Foreign policy spiral continues

[BlueShoe]

Originally Posted by mostpost

It's wrong because it's Obama saying it.

You're getting it! You are finally getting it! What took you so long? Most of the thinking population of the nation figured out long ago that everything he says or does is wrong. Except of course for libs, and they do not really count, since libs do not really think.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Blue shoe

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
It's wrong because it's Obama saying it.

You're getting it! You are finally getting it! What took you so long? Most of the thinking population of the nation figured out long ago that everything he says or does is wrong. Except of course for libs, and they do not really count, since libs do not really think.

The whole quote:

In your minds it does not matter what Obama says. It's wrong because it's Obama saying it.

which, of course changes the meaning completely.

One lib does more thinking in a coma than a thousand cons combined on their best day.

[Sugar Ron]

Originally Posted by mostpost

What would you geniuses have him say? When Obama supported the no fly zone in Libya, you criticized him for starting a third war. When he turned operations over to NATO you criticized him for abandoning our leadership responsibilities.
When we acted to stop the slaughter of civilians in Libya, you criticized him for not acting in Yemen; at the same time you were saying he should not be acting in Libya.

In your minds it does not matter what Obama says. It's wrong because it's Obama saying it.

BO could find a cure for all cancers and pathetic cons would find a way to knock him for it.

By the way, if some of these cons on here get any dumber, you're gunna have to start watering them twice a day.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by mostpost

When we acted to stop the slaughter of civilians in Libya, you criticized him for not acting in Yemen; at the same time you were saying he should not be acting in Libya.

I take exception to this... our involvment in this conflict has ENSURED more civilian casualties. This civil war was almost completely over before we intervened on behalf of the rebels.

[ArlJim78]

The Libya operation is an epic military blunder. hastily put together with no logical plan to secure a victory and puts US assets under control of NATO to support a UN mandate. Hell, victory wasn't even defined. It was supposedly about protecting civilians. At a time when we should be trimming our sails and ending active military engagements, here come the warhawks telling us we need to get involved. Now it's a stalemate which will be followed by some kind of face saving escalation. Lindseed Graham and Rino McCain are also guilty of beating the drums of war.

[cj's dad]

From Mostie:

"One lib does more thinking in a coma than a thousand cons combined on their best day"

From Sugar Ron:

"By the way, if some of these cons on here get any dumber, you're gunna have to start watering them twice a day"

BTW- classic username - Sugar Ron

Typical lib response(s) - when you can't debate a valid point resort to name calling. Thanks so much for assuming your niche.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

The Libya operation is an epic military blunder. hastily put together with no logical plan to secure a victory and puts US assets under control of NATO to support a UN mandate. Hell, victory wasn't even defined. It was supposedly about protecting civilians. At a time when we should be trimming our sails and ending active military engagements, here come the warhawks telling us we need to get involved. Now it's a stalemate which will be followed by some kind of face saving escalation. Lindseed Graham and Rino McCain are also guilty of beating the drums of war.

I'm not exonerating McCain because he was for intervention before we got involved, but, when you decide to use military power to effect foreign policy you have to use that power to some sort of conclusive end... In that I agree with him... Since we are on this course we are somewhat obligated to see it through.. We will have American soldiers there within six months is my guess.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by cj's dad

From Mostie:

"One lib does more thinking in a coma than a thousand cons combined on their best day"

From Sugar Ron:

"By the way, if some of these cons on here get any dumber, you're gunna have to start watering them twice a day"

BTW- classic username - Sugar Ron

Typical lib response(s) - when you can't debate a valid point resort to name calling. Thanks so much for assuming your niche.

My statement was in response to Blueshoe who said"

Except of course for libs, and they do not really count, since libs do not really think.

I'm sure your very next post will take Blueshoe to task for name calling.
As far as debating; if you guys ever have a valid point, I would be happy to debate it. Until then I have to be content to disprove your invalid points.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by mostpost

My statement was in response to Blueshoe who said"

I'm sure your very next post will take Blueshoe to task for name calling.
As far as debating; if you guys ever have a valid point, I would be happy to debate it. Until then I have to be content to disprove your invalid points.

This one?: Not valid enough for you since you ignored it...

Originally Posted by mostpost
When we acted to stop the slaughter of civilians in Libya, you criticized him for not acting in Yemen; at the same time you were saying he should not be acting in Libya.



I take exception to this... our involvment in this conflict has ENSURED more civilian casualties. This civil war was almost completely over before we intervened on behalf of the rebels.

[elysiantraveller]

Or the fact we attempted to assassinate Gadhafi today? You can call it protecting civilians, most of us will call it regime change.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Not wrong.

Decisive is not good when your decision is wrong. George Bush decided to go into Afghanistan and backed Kharzai. Karzai was corrupt and had little support. Decisive but wrong. We had Bin Laden trapped in Bora Bora. Bush decided not to pursue him and he is still at large. Decisive but wrong. George Bush decided Saddam had WMDs. Decisive but wrong. George Bush decided the Iraqi army should keep their weapons. Those weapons were later used by the insurgents against us. Decisive but wrong.

George Bush decided that we should lower taxes at the same time we were paying for two wars. The result? The largest deficits in history to that time.
Decisive but wrong.

George Bush decided we should pass a prescription drug plan which we did not pay for and which cost seniors more. Result? Another addition to the deficit and hardship for our seniors. Decisive but wrong.

I will take a president who thinks things through over one who acts emotionally and irrationally any day.

Just another in a long line of excellent posts.

Obama is no fool. The right cannot get past this fact and it frustrates the hell out of them.

[fast4522]

Just so nice to see you guys blowing warm air up each others butt, but I hate to break it to you that the next election will not even come close to going the way that you want.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I'm not exonerating McCain because he was for intervention before we got involved, but, when you decide to use military power to effect foreign policy you have to use that power to some sort of conclusive end... In that I agree with him... Since we are on this course we are somewhat obligated to see it through.. We will have American soldiers there within six months is my guess.

Bad foreign policy is bad foreign policy, no sense killing a bunch of people and wasting a bunch of money to try to turn this one around. If the course we're on is wrong, time to change it. I don't see the big downside to walking away from this. it's not like there is any kind of certainty about what would constitute a desireable outcome. Regime change is only the beginning, then what?

We saw Iraq through, was it worth it?
We're trying to see through Afghanistan, is it worth it?
Whats next? I hear civilians are being killed in Syria, maybe we should change that regime also?
it's a different day and we're over extended, we have to view our foreign policy differently.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by mostpost

As far as debating; if you guys ever have a valid point, I would be happy to debate it. Until then I have to be content to disprove your invalid points.

This is some sort of a joke, right?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Bad foreign policy is bad foreign policy, no sense killing a bunch of people and wasting a bunch of money to try to turn this one around. If the course we're on is wrong, time to change it. I don't see the big downside to walking away from this. it's not like there is any kind of certainty about what would constitute a desireable outcome. Regime change is only the beginning, then what?

We saw Iraq through, was it worth it?
We're trying to see through Afghanistan, is it worth it?
Whats next? I hear civilians are being killed in Syria, maybe we should change that regime also?
it's a different day and we're over extended, we have to view our foreign policy differently.

I completely agree with you that we need to view our foreign policy differently.

The downside now would be walking away from a liberation movement in the Middle East, something we are in favor of, after lending military assistance. You would lend credence to despots while angering reformers. Lets face it these rebels have no chance of surviving without our assistance and to leave would mean allowing the slaughter of people fighting for "American" ideals. In the case of these revolutions we are much better served doing nothing than just "a little something."