The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Until I see the "united nations" as willing to do something, rather than nothing, I support Obama's unilateralism effort. And until I see Obama explain the end state/goal of military strikes towards an acceptable end-game (the elimination of Syria's ability to use *or export* chemical weapons) then I don't support his efforts either. This is something that we have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is a large part of the problem though imho - the media place emphasis 'on 'action' rather than 'considered action' ... that is everything has to be done NOW.

The UN WERE taking action, they were investigating things before the US forced their inspectors out of the country by saying they were going to bomb it ...

Taking action without knowing they're the right actions is just asking for a disaster imho ... it'd be like having a court where judgements are taken purely on public opinion rather than evidence ...

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't know where Obama is going with this. He confused or pissed off just about everyone in the region over Egypt and Libya and I doubt he even knows it. Every adviser worth anything has long since left him to his own ego cocoon.

+ 1

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

May I ask, What SE Asia problem?

Sorry, I was thinking my Twilight Struggle boardgame where the Korean peninsula is part of the SE Asia.

The Korean Peninsula problem is what I meant.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Yes hugely so - back home more emphasis is generally placed on 'quality' when eating out rather than quantity ... although I did notice in the last 5-10 years that a few lower rung establishments have started going with the 'larger' portions rather than better quality (Hungry Horse pubs etc.).

In a similar manner if you're vegetarian or similar eating out in the UK is a breeze compared to here (my wife watched a pro-veggie film the other night and is considering going back to being vegetarian, she was when we first met).

I was in Asia a couple months ago. The serving sizes are definitely smaller (and tasted better).

I was in UK recently, the serving sizes are somewhat smaller but I would not say the quality is better (had fish and chips and Indian curry dish).

What I've noticed is soft drinks. No where else (that I've seen) do you get free refills at a restaurant. I pretty much drink diet nowadays.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I was in UK recently, the serving sizes are somewhat smaller but I would not say the quality is better (had fish and chips and Indian curry dish).

I think a lot is down to your expectations of food and taste - England is more catering towards a 'blander' taste than in the US where everything is saturated in flavor (esp. sugar/salt) ... I remember when my wife first moved to England we went out and had strawberries and cream at a nice little cafe and she thought they'd forgotten the sugar so 'sugared' hers ....

You'll find this throughout the spectrum with food, when I first moved here I expected 'Indian' food to be the same here as in the UK and it isn't its tailored to the US tastes, which is frankly sensible for the restaurant owners and I really should have expected it ..)

Next time you visit the UK I'd recommend going into the countryside and getting a sunday lunch at a traditional pub ...

PS - As with all places food is very hit/miss depending on the venue, with Fish and Chips avoid any touristy places as they don't care about repeat custom - find somewhere which relies upon locals and repeat trade, similarly with an Indian restaurant avoid any which cater mainly for the 'pub/drinking' crowd as they'll be lower quality and more spice.

[Edward64]

Here's my tarcone-take on the likely scenario.

Strike happens even if Congress does not support it. US, France with Turkey, UK supporting behind the scenes and some Arab nations providing moral support. Its against Assad and (hopefully) the AQ/extremist rebels. There is 2-3 months of sustained bombing. Moderate rebels are supported by unconventional troops (there has to be some forward observers to guide in the strikes right?).

Russia complains and supports Syria with money and weapons behind the scenes. Iran sends/encourages more "volunteers" to fight in Syria (they have to).

Ultimately the sustained bombing greatly weakens Assad and the QA/extremist rebels. The moderate rebels are in better position. The civil war drags on.

More hypothetically ...

Iran is more active or US/Israel decides there is enough provocation to strike at Iran. Nuclear weapon facilities and oil fields are hit. Saudi Arabia and other friendly oil states have guaranteed to make up the difference but oil prices increases and the market crashes anyway (sell Disney!).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This is a large part of the problem though imho - the media place emphasis 'on 'action' rather than 'considered action' ... that is everything has to be done NOW.

The UN WERE taking action, they were investigating things before the US forced their inspectors out of the country by saying they were going to bomb it ...

Taking action without knowing they're the right actions is just asking for a disaster imho ... it'd be like having a court where judgements are taken purely on public opinion rather than evidence ...

Sure I get that we don't need it to happen right away, but seriously, UN inspections are about as illegitimate as it comes. It's like the Peace Corps but with less access. They are worthless, Marc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mike D

UN inspections are about as illegitimate as it comes. It's like the Peace Corps but with less access. They are worthless, Marc.

Hmm ... I'm pretty sure you could remove the word "inspections" from that quote & still have a pretty accurate statement

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Sure I get that we don't need it to happen right away, but seriously, UN inspections are about as illegitimate as it comes. It's like the Peace Corps but with less access. They are worthless, Marc.

I have no proof that is the case at all - nor do I have insight into exactly what they comprise of.

I personally have more faith in the UN as a collection of nations all with different agendas to be less biased than for a single nation making a decision (but part of this might be down to my upbringing in England).

[Dutch]

I know that the US is no absolute goodness that must be trusted, but the UN is broken not because of the US track record but because of the USSR and Chineese track records. So if I have to side with the USSRs veto to order inaction or the USA asking for action, I will side with the USA whose track record has been far superior.

[sterlingice]

They're not the USSR any more but... oh, why bother...

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I think a lot is down to your expectations of food and taste - England is more catering towards a 'blander' taste than in the US where everything is saturated in flavor (esp. sugar/salt) ... I remember when my wife first moved to England we went out and had strawberries and cream at a nice little cafe and she thought they'd forgotten the sugar so 'sugared' hers ....

You'll find this throughout the spectrum with food, when I first moved here I expected 'Indian' food to be the same here as in the UK and it isn't its tailored to the US tastes, which is frankly sensible for the restaurant owners and I really should have expected it ..)

Next time you visit the UK I'd recommend going into the countryside and getting a sunday lunch at a traditional pub ...

PS - As with all places food is very hit/miss depending on the venue, with Fish and Chips avoid any touristy places as they don't care about repeat custom - find somewhere which relies upon locals and repeat trade, similarly with an Indian restaurant avoid any which cater mainly for the 'pub/drinking' crowd as they'll be lower quality and more spice.

Reminds me of a joke that I forgot where I heard it about the Patron Saint of British cooking being Sir Boil-it-til-it's-Gray.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Here's my tarcone-take on the likely scenario.

Strike happens even if Congress does not support it. US, France with Turkey, UK supporting behind the scenes and some Arab nations providing moral support. Its against Assad and (hopefully) the AQ/extremist rebels. There is 2-3 months of sustained bombing. Moderate rebels are supported by unconventional troops (there has to be some forward observers to guide in the strikes right?).

Russia complains and supports Syria with money and weapons behind the scenes. Iran sends/encourages more "volunteers" to fight in Syria (they have to).

Ultimately the sustained bombing greatly weakens Assad and the QA/extremist rebels. The moderate rebels are in better position. The civil war drags on.

More hypothetically ...

Iran is more active or US/Israel decides there is enough provocation to strike at Iran. Nuclear weapon facilities and oil fields are hit. Saudi Arabia and other friendly oil states have guaranteed to make up the difference but oil prices increases and the market crashes anyway (sell Disney!).

All of these whacked out scenarios require Israel and Iran to get into it. But the thing is, Israel and Iran will not get into it not because of Syria. They may get into it with each other because of internal politics, because of some action in their constant back-and-forth, or because it's Tuesday or the sky is blue. Can we all agree that if they go after each other "because of Syria", it's really not because of Syria?

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

They're not the USSR any more but... oh, why bother...

SI

Dutch learned his foreign policy from Mitt, didn't you know?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

All of these whacked out scenarios require Israel and Iran to get into it. But the thing is, Israel and Iran will not get into it not because of Syria. They may get into it with each other because of internal politics, because of some action in their constant back-and-forth, or because it's Tuesday or the sky is blue. Can we all agree that if they go after each other "because of Syria", it's really not because of Syria?

SI

True.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

All of these whacked out scenarios require Israel and Iran to get into it. But the thing is, Israel and Iran will not get into it not because of Syria. They may get into it with each other because of internal politics, because of some action in their constant back-and-forth, or because it's Tuesday or the sky is blue. Can we all agree that if they go after each other "because of Syria", it's really not because of Syria?
SI

I agree its not the root cause of Israel and Iran, its the nuclear program. But I do believe the Syria conflict would make it more convenient for a strike if Iran is seen "crossing the line" in its support of Syria.

Some possible scenarios are

1. Syria launches missiles into Israel
2. Iran "volunteers" enter Syria en masse
3. Iran tries to close the gulf
4. Terrorist activities increases and link can be established
5. etc.

[DaddyTorgo]

The New York Times explained why the new analysis should "demolish" the prevailing mythology about vanishing Medicare doctors once and for all:

The analysts looked at seven years of federal survey data and found that doctors are not fleeing Medicare in droves; in fact, the percentage of doctors accepting new Medicare patients actually rose to 90.7 percent in 2012 from 87.9 percent in 2005. They are not shunning Medicare patients for better-paying private patients, either; the percentage of doctors accepting new Medicare patients in recent years was slightly higher than the percentage accepting new privately insured patients. Medicare patients had comparable or better access to medical services than the access reported by privately insured individuals ages 50 to 64, who are just below the age for Medicare eligibility. Surveys sponsored by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent agency that advises Congress, found that 77 percent of the Medicare patients -- compared with only 72 percent of privately insured patients -- said they never had an unreasonably long wait for a routine doctor's appointment last year.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

They're not the USSR any more but... oh, why bother...

SI

It was intentional. They are acting the same way they did during the Cold War, which is why I reverted the name back. Lest we forget.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

They're not the USSR any more but... oh, why bother...

SI

The basic difference between USSR and today's Russia is that Russia is a little smaller in land size.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The basic difference between USSR and today's Russia is that Russia is a little smaller in land size.

And the Warsaw Pact is no more.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cartman

And the Warsaw Pact is no more.

That's true but they were a buffer against the West in the old way of warfare. Putin seems to be in the mold of the Cold War leaders except much more sneaky and deceptive about it.

[Edward64]

Gallup polling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164282/su...conflicts.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' support for the United States' taking military action against the Syrian government for its suspected use of chemical weapons is on track to be among the lowest for any intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 20 years. Thirty-six percent of Americans favor the U.S. taking military action in order to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons. The majority -- 51% -- oppose such action, while 13% are unsure.

[jeff061]

I think I may be more frustrated by Obama over the past month than I ever was with Bush. That's coming from a dyed in the wool Bush hater.

Attack or don't attack. Make a damn decision. Don't set expectations and shirk from them when it's time to make good on them. He is more or less the antithesis of a leader.

Very frustrating.

[Ben E Lou]

U.N. chief: Chemical weapons in Syria would be 'abominable' - CNN.com

[Edward64]

This would be a good compromise (and a great save for Obama).

Obama: 'Breakthrough' is possible on Syria - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- Russia's proposal for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons to international control was a "potentially positive development," but could be a stall tactic, President Barack Obama told CNN on Monday.

"We're going to run this to ground," Obama said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, adding that the United States will work with Syrian ally Russia and the international community "to see if we can arrive at something that is enforceable and serious."

[Dutch]

Didn't Russia just call for the Syrians to destroy the chem stash? If they destroy all the evidence that this shit came from Iraq and then just hand over the shit the Russians sold them, it would be a huge win for Syria/Russia.

[JPhillips]

Syria has had chemical weapons for decades. They didn't need anything from Iraq.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Syria has had chemical weapons for decades. They didn't need anything from Iraq.

Oh you hope!!!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The basic difference between USSR and today's Russia is that Russia is a little smaller in land size.

And they are part of worldwide capitalism rather than a closed economic system - which is quite a substantial difference.

[Dutch]

That's because we beat the ever-living-Communist out of them under President Reagan.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mike D

we beat the ever-living-Communist out of them

Dammit, that's a great line, I don't care who ya are

[Solecismic]

Sounds like cooler heads finally prevailed. Putin made a strong statement. It was wise to call him on it. All this red-line talk wasn't productive at all. What's important is that Assad knows Russia saved his bacon and that they're now responsible for future actions. Essentially, Russia just signed for Syria's first credit card. Any more chemical attacks on either side, and Russia has to perform first-response.

It's a different world than it was in 1986, when Reagan essentially did the "unbelievably small" thing against Gaddafi, despite international frustration. This is post-9/11 and post-Iraq and, most importantly, in the Information Age.

Now we just have to get John Kerry to spin down. Someone needs to explain to him that when a high percentage of your international support consists of Saudi Arabia, you're probably not acting in America's best interests.

[cartman]

Stolen from Fark:

The Nobel committee knew what they were doing when they awarded Obama the Peace Prize. No one else on earth could have turned Republicans anti-war.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Sounds like cooler heads finally prevailed. Putin made a strong statement. It was wise to call him on it. All this red-line talk wasn't productive at all. What's important is that Assad knows Russia saved his bacon and that they're now responsible for future actions. Essentially, Russia just signed for Syria's first credit card. Any more chemical attacks on either side, and Russia has to perform first-response.

It's a different world than it was in 1986, when Reagan essentially did the "unbelievably small" thing against Gaddafi, despite international frustration. This is post-9/11 and post-Iraq and, most importantly, in the Information Age.

Now we just have to get John Kerry to spin down. Someone needs to explain to him that when a high percentage of your international support consists of Saudi Arabia, you're probably not acting in America's best interests.

Unless you know you believe that the "red line talk" was needed to bring Russia to the table.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Stolen from Fark:

Thanks God someone else sees the irony in this. I've been saying the same thing for weeks.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Unless you know you believe that the "red line talk" was needed to bring Russia to the table.

Good god the liberal posting in this thread has grinded to a halt in the past week or so with the ones who did appear mostly conceding Obama was making some bad moves. Now things look temporarily better and DT is already spinning "It was the plan all along!"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Thanks God someone else sees the irony in this. I've been saying the same thing for weeks.

Don't worry both parties will find a war with a tiny country they can both support and pat each other on the back chanting USA in no time.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Good god the liberal posting in this thread has grinded to a halt in the past week or so with the ones who did appear mostly conceding Obama was making some bad moves. Now things look temporarily better and DT is already spinning "It was the plan all along!"

Do you have an actual response to what he said or are you just interested in making ad hominem attacks?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Good god the liberal posting in this thread has grinded to a halt in the past week or so with the ones who did appear mostly conceding Obama was making some bad moves. Now things look temporarily better and DT is already spinning "It was the plan all along!"

You know I defend you all the time against people and this is the thanks I get in return? I'm too nice.

You know what - Fuck you.

Maybe consider before you go running off at the mouth with your same old bullshit about "liberals" and "conservatives" and trying to reduce everything to that overly-simplistic mindset that sometimes diplomacy is a many-layered thing. I know it requires actual thought and engagement with issues rather than just knee-jerk put-downs of everybody else and a smug sense of your intellectual superiority and everyone else's inferiority, but try it out hmm? You can't sit on the sidelines and throw stones forever - and by the way, if you do, you're really nothing more than a gnat.

I never said it was the plan all along - FTR I've been against any sort of military action for some time now and I think the administration has completely bungled this back and forth to EPIC porportions that have made us look stupid and foolish in the eyes of a lot of countries out there and may only be saved because Kerry threw out a hypothetical (that the administration then hilariously tried to walk back) that Russia & Syria seized on. But if it'll avoid another military conflict I'll take it - although I still want to see the Assad regime stop killing the people of Syria with whatever kinds of weapons they are using to do it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You know I defend you all the time against people and this is the thanks I get in return? I'm too nice.

You know what - Fuck you.

Maybe consider before you go running off at the mouth with your same old bullshit about "liberals" and "conservatives" and trying to reduce everything to that overly-simplistic mindset that sometimes diplomacy is a many-layered thing. I know it requires actual thought and engagement with issues rather than just knee-jerk put-downs of everybody else and a smug sense of your intellectual superiority and everyone else's inferiority, but try it out hmm? You can't sit on the sidelines and throw stones forever - and by the way, if you do, you're really nothing more than a gnat.

I never said it was the plan all along - FTR I've been against any sort of military action for some time now and I think the administration has completely bungled this back and forth to EPIC porportions that have made us look stupid and foolish in the eyes of a lot of countries out there and may only be saved because Kerry threw out a hypothetical (that the administration then hilariously tried to walk back) that Russia & Syria seized on. But if it'll avoid another military conflict I'll take it - although I still want to see the Assad regime stop killing the people of Syria with whatever kinds of weapons they are using to do it.

Eh, you take this all too personal. It's like if you were arguing Patriots vs. Giants and you kept saying stuff like Brady will throw 7 TD's and they said Manning will throw 8. So me coming in and saying you are both stupid would get nothing more than a shrug and maybe a offer from both of you to state an opinion. But for some reason you think politicians really care about what you think and are looking out for your interests at all. So when I laugh at you and offer up the Browns or the Jaguars as the alternative you get all defensive and resort to name calling.

PS: Who exactly have you defended me against? I think I have had like two members of the entire board on my side in the politics thread in the past 5 years!

EDIT: Better example. Last night in the NFL thread if I said "Where are all the Redskins fans?" when they were getting their asses kicked and then during the comeback somebody posted "Maybe this was Shannahan's plan all along!" I would make fun of them also.

[Lathum]

This Obama has some set of balls.

Love the part at the end where he talks about Syrian children dying on the hospital floor.

How about we worry about our boys who will be sent over there and some of them killed needlessly.

I can't wait to see how Obamas supporters justify his war mongering while the killed Bush for essentially the same thing.

How about we just let all those animals in the Middle East kill each other and worry about our own issues such as jobs, homelessness, education costs, David Wilsons fumbling issues, healthcare costs, etc...

[Lathum]

dola- I will fully admit I don't follow politics very closely, so take my comments for what they are, likely uninformed and uneducated.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I can't wait to see how Obamas supporters justify his war mongering while the killed Bush for essentially the same thing.

I'm personally appalled by how Obama has handled his presidency and if anything it appears to be getting worse at time goes on.

I can't believe the enthusiasm some people in power appear to have to dive into another war in an attempt to bankrupt the country and ensure the deaths of yet more people ...

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the fake cries of horror echoing around politicians recently ...

[Ben E Lou]

Dear Ruthless Dictators:

When slaughtering your own people, we will NOT tolerate you using chemical weapons. However, slaughtering them with conventional weapons will continue to be tolerated.

Sincerely,

The USA

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This Obama has some set of balls.

Love the part at the end where he talks about Syrian children dying on the hospital floor.

How about we worry about our boys who will be sent over there and some of them killed needlessly.

I can't wait to see how Obamas supporters justify his war mongering while the killed Bush for essentially the same thing.

Since I agreed with Bush on Afghanistan and disagreed with him on Iraq, what position am I allowed to take on Syria?

How about we just let all those animals in the Middle East kill each other and worry about our own issues such as jobs, homelessness, education costs, David Wilsons fumbling issues, healthcare costs, etc...

I don't really care what position you take on Syria, but that is an incredibly poor choice of words.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Since I agreed with Bush on Afghanistan and disagreed with him on Iraq, what position am I allowed to take on Syria?

I'm wondering this too.

[Lathum]

You can take any position you like, not looking for a debate. As for my word choice I think it is perfect. Killing someone because they don't share the same belief as you makes you an animal in my book.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You can take any position you like, not looking for a debate.

Well you saw fit to stereotype Obama's supporters as potential hypocrites, so as an Obama supporter I was curious how I could avoid hypocrisy in your view.

As for my word choice I think it is perfect. Killing someone because they don't share the same belief as you makes you an animal in my book.

Those that are killing people just because they don't share similar beliefs aren't the only ones involved in or affected by the situation.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Those that are killing people just because they don't share similar beliefs aren't the only ones involved in or affected by the situation.

And that's our problem because?

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And that's our problem because?

This.