Random Politics & Religion #00

Both are ignoring the other's involvement though. Jet is claiming that Obama is not responsible for the current situation in the Middle East.

Obama is mostly to blame on the current situation because his policies directed the current situation to what it is. Is Obama to blame on what was happening in Iraq prior to January 2009? No, and I don't think anyone will make that assertion (except that Obama's involvement in politics prior to POTUS involved being "present" in nearly all Senate hearings and votes). But to say that he is not responsible to the current situation is ludicrous at best.

This is all Warren Harding's fault! Guy collapses and dies in office. He should have been held responsible for that!

I told you twice already. But on that topic, why do you think Obama is doing such an outstanding job with the current situation that you have to defend him in your little rant of yours?

No, Jet is not ignoring Obama's failed policies. He's just not ignorant enough to blame *all* of the chaos on a single person's shoulders.

FFS man, I thought you were better than that.

What did you say? Lay out something coming close to a gameplan.

Example A:
Reinvade Iraq.
Directly engage ISIS, using Iraqi soldiers as support.
Rout ISIS.
Establish direct American control of the region.
Iraq 51st state. Establish brutal abolishment of religious divides.
Hand back Iraq to Iraqis in 150 years when they get their ***together.

No, you haven't said a damn thing other than "We need a real leader guys!" without so much as pointing to, or giving examples of people who could be a real leader.

It's fluff talk and you know it.

Secondly, Sparth isn't defending Obama, nor does he think he's doing an outstanding job, since he's had a ton of ***to talk smack about him in the past that you've conveniently ignored for the sake of your... current argument.

When we are talking about US policies towards the Middle East, there's really only one player involved....

We weren't talking about regional politics, we were talking about US policies towards those regional politics. I thought that was obvious.....

I opened my argument that Obama has essentially checked out on *directly* dealing with ISIS.

It's clear the man doesn't think the international support is there, any engagement with ISIS using US soldiers (barring spec ops) is going to be a *shitstorm* on both sides of the political fence and frankly Congress wouldn't have it. Say what you like, the US populace is not about to back another 10 year engagement in Syria/Iraq.

Further, Obama doesn't want his legacy tarnished by war. He ran as an anti-war guy and to leave office plunging 'Murica into another is more than I think he's willing to take. Better to let the next guy/gal pull the trigger or be forced into it.

Further, to go aid Assad after trashing the guy on the international stage would be a gigantic embarassment meaning that we've tied our hands in the Syrian Civil War. We been saying for years for Assad to step down then suddenly you're supporting him killing civs? It's not above America but even we have standards here.

There is no magic bullet here. No magic leadership. This is a series of bad decisions and the one you're willing to stomach is either more war or letting ISIS fester about until they do something that pushes the globe to act. We're just running teh clock atm.

Holy crap no. First, you contain or limit the ramifications of the failure as quickly and feasibly as possible. Then, you attempt to identify the failure(s) itself, then you identify the likely cause(s) for the failure, and only afterwards do you try to ensure it doesn't happen again (if necessary).

Now you're just being dense.
They aren't just *his* policies. They are also the policies of foreign affairs, among other branches of the government, which are run and organized by members who all vote differently, yet find the where-withal to support the best laid decisions from people who studied the regional politics before they even intervene.

I thought *that* was obvious to someone who should know better.

All the president really does, is approve those policies with his name on it. That said, the blame does *not* entirely sit on his shoulders. Then you have to consider that the current chaos still stems from previous engagements from previous US foreign policy, ergo, still can't blame *everything* on the current president, because he's had to react and respond, rather than simply take action, with the best interests for the country, diplomatic relationships at home and abroad, etc.

All of this, I thought would be obvious to you of all people, since I know for a fact, if it were a conservative president in office, you'd be saying the same damn thing.

Gain energy independence by becoming a net world oil exporter (drill baby drill, frack baby frack)

Declare all out war on the ISIS factions, moving in however many military assets we need to cripple the ideology.

Annihilate Iran's capacity to build nuclear energy and weapons.

Secure the allies to the US in the Pakistan government.


Alternatively we could also just ship all the offended libs into the region, they could infect it with their crippling political correctness.

Or we could just ship Nausi there. He could solve all the problems!

...and BR is the first to become unhinged.

Well, I would say you were there before me, but that requires being hinged in the first place.

Hey now, I'm pretty sure no one has called members of ISIS liberal. Since you seem to not want to be surrounded by mentally diseased people, sounds like a match made in <insert_preferred_religious_positive_afterlife_experience>!

ftfy :P (joke)

Ok then, I'll bite.

What would be the answer to the overall question:

Establish a real leader in charge of US policies towards foreign affairs. A real leader would be somebody who is able to understand international politics, cultural differences, and negotiations. Out of our current pool of "leaders" (I use this term very loosely in today's politics, as there are no leaders in Washington DC or any state government at all), nobody would fit the bill, so we have to expand our search towards somebody who understands such political and cultural differences and can negotiate with people, instead of creating conflict.

The top 3 people I can think of who can do the job are not US nationals, so they cannot be POTUS. The best person I know personally who deals with all 3 of the above would be Joe Gorder, but he wouldn't do that job, ever.

But assuming we have a real leader who can direct US policies towards foreign affairs, the next step is to recover parts of Iraq that have a strong ISIS presence. By doing so, we can recover some of the damage caused by those terrorists that we had a direct involvement from.

After that, we can then complete the training that was in place before Obama got wimpy and decided to abandon the region (yes, that is all on him) to save face in an election cycle. Complete training with armament on lease and help support the fight against the terrorists in the region.

While the training is commencing, have our real leader negotiate and settle with other countries in the region allowing us to fight ISIS and recover their lands from the terrorist group. We have some allies in the region, but we need to negotiate and compromise with the rest of the region, because we honestly have a singular enemy among ourselves. Iran may not see them as an enemy yet, but they will once they start turning against Iran in their crusade to control the region.

Hopefully we have at the time that the training is complete and our troops, under the aid of drones and actual working gear, help keep the terrorist at bay (not really taking over, but actually keeping them from creating more damage to the region than what they are doing currently), we can let the Middle East nations take back the region they have (or our allies in the region) and solve the problem themselves. Let them fight it out and keep us from having to come solve their problems for them.

Idealistic at the very least, but one that I think we can all agree with, letting the locals deal with local problems and ask for our help if needed, but not have us fight their wars for them. Fix our mistakes but don't do their job for them.

Or we could just cover our eyes/ears and permit the second coming of the Nazis to blossom. I'm sure the holocaust couldn't have been as bad as everyone thinks it is.

I'd +1 this, but we don't want him either.

We'll keep Cruz if you take back Beiber.

We're already poised for this without the frack boom due to technology making previously unviable reserves playable. Further, oil is still traded on a global market.


So we're going to war in Nigeria, Mali and Indonesia?


So we're declaring war on Iran then? Because 'taking out' their nuclear facilities is how you declare war. A baptism of fire as it was.


We already pay the Pakistanis tidy sums to play our game. The problem has always been the remote tribes living in parts of the country the Pakistani barely control giving us trouble / sheltering jihadis. You know, like that area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Insults! If your argument was strong, you wouldn't need to stoop to childish insults when I've been more than reasonable.

Must be my political correctness. Is there some kind ointment for it? Something the government could pay for to cure me?

So in summary Nausi:
-More fracking and oil which has *** to do with IS.
-Unilaterally declare war in Nigeria, Mali and in Indonesia against IS. In addition to Iraq / Syria.
(A ground war on 5 fronts)
-Declare war on Iran by initiating an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state with (zero) repercussions. (war #6)
-Secure Pakistani goodwill through payments which we make already.
-Insult anyone who thinks this plan isn't genius.

So, where we getting the money and manpower from? Because six wars don't feed themselves and we damn well don't have enough forces to engage in full scale ground wars.

What?

Sweeten the deal a bit more. He still has court dates in the US that may keep him from actually performing depending on how the judges rule.

Naw, as much as I disagree with you, you aren't that bad. Neither is Bloodrose.

Are we going to institute a draft for those 6 ground wars? Are you ready to be the first man to commit to being a GI in this all-out campaign against 6 countries at once?


Where is the money going to come from.