Obama Getting USA into ANOTHER war

[ASUG8]

I don't envy the spot he's in, but he sold the majority of Americans that he was the man for the job on two occasions. This is where the rubber meets the road, and if you can't make the tough calls then get out of the way.

So you're behind the Prez if he decides to take on Russia militarily in their back yard?

Fvck the Ukraine and fvck Russia too. Let the Euros deal with their mess.

I didn't run for president and say I had all the answers like our now commander-in-chief claimed....twice.

Putin made a mockery of the prez on Syria, and we have nothing on the Ukrainian colonization front either. I guess when you follow Clinton with Kerry and give neither any direction that's how your foreign policy goes.

BTW, do we even have a domestic policy?

[FCS PATRIOTS]

It's time to drop the big one again and make the Middle East the newest occupant at the bottom of the ocean floor. SERIOUSLY. All the **** in the world starts and ends there. Damn these desert people. Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Just drop one after another on them until NOTHING is left.

Fvcking brilliant. Irradiate our oil fields. Lots of money to be made that way...

Well if it weren't for liberal fvcktards like you worried about some speckled bird we could drill like the shitz here in America and quit sucking off the Arab tit but no you would rather a bird live than motherfuckers working for a living. Douchebag!

[andy7171]

So much for the month ban. FB'd. Needs to step away
Fucker is going to go
Postal.

[DSUrocks07]

I think he could use these

I'm still not 100% on the intel that says it was the Assad regime that used the chem weapons.

I'm 99% sure that it was indeed the rebel forces that used them to frame Assad.

[houndawg]

So you're behind the Prez if he decides to take on Russia militarily in their back yard?

Fvck the Ukraine and fvck Russia too. Let the Euros deal with their mess.

I didn't run for president and say I had all the answers like our now commander-in-chief claimed....twice.

Putin made a mockery of the prez on Syria, and we have nothing on the Ukrainian colonization front either. I guess when you follow Clinton with Kerry and give neither any direction that's how your foreign policy goes.

BTW, do we even have a domestic policy?

Is that a "yes, I support Obama going to war in Ukraine"?

Don't weasel out on us now. Better yet, enlist.

[houndawg]

Fvcking brilliant. Irradiate our oil fields. Lots of money to be made that way...

Well if it weren't for liberal fvcktards like you worried about some speckled bird we could drill like the shitz here in America and quit sucking off the Arab tit but no you would rather a bird live than motherfuckers working for a living. Douchebag!

(Yo, FCS Peckerwood, the US is the largest oil producer in the world.)

[kalm]

Interesting read on the situation...

But politically, that doesn’t matter. What’s causing this Jacksonian eruption is the sight of two terrified Americans, on their knees, about to be beheaded by masked fanatics. Few images could more powerfully stoke Jacksonian rage. The politicians denouncing Obama for lacking a “strategy” against ISIS may not have one either, but they have a gut-level revulsion that they can leverage for political gain. “Bomb the hell out of them!” exclaimed Illinois Senator Mark Kirk on Tuesday. “We ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age,” added Texas Senator Ted Cruz. These aren’t policy prescriptions. They are cries for revenge.

And for the Obama administration, they are politically perilous. All of a sudden, the domestic politics of foreign policy bear a vague resemblance to the late Carter years. The Iran hostage crisis did not lend itself to a simple policy response either. But to many Americans, it represented a primal humiliation, broadcast on screens across the world. And the hostage crisis primed Americans to see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that same year as yet another example of Jimmy Carter failing to prevent America from being disrespected around the world. The danger for Obama is that the ISIS beheadings color the public’s view of his Russia policy in the same way.

Obama has always had trouble with Jacksonians, who tend to live outside cities and be older, white, and less educated than Obama’s political base. By killing Osama bin Laden, he temporarily neutralized the political threat they posed, and left Mitt Romney unable to rouse them in 2012. But the memory of that Jacksonian triumph has now faded. And Obama’s cool, measured rhetoric—his talk of “shrink[ing]” ISIS and making it “manageable”—can grate on Jacksonian ears. Jacksonians, Mead argues, do not like half-measures. They never forgave Harry Truman for firing Douglas MacArthur and settling for a stalemate in Korea. They complained bitterly that civilians in Washington weren’t letting American troops win in Vietnam. For Jacksonians, you don’t “degrade” a group that beheads Americans. You annihilate it.

For Obama, there’s an irony to all this. After 9/11, he wisely resisted the Jacksonian fervor of the moment and opposed the war in Iraq. He surely knows that it is precisely at moments like this, when politicians and pundits are demanding vengeance, that presidents are most prone to do “stupid stuff.” He’s staked his foreign-policy legacy on being the president who doesn’t do that. But it is precisely because of this caution and calm that he’s losing political control, even in his own party. And God knows how many beheadings are still to come.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ll/379622/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

Mead is a smart guy, and I've read a lot of his work. But Peter Beinart, a reliable liberal apologist, takes Mead's "four-box" theoretical framework and conveniently leaves Obama out of it in an effort to excuse his foreign policy aimlessness, er, "caution." If Obama is not a Jacksonian, what is he? Clearly not a Wilsonian, as he has no desire to spread human rights and democracy abroad in " leading from behind." A Hamiltonian, who seeks to keep the world safe for free commerce? Being "in bed with Wall Street" does not make one a Hamiltonian. A Greenwald-like Jeffersonian, who wants to avoid foreign entanglements for the ostensible purpose of preserving liberty at home? Obama hardly occupies that box. And the mouth-breathing Jacksonians are out. So what, then, is Barack Obama? A chameleon-like cipher, impossible to categorize. Which would precisely be Mead's point, if not Beinart's.

[kalm]

Mead is a smart guy, and I've read a lot of his work. But Peter Beinart, a reliable liberal apologist, takes Mead's "four-box" theoretical framework and conveniently leaves Obama out of it in an effort to excuse his foreign policy aimlessness, er, "caution." If Obama is not a Jacksonian, what is he? Clearly not a Wilsonian, as he has no desire to spread human rights and democracy abroad in " leading from behind." A Hamiltonian, who seeks to keep the world safe for free commerce? Being "in bed with Wall Street" does not make one a Hamiltonian. A Greenwald-like Jeffersonian, who wants to avoid foreign entanglements for the ostensible purpose of preserving liberty at home? Obama hardly occupies that box. And the mouth-breathing Jacksonians are out. So what, then, is Barack Obama? A chameleon-like cipher, impossible to categorize. Which would precisely be Mead's point, if not Beinart's.

Agreed. He's all over the place.

[mrklean]

OK REPUKES,

You bitch that Obama is not doing enough to stop ISIS, however, you don't want another War
You Bitch about Obama not doing anything in the Ukraine, but you don't want another war.
You Bitch about Obama not doing anything in Syria, but you don't want another war there either.

As I see it, Repukes don't know what they want and they BITCH alot. Not of you cheese dycks will not enlist to fight in either of these countries.

[Ivytalk]

OK REPUKES,

You bitch that Obama is not doing enough to stop ISIS, however, you don't want another War
You Bitch about Obama not doing anything in the Ukraine, but you don't want another war.
You Bitch about Obama not doing anything in Syria, but you don't want another war there either.

As I see it, Repukes don't know what they want and they BITCH alot. Not of you cheese dycks will not enlist to fight in either of these countries.

OK, Kleenex, Mr. Tough Guy. I volunteer YOU to fight for us in the Middle East. I presume that you are physically fit and, if you ever served at all, you were honorably discharged. Frankly, I picture you as "war veteran" Eddie Murphy in Trading Places: "I fought in Sang Bang, Dang Gon, all those places. I was in the Green Berets, unit tactic, specialist tactic. Agent Orange, that was me."

[CID1990]

Interesting read on the situation...

But politically, that doesn’t matter. What’s causing this Jacksonian eruption is the sight of two terrified Americans, on their knees, about to be beheaded by masked fanatics. Few images could more powerfully stoke Jacksonian rage. The politicians denouncing Obama for lacking a “strategy” against ISIS may not have one either, but they have a gut-level revulsion that they can leverage for political gain. “Bomb the hell out of them!” exclaimed Illinois Senator Mark Kirk on Tuesday. “We ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age,” added Texas Senator Ted Cruz. These aren’t policy prescriptions. They are cries for revenge.

And for the Obama administration, they are politically perilous. All of a sudden, the domestic politics of foreign policy bear a vague resemblance to the late Carter years. The Iran hostage crisis did not lend itself to a simple policy response either. But to many Americans, it represented a primal humiliation, broadcast on screens across the world. And the hostage crisis primed Americans to see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that same year as yet another example of Jimmy Carter failing to prevent America from being disrespected around the world. The danger for Obama is that the ISIS beheadings color the public’s view of his Russia policy in the same way.

Obama has always had trouble with Jacksonians, who tend to live outside cities and be older, white, and less educated than Obama’s political base. By killing Osama bin Laden, he temporarily neutralized the political threat they posed, and left Mitt Romney unable to rouse them in 2012. But the memory of that Jacksonian triumph has now faded. And Obama’s cool, measured rhetoric—his talk of “shrink[ing]” ISIS and making it “manageable”—can grate on Jacksonian ears. Jacksonians, Mead argues, do not like half-measures. They never forgave Harry Truman for firing Douglas MacArthur and settling for a stalemate in Korea. They complained bitterly that civilians in Washington weren’t letting American troops win in Vietnam. For Jacksonians, you don’t “degrade” a group that beheads Americans. You annihilate it.

For Obama, there’s an irony to all this. After 9/11, he wisely resisted the Jacksonian fervor of the moment and opposed the war in Iraq. He surely knows that it is precisely at moments like this, when politicians and pundits are demanding vengeance, that presidents are most prone to do “stupid stuff.” He’s staked his foreign-policy legacy on being the president who doesn’t do that. But it is precisely because of this caution and calm that he’s losing political control, even in his own party. And God knows how many beheadings are still to come.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ll/379622/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

your use of the word "interesting" is kind of japanese in the opposite sense

no surprise that a sneering article about the unwashed white rural Jacksonians (clinging to guns and bibles?) and the thoughtful, moderate (and most of all.... wise on foreign policy) Obama would appeal to a "thoughtful moderate" such as yourself

theres nothing interesting about a smarmy apology for Obama- 99% of you are doing it

[YoUDeeMan]

I think he could use these

I'm still not 100% on the intel that says it was the Assad regime that used the chem weapons.

Yup...that was just too easy.

[kalm]

Interesting read on the situation...


http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ll/379622/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

your use of the word "interesting" is kind of japanese in the opposite sense

no surprise that a sneering article about the unwashed white rural Jacksonians (clinging to guns and bibles?) and the thoughtful, moderate (and most of all.... wise on foreign policy) Obama would appeal to a "thoughtful moderate" such as yourself

theres nothing interesting about a smarmy apology for Obama- 99% of you are doing it

Ever the partisan...

Interesting that's what you took away from the article.

Let's have you lay down your analysis of the situation. I truly appreciate your foreign policy chops...no need to be afraid...

[YoUDeeMan]

Interesting read on the situation...

Too funny.

What did Obama do about Libya? Answer: Obama took out a country's leader simply because he didn't give his people the freedom to revolt. How'd that work out?

What did Obama do about Egypt? He resisted the revolution...but then supported the revolution...but then helped remove the leader of the revolution when he didn't match Obama's choice.

What did Obama do about Syria? He openly talked about, and helped fund, the revolution against Assad. Why? Because Obama didn't like that Assad didn't give his people the freedom to revolt. Then he allowed Saudi Arabia to fund and arm the rebels. How's that working out?

What did Obama do about Bahrain? He openly talked about...WAIT, he didn't.

What did Obama do about the Ukraine? Crimea?

Libs.

PLEASE LOOK OVER HERE!>>>>>>

<<<<< DON'T LOOK OVER THERE, THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

[CID1990]

your use of the word "interesting" is kind of japanese in the opposite sense

no surprise that a sneering article about the unwashed white rural Jacksonians (clinging to guns and bibles?) and the thoughtful, moderate (and most of all.... wise on foreign policy) Obama would appeal to a "thoughtful moderate" such as yourself

theres nothing interesting about a smarmy apology for Obama- 99% of you are doing it

Ever the partisan... :

Says the guy who posts a hyperpartisan article from The Atlantic and then plays it down by calling it "interesting"

[kalm]

Ever the partisan... :

Says the guy who posts a hyperpartisan article from The Atlantic and then plays it down by calling it "interesting"

Beinart leans left, but the article was only hyper-partisan to those projecting.

I've posted articles in the past by George Will, Krauthammer, and your BFF, Buchannon. Ne'er a peep out of you then, Rush.

[CID1990]

Says the guy who posts a hyperpartisan article from The Atlantic and then plays it down by calling it "interesting"

Beinart leans left, but the article was only hyper-partisan to those projecting.

I've posted articles in the past by George Will, Krauthammer, and your BFF, Buchannon. Ne'er a peep out of you then, Rush.

yes you're the consummate thoughtful moderate, klam

Hmm. It is so interesting how Obama the Great and Superior finds himself hamstrung by those unwashed old, white Jacksonians

So interesting! I picture you with a pipe in your hand, scratching your chin with the other

[YoUDeeMan]

Says the guy who posts a hyperpartisan article from The Atlantic and then plays it down by calling it "interesting"

Beinart leans left, but the article was only hyper-partisan to those projecting.

I've posted articles in the past by George Will, Krauthammer, and your BFF, Buchannon. Ne'er a peep out of you then, Rush.

That was a stupid, partisan article. C'mon, read it again with open eyes.

[DSUrocks07]

Says the guy who posts a hyperpartisan article from The Atlantic and then plays it down by calling it "interesting"

Beinart leans left, but the article was only hyper-partisan to those projecting.

I've posted articles in the past by George Will, Krauthammer, and your BFF, Buchannon. Ne'er a peep out of you then, Rush.

[kalm]

Beinart leans left, but the article was only hyper-partisan to those projecting.

I've posted articles in the past by George Will, Krauthammer, and your BFF, Buchannon. Ne'er a peep out of you then, Rush.

That was a stupid, partisan article. C'mon, read it again with open eyes.

Like this?

Let me check…nope still not all that partisan.

[YoUDeeMan]

That was a stupid, partisan article. C'mon, read it again with open eyes.

Like this?

Let me check…nope still not all that partisan.

Nice qualifier.

[kalm]

Like this?

Let me check…nope still not all that partisan.

Nice qualifier.

CID described it as hyper partisan.

[YoUDeeMan]

Nice qualifier.

CID described it as hyper partisan.

Then you admit it was partisan, since you responded to my post.

[kalm]

CID described it as hyper partisan.

Then you admit it was partisan, since you responded to my post.

Yes

* not all that.