almost surely would have found an excuse to conquer the rest of Germany, plus France and other countries) and now Russia? Yes, I think it has been. Of course, the Middle East is a much different situation. Still, 20,000 U.S. troops plus strong air assets based in Iraq probably would have been a firewall against ISIS. As has been said by pundits with credentials greater than mine, two huge mistakes were made by America in Iraq. First was invading at all and/or (this one is more controversial) not preparing more intelligently for the post invasion period. The second blunder was withdrawing all forces when military experts were warning the administration that such an action would have disastrous consequences. If we were talking about a conflict among various factions located in Antarctica, we probably could justifiably remain aloof. We would have to deal with our consciences if such a conflict involved the literal murder of tens of thousands of men, women, and children, but from a realpolitik perspective, why would we want to intervene? To hell with both sides might make sense. But the Middle East is not Antarctica. What happens there, for a number of reasons, is of importance to us. National leadership involves dealing as effectively as possible with problems that have consequences for the nation. Complaining that those who held power before caused the problems does not fulfill the role I just described. If I buy a house and discover that significant damage (through neglect or deliberate vandalism) has been done to parts of that house by the previous owner, I must take action. Maybe I can sue the previous owner. Or I can pay for repairs myself if no lawsuit is feasible. But one thing is clear; doing nothing, or worse yet, compounding the damage through unwise activities, while as the same time proclaiming to one and all how terrible the previous owner was, is both useless and irresponsible. Blame George Bush all you want; such a claim is by no means frivolous. You can also say, with reason, that Barack Obama inherited a bad situation. (However, we should keep in mind that both he and the VP declared in 2010 that Iraq was going to be one of the shining achievements of the current administration.) George Bush made a big mistake. Okay, that's a defensible proposition. At the same time, it is equally reasonable to claim that Barack Obama has exacerbated the bad situation that existed when he took office. (But even that is not quite correct. When BHO took office in 2009, the bad situation the arose following the textbook invasion of Iraq had largely been rectified. Why else would BHO and JB have bragged about the status of Iraq that they claimed lead them to withdraw all troops? There is plenty of blame to go around, starting with the conflict over who would succeed Muhammad in 632 AD. Unlike the Christians, who were as bloody-minded during their Catholic versus Protestant conflicts in the 15th and 16th Centuries as are the extremist Muslims of today, Islam has never had a Reformation and reconciliation. In that sense, Muslims are stuck in a mindset that goes back about 1400 years. And they are a few hundred years behind the Christians in deciding that living in peace with those who hold different religious views is better than continual fighting.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by azson on May 20, 2015 11:34:15 GMT -8
Sorry little man, but we were there almost 9 years too long. Prez sold America on war based on fabrications and lies from him and his associates and shoulders the burden of the thousands who have lost their lives. Thank god we have learned our lesson. Do you wear lace underwear? That kind of limp wristed narrative is getting old. [h/t to Pap] I think it's clear what your beat off fetish material is. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 20, 2015 17:02:39 GMT -8
The question was did Obama make it worse What, is he up for reelection or something? We know the root causes in Bush and his cronies. We know the lies, the sell, the blood on their hands, the collective realization that we can't be that naive again when being sold, etc. Questioning whether Obama bettered or worsened the foreign policy disaster he inherited (funny how that's a recurring theme in many different policy areas... economy too Bush, really?!) is ultimately as meaningful/less as rehashing the Bush administration blunders. Really the only thing that matters is how we handle what we've got in the short, medium, and long term. In the short term, it will be messy, but there is no good reason for American involvement. In the medium term, we need to use our soft power to influence existing processes and emerging Western-friendly governments as much as possible, while remaining vigilant as a country to resist hawks' calls for military intervention. In the long term, the ME itself must decide whether they want to evolve or revert by means of revolution and cultural shifts. American involvement in the short and mid term puts off the inevitable long term decisions that those people must make, and puts a target on our back as imperialistic exporters of 'Murica. American involvement in the long term creates untenable situations that eventually fall apart anyway and creates more radicalism and polarization that create movements like ISIL/ISIS. The answer is no. I'm sure you still think we're just building up the defenses of Germany and Japan too, right? Spin away! When you are handed lemons (or think or say you were) you make lemonade. Obama is a failure. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 21, 2015 8:12:14 GMT -8
What, is he up for reelection or something? We know the root causes in Bush and his cronies. We know the lies, the sell, the blood on their hands, the collective realization that we can't be that naive again when being sold, etc. Questioning whether Obama bettered or worsened the foreign policy disaster he inherited (funny how that's a recurring theme in many different policy areas... economy too Bush, really?!) is ultimately as meaningful/less as rehashing the Bush administration blunders. Really the only thing that matters is how we handle what we've got in the short, medium, and long term. In the short term, it will be messy, but there is no good reason for American involvement. In the medium term, we need to use our soft power to influence existing processes and emerging Western-friendly governments as much as possible, while remaining vigilant as a country to resist hawks' calls for military intervention. In the long term, the ME itself must decide whether they want to evolve or revert by means of revolution and cultural shifts. American involvement in the short and mid term puts off the inevitable long term decisions that those people must make, and puts a target on our back as imperialistic exporters of 'Murica. American involvement in the long term creates untenable situations that eventually fall apart anyway and creates more radicalism and polarization that create movements like ISIL/ISIS. The answer is no. I'm sure you still think we're just building up the defenses of Germany and Japan too, right? Spin away! When you are handed lemons (or think or say you were) you make lemonade. Obama is a failure. And you call the guy who wasted thousands of American lives in Iraq to satisfy his ego a success.  |
|
