Islamic Militants poised to take over Iraq - Page 9 - The Orange Mane

DenverBrit · 06-13-2014, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

Do you think it's right to sponsor extremist radicals to overthrow legitimate governments?

Interesting question. Which legitimate governments are you thinking of?

pricejj · 06-13-2014, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZONA

Dude, you can't argue against him. He's just out to bash Democrat's. He says he's a fence walker but I've been reading through all of his posts and he's a die hard republican in sheeps clothing. All he does is bash anything Democrat and Obama. Never says 1 damn thing about something the right wing does wrong. Forget him.

Bush was the 2nd worst president in American history. Obama is the worst. Obama is the president now. I'm sick and tired of Socialist Progressives blaming Bush, because I know deep down you think you're policies are working and that if you get another 8 years with Hillary Clinton, we'll be in a Socialist Progressive utopia.

I'm here to help you move past the 'blame Bush' mantra, and realize that the Socialist Progressives are far worse than anything Bush did.

pricejj · 06-13-2014, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Interesting question. Which legitimate governments are you thinking of?

Ukraine for one.

Let's even extend this to countries that don't vote. Do you think it's wise to fund extremist radical warlords to overthrow existing stable governments like say in Egypt, Syria, and Somalia?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I don't pretend to have a great understand of foreign policy, but I know America has been aligning with, arming "bad" people for years regardless of political affiliation.

So, apparently you agree with this philosophy? If not, what do you propose we do about it?

DenverBrit · 06-13-2014, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

Ukraine for one.

That's what the communists, troofers and Gaffney claim.

Which other governments are you thinking of?

SonOfLe-loLang · 06-13-2014, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

Ukraine for one.

So, apparently you agree with this philosophy? If not, what do you propose we do about it?

I dont ****in know what to do about it, nor do I pretend to, nor will I ever be in a position to. My guess would be to stay the **** out of these quagmires.

Johnykbr · 06-13-2014, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Interesting question. Which legitimate governments are you thinking of?

If "legitimate" is being used in the diplomatic way, we had recognized the rights of Mubarak and Qadaffi to lead.

DenverBrit · 06-13-2014, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnykbr

If "legitimate" is being used in the diplomatic way, we had recognized the rights of Mubarak and Qadaffi to lead.

Qadafi was legit in the same sense as Saddam.

TonyR · 06-13-2014, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

I'm sick and tired of Socialist Progressives blaming Bush, because I know deep down you think you're policies are working and that if you get another 8 years with Hillary Clinton, we'll be in a Socialist Progressive utopia.

I don't see anybody suggesting current policies are working, or suggesting that 8 years of Hillary is the answer. Please show us a few posts doing this. What I do see is several posters like yourself angrily saying Obama is to blame and that progressives/liberals should stop blaming Bush (y'all are frighteningly obsessed with this). I've presented facts showing that the rest of the world wholly and clearly disagrees on who the worse president was, and I'm going to take that over your confirmation bias driven, spittle flecked, intemperate, partisan opinions.

SonOfLe-loLang · 06-13-2014, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR

I don't see anybody suggesting current policies are working, or suggesting that 8 years of Hillary is the answer. Please show us a few posts doing this. What I do see is several posters like yourself angrily saying Obama is to blame and that progressives/liberals should stop blaming Bush (y'all are frighteningly obsessed with this). I've presented facts showing that the rest of the world wholly and clearly disagrees on who the worse president was, and I'm going to take that over your confirmation bias driven, spittle flecked, intemperate, partisan opinions.

Obama is far far from perfect, but I have no clue how anyone can say he's honestly worse than Bush. Oof.

DenverBrit · 06-13-2014, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnykbr

If "legitimate" is being used in the diplomatic way, we had recognized the rights of Mubarak and Qadaffi to lead.

Forgot Mubarak.

He had been under pressure since the Iraq invasion to allow Egypt to become a Democracy, years of oppression and farcical elections led to his overthrow.

The last two administrations had pressured him to reform.

pricejj · 06-13-2014, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR

I don't see anybody suggesting current policies are working, or suggesting that 8 years of Hillary is the answer. Please show us a few posts doing this. What I do see is several posters like yourself angrily saying Obama is to blame and that progressives/liberals should stop blaming Bush (y'all are frighteningly obsessed with this). I've presented facts showing that the rest of the world wholly and clearly disagrees on who the worse president was, and I'm going to take that over your confirmation bias driven, spittle flecked, intemperate, partisan opinions.

Obama has publicly stated that the US should be more like Europe. So you bring up Obama approval rating numbers from Europe (presumably because his approval ratings in the US are so low).

What in the world does French public opinion have to do with what's best for the US? Of course they like Obama, they are Socialist just like he is.

pricejj · 06-13-2014, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Obama is far far from perfect, but I have no clue how anyone can say he's honestly worse than Bush. Oof.

Do you think debt is good or bad?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR

I don't see anybody suggesting current policies are working, or suggesting that 8 years of Hillary is the answer. Please show us a few posts doing this.

Cool, list who you have/will vote for in the following elections (assuming Hillary runs):

2008:
2012:
2016:

Johnykbr · 06-13-2014, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Qadafi was legit in the same sense as Saddam.

I said diplomatic, not moral. Either way they were both legitimized and recognized by the US.

SonOfLe-loLang · 06-13-2014, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

Obama has publicly stated that the US should be more like Europe. So you bring up Obama approval rating numbers from Europe (presumably because his approval ratings in the US are so low).

What in the world does French public opinion have to do with what's best for the US? Of course they like Obama, they are Socialist just like he is.

If Obama is a socialist, he's the worlds worst socialist.

pricejj · 06-13-2014, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

If Obama is a socialist, he's the worlds worst socialist.

How do you figure, he promotes a very similar agenda to Francois Hollande of France (leader of the French Socialist Party), as well as other European Socialist leaders?

SonOfLe-loLang · 06-13-2014, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

Do you think debt is good or bad?

Cool, list who you have/will vote for in the following elections (assuming Hillary runs):

2008:
2012:
2016:

I'm not an economist, but obviously governments can function with debt. And job creation should still be at the forefront.

SonOfLe-loLang · 06-13-2014, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

How do you figure, he promotes a very similar agenda to Francois Hollande of France (leader of the French Socialist Party), as well as other European Socialist leaders?

Does he? Because I see absolutely nothing socialist about how the Americans run a government. Hell even our new healthcare is just a giveaway to corporations. I'm so sick of having this argument with you. I get it, you hate obama. You hate any idea of public welfare. We can agree to disagree, just don't be such an a-hole about things you don't have a great grasp on.

TonyR · 06-13-2014, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

What in the world does French public opinion have to do with what's best for the US? Of course they like Obama, they are Socialist just like he is.

Interesting how you bring up France while leaving out Great Britain and Germany.

TonyR · 06-13-2014, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

Cool, list who you have/will vote for in the following elections (assuming Hillary runs):

2008:
2012:
2016:

2008: Obama. There was simply no other choice with Palin on the ticket, and McCain is certainly no prize himself.
2012: Obama. I suppose a case could be made for Romney but I didn't like the way he tacked extremely to the right. And I don't think things would be much better with him in charge.
2016: Let's wait and see who the opposition is. If the GOP puts a loser like Ted Cruz on the ballot then we'll once again be forced to elect the lesser of two evils. Sad that Hillary could possibly be our best bet. But since she's practically a neocon in many ways you should be happy.

pricejj · 06-13-2014, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I'm not an economist, but obviously governments can function with debt. And job creation should still be at the forefront.

1. Okay, so you don't think debt is bad. Obama has way more debt than Bush.
2. You somewhat apathetic to foreign policy. Obama voted for, extended, and started more wars than Bush.
3. Maybe you think healthcare costs were high under Bush? They're higher now under Obama.

Guess I'm not seeing how you still think Obama is better than Bush. Unless you think failing worse at everything is somehow better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Does he? Because I see absolutely nothing socialist about how the Americans run a government. Hell even our new healthcare is just a giveaway to corporations. I'm so sick of having this argument with you. I get it, you hate obama. You hate any idea of public welfare. We can agree to disagree, just don't be such an a-hole about things you don't have a great grasp on.

No, I don't hate any idea of public welfare. A safety net is fine, as is charity. Forcing everyone into a failing Socialist system however, is not the answer, and is not what the US was founded on, nor was it how the US became the freest, most prosperous country in the history of the world.

pricejj · 06-13-2014, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR

2008: Obama. There was simply no other choice with Palin on the ticket, and McCain is certainly no prize himself.
2012: Obama. I suppose a case could be made for Romney but I didn't like the way he tacked extremely to the right. And I don't think things would be much better with him in charge.
2016: Let's wait and see who the opposition is. If the GOP puts a loser like Ted Cruz on the ballot then we'll once again be forced to elect the lesser of two evils. Sad that Hillary could possibly be our best bet. But since she's practically a neocon in many ways you should be happy.

I'm against neocon's and have never voted for one. So you're statement is the opposite of the truth.

However, if you claim that none of the current policies are working, and Hillary Clinton voted for and took part in all the current policies, why would you vote for her?

ColoradoDarin · 06-13-2014, 11:44 AM

Obama (or at least his twitter person) said during the closing portion of the 2012 campaign...

From al-Qaeda to Russia to Iraq, Mitt Romney has not demonstrated that he meets the threshold to be Commander in Chief: http://t.co/5xlidqCe
— OFA TruthTeam (@OFATruthTeam) October 22, 2012

ColoradoDarin · 06-13-2014, 12:03 PM

RepentWalpurgis · 06-13-2014, 12:11 PM

^ ^ ^ ^

hahahahahahahaha

where's mr. flightsuit

kappys · 06-13-2014, 12:16 PM

Haven't read all the posts but I am wondering what the best alternative solutions are to Obama's feckless foreign policy

1) He should have armed the moderate rebels in Syria - maybe, or maybe all those arms would be squarely in the hands of Islamists just like many of the arms that we deployed for the Iraqi govt in Sunni Iraq. Honestly I tend to think the latter is more likely and more in keeping with the usual fate of arms that we send to such conflicts

2) Should never have left Iraq, i.e. boots on the ground. Granted boots on the ground would have stopped the ISIS advance at the costs of more American lives and American money. When superior armed and equipped Iraqi forces strip off their uniforms turn tail and run abandoning their arms to the advancing rebels it would have required American forces to pick up the fight.

3) Libya - boots on the ground again? I get the Benghazi debate sort of but I am still not sure what the great foreign policy strategy would have been that would have worked so well in Libya. A few air strikes aside the US was barely involved.

4) Egypt -

. The military, i.e. our old ally, is firmly back in command.

5) Russia -

. Again no military options. Are we suggesting that Obama is too feckless to get Europeans to can their own interests and seriously sanction Russia at the risk of torpedoing their own fragile economy over Ukraine and that Mitt Romney or John Mccain could have gotten them to go along with this plan?

Obama is no foreign policy mastermind but until I hear the foreign policies that would likely have worked in the above situations I will continue to consider them no win situations.

06-13-2014, 11:44 AM	#222
ColoradoDarin Busting off 2k Since 1986 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Wilson, NC Posts: 19,158	Obama (or at least his twitter person) said during the closing portion of the 2012 campaign... From al-Qaeda to Russia to Iraq, Mitt Romney has not demonstrated that he meets the threshold to be Commander in Chief: http://t.co/5xlidqCe — OFA TruthTeam (@OFATruthTeam) October 22, 2012

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-13-2014, 12:03 PM	#223
ColoradoDarin Busting off 2k Since 1986 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Wilson, NC Posts: 19,158

06-13-2014, 12:11 PM	#224
RepentWalpurgis Ring of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: denver Posts: 10,189	^ ^ ^ ^ hahahahahahahaha where's mr. flightsuit

06-13-2014, 12:16 PM	#225
kappys Ring of Famer “It will be of little avail to the Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6,100	Haven't read all the posts but I am wondering what the best alternative solutions are to Obama's feckless foreign policy 1) He should have armed the moderate rebels in Syria - maybe, or maybe all those arms would be squarely in the hands of Islamists just like many of the arms that we deployed for the Iraqi govt in Sunni Iraq. Honestly I tend to think the latter is more likely and more in keeping with the usual fate of arms that we send to such conflicts 2) Should never have left Iraq, i.e. boots on the ground. Granted boots on the ground would have stopped the ISIS advance at the costs of more American lives and American money. When superior armed and equipped Iraqi forces strip off their uniforms turn tail and run abandoning their arms to the advancing rebels it would have required American forces to pick up the fight. 3) Libya - boots on the ground again? I get the Benghazi debate sort of but I am still not sure what the great foreign policy strategy would have been that would have worked so well in Libya. A few air strikes aside the US was barely involved. 4) Egypt - . The military, i.e. our old ally, is firmly back in command. 5) Russia - . Again no military options. Are we suggesting that Obama is too feckless to get Europeans to can their own interests and seriously sanction Russia at the risk of torpedoing their own fragile economy over Ukraine and that Mitt Romney or John Mccain could have gotten them to go along with this plan? Obama is no foreign policy mastermind but until I hear the foreign policies that would likely have worked in the above situations I will continue to consider them no win situations.