Rand Paul presidential hopeful and shameless plagiarist?

[AshburnerX]

You think it's more important when the Norks finished building their bombs out of the parts Clinton provided them than the fact that the parts were provided by Clinton?

Don't kid yourself if you think North Korea did this one it's own or that Clinton is entirely responsible. It's a sure bet they've had Chinese help the entire time and it's entirely likely they've been getting their fissionable materials from them as well.

 

[Dubyamn]

There have been more attacks during the Obama administration than just Benghazi (at least 9 so far, just barely into the start of his second term), that was just the one that displayed the most (possibly willful) incompetence.

Okay are they greater than the 60 deaths and ~10 attacks that happened during Bush presidency? Cause the point is that nobody was "cowed" by the Bush administration's insane and counter productive foriegn policy.

What goals would you say have been accomplished? The weakening of our standing on the global stage?

Chemical weapon use remains a international taboo and we strip Syria of its chemical weapons.

Actually, what I was saying was they had gotten worse. Especially with all the NSA issues coming to light. And before you say it, yes, Bush spied too. I'm not here to defend Bush. But Obama has continued or exacerbated every bad policy that was already active under Bush.

True Obama definitely does deserve a great deal of scorn for not bringing the NSA to heel. And I certainly wouldn't start going but.but.but Bush over this. My main point was that our allies are more likely to follow France into an armed engagement than the US right now due to how badly they got burned over Iraq.

Afghanistan was going swimmingly through most of the Bush years. It wasn't covered because bloody Iraq headlines got so many more viewers and clicks. But since 2009, Afghanistan has suddenly taken a turn:

And yet the only time we hear about Afghanistan is when Obama is firing a general.

Afghanistan has been a hellhole ever since we got there. Nothing of importance is achieved or will ever be achieved. We should have planted the flag on top of Tora Bora, declared victory and left.

But the uptick in casualties is directly due to the fact that we began and aggressive strategy in Afghanistan something which is exactly what Obama promised to do.

You think it's more important when the Norks finished building their bombs out of the parts Clinton provided them than the fact that the parts were provided by Clinton?

[Citation needed]

I don't remember this happening. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume it did - so what? The opinion of South Americans on the US is about as influential on the world stage as the forest creatures' opinions of motorbikes.

You mean besides the trade we do with South America, the trade they do around the world? And the kind of power we have traditionally been able to wield due to our influence in South America?

Why am I obligated to do more than say "Yeah huh" to your "nuh uh?"

Cause it was your garbage point. So you really do need to back it up or let it go.

If only it was as simple as that. Obama all but took credit for the "Arab Spring" movement that swept Morsi into power. Then trumpeted his "legitimacy" while his own electorate rose up against him. And don't kid us that Morsi isn't every inch the bloodthirsty tyrant - if not more than - that Mubarak ever was.

When exactly did Obama trumpet the legitimacy of Morsi's government? I'm pretty sure they bent over backwards to try and avoid calling it a coup when the military threw down Morsi's government.[/quote]

 

[GasBandit]

Don't kid yourself if you think North Korea did this one it's own or that Clinton is entirely responsible. It's a sure bet they've had Chinese help the entire time and it's entirely likely they've been getting their fissionable materials from them as well.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply the Norks did it all on their own, but Clinton sure helped.

 

[GasBandit]

Man, Dub, you really need to clean up your quotation tags.

Okay are they greater than the 60 deaths and ~10 attacks that happened during Bush presidency? Cause the point is that nobody was "cowed" by the Bush administration's insane and counter productive foriegn policy.

Wikipedia lists the Bush era death toll at 49, and that includes attackers, local police and civilians - not just Americans. So far 18 during the Obama administration with the same qualifiers. Naturally a true comparison of number of attacks won't be possible until 2017, but the same wikipedia article lists 9 for the Bush years and 9 so far for the Obama years, which puts Obama higher on a per-year basis thus far, and the best that can be hoped for is 3 years of no attacks to break even.

Chemical weapon use remains a international taboo and we strip Syria of its chemical weapons.

Putting aside again the fact that that was a Russian foreign policy triumph and not American, I'm still of a mind to wait and see if Syria's weapons really are all destroyed.

True Obama definitely does deserve a great deal of scorn for not bringing the NSA to heel. And I certainly wouldn't start going but.but.but Bush over this. My main point was that our allies are more likely to follow France into an armed engagement than the US right now due to how badly they got burned over Iraq.

I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the situation. France has undergone a great number of interesting changes in recent years and turned more hawkish, while the US has projected weakness - and it's shameful to be sure. Also, I think the Snowden leaks on NSA activity have damaged our pull with our allies much more than Iraq has. It's much more fresh, for one thing.

Afghanistan has been a hellhole ever since we got there. Nothing of importance is achieved or will ever be achieved. We should have planted the flag on top of Tora Bora, declared victory and left.

You have a point - it's not like we can even "bomb them back to the stone age" because they're practically already there.

[Citation needed]

This was 1994 which predates the internet as we know it. But it is not disputed that the Clinton administration provided North Korea with nuclear reactors in exchange for promises (which were quickly broken) to not enrich their own uranium.

You mean besides the trade we do with South America, the trade they do around the world? And the kind of power we have traditionally been able to wield due to our influence in South America?

For someone who wants citations so often, you sure don't provide many. Can you show how our trade has allegedly suffered, and that our influence abroad was affected by this?

Cause it was your garbage point. So you really do need to back it up or let it go.

No, I'm sorry, if your rebuttal is unbased dismissal, I'm not going to waste more time than you in dismissing your dismissal.

When exactly did Obama trumpet the legitimacy of Morsi's government?

.. in the link I provided?

 

[Dubyamn]

Man, Dub, you really need to clean up your quotation tags.

Fixed it eventually. But yeah it happens.

Wikipedia

lists the Bush era death toll at 49, and that includes attackers, local police and civilians - not just Americans. So far 18 during the Obama administration with the same qualifiers. Naturally a true comparison of number of attacks won't be possible until 2017, but the same wikipedia article lists 9 for the Bush years and 9 so far for the Obama years, which puts Obama higher on a per-year basis thus far, and the best that can be hoped for is 3 years of no attacks to break even.

Of course a straight up comparison can't be done until the end of Obama's presidency. But I think that the fact that there were attacks during Bush's presidency shows that the point that somehow Bush's insane and counter productive foreign policy somehow cowed people into non action is wrong headed.

Putting aside again the fact that that was a Russian foreign policy triumph and not American, I'm still of a mind to wait and see if Syria's weapons really are all destroyed.

I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the situation. France has undergone a great number of interesting changes in recent years and turned more hawkish, while the US has projected weakness - and it's shameful to be sure. Also, I think the Snowden leaks on NSA activity have damaged our pull with our allies much more than Iraq has. It's much more fresh, for one thing.

2 points on Syria. 1. I don't think it matters who gets the credit so long as our goals are reached. 2. The destruction of Syrian chemical weapons factories is still a monumental success. The works is still ongoing but the fact that Syria allowed it's chemical weapon factories to be destroyed is amazing news about their... I don't want to say sincerity cause they obviously don't want to do it. But that they are serious about maintaining the agreement.

I have one example that really solidifies the fact that countries don't want to follow the American leadership into war. It was during the gearing up for war with Syria. Great Britain took a vote about the possibility to using Military force in Syria. The Prime minister's party whipped the vote in such a way that it indicated to their members of parliment "You go along with this or your future in the party is in jeopardy." That vote failed and failed so hard that the prime minister said that he wouldn't even try again.

That happened before the fact that the NSA was spying directly on the German prime minister or the French population came out. To me it's very obvious that the UK wasn't willing to follow our lead again after getting bamboozled into Iraq.

For someone who wants citations so often, you sure don't provide many. Can you show how our trade has allegedly suffered, and that our influence abroad was affected by this?

Asked and answered

Now of course influence that we wield is always hard to quantify but when Hugo Chavez talked all of south America seemed to listen. And we had record Deficits and I remember there being numberous trade disputes between America and South America after the coup.

.. in the link I provided?

*After Morsi was disposed.

 

[GasBandit]

Of course a straight up comparison can't be done until the end of Obama's presidency. But I think that the fact that there were attacks during Bush's presidency shows that the point that somehow Bush's insane and counter productive foreign policy somehow cowed people into non action is wrong headed.

There have been attacks on embassies during the administrations of every president going back over 30 years, so clearly the mere instance of embassy attacks in and of themselves is not indicative of foreign policy efficacy. But there have been several highly publicized attacks that were important not only for the attack themselves but how the president dealt with them. The Iran hostage crisis. The Beirut embassy bombing. And of course Benghazi (along with the simultaneous attack on the American embassy in Egypt and supporting subsequent attack 2 days later in Yemen). It's not really quantity that counts (even though as noted, Obama is ahead of Bush on a year by year basis so far), it's, for lack of a better word, quality.

I don't think it matters who gets the credit so long as our goals are reached.

It matters when the discussion at hand is pertaining particularly to a review of the foreign policy actions of specific presidents. Blind luck is not a preferable foreign policy. Otherwise, by this logic, if I hurl myself off a bridge and am miraculously caught by superman, and deposited safely on the ground by the river below, then my policy of hurling myself off a bridge instead of taking the stairs is a "monumental success."

I have one example that really solidifies the fact that countries don't want to follow the American leadership into war. It was during the gearing up for war with Syria. Great Britain took a vote about the possibility to using Military force in Syria. The Prime minister's party whipped the vote in such a way that it indicated to their members of parliment "You go along with this or your future in the party is in jeopardy." That vote failed and failed so hard that the prime minister said that he wouldn't even try again.

I'll grant you that the UK is extremely war weary, but so is the US. Not even the US wanted US military force to be used in Syria - that was only on the table at all because of Obama's "red line" rhetoric painting himself into a corner. But even that aside, are you saying that if it had been France who wanted to use military force in Syria, the UK would have gone along?

Asked and answered

Now of course influence that we wield is always hard to quantify but when Hugo Chavez talked all of south America seemed to listen. And we had record Deficits and I remember there being numberous trade disputes between America and South America after the coup.

28 nations were on "our side" in that disagreement, and 5 on Chavez', and from what I read mostly for (understandably) self-serving reasons. I don't read anything in that article referencing the 2002 coup attempt, and Chavez has always been hostile to start with, though eventually even the other nations got really tired of him. Remember when the King of Spain famously (and hilariously) told him to STFU at the Ibero-American summit?

*After Morsi was disposed.

Obama's a lot of things, but he's not stupid enough to continue to stick up for Morsi after he'd been deposed.

 

[Dubyamn]

There have been attacks on embassies during the administrations of every president going back over 30 years, so clearly the mere instance of embassy attacks in and of themselves is not indicative of foreign policy efficacy. But there have been several highly publicized attacks that were important not only for the attack themselves but how the president dealt with them. The Iran hostage crisis. The Beirut embassy bombing. And of course Benghazi (along with the simultaneous attack on the American embassy in Egypt and supporting subsequent attack 2 days later in Yemen). It's not really quantity that counts (even though as noted, Obama is ahead of Bush on a year by year basis so far), it's, for lack of a better word, quality.

So only embassy attacks of a certain scale indicate that our enemies are becoming emboldened by our weakness? Other attacks are just background noise?

Is there an accepted formula for determining what counts as a quality attack on our embassy? Like would an attack that kills 2 locals, 1 embassy worker and wounds 3 of each be significant? Does the country the embassy in have an effect on the calculation?

It matters when the discussion at hand is pertaining particularly to a review of the foreign policy actions of specific presidents. Blind luck is not a preferable foreign policy. Otherwise, by this logic, if I hurl myself off a bridge and am miraculously caught by superman, and deposited safely on the ground by the river below, then my policy of hurling myself off a bridge instead of taking the stairs is a "monumental success."

Well if your plan was to get to the bottom of the bridge for whatever reason I would actually argue that it was a monumental success one that might not be attributable to you. But if you wanted to kill yourself it was a complete failure.

All I know is that Syria is an example of a successful foreign policy. One that you are incapable of calling a failure no matter how much you are trying to give the success to others.

Also I've always thought there was a quote along the lines of "Proper planning and blind luck often look the same" but I can't find anything similar. I'm wondering if i just made it up during a particularly good game of Risk.

I'll grant you that the UK is extremely war weary, but so is the US. Not even the US wanted US military force to be used in Syria - that was only on the table at all because of Obama's "red line" rhetoric painting himself into a corner. But even that aside, are you saying that if it had been France who wanted to use military force in Syria, the UK would have gone along?

When France started using military force in Libya UK and the US followed. When France used military force in Somalia other countries provided aid.

Now obviously we're comparing apples and oranges but it does seem like America has reached our military credit limit while France has been given a bit of a credit upgrade. And the single biggest expenditure of that kind of military credit was Iraq in which we burned all of our Military allies very badly.

Obama's a lot of things, but he's not stupid enough to continue to stick up for Morsi after he'd been deposed.

So once again we are back at you having a problem with Obama talking up and trying to have a congenial working relationship the new leader of a critically important nation. Really not seeing the problem with that.

 

[GasBandit]

So only embassy attacks of a certain scale indicate that our enemies are becoming emboldened by our weakness? Other attacks are just background noise?

Is there an accepted formula for determining what counts as a quality attack on our embassy? Like would an attack that kills 2 locals, 1 embassy worker and wounds 3 of each be significant? Does the country the embassy in have an effect on the calculation?

Granted it's a very subjective measurement, but it's plain to see these named embassy attacks were some of the most politically charged. They dominated headlines and continued to be front and center for a great deal of time afterwards, having noteworthy political ramifications stateside. The exact nature of those effects were unique to each situation, but that they garnered national attention and political action is plainly seen, and they held special significance above others - perhaps, even from a cynical point of view, indeed relegating the others to "background noise," for example the 1998 coordinated bombings of US embassies in Africa that killed over 200 and injured over 4000. Despite being far deadlier and destructive, it was not really an indictment of Bill Clinton's foreign policy and didn't do very much to affect politics here at home. We bombed a couple pharma plants and called it a day.

All I know is that Syria is an example of a successful foreign policy. One that you are incapable of calling a failure no matter how much you are trying to give the success to others.

Also I've always thought there was a quote along the lines of "Proper planning and blind luck often look the same" but I can't find anything similar. I'm wondering if i just made it up during a particularly good game of Risk.

Heh, perhaps so. But if not for Putin's intervention, which could not have been reliably predicted given Russia's cold relations with the US, Syria was shaping up to be an absolute mess. That Putin rescued the situation cannot be attributed to Obama's foreign policy acumen.

When France started using military force in Libya UK and the US followed. When France used military force in Somalia other countries provided aid.

Now obviously we're comparing apples and oranges but it does seem like America has reached our military credit limit while France has been given a bit of a credit upgrade. And the single biggest expenditure of that kind of military credit was Iraq in which we burned all of our Military allies very badly.

Certainly to a degree, but I think those were very different circumstances than Syria (as you note). There was absolutely no political will behind the use of force to intervene in Syria, not even in the US. It would have been unrealistic in the extreme to expect others to go along with that, even in favorable political climes.

So once again we are back at you having a problem with Obama talking up and trying to have a congenial working relationship the new leader of a critically important nation. Really not seeing the problem with that.

My link pointed to him trying to bolster him even as protests and violence returned to Egypt, similar conditions that led to Obama calling for Morsi's predecessor's resignation. The end result is a discerned favortism for the muslim brotherhood, which if not intentional, shows a truly unsettling level of ineptitude.

 

[Bowielee]

I'm not even gonna come close to stepping into this one, but it certainly is a fun read.

 

[Eriol]

I'm not even gonna come close to stepping into this one, but it certainly is a fun read.

View attachment 13004

No matter what your avatar looks like, you will now and forever be Motormouth Jones to me.

 

[GasBandit]

We are the meanest instructors here. We’ve got you because you are the worst people here. You are D Squad; D for dirtbags. When I say: "Hey dirtbags!" that means you. You people are going to hate my guts for the rest of your lives. I am going to make you sorry that you ever came here.

 

[Bowielee]

I really need to watch Police Academy again. It's been far too long.

 

[Dubyamn]

Granted it's a very subjective measurement, but it's plain to see these named embassy attacks were some of the most politically charged. They dominated headlines and continued to be front and center for a great deal of time afterwards, having noteworthy political ramifications stateside. The exact nature of those effects were unique to each situation, but that they garnered national attention and political action is plainly seen, and they held special significance above others - perhaps, even from a cynical point of view, indeed relegating the others to "background noise," for example the 1998 coordinated bombings of US embassies in Africa that killed over 200 and injured over 4000. Despite being far deadlier and destructive, it was not really an indictment of Bill Clinton's foreign policy and didn't do very much to affect politics here at home. We bombed a couple pharma plants and called it a day.

Still strikes me as an incredibly subjective measurement for something as nebulous as the "boldness of our enemies." I mean if Ambassador Stevens was able to escape would it have still been a "significant" attack? How about if it took place on a different day? How about if it didn't take place during an election cycle that would allow the Republicans to try and make political hay out of it?

Heh, perhaps so. But if not for Putin's intervention, which could not have been reliably predicted given Russia's cold relations with the US, Syria was shaping up to be an absolute mess. That Putin rescued the situation cannot be attributed to Obama's foreign policy acumen.

Nor can Libya choosing to come in out of the cold be put down to GWB's deft hand at foreign policy. However even then I still have to say that Libya was a success for GWB and from everything we've seen Syria is turning into a huge success for Obama.

Certainly to a degree, but I think those were very different circumstances than Syria (as you note). There was absolutely no political will behind the use of force to intervene in Syria, not even in the US. It would have been unrealistic in the extreme to expect others to go along with that, even in favorable political climes.

Indeed but there was no political will to intervene in Iraq in most of the countries that went with us. Difference is that in Iraq they were willing to follow our lead while in Syria they bowed out rather unceremoniously.

My link pointed to him trying to bolster him even as protests and violence returned to Egypt, similar conditions that led to Obama calling for Morsi's predecessor's resignation. The end result is a discerned favortism for the muslim brotherhood, which if not intentional, shows a truly unsettling level of ineptitude.

Your link only said that he wasn't demanding Morsi step down and that he would work with him for as long as he was the president of Egypt. I saw no examples of him bolstering up Morsi.

 

[GasBandit]

Whilst walking down the hallway to Storage B, our hero hears the sound of rummaging and muttering in a disused room and pauses to investigate. Flipping on the light inside, he finds...

Jeezus, are you still in here?! We gave you up for dead over a week ago!

Still strikes me as an incredibly subjective measurement for something as nebulous as the "boldness of our enemies." I mean if Ambassador Stevens was able to escape would it have still been a "significant" attack? How about if it took place on a different day? How about if it didn't take place during an election cycle that would allow the Republicans to try and make political hay out of it?

If Ambassador Stevens had been able to escape (IE, was rescued), it would have shown that maybe Obama and his state department wasn't completely incompetent and/or potentially treasonous.

Nor can Libya choosing to come in out of the cold be put down to GWB's deft hand at foreign policy. However even then I still have to say that Libya was a success for GWB and from everything we've seen Syria is turning into a huge success for Obama.

Gaddafi immediately started spooling down his belligerence when the tough rhetoric started spilling out of the US during the Iraq war. That rhetoric was an integral part of GWB's foreign policy, for good or ill. As for Syria, it may yet become slightly less fucked, but to call it a huge success for Obama would be like saying the Broncos having beaten the Chiefs was a huge win for the Giants. It was certainly to the Giants' benefit, but not of their doing.

Indeed but there was no political will to intervene in Iraq in most of the countries that went with us. Difference is that in Iraq they were willing to follow our lead while in Syria they bowed out rather unceremoniously.

Not even the American people were willing to follow Obama's lead into Syria, and said so loudly and clearly. As you said earlier, the two situations are apples and oranges.

Your link only said that he wasn't demanding Morsi step down and that he would work with him for as long as he was the president of Egypt. I saw no examples of him bolstering up Morsi.

The very act of continuing to address him as the legitimate head of state while his nation rose up against him, after having called upon his predecessor to stand down, is an overt attempt at bolstering through association by way of trying to lend legitimacy to his regime by recognizing him.

 

[Covar]

like saying the Broncos having beaten the Chiefs was a huge win for the Giants.

 

[Dubyamn]

Whilst walking down the hallway to Storage B, our hero hears the sound of rummaging and muttering in a disused room and pauses to investigate. Flipping on the light inside, he finds...

Jeezus, are you still in here?! We gave you up for dead over a week ago!

Got burned out. Replaced the fuse so I'm all good again.

If Ambassador Stevens had been able to escape (IE, was rescued), it would have shown that maybe Obama and his state department wasn't completely incompetent and/or potentially treasonous.

Or he got incredibly lucky. But besides the point.

Wouldn't attacks on military installations be a better indicator of the boldness of our enemies? Rather than "significant" attacks on Embassies which has happened 3 times over the last 30 years.

Gaddafi immediately started spooling down his belligerence when the tough rhetoric started spilling out of the US during the Iraq war. That rhetoric was an integral part of GWB's foreign policy, for good or ill. As for Syria, it may yet become slightly less fucked, but to call it a huge success for Obama would be like saying the Broncos having beaten the Chiefs was a huge win for the Giants. It was certainly to the Giants' benefit, but not of their doing.

Except the success wouldn't have happened if Obama hadn't been pushing for war against Syria. Russia wouldn't have acted on it's own to disarm Syria of it's chemical weapons. Russia moving to back the disarmament of Syria directly followed Obama's "red line" rhetoric.

I think it's more like a game where the winning team totaled up ~100 yards of offense. It isn't pretty but you still have to give them the win.

Not even the American people were willing to follow Obama's lead into Syria, and said so loudly and clearly. As you said earlier, the two situations are apples and oranges.

Actually I've always been very uncomfortable about the similarities between the build up to Iraq and Syria. In both cases we were going to go in to destroy the chemical weapons. Either to stop them from being handed to terrorists or to stop them from being used on civilians. Only difference is that Bush and his administration lied about Iraq having a nuclear program or chemical weapons.

Now Syria and Somalia that's apples and oranges. But Syria and Iraq are very similar.

The very act of continuing to address him as the legitimate head of state while his nation rose up against him, after having called upon his predecessor to stand down, is an overt attempt at bolstering through association by way of trying to lend legitimacy to his regime by recognizing him.

He waited several weeks before saying that Mubarak had to step down and really only made that statement when it was clear that the only two options were for Mubarak to step down or a civil war.

Had Morsi embraced reforms we honestly don't know how the crowd would have reacted.

 

[GasBandit]

Or he got incredibly lucky. But besides the point.

It would take more than luck to get an american out of Lybia during a massive terrorist military operation. It'd be practically impossible without outside support.

Wouldn't attacks on military installations be a better indicator of the boldness of our enemies? Rather than "significant" attacks on Embassies which has happened 3 times over the last 30 years.

I have a feeling you're trying to go somewhere with this, so let's go ahead and have it - what are those statistics?

Except the success wouldn't have happened if Obama hadn't been pushing for war against Syria. Russia wouldn't have acted on it's own to disarm Syria of it's chemical weapons. Russia moving to back the disarmament of Syria directly followed Obama's "red line" rhetoric.

I think it's more like a game where the winning team totaled up ~100 yards of offense. It isn't pretty but you still have to give them the win.

Man, that is one huge credit pretzel that's being twisted right there. Obama's universally-lamented red-line gaffe that nearly plunged us into the middle of the Syrian civil war, in which we had absolutely no business or interest or possible advantage to be gained, is now to be given congratulations for giving Russia the opportunity to upstage us and look like the metaphorical prevailing cooler head, embarrasing us at home and abroad? Hey, the chemical weapons are being destroyed, and it started with Obama's amazing Xanatos gambit! Nnnnno. Sorry, I don't buy it. The truth of the matter is, if Obama hadn't done what he did, there wouldn't have been a war crisis - if Putin hadn't done what he did, the crisis would have gone over 9000.

Actually I've always been very uncomfortable about the similarities between the build up to Iraq and Syria. In both cases we were going to go in to destroy the chemical weapons. Either to stop them from being handed to terrorists or to stop them from being used on civilians. Only difference is that Bush and his administration lied about Iraq having a nuclear program or chemical weapons.

Now Syria and Somalia that's apples and oranges. But Syria and Iraq are very similar.

Actually, the buildup to Iraq took over a year - plenty of time for Saddam to send his weapons to Syria, if you'll recall. Conversely, Obama was ready to start with the airstrikes within a week, coalition building be damned. You're also parroting the debunked "Bush lied" line.

He waited several weeks before saying that Mubarak had to step down and really only made that statement when it was clear that the only two options were for Mubarak to step down or a civil war.

Had Morsi embraced reforms we honestly don't know how the crowd would have reacted.

That's a very massaged and reinterpreted version of the chain of events that also relies on a what-if scenario. The pragmatic outcome, however, is that the majority of Egyptians-in-the-street believe the US backed Morsi, an opinion shaped by Obama's public statements at the time where he all but tried to take credit for the "Arab Spring" that brought Morsi into power and his apparent reluctance to repudiate him when it became obvious he was a monster. That in and of itself is a massive foreign policy failure.

 

[Dubyamn]

It would take more than luck to get an american out of Lybia during a massive terrorist military operation. It'd be practically impossible without outside support.

Not really there were 3 people in that "safe haven" the guy who left after the terrorists started smoking them out survived and the 2 guys Stevens and Smithg who stayed died. Now of course Stevens leaves he might have died anyway but he also might have survived like the other guy did.

I have a feeling you're trying to go somewhere with this, so let's go ahead and have it - what are those statistics?

Just wondering why you are so obsessed with Embassy attacks being the end all be all of how our enemies see us despite your own admission that there have been 3 over a period of 40 years.

Man, that is one huge credit pretzel that's being twisted right there. Obama's universally-lamented red-line gaffe that nearly plunged us into the middle of the Syrian civil war, in which we had absolutely no business or interest or possible advantage to be gained, is now to be given congratulations for giving Russia the opportunity to upstage us and look like the metaphorical prevailing cooler head, embarrasing us at home and abroad? Hey, the chemical weapons are being destroyed, and it started with Obama's amazing Xanatos gambit! Nnnnno. Sorry, I don't buy it. The truth of the matter is, if Obama hadn't done what he did, there wouldn't have been a war crisis - if Putin hadn't done what he did, the crisis would have gone over 9000.

If Obama hadn't done what he did Syria would still have it's chemical weapon plants. Might even be upping the use of Chemical weapons on civilians.

Sure he did it in a stupid way but in the end a big big win for Obama's foreign policy.

Actually, the buildup to Iraq took over a year - plenty of time for Saddam to send his weapons to Syria, if you'll recall. Conversely, Obama was ready to start with the airstrikes within a week, coalition building be damned. You're also parroting the debunked "Bush lied" line.

Bush did lie about the chemical weapons. The Bush administration leaned hard on the CIA and even forced them multiple times to rewrite reports to give them the backing to go into Iraq. That really isn't up for debate for any rational person.

That's a very massaged and reinterpreted version of the chain of events that also relies on a what-if scenario. The pragmatic outcome, however, is that the majority of Egyptians-in-the-street believe the US backed Morsi, an opinion shaped by Obama's public statements at the time where he all but tried to take credit for the "Arab Spring" that brought Morsi into power and his apparent reluctance to repudiate him when it became obvious he was a monster. That in and of itself is a massive foreign policy failure.

And upon the day that Egypt calms down and begins to scale back American access in the region I'll believe that it was a complete foriegn policy debacle. Until then I'll maintain that it was a small miscalculation at worst.

 

[GasBandit]

Just wondering why you are so obsessed with Embassy attacks being the end all be all of how our enemies see us despite your own admission that there have been 3 over a period of 40 years.

Not embassy attacks in general, just the one that killed an ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11 that the administration bungled to an epic degree and then lied and spun as hard as possible to obfuscate and deflect blame onto a previously unknown youtube video.

If Obama hadn't done what he did Syria would still have it's chemical weapon plants. Might even be upping the use of Chemical weapons on civilians.

Sure he did it in a stupid way but in the end a big big win for Obama's foreign policy.

Wow. Those are some epic size partisan blinders right there. Remind me to thank Lois Lane for saving us from the meteor by standing under it so Superman would do something about it.

Bush did lie about the chemical weapons. The Bush administration leaned hard on the CIA and even forced them multiple times to rewrite reports to give them the backing to go into Iraq. That really isn't up for debate for any rational person.

Because rational people usually don't like being shouted down by rabid mynah birds. But some people still stick their face in the reaping machine, day after day.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

And upon the day that Egypt calms down and begins to scale back American access in the region I'll believe that it was a complete foriegn policy debacle. Until then I'll maintain that it was a small miscalculation at worst.

So now the goalposts are moved from "he didn't" to "it wasn't a big deal that he did." Everybody's mad at us over there, now, on both sides. It would have been hard to handle it worse without actual troop deployment.

 

[Eriol]

Remind me to thank Lois Lane for saving us from the meteor by standing under it so Superman would do something about it.

Quote of the day here. That one is great.

 

[Dubyamn]

Not embassy attacks in general, just the one that killed an ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11 that the administration bungled to an epic degree and then lied and spun as hard as possible to obfuscate and deflect blame onto a previously unknown youtube video.

So a sample size of literally one is the end all and be all of measuring the boldness of our enemies? Seems especially weak.

Wow. Those are some epic size partisan blinders right there. Remind me to thank Lois Lane for saving us from the meteor by standing under it so Superman would do something about it.

I do like you felating and worshiping Putin as a hero in this situation. And how you "forget" who gave Syria the tech to build those chemical weapons and who has been supplying them with the military aid they need to keep on fighting their war.

So maybe Lois Lane shouldn't be thanked for stopping the meteor but I'm sure as shit not going to call Superman a hero when he's the one who threw it at Earth in the first place.

Because rational people usually don't like being shouted down by rabid mynah birds. But some people still stick their face in the reaping machine, day after day.

The Bush administration cherry picked intelligence to build the case for war ignoring and silencing all voices in the intelligence community who tried to argue against their rush to war. Now you can say "That isn't lying they were just misinformed." But when every example they used to justify the Iraq war was known to be false by the experts in the field your objection is worthless.

Aluminum tubes: Lie. Experts had determined that those tubes were useless for an enrichment program.

Yellow cake: Lie that when they were called on it they outed a CIA agent in retaliation and then continued to use.

Mobile weapon labs: All information was gathered from a single information informant Curveball who was a known liar. Using this information was an absolute lie.

Iraq Al-Queda link: Lie literally without any sort of defense.

So now the goalposts are moved from "he didn't" to "it wasn't a big deal that he did." Everybody's mad at us over there, now, on both sides. It would have been hard to handle it worse without actual troop deployment.

No I still don't think that is what he did but even if that is how people saw it it's not a big deal.

 

[GasBandit]

So a sample size of literally one is the end all and be all of measuring the boldness of our enemies? Seems especially weak.

A sample size of one massive and complete failure, the scope of which can only be explained by astounding incompetence or intentional treason.

I do like you felating and worshiping Putin as a hero in this situation. And how you "forget" who gave Syria the tech to build those chemical weapons and who has been supplying them with the military aid they need to keep on fighting their war.

Fellating has two Ls, incidentally. And if I were you, I wouldn't be tossing that kind of rhetoric around when you are manifestly sucking down the obama kool-aid as fast as they can find cyanide to put in it.

At any rate, it's part of what makes Obama's foreign policy record so abysmal - it actually gave Putin, the world's foremost supervillain, an international coup.

So maybe Lois Lane shouldn't be thanked for stopping the meteor but I'm sure as shit not going to call Superman a hero when he's the one who threw it at Earth in the first place.

If a man digs a burmese tiger trap, then prevents a PETA protester from falling in it, he's still saved that person's life even if he is still a poacher.

The Bush administration cherry picked intelligence to build the case for war ignoring and silencing all voices in the intelligence community who tried to argue against their rush to war. Now you can say "That isn't lying they were just misinformed." But when every example they used to justify the Iraq war was known to be false by the experts in the field your objection is worthless.

Aluminum tubes: Lie. Experts had determined that those tubes were useless for an enrichment program.

Yellow cake: Lie that when they were called on it they outed a CIA agent in retaliation and then continued to use.

Mobile weapon labs: All information was gathered from a single information informant Curveball who was a known liar. Using this information was an absolute lie.

Iraq Al-Queda link: Lie literally without any sort of defense.

Yep, there's that reaping machine I was talking about. Chant it hard, I know you believe it.

No I still don't think that is what he did but even if that is how people saw it it's not a big deal.

 

[Ravenpoe]

@GasBandit and @Dubyamn argued and fought into the wee hours of the night, shouting each other until they were blue in the face. In the end, they were both left panting, red-faced, staring at each other with a fiery anger. In that moment, between the meeting of eyes, the mood seemed to shift. Without a word, the two fell into a fiery, hungry embrace.

Am I the only one that thinks this is how this should end?

 

[Dubyamn]

A sample size of one massive and complete failure, the scope of which can only be explained by astounding incompetence or intentional treason.

Yeah but not explained by international terrorists being so emboldened by Obama's weakness.

Fellating has two Ls, incidentally. And if I were you, I wouldn't be tossing that kind of rhetoric around when you are manifestly sucking down the obama kool-aid as fast as they can find cyanide to put in it.

If giving him a win when he got everything he wanted without cost is sucking down the kool aid then the phrase is worthless.

At any rate, it's part of what makes Obama's foreign policy record so abysmal - it actually gave Putin, the world's foremost supervillain, an international coup.

International coup being him having to do something he clearly didn't want to do. Clearly a massive coup.

If a man digs a burmese tiger trap, then prevents a PETA protester from falling in it, he's still saved that person's life even if he is still a poacher.

Yeah he did but certainly shouldn't get a parade or any type of credit. But of course your metaphors like all the ones you have tried to use is fundamentally flawed.

Yep, there's that reaping machine I was talking about. Chant it hard, I know you believe it.

Will do.

 

[Gilgamesh]

@GasBandit and @Dubyamn argued and fought into the wee hours of the night, shouting each other until they were blue in the face. In the end, they were both left panting, red-faced, staring at each other with a fiery anger. In that moment, between the meeting of eyes, the mood seemed to shift. Without a word, the two fell into a fiery, hungry embrace.

Am I the only one that thinks this is how this should end?

I'ts hilarious that when two people disagree and argue on the forums, it automatically means they should make out.

 

[strawman]

I'ts hilarious that when two people disagree and argue on the forums, it automatically means they should make out.

THANKS OBAMA.

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah but not explained by international terrorists being so emboldened by Obama's weakness.

Well they certainly won't be cowed by it.

If giving him a win when he got everything he wanted without cost is sucking down the kool aid then the phrase is worthless.

So you're saying he wanted to look like an idiot manchild who painted himself into a corner and only got out of it by being thrown a lifeline by an opponent?

International coup being him having to do something he clearly didn't want to do. Clearly a massive coup.

He got to be the big man on the scene, which is something Putin loves more than anything else. Also, he naturally got to spotlight American bumbling with his actions, which I'm sure he found to be a bonus.

Yeah he did but certainly shouldn't get a parade or any type of credit.

And yet he did. Even Obama's media cheerleaders recognized that.

President Obama woke up Monday facing a Congressional defeat that many in both parties believed could hobble his presidency. And by the end of the day, he found himself in the odd position of relying on his Russian counterpart, Vladimir V. Putin, of all people, to bail him out.

[DOUBLEPOST=1385409536,1385409482][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'ts hilarious that when two people disagree and argue on the forums, it automatically means they should make out.

I had no idea of all the poonany I've been due all these years, and missed out on.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I had no idea of all the poonany I've been due all these years, and missed out on.

I don't think it's poonany that's been arguing with you all these years.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't think it's poonany that's been arguing with you all these years.

Sometimes it has been.

 

[MindDetective]

So you're saying he wanted to look like an idiot manchild who painted himself into a corner and only got out of it by being thrown a lifeline by an opponent?

I don't particularly have a dog in this fight but it occurs to me that a policy can be effective but unpopular, misperceived, or executed in a bumbling (but still effective) manner. If you are going to discuss public perception, that is fine, but you seem to be trying to argue the merits of foreign policy by relying on public perception as a crutch. At the very least, it is a weak position to argue from.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't particularly have a dog in this fight but it occurs to me that a policy can be effective but unpopular, misperceived, or executed in a bumbling (but still effective) manner. If you are going to discuss public perception, that is fine, but you seem to be trying to argue the merits of foreign policy by relying on public perception as a crutch. At the very least, it is a weak position to argue from.

Part of foreign policy is the appearance of strength or weakness, competence or lack thereof, on the world stage. When your head of state is seen as bumbling, it hurts your international gravitas.

And I don't believe for a second that Obama expected Putin to step up and save him. This was not some cunning Xanatos gambit, as I said earlier.

 

[Dubyamn]

Well they certainly won't be cowed by it.

Yeah but we've gone far afield here.

So you're saying he wanted to look like an idiot manchild who painted himself into a corner and only got out of it by being thrown a lifeline by an opponent?

No I'm saying that from the beginning we wanted Syria's Chemical weapon stockpile destroyed or at least contained. Obama has accomplished that without spending American blood and treasure. Which is better than I thought we would be doing.

He got to be the big man on the scene, which is something Putin loves more than anything else. Also, he naturally got to spotlight American bumbling with his actions, which I'm sure he found to be a bonus.

I'm sure that it salved the fact that he was forced to throw an ally under the bus. Still doesn't change the fact that he pretty obviously didn't want to have to turn on Assad

And yet he did. Even Obama's media cheerleaders recognized that.

Okay so Putin got credit that wasn't fully deserved. *I'mokaywiththis.jpg*

 

[MindDetective]

Part of foreign policy is the appearance of strength or weakness, competence or lack thereof, on the world stage. When your head of state is seen as bumbling, it hurts your international gravitas.

And I don't believe for a second that Obama expected Putin to step up and save him. This was not some cunning Xanatos gambit, as I said earlier.

The bolded bit is the reason that I feel it is a relatively weak position you are taking.

 

[strawman]

I think part of the problem is that in the Middle East, nearly all of foreign policy is your perceived strength. I don't know much about Middle East culture, but one of my friends who has studied their culture and languages for years suggested that appearing weak and willing to sit down at a table with them will never result in them changing.

In the US it may be that the ends justify the perception of weakness and incompetence, but that isn't going to fly if we want them to experience real change. The only thing we can negotiate for right now is our surrender to their terms.

 

[Dubyamn]

I think part of the problem is that in the Middle East, nearly all of foreign policy is your perceived strength. I don't know much about Middle East culture, but one of my friends who has studied their culture and languages for years suggested that appearing weak and willing to sit down at a table with them will never result in them changing.

In the US it may be that the ends justify the perception of weakness and incompetence, but that isn't going to fly if we want them to experience real change. The only thing we can negotiate for right now is our surrender to their terms.

So was he talking about Persian culture? Or Turkish culture? Arab?

Did he mention if the last 60+ years just haven't been long enough of projecting strength or maybe we haven't projected enough strength? Maybe with the drone policy we were just about to force the Muslims to the table even though sitting at the table would be seen as the ultimate weakness?

Does your friend actually have an idea for how to fix the Middle East? Cause quite frankly not engaging with the entire Middle East isn't a rational possibility.