Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't recall Bush being able to do just about anything he wanted for several years, then I don't know what else to tell you.You honestly don't recall all the heat the Dem party received for basically bending over and spreading cheeks to Bush/Cheney?
I remember the Affordable Care Act, and the Republicans being criticized for being to soft on Obama. Sounds the same to me.
Originally posted by dadudemon
. If he would have stood by his promise about military stuff, he'd be more respected, imo.
How was he supposed to predict in 2008 all of the geopolitical shit that would happen in the following 6 years? As far as the shit about torturing terrorists and keeping Gitmo open and such, well, they're war criminals. True there may be a few innocents in there but the majority of them have tried to murder innocent people or US soldiers, so they can stay there as long as they need to.
As far as the drone strikes go, the collateral damage is terrible, but what else can Obama do? If he sends in troops they could be killed. As shown by OBL, the Pakistani govt. can't be trusted to take care of the Taliban. If we leave them there they will cause more terror and/or plot attacks against US interests and innocent people. I know people criticize the US for playing "world policeman", but somebody has to.
Again, none of this stuff compares to Bush outright lying to start a massive war
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I remember the Affordable Care Act, and the Republicans being criticized for being to soft on Obama. Sounds the same to me.
Ahhh, yes. You have the perspective of an outsider looking in, though. You're neither GOP nor Dem, though...
IIRC, some republicans lost their seat in Congress because the ACA passed.
Originally posted by Lestov16
How was he supposed to predict in 2008 all of the geopolitical shit that would happen in the following 6 years?
Or, you know, the US could have not gotten involved with those activities, as well...
You know, winding down Iraq and starting up Afghanistan...
Just to name the biggest one.
Originally posted by Lestov16
As far as the shit about torturing terrorists and keeping Gitmo open and such, well, they're war criminals.
Oh really? Where is your evidence that they are war criminals for every single person in Gitmo?
Exactly. If not even the US Government, which would greatly improve how they look in this situation, can come up with evidence for a stupid amount of the prisoners, there, I'm not sure how you can come up with the evidence, as well.
You do know that Obama vowed to close Gitmo and have proper trials for them, right? And he directly broke that promise. 😐
Originally posted by Lestov16
True there may be a few innocents in there but the majority of them have tried to murder innocent people or US soldiers, so they can stay there as long as they need to.
**** habeas corpus, due process, and justice, right? Let's torture and imprison anyone we want! WEEEE!
Originally posted by Lestov16
As far as the drone strikes go, the collateral damage is terrible, but what else can Obama do?
How about ****ing stop conducting military campaigns like an African Warlord? How about he be all about that peace he preached to us in 2008?
Originally posted by Lestov16
I know people criticize the US for playing "world policeman", but somebody has to.
No we don't and no one should.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Again, none of this stuff compares to Bush outright lying to start a massive war
This is incorrect. Obama not only lied, he painted a picture of a peaceful person when America was tired of our war campaigns. He then did just the opposite after elected. So he critized the Bush presidency and then did just the opposite.
That's worse than lying about a country having WMDs (they didn't have WMDs but they had so much war-stuff that it more than amounted to the equivalent of WMDs...I am not supporting our actions in Iraq, just saying that if the possession of WMDs is a game changer for you, you have them...just in the form of thousands of ballistics instead of 2 or 3 nukes).
I would like to add that the WMD discussion is only part of the question. The media has done a great job of making everyone thing the Iraq campaign was all about WMDs, initially, but it wasn't. WMDs was one of the major driving factors. I really hate having to defend Bush against Libtarded arguments...please don't make me do it!!! 🙁
I don't think he has been worse or better than any president in recent years.
People who thought Obama would be able to keep every thing he promised are delusional, those that think every thing he has done has been wrong have a hardcore agenda to consider.
Honestly I think Obama has done at the least a decent job. He is a human being that hasn't done a perfect job but no will be. The Economy is still chugging along just fine.
So you think Obama should have just let the insurgents overrun those countries, causing massive geopolitical problems?
As I said, not everybody. And closing Gitmo isn't as easy as it appeared to be. Where would you move the dangerous prisoners?
War criminals, dude.
I'd say we are more at peace than when were when Bush was in office. Geopolitics, dude. There are some fights we just can't avoid.
So let's say a large majority of countries in Africa, Eurasia, and the Middle East get overrun by jihadist insurgents without NATO assistance and cause a geopolitical clusterphuck. You'll probably wish there was a first world country involved then.
Again, saying the military campaigns Obama has placed us in are of the severity of those Bush put us in is quite a stretch. And again, did you really think we would just revert back to early 20th century isolationism? you do know that there are factors in our current military campaigns that were brewing far before Obama went into office, right? You think he can just be like "no more war" and it will be that simple?
Originally posted by Lestov16
So you think Obama should have just let the insurgents overrun those countries, causing massive geopolitical problems?
Where is your evidence that this would happen? Even Pentagon experts don't agree with you.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/debate-over-granting-amnesty-iraqi-insurgents/p10965
In fact, some experts say our presence there made the situation worse, not better.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Again, saying the military campaigns Obama has placed us in are of the severity of those Bush put us in is quite a stretch. And again, did you really think we would just revert back to early 20th century isolationism? you do know that there are factors in our current military campaigns that were brewing far before Obama went into office, right? You think he can just be like "no more war" and it will be that simple?
Not being the world police is not the same thing as "isolationism." In fact, it is the opposite. It would help repair all the damage we've done (under Bush and Obama) if we stopped all of our world police work.
Originally posted by dadudemonFrom what it seems you're implying in your statement that Obama could have pulled out of the Iraqi war much sooner and that the article you posted is evidence supporting that notion?
Where is your evidence that this would happen? Even Pentagon experts don't agree with you.http://www.cfr.org/iraq/debate-over-granting-amnesty-iraqi-insurgents/p10965
In fact, some experts say our presence there made the situation worse, not better.
Not being the world police is not the same thing as "isolationism." In fact, it is the opposite. It would help repair all the damage we've done (under Bush and Obama) if we stopped all of our world police work.
If I am wrong please tell me but based on that assumption I don't think the article you posted supports that stance.
The only thing it says is that the President of Iraq willing to grant amnesty to some of the Insurgents who meet certain criteria. It doesn't say if America had pulled out earlier that things would have been better.
I'm agreeing or disagreeing with your stance just pointing out your article doesn't say anything about America leaving earlier being beneficial.
Originally posted by Newjak
From what it seems you're implying in your statement that Obama could have pulled out of the Iraqi war much sooner and that the article you posted is evidence supporting that notion?
No.
We didn't need to start more wars and continue our presence because it seems like the countries can self-stabilize without our God-Given Freedum.
Originally posted by dadudemonThey can yes but at the same time it does depend on the individual situations.
No.We didn't need to start more wars and continue our presence because it seems like the countries can self-stabilize without our God-Given Freedum.
Sometimes involvement is needed sometimes it isn't
Originally posted by dadudemon
Where is your evidence that this would happen? Even Pentagon experts don't agree with you.http://www.cfr.org/iraq/debate-over-granting-amnesty-iraqi-insurgents/p10965
In fact, some experts say our presence there made the situation worse, not better.
Not being the world police is not the same thing as "isolationism." In fact, it is the opposite. It would help repair all the damage we've done (under Bush and Obama) if we stopped all of our world police work.
As noted above, that article is not relevant to your argument. And again, who is responsible for our presence there? The guy BEFORE Obama. Hell, both wars ended in Obama's term when he could have kept them going. It's pretty clear the new situation in Iraq doesn't make Obama or anybody happy. I'm pretty sure Obama would rather not be there.
So what would happen to all the jihadists when they see their main opposition has quit? You're working off Bayformers logic, where the absence of the "good guys" (figure of speech) supposedly will make the bad ones leave too. The Iraqi government can't fight the insurgents on their own, and a few pardoned terrorists isn't going to make a dent in the number of those who are still hostile. This war right now is a matter of circumstance, not, say, an excuse for the VP to hire out his mercenary company.
In terms of getting the US into combat, Obama was more or less forced to do so due to geopolitical circumstances, whereas the Iraq war was based off lies and greed.
And maybe Obama couldn't get everything done he said in 2008, but can you blame him? Facing opposition and criticism at every turn while trying to appease everybody?
I think Obama's main problem is, being the first black POTUS, he tried to act friendly and compromise so the media wouldn't label him as a "thug brute", but the GOP used his reluctance to confront them to create a massive plot to discredit him by any means necessary. Obama should have been tougher, but I can understand why he wasn't.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Why was Andrew Jackson the worst? He was the only one that stood up to the bankers and said no.
He's the one who sent the entire country into an economic panic because of his irrational hatred towards banks.
Also, he illegally infringed upon treaties and put thousands of natives in peril.
Worst of all, he was an idiot. I wouldn't hate him as much if he had an intelligent platform and legitimate principles.