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.
I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?
Do you think considering the public hysteria on the gas attack that non action was a viable option?
If Trump is so serious why hasn't he taken out Kim jong un or Assad?
How are you separating one from the other? Doesn't the current one inherit the previous ones policies?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.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.
Yes I agree Obama was feckless. Yes I agree that being reactive with enemies is good. And I also think that being unpredictable could cost you with allies more than it might gain you with enemies. That's my opinion. You need to bring up the past, that's your right. If it makes you feel better to know that the last President was worse than the current one, then you probably sleep better at night than I do.
Edited to add: Being reactive can also make enemies out of people and nations that might be better simply ignored.
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.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.
I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?
Do you think considering the public hysteria on the gas attack that non action was a viable option?
Why was the reaction to bomb the airport? What other actions were taken BEFORE the decision to bomb. What was considered?
Once the decision was made to bomb the airport to prevent more gas attacks, why wasn't the airport destroyed?
A reasoned logical non-blaming answer might be interesting. Something like: Yeah, I agree that President Trump is certainly looking decisive and I really hope that the strategic end is a good one.I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?
Do you think considering the public hysteria on the gas attack that non action was a viable option?
Why was the reaction to bomb the airport? What other actions were taken BEFORE the decision to bomb. What was considered?
Once the decision was made to bomb the airport to prevent more gas attacks, why wasn't the airport destroyed?
Would any possible answer to any of those questions satisfy you, or would your response to ANY answer boil down to "Trump Bad"?
A reasoned logical non-blaming answer might be interesting. Something like: Yeah, I agree that President Trump is certainly looking decisive and I really hope that the strategic end is a good one.I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?
Do you think considering the public hysteria on the gas attack that non action was a viable option?
Why was the reaction to bomb the airport? What other actions were taken BEFORE the decision to bomb. What was considered?
Once the decision was made to bomb the airport to prevent more gas attacks, why wasn't the airport destroyed?
Would any possible answer to any of those questions satisfy you, or would your response to ANY answer boil down to "Trump Bad"?
You probably need to go back to 500AD to find the beginning of the problem. But you can't ignore what the last eight years has brought us either. Obie blamed Bush for the problems in the middle east. Yet he did nothing to correct them. So you want to blame Bush for that? That's fine with me. Can we give Trump the same excuse? I don't think there is any chance we will see a civilized middle east in our lifetimes. What we can do is make sure they keep their crazy asses over there and kill a bunch when we get a chance to. The dumbest thing we can do is try to appease them. That is the difference.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.When the hell was that the obie doctrine? Have you been asleep the last eight years?
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.
Fair enough, but don't you need to go back further than Obama if you are going to start to blame people for the situation in the Middle East? Does it go back to Dubya? Does it go back to Yom Kippur War? Does it go back to Churchill's partition after WWI? Does it go back to Masada? Or does it stop neatly in 2008 because you are enraged at Obama?
A reasoned logical non-blaming answer might be interesting. Something like: Yeah, I agree that President Trump is certainly looking decisive and I really hope that the strategic end is a good one.I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?
Do you think considering the public hysteria on the gas attack that non action was a viable option?
Why was the reaction to bomb the airport? What other actions were taken BEFORE the decision to bomb. What was considered?
Once the decision was made to bomb the airport to prevent more gas attacks, why wasn't the airport destroyed?
Would any possible answer to any of those questions satisfy you, or would your response to ANY answer boil down to "Trump Bad"?
I think the vast majority of the people attacking Trump are actually not interested in any such answer.
THey are just making hay, at the President's expense, and don't care if in doing so they are effecting policy. NO matter how bad the effects they produce.
You probably need to go back to 500AD to find the beginning of the problem. But you can't ignore what the last eight years has brought us either. Obie blamed Bush for the problems in the middle east. Yet he did nothing to correct them. So you want to blame Bush for that? That's fine with me. Can we give Trump the same excuse? I don't think there is any chance we will see a civilized middle east in our lifetimes. What we can do is make sure they keep their crazy asses over there and kill a bunch when we get a chance to. The dumbest thing we can do is try to appease them. That is the difference.[/QUOTEIs 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.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.
Fair enough, but don't you need to go back further than Obama if you are going to start to blame people for the situation in the Middle East? Does it go back to Dubya? Does it go back to Yom Kippur War? Does it go back to Churchill's partition after WWI? Does it go back to Masada? Or does it stop neatly in 2008 because you are enraged at Obama?
The Missouri Doctrine: Blame Obama. That's cool. I thought he was a terrible president but I judged him by his actions, not by how he compared to Dubya. Now I am judging President Trump and am hopeful and worried both. You seem to be blissfully happy that President Trump will end well for the US. I sincerely and utterly hope you are 100% correct. It's my right as a citizen to be worried. It's your right to be blissful.
More Matthew lies as usual. Here are the actual facts...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
Nobody said I was blissful. I do think he's doing the right thing here though. Didn't we spend eight years blaming W for everything obie got wrong? Why is obie outside of that comparison? Is it because everything he did was equally as bad or worse?You probably need to go back to 500AD to find the beginning of the problem. But you can't ignore what the last eight years has brought us either. Obie blamed Bush for the problems in the middle east. Yet he did nothing to correct them. So you want to blame Bush for that? That's fine with me. Can we give Trump the same excuse? I don't think there is any chance we will see a civilized middle east in our lifetimes. What we can do is make sure they keep their crazy asses over there and kill a bunch when we get a chance to. The dumbest thing we can do is try to appease them. That is the difference.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.
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.
Fair enough, but don't you need to go back further than Obama if you are going to start to blame people for the situation in the Middle East? Does it go back to Dubya? Does it go back to Yom Kippur War? Does it go back to Churchill's partition after WWI? Does it go back to Masada? Or does it stop neatly in 2008 because you are enraged at Obama?
The Missouri Doctrine: Blame Obama. That's cool. I thought he was a terrible president but I judged him by his actions, not by how he compared to Dubya. Now I am judging President Trump and am hopeful and worried both. You seem to be blissfully happy that President Trump will end well for the US. I sincerely and utterly hope you are 100% correct. It's my right as a citizen to be worried. It's your right to be blissful.
Why are you ignoring my post? You say Obama had no intent of enforcing the red line but completely ignore the fact that he brought an attack plan to congress in 2013. What say you?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.
So he didn't do anything. He used the congress as a reason to not follow through. He could have done the same thing Trump did but was covering his ass. I got a pen and I got a phone pussed out when the chips were down. Trump doesn't seem to have this problem.Why are you ignoring my post? You say Obama had no intent of enforcing the red line but completely ignore the fact that he brought an attack plan to congress in 2013. What say you?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.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons - Wikipedia
Yeah, that response you just gave shows that you have no understanding of the differentiating factors in the two situations. Obama acted unilaterally against Libya and it was controversial. He had no UN support for the Syria attack and overwhelming pressure from our leadership to take the syria response to congress. He acted democratically and presented a plan to fire tomohawk missles at Syria but congress shut it down. Now you blame Obama for not indenting in enforcing the red line? You obviously don't understand what's going on or are two blinded by partisan rage. There is plenty to critique about Obamas forgein policy but let's deal with reality. These conversations are so much better when we can actually discuss facts.So he didn't do anything. He used the congress as a reason to not follow through. He could have done the same thing Trump did but was covering his ass. I got a pen and I got a phone pussed out when the chips were down. Trump doesn't seem to have this problem.Why are you ignoring my post? You say Obama had no intent of enforcing the red line but completely ignore the fact that he brought an attack plan to congress in 2013. What say you?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.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.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons - Wikipedia
The fact is obie set a red line he never intended to enforce and when it came down to doing it or not he ran to congress for some cover where he knew he would not get the support.Yeah, that response you just gave shows that you have no understanding of the differentiating factors in the two situations. Obama acted unilaterally against Libya and it was controversial. He had no UN support for the Syria attack and overwhelming pressure from our leadership to take the syria response to congress. He acted democratically and presented a plan to fire tomohawk missles at Syria but congress shut it down. Now you blame Obama for not indenting in enforcing the red line? You obviously don't understand what's going on or are two blinded by partisan rage. There is plenty to critique about Obamas forgein policy but let's deal with reality. These conversations are so much better when we can actually discuss facts.So he didn't do anything. He used the congress as a reason to not follow through. He could have done the same thing Trump did but was covering his ass. I got a pen and I got a phone pussed out when the chips were down. Trump doesn't seem to have this problem.Why are you ignoring my post? You say Obama had no intent of enforcing the red line but completely ignore the fact that he brought an attack plan to congress in 2013. What say you?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.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons - Wikipedia
Nobody said I was blissful. I do think he's doing the right thing here though. Didn't we spend eight years blaming W for everything obie got wrong? Why is obie outside of that comparison? Is it because everything he did was equally as bad or worse?You probably need to go back to 500AD to find the beginning of the problem. But you can't ignore what the last eight years has brought us either. Obie blamed Bush for the problems in the middle east. Yet he did nothing to correct them. So you want to blame Bush for that? That's fine with me. Can we give Trump the same excuse? I don't think there is any chance we will see a civilized middle east in our lifetimes. What we can do is make sure they keep their crazy asses over there and kill a bunch when we get a chance to. The dumbest thing we can do is try to appease them. That is the difference.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.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.
Fair enough, but don't you need to go back further than Obama if you are going to start to blame people for the situation in the Middle East? Does it go back to Dubya? Does it go back to Yom Kippur War? Does it go back to Churchill's partition after WWI? Does it go back to Masada? Or does it stop neatly in 2008 because you are enraged at Obama?
The Missouri Doctrine: Blame Obama. That's cool. I thought he was a terrible president but I judged him by his actions, not by how he compared to Dubya. Now I am judging President Trump and am hopeful and worried both. You seem to be blissfully happy that President Trump will end well for the US. I sincerely and utterly hope you are 100% correct. It's my right as a citizen to be worried. It's your right to be blissful.
I am hoping Trump does better because the last guy was shit. Is that blissful?
The Missouri Doctrine...Show me.
The GOP congress never intended to allow President Obama to enforce his red line in the sand!!!The fact is obie set a red line he never intended to enforce and when it came down to doing it or not he ran to congress for some cover where he knew he would not get the support.Yeah, that response you just gave shows that you have no understanding of the differentiating factors in the two situations. Obama acted unilaterally against Libya and it was controversial. He had no UN support for the Syria attack and overwhelming pressure from our leadership to take the syria response to congress. He acted democratically and presented a plan to fire tomohawk missles at Syria but congress shut it down. Now you blame Obama for not indenting in enforcing the red line? You obviously don't understand what's going on or are two blinded by partisan rage. There is plenty to critique about Obamas forgein policy but let's deal with reality. These conversations are so much better when we can actually discuss facts.So he didn't do anything. He used the congress as a reason to not follow through. He could have done the same thing Trump did but was covering his ass. I got a pen and I got a phone pussed out when the chips were down. Trump doesn't seem to have this problem.Why are you ignoring my post? You say Obama had no intent of enforcing the red line but completely ignore the fact that he brought an attack plan to congress in 2013. What say you?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.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons - Wikipedia
I love how you double up on your idiocracy. Obama set a red line, he went to congress with an attack plan to enforce that line, congress voted No. The blame is shared between obama and congress for not being able to make a deal and do the right thing which would have been to respond. Your characterization of the situation is an outright lieThe fact is obie set a red line he never intended to enforce and when it came down to doing it or not he ran to congress for some cover where he knew he would not get the support.Yeah, that response you just gave shows that you have no understanding of the differentiating factors in the two situations. Obama acted unilaterally against Libya and it was controversial. He had no UN support for the Syria attack and overwhelming pressure from our leadership to take the syria response to congress. He acted democratically and presented a plan to fire tomohawk missles at Syria but congress shut it down. Now you blame Obama for not indenting in enforcing the red line? You obviously don't understand what's going on or are two blinded by partisan rage. There is plenty to critique about Obamas forgein policy but let's deal with reality. These conversations are so much better when we can actually discuss facts.So he didn't do anything. He used the congress as a reason to not follow through. He could have done the same thing Trump did but was covering his ass. I got a pen and I got a phone pussed out when the chips were down. Trump doesn't seem to have this problem.Why are you ignoring my post? You say Obama had no intent of enforcing the red line but completely ignore the fact that he brought an attack plan to congress in 2013. What say you?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.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons - Wikipedia
