I am dissapointed in President Obama.

Poor Jarod... are you upset? What Bush Policies are you referring to that you claim I blame Obama for?

THe current state of the economy brought about by lowering taxes in a time of greatly increased spending and a time of war, to put it as succently as possable.
 
I dont belive so, he may have made it appear that the USA was taking a back seat (for tactical reasons), but it would not have happened without our involvement and accquence.



That is not stretch, the only reason Mubarick was in power so long was because we supported him, 6 months prior to the uprising our state department sent signals that the policy was no longer in effect and that Mubarick would no longer be proped up.



If that is true, good for him for knowing when to follow a plan that would work. So Bush gets credit for the good things he did, but you cant say anything about what he did to cause this economy? Hack!



Does Iran have a nuke?




Preventing attacks from enemies abroad is not a forign policy issue? Sure it has a domestic componant, but its a FP issue. That is a dense statement!





Absolutly, I said that even during the Bush Administration. 9-11 was planned by Al-Queda who was opperating in Afganistan and at odds with the government of Iraq. Al Queda was allowed to operate in Afganistan due to a power vaccum and not allowed to operate in Iraq. We have a duty to the safety of the USA to ensure that the conditions that allowed Al Queda to plan 9-11 are corrected. We never had a justification to be in Iraq at all what so ever! So yes, Iraq BAD, Afganistan NECESSARY!





yes!



It would take a 500 page tretus on each nation to address that request. Our relations in general with all of the Middle Eastern nations is a policy to not interfere with them unless they allow factions to exist who are planning attacks on our interests. The policy is that we will no longer prop up dictatior who we deem to be "friendly" to us, but will allow them to form self government. Our policy in NK as far as I can tell is the same as its been since the 1950's which is one of containment.






Id say what I listed is a LOT, and there is plenty more.



Hello?
 
We've gone over this, but this is the most shameless rewriting of history, on any topic or issue, that I have ever seen.

Why are you so beholden to Bush? What is it about you & giving him any kind of accountability?

These are facts....

The WAR RESOLUTION was debated and passed by Congress.....a bi-partisan vote I might add.....it could not have passed without the approving votes of some Democrats

The warnings about Saddam and WMD and how he must be stopped were prevalent during the Clinton Admin. and if you need the quotes of various Democrats of the time

posted again and again and again, I still have them...

Thats history....
 
Libya, Burma, and getting bin Laden.


Getting bin Laden was the foreign policy of the US since 2001, hardly limited to Obama.

But he will have to take the responsibility for Egypt, Libya, and other countrys that will be taken over by crazy Islamic fundies
 
Getting bin Laden was the foreign policy of the US since 2001, hardly limited to Obama.

But he will have to take the responsibility for Egypt, Libya, and other countrys that will be taken over by crazy Islamic fundies

If that is the over meant these countries want, what right one's the USA have to intervene?

You seem to have the misconception that the USA rules the world.
 
I dont belive so, he may have made it appear that the USA was taking a back seat (for tactical reasons), but it would not have happened without our involvement and accquence.



That is not stretch, the only reason Mubarick was in power so long was because we supported him, 6 months prior to the uprising our state department sent signals that the policy was no longer in effect and that Mubarick would no longer be proped up.



If that is true, good for him for knowing when to follow a plan that would work. So Bush gets credit for the good things he did, but you cant say anything about what he did to cause this economy? Hack!



Does Iran have a nuke?




Preventing attacks from enemies abroad is not a forign policy issue? Sure it has a domestic componant, but its a FP issue. That is a dense statement!





Absolutly, I said that even during the Bush Administration. 9-11 was planned by Al-Queda who was opperating in Afganistan and at odds with the government of Iraq. Al Queda was allowed to operate in Afganistan due to a power vaccum and not allowed to operate in Iraq. We have a duty to the safety of the USA to ensure that the conditions that allowed Al Queda to plan 9-11 are corrected. We never had a justification to be in Iraq at all what so ever! So yes, Iraq BAD, Afganistan NECESSARY!





yes!



It would take a 500 page tretus on each nation to address that request. Our relations in general with all of the Middle Eastern nations is a policy to not interfere with them unless they allow factions to exist who are planning attacks on our interests. The policy is that we will no longer prop up dictatior who we deem to be "friendly" to us, but will allow them to form self government. Our policy in NK as far as I can tell is the same as its been since the 1950's which is one of containment.






Id say what I listed is a LOT, and there is plenty more.

hello?
 

th_whats_up.gif
 
These are facts....

The WAR RESOLUTION was debated and passed by Congress.....a bi-partisan vote I might add.....it could not have passed without the approving votes of some Democrats

The warnings about Saddam and WMD and how he must be stopped were prevalent during the Clinton Admin. and if you need the quotes of various Democrats of the time

posted again and again and again, I still have them...

Thats history....

Not one of those quotes you refer to mentions a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Not one.

Not one of the "debates" you mention about the resolution talked about a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Not a one.

The Iraq War is Bush's war, and his call - it always will be. You can rewrite history all you want on this board. It certainly doesn't matter.
 

You do realize that people leave the board from time to time... don't you moron?

As for your nonsense... it is amusing watching you try to make Obama's role more significant than it was.

he may have made it appear that the USA was taking a back seat (for tactical reasons)

That is comic gold. He did what he normally does... he avoids being the leader. Because that way he can blame someone else if it fails. On Osama, he made the tough call... on Libya he just lobbed missiles at the whim of others.

That is not stretch, the only reason Mubarick was in power so long was because we supported him, 6 months prior to the uprising our state department sent signals that the policy was no longer in effect and that Mubarick would no longer be proped up.

As for Mubarak, Obama was the one that called Mubarak a force of stability in the middle east. So I would love to see the 'signals' you refer to of a change in policy. Because from my recollection (which could be wrong) it wasn't until the protests were in full swing that Obama changed tactics.

If that is true, good for him for knowing when to follow a plan that would work. So Bush gets credit for the good things he did, but you cant say anything about what he did to cause this economy? Hack!

Obviously your ignorance and incapacity for retention means you can't remember all the times I have been critical of Bush's abysmal fiscal policy?

Does Iran have a nuke?

All signs are pointing that they are getting ever closer. Which is why Israel is getting so itchy and why oil prices are jumping up.

Preventing attacks from enemies abroad is not a forign policy issue? Sure it has a domestic componant, but its a FP issue. That is a dense statement!

I am glad you recognize that your comment was dense. Preventing an attack HERE is domestic. Or are you going to pretend that anything that involves someone from a foreign country is 'foreign policy'???

Absolutly, I said that even during the Bush Administration. 9-11 was planned by Al-Queda who was opperating in Afganistan and at odds with the government of Iraq. Al Queda was allowed to operate in Afganistan due to a power vaccum and not allowed to operate in Iraq. We have a duty to the safety of the USA to ensure that the conditions that allowed Al Queda to plan 9-11 are corrected. We never had a justification to be in Iraq at all what so ever! So yes, Iraq BAD, Afganistan NECESSARY!

The point Jarod is that if you feel we should stay to prevent a group from taking over that might be hostile to the US or support terrorist actions against the US, then should we not also care who is taking over in Iraq, Libya and Egypt?


Id say what I listed is a LOT, and there is plenty more.

No, you listed a bunch of nonsense. But since there is plenty more... please go on... list some more.
 
You do realize that people leave the board from time to time... don't you moron?

As for your nonsense... it is amusing watching you try to make Obama's role more significant than it was.



That is comic gold. He did what he normally does... he avoids being the leader. Because that way he can blame someone else if it fails. On Osama, he made the tough call... on Libya he just lobbed missiles at the whim of others.



As for Mubarak, Obama was the one that called Mubarak a force of stability in the middle east. So I would love to see the 'signals' you refer to of a change in policy. Because from my recollection (which could be wrong) it wasn't until the protests were in full swing that Obama changed tactics.



Obviously your ignorance and incapacity for retention means you can't remember all the times I have been critical of Bush's abysmal fiscal policy?



All signs are pointing that they are getting ever closer. Which is why Israel is getting so itchy and why oil prices are jumping up.



I am glad you recognize that your comment was dense. Preventing an attack HERE is domestic. Or are you going to pretend that anything that involves someone from a foreign country is 'foreign policy'???

The point Jarod is that if you feel we should stay to prevent a group from taking over that might be hostile to the US or support terrorist actions against the US, then should we not also care who is taking over in Iraq, Libya and Egypt?

No, you listed a bunch of nonsense. But since there is plenty more... please go on... list some more.

Hello? Jarod??
 
You do realize that people leave the board from time to time... don't you moron?

As for your nonsense... it is amusing watching you try to make Obama's role more significant than it was.

That is comic gold. He did what he normally does... he avoids being the leader. Because that way he can blame someone else if it fails. On Osama, he made the tough call... on Libya he just lobbed missiles at the whim of others.

As for Mubarak, Obama was the one that called Mubarak a force of stability in the middle east. So I would love to see the 'signals' you refer to of a change in policy. Because from my recollection (which could be wrong) it wasn't until the protests were in full swing that Obama changed tactics.

Obviously your ignorance and incapacity for retention means you can't remember all the times I have been critical of Bush's abysmal fiscal policy?

All signs are pointing that they are getting ever closer. Which is why Israel is getting so itchy and why oil prices are jumping up.

I am glad you recognize that your comment was dense. Preventing an attack HERE is domestic. Or are you going to pretend that anything that involves someone from a foreign country is 'foreign policy'???

The point Jarod is that if you feel we should stay to prevent a group from taking over that might be hostile to the US or support terrorist actions against the US, then should we not also care who is taking over in Iraq, Libya and Egypt?

No, you listed a bunch of nonsense. But since there is plenty more... please go on... list some more.

Hello? Jarod??? You still haven't responded Jarod!!!
 
if one out of every 15 people who voted for Obama in 2008 are disappointed in him and decide to stay home, does he have any chance of re-election?.....
 
Don't be such a hater. He has had a decent track record in foreign affairs. Ending Iraq, finally tracking down the guy who was actually behind 9/11, aid to protesters in Libya & democracy in Egypt, reducing Russian nuke missile launchers. Afghanistan blows, but what can you do.

whose plan did he follow and whose plan was already agreed upon in "ending" iraq? how is syria doing these days? reducing nukes with russia has been ongoing for decades, acting like this is a big deal for obama is silly and shows how much you love the guy.
 
whose plan did he follow and whose plan was already agreed upon in "ending" iraq? how is syria doing these days? reducing nukes with russia has been ongoing for decades, acting like this is a big deal for obama is silly and shows how much you love the guy.

I actually do like Obama, though I have some strong disagreements w/ his policies. I don't love him though. Nor do I hate him with every fiber of my being, as you do.

Everything I listed is a positive in foreign policy; you ODSers don't want to give him credit for anything, but he DID end Iraq; he DID get Osama. His policies did work in places like Libya (an invasion just like Iraq!), and Egypt.

What about Syria? Like I told SF, there are still hot spots in the world, and their are still major problems.
 
Everything I listed is a positive in foreign policy; you ODSers don't want to give him credit for anything, but he DID end Iraq; he DID get Osama. His policies did work in places like Libya (an invasion just like Iraq!), and Egypt.

The above is quite comical... you constantly proclaim it is due to ODS. I gave him credit for Osama. The reason I didn't give him credit for Iraq is that he didn't do anything that led to the withdrawal. He followed through which is a good thing. But it is hardly a foreign policy win for him. Libyan policy... what exactly was his policy there?

Egypt... what did he do there? He praised Mubarak and then when the uprising swelled, he turned 180 degrees and told Mubarak to leave. I would love to see what else you think he did in Egypt.

As for other foreign policy wins/losses... part of that is enacting policy so things don't get worse. While no one can contain or defuse every situation, his policies with regards to Russia have been bad, with Iran have been bad, with Israel have been bad. Iran/Israel is going to escalate to war... his current policy doesn't seem to be doing anything to resolve the issue.
 
You do realize that people leave the board from time to time... don't you moron?

As for your nonsense... it is amusing watching you try to make Obama's role more significant than it was.

That is comic gold. He did what he normally does... he avoids being the leader. Because that way he can blame someone else if it fails. On Osama, he made the tough call... on Libya he just lobbed missiles at the whim of others.

As for Mubarak, Obama was the one that called Mubarak a force of stability in the middle east. So I would love to see the 'signals' you refer to of a change in policy. Because from my recollection (which could be wrong) it wasn't until the protests were in full swing that Obama changed tactics.

Obviously your ignorance and incapacity for retention means you can't remember all the times I have been critical of Bush's abysmal fiscal policy?

All signs are pointing that they are getting ever closer. Which is why Israel is getting so itchy and why oil prices are jumping up.

I am glad you recognize that your comment was dense. Preventing an attack HERE is domestic. Or are you going to pretend that anything that involves someone from a foreign country is 'foreign policy'???

The point Jarod is that if you feel we should stay to prevent a group from taking over that might be hostile to the US or support terrorist actions against the US, then should we not also care who is taking over in Iraq, Libya and Egypt?

No, you listed a bunch of nonsense. But since there is plenty more... please go on... list some more.

Jarod??? HELLLLLOOOOOOO
 
Back
Top