No strategy given, no leadership shown

[Moonbeam]

Well I missed it the first time....glad I did. You're a nut...that's all.

Well it was all about how if you saw it or missed it, the results would be the same, that form of your thinking, whether you know it or not, has all been scientifically predicted.

 

[row]

As required to do by previous agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.

If you're going to snark, at least get it right.

you miss the point dumbfuck, the smartest president evah was incapable of seeing the obvious

if you're going to post say something worthwhile

 

[michal1980]

Strategery is why there is ISIS in Iraq now.

They are a good JV team aren't they?

 

[Victorian Gray]

you miss the point dumbfuck, the smartest president evah was incapable of seeing the obvious

if you're going to post say something worthwhile

gotcha :thumbsup:

 

[Darwin333]

It sure is refreshing to have a president who will think things through instead of jumping blindly into action with no actual plans, unlike other administrations we knew.

That's a rather ironic statement considering your screen name and profile pic.

 

[senseamp]

yes, berrie's strategy of pulling all troops out of the country :thumbsup:

GOP would rather US troops still be in the middle of that mess. Under Obama, an American getting killed in Iraq is news worthy, because it happens so rarely. Under a Republican president, an American NOT getting killed in Iraq on a given day would be news.

 

[sportage]

This whole "thing" of outrage is much to do about nothing, if u ask me.
A major war? No, no major war.
Nukes? No, no nuking.
Snakes on a plane? No, no snakes on the plane.

 

[dank69]

you miss the point dumbfuck, the smartest president evah was incapable of seeing the obvious

if you're going to post say something worthwhile

You are making it clear that you know nothing about the Iraq timetable.

 

[row]

You are making it clear that you know nothing about the Iraq timetable.

i was there.

where were you?

 

[row]

GOP would rather US troops still be in the middle of that mess. Under Obama, an American getting killed in Iraq is news worthy, because it happens so rarely. Under a Republican president, an American NOT getting killed in Iraq on a given day would be news.

the war was essentially over in iraq when numbnutz took over. however we can look at afghanistan and get a much clearer picture of who gets troops killed...

"In the first seven-plus years of war in Afghanistan (October 2001 – December 2008) we lost 630 U.S. soldiers. In early 2009, the Obama administration authorized the implementation of the COIN (Counter-Insurgent) strategy, more focused on “winning hearts and minds” than winning a war, and over the next five years, the U.S. death toll nearly tripled.

Seventy-three percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have taken place since 2009. In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan, 2,638 U.S. soldiers were wounded in action. In the next forty-five months (2009 – 2012) an additional 15,036 suffered the same fate."

 

[ivwshane]

the war was essentially over in iraq when numbnutz took over. however we can look at afghanistan and get a much clearer picture of who gets troops killed...

"In the first seven-plus years of war in Afghanistan (October 2001 – December 2008) we lost 630 U.S. soldiers. In early 2009, the Obama administration authorized the implementation of the COIN (Counter-Insurgent) strategy, more focused on “winning hearts and minds” than winning a war, and over the next five years, the U.S. death toll nearly tripled.

Seventy-three percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have taken place since 2009. In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan, 2,638 U.S. soldiers were wounded in action. In the next forty-five months (2009 – 2012) an additional 15,036 suffered the same fate."

More dishonest drivel from our resident idiots!

We were involved in two conflicts, why the fuck would you compare the one bush didn't focus on to the one Obama focused on and not the whole conflict itself? Answer: because you are a dishonest piece of shit!

http://icasualties.org

 

[fskimospy]

i was there.

where were you?

i was there too. He's right. Learn the timetable.

 

[DominionSeraph]

No one on this board has the resources available to the POTUS and I've never claimed to have the answers of how to proceed.

Yes, we know you're an idiot.

If it's without war that would be great but who knows. All I've said is stating to your advisories that there is no plan isn't very prudent and doesn't reflect good leadership....got it.

Again you show your idiocy. Claiming in a vacuum that there is some "plan" opens you up to being blamed for anything and everything that happens. Presenting it as existent opens it up to criticism as a failure. Honestly, unless you know the outcome is likely to naturally progress towards the positive and want to try to take credit, why would you claim a plan when you don't have one?

ISIS's actions are their own, they're not a part of any plan of ours. Whether or not their actions will demand some concerted effort against them by us is undetermined at the moment. Just because there's a civil war doesn't mean we have a national stake in it. Conservatards are going to 'tard; you can't stop it. Liberalism will eventually come out of it as conservatardism's relativity makes it unstable, but that's not something you can force.

 

[nyker96]

well to OP, I dont know if there can be a clear strategy on any of these foreign policies, especially that these situation is shifting by the min. for example, OB said we will pull out of iraq, well we did, then bam ISIS happens, now what you going to do? no matter what he says at any given time will not be a fitting thing to say for a situation a few months down the line. especially considering how fast things are changing on the grounds. let's say russain, they are pouring 5k man into this battle, who know, maybe now you say sanctions, 2 months down the line, a full scale invasion occurs, your so called strategy will have to be massively revised again.

how about the situations in syria, I mean that thing's got more plot twists than a Patterson novel. I mean I really doubt any strategy he say he's gonna apply now, will be a fitting one for 2-3 month from now.

we can try this, why don't you list your strategies you have for iran, syria, israli-palistine ,ukrain, china, iraq etc right now: under this line. concrete strategies for each right now, then come back here 3 months down the line and see if these same words will fit the situations for each of these countries.

personally I think it's always good to have a strategy for each country but considering how fast things change in each of these countries, new enemies, new threats, old enemies becoming new allies almost on a weekly basis. I doubt there can be a constant strategy in each that you can stick with. But if this stategy changes on a monthly basis, is it wise for them to keep announce new ones every month? you probably criticize them for lying about their strategy all the time.

 

[Bitek]

That's nonsense. The audience for these press conferences is the electorate. ISIS / Russia / boogeyman du jour isn't going to bat an eye from words said in front of a press scrum. Do the American people need to be coddled and lied to that badly?

This is the root of the anti-intellectual strain currently rotting the conservative base. Taking time to think and wait for options to reveal themselves is strangely unacceptable. That's then followed, of course, with non-stop braying about how government can't do anything right.

+1. Good post.

The OP is assuming Putin is actually behaving in a rational manner, and there exists some sort of rhetoric or balanced diplomacy that can turn him back. Not to mention that we do not have support from the EU for stronger measures.

Understand where Putin is operating from. He has been given tolerance by the Russian voter to create an authoritarian state in order to generate stable economic growth. The economic growth has floundered, and Putin's recent "reelection" was marred by popular protests. Putin then turned to xenophobia and nationalism to regain support by the voters. It has worked in his resurgence in popularity, however it forces him to play a dangerous game with the rest of the world which resulted in the annexation of Crimea, and the invasion of Ukraine. Putin is purely a cult personality, and any loss of face or strength in could result in ouster from power.

Full-scale war may be the only way to turn Putin back, the West knows this and are trying to find some way to deescalate. Whipping out dicks for a nuclear armed cock-off could easily turn into disaster.

Obama hasn't always had a firm hand on the tiller, but I'm willing to give him some space to work. The situation is as dangerous as any since Kennedy and Cuba.

 

[Attic]

Doesn't matter what Obama said.

This is how politics work, a rather pathetic showing from the conservative establishment with their outrage here. But maybe it was a slow news day/week (well not really).

It's politics, not morals.

Obama being honest, Obama lying, Obama assertive, Obama passive. All same stuff from his opposition, attack and undermine. The real stupid is the selective outrage and situational ethics from both parties.

 

[Jhhnn]

Doesn't matter what Obama said.

This is how politics work, a rather pathetic showing from the conservative establishment with their outrage here. But maybe it was a slow news day/week (well not really).

It's politics, not morals.

Obama being honest, Obama lying, Obama assertive, Obama passive. All same stuff from his opposition, attack and undermine. The real stupid is the selective outrage and situational ethics from both parties.

You'd pretty much be right if you could lay off the false equivalency.

Obama- He's a Democrat, he's fucking black, fer crissakes, and he's in the Oval Office. What's there for the Right Wing not to hate, anyway? It's what they do, what defines them. They hate in a completely irrational way.

They hated everything about him before he won the election, let alone afterwards, and they'll exploit every opportunity to express that, right down to the color of his suit.

I hope he gets one in hot pink, or that lovely shade of lime green from the 70's.

 

[Attic]

You'd pretty much be right if you could lay off the false equivalency.

Obama- He's a Democrat, he's fucking black, fer crissakes, and he's in the Oval Office. What's there for the Right Wing not to hate, anyway? It's what they do, what defines them. They hate in a completely irrational way.

They hated everything about him before he won the election, let alone afterwards, and they'll exploit every opportunity to express that, right down to the color of his suit.

I hope he gets one in hot pink, or that lovely shade of lime green from the 70's.

Obama's remarks would have been treated the same way by the left as they are now by the right if Obama were a republican. Obama is not liberal enough IMO, he is a sell out, the right just likes to bitch. Obama being black has little to do with it, not nothing, but little.

Hate from what I see is more likely to be expressed by folks who think they are liberal or take popular liberal positions as needed to remain on the liberal hype train. Part of the self righteous BS this crowd wears like a prize.

Both sides are intellectually dishonest and manipulative in how they go about their business and responses to anything from the other side. It's very consistent and very predictable, and it appears to be getting worse.

We drop the act we are much closer on most issues, that makes us harder to control though, easier to keep a nice breach going. 2 parties just right for that.

You are aware enough and intelligent enough to see both sides are the problem, neither is the solution. Though, the stubborness and rigid stupidity on the right might be easier to pinpoint and belittle. This will change based on economy overlap to the color of the suit the clown in office wears.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama's remarks would have been treated the same way by the left as they are now by the right if Obama were a republican. Obama is not liberal enough IMO, he is a sell out, the right just likes to bitch. Obama being black has little to do with it, not nothing, but little.

Hate from what I see is more likely to be expressed by folks who think they are liberal or take popular liberal positions as needed to remain on the liberal hype train. Part of the self righteous BS this crowd wears like a prize.

Both sides are intellectually dishonest and manipulative in how they go about their business and responses to anything from the other side. It's very consistent and very predictable, and it appears to be getting worse.

We drop the act we are much closer on most issues, that makes us harder to control though, easier to keep a nice breach going. 2 parties just right for that.

You are aware enough and intelligent enough to see both sides are the problem, neither is the solution. Though, the stubborness and rigid stupidity on the right might be easier to pinpoint and belittle. This will change based on economy overlap to the color of the suit the clown in office wears.

Yeh, defend false equivalency by using an even broader brush, right?

You offer that you know what Libs would do wrt this if Obama were Republican on the basis of faith alone, on the basis that they have no greater scruples than their Repub adversaries.

One has only to examine the record to see that isn't true. Repubs have resorted to one unscrupulous attack after another, from Birtherism through a string of faux scandals, hostage taking incidents & total obstructionism to arrive at this and criticizing the color of his suit.

There is no pattern of such misdeeds among Libs wrt his predecessor & we both know it.