Page 1 of 1

Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:35 pm
by catamount man
- ended Iraq war? CHECK!
- oversaw the murder of Osama Bin Laden? CHECK!
- oversaw the murder of Ghadaffi? CHECK!
- has Al-Qaeda crippled and on the run? CHECK!

Bush/Cheney only wished..................

OBAMA 2012 BABY! 4 MORE MOTHERFUCKING YEARS. I LOVE IT. IT WILL PISS WHITE TRASH OFF IN TRAILER PARKS EVERYWHERE! :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:20 pm
by CID1990
I think we are just about in for another "I'm going to end it all... goodbye cruel world" episode.

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:20 am
by ASUG8
I'm sure all the people that were promised jobs in the US are ecstatic over his performance. It'll be interesting to see how the OWS folks vote since many (most) are unemployed and are pissed about the bank bailout under BHO. These examples of foreign policy, while important, don't put food on the table or a roof over your head. :twocents:

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:10 am
by bluehenbillk
BHO has been a President of what I'd call 'unexpected role reversals".

To his credit, he was expected to be a foreign policy neophyte but has done surprisingly very well there IMO.

On the other hand, in terms of domestic policy & working across the aisle in bipartisanship it's been a complete clusterf#$k.

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:21 am
by kalm
Riding the coattails of the Bush/Cheney military and security apparatus. :coffee:

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:13 pm
by YoUDeeMan
I've been extremely busy...but this is too funny.

1) "Ended" the Iraq war? Are you serious? If you meant that he removed our troops...well that is false...some of our boys are staying...as advisors. Remember Vietnam? :rofl: Oh, and Obama didn't have much of a choice. Bush laid down the exit plan...Obama wanted MORE troops to stay, but he wanted them to stay with the ability to not be brought to court for their behaviors (hey, where are the Libs ranting about Bush allowing our soldiers to disrespect the natives). Iraq said, "No, thanks, we'll keep to the timetable...goodbye". THEY ARE BOOTING US OUT...not what Obama wanted. Nice spin, though.

Bin Laden? CHECK! The one good thing Obama has done.

Now, why the fvck are we still there? And here's a newsflash for you...this past year has had the heaviest civilian casualties in the Afffy war. You know, OBAMA'S WAR. In addition, Obama's extended war in Affy has strained relationships within Pakistan (giving their extremists a better foothold against the moderates..always a good thing since the country has nukes), lost our best technology to China, lost more of our best technology to Iran and Obama has overseen the killing of more of our soldiers in Affy then Bush. Congrats, indeed. :ohno:

Oversaw the murder of Quadaffi? Really? What threat was he to us? And what, exactly is happening there now? How many thousands of civilians died in our "peace" operation? How many attrocities continue being committed by the new fractured militias and their leadership? Anyone know what happened to thousands of anti-aircraft missles? Shucks....seems as though Obama and his clowns forgot that those things would be of interest to some bad guys.

Oh, and Obama oversaw the change in Egypt. Pssssssst...the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections...with an even nuttier group of extremists coming in second. Wait until Iraq has their elections. :o

We have a real treat coming to us in the Middle East over the next few years....gift wrapped under the Obama watch. :rofl:

AQ on the run? :rofl: :rofl: Where? Again, more casualties in Affy than ever before...more weapons in the hands of bad guys...more Muslim extemists coming to power in the tinderbox of the Muslim world.

Oh, and you forgot our foreign policy involving Mexico....we've armed the drug dealer to the teeth so that they can kill our people...with Obama's apparent blessing! Obama refuses to chain his democracy hating dog, Holder. Holder and Cheyney...sitting in a tree...K_I_S_S_I_N_G!

Yeah, thanks Obama! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

OK, I'll go back to work and you go back to your uninformed bi-polar world.

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:05 pm
by Seahawks08
First off I would like to say I love cluck u, some of the best chicken I have ever eaten.
Secondly, perceptions always trump reality, so sorry cluck but the OP has the data that the casual American will look at and say Obama has earned an A in Foreign Policy.
Plus, some of your information is exaggerated and quite frankly, wrong.

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:12 pm
by Ibanez
Cat, how was your date? DId you get your tally whacked?

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:59 pm
by YoUDeeMan
Seahawks08 wrote:First off I would like to say I love cluck u, some of the best chicken I have ever eaten.
Secondly, perceptions always trump reality, so sorry cluck but the OP has the data that the casual American will look at and say Obama has earned an A in Foreign Policy.
Plus, some of your information is exaggerated and quite frankly, wrong.
Which part is wrong?

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:02 pm
by GrizFanStuckInUtah
He gets a win because he was playing bye. :coffee:

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:04 pm
by Grizalltheway
Cluck U wrote:
Seahawks08 wrote:First off I would like to say I love cluck u, some of the best chicken I have ever eaten.
Secondly, perceptions always trump reality, so sorry cluck but the OP has the data that the casual American will look at and say Obama has earned an A in Foreign Policy.
Plus, some of your information is exaggerated and quite frankly, wrong.
Which part is wrong?
I'm not 100%, but I doubt we've lost our 'best' military technology to either Iran or China.

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:35 pm
by Seahawks08
Obama's extended war in Affy has strained relationships within Pakistan
It wasn't the extension of the war that strained relations, it was Pakistan's refusal to get rid of the terrorists in their country. And this mainly stems from the SS department in the ISI.
Obama wanted MORE troops to stay
I'm not as sure on this one, but I don't think Obama wanted more troops to stay, but rather the generals. And then there's the fact that you are criticizing him if those troops did stay. If McCain was president, they would be there forever.
Oversaw the murder of Quadaffi? Really? What threat was he to us? And what, exactly is happening there now? How many thousands of civilians died in our "peace" operation? How many attrocities continue being committed by the new fractured militias and their leadership? Anyone know what happened to thousands of anti-aircraft missles? Shucks....seems as though Obama and his clowns forgot that those things would be of interest to some bad guys.
There was no threat. It was a humanitarian mission. Maybe you should ask yourself the question, how many civilians would have died if NATO did nothing? Also, the UN mandate had some sway.
Oh, and Obama oversaw the change in Egypt. Pssssssst...the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections...with an even nuttier group of extremists coming in second. Wait until Iraq has their elections.
Pssst, the secular military still holds the reigns of the country.
more weapons in the hands of bad guys...more Muslim extemists coming to power in the tinderbox of the Muslim world.
is there a source for this?

:stir:

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:32 pm
by Ivytalk
Obama has placated Iran, has alienated Israel, and has flubbed the Eurozone crisis to a fare-thee-well. Foreign policy genius, my arse.

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:41 pm
by YoUDeeMan
Seahawks08 wrote:
It wasn't the extension of the war that strained relations, it was Pakistan's refusal to get rid of the terrorists in their country. And this mainly stems from the SS department in the ISI.

I'm not as sure on this one, but I don't think Obama wanted more troops to stay, but rather the generals. And then there's the fact that you are criticizing him if those troops did stay. If McCain was president, they would be there forever.

There was no threat. It was a humanitarian mission. Maybe you should ask yourself the question, how many civilians would have died if NATO did nothing? Also, the UN mandate had some sway.

Pssst, the secular military still holds the reigns of the country.
more weapons in the hands of bad guys...more Muslim extremists coming to power in the tinderbox of the Muslim world.
is there a source for this?

:stir:
1) Are you kidding me? Of course Obama's war strained relationships with the US...we've been BOMBING and killing people, including CIVILIANS, inside Pakistan with regularity...despite their protests. :nod: Jesus Christ, Bush goes into Iraq and everyone says he's a hot head....US interests first...Bush didn't respect other's sovereignty...didn't care about our perception in the eyes of Arabs or Muslims...blah, blah, blah. But hey, Obama can cowboy around and he is a hero. :lol:

2) Obama’s generals, and the Administration (that’s Obama), tried to get Iraq to keep more US troops. But, as stated, Iraq said, “NO”…not without Iraq being able to hold accountable any atrocities committed by US troops.

WHOOPS! Not good enough for cowboy Obama. So, Obama had to agree to the PRE-OBAMA withdrawal date. Sure, Obama is claiming he is getting our troops out…but he didn’t have a choice. Mission Accomplished…not quite! 8-)

3) If we didn’t give the banks the TAPR money, just imagine how bad the economy would have been. If we didn’t spend a whole bunch of money on pork barrel Democratic pet projects, imagine how bad the economy would be. If we didn’t knock of Ghadaffy, imagine how many casualties there would have been. If we didn’t go in after Sadaam, imagine how bad things could have gotten…oh, and the UN mandate had some sway. If we didn’t give millions to “say no to sex” projects, just imagine how bad it would be. If we didn’t spend billions oppressing other countries and propping up capitalistic, anti-democratic, anti-freedom governments, imagine how bad it would be. I don’t have a strong record to stand on, but imagine how bad it will be if another guy wins.

Yeah, I see your point. :rofl:

4) The Egyptian military will be giving up (one way or another) power soon...to a government that will be run by Islamic fundamentalist Unless, of course, you support the idea that Obama should continue to support an unpopular, strong armed government that rules without (and against) the people’s will. You know, like Bahrain. :o

5) Source? NPR, of all places. :thumb:

Sorry, but you are either uninformed or just following, or filtering, the lib media, “support Obama at all costs” campaign.

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:52 pm
by YoUDeeMan
Grizalltheway wrote:
Cluck U wrote:
Which part is wrong?
I'm not 100%, but I doubt we've lost our 'best' military technology to either Iran or China.
Wait, are you telling me that our President sent a second place piece of equipment, not the best, because we didn't want to give our best troops the best chance of being successful when going hundreds of miles into another country's territory in order to get the number one terrorist...the one responsible for thousands of American deaths? Of course, that make total sense. I mean, if the second best equipment failed, and some of our guys got killed, that wouldn't have been a complete embarrassment for our administration. :rofl:

And if you don't think China got a look, and a piece, of our helicopter, then I've got a bridge for you to purchase.

Oh, and reports are that the drone that Iran has is one of our best. :nod:

Ooops!

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:07 pm
by SuperHornet
I'm not so sure about that. Current polls show Romney over Obama in Iowa, though it's close and probably within the poll's margin of error.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... l_matchups

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:13 pm
by Seahawks08
1) Are you kidding me? Of course Obama's war strained relationships with the US...we've been BOMBING and killing people, including CIVILIANS, inside Pakistan with regularity...despite their protests. Jesus Christ, Bush goes into Iraq and everyone says he's a hot head....US interests first...Bush didn't respect other's sovereignty...didn't care about our perception in the eyes of Arabs or Muslims...blah, blah, blah. But hey, Obama can cowboy around and he is a hero.

2) Obama’s generals, and the Administration (that’s Obama), tried to get Iraq to keep more US troops. But, as stated, Iraq said, “NO”…not without Iraq being able to hold accountable any atrocities committed by US troops.

WHOOPS! Not good enough for cowboy Obama. So, Obama had to agree to the PRE-OBAMA withdrawal date. Sure, Obama is claiming he is getting our troops out…but he didn’t have a choice. Mission Accomplished…not quite!

3) If we didn’t give the banks the TAPR money, just imagine how bad the economy would have been. If we didn’t spend a whole bunch of money on pork barrel Democratic pet projects, imagine how bad the economy would be. If we didn’t knock of Ghadaffy, imagine how many casualties there would have been. If we didn’t go in after Sadaam, imagine how bad things could have gotten…oh, and the UN mandate had some sway. If we didn’t give millions to “say no to sex” projects, just imagine how bad it would be. If we didn’t spend billions oppressing other countries and propping up capitalistic, anti-democratic, anti-freedom governments, imagine how bad it would be. I don’t have a strong record to stand on, but imagine how bad it will be if another guy wins.

Yeah, I see your point.

4) The Egyptian military will be giving up (one way or another) power soon...to a government that will be run by Islamic fundamentalist Unless, of course, you support the idea that Obama should continue to support an unpopular, strong armed government that rules without (and against) the people’s will. You know, like Bahrain.

5) Source? NPR, of all places.

Sorry, but you are either uninformed or just following, or filtering, the lib media, “support Obama at all costs” campaign.
1) And WHY are we bombing Pakistan? Oh, that's right, there are Taliban and Al-Qaeda there that the ISI won't get rid of. And for you to pull Bush into this is ludicrous. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Al-Qaeda did. Since Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were hiding in Affy and Pakistan, those are the hot spots that need to be taken care of. Not Iraq.

2) :rofl: To be honest, I'm just glad that most of our troops are out of there. It will be seen as Obama ending the Iraq War. Again, perception > reality.

3) So you are arguing that we should never have gone into Libya? First, off we are a noble nation and that brings responsibility. When the Arab league AND the UN wants the world to stop Gaddafi. we should listen. Plus, Obama played his hand 100x better than Bush. Compare the costs and lives lost between the Iraq War and Libya and you'll see who was more competent.

4) The Eqyptian military will give up power like you said, but they will still be a STRONG influence in the country. IMO I don't think the military will allow fundamentalist radicals to overrun the country.

5) Could you post a link to the specific article? I would like to read it if you don't mind. ;)

6) For one, I'm definitely not ill-informed. I read a lot of different political sites and watch numerous news sources. And to be honest, I watch Fox News the most. :thumb:

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:26 am
by Grizalltheway
Cluck U wrote:
Grizalltheway wrote:
I'm not 100%, but I doubt we've lost our 'best' military technology to either Iran or China.
Wait, are you telling me that our President sent a second place piece of equipment, not the best, because we didn't want to give our best troops the best chance of being successful when going hundreds of miles into another country's territory in order to get the number one terrorist...the one responsible for thousands of American deaths? Of course, that make total sense. I mean, if the second best equipment failed, and some of our guys got killed, that wouldn't have been a complete embarrassment for our administration. :rofl:

And if you don't think China got a look, and a piece, of our helicopter, then I've got a bridge for you to purchase.

Oh, and reports are that the drone that Iran has is one of our best. :nod:

Ooops!
Are you that big of a tool that you're going to sit here and blame drones and helicopters crashing squarely on Obama? :roll:

Re: Obama should win just on foreign policy alone.

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:09 pm
by travelinman67
Grizalltheway wrote:
Cluck U wrote:
Wait, are you telling me that our President sent a second place piece of equipment, not the best, because we didn't want to give our best troops the best chance of being successful when going hundreds of miles into another country's territory in order to get the number one terrorist...the one responsible for thousands of American deaths? Of course, that make total sense. I mean, if the second best equipment failed, and some of our guys got killed, that wouldn't have been a complete embarrassment for our administration. :rofl:

And if you don't think China got a look, and a piece, of our helicopter, then I've got a bridge for you to purchase.

Oh, and reports are that the drone that Iran has is one of our best. :nod:

Ooops!
Are you that big of a tool that you're going to sit here and blame drones and helicopters crashing squarely on Obama? :roll:
...ahem!!

"Bush lied, people died."

;)