The Obama Years- A GOP love story

[tshile]

I think the point was he took 4 days before making a national address and those on the right lambasted obama for not saying anything (some in this thread...) less than 24 hours citing... regan's response as an example of how to handle things.

in his own memoirs he says he was sad to have had to deal wait it - because he was looking forward to the last 3 days of his vacation.

that aside...

iraq warned of isis in august of 2013. in january 2014 isis captured fallujah and Obama responded by clearly not taking it seriously.

this entire administration has continued to drop the ball in foreign policy issues.

[CRedskinsRule]

Reagan's era dealt with wired phones, newspapers, and commodore 64s(well maybe IBM mainframes) not high speed video feeds, instantaneous news feeds from multiple sources, and Intel computers dealing with terabytes of data.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You and Stewart must have no historical knowledge of Reagan's economic, military and political actions that ultimately destroyed the USSR. Let's also remember the USSR then and now are completely different. Reagan didn't want to launch into a full scale war with the Soviets when he knew the economic pressure, along with the US military build-up and threat of SDI were working to destroy the USSR....without the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives that would've been lost in an all-out war with them.

Contrast Reagan's actions prior to KAL 007 with Obama's open-mike statement to having more "flexibility" to work with Putin and the USSR after the 2012 election and you see the result is an aggressive Russia that has no fear whatsoever of a strong US response to their aggressive actions in the region. US weakness only emboldens our enemies and those that want to expand their power through evil and aggression against their neighbors.

First off, I'm merely commenting about Reagan's/Obama's response to a plane shot down. I don't recall formulating a stance that Reagan was weak with Russia, but I can guarantee you that he would not have done ANYTHING about the invasion of Ukraine. Did they do anything with Afghanistan? Nope. Well, they did train and fund Mujahideen fighters, which end up turning around and being some of the same guys that caused 9/11, but that's another story.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY (Reagan/Romney/Bush/etc) would be sending troops to Ukraine to fight off an invading Russian army. First off, we can't afford it. We are to our eyeballs in debt, and simply cannot afford another war anytime soon. Secondly, Russia still has nukes, and no matter how bad we could wipe the floor with Russia, at the end, would you trust a lunatic like Putin with his finger on a nuke? Nope.

Also, I'd say the USSR had more to do with their collapse than Reagan or the US. The USSR invested all their money into military instead of opening up the economy and letting it flourish. (which is what we did) Hey, it's kind of the route we are heading down now.

Putin has brought some prosperity back to Russia, but he's still a old KGB man with dreams of a unified USSR. The bad news for him is even if he did get back the USSR, it will NEVER EVER reach the might they once had. All Putin is doing now is cutting economic strings to his country and eventually the oligarchs in Russia will turn on him.

I'm no Obama supporter, but I'm not sure what you all expect Obama to do? At the end of the day, Ukraine isn't a valued resource for us so the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Reagan's era dealt with wired phones, newspapers, and commodore 64s(well maybe IBM mainframes) not high speed video feeds, instantaneous news feeds from multiple sources, and Intel computers dealing with terabytes of data.

Yet he still had the information immediately and it still took 4 days. And he still made that comment in his book.

Yet he's the only used to criticize the current reaction.

I get that the current Administration sucks at foreign policy. What's funny/sad/amusing is the lengths some people go to find criticism.

They could have at least looked into how long it took Regan to respond before chastising Obama, since they clearly couldn't remember themselves.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm no Obama supporter, but I'm not sure what you all expect Obama to do? At the end of the day, Ukraine isn't a valued resource for us so the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

This has been my question from the start.

When you finally get people to stop speaking in grand and ambiguous terms you find out not very many people have any actionable ideas that's are all that different than what is currently going on.

It's growing tiring watching how people react to this stuff in the media (politicians and talking heads) and how so many people latch onto it and join in...

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Reagan's era dealt with wired phones, newspapers, and commodore 64s(well maybe IBM mainframes) not high speed video feeds, instantaneous news feeds from multiple sources, and Intel computers dealing with terabytes of data.

Yes, but the Russians dealt with the same tech restraints. I dont think has to do with policy and strategy with the soviets, in fact, probably was harder with what you mentioned above, it was more of a poker game when things went silent.

[Chico23231]

People who keep mentioning armed conflict with Russia are completely dismissing the steps Obama has CLEARLY FUCKED UP. You dont have directly use force, did Reagan? No, but he toppled the Soviet...come'on think a little

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

People who keep mentioning armed conflict with Russia are completely dismissing the steps Obama has CLEARLY FUCKED UP. You dont have directly use force, did Reagan? No, but he toppled the Soviet...come'on think a little

Is this sarcasm? If so, it's going wayyyy over my head.

[NC_Skins]

You know it's bad when Darth Vader is polling higher than all the potential 2016 Presidential candidates.

Darth Vader is polling higher than all potential 2016 presidential candidates - The Washington Post

[Giantone]

I think we can admit ,Reagan wasn't dealing with Putin either .The situations and times are very different .

[Chico23231]

Will anyone stop ISIS? - CNN.com

tell ya, the things we go to war over and not go to war over is funny. genocide, nope, we dont have time to fight against that.

[CRedskinsRule]

This will turn in to a too long didn't read rambling post. Warning you upfront so you can choose to skip it, probably will be a rant against the current administration, but I want to say up front, republicans are idiots too, they just don't have much sway on the topics that are sitting on my mind leading to this rant. So please don't think I am favoring a return to the 2000 Bush presidency or the similar corporate shells of republicans. I wish we could somehow find a way back to real limited, decidedly neutral, government programs that benefit society and our national interests not individual groups, be they rich uppers, or poor lowers. We are tearing ourselves apart from the inside as the parties play off each other to distract us from their little clique.

And that's not even the rant!

I want to list several events in my mind, most of which point to gross incompetence, or pure lack of understanding, by those who are supposed to be defending our national security, but instead are collecting terabytes of data on our own citizens:
again, most of these are republican talking points but by no means am I arguing that the Republicans would have been better if they led the government, and sadly it's probably not all inclusive, only the items that weigh on my feeble mind.:

• Benghazi
• Russian flights testing US airspace
• Chinese intercept of US patrol planes
• Chinese assertion of rights over disputed territories
• Corporations merging with international partners and transferring out of the US to avoid new taxes
• regional conflicts (Ukraine, Isr/Gaza, Libya )

In several of these the US position has either been "we didn't know" or "if you do x we will be mad at you"

It reminds me (and I was only 11-12 at the time, so this part is probably heavily biased by a very conservative father's clearly expressed opinions) of Jimmy Carter's presidency. One in which the US seemed unwilling or unclear on how to act on an international stage. Jimmy Carter is a great humanitarian, and I respect him as such, but I also believe that he thinks - or did when he was in office- that all societies and leaders of societies hold to the same values as the US professes too. I think Pres. Obama shares that vision. And that is bad for the US, and in my opinion, the world. I think he acts in the belief that others, not labeled Republican, will do "the right thing" as he defines it. Thus, while he can't deal with Republicans, because he knows they just don't get his world view, he defines US national policies in ways that assume that the other leaders abide in it. I do think he is coming to understand that other powers will want to step into the void created by group think strategies, but I don't think he, or his national security teams truly believe that other nation-states might actually believe their own view of the is better than what the US provides.

Take this quote from Pres Obama today:
Pres. Obama: "In just 4 months we will complete our combat mission in Afghanistan and America's longest war will come to a responsible end"

Last I checked, there was no truce signed by all combatants. Simply by proclaiming an end to US involvement doesn't mean the other side is going to go along with it. What it does mean is that other countries and interests are going to see a vacuum and from previous patterns of US behaviour they know that we will be reluctant to get back into "America's longest war". Just look at another quote from today:Pres. Obama: "Our military action in Iraq has to be part of a broader strategy ... to take our fight to ISIL" and Pres. Obama: "American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq", this isn't the first time we upfront take a whole level off the table. I get that you don't want to send troops, and that ideally no troops would have to go back, but if you telegraph it, others gain strength from perceived weakness.

I think it's fair to say (and I could be wrong) that most of our wars have started when people miscalculated US intent. I see this advisor build up in Iraq, and think of the advisors in Vietnam. I see regional flare ups, and think of how WWI started because someone killed an arch duke and it escalated. I see the US thinking putting harsh sanctions on Russia is a way to change the mind of Putin, and think of the harsh sanctions that led to the rise of Hitler.

Maybe we are the great shining example, and all other nations will see us and think Gosh, that's who we want to follow. BUT, I highly believe that others see our heavy handedness much like the Roman Empire's was felt, and they see our demise as an opening for their greatness. Be it a new Caliphate, a return to the Chinese empire, or the Russian control over the former soviet bloc.

And that's not even touching the surface of republican and democrat national policy. Ugh. Can I get back to the distraction of football now.

[Giantone]

What is it you want , what is it that you think we (Obama) should either do or have done ? You name these things ...


Benghazi
Russian flights testing US airspace
Chinese intercept of US patrol planes
Chinese assertion of rights over disputed territories
Corporations merging with international partners and transferring out of the US to avoid new taxes
regional conflicts (Ukraine, Isr/Gaza, Libya )

People in the US aren't happy,people everywhere are not happy and the US is the cause or the answer ,damned if we do and damned if we don't ! The new technology that there is people know things within mins if not seconds of when things happen and want to know who, what, where, when, thing is in the old days we didn't know everything and that was a good thing .I knew of the NSA ,CIA and FBI and I knew what they did and they protected America ,I did not need to know how they did there job ,just keep doing it .Ignorant some might call it ,no , I had faith in my country and it's leaders ,that is why they were elected even the ones I did not vote for .
Now everyone is under the gun (wrong choice of words) if you have a phone you are a reporter ,a photographer and now it's your job to get the news out regardless if you know what started whatever it is your texting , tweeting or instagraming about.Do you believe that with out "social media" and of these problems would be as big as they are today ,yes they are important I don't want to belittle any of them that is not my purpose ,people died and are dying in these conflicts .

1)Benghazi - a total FU on every front ,people in many places didn't do their job ,will be a republican buzz word .
2)Russian flights testing US airspace - this has been going on for decades ,so what ?
3)Chinese intercept of US patrol planes - See #2 , we do it to China ,they do it to others and Russa does it to us ,again so what ?
4)Chinese assertion of rights over disputed territories - Wrong without a doubt but again it has been going on for years ,usally we sit down and negotiate something with them .
5) Corporations merging with international partners and transferring out of the US to avoid new taxes - Ok ,still not new and has been going on lots O places just not in the USA for decades .
6)regional conflicts (Ukraine, Isr/Gaza, Libya ) see #4

[tshile]

I would have been happy on the Benghazi front if the administration didn't lie to us to protect an upcoming election.

That's the lowest of the low in my opinion.


#5 is easy - if you do that you should be disqualified from federal grants and tax breaks immediately. I'd even consider playing higher taxes on companies that do this because - fuck them, that's because.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by tshile

I would have been happy on the Benghazi front if the administration didn't lie to us to protect an upcoming election.

That's the lowest of the low in my opinion.


#5 is easy - if you do that you should be disqualified from federal grants and tax breaks immediately. I'd even consider playing higher taxes on companies that do this because - fuck them, that's because.

I still don't think they lied ,one hand does'nt know what the other has said or done a total FU but I don't believe they are lying .

On #5) I agree with you but again this has been going on for years and nobody from either party has or will do a damn thing about it .