Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama sent billions to Iran. No reason to deny it.See the problem with your propaganda is many people on this board have actually been paying attention to what's been going on. We arent all puppets being spoon fed talking points from wingnut media outlets. The points you are trying to make are extremely distorted and pointed accusation that don't even come close to reflecting the full scope or realities of any of the situations you are bringing up. You either know that and consciously the spread the lies because you are a partisan hater or you really believe they are true, which would make you a misinformed puppetObama shipped $500 million in weapons to the moderates, aka ISIS. He also gave at least $12 billion to Iran. I have posted all the links multiple times. Obama was also the same one that lied about chemical weapons in Syria. Also, lets not forget about his magic reset button. Everything he attempted to do ended in dramatic failure.Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?You are wrong, but that is nothing new.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.
Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.
So I'm not following the thread of your argument. Obama did a lot of stupid bad deals. So therefore I shouldn't notice that President Trump lies and changes positions like I change socks?Obama sent billions to Iran. No reason to deny it.See the problem with your propaganda is many people on this board have actually been paying attention to what's been going on. We arent all puppets being spoon fed talking points from wingnut media outlets. The points you are trying to make are extremely distorted and pointed accusation that don't even come close to reflecting the full scope or realities of any of the situations you are bringing up. You either know that and consciously the spread the lies because you are a partisan hater or you really believe they are true, which would make you a misinformed puppetObama shipped $500 million in weapons to the moderates, aka ISIS. He also gave at least $12 billion to Iran. I have posted all the links multiple times. Obama was also the same one that lied about chemical weapons in Syria. Also, lets not forget about his magic reset button. Everything he attempted to do ended in dramatic failure.Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?You are wrong, but that is nothing new.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.
Iran May Have Received as Much as $33.6 Billion in Cash From U.S.
He bragged about sending weapons to Muslims
Team Obama has spent $500M to train ‘four or five’ Syrian rebels
And we all know he lied about chemical weapons in Syria.
With Syria chemical attack, another Obama foreign policy deal fails hard
That's not true. Obama hired a bunch of terrorists. That was his reaction.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.
We were discussing doctrine. I was comparing the last President to the current one. Obama bowed to the Russians and then lied about chemical weapons. Trump then enforced Obama's red line. Seems silly for libs to have a hissy fit about an Obama doctrine.So I'm not following the thread of your argument. Obama did a lot of stupid bad deals. So therefore I shouldn't notice that President Trump lies and changes positions like I change socks?Obama sent billions to Iran. No reason to deny it.See the problem with your propaganda is many people on this board have actually been paying attention to what's been going on. We arent all puppets being spoon fed talking points from wingnut media outlets. The points you are trying to make are extremely distorted and pointed accusation that don't even come close to reflecting the full scope or realities of any of the situations you are bringing up. You either know that and consciously the spread the lies because you are a partisan hater or you really believe they are true, which would make you a misinformed puppetObama shipped $500 million in weapons to the moderates, aka ISIS. He also gave at least $12 billion to Iran. I have posted all the links multiple times. Obama was also the same one that lied about chemical weapons in Syria. Also, lets not forget about his magic reset button. Everything he attempted to do ended in dramatic failure.Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?You are wrong, but that is nothing new.
Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.
Iran May Have Received as Much as $33.6 Billion in Cash From U.S.
He bragged about sending weapons to Muslims
Team Obama has spent $500M to train ‘four or five’ Syrian rebels
And we all know he lied about chemical weapons in Syria.
With Syria chemical attack, another Obama foreign policy deal fails hard
We were discussing doctrine. I was comparing the last President to the current one. Obama bowed to the Russians and then lied about chemical weapons. Trump then enforced Obama's red line. Seems silly for libs to have a hissy fit about an Obama doctrine.So I'm not following the thread of your argument. Obama did a lot of stupid bad deals. So therefore I shouldn't notice that President Trump lies and changes positions like I change socks?Obama sent billions to Iran. No reason to deny it.See the problem with your propaganda is many people on this board have actually been paying attention to what's been going on. We arent all puppets being spoon fed talking points from wingnut media outlets. The points you are trying to make are extremely distorted and pointed accusation that don't even come close to reflecting the full scope or realities of any of the situations you are bringing up. You either know that and consciously the spread the lies because you are a partisan hater or you really believe they are true, which would make you a misinformed puppetObama shipped $500 million in weapons to the moderates, aka ISIS. He also gave at least $12 billion to Iran. I have posted all the links multiple times. Obama was also the same one that lied about chemical weapons in Syria. Also, lets not forget about his magic reset button. Everything he attempted to do ended in dramatic failure.Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?
Iran May Have Received as Much as $33.6 Billion in Cash From U.S.
He bragged about sending weapons to Muslims
Team Obama has spent $500M to train ‘four or five’ Syrian rebels
And we all know he lied about chemical weapons in Syria.
With Syria chemical attack, another Obama foreign policy deal fails hard
When the hell was that the obie doctrine? Have you been asleep the last eight years?The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show
3. Act like it is no big deal....
Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done
Then you don't draw a red line and make a threat you have no intention of enforcing.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.
That's not true. Obama hired a bunch of terrorists. That was his reaction.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.
When the hell was that the obie doctrine? Have you been asleep the last eight years?The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show
3. Act like it is no big deal....
Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done
The obie doctrine was...
1. Capitulate.
2. Throw in some drone attack to make it look like you aren't capitulating.
3. Capitulate further with threats you will never carry out.
4. Release your enemies back to the battlefield.
5. Tell Americans how they are on the wrong side of history for not letting these people do as they please.
What does this have to do with the point that I made in the OP? Just a need to dwell on the past rather than think about today? If that's the case, shouldn't we go further back? Why not debate Seward's Folly?Then you don't draw a red line and make a threat you have no intention of enforcing.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.
How is that over simplifying? One President draws red lines he will never enforce and the world knows it. Another just enforces without the fake red line. It seems pretty simple to me.That's not true. Obama hired a bunch of terrorists. That was his reaction.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.When the hell was that the obie doctrine? Have you been asleep the last eight years?The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show
3. Act like it is no big deal....
Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done
The obie doctrine was...
1. Capitulate.
2. Throw in some drone attack to make it look like you aren't capitulating.
3. Capitulate further with threats you will never carry out.
4. Release your enemies back to the battlefield.
5. Tell Americans how they are on the wrong side of history for not letting these people do as they please.
It's conceivable that you're oversimplifying in order to: (a) make a political argument; (b) try to be funny; or (c) not think.
No intent on enforcing? Obama went to congress in 2013 for approval to attack Syria and was denied. So what exactly are you talking about?Then you don't draw a red line and make a threat you have no intention of enforcing.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.
How is that over simplifying? One President draws red lines he will never enforce and the world knows it. Another just enforces without the fake red line. It seems pretty simple to me.That's not true. Obama hired a bunch of terrorists. That was his reaction.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.When the hell was that the obie doctrine? Have you been asleep the last eight years?The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show
3. Act like it is no big deal....
Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done
The obie doctrine was...
1. Capitulate.
2. Throw in some drone attack to make it look like you aren't capitulating.
3. Capitulate further with threats you will never carry out.
4. Release your enemies back to the battlefield.
5. Tell Americans how they are on the wrong side of history for not letting these people do as they please.
It's conceivable that you're oversimplifying in order to: (a) make a political argument; (b) try to be funny; or (c) not think.
Did you not make the point Trump will react quickly to problems? I thought you were praising him for that. And it's not really a stretch to compare the previous failure of a president to a current one as if it's dwelling on the past.What does this have to do with the point that I made in the OP? Just a need to dwell on the past rather than think about today? If that's the case, shouldn't we go further back? Why not debate Seward's Folly?Then you don't draw a red line and make a threat you have no intention of enforcing.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.
Did you not make the point Trump will react quickly to problems? I thought you were praising him for that. And it's not really a stretch to compare the previous failure of a president to a current one as if it's dwelling on the past.What does this have to do with the point that I made in the OP? Just a need to dwell on the past rather than think about today? If that's the case, shouldn't we go further back? Why not debate Seward's Folly?Then you don't draw a red line and make a threat you have no intention of enforcing.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:
React.
The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.
The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.
Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.
You seem to be taking issue with the red line portion of the conversation. When confronting an adversary you have one of two choices. Make a threat that if he does something you don't like you will kick his ass. Or just kick his ass. Here's the difference. When obie made a threat nobody took it seriously. He never meant it. Trump on the other hand may just blind side you.
Is what obie did not relevant to what we have to deal with today? The rest of the world and the situations needing dealt with did not all get taken care of by a hillary reset button when Trump took office. You can't just start at all things are equal with a change of the presidency. The previous one caused a lot of problems the current one has to handle.How is that over simplifying? One President draws red lines he will never enforce and the world knows it. Another just enforces without the fake red line. It seems pretty simple to me.That's not true. Obama hired a bunch of terrorists. That was his reaction.Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.
How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.When the hell was that the obie doctrine? Have you been asleep the last eight years?The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show
3. Act like it is no big deal....
Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done
The obie doctrine was...
1. Capitulate.
2. Throw in some drone attack to make it look like you aren't capitulating.
3. Capitulate further with threats you will never carry out.
4. Release your enemies back to the battlefield.
5. Tell Americans how they are on the wrong side of history for not letting these people do as they please.
It's conceivable that you're oversimplifying in order to: (a) make a political argument; (b) try to be funny; or (c) not think.
Let's try logic:
1. I am not talking about Obama. I am talking about the current administration. What Obama did is as relevant as what episode of Taxi was the one where Andy Kauffman was introduced.
2. Obama's foreign policy appeared to be feckless and therefore unstrategic. Deeply so. President Trump's foreign policy appears to be unplanned and reactive and therefore potentially unstrategic. The fact that each of these statements is true does not mean that one of these statements negates the other. They can both be true with inconsistency.
