Obama and the recent past

[JerrySeinfeld]

Let's look ahead.

Afghanistan: Obama may well be able to move troops gradually from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Iran: If he does "talk" with Iran, he's doing so from a position of relative strength, no? Perhaps not 2 years ago, but right now. Iraq is in a state of relative peace. Granted, it's fragile, but the militants have retreated. The sunni triangle is remarkable safe. The level of violence is at all time lows. Saddam has been deposed. The americans are in control. The insurgency (largely supported, funded an armed by Iran) is, at least for now, squashed.

The Mid-East: A better, stronger presence of liberty and western democracy than in any previous decade.

Given the success in Iraq, the west is in a stronger, more confident position to win in Afghanistan.

It appears that Obama's position as leader of the US is actually quite strong going into any future negotiations or troop movements in the region. It also appears that, as opposed to the play-time faux "peace" to which we have been treated in previous administrations (we've all seen the phoney "peace" photo-ops on the white house lawn term after term), what President Bush has finally and mercifully done is smash the faux-peace and get on with the long, ugly and difficult business of actually fighting for, creating and defending the institutions of liberty.

It is this kind of strength and leadership in the face of unpopularity that:

1. Has finally started a new beginning in the mid-east (for which Obama will undoubtedly get much credit)

and

2. Will forever place George W Bush as one of the greatest and strongest Presidents in our history

[eyeball]

what President Bush has finally and mercifully done is smash the faux-peace and get on with the long, ugly and difficult business of actually fighting for, creating and defending the institutions of liberty.

I emphasized the word ugly to reflect the fact he lied, tortured and disregarded human rights every step of the way - in the name of liberty no less. These are the legacies of the poorest and weakest President in your history.

The foundations G. W. Bush laid are made of shit and whatever is built on these it will only be as good as the foundations under it.

OTOH if Obama were to construct a towering monument in Iraq to the countless numbers of innocent people America has killed there and if he were to go bow before that and beg their forgiveness...that would be worth recording in the history books.

[Guest American Woman]

I emphasized the word ugly to reflect the fact he lied, tortured and disregarded human rights every step of the way - in the name of liberty no less. These are the legacies of the poorest and weakest President in your history.

I agree with you. But for the record, "Jerry Seinfeld" is Canadian, not American.

Edited November 11, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

...It appears that Obama's position as leader of the US is actually quite strong going into any future negotiations or troop movements in the region. It also appears that, as opposed to the play-time faux "peace" to which we have been treated in previous administrations (we've all seen the phoney "peace" photo-ops on the white house lawn term after term), what President Bush has finally and mercifully done is smash the faux-peace and get on with the long, ugly and difficult business of actually fighting for, creating and defending the institutions of liberty.

Spot on post....the Bush Adminstration seized upon the moment to rush the net and break the vollying cycle of containment and acceptable level of misery for little or no change to the landscape. It was the natural progression of American power in the region begun many years earlier and accelerated by events in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Like President Truman, George W. Bush will leave office with low approval ratings now, only to be vindicated later for moving the ball down the field, even at great cost.

That a President Obama would benefit from such a "good cop - bad cop" dynamic is welcomed. I don't recall that the Egyptians specifically, or Arabs in general protested much when an American president threatened to do the same to Britain and France during the Suez Crisis.

It is this kind of strength and leadership in the face of unpopularity that:

1. Has finally started a new beginning in the mid-east (for which Obama will undoubtedly get much credit)

and

2. Will forever place George W Bush as one of the greatest and strongest Presidents in our history

US presidents get paid to make tough decisions...right or wrong....we have no need for someone who would do neither.

[Moonlight Graham]

Afghanistan: Obama may well be able to move troops gradually from Iraq to Afghanistan.

If the U.S. wished to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, most of the troops in Iraq should have been in Afghanistan in the first place. Obama now has to play catch-up in Afghanistan, when most of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are in Pakistan now anyways.

Iran: If he does "talk" with Iran, he's doing so from a position of relative strength, no?

Regarding Iran, Bush has severely deepened this problem. If you were the Iranian gov't, and a massive military power invaded 2 neighbour countries located directly to the left and right of you, wouldn't you be strongly concerned that you'd be next? Wouldn't you want to produce some nukes to avoid this? The entire "pre-emption" philosophy behind the invasion of Iraq even worsens the problem, given that Iran knows that it doesn't even have to shoot a fire-cracker in order to be invaded.

Lets also not forget a missile-shield being built in Europe in order to "defend against a nuclear Iran", which has ruffled the Russian fur.

The Mid-East: A better, stronger presence of liberty and western democracy than in any previous decade.

Better? Doubtful.

Stronger? At what cost? Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, thousands of casualties to Western soldiers (both physically & psychologically), a deepened resentment/hatred toward the west among Arabs, a defiant Iran, steeper oil prices, and a world of nations that went from sympathizing the U.S. after 9/11 to despising it.

Quite the cost for "liberty".

Given the success in Iraq, the west is in a stronger, more confident position to win in Afghanistan.

Possibly.

2. Will forever place George W Bush as one of the greatest and strongest Presidents in our history

I highly doubt that. Bush's final legacy is up in the air due to what's happening in the middle east. His legacy could worsen or get better depending on how time plays itself out. However, nothing about time can change the lies made that were responsible for the Iraq war & the torture/human rights abuses under his admin, as well as his response to Katrina and the fact that the greatest economic purge in 60 years came under his watch.

The middle-east needs to become a lovely land of licorice & lollipops before Bush is ever considered a good President.

[bush_cheney2004]

If the U.S. wished to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, most of the troops in Iraq should have been in Afghanistan in the first place. Obama now has to play catch-up in Afghanistan, when most of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are in Pakistan now anyways.

The US did invade Afghanistan...with far more troops than nations who either supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq. Canada didn't show up until 2002, and even then not in full numbers (if it was so important).

Regarding Iran, Bush has severely deepened this problem. If you were the Iranian gov't, and a massive military power invaded 2 neighbour countries located directly to the left and right of you, wouldn't you be strongly concerned that you'd be next? Wouldn't you want to produce some nukes to avoid this? The entire "pre-emption" philosophy behind the invasion of Iraq even worsens the problem, given that Iran knows that it doesn't even have to shoot a fire-cracker in order to be invaded.

But that was one of the objectives...to "deepen the problem" and force a confrontation. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein pre-dates the Bush Administration by many years, and was a matter of US Public Law passed in 1998.

Lets also not forget a missile-shield being built in Europe in order to "defend against a nuclear Iran", which has ruffled the Russian fur.

Better? Doubtful.

Better for who? Similiar complaints were heard in the early 1980's when President Reagan deployed Pershing II's and cruise missiles in Europe...which is better.

Stronger? At what cost? Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, thousands of casualties to Western soldiers (both physically & psychologically), a deepened resentment/hatred toward the west among Arabs, a defiant Iran, steeper oil prices, and a world of nations that went from sympathizing the U.S. after 9/11 to despising it.

Quite the cost for "liberty".

...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty....John F. Kennedy

Edited November 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union - many persons in high positions privatized themselves - I really find it hard to believe that nukes were not sold to Iran years ago - I would surmise that they already have them - maybe it's the delivery system that is waining? Nukes are all over the damned place and America knows that - the potential conflict with Iran is not about nukes. It is much like the intrusive blood testing on a drug addicted father who has some real nice designer kids that lawyer want to sell - They hate to admit of having prior knowledge to the fact that Iran has had nukes for sometime and they did nothing about it because Russia had been taken over by crooks at the same time as the USA was over thrown by crooks --- so what's the deal - buisness as usual for the unimaginative enterprisers that can't come up with anything smarter than convensional weapons sales to generate wealth...whole thing stinks

[JerrySeinfeld]

However, nothing about time can change the lies made that were responsible for the Iraq war & the torture/human rights abuses under his admin, as well as his response to Katrina and the fact that the greatest economic purge in 60 years came under his watch.

Let me quickly address Katrina. I believe the backlash toward Bush re: Katrina is far overdone. From what I have read and seen on TV regarding the response to Katrina, the Governor or Louisiana, a Democrat, and the Mayor of New Orleans, a Democrat was far more responsible in law for a quick and accurate response to the conditions on the ground including a more thorough evacuation.

You can't blame GW Bush for the levees breaking, and what occured afterward was very difficult to contain, given the disease riddled waters and live power lines in the water. There were organizational breakdowns on almost every level, but particularly at the local and state level with respcet to the police, fire resuce and national guard (governors responsibility). The only reason Bush has been held to such account is because

1. Due to Bush Derangement Syndrome, he's the fall guy for just about everything that has gone wrong in the past 8 years regadrless of accuracy.

and

2. When it came time for the Mayor and the Governor to act, they did nothing, and instead passed the buck - and the blame - up the chain of "power". But they waited long enough to do so that it looked like the upper chains of power were to blame.

As for "torture and human rights abuses", I think this is a farce and an issue that needs to be talked about more. For example, take a look at ABU GRAIB prison. This was such a minor deal. On the day after we honoured our veterans from ALL wars, you don't think wars throughout our history have gotten messy and ugly? The fact that we have an instant information age has brought home some of this ugliness that wars bring. However, I don't fault our soldiers or place this war in some other "terrible" category not reserved for the other wars our great nations have fought. I believe this kind of thing occurs in all wars.

What IS terrible is that we are expected - by our own citizens no less - to fight a "humanitarian, clean" war with one hand tied behind our backs while we no longer fight an enemy who respects any aspect of the geneva convention - including HIDING IN CIVILIAN AREAS FOR PROTECTION, kidnapping civilians as hostages, refusing to wear uniforms identifying them as combatants, etc etc etc.

If the enemy is going to fight dirty, we have to respond in kind.

The real issue that ABU GRAIB prison raised isn't the "horrid" behavior of our soldiers. WHat it did is highlight the willingness of a nation to have absolutely no intetinal fortitude and to choose defeat over victory due to one or two lousy images.

It's really the polar opposite of the Images of the Iwo Jima flag raising. See - in the past nations rallied around images of victory - false or otherwise.

Today, they rally aruond images of defeat - false or otherwise...and then go out and vote for that defeat.

Edited November 12, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[PhantomCowboy]

Yes, lets look ahead to "change", after all, the more things "change" the more they.....?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

[Sir Bandelot]

Canada didn't show up until 2002, and even then not in full numbers (if it was so important).

It is important, our troops are dieing there too.

[GostHacked]

The US did invade Afghanistan...with far more troops than nations who either supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq. Canada didn't show up until 2002, and even then not in full numbers (if it was so important).

Well, Canada should pull out now since it is not important.

But that was one of the objectives...to "deepen the problem" and force a confrontation. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein pre-dates the Bush Administration by many years, and was a matter of US Public Law passed in 1998.

So, nothing like fabricating a confrontation, and when you solve the problem you created you can claim victor?? And shame on the fabrication of it, and committing over 4500 troops to the grave because the US had a policy of deepening the problem. Absolutely disgusting.

OH ... canada.

[Oleg Bach]

Canadians have not come to grips with the realty that through fraud the Bushites murdered thousands of their own and thousands of innocent civilians - not to mention destroying the fabric of the oldest civilization on earth. Canadians are so base and stupid all they want to talk about is how stupid Bush is and was...no mention of the Stalinesque murdering coroporate - Richard Cheney - Canadians are so stupid they respect a guy because he wears a suit and is rich and has a high postion - Cheney would have given the reputation of Hitler a competative run for his money if not for the limited tenure of the presidency. It will really stink if we find out Obama is just another henchmen like Bush - and Biden is just a new Cheney with newer skin.

[eyeball]

The real issue that ABU GRAIB prison raised isn't the "horrid" behavior of our soldiers. WHat it did is highlight the willingness of a nation to have absolutely no intetinal fortitude and to choose defeat over victory due to one or two lousy images.

It's really the polar opposite of the Images of the Iwo Jima flag raising. See - in the past nations rallied around images of victory - false or otherwise.

Today, they rally aruond images of defeat - false or otherwise...and then go out and vote for that defeat.

So in addition to leadership with a pagan ethos you also need a vicious population with intestinal fortitude or more to the point a willingness to embrace horrid behaviour. How do you achieve that? Numb our population's feelings to the extent that images of torture and degradation cause no reaction or brutalize people to the extent they cheer when they see human suffering? We'll probably need to do things like bring back public executions and stonings and instead of building schools for little girls we should beat them and cut off their fingers instead. Trying to woo public support for victory by appealing to ideals of human rights, justice and democracy is obviously a complete waste of time, indeed these things have probably done nothing but made us weak and soft.

What we really need is a strong dictator with a pagan ethos, a strong stomach and no moral compunction, in other words we need a person like Saddam Hussein.

Edited November 12, 2008 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

It is important, our troops are dieing there too.

Yes they are, with the highest deployed and engaged force levels we have seen since 2002. If the Americans were guilty of wasting time and effort in Iraq, where were all the reserve forces from the rest of NATO in Afghanistan? Even today, only a few nations, including Canada, take on the brunt of the dirty work (and casualities). It is hollow to claim that Iraq was a diversion when not ready to totally commit to A-stan as well.

We will see if Obama can walk the talk in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So in addition to leadership with a pagan ethos you also need a vicious population with intestinal fortitude or more to the point a willingness to embrace horrid behaviour. How do you achieve that? Numb our population's feelings to the extent that images of torture and degradation cause no reaction or brutalize people to the extent they cheer when they see human suffering? We'll probably need to do things like bring back public executions and stonings and instead of building schools for little girls we should beat them and cut off their fingers instead. Trying to woo public support for victory by appealing to ideals of human rights, justice and democracy is obviously a complete waste of time, indeed these things have probably done nothing but made us weak and soft.

What we really need is a strong dictator with a pagan ethos, a strong stomach and no moral compunction, in other words we need a person like Saddam Hussein.

You're missing the point.

It's not about "embracing" horrid behavior. It's about realizing that war is ugly. It's about not demonizing our troops and the macro effort at every turn, or every time a few troops do something stupid.

It's about realizing that our beloved, VICTORIOUS soldiers probably didn't always follow the text book in their fight to defeat the nazis. But they got the job done.

It's about balance of reporting. Instead of 3 to 1 "atrocities" (a stretch) / "thing are going horribly" to "victorious in battle". Why not give an even score or even bias it the other way?

Militaries don't lose or win wars, NATIONS do. And that involves the will to win.

Obama...er. OSAMA said it best: in a long race, the strong horse will win. And in this case, the strong horse ISN'T the country that's willing to throw it's soldiers, military, ENTIRE WAR EFFORT under the bus every time something unpleasant shows up in the news.

NEWSFLASH: WAR IS UNPLEASANT.

The question is, do we want to endure this unpleasantness on the pathway to victory, or do we want to wallow in it in defeat - as per vietnam?

The problem is, with this generation, every war is vietnam and every conflict is NOT worth fighting - as per the hippies of the '70s.

If this is the attitude we carry with us as a society, I ask you - can we ever again win a war? I say no. And this is why the characters from the nastier bits or our world will continue to "test" us. Because they are realizing this about us. Look at how Russia is bandying about these days. They KNOW they've got an appeaser on their hands now in the white house.

That attitude (nothing is worth going to war for) is majorly wrongheaded. We (the west) are WINNING in Iraq. Let's not forget that at a time when a surrender-monkey (please - no cries of racism) has just been elected.

And as a side note, I'd like to know what people think about "fighting by the rules" these days.

I mean, the enemy doesn't. Why should we?

Edited November 12, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[stevoh]

I mean, the enemy doesn't. Why should we?

Because we are the good guys.

[eyeball]

You're missing the point.

It's not about "embracing" horrid behavior. It's about realizing that war is ugly.

No, you're missing the point that the political machinations that lead to war are even uglier, like the lies that people were told about why Iraq was attacked or why America was countrer-attacked on 9/11. Its harder and harder to convince each subsequent generation that it should follow God King and Country into battle, more and more people are simply coming to realize there's always more at stake than meets the eye.

And as a side note, I'd like to know what people think about "fighting by the rules" these days.

What about better rules when it comes to making friends not to mention enemies in the nastier bits of the world? I'd like to know what some of our WW2 veterans actually think about our allies wheeling and dealing with thugs that are probably even nastier than the one's their generation died fighting. I mean we really are supposed to be the good guys right?

[Moonlight Graham]

...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty....John F. Kennedy

And yet it didn't take much for Bush to chip away at the "survival and the success of liberty" in the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment be damned!

BTW, i know a few hundred thousand dead Iraqi/Afghani innocent civilians who aren't feeling much "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" right about now. But i guess liberty only counts for Americans, right?

[Oleg Bach]

And yet it didn't take much for Bush to chip away at the "survival and the success of liberty" in the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment be damned!

BTW, i know a few hundred thousand dead Iraqi/Afghani innocent civilians who aren't feeling much "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" right about now. But i guess liberty only counts for Americans, right?

The persuit of happiness is a fleeting phrase. Much like making America a bunch of dogs chasing a rabbit they will never capture. We forget that America was founded by a bunch of British pirates who were denied their privateers licence to plunder...so they created a far away camp and became independent operators - to this day they still raid the world and snub the Queen..Harrr! The term havoc is very interesting - America reaps havoc globally and always has - The word comes from the old Norse - HAVOC! It was the last war cry after victory - It literally means "We are done here boys - gather up the treasure and the woman and load up the boats...Vikings yelled havoc the way Americans scream democracy.

[Alta4ever]

The persuit of happiness is a fleeting phrase. Much like making America a bunch of dogs chasing a rabbit they will never capture. We forget that America was founded by a bunch of British pirates who were denied their privateers licence to plunder...so they created a far away camp and became independent operators - to this day they still raid the world and snub the Queen..Harrr! The term havoc is very interesting - America reaps havoc globally and always has - The word comes from the old Norse - HAVOC! It was the last war cry after victory - It literally means "We are done here boys - gather up the treasure and the woman and load up the boats...Vikings yelled havoc the way Americans scream democracy.

Incorrect America was founded by Calvisits, America was a port of call for privateers, that were fighting the Spanish Empire to compete in the South American sugar and slave markets.

They were and weren't privateers depending on what was granted from the King of England at the time.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Oleg Bach]

Incorrect America was founded by Calvisits, America was a port of call for privateers, that were fighting the Spanish Empire to compete in the South American sugar and slave markets.

They were and weren't privateers depending on what was granted from the King of England at the time.

Apparently the King denied privledge to all in the end hence the revoltuion. They may have originally competed for markets in South America - and for slaves. Now it seems that the end game is the betrayal of all - at least the founding fathers were loyal and attempted to honour each other - not now! America has been sold to the biggest slave trader on earth - To China...now the common man and woman will stuggle for their freedom once again as poverty engulfs the soul of what was once the light of the free world - Disloyalty to family is what brought this about - Men disloyal to wives - woman disloyal to husbands and now we are disloyal to our own nation and put dogs and material gain above all. To see the empire collapse in my life time is shocking. Obama may just turn out to be the greatest trader of human flesh that the world has ever seen - time will tell - I hope I am wrong.

[Oleg Bach]

Incorrect America was founded by Calvisits, America was a port of call for privateers, that were fighting the Spanish Empire to compete in the South American sugar and slave markets.

They were and weren't privateers depending on what was granted from the King of England at the time.

Apparently the King denied privledge to all in the end hence the revoltuion. They may have originally competed for markets in South America - and for slaves. Now it seems that the end game is the betrayal of all - at least the founding fathers were loyal and attempted to honour each other - not now! America has been sold to the biggest slave trader on earth - To China...now the common man and woman will stuggle for their freedom once again as poverty engulfs the soul of what was once the light of the free world - Disloyalty to national family is what brought this about - Men disloyal to wives - woman disloyal to husbands and now we are loyal only to dogs and place material gain above all. To see the empire collapse in my life time is shocking. Obama may just turn out to be the greatest trader of human flesh that the world has ever seen - time will tell - I hope I am wrong. Why has no one reprimanded the ones that sold the empire?

[peter_puck]

Let's look ahead.

Afghanistan: Obama may well be able to move troops gradually from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Iran: If he does "talk" with Iran, he's doing so from a position of relative strength, no? Perhaps not 2 years ago, but right now. Iraq is in a state of relative peace. Granted, it's fragile, bu t the militants have retreated. The sunni triangle is remarkable safe. The level of violence is at all time lows. Saddam has been deposed. The americans are in control. The insurgency (largely supported, funded an armed by Iran) is, at least for now, squashed.

Iran has bankrolled many of the Shite groups in Iraq, both in the government and opposition. They could turn Iraq into a tinderbox tomorrow. They do the same thing in Afganistan - bankroll both sides. They control thousands and thousands of rockets in Lebanon. They control in Hizbolah, a sophisticated network of terrorists. They control the straight of Hormuz and could shut off a good hunk of the world oil supply. They have a very modern air defense system. If Bush didn't attack these people, Obama won't. They know that, so I don't think Obama is in a position of strength.

2. Will forever place George W Bush as one of the greatest and strongest Presidents in our history

Bush legacy

1. Broke the debt clock. May end up running up more debt that every other US president combined.

2. Failed to move US away from fossil fuel dependence even when it was clear it would be a giant threat to the economy

3. Used some of the dirtiest campaign tactics in modern US history.

4. Caused the (possibly) greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression

5. Let China into the WTO

6. Started an idiotic war that boosted Al Queeda.

7. Dramatically lowered the US's standing world wide

8. Raised the level of partisan ignorance to new levels (putting unqualified partisans into traditionallly non-partisan jobs).

More than that, he did it all while not really having a deep understanding of anything.

This will forever place George W Bush as a warning to future voters.

[GostHacked]

Yes they are, with the highest deployed and engaged force levels we have seen since 2002. If the Americans were guilty of wasting time and effort in Iraq, where were all the reserve forces from the rest of NATO in Afghanistan? [p Even today, only a few nations, including Canada, take on the brunt of the dirty work (and casualities). It is hollow to claim that Iraq was a diversion when not ready to totally commit to A-stan as well.

We will see if Obama can walk the talk in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Are you saying the US was not committed to Afghanistan? And the reason was they wanted to build up for Iraq? Afghanistan happened 2 years before Iraq. So where were all the US troops as well? Sometimes you gotta finish what you started, Saddam was not going anywhere due to the sanctions and other wonderful restrictions put on Iraq due to countless UN resolution. Iraq was more imortant to the US than Afghanistan. Still is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you saying the US was not committed to Afghanistan? And the reason was they wanted to build up for Iraq? Afghanistan happened 2 years before Iraq. So where were all the US troops as well? Sometimes you gotta finish what you started, Saddam was not going anywhere due to the sanctions and other wonderful restrictions put on Iraq due to countless UN resolution. Iraq was more imortant to the US than Afghanistan. Still is.

You mean in the same way that Germany was more important than Japan? I'm betting a lot of dead airman, soldiers, sailors, and marines from the Pacific theatre would disagree. Iraq was subjected to military attack long before Afghanistan. Just because NATO is in Afghanistan doesn't necessarily make it the number one priority, even if Canada may think so.