The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nobody, except every Kuwaiti.

You really think that right after the first gulf war?

[JPhillips]

Yeah. What country wants to give up it's independence?

[sterlingice]

Wouldn't they have just traded one foreign rule (Iraq) for another (USA)?

SI

[Buccaneer]

I suppose some history is worth repeating: e.g., Marshal Plan.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wouldn't they have just traded one foreign rule (Iraq) for another (USA)?

SI

It's not like they agreed to be ruled by Saddam. We certainly had the power to take over, but there's no doubt that it would have been a hostile occupation.

[Edward64]

At that time, we kicked out Saddam but and Iraq would still have been a threat if the US left the region. There was a time when the Kuwaiti's would have wanted US to stay to protect them.

I think an "agreement" to stay for x years to protect them would have been welcome.

[JPhillips]

That's basically what happened, but that's a much different agreement than being a protectorate. The Kuwaitis weren't interested in letting the U.S. have control of internal or diplomatic affairs as is implied by being a protectorate.

[Edward64]

Is that what they would have said before the US came in to kick out Saddam? Don't think so, they would have agreed to anything. There was an opportunity to strengthen our hold in Arabian peninsula when they were running scared.

[JPhillips]

So the plan would be to subjugate at the end of a gun?

You don't think that might have had unintended consequences?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So the plan would be to subjugate at the end of a gun?

You don't think that might have had unintended consequences?

There's always unintended consequences. The path we took didn't turn out so well either.

I think my point is the Kuwaiti's would not have considered it subjugation at the end of gun at that period, they would have viewed us as reclaiming their land and protecting them for x years.

[JPhillips]

I can't imagine they would have looked at it any differently than the Iraqis did a decade later.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can't imagine they would have looked at it any differently than the Iraqis did a decade later.

Dude - it's the White Man's burden...we've got to civilize the world - at the barrel of our guns if that's what it takes.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can't imagine they would have looked at it any differently than the Iraqis did a decade later.

If you don't see the difference between how the Kuwaiti's in the first gulf war vs Iraq in the second gulf war would see it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Putting it here because it's politically related. Big WTF to Romney over his comments in the Fox News interview yesterday.

Dear Mitt, this governor is a swindler and a crook. "Family tragedy"? "Sympathies"? You've seriously lost your mind.

WALLACE: And, finally, about a minute left, sir. In 2012, you had Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on your short list of potential running mates. As you well know, he was convicted this week of taking bribes, some even before you were considering him as a running mate to help a businessman.

I guess two questions, what does that say about your vetting process? And, frankly, did you misjudge Bob McDonnell?

ROMNEY: Well, I'm not going to say anything about the vetting process. We communicated to all the individuals that we vetted that that would be completely off the record and confidential and it is.

But I can say this, with regards to Bob McDonnell, which I'm very sorry for him and for his family. It's a family tragedy obviously and a political tragedy for the state of Virginia, commonwealth of Virginia, for the people there, for the people associated with him. I've called him, I've expressed my sympathy. It's a very sad setting.

And I wish he and his family the very best in very difficult circumstances.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Putting it here because it's politically related. Big WTF to Romney over his comments in the Fox News interview yesterday.

Dear Mitt, this governor is a swindler and a crook. "Family tragedy"? "Sympathies"? You've seriously lost your mind.

I guess what he's saying is that we can't know if that's what knocked McD off his shortlist or what, but the fact that he can't just means that he opens himself up to attacks if/when he chooses to run for something again that (a) he was okay with it, or (b) his vetting process sucked so much that he didn't uncover it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I guess what he's saying is that we can't know if that's what knocked McD off his shortlist or what, but the fact that he can't just means that he opens himself up to attacks if/when he chooses to run for something again that (a) he was okay with it, or (b) his vetting process sucked so much that he didn't uncover it.

I have more of a problem with the fact that he simply didn't call a spade a spade. Makes me think he's considering running for something if he's going to sugar coat it that much.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I have more of a problem with the fact that he simply didn't call a spade a spade. Makes me think he's considering running for something if he's going to sugar coat it that much.

I think that's basically my point too?

But at the same time I don't think it's a very wise stance to take if he is going to run.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I guess what he's saying is that we can't know if that's what knocked McD off his shortlist or what, but the fact that he can't just means that he opens himself up to attacks if/when he chooses to run for something again that (a) he was okay with it, or (b) his vetting process sucked so much that he didn't uncover it.

IIRC, the "vetting process" starts after the shortlist is assembled. The short list is assembled on political/demographic/geographic/fundraising criteria. The the "vetting process" begins, which gets (quite extensively) into all the other stuff, including especially any skeletons in the closet. Given everything that happened, it's quite likely that this knocked McD off the short list.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I have more of a problem with the fact that he simply didn't call a spade a spade. Makes me think he's considering running for something if he's going to sugar coat it that much.

Your outrage is justified, but it's not particularly common for politicians of the same party to denounce each other in public. Especially politicians like Romney who try and present a genial / patrician kind of image.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

IIRC, the "vetting process" starts after the shortlist is assembled. The short list is assembled on political/demographic/geographic/fundraising criteria. The the "vetting process" begins, which gets (quite extensively) into all the other stuff, including especially any skeletons in the closet. Given everything that happened, it's quite likely that this knocked McD off the short list.

Oh I agree that's probably the case - but my point is that by not coming out and saying at least "Well we uncovered some troubling things and that's why he didn't advance further in our process" he opens himself up to attack my (D)'s and fellow (R)'s during any future campaigns. Then again - I suppose if he comes out and says he uncovered it he opens himself up to criminal charges - at least more political attacks.

[flounder]

I think it was probably this

He also testified that in 2012, Williams and Maureen McDonnell tried unsuccessfully to get a meeting with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney to pitch Star Scientific’s signature product, the anti-inflammatory Anatabloc. McDonnell had just endorsed Romney and was being mentioned as a possible running mate.

Having failed to get an audience with the candidate, Maureen McDonnell cornered his wife, Ann Romney, on a campaign bus and began telling her how Anatabloc could cure her multiple sclerosis, Cox testified.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh I agree that's probably the case - but my point is that by not coming out and saying at least "Well we uncovered some troubling things and that's why he didn't advance further in our process" he opens himself up to attack my (D)'s and fellow (R)'s during any future campaigns. Then again - I suppose if he comes out and says he uncovered it he opens himself up to criminal charges - at least more political attacks.

Right, it's no-win. That, plus the general precedent that what happens in vetting sessions (which have been very thorough in the past decade and a half, if not a bit longer) stays confidential, means the right decision is to say as little as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romney fan. But I don't think he did a lot wrong here.

[BishopMVP]

Did other people know ISIS was pronounced isul?

[mauchow]

There is ISIS and ISIL.

Obama is intentionally avoiding the word ISIS.

[JPhillips]

I think ISIL is a more accurate translation, but Americans don't know what the hell is meant by the Levant, so many places substitute Syria.

As for the content of the speech, it's so fucking depressing. No real strategy, endless war, no Congressional vote(not that they have the stones to do anything other than bitch afterwards), and a shaky coalition at best.

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

[flere-imsaho]

++ @ JPhillips

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by mauchow

There is ISIS and ISIL.

Obama is intentionally avoiding the word ISIS.

Why??

Jeezus.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think ISIL is a more accurate translation, but Americans don't know what the hell is meant by the Levant, so many places substitute Syria.

As for the content of the speech, it's so fucking depressing. No real strategy, endless war, no Congressional vote(not that they have the stones to do anything other than bitch afterwards), and a shaky coalition at best.

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

WOOO MORE WAR

//sarcasm

///tired of fucking war

////brother is doing ROTC @ college

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

WOOO MORE WAR

//sarcasm

///tired of fucking war

////brother is doing ROTC @ college

Yes it's fucking disgusting. Don't tell me that the speech just happened to fall in the eve of 9-11 either. Sadly we are far outnumbered by the "kill all Muslums" voting block in both parties.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes it's fucking disgusting. Don't tell me that the speech just happened to fall in the eve of 9-11 either. Sadly we are far outnumbered by the "kill all Muslums" voting block in both parties.

Oh of course not - we all know it was 100% planned that way. Cheap political jingoistic heartstring-tugging bullshit.

Anyone know where I can get one of those "no blood for oil" bumper stickers these days?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Don't tell me that the speech just happened to fall in the eve of 9-11 either.

But we probably don't want to consider that ISIS/ISIL grew in prominence at this point in an election cycle either.

Or that a senior Homeland Security official confirmed to a Senate panel yesterday that the group was actively encouraging infiltration of the U.S. via our southern border. Successful prevention of a terrorist operation at the border would provide the opportunity to gain political capital at a useful point in the election cycle.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm probably in the top 5% of President Obama supporters. I think that he's been the best president in my lifetime (born 1976).

But I am amazingly disappointed in his approach to ISIS/ISIL. If they are not that big of a deal, then do not commit us to some sort of vague open-ended engagement in the Middle East to accomplish "something something mumble mumble TERRORISM." We've been doing that for far too long already.

If they are that big of a deal and that big of a threat then go to Congress and make your case. I am not interested in the semantics of whether military actions here would technically fall under the post-9/11 AUMF. This is the exact sort of thing that, semantics aside, should be for Congress to authorize.

Tell them what you want to do. Tell them why you need to do it. Tell them where you need to do it. And provide (to the extent possible) what will constitute the end of the hostilities. And then let them say yes or no.

I am not privy to the classified intel. It may very well be that it is in America's best interest to attack there before they attack here. But if it is, then MAKE THAT CASE. And not with vague PR briefings.

[flere-imsaho]

Agree 100%, albionmoonlight.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm probably in the top 5% of President Obama supporters. I think that he's been the best president in my lifetime (born 1976).

But I am amazingly disappointed in his approach to ISIS/ISIL. If they are not that big of a deal, then do not commit us to some sort of vague open-ended engagement in the Middle East to accomplish "something something mumble mumble TERRORISM." We've been doing that for far too long already.

If they are that big of a deal and that big of a threat then go to Congress and make your case. I am not interested in the semantics of whether military actions here would technically fall under the post-9/11 AUMF. This is the exact sort of thing that, semantics aside, should be for Congress to authorize.

Tell them what you want to do. Tell them why you need to do it. Tell them where you need to do it. And provide (to the extent possible) what will constitute the end of the hostilities. And then let them say yes or no.

I am not privy to the classified intel. It may very well be that it is in America's best interest to attack there before they attack here. But if it is, then MAKE THAT CASE. And not with vague PR briefings.

Totally agree.

Although I think at this point my ME foreign policy would either be
1. Quarantine the region and let Sunni/Shiite fight to the death and then deal with whoever's left once they're beaten up. And "deal with" could mean peaceful engagement to annihilation. Whatever they want.
2. Bomb the whole damn region back to the Stone Age starting tomorrow. Indiscriminately basically. Whole nother set of Crusades. Get the Russians behind it and just fucking deal with the whole thing once and for all.

I'm not really a violent person, but I'm beyond tired of the open-ended nature of our involvement in the region. I'd compromise my normally non-violent ethos in exchange for a permanant solution to that whole issue.

I don't see any of the "slow play" policies we've pursued in the region having had positive effects. Strongman governments okay, but the populace is just ripe for radicalization for a number of different reasons.

And yes, this post is an extreme, venting-style post, not really a serious policy suggestion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm probably in the top 5% of President Obama supporters. I think that he's been the best president in my lifetime (born 1976).

But I am amazingly disappointed in his approach to ISIS/ISIL. If they are not that big of a deal, then do not commit us to some sort of vague open-ended engagement in the Middle East to accomplish "something something mumble mumble TERRORISM." We've been doing that for far too long already.

If they are that big of a deal and that big of a threat then go to Congress and make your case. I am not interested in the semantics of whether military actions here would technically fall under the post-9/11 AUMF. This is the exact sort of thing that, semantics aside, should be for Congress to authorize.

Tell them what you want to do. Tell them why you need to do it. Tell them where you need to do it. And provide (to the extent possible) what will constitute the end of the hostilities. And then let them say yes or no.

I am not privy to the classified intel. It may very well be that it is in America's best interest to attack there before they attack here. But if it is, then MAKE THAT CASE. And not with vague PR briefings.

And I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to Obama, I think he's been the second worst (and 2nd most dangerous) occupant of the Oval Office in history ... but I really don't have an issue with an executive rather than Congressional approach here.

Assuming compelling evidence exists for a moment, it's reasonable to believe that large chunks of it are classified. I don't really trust Congress, nor even a select committee to not leak details that could be dangerous or damaging for political gain. And that's a finger I'm definitely pointing at members of both parties.

And I say that even as someone who feels like there is a pretty good chance that ISIS/ISIL is a Wag The Dog operation & that we're manipulating events as much or more than they are.

[AENeuman]

I have not really been following the ISIS stuff, so I'm confused on what's happening.

What is their goal? It seems to me by doing the public beheadings they want US and other countries to attack them. But it seems far from an even fight. I imagine the US bombings will cause a massive amount of damage and lost lives, is this what they wanted?

It seems different than Afghanistan in that they are not necessarily fighting on or for historically controlled land.

It makes me wonder if there are other goals in place. Such as being a money making opportunity for a few people. Or, a wag the dog enemy created by Assad, Egypt, etc. Or knowing there is going to be a massive realignment of Iraq and they want to get their share (Berlin-like).

[molson]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

What is their goal? It seems to me by doing the public beheadings they want US and other countries to attack them. But it seems far from an even fight. I imagine the US bombings will cause a massive amount of damage and lost lives, is this what they wanted?

I think it's just the classic Russians in Afghanistan/Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan strategy. Superpower economies can be damaged by getting involved in these kinds of wars. From an ISIS perspective, I'm sure one of the hopes is that the U.S. is only one more of these wars away from maybe not being a superpower anymore. And even though they'd take many losses in the meantime, the next wave of their brand of fundamentalism would be even stronger, with less American resistance. Which would open the door to more control over the middle east. I know there's lots of shorter-term regional goals too, but targeting America I think is mostly about that.

[cartman]

They are fighting to form a caliphate, which, depending on which time in history you are looking, covered most of the area they are currently in, as well as what is now Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I'm sure they know it is an uneven fight, but martyrdom isn't a deterrent to them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Boehner hits Obama for ruling out boots on the ground - CNN.com

Oh goody, the "boots on the ground" hawks have started banging the drums already.

//sigh

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Boehner hits Obama for ruling out boots on the ground - CNN.com

Oh goody, the "boots on the ground" hawks have started banging the drums already.

//sigh

Eh, realistically that's going to be what it takes to take them out completely.
Whether it's our or somebody else's.

Our air + regional troops (the ever popular "coalition" scenario) might manage it.

Otherwise, eh, you're just annoying them for ever how long you'll use the airstrikes, you won't eliminate them with it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, realistically that's going to be what it takes to take them out completely.
Whether it's our or somebody else's.

Our air + regional troops (the ever popular "coalition" scenario) might manage it.

Otherwise, eh, you're just annoying them for ever how long you'll use the airstrikes, you won't eliminate them with it.

I understand the reality of the situation - just don't like it.

Would much rather do one of the two options I posted above then see another US soldier on the ground as part of this never-ending, undefined, "war on terror."

[Solecismic]

We've spent, what, decades, trying to take them out completely. There's enormous value in keeping this fight off of American soil, but let's not imagine for a second that we can do anything to eliminate religious extremism.

There are 60-70 countries in this world (out of close to 200) experiencing some form of civil war. All but a handful are at war with one of dozens of Islamic extremist groups.

Obama is right, this isn't Islam we're fighting. It's a form of extremism that crops up everywhere that has very little to do with the tenets of one particular religion.

Obama took sides in the Egypt mess, and the result was Morsi. Egypt is only starting to recover from that disaster. Better to evaluate every individual instance on its own and not have an overriding "plan" that will be obsolete by the time it's formulated.

The worst thing to do, though, is pick a side and add weapons. Those arms invariably change hands and make the next conflict that much worse. Obama's biggest mistake wasn't in leaving Iraq, it was in how he left Iraq.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Obama took sides in the Egypt mess, and the result was Morsi. Egypt is only starting to recover from that disaster. Better to evaluate every individual instance on its own and not have an overriding "plan" that will be obsolete by the time it's formulated.

The worst thing to do, though, is pick a side and add weapons. Those arms invariably change hands and make the next conflict that much worse. Obama's biggest mistake wasn't in leaving Iraq, it was in how he left Iraq.

Indeed. The most frustrating thing is this constant game of wack-a-mole, and its almost impossible to know who is going to pop up where, even in places we think are fine (seriously - 5 years ago who thought all this crap was going to happen in Syria?).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I understand the reality of the situation - just don't like it.

Would much rather do one of the two options I posted above then see another US soldier on the ground as part of this never-ending, undefined, "war on terror."

Hey, I've been a proponent of the "black glass" approach for many years. My only hesitancy is fallout, making the region one of the best arguments ever for enhanced neutron bomb capability.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We've spent, what, decades, trying to take them out completely. There's enormous value in keeping this fight off of American soil, but let's not imagine for a second that we can do anything to eliminate religious extremism.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that what we have done has "kept the fight off of American soil". In fact, the fact that we have been active in the region for decades and still had 9/11 and 7/7 points to the contrary.

Obama is right, this isn't Islam we're fighting. It's a form of extremism that crops up everywhere that has very little to do with the tenets of one particular religion.

Obama took sides in the Egypt mess, and the result was Morsi. Egypt is only starting to recover from that disaster. Better to evaluate every individual instance on its own and not have an overriding "plan" that will be obsolete by the time it's formulated.

The worst thing to do, though, is pick a side and add weapons. Those arms invariably change hands and make the next conflict that much worse. Obama's biggest mistake wasn't in leaving Iraq, it was in how he left Iraq.

All of this, though, I agree with 150%.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hey, I've been a proponent of the "black glass" approach for many years. My only hesitancy is fallout, making the region one of the best arguments ever for enhanced neutron bomb capability.

If you think we have problems with extremists now, wait until you do this.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hey, I've been a proponent of the "black glass" approach for many years. My only hesitancy is fallout, making the region one of the best arguments ever for enhanced neutron bomb capability.

It's interesting how far apart WWJD and WWJMGD are.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm probably in the top 5% of President Obama supporters. I think that he's been the best president in my lifetime (born 1976).

But I am amazingly disappointed in his approach to ISIS/ISIL. If they are not that big of a deal, then do not commit us to some sort of vague open-ended engagement in the Middle East to accomplish "something something mumble mumble TERRORISM." We've been doing that for far too long already.

If they are that big of a deal and that big of a threat then go to Congress and make your case. I am not interested in the semantics of whether military actions here would technically fall under the post-9/11 AUMF. This is the exact sort of thing that, semantics aside, should be for Congress to authorize.

Tell them what you want to do. Tell them why you need to do it. Tell them where you need to do it. And provide (to the extent possible) what will constitute the end of the hostilities. And then let them say yes or no.

I am not privy to the classified intel. It may very well be that it is in America's best interest to attack there before they attack here. But if it is, then MAKE THAT CASE. And not with vague PR briefings.

While I'm with John on being on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to Obama (and I'm younger than you, ablion), I appreciate your thoughts on the process.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to Obama, I think he's been the second worst (and 2nd most dangerous) occupant of the Oval Office in history ... but I really don't have an issue with an executive rather than Congressional approach here.

I'd be curious who your worst president in history is.

EDIT: My guess would be Carter but I'm not certain it'd be right

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'd be curious who your worst president in history is.

EDIT: My guess would be Carter but I'm not certain it'd be right

SI

In history? My guess would be he'd say Lincoln...

[revrew]

I don't know JohnInMiddleGA well, but if he says Obama is second worst/most dangerous president in history, using that terminology, I would guess Woodrow Wilson would be a guy in the running for No. 1.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by revrew

I don't know JohnInMiddleGA well, but if he says Obama is second worst/most dangerous president in history, using that terminology, I would guess Woodrow Wilson would be a guy in the running for No. 1.

FDR might also be up there...