Obama on ISIS: "Ideologies Are Not Defeated With Guns, But By Better Ideas"

[deljzc]

Indeed. Another great lesson in why politicians need to stay the hell out of military decision making.

It's not like foreign policy and war were anything Obama learned or was prepared for. He was raised on Chicago politics. Used race when it mattered. Made handshakes with some shady characters over the years. Who knows how he got his money to run for president.

Half of the Republican candidates are just as lax on foreign policy as Obama.

Even if you hate her, I doubt Hillary Clinton will be as unprepared for foreign issues as Obama. She's had too much experience with her husband and time as Secretary of State. Same thing with Jeb Bush. Too many connections to his father/brother not to know some things (as long as Jeb stays away from Chaney/Rumsfeld).

So whoever gets left with this middle east mess left by Obama's lack of action is bound to have a better head on their shoulders.

 

[Tibs]

So whoever gets left with this middle east mess left by Obama's lack of action is bound to have a better head on their shoulders.

While I agree with you our middle east policy is - and has been - a complete mess, to lay this all at the feet of Obama is a massive inaccuracy.

WASHINGTON — Seeking war power authority for three years, President Barack Obama is setting up the prospect that his successor will become the third American president in a row overseeing U.S. military forces grappling with turmoil in the Middle East.

I would argue it goes back even further than that... Which of course does not exonerate Obama for not doing much in the way of coming up with a reasonable solution, but he'll just be one of many US presidents that have failed in that regard.

I would also argue George W.'s ill conceived war on Iraq did 300x more damage to stability in the region than anything Obama has - or hasn't - done.

 

[Omar10213245]

"Ideologies are not defeated with guns but better ideas and more attracting and more compelling vision."


OK, I'm a pretty simple guy. Will someone explain just what this means?

It means you better have your little red book next time the authorities come to your home for your weekly health-n-welfare check, comrade!

 

[Ron Burgundy]

While I agree with you our middle east policy is - and has been - a complete mess, to lay this all at the feet of Obama is a massive inaccuracy.

They were supposed to like us because He was the First Muslim President.

I would also argue George W.'s ill conceived war on Iraq did 300x more damage to stability in the region than anything Obama has - or hasn't - done.

Things were going just fine until Bomma pulled most of our troops out but in the minds of Democrats it's better to fail at something than to have it look like the hated Bush was right.

 

[Sarge]

Not sure why ya'll need to constantly undermine Obama's - and our military's - ongoing efforts. To suggest that Obama hasn't been taking the fight to Al Quaida and ISIS is ridiculous. Sure, he's smart enough to know that a full scale invasion, land war, occupation is probably not the way to go. But there are other means.

Yeah, having a dude in your sights and waiting while some General contacts an attorney to decide whether or not you are allowed to fire is taking the fight to the enemy. Watching them disappear while you wait is REALLY taking the fight to the enemy. I mean, having to jump through all that red tape to kill a bad guy doesn't undermine our military's efforts at all. You are so full of ****.

 

[deljzc]

While I agree with you our middle east policy is - and has been - a complete mess, to lay this all at the feet of Obama is a massive inaccuracy.

I would argue it goes back even further than that... Which of course does not exonerate Obama for not doing much in the way of coming up with a reasonable solution, but he'll just be one of many US presidents that have failed in that regard.

I would also argue George W.'s ill conceived war on Iraq did 300x more damage to stability in the region than anything Obama has - or hasn't - done.

It wasn't just W's war. Most of the country supported it and congress voted for it and our allied provided 20% of the initial ground invasion force. And don't hide behind the bullshit WMD issue. That was a very minor piece of the puzzle on why we invaded but has been distorted by the media and politicians looking to save face as the only reason.

Plus, there were some very sound and politically strategic reasons to invade Iraq. The problem was Bush's advisors starting listening to the almighty dollar and personal interests rather than see the war through. And America wasn't (and isn't) ready for what sacrifices and commitment really would be needed to nation build in the middle east. People say we shouldn't nation build but we have after every conflict. We helped rebuild Germany and Japan. We helped rebuild South Korea. Basically, the politicians listened to the stupid american public and left Iraq high and dry. That was Obama's platform and he delivered.

The void has been filled. Funny how Americans don't like what arose out of the chaos we created when we left.

We should have military bases in Iraq. We should have at least 25,000 troops stationed there all the time (hell, take some from Germany). We probably should have invaded and overthrown Syria's president by now and we should probably be brokering the redrawing of borders, the creation of a Palestinian State, a new Syria/Sunni state, a Kurdish state (Turkey hates us anyhow) and a strong Shiite Iraq that isn't in Iran's back pocket. Then we might be in position to negotiate with Iran for real into stopping their nuclear weapon program.

The blueprint was how the civil war in the Balkan and breakup of Yugoslavia happened. It takes diplomacy and a strong military presence in the area that has no timetable or deadline for leaving.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

We are set to cut the Army by 40,000 troops. That's the new strategy.

 

[DBS1970]

We are set to cut the Army by 40,000 troops. That's the new strategy.

We have to. We cant afford to spend the money on current troop levels. We really learned nothing from Vietnam and got roped into another quagmire in the middle east.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

We have to. We cant afford to spend the money on current troop levels. We really learned nothing from Vietnam and got roped into another quagmire in the middle east.

So that's gonna be 40,000 more people looking for jobs....and an additional 17,000 civilians. 57,000 more people looking for work and (possibly) on unemployment. How does that save money? It's a lose-lose.

 

[DBS1970]

So that's gonna be 40,000 more people looking for jobs....and an additional 17,000 civilians. 57,000 more people looking for work and (possibly) on unemployment. How does that save money? It's a lose-lose.

The military is not a producer of wealth, It is a net consumer. The bad economy is problematic right now but eventually those people will find jobs in the private sector where they will contribute to the economy. Keep in mind I am former military and was a career soldier until I was injured so I am not anti-military or national defense. I just recognize the realities of the armed forces being a necessary evil. Burgundy had a treatise on why private sector spending and jobs are better at driving the economy than government jobs. Perhaps he will repost it and add to what I have said.

 

[Superman]

Supe, you're either nuts or just playing to the home crowd.

This is just Pakistan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

It may take a while to scroll through, the kill list is substantial.

Not sure why ya'll need to constantly undermine Obama's - and our military's - ongoing efforts. To suggest that Obama hasn't been taking the fight to Al Quaida and ISIS is ridiculous. Sure, he's smart enough to know that a full scale invasion, land war, occupation is probably not the way to go. But there are other means.



I have no response to this, besides sitting back in my chair and shaking my head.

so you think these drone strikes are doing something preventive? while they are obviously preventing those killed from doing anything again, long-term, this is not a viable solution. yes, the list is long. yes, a lot of ******** were killed. but, look at the bigger picture. ISIS/IS/ISIL is recruiting and growing faster than random drone strikes in Pakistan. So, while Bomma has "gotten really good" at killing people via drone (his words, not mine), his efforts are akin to killing a single mosquito in the Everglades.

 

[Spike]

We are set to cut the Army by 40,000 troops. That's the new strategy.

part of it


Navy, Marines Ease Up on Transgender Policy

The Navy and Marine Corps have joined the Army and Air Force in making it harder to discharge transgender military members.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus signed a memorandum last Wednesday stating, "Effective immediately, separations initiated under the provisions of the reference for service members with a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, who identify themselves as transgender, or who have taken steps to externalize the condition, must be forwarded to the assistant secretary of the Navy (manpower and reserve affairs) for decision."

The memo was directed to the chief of naval operations and commandant of the Marine Corps. Previously, discharge could be initiated by unit commanders.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...er-policy.html

 

[IndySteel]

Patton would **** himself today.

 

[Steeltime]

I agree he's probably just doing as little as possible, not make it "his issue" and hope his policies last long enough until another president is in place to make the tough decisions.

Yep.

He hopes Jeb wins, so he can then blame Bush for his own failures. Blaming Bush - it's the only thing he is actually good at.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Burgundy had a treatise on why private sector spending and jobs are better at driving the economy than government jobs. Perhaps he will repost it and add to what I have said.

Damned if I know where it is.

 

[SteelChip]

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Burgundy had a treatise on why private sector spending and jobs are better at driving the economy than government jobs. Perhaps he will repost it and add to what I have said.

Damned if I know where it is.

I can try from memory.
Burgundy puts on econ professor hat.
Basically private-sector jobs are self-supporting and self-creating. Government jobs are a cost that has to be paid for by one or two ways, or both. One, paid for by taxes or two paid for by borrowing, i.e. printing money that goes into the bank accounts of govt employees. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total value of goods and services produced by a country in a year. Let's call that 100%. It costs some money to run the govt. No one is saying we don't need the govt except the Occupiers who are Democrats anyway. Let's say it costs 30% of GDP to run the govt. That 30% (taxes) HAS to come from the 100%. However if that 100% pie starts to shrink, like it does in a recession, but the 30% in terms of sheer dollars doesn't shrink, then pretty soon it becomes 40%. There HAS to be something left over to run the rest of the economy and peoples' lives. When the govt's share becomes bigger and bigger it consumes more of peoples' money which leaves them less to spend on other things, which perpetuates a recession. Most of the the time govts will take the easy way out and print more money to finance their spending. Further, govts will spend money with a political calculation (BommaPhones, welfare, solar subsidies) rather than an economic one like normal people do regarding what is an efficient use of money.
Hope this helps.

 

[IndySteel]

The private sector is racist.