Can We Finally Admit US Foreign Policy is a Disaster?

[truth on hold]

Meanwhile Libya is such a confused mess there are air strikes in the capital and they don't even know whose conducting them!

 

War planes attacked targets in Libya's capital Tripoli on Sunday, hours after forces from the city of Misrata said they had seized the main airport.

Tripoli residents heard jets followed by explosions at dawn, but it was not clear who sent the planes.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/11053754/Tripoli-bombed-as-Libya-descends-further-into-chaos-and-Egypt-denies-involvement.html#disqus_thread

Edited August 24, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Bob in Mich]

Turns out those Libyan attacks were carried out by a small town from North Dakota. They were just testing their new policing equipment.

[truth on hold]

McCain killed fighting for ISIS in Syria

 

NYTimes: http://nyti.ms/1nzdrAi

[PromoTheRobot]

We are still paying for what Dubyah and Cheney did.

[IDBillzFan]

We are still paying for what Dubyah and Cheney did.

 

I should warn you that gatorman keeps a very tight grip on the brass ring you're preparing to pry from his hands.

[3rdnlng]

We are still paying for what Dubyah and Cheney did.

 

Because Obama and Biden failed to follow through with the Bush program. He was so anxious to claim a political victory by "ending the war in Iraq" that he gummed up the works and of course put the blame on Maliki. Next question?

[IDBillzFan]

Because Obama and Biden failed to follow through with the Bush program. He was so anxious to claim a political victory by "ending the war in Iraq" that he gummed up the works and of course put the blame on Maliki. Next question?

 

I miss the old days, when Bin Laden was dead, Al Quada was on the run, the wars were over, and GM was making cars that weren't recalled every day.

[GG]

I miss the old days, when Bin Laden was dead, Al Quada was on the run, the wars were over, and GM was making cars that weren't recalled every day.

 

Don't forget the unicorns. Definitely the unicorns.

 

Ok, maybe the ashtray too.

[keepthefaith]

Because Obama and Biden failed to follow through with the Bush program. He was so anxious to claim a political victory by "ending the war in Iraq" that he gummed up the works and of course put the blame on Maliki. Next question?

 

Obama cares nothing about what happens in Irag except to the extent that it hurts him politically. Only the potential visual of a slaughter in northern Irag forced him to do anything. Otherwise I don't think ISIS setting up shop there bothers him at all.

[3rdnlng]

Obama cares nothing about what happens in Irag except to the extent that it hurts him politically. Only the potential visual of a slaughter in northern Irag forced him to do anything. Otherwise I don't think ISIS setting up shop there bothers him at all.

 

ISIS consists of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and a few other terror groups. Obama embraced the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and supported ISIS in Syria against Assad. His actions/inactions have allowed much of the middle east to be in turmoil. He's now looking at what actions he can take for the sake of his legacy rather than to do what is right for the country and the world.

[truth on hold]

 

 

ISIS consists of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and a few other terror groups. Obama embraced the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and supported ISIS in Syria against Assad. His actions/inactions have allowed much of the middle east to be in turmoil. He's now looking at what actions he can take for the sake of his legacy rather than to do what is right for the country and the world.

Obamas problem was not that he deviated from bush its that he was too similar. He inherited a morally bankrupt and illogical Mideast policy and a financially bankrupt nation. What he supported in Egypt was not Muslim brotherhood it was "democracy", the legacy of the bush doctrine. Instead of boots on the ground he tried a neocon light strategy of supporting the uprisings in Syria and Ukraine financially and diplomatically. To say he was uniquely at fault because he was less bush-like than either of his presidential opponents mccain or Romney would have been at pursuing an illogical policy that we couldnt afford, is simply complete partisan crap

Edited August 27, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[/dev/null]

Obamas problem was not that he deviated from bush its that he was too similar. He inherited a morally bankrupt and illogical Mideast policy and a financially bankrupt nation. What he supported in Egypt was not Muslim brotherhood it was "democracy", the legacy of the bush doctrine. Instead of boots on the ground he tried a neocon light strategy of supporting the uprisings in Syria and Ukraine financially and diplomatically. To say he was uniquely at fault because he was less bush-like than either of his presidential opponents mccain or Romney at pursuing am illogical policy that we couldnt afford is simply complete partisan crap

 

So lemme get this straight. Obama's foreign policy is bad. That's generally accepted, but we'll just overlook that because Republican policy is worse.

 

But Obama's policies wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't for Bush's policies and the rest of the world's intransigence.

[DC Tom]

Obamas problem was not that he deviated from bush its that he was too similar. He inherited a morally bankrupt and illogical Mideast policy and a financially bankrupt nation. What he supported in Egypt was not Muslim brotherhood it was "democracy", the legacy of the bush doctrine. Instead of boots on the ground he tried a neocon light strategy of supporting the uprisings in Syria and Ukraine financially and diplomatically. To say he was uniquely at fault because he was less bush-like than either of his presidential opponents mccain or Romney at pursuing am illogical policy that we couldnt afford is simply complete partisan crap

 

This is one of the most retarded things I have ever read. Have you been in a coma for the past ten years? How in the hell is Obama's feckless and empty support of the "Arab Spring" a continuation of Bush's close support of Hosni Mubarak? When was it a "neocon" strategy to pursue violence and revolution in Ukraine financially or diplomatically? How can anyone in their right mind argue that Obama's supported ANYONE in the Syrian mess, given the only thing consistent with his policy is its inconsistency?

 

So lemme get this straight. Obama's foreign policy is bad. That's generally accepted, but we'll just overlook that because Republican policy is worse.

 

But Obama's policies wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't for Bush's policies and the rest of the world's intransigence.

 

No, Obama's foreign policy bad because it's the same as Bush's. Even though they're totally different.

[truth on hold]

 

 

This is one of the most retarded things I have ever read. Have you been in a coma for the past ten years? How in the hell is Obama's feckless and empty support of the "Arab Spring" a continuation of Bush's close support of Hosni Mubarak? When was it a "neocon" strategy to pursue violence and revolution in Ukraine financially or diplomatically? How can anyone in their right mind argue that Obama's supported ANYONE in the Syrian mess, given the only thing consistent with his policy is its inconsistency?

 

 

 

No, Obama's foreign policy bad because it's the same as Bush's. Even though they're totally different.

Nope, you're wrong its simply an extension of bush doctrine, albeit without boots on the ground. A break from bush policy would have been not only getting out of Iraq, but also not providing support for Syrian uprising. Remember ISIS got started in Syria after the uprising destabled that country, an uprising that was supported by US and our "allies" france and Saudis, among others.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

Nope, you're wrong its simply an extension of bush doctrine, albeit without boots on the ground. A break from bush policy would have been not only getting out of Iraq, but also not providing support for Syrian uprising. Remember ISIS got started in Syria after the uprising destabled that country, an uprising that was supported by US and our "allies" france and Saudis, among others.

 

So you have been in a coma for the past ten years.

 

Ignoring the fact that Obama's "support" of the Syrian uprising was nothing of the sort...please, enlighten us and explain in some detail how Obama's "support" of the Syrian uprising was an "extension" of the "Bush Doctrine"...

[truth on hold]

 

 

So you have been in a coma for the past ten years.

 

Ignoring the fact that Obama's "support" of the Syrian uprising was nothing of the sort...please, enlighten us and explain in some detail how Obama's "support" of the Syrian uprising was an "extension" of the "Bush Doctrine"...

I already did. You're in a coma now

Edited August 27, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

I already did. You're in a coma now

 

No, you didn't. You just said "Obama did something! Bush did something else! They're the same thing!" That's a statement, not an explanation.

 

Your idiocy is boring me, so I'm just going to summarize the rest of our conversation:

 

You: "Obama's supporting the overthrow of foreign governments in favor of democracy. That's the Bush Doctrine."

 

Me: "No, it's not. And that's not what Obama's doing."

 

You: "Yes, it is. Wikipedia says so."

 

Me: "No, Wikipedia says the Bush doctrine is primarily based on a philosophy of preemptive strike against perceived foreign threats, and of not distinguishing between terrorists and the countries that harbor them. That's not what Obama's doing."

 

You: "No, it says right here that the Bush Doctrine is promoting democracy in other countries!"

 

Me: "Yes, promoting democracies in other countries that harbor terrorists. Not in allies like Egypt or the Ukraine. And it's still not what Obama is doing."

 

You: "Yes, it is! Obama funded democratic uprisings in Egypt, Syria, and the Ukraine!"

 

Me: "No, Obama supported populist uprisings in those countries. In one case, against the democratically elected government. Populism is not democracy, and supporting uprisings is not the same as promoting democracy."

 

You: not entirely sure what you'll respond at that point, but it will no doubt involve calling me a Republican, extolling the virtues of some ivory-tower thinker who'd starve to death in the real world, and a link to a Russia Times video even nuttier than you are.

 

Me: "You're an idiot."

 

Everyone else: laughs at your stupid ass.

 

 

Glad that conversation's over. Now go back into your coma.

[truth on hold]

Lol you moron bush did the same thing in Gaza, saying he supported "democracy". That pattern was clearly estabislhed before obama. The whole " Arab" spring BS was rooted in bush policy. The sold the Iraq war in part on "spreading democracy throughout the Arab world". Its time to pull the plugs on your coma and acknowledge you're brain dead

Edited August 27, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

Lol you moron bush did the same thing in Gaza, saying he supported "democracy". That pattern was clearly estabislhed before obama. The whole " Arab" spring BS was rooted in bush policy.

 

Yes, I know: you have absolutely no !@#$ing idea what the "Bush Doctrine" actually is, and that all you know is that you don't like it, so anything you don't like is the "Bush Doctrine."

 

That was the whole point of me summarizing this whole exchange: you don't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is, and that's how you're going to demonstrate it. I've already done your work for you. You are free to move on to another topic and metaphorically fill your conversational drool bucket.

[truth on hold]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush opened his second term Thursday with a promise to the people of the United States and the world -- vowing to promote democracy both at home and abroad.

 

Http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.speech/