PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues It's test time, President Obama


patteeu
03-16-2011, 04:17 PM
I realize that our President came to the job with almost no qualifying experience and a pretty naive view of the world. He's only had a couple of years to learn, but his test has arrived. Political unrest and upheaval are creating an unstable situation across nearly every country in north africa and the middle east. This instability brings both danger and opportunity. Obama has a chance to help reshape this entire region in a way that either benefits us or damages us. Or he can stand idly by and let others shape events.

IMO, it's not enough to stand on the sidelines and let these rebellions take their organic course for two reasons. First, others will be interfering anyway so a hands off approach by the US won't lead to an organic result anyway. And second, I believe effective, intelligent intervention/nurturing (diplomatic, financial, covert, and/or military) is far more likely to yield a positive result from our POV than closing our eyes and hoping for the best.

OTOH, I don't know exactly what policy we should have to achieve the best results or to what extent we should have different, possibly inconsistent, policies from one situation to the next. But having someone tasked with figuring these things out is one of the reasons we elect a President. This president has the opportunity of a lifetime and his success or failure as our POTUS will largely rest on how he exploits or fails to exploit this opportunity. He will have failed our country if this wave of rebellions leaves the middle east in a state that is less in America's interests than when he took office.

Donger
03-16-2011, 04:20 PM
He picked the Jayhawks to win the NCAA torney. That's good.

patteeu
03-16-2011, 04:40 PM
He picked the Jayhawks to win the NCAA torney. That's good.

Yeah, I guess if he does well with his bracket, he'll always have that.

Saul Good
03-16-2011, 05:41 PM
He picks his brackets the way he handles foreign policy. Wait to see who the favorites are and them pick all of them.

patteeu
03-16-2011, 05:57 PM
He picks his brackets the way he handles foreign policy. Wait to see who the favorites are and them pick all of them.

LMAO

Certainly no one can accuse him of being a cowboy when it comes to foreign policy. More like a pom pom girl.

Bewbies
03-16-2011, 06:20 PM
He picked the Jayhawks to win the NCAA torney. That's good.

Based upon his record this is very bad for Kansas. (and my bracket)

HonestChieffan
03-16-2011, 07:06 PM
Ain't this grand? Libs have to be beside themselves with glee.

Chiefshrink
03-16-2011, 10:15 PM
He is ditching class for sure and will vote present for this test.

banyon
03-16-2011, 10:24 PM
OTOH, I don't know exactly what policy we should have to achieve the best results or to what extent we should have different, possibly inconsistent, policies from one situation to the next. But having someone tasked with figuring these things out is one of the reasons we elect a President. This president has the opportunity of a lifetime and his success or failure as our POTUS will largely rest on how he exploits or fails to exploit this opportunity. He will have failed our country if this wave of rebellions leaves the middle east in a state that is less in America's interests than when he took office.

Yeah, good question. What's the Republican leadership's position on all this? I mean they want to b*tch, I understand that, regardless of what stance Obama takes on this, but you'll have to search pretty hard I think for an actual policy stance on this topic coming from them.

Dallas Chief
03-16-2011, 11:52 PM
Yeah, good question. What's the Republican leadership's position on all this? I mean they want to b*tch, I understand that, regardless of what stance Obama takes on this, but you'll have to search pretty hard I think for an actual policy stance on this topic coming from them.

ummm... not really that difficult to find, unless you don't know how to use Google. But you can keep making it up as you go along if it makes you feel good.

STFU

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/mitch-mcconnell-john-kerry-john-mccain-mull-no-fly-zone-20110306

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41413954/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

http://majorityleader.house.gov/newsroom/2011/03/leader-cantor-statement-on-libya.html

banyon
03-16-2011, 11:59 PM
[/U][/I][/B]

ummm... not really that difficult to find, unless you don't know how to use Google. But you can keep making it up as you go along if it makes you feel good.

STFU

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/mitch-mcconnell-john-kerry-john-mccain-mull-no-fly-zone-20110306

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41413954/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

http://majorityleader.house.gov/newsroom/2011/03/leader-cantor-statement-on-libya.html

Did you read what you linked?

e.g., : "“Going forward, it is very important for us to know what the opposition movement in Libya needs so they are able to restore some order and perhaps we can encourage the growth of freedom and democracy that seems to be sprouting throughout the Middle East. We will work with the Administration to execute policies that promote our U.S. security interests in the region, as well as fostering an environment where we can see the loss of innocent life stop and the spread of more freedom.”
*
I didn't mean that they hadn't issued any vague, well-meaning platitudes on the topic.
Oh, and this one was great:

"Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., put their support behind increasing America's role in the conflict by instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, though they generally agreed direct military involvement was inadvisable.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., stopped short of supporting it, saying it was "worth considering."

They are waiting to see which way the political winds are blowing. Anything beyond that and you are kidding yourself.

patteeu
03-16-2011, 11:59 PM
Yeah, good question. What's the Republican leadership's position on all this? I mean they want to b*tch, I understand that, regardless of what stance Obama takes on this, but you'll have to search pretty hard I think for an actual policy stance on this topic coming from them.

:spock: The Republicans aren't in control of the executive branch. It's up to the POTUS and his team to come up with a policy, not the Republicans. You know, like when GWBush was in office and he led the country in foreign policy matters. He didn't wait around asking the minority democrats what they thought he should do. That responsibility is supposed to come with the job. It's perfectly fine if Obama wants to consult with members of the other party to bring them along with him or solicit their thoughts, but it's the President's job to gather the necessary information and formulate a winning strategy.

I would absolutely love it if the Republicans were in charge at this moment. I'd have far more faith that they would pass this test of leadership. The democrats could all hide under their desks and wait for the dust to settle and then, after it does, they could do their best to take a share of the credit for it for all I care.

banyon
03-17-2011, 12:07 AM
:spock: The Republicans aren't in control of the executive branch. It's up to the POTUS and his team to come up with a policy, not the Republicans. You know, like when GWBush was in office and he led the country in foreign policy matters. He didn't wait around asking the minority democrats what they thought he should do. That responsibility is supposed to come with the job. It's perfectly fine if Obama wants to consult with members of the other party to bring them along with him or solicit their thoughts, but it's the President's job to gather the necessary information and formulate a winning strategy.

I would absolutely love it if the Republicans were in charge at this moment. I'd have far more faith that they would pass this test of leadership. The democrats could all hide under their desks and wait for the dust to settle and then, after it does, they could do their best to take a share of the credit for it for all I care.

Is this like when republicans opposed vocally our entry into ww1 or ww2? Or democrats and Iraq? Congress is explicitly given the power to declare war, remember. Pretending congress has somehow been historically silent on foreign policy is just counterfactual. Hell, they have entire committees dedicated to the topic.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 12:25 AM
Is this like when republicans opposed vocally our entry into ww1 or ww2? Or democrats and Iraq? Congress is explicitly given the power to declare war, remember. Pretending congress has somehow been historically silent on foreign policy is just counterfactual. Hell, they have entire committees dedicated to the topic.

FDR asked Congress to declare war after Pearl Harbor, right?

If it comes to war, then Congress should definitely be involved. There are a whole lot of policy options short of war though and while Congress should be kept abreast of the administration's activities and support them with appropriate legislation unless they have serious objections, it's the executive's job to lead.

Why are you so reluctant to place the primary onus on Barack Obama here? Are you as skeptical that he's up to the task as I am?

mikey23545
03-17-2011, 02:46 AM
I can't believe BEP has failed to appear in this thread yet.

mikey23545
03-17-2011, 02:49 AM
Is this like when republicans opposed vocally our entry into ww1 or ww2? Or democrats and Iraq? Congress is explicitly given the power to declare war, remember. Pretending congress has somehow been historically silent on foreign policy is just counterfactual. Hell, they have entire committees dedicated to the topic.

Why are you so determined to stray away from the thread topic?

Does the deflection indicate you have no excuses to make for your Dear Leader?

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 06:19 AM
Why are you so determined to stray away from the thread topic?

Does the deflection indicate you have no excuses to make for your Dear Leader?


In Banyon's defense, Obama has given his merry band of followers no ammo. The only discussion by the Obama faithful you will see regarding Obama's policies, his approach to the job, his management of issues, and his leadership is deflection to some unrelated other topic or mindless lashing out at the other side. The "Bush fault" has worn thin and they are branching out.

Failure to lead and execute the responsibilities of his office and allowing the incompetence represented by his underlings by this President is far beyond any previous administration.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 07:41 AM
First, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes via the CIA, the transmission of data from satellite or other high technology into the "right" hands (whichever those are) and possibly even the supply of arms through the Saudis or other friendlies.

And if things go WELL, then we will NEVER know what is going on behind the scenes?

Right.

And if we all agree that OVERT interference is probably bad (as we were more or less unanimous in stating with respect to Libya), then we may very well be in a position where whatever it is America does, we'll never know.

I think it's absurd to portray the President as helplessly sitting on his hands watching things unfold. Whether to "intervene" or not is without doubt the product of a whole lot of thinking by a whole lot of career bureaucrats at the relevant agencies feeding their htoughts to the policy-makers who report to the President for final action (or inaction, or covert action, or what have you).

So the potshots you sling at the President are pretty naive in their own right, in my opinion, ESPECIALLY since I think that an overt, hamhanded tough-guy approach is neither conducive to achieving our long term goals, beneficial to our stretched military resources, helpful to our budget situation, or to the political benefit of a person who was elected as much because he was trying to get us OUT of a mess that the prior Cowboy President had put us in.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 07:42 AM
In Banyon's defense, Obama has given his merry band of followers no ammo. The only discussion by the Obama faithful you will see regarding Obama's policies, his approach to the job, his management of issues, and his leadership is deflection to some unrelated other topic or mindless lashing out at the other side. The "Bush fault" has worn thin and they are branching out.

Failure to lead and execute the responsibilities of his office and allowing the incompetence represented by his underlings by this President is far beyond any previous administration.

See my prior post and spare me the barbs. You have no idea what we're doing behind the scenes and if it is done competently, you will NEVER know what we're doing behind the scenes.

This thread is a bit of joke. It obils down to "don't just sit there, DO SOMETHING", when nobody on here knows what to do, or even if we ARE (quietly) doing something."

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 07:46 AM
I would absolutely love it if the Republicans were in charge at this moment. I'd have far more faith that they would pass this test of leadership. The democrats could all hide under their desks and wait for the dust to settle and then, after it does, they could do their best to take a share of the credit for it for all I care.

I'm amazed that constantly bogging us down in foreign wars is the only way to pass a "test of leadership."

Your foreign policy thoughts aren't quite as frightening as BEP's, but seriously, they seem to be pretty out of whack.

Do you think we can just rule the world as our fief by wielding a big hammer? Do you not understand that sometimes some policy other than overt military intervention is called for?

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 07:50 AM
The only foreign policy tools some on here seem to know. If you're not doing something involving one of THESE, then you're not "showing leadership". After all, we have the world's foremost military arsenal -- use it early and often.

http://www.minihelicopter.net/AH64Apache/AH-64%20Apache.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/sswclan-ii/Sniper%20Jukka.jpg

http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/military/b52/b_52_1.jpg


http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/07/navy_missile_071309w/071309_navy_missile_800.JPG

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 07:52 AM
See my prior post and spare me the barbs. You have no idea what we're doing behind the scenes and if it is done competently, you will NEVER know what we're doing behind the scenes.

This thread is a bit of joke. It obils down to "don't just sit there, DO SOMETHING", when nobody on here knows what to do, or even if we ARE (quietly) doing something."

I must assume that the "behind the scenes" work is being done with the same level of competence we see on the "public" side.

Thus my faith is weak.

When our Sec of State goes to Egypt to meet with the leaders of the new opposition and they refuse to see her, my lack of faith is reinforced.

We come from different POV. You seem to have total faith without evidence other than the words. I just hold out hope that soon I will see this outfit do just one thing well.

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 07:56 AM
All those nasty military things have been replaced by:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/bowing%20to%20Saudi%20King.jpg

http://www.opposingviews.com/attachments/0011/6836/obama-bowing.jpg?1291948105


http://www.photoshopthenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/obama_bows_colonel_sanders.jpg

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 08:03 AM
I must assume that the "behind the scenes" work is being done with the same level of competence we see on the "public" side.

Thus my faith is weak.

When our Sec of State goes to Egypt to meet with the leaders of the new opposition and they refuse to see her, my lack of faith is reinforced.

We come from different POV. You seem to have total faith without evidence other than the words. I just hold out hope that soon I will see this outfit do just one thing well.

Let's face it, whether they do something well or not, you will think it is the most massive screwup since we invaded Iraq with inadequate forces. Oh wait...

Oh, and Hillary Clinton met with the new Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Secretary of defense. The "leaders of the new opposition" that refused to see her, that you cite, were leaders of "youth groups" who were invited to meet with her during her visit. I'm sure these "youth groups" are the real power in Egypt however...

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 08:05 AM
Let's face it, whether they do something well or not, you will think it is the most massive screwup since we invaded Iraq with inadequate forces. Oh wait...

Oh, and Hillary Clinton met with the new Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Secretary of defense. The "leaders of the new opposition" that refused to see her, that you cite, were leaders of "youth groups" who were invited to meet with her during her visit. I'm sure these "youth groups" are the real power in Egypt however...

Two weeks ago, the "youth" were heralded as the new coming.....Hill set up to meet...they dissed her. So she met with the old Mubarak guys...and now they are the good guys?

At least try to be objective.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 08:15 AM
First, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes via the CIA, the transmission of data from satellite or other high technology into the "right" hands (whichever those are) and possibly even the supply of arms through the Saudis or other friendlies.

And if things go WELL, then we will NEVER know what is going on behind the scenes?

Right.

And if we all agree that OVERT interference is probably bad (as we were more or less unanimous in stating with respect to Libya), then we may very well be in a position where whatever it is America does, we'll never know.

I think it's absurd to portray the President as helplessly sitting on his hands watching things unfold. Whether to "intervene" or not is without doubt the product of a whole lot of thinking by a whole lot of career bureaucrats at the relevant agencies feeding their htoughts to the policy-makers who report to the President for final action (or inaction, or covert action, or what have you).

So the potshots you sling at the President are pretty naive in their own right, in my opinion, ESPECIALLY since I think that an overt, hamhanded tough-guy approach is neither conducive to achieving our long term goals, beneficial to our stretched military resources, helpful to our budget situation, or to the political benefit of a person who was elected as much because he was trying to get us OUT of a mess that the prior Cowboy President had put us in.

That's a lot of talk about something you really don't understand.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 08:16 AM
See my prior post and spare me the barbs. You have no idea what we're doing behind the scenes and if it is done competently, you will NEVER know what we're doing behind the scenes.

This thread is a bit of joke. It obils down to "don't just sit there, DO SOMETHING", when nobody on here knows what to do, or even if we ARE (quietly) doing something."

I suggest you reread the thread and figure out what it's really about. You seem to have completely whiffed.

Jaric
03-17-2011, 08:18 AM
I suggest you reread the thread and figure out what it's really about. You seem to have completely whiffed.

It's about how awesome the Apache Longbows are?

(Forserious though, those things are insanely bad ass.)

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 08:23 AM
I suggest you reread the thread and figure out what it's really about. You seem to have completely whiffed.

:shrug:

I know what it's about. It's slinging peanuts from the back of the gallery, which is all we ever do around here of course. You're saying show leadership and help shape the future of Northern African to American interests. I agree with that, as far as that goes.

But it's buried in a bunch of barbs and insults whcih aren't well justified, and I want to be sure that you (especially) understand that leadership isn't always a bullet, because even a well-aimed bullet can have unfortunate consequences. A bullet shot blindly is all the more likely to.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 08:28 AM
I'm amazed that constantly bogging us down in foreign wars is the only way to pass a "test of leadership."

Your foreign policy thoughts aren't quite as frightening as BEP's, but seriously, they seem to be pretty out of whack.

Do you think we can just rule the world as our fief by wielding a big hammer? Do you not understand that sometimes some policy other than overt military intervention is called for?

LMAO You're letting your prejudice (about what you think I might be thinking) distort your understanding (of what I've actually said in this thread). Where did I say anything about war being the only way to pass a test of leadership? Where did I say anything about overt military intervention being the answer here?

For that matter, where did I say that we know what Obama is doing right now or that what he is doing is wrong? The answer to all of these questions is nowhere.

The point of this thread is that Obama has a rare opportunity to use any or all capabilities and influence of the US to affect an ongoing change in the middle east (and northern africa). He may be doing very little (as it appears) or he may be doing quite a lot (behind the scenes diplomacy, covert operations, etc.). We don't know what he's doing (and none of us can say we know exactly what he should be doing because we aren't experts and we don't have all the information). What will matter are the results. If radical islamism spreads throughout the region and we end up with a bunch of little Irans or al Qaeda FOBs, he'll have failed. If a bunch of happy-go-lucky, moderate, western-friendly, peace-seeking, oil-trading, civilized countries emerge, he'll have succeeded beyond our wildest imagination. His final grade will depend on which end of that spectrum the actual results fall closest to.

trndobrd
03-17-2011, 08:59 AM
First, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes via the CIA, the transmission of data from satellite or other high technology into the "right" hands (whichever those are) and possibly even the supply of arms through the Saudis or other friendlies.

And if things go WELL, then we will NEVER know what is going on behind the scenes?

Right.

And if we all agree that OVERT interference is probably bad (as we were more or less unanimous in stating with respect to Libya), then we may very well be in a position where whatever it is America does, we'll never know.

I think it's absurd to portray the President as helplessly sitting on his hands watching things unfold. Whether to "intervene" or not is without doubt the product of a whole lot of thinking by a whole lot of career bureaucrats at the relevant agencies feeding their htoughts to the policy-makers who report to the President for final action (or inaction, or covert action, or what have you).

So the potshots you sling at the President are pretty naive in their own right, in my opinion, ESPECIALLY since I think that an overt, hamhanded tough-guy approach is neither conducive to achieving our long term goals, beneficial to our stretched military resources, helpful to our budget situation, or to the political benefit of a person who was elected as much because he was trying to get us OUT of a mess that the prior Cowboy President had put us in.


Got it. We should just accept that the President and SOS Clinton did the right things during the Iranian uprising, and now with Egypt, Lybia, Bahrain, etc. and not worry our pretty little heads about such matters?

Leadership and military effort are not one and the same. The bottom line is that the nations of the world and people of the region have no earthly idea what the United States position is regarding freedom movements. It is solely the duty of the President of the United States to communicate that position.

The entire US foreign policy apparatus is in a state of disarray, has been repeatedly caught unaware or unprepared. Two years in, Obama has neither showed strong leadership on a foreign policy matter, nor empowered a competent cabinet official to take the lead on foreign policy and speak for the administration.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 09:01 AM
LMAO You're letting your prejudice (about what you think I might be thinking) distort your understanding (of what I've actually said in this thread). Where did I say anything about war being the only way to pass a test of leadership? Where did I say anything about overt military intervention being the answer here?

For that matter, where did I say that we know what Obama is doing right now or that what he is doing is wrong? The answer to all of these questions is nowhere.



I suppose. You buried your thread's aim in a a serious of barbs, however. If I read too much into your statement, that's fine.

It's certainly true that the US should be very watchful of these situations and where we can weigh in, in whatever form, to try to effect changes that improve our geopolitical situation, we should.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 09:05 AM
From the Washington Post:

A regional strategy for democracy in the Middle East (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-regional-strategy-for-democracy-in-the-middle-east/2011/03/14/ABR8d1Z_story.html)

By Zalmay Khalilzad, Tuesday, March 15, 7:58 PM

President Obama has reportedly settled on a country-specific strategy for the Middle East uprisings. Instead of crafting a regional plan, the United States will deal with protests for democracy and freedom in each state on its own terms. This approach is inadequate to both the challenges and the opportunities arising from the political turbulence.

The administration’s approach so far has yielded mixed results at best. On the positive side, the dictators in Tunisia and Egypt departed peacefully. Steady transitions to democracy appear to be underway, though the situations in both countries are still in flux. In Bahrain, U.S. pressure initially persuaded the ruling monarchy to cease attacks and engage the opposition politically (though the extent to which the regime will liberalize remains unknown).

Events elsewhere are more troubling. Protests are escalating against American partners in Yemen, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan and some of the Gulf states. It is unclear whether these regimes will be able to reach understandings with their opposition movements without greater American involvement. The arrival of Saudi forces in Bahrain suggests that the Obama administration is losing influence to those in the Gulf who advocate a crackdown. Moreover, the Obama administration has failed to offer opposition movements in countries with anti-American regimes — notably Libya — sufficient support to prevail. The administration has also shown little inclination toward a comprehensive support strategy for the opposition in Iran and Syria.

A country-specific strategy maintains U.S. flexibility and counters the image of American “meddling” in the Middle East, preserving, as reportedly characterized by President Obama, the “completely organic” nature of the uprisings. Yet this thinking has two major flaws.

First, it discounts the link between U.S. policy in one situation and outcomes elsewhere. Just as protests beginning in Tunisia inspired revolts across the Middle East, so too will the American approach to each uprising have ramifications in other countries.

Second, the strategy is inherently reactive. It allows us to manage breaking developments but undermines our ability to shape events proactively even as regimes and reformers are watching our actions and drawing lessons. If we are to avoid instability while putting hostile regimes on the defensive, we need a strategy that allows us to take the initiative.

The United States should adopt a proactive regional strategy that differentiates among transitional states, friendly authoritarians and anti-American dictatorships. In Iraq, Tunisia and Egypt, the United States should steer the transitions underway toward full democratic consolidation. In Iraq, we need to assist in the implementation of the recent power-sharing agreement and prod the government to deal with corruption and improve services. In Egypt and Tunisia, we can increase the odds of stable democracies emerging by leveling the playing field between moderate, secular democrats and their Islamist and sectarian opponents. We can do so by making sure good election laws are put in place and by providing liberal parties and civil society groups with assistance to counter the aid that Iranian and others provide to Islamist parties.

In friendly but repressive states, the United States should push ruling regimes to open space for responsible actors and oversee political reforms. We should encourage the regimes in Morocco and the Persian Gulf to evolve into constitutional monarchies while pressuring leaders in Algeria and Yemen to strengthen their parliaments, engage the opposition, and implement and abide by constitutional limits. Without such transitions, these countries risk increased instability.

The Middle East uprisings that hold the greatest promise are in anti-American dictatorships. The immediate challenge is to ensure the ouster of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. Steps to help that happen include the establishment of a no-fly zone; support and assistance for the authorities in liberated areas, humanitarian and military aid for friendly rebels; and outreach to elements inside the Gaddafi coalition, including tribes. The Arab League’s call for a no-fly zone should bolster U.N. Security Council support for tougher action. By moving quickly on all these fronts, the United States and its allies can begin to reach an understanding with Libyans opposed to Gaddafi.

Without greater outside support, Gaddafi’s regime is likely to crush its opposition, and Libya is likely to emerge as a rogue pariah run by a vindictive Gaddafi. Other dictatorships would then be emboldened to squelch their democratic opponents and resist liberalization. Our failure to act now will force a costlier intervention down the line.

By contrast, Gaddafi’s overthrow and the consolidation of a liberal, pro-American regime would bolster prospects for reform in Iran and Syria by countering Iranian propaganda that the current revolts are Islamist in character and directed only at partners of the United States.

We can follow up with a variety of steps to foment democratic revolutions against Tehran and Damascus, beginning with clarion calls for change. These include: training and support for opposition forces in and outside the countries; pressure directed against regime officials who attack their own people, including targeted sanctions and referrals in international tribunals; surrogate broadcasting and other pro-democracy messaging; funds for striking workers; and covert efforts to induce defections by regime and security officials.

We are at a key juncture. As in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the dysfunction of the Middle East today generates the most threatening challenges to the international community. The largely peaceful, youth-oriented, democratic revolutions across the region present an opportunity to catalyze a fundamental transformation. Partnering with other responsible actors, we should take reasonable steps to facilitate and consolidate this shift in the Middle East.

Dallas Chief
03-17-2011, 09:17 AM
Did you read what you linked?

e.g., : "“Going forward, it is very important for us to know what the opposition movement in Libya needs so they are able to restore some order and perhaps we can encourage the growth of freedom and democracy that seems to be sprouting throughout the Middle East. We will work with the Administration to execute policies that promote our U.S. security interests in the region, as well as fostering an environment where we can see the loss of innocent life stop and the spread of more freedom.”
*
I didn't mean that they hadn't issued any vague, well-meaning platitudes on the topic.
Oh, and this one was great:

"Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., put their support behind increasing America's role in the conflict by instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, though they generally agreed direct military involvement was inadvisable.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., stopped short of supporting it, saying it was "worth considering."

They are waiting to see which way the political winds are blowing. Anything beyond that and you are kidding yourself.

Like I said, keep on making up your own reality. Also from the same article...

McConnell, also on Face the Nation, agreed that the no-fly zone should be considered and raised the option of other tactics to help force Qaddafi’s ouster.

“The other option that John Kerry alluded to in passing that I think we used frequently during the Cold War period is simply aiding and arming the insurgents,” McConnell said.

You wanted examples of the Republican leadership taking a position on policy and here you have it. Funny how you didn't bother to quote anything from the other links. Keep kidding yourself and try again...

RNR
03-17-2011, 09:25 AM
Uh he is a little busy, it is March madness time~

Jaric
03-17-2011, 09:28 AM
“The other option that John Kerry alluded to in passing that I think we used frequently during the Cold War period is simply aiding and arming the insurgents,” McConnell said.:banghead:
:banghead::banghead:

Those who forget history are doomed to... oh fuck it, no one is listening anyway.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2011, 09:54 AM
Obama has received straight F's since inaugaration day. The guy sucks BAD.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 10:58 AM
Hillary apparently isn't very impressed. From TheDaily.com:

OH, HILL NO (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/17/031711-news-hillary-1-2/)
Obama's indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edge

BY JOSHUA HERSH THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Clinton revealed her desire to leave yesterday in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, responding four times to his questions about whether she would accept a post during a potential second Obama administration with a single word: “No.”

Philippe Reines, an adviser and spokesman for Clinton, downplayed the significance of the interview, saying, “He asked, she answered. Really that simple. [It] wasn’t a declaration.”

But her blunt string of four “no’s” followed a period of intense frustration for the secretary, according to the insider, who told The Daily that Clinton has grown weary of fighting an uphill battle in the administration.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates came out against a no-fly zone almost two weeks ago, while Clinton grew closer to the Libyan opposition.

Last week, excommunicated members of Libya’s embassy to the United States set up shop in an office inside the State Department.

Obama himself made light of her strong feelings for supporting the opposition in a speech last week at the Gridiron Club Dinner, an annual gathering that traditionally features a stand-up comedy act by the president.

“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”

And to some, the firing last week of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley over disparaging remarks he made about the Pentagon detention policies had the appearance of a power move by the Defense Department more than anything else.

While the stakes in Libya could not be higher, the insider said that something far more domestic was on Clinton’s mind after she leaves the State Department: “She wants to be a grandmother more than anything."

Jaric
03-17-2011, 11:05 AM
That's encouraging.
:facepalm:

patteeu
03-17-2011, 11:14 AM
That's encouraging.
:facepalm:

Maybe it's a double secret plan to appear incompetent and detached on the surface while pulling off the magic of smart power under the surface. And when it all works out perfectly, no one will even suspect that the US manipulated events to our advantage. Great results with no blowback!

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 11:16 AM
Maybe it's a double secret plan to appear incompetent and detached on the surface while pulling off the magic of smart power under the surface. And when it all works out perfectly, no one will even suspect that the US manipulated events to our advantage. Great results with no blowback!

I hear its all a cover for the guys with the super secret decoder rings working behind the scene

Jaric
03-17-2011, 11:16 AM
Maybe it's a double secret plan to appear incompetent and detached on the surface while pulling off the magic of smart power under the surface. And when it all works out perfectly, no one will even suspect that the US manipulated events to our advantage. Great results with no blowback!
Well they have me convinced.

BigCatDaddy
03-17-2011, 11:30 AM
That's encouraging.
:facepalm:


Any chance the guy says "I suck, screw it. I'm not running again." ?

patteeu
03-17-2011, 11:32 AM
Well they have me convinced.

I'm on the verge of falling for it, myself.

Chief Faithful
03-17-2011, 01:38 PM
Uh he is a little busy, it is March madness time~

LMAO

He seems to be busy working on his outside shot.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 02:17 PM
If the Secretary of State is leaving because she thinks the foreign policy apparatus is rudderless, then that certainly casts everything in a very different light.

Of course, many here on the right thought that Colin Powell was just an annoying gadfly when he had a similarly low opinion of the President for whom he served as SecState, so....

patteeu
03-17-2011, 02:25 PM
It's going to be a pretty hard sell convincing anyone that the Obama administration is providing the same level of decisiveness and leadership that it's immediate predecessor did, Colin Powell's self-serving, after-the-fact, some-say-revisionist misgivings notwithstanding.

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 02:34 PM
If the Secretary of State is leaving because she thinks the foreign policy apparatus is rudderless, then that certainly casts everything in a very different light.

Of course, many here on the right thought that Colin Powell was just an annoying gadfly when he had a similarly low opinion of the President for whom he served as SecState, so....

Colin Powell has as much to do with this administrations poor showing as Ernie Banks has on this years Royals.

go bowe
03-17-2011, 03:15 PM
Colin Powell has as much to do with this administrations poor showing as Ernie Banks has on this years Royals.does ernie have a poor opinion of the royals?

Dallas Chief
03-17-2011, 03:21 PM
does ernie have a poor opinion of the royals?

Doesn't everybody???:shrug:

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 03:24 PM
It's going to be a pretty hard sell convincing anyone that the Obama administration is providing the same level of decisiveness and leadership that it's immediate predecessor did, Colin Powell's self-serving, after-the-fact, some-say-revisionist misgivings notwithstanding.

I agree that the Bush administration was decisive. It was also divisive and, in my opinion, the expense of blood and treasure incurred by the administrative was in absolutely no way equal to the benefits enjoyed by its actions.

I also note, FWIW, that nobody here is actually capable of identifying any poor foreign policy decisions of the current administration, as far as I can tell. Merely vague references to lack of leadership, perhaps because its failure to engage in gunboat diplomacy makes it pale in comparison to the "decisiveness" of the former administration.

Remember that decisive doesn't mean that the correct decisions were reached. Merely that they were made and pursued, often for too long out of a stubborn refusal to adjust course once such a course was embarked upon.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2011, 03:30 PM
You forgot to mention we're supposed to be fighting "them" over there instead of here. Yet, now they're here. Lot of good it did.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 03:36 PM
I agree that the Bush administration was decisive. It was also divisive and, in my opinion, the expense of blood and treasure incurred by the administrative was in absolutely no way equal to the benefits enjoyed by its actions.

I also note, FWIW, that nobody here is actually capable of identifying any poor foreign policy decisions of the current administration, as far as I can tell. Merely vague references to lack of leadership, perhaps because its failure to engage in gunboat diplomacy makes it pale in comparison to the "decisiveness" of the former administration.

Remember that decisive doesn't mean that the correct decisions were reached. Merely that they were made and pursued, often for too long out of a stubborn refusal to adjust course once such a course was embarked upon.

I understand how tempting it must be to try to change the subject. Obviously I don't share your assessment of the Bush years, but that's really neither here nor there.

Whether you agree with Bush's decisions or not, he didn't have a problem making them. Indecisiveness is almost always a problem. If Obama has a foreign policy vision that goes beyond making the occasional speech and waiting for others to take the lead, it's not at all apparent.

Amnorix
03-17-2011, 03:44 PM
Whether you agree with Bush's decisions or not, he didn't have a problem making them. Indecisiveness is almost always a problem. If Obama has a foreign policy vision that goes beyond making the occasional speech and waiting for others to take the lead, it's not at all apparent.


Patience is a virtue, and inaction is also an action, or a choice, which under certain circumstances may well be the best choice.

I know JFK and LBJ were "decisive", but Vietnam was a stupid fucking decision in anybody's book -- well, any rationale person's anyway. Decisiveness doesn't help when it's the wrong decision.

In all honesty, if Obama was hyperfocused on the domestic situation, fixing our budgetary woes, attacking the economic situation, working hard to improve the efficiencies of our government, etc., and ignoring foreign policy except for hotspots, etc., then I would have NO problem with that. I think Bush was too externally focused, and it is certainly true that most Presidents, by experience or what have you, tend to favor either foreign or domestic policy at the expense of the other. I'm not exactly sold on Obama improving the domestic situation either, however, so overall I'm not exactly thrilled with the Administration, to say the least.

America has gotten into the habit of thinking that it must lead the way on every issue everywhere in the world EVERY time. While that may have some benefits, it also certainly has some drawbacks. I'd far rather be a bit more selective in our "leadership" decisions. Deciding everything for everyone everywhere every time has costs that I'm uncertain its wise to pay.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2011, 03:55 PM
LOL! Amnorix thinks a classical liberal pov is whacked. So much for being an American.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 04:03 PM
Patience is a virtue, and inaction is also an action, or a choice, which under certain circumstances may well be the best choice.

I know JFK and LBJ were "decisive", but Vietnam was a stupid ****ing decision in anybody's book -- well, any rationale person's anyway. Decisiveness doesn't help when it's the wrong decision.

In all honesty, if Obama was hyperfocused on the domestic situation, fixing our budgetary woes, attacking the economic situation, working hard to improve the efficiencies of our government, etc., and ignoring foreign policy except for hotspots, etc., then I would have NO problem with that. I think Bush was too externally focused, and it is certainly true that most Presidents, by experience or what have you, tend to favor either foreign or domestic policy at the expense of the other. I'm not exactly sold on Obama improving the domestic situation either, however, so overall I'm not exactly thrilled with the Administration, to say the least.

America has gotten into the habit of thinking that it must lead the way on every issue everywhere in the world EVERY time. While that may have some benefits, it also certainly has some drawbacks. I'd far rather be a bit more selective in our "leadership" decisions. Deciding everything for everyone everywhere every time has costs that I'm uncertain its wise to pay.

Decisive or not, isn't the ultimate issue. As I said in the very first post, the proof will be in the pudding when all is said and done. If Obama lets the middle east devolve into an even more virulently anti-American neighborhood than it already is, he'll have failed to effectively exploit this opportunity. If we end up on the other side of this turmoil better off than before, his approach will be vindicated (whatever that approach is).

banyon
03-17-2011, 06:34 PM
Why are you so determined to stray away from the thread topic?

Does the deflection indicate you have no excuses to make for your Dear Leader?

The next time you have the brains to weigh in on a legitimate topic will be the first.

If you thought critically, You might realize that disagreement with someone else's criticism does not equal advocating for the opposing view.

Maybe you should look up all the pro-Obama posts I've done in the last two years, because you won't find many.

I've been vocal saying he's disappointed in many ways, again , that is if you were capable of doing anything but bleating.

banyon
03-17-2011, 06:36 PM
Hillary apparently isn't very impressed. From TheDaily.com:

OH, HILL NO (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/17/031711-news-hillary-1-2/)
Obama's indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edge

BY JOSHUA HERSH THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Clinton revealed her desire to leave yesterday in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, responding four times to his questions about whether she would accept a post during a potential second Obama administration with a single word: “No.”

Philippe Reines, an adviser and spokesman for Clinton, downplayed the significance of the interview, saying, “He asked, she answered. Really that simple. [It] wasn’t a declaration.”

But her blunt string of four “no’s” followed a period of intense frustration for the secretary, according to the insider, who told The Daily that Clinton has grown weary of fighting an uphill battle in the administration.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates came out against a no-fly zone almost two weeks ago, while Clinton grew closer to the Libyan opposition.

Last week, excommunicated members of Libya’s embassy to the United States set up shop in an office inside the State Department.

Obama himself made light of her strong feelings for supporting the opposition in a speech last week at the Gridiron Club Dinner, an annual gathering that traditionally features a stand-up comedy act by the president.

“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”

And to some, the firing last week of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley over disparaging remarks he made about the Pentagon detention policies had the appearance of a power move by the Defense Department more than anything else.

While the stakes in Libya could not be higher, the insider said that something far more domestic was on Clinton’s mind after she leaves the State Department: “She wants to be a grandmother more than anything."

I can't say i really disagree with her critique.

banyon
03-17-2011, 06:41 PM
FDR asked Congress to declare war after Pearl Harbor, right?

Yes, but I was referring to pre-PH, e.g, the Lend-lease Act.

If it comes to war, then Congress should definitely be involved. There are a whole lot of policy options short of war though and while Congress should be kept abreast of the administration's activities and support them with appropriate legislation unless they have serious objections, it's the executive's job to lead.

Why are you so reluctant to place the primary onus on Barack Obama here? Are you as skeptical that he's up to the task as I am?

I'm not sure he's been very consistent in his foreign policy views, I just think the criticism lacks any constructive alternatives, as you and Dallas Chief have shown well.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 06:44 PM
It looks like Hillary won her policy struggle (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51515.html). The UN just authorized "all means necessary" to protect Libyan civilians from Gaddafi's forces. We can only hope that whatever the administration decides to do with that international blessing is the right thing to do.

I bet Obama doesn't bother with getting Congressional approval for anything though, which IMO is improper.

patteeu
03-17-2011, 06:46 PM
I'm not sure he's been very consistent in his foreign policy views, I just think the criticism lacks any constructive alternatives, as you and Dallas Chief have shown well.

So what? Does the fact that some schlub on the internet doesn't have a well-conceived policy absolve our POTUS and our government's foreign policy apparatus from their responsibility to have one?

KC Dan
03-17-2011, 06:47 PM
It looks like Hillary won her policy struggle (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51515.html). The UN just authorized "all means necessary" to protect Libyan civilians from Gaddafi's forces. We can only hope that whatever the administration decides to do with that international blessing is the right thing to do.I would bet that B.O. will do nothing and then claim that it took too long for the U.N. to act so now his hands are tied.....Community organizer = Not a leader

banyon
03-17-2011, 06:49 PM
So what? Does the fact that some schlub on the internet doesn't have a well-conceived policy absolve our POTUS and our government's foreign policy apparatus from their responsibility to have one?

It's often part of having an effective criticism, so yes, it is relevant.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2011, 06:51 PM
It's often part of having an effective criticism, so yes, it is relevant.

ROFL

patteeu
03-17-2011, 07:02 PM
It's often part of having an effective criticism, so yes, it is relevant.

The question was does it absolve Barack Obama from responsibility to have a good policy?

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2011, 07:12 PM
Hi guys! I'm banyon! Mummy and Dada put me through college and bought my house for me and everything! I'm a big shot now, though! I'm a prosecutor in DODGE CITY! ROFL

Yup!

And I hang around in strip clubs in Kansas city and I impress the chicks there with how cool I am! I comb my hair in the toilet! Nobody "effs" with me! Nosiree bub!

LMAO

banyon
03-17-2011, 07:14 PM
The question was does it absolve Barack Obama from responsibility to have a good policy?

I don't think so, no. Nor do I know anything I posted which implied such.

It's pretty much a rhetorical question.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 07:37 PM
I would bet that B.O. will do nothing and then claim that it took too long for the U.N. to act so now his hands are tied.....Community organizer = Not a leader

Apparently the plan is for the US to do next to nothing. The british and french are set to attack within hours, as well as the air forces of 5 different arab nations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/03/airstrikes_on_libya_could_comm.html

Not sure why we have to lead or be heavily involved in every single one of these conflicts, especially when its in Europe's back yard.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2011, 07:41 PM
Apparently the plan is for the US to do next to nothing. The british and french are set to attack within hours, as well as the air forces of 5 different arab nations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/03/airstrikes_on_libya_could_comm.html

Not sure why we have to lead or be heavily involved in every single one of these conflicts, especially when its in Europe's back yard.

The British have plenty at stake considering they sold their souls and released the bastard who planned the lockerbie bombing.

Obama's a feckless asshole but that's beside the point.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 08:03 PM
ROFL

Wow, apparently Canada is going to send over 6 warplanes. Since when have the canadians ever gotten militarily involved in anything?

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 08:33 PM
ROFL

Wow, apparently Canada is going to send over 6 warplanes. Since when have the canadians ever gotten militarily involved in anything?

Their special forces can hang any day with the US, the sniper program is world class, your comment reflects a poor understanding of Canadian Military activity and history. Study up so you dont look dumb next time.

KC_Connection
03-17-2011, 08:42 PM
ROFL

Wow, apparently Canada is going to send over 6 warplanes. Since when have the canadians ever gotten militarily involved in anything?
They're still fighting and dying in Afghanistan.

But I see HCF has this covered.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 09:00 PM
Their special forces can hang any day with the US, the sniper program is world class, your comment reflects a poor understanding of Canadian Military activity and history. Study up so you dont look dumb next time.

I apologize for nothing. Their contribution is apparently minor, since they are barely mentioned by the media, behind european nations.

Snipers? Great, whatever.

KC_Connection
03-17-2011, 09:02 PM
I apologize for nothing. Their contribution is obviously minor, since they are barely mentioned in any list of international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, well behind many european nations.

Snipers? Great, whatever.

Such ignorance and blind disrespect.

Among the coalition countries, they've experienced the 3rd most deaths of any country behind the USA and the UK.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 09:06 PM
Such ignorance and blind disrespect.

Among the coalition countries, they've experienced the 3rd most deaths of any country behind the USA and the UK.

Fine, my post was factually incorrect, but I again apologize for absolutely nothing. Blame the media. I am not going to google every single post before I click reply.

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 09:07 PM
I apologize for nothing. Their contribution is apparently minor, since they are barely mentioned by the media, behind european nations.

Snipers? Great, whatever.

You missed the part about not looking dumb.

KC_Connection
03-17-2011, 09:08 PM
Fine, my post was factually incorrect, but I again apologize for absolutely nothing. Blame the media. I am not going to google every single post before I click reply.
I'm not going to blame the media for your ignorance. This is why people should research things for themselves.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 09:09 PM
You missed the part about not looking dumb.

Since the media is mentioning Europe far more often than Canada (if ever) in terms of sacrifice in Afghanistan, and since your objection is not common knowledge *AT ALL*, I do not "look dumb". I'm not going to google the content of every post before I reply to see if the media failed to cover some obscure little-known fact.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 09:11 PM
I'm not going to blame the media for your ignorance. This is why people should research things for themselves.

Then you are being silly. This is an obscure, little known fact. If you do not first google every single fact before you hit reply then you are hypocritical. If you do google every single fact in your post before replying, then you are a crazed neurotic poster.

KC_Connection
03-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Then you are being silly. This is an obscure, little known fact. If you do not first google every single fact before you hit reply then you are hypocritical. If you do google every single fact in your post before replying, then you are a crazed neurotic poster.
I suspect you didn't even know Canada was in Afghanistan. And this isn't some obscure, little known fact for anybody that's actually been paying attention to that war for the past 10 years.

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 09:11 PM
So your dumbassery times 2 is the medias fault?

How did I know? How did KC Connection know?

alnorth
03-17-2011, 09:28 PM
I suspect you didn't even know Canada was in Afghanistan. And this isn't some obscure, little known fact for anybody that's actually been paying attention to that war for the past 10 years.

ROFL

As far as I'm concerned, Canada's involvement is about as well-known as the name of Hitler's dog, or some other similar weird trivia.

It's like I said "I think Hitler's dog was named Rex", and you came back with "no, you drooling idiot, it was obviously Blondi!" OK fine, whatever, it was Blondi. That would be the end of it if you were merely trying to correct a mistake rather than firing away at the first reply with an attempt to ascribe some hideous moral failing to not having the same knowledge of little-known trivia.

Every bit of coverage in this country regarding military sacrifice discusses the USA 99.99999999999% of the time, and the UK the other fraction of the time. I literally never heard of Canada doing anything, and I'm not so obsessed with the Afghanistan war as to give a rat's ass about the fine details of troop numbers and action on the ground.

I wont apologize for not knowing trivia, and your outrage over not knowing trivia looks stupid to me. Thats all I have to say about this idiotic sidetracked line of this thread.

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 09:30 PM
Outrage?

No, actually just filled in the blank spot in your head. Cool with me if you want to remain uninformed.

alnorth
03-17-2011, 09:33 PM
Outrage?

No, actually just filled in the blank spot in your head. Cool with me if you want to remain uninformed.

Yes, outrage. This was your reply:

Their special forces can hang any day with the US, the sniper program is world class, your comment reflects a poor understanding of Canadian Military activity and history. Study up so you dont look dumb next time.

I call bullshit on your claim that you were merely trying to help someone understand something they didn't know. You were outraged that I didn't know obscure trivia.

Fine, Hitler's dog was named Blondi. I don't "look dumb" for not knowing that.

HonestChieffan
03-17-2011, 09:54 PM
Cool then. You win. I apologize. It's my error.

KC_Connection
03-18-2011, 03:54 AM
ROFL

As far as I'm concerned, Canada's involvement is about as well-known as the name of Hitler's dog, or some other similar weird trivia.

It's like I said "I think Hitler's dog was named Rex", and you came back with "no, you drooling idiot, it was obviously Blondi!" OK fine, whatever, it was Blondi. That would be the end of it if you were merely trying to correct a mistake rather than firing away at the first reply with an attempt to ascribe some hideous moral failing to not having the same knowledge of little-known trivia.

Every bit of coverage in this country regarding military sacrifice discusses the USA 99.99999999999% of the time, and the UK the other fraction of the time. I literally never heard of Canada doing anything, and I'm not so obsessed with the Afghanistan war as to give a rat's ass about the fine details of troop numbers and action on the ground.

I wont apologize for not knowing trivia, and your outrage over not knowing trivia looks stupid to me. Thats all I have to say about this idiotic sidetracked line of this thread.
#1. Trivia? Your comment was disrespectful of an entire country and the people that have died in that war. To anyone slightly in the know at all, it would have made you look enormously ignorant. Of course, maybe you don't give a shit about being disrespectful...fine. But that just means you're an asshole.

#2. Stop blaming the media for your own ignorance. That's nothing more than a weak excuse and makes you look like a stereotypical close-minded American. FFS, learn something about the war that your country is in.

Amnorix
03-18-2011, 05:44 AM
Decisive or not, isn't the ultimate issue. As I said in the very first post, the proof will be in the pudding when all is said and done. If Obama lets the middle east devolve into an even more virulently anti-American neighborhood than it already is, he'll have failed to effectively exploit this opportunity. If we end up on the other side of this turmoil better off than before, his approach will be vindicated (whatever that approach is).

I guess. You're probably right that history will just be outcome determinative, but this pre-supposes that there is a way to have the turmoil result in something better for the US. That outcome may be on the table, certainly, and I hope it is, but I have no idea if it is.

Amnorix
03-18-2011, 05:48 AM
Glad the Europeans are taking the lead on this. Hope all goes well. Glad to provide satellite data, logistical support etc.

alnorth
03-18-2011, 07:20 AM
#1. Trivia? Your comment was disrespectful of an entire country and the people that have died in that war. To anyone slightly in the know at all, it would have made you look enormously ignorant. Of course, maybe you don't give a shit about being disrespectful...fine. But that just means you're an asshole.

#2. Stop blaming the media for your own ignorance. That's nothing more than a weak excuse and makes you look like a stereotypical close-minded American. FFS, learn something about the war that your country is in.

Yes, Hitler's dog was named Blondi, we know that now. Your outrage over not being well-versed in little-known trivia looks silly.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 08:36 AM
ROFL

Wow, apparently Canada is going to send over 6 warplanes. Since when have the canadians ever gotten militarily involved in anything?

They've been fighting in Afghanistan for many years. I think they've either recently withdrawn or they will soon though.

Edit: I see this has already been covered.

englander
03-18-2011, 08:11 PM
I wish this thread to be discoursed further

go bowe
03-18-2011, 10:05 PM
Then you are being silly. This is an obscure, little known fact. If you do not first google every single fact before you hit reply then you are hypocritical. If you do google every single fact in your post before replying, then you are a crazed neurotic poster.oh noes!!!!!!!!1!

a crazed neurotic poster?

wait, isn't this chiefsplanet?

go bowe
03-18-2011, 10:09 PM
I wish this thread to be discoursed furtherso discourse, my friend...

we need a different pov around here...

mnchiefsguy
03-18-2011, 11:06 PM
Is it an open book test?

KC_Connection
03-19-2011, 01:51 AM
Yes, Hitler's dog was named Blondi, we know that now. Your outrage over not being well-versed in little-known trivia looks silly.
As I thought, a disrespectful asshole.