Originally posted by Newjak
They can yes but at the same time it does depend on the individual situations.Sometimes involvement is needed sometimes it isn't
While I agree, I don't think we should get involved. Let the regional power-houses address the middle east, not the US. That's because they will have a direct interest in stabilizing the region.
I think we have a fiscal responsibility to fix our own issues.
If we were sitting pretty similar to a country like Norway, then I may consider more aid programs from the US (but never military action unless the UN asked for it and it was to stop heinous crimes).
Originally posted by Lestov16
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?
You probably were typing when I responded to Newjack which clarified the link.
Since your reply does not include any citations, I'll skip over it. Remember: volume does not necessarily equal quality in replies. I'm trying to work on that and since I do not feel your lengthy post contains anything that I should respond to, I'll just leave my points at these.
Simplify your points with a citation (the ones I asked for in my previous reply) and get back to me. I definitely want to continue the discussion but you have not resolved my concerns with your position. If you want our conversation to progress, first resolve my concerns, then we can move on to other sub-topics. If you cannot or are unable to resolve my concerns, then just say so and we can still move on. Let's avoid circular discussions, though.
Originally posted by Lestov16
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.
I agree with this. But I take a harder stance on Obama since I supported him (but did not vote for him) in 2008. Additionally, I do not think Obama is dumb enough to have forgotten some of the promises he made that got him elected. Simply put, he's done some hypocritical things and he's a huge liar. I have a pretty good memory and it goes all the way back to when Bush Sr. was elected. Not even the "read my lips" lie Bush Sr. told amounts to the major lies that Obama has wrought.
Let me be clear that I strongly disliked Bush. I thought he was an evil person and still do. I generally consider myself neutral to political parties in the US but I have recently taken a liking to Nader (stupid, I know...but that's just what's up). I also like Ron Paul. A political survey I posted on KMC, 2 years ago, said I jive with Ron Paul on 85% of the issues. There are some issues I strongly disagree with him on. His foreign policy is one of the ones I mostly agree with (but I wouldn't be so extreme as him on the isolation).
Originally posted by Firefly218
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.
Ok never mind, he sounds like a idiot. Or what we are made to believe. I don't trust anything in history books or anything anymore, they have been re written and changed the authenticity of the past.
Originally posted by dadudemon
While I agree, I don't think we should get involved. Let the regional power-houses address the middle east, not the US. That's because they will have a direct interest in stabilizing the region.I think we have a fiscal responsibility to fix our own issues.
If we were sitting pretty similar to a country like Norway, then I may consider more aid programs from the US (but never military action unless the UN asked for it and it was to stop heinous crimes).
What regional powerhouses? Iran? You really want to put the fate of Iraq in Iran's hands?
Yes we do, but we're already in this fight thanks to Bush, so we can't exactly call it quits now
I understand what you're saying. We don't have the money to fund this war, but again. this war is a matter of circumstance. Jihadists groups are trying to fill the power vacuum left by Saddam, and since we're the ones most equipped to deal with them, we gotta do what we gotta do, lest you wish to see Iraq turn into a Salafist state. And again, how do you think the terrorists in other countries will act when the see the US is not combating them? There will be insurgent-led coups all over the place and massive geopolitical turmoil. You can't blame Obama for a problem the US (and the rest of the world) have been brewing for decades.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree with this. But I take a harder stance on Obama since I supported him (but did not vote for him) in 2008. Additionally, I do not think Obama is dumb enough to have forgotten some of the promises he made that got him elected. Simply put, he's done some hypocritical things and he's a huge liar. I have a pretty good memory and it goes all the way back to when Bush Sr. was elected. Not even the "read my lips" lie Bush Sr. told amounts to the major lies that Obama has wrought.Let me be clear that I strongly disliked Bush. I thought he was an evil person and still do. I generally consider myself neutral to political parties in the US but I have recently taken a liking to Nader (stupid, I know...but that's just what's up). I also like Ron Paul. A political survey I posted on KMC, 2 years ago, said I jive with Ron Paul on 85% of the issues. There are some issues I strongly disagree with him on. His foreign policy is one of the ones I mostly agree with (but I wouldn't be so extreme as him on the isolation).
So you are mad because Obama couldn't fulfill all of his campaign promises? Are you Randy Marsh or something? With the geopolitical situations constantly brewing and a Congress practically devoted to undermining him, how is he supposed to get anything done?
Originally posted by Lestov16
So you are mad because Obama couldn't fulfill all of his campaign promises? Are you Randy Marsh or something? With the geopolitical situations constantly brewing and a Congress practically devoted to undermining him, how is he supposed to get anything done?
He is Randy Marsh
Originally posted by Lestov16
So you are mad because Obama couldn't fulfill all of his campaign promises? Are you Randy Marsh or something? With the geopolitical situations constantly brewing and a Congress practically devoted to undermining him, how is he supposed to get anything done?
No, I am disenfranchised with Obama because he directly lied about many things and he's done some atrociously hypocritical things during his time at the White House. I was dissatisfied with Bush for mostly other reasons.
I want a good president, for once. I thought Clinton was good but he couldn't keep it in his pants.
Originally posted by dadudemonSo, essentially, you're disenfranchised with Obama because you have/had an unrealistic expectation of politicians?
No, I am disenfranchised with Obama because he directly lied about many things and he's done some atrociously hypocritical things during his time at the White House. I was dissatisfied with Bush for mostly other reasons.I want a good president, for once. I thought Clinton was good but he couldn't keep it in his pants.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
GOP had a halfwit swimsuit model in 2008 for VP, and a couple of douchebag androids in 2012. then attempt to sabotage the winner for both his entire terms. what a joke.obstruct progress, contribute nothing, blame obama. -GOP strategy
And then to top it all off, we end up with Obama. What a worthless couple of elections.