I'm pretty jaded...but not that jaded.
The quote Palin actually did make is almost as stupid. More importantly it wasn't a simple flub like the Obama 56 states thing. She was genuinely trying to make the argument that she had foreign policy experience because Russia was near Alaska.
I am sick to the puke point of neocons telling me what a threat this ME country or that ME country is to America. The real threat to America is neocons lying to us, manipulating us and getting us into one mindless war after another without end. How the fuck Obama let these rabid dogs goad him into this insanity is beyond me.
obama is a war mongering neocon every much as bush was.
Comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan/Iraq is apples and oranges. Plus, we didn't crush our enemies in Vietnam.My focus was on the folks saying we won because both resemble Vietnam where we crushed our enemies yet still pulled out without changing anything. We won WW1, WW2, had a treaty ending conflict in Korea yet other than our Bosnia intervention and the Persian Gulf war where our objectives were clearly met we have not won anything.
Comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan/Iraq is apples and oranges. Plus, we didn't crush our enemies in Vietnam.
Funny that you bring up WW1 as something we "won" as well. WW1 is what got the whole shitstorm rolling in the ME in the first place. Unfortunately many of those same ME countries neglect to recall that they were once on the losing side and that the only reason they have their own countries today, instead of being territories of the US or UK, is because we allowed it to happen. Maybe we shouldn't have been so accommodating?
I am sick to the puke point of neocons telling me what a threat this ME country or that ME country is to America. The real threat to America is neocons lying to us, manipulating us and getting us into one mindless war after another without end. How the fuck Obama let these rabid dogs goad him into this insanity is beyond me.
Kill ratio was like 10 nva to 1 us in Vietnam. I would consider that a crush. the reason the us lost is due to not having defined goals.
Eh, I disagree. In terms of domestic policy, Obama has regrettably been similar to Bush in a lot of ways.
In terms of foreign policy, Obama has been far more cautious than Bush was (incursions into Pakistan and drone strikes notwithstanding). Numerous times people in Congress like McCain and some foreign leaders in Europe have tried to get us to commit a lot more resources to places like Libya (prior to Gaddafi's death) and Syria. For the most part, Obama has resisted that pressure.
Unfortunately, it looks like he's been convinced to give weapons to Syria, which many of us obviously think is a huge mistake. Unless he puts boots on the ground, though, he's still not going to approach Bush's level of war-mongering.
Na, closer to 20:1 wasn't it?.
There were a few reasons we lost, but you are correct in saying we crushed them (numerically). Too bad mass death doesn't dissuade fierce nationalists willing to endure severe losses. The White House made an already difficult conflict all the more unmanageable though, I think we should all be able to agree on that.
Personally I don't look at kill ratio as a valid measure of crushing our enemy. Kills are meaningless if the desired outcome is not achieved. The ratio in Iraq (including civilians) was allegedly somewhere around 300:1. Yet our victory there was sketchy for a long time, and some still won't accept it, like Fisk (and Lemon law, if he's still around).Kill ratio was like 10 nva to 1 us in Vietnam. I would consider that a crush. the reason the us lost is due to not having defined goals.
If Sarah palin agrees with you...you really need tot ake a long hard look in the mirror....Sarah Palin agrees with you
http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-u-...-politics.html
Let Allah sort it. I thought Palin was suppose to be a dummy on foreign policy?
Sound like someone is butt-hurt that Sarah Palin looks more intelligent on Syria than the Democratic savior
if you spew shit out of your ass, every once in a while you are bound to stumble on something that sounds like intelligence
Sarah Palin talk from her v****a
Omar built up a brigade of rebel fighters...Then, virtually overnight, they collapsed....wasn't defeated by the government. It was dismantled by a rival band of revolutionaries - hardline Islamists...The Islamists confiscated the brigade's weapons, ammunition and cars
During a 10-day journey through rebel-held territory in Syria, Reuters journalists found that radical Islamist units are sidelining more moderate groups that do not share the Islamists' goal of establishing a supreme religious leadership in the country.
Many pledge allegiance to the notion of a unified Free Syrian Army (FSA). But on the ground there is little evidence to suggest the FSA actually exists as a body at all.
Quite relevant, well said.
Um.... can Obama unilaterally even do this himself? Doesn't the legislature control the purse strings? I don't think he can send arms over without the consent of the legislature.
-snip-
That is just excusing Obamas warmongering.
Like when he signed NDAA. He didnt really want to do it but had to "wink wink".
I find it hard to believe a president who has embraced using drones and missile attacks on his own citizens
is resisting Euro pressure to topple old enemies using their population against them while making it impossible for the regimes to deal with them(no-fly zones). The script was set in Libya. When The Libyian regime was set to win he effectively crushed them using airpower and arming the resistance.
When Syria captured a major city a little under 2 weeks ago and appear to be winning? Well now is the time to get involved by trumping up chemical weapon use.
Which btw is another thing he took from Bush. A classic page out of the Bush war doctrine handbook.
The difference this time is his warmongering is closer to countries that can help. So his actions are now bringing in Iran and Russia. Nice job Obama, turning a civil war into a potential regional conflict. Something he stated was his concern from the get go.
No, that's just you dismissing what sets him apart from Bush. When Obama starts something on the scale of Iraq then you;ll have something. I think it matters a lot that Obama wants to take care of business on the small scale instead of unilateral all-out invasions and occupations. I haven't heard any threats from him either, no ultimatums for other leaders to bounce from their country or the 82nd is bringing their mail. I do recall Obama taking the "tough shit," angle with Pakistan regarding OBL, but I'm not about to fault him for that.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on Obama's real motivations and thoughts...
Guess you missed the whole "last resort" part of the drone issue? How does one embrace a tactic when that tactic is what is used when all other avenues are exhausted? We kill Americans within our own borders without due process all the time, they just have to provide the appropriate threat to other Americans. Whether it's Obama giving the CIA the green light to drone somebody or Cheney having his hit squad snuff someone, in the end it's the same and going to happen regardless of if we like it or not so take some comfort in that at least with this guy there is some special court oversight involved.
When exactly did Ghaddafi have the rebels on the ropes? Are you referring to Abdel Younis getting assassinated? I like how you frame this like it is was some scheme by Obama, that NATO wasn't involved. He didn't crush anything, the most valuable thing Obama did for the rebels was give them data from round the clock surveillance of Libyan assets. Drones did fire a few times on Libyan targets as I understand it, but engaging wasn't their primary function. I don't see how that is more noteworthy than real air strikes conducted by NATO. Or Britain, France and Italy putting SF on the ground.
I'm going to stifle my laughter for the moment and instead just ask if you could give me some examples of Obama following the Bush Doctrine principles of unilateral action and preemptive attack (Abbottabad doesn't count). Forget that we've been listening and watching Obama and his admin resist the hawks, build a political coalition to stop the fighting, and basically tread cautiously. You know, classic examples.
Well Fern, why the hell is Obama doing this? It makes utterly no sense to me. How did we get to the point where a single individual has the power to engage in us madness that is patently against our own country's interests? Why is there bipartisan support for this idiocy when there is overwhelming opposition to it by the American people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bshole
Well Fern, why the hell is Obama doing this? It makes utterly no sense to me. How did we get to the point where a single individual has the power to engage in us madness that is patently against our own country's interests? Why is there bipartisan support for this idiocy when there is overwhelming opposition to it by the American people?
I have no f'ing idea.
It makes no sense to me either.