sharkman Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) For four years, the Obama administration has engaged in what Frederic Hof, former special adviser for transition in Syria, calls a “pantomime of outrage.” Four years of strongly worded protests, and urgent meetings and calls for negotiation — the whole drama a sickening substitute for useful action. Remember when Obama mentioned a "red line" in the sand? And then he changed his tune and didn't back up his words? The world, and certainly Putin, noticed. What has been happening in the aftermath of that astounding mistake is a real erosion of American power and influence in the ME and anywhere the US has enemies. It seems to me that it's been Obama's strategy for several years. To leave the ME to regional powers, give Iran nukes and let Israel deal with the consequences. But when a power leaves, a vacuum occurs and guess who's an ally of both Iran and Syria. Russia, and they are wiling to put boots on the ground. So we now have a major world power who is a friend of Iran, allied against Israel. This all could have been predicted, and it probably was predicted. I'm wondering if Obama is so stupid to have not seen this "unexpected" development coming as a result of his retreat. I am convinced he's not a fool, so the retreat and Russian response has been quietly expected while claiming surprise and bewilderment in the media. He's been out there recently criticizing Russia's stance and targets in Syria. And Putin must be laughing his ass off because he knows that at this point the US will do nothing about it. Obama doesn't want to do a thing about it save to give a pantomime of outrage. I think he may be a better actor than Reagan. Edited October 12, 2015 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) What has been happening in the aftermath of that astounding mistake is a real erosion of American power and influence in the ME and anywhere the US has enemies.I think it would be worth exploring plausible actions that could have been carried out by a president. Obviously, Obama should not have made threats he was not willing to back up nor should he have been so desperate to give Iran whatever it wanted for phoney promises. But is it realistic to expect Americans to support yet another war in the ME? Especially now that the US is close to self sufficient in oil? Seems to me the pull back was inevitable and the Russians may appear to be benefiting but does anyone believe it will end any better for them than Afghanistan did in the 80s? Edited October 12, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Two things. One, a possible war in the ME is one thing, handing billions and nukes to Iran is quite another. Two, the ME is no Afghanistan. Russia has a few allies in the region and anybody that wants to take on Israel will have most of the Muslim nations in the region wanting to get a piece of that action. The abysmal Obama decision to do nothing in Syria has DIRECTLY resulted in the millions of refugees that Europe and the world now have to deal with, let alone the many deaths in the war. Any way you slice it, Obama's terms have brought about a destabilization in the ME. The question is, was he doing it on purpose, or is he just a bumbling fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 If the US didn't insist on continuing to have a raging hate for Iran since 1979 because they overthrew their precious Shah puppet, the US wouldn't have bad relations with Iran or Syria. This situation isn't just Obama's fault, it goes back many administrations. Iran, Syria, and Russia aren't the most wonderful governments in the world, but neither are allies like Saudi Arabia. We have to ask ourselves why we don't have good relations with Iran, Syria, and Russia. Are these regimes just complete d*cks like North Korea? Or has the US and other western countries tried to undermine their interests with overt actions that are guaranteed to make any country PO'd? Putin has strong approval in Russia because he has the balls to stand up to the US. The US is a bully, they do just about whatever they can away with. If you have such an arrogant, dismissive, and violent foreign policy you're going to make lots of enemies, and it's biting them in the ass, and it undermines Canada's interests too. What if the US's priorities in foreign policy was international peace, good relations, stability, and trade? Their global leadership has been often based on intimidation and domination, imperialism, war, and "do as we say, not as we do". What a wonderful example, what a wonderful way to make allies and ensure peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) What if the US's priorities in foreign policy was international peace, good relations, stability, and trade?From my perspective that is exactly what the US foreign policy has been since USSR collapsed. Their global leadership has been often based on intimidation and domination, imperialism, war, and "do as we say, not as we do". What a wonderful example, what a wonderful way to make allies and ensure peace.So I guess you were against the boycott of South Africa over apartheid or are you saying the bullying is only bad when you don't support the reason? We live is a world of thug states and without some willingness to use force or the thugs would rule. Think about what our cities would be like if we told police they were never allowed to use force. Obviously there has to be a debate about the when and where force is used but that does not mean it is always inappropriate. Edited October 13, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 ...The US is a bully, they do just about whatever they can away with. If you have such an arrogant, dismissive, and violent foreign policy you're going to make lots of enemies, and it's biting them in the ass, and it undermines Canada's interests too. What if the US's priorities in foreign policy was international peace, good relations, stability, and trade? Their global leadership has been often based on intimidation and domination, imperialism, war, and "do as we say, not as we do". What a wonderful example, what a wonderful way to make allies and ensure peace. Of course....how do you think the U.S. came to be the lone superpower ? Or how Canada came to be in the 19th century ? As it has done many times, Canada's American made CF-188s are once again dropping bombs far across the sea to spread peace, good relations, stability, and trade ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Of course....how do you think the U.S. came to be the lone superpower ? Or how Canada came to be in the 19th century ? As it has done many times, Canada's American made CF-188s are once again dropping bombs far across the sea to spread peace, good relations, stability, and trade !The US became powerful because they had slave labor for many years. Currently we have 6 little F 18's wasting time in Syria because we have currently a similar faulty government. But you do see to have a deep interest in all things Canada, and we thank you for your interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 From the responses so far, no one has challenged the idea that Obama has purposely given up the ME while protesting and faking outrage for the MSM cameras. He's been head faking for some time now, or does anyone care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 From the responses so far, no one has challenged the idea that Obama has purposely given up the ME while protesting and faking outrage for the MSM cameras. He's been head faking for some time now, or does anyone care? Correct...it has been bad theatre all along. He does protest indeed: “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.” We must be “modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil.” ...“The time has come for President Assad to step aside,” said Obama in 2011. Yet Assad will likely outlast Obama in power. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-horrific-results-of-obamas-strategy-in-syria/2015/09/03/c16c117a-526c-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 From my perspective that is exactly what the US foreign policy has been since USSR collapsed. How does your perspective figure that? It actively covertly or overtly supports or forces regime change based on whatever is in its own interests, starts preventative wars, breaks international laws at whim, sells arms to violent regimes and gives them to thug groups, violates the sovereignty of states via drone strikes etc., threatens other nations with war (illegal under the UN charter) etc. Bang up job guys! So I guess you were against the boycott of South Africa over apartheid or are you saying the bullying is only bad when you don't support the reason? We live is a world of thug states and without some willingness to use force or the thugs would rule. Think about what our cities would be like if we told police they were never allowed to use force. Obviously there has to be a debate about the when and where force is used but that does not mean it is always inappropriate. I never argued that force is always inappropriate, so strawman. My point is, when you force a dog into a corner it's going to growl and bite back. When you yank a dog's chain and kick it around it may have to submit in the short-term but it's going to resent & hate you, and if the opportunity pops up it might bite back. You have to be tough but fair and correct a dog that misbehaves sometimes, but if you otherwise treat it with respect and throw it a bone once in awhile you can get along. Flexing hard power is sometimes necessary, but when you overuse/abuse it, it erodes your soft-power. As they say, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Wanting human rights and peace from other nations, and then behaving the opposite ourselves, destroys our credibility, makes us hypocrites, and sets bad examples and norms internationally by showing the world this is how the game is played and won. Essentially, we don't know wtf we're doing. W. Bush withdrawing from the 1972 US-Russia anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002 and perusing ABM's in Poland etc. despite warnings from a Putin regime that clearly wasn't going to lay down and take shit from anybody was the beginning of the return to these Cold War-style relations. ABMs in Poland...seriously? That's like Russia putting ABM's in Cuba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) What you need to do is have the dog put down. Some idiots keep dogs around that bite their children. Edited October 13, 2015 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 If our Grand-Pappies had only finished what they started and put the dog down back in WW2... Of course if they'd done that then people now would likely be talking about the need to put us down in our turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Uh, they did put the dog down. That's why Germany and japan have done so well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Correct...it has been bad theatre all along. He does protest indeed: “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.” We must be “modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil.” ...“The time has come for President Assad to step aside,” said Obama in 2011. Yet Assad will likely outlast Obama in power. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-horrific-results-of-obamas-strategy-in-syria/2015/09/03/c16c117a-526c-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html My question is, who is he acting for? Who is he trying to pull the wool over on? Why didn't he come out and say what his actual objective was in the ME? When Bush stood up to the UN and said you're either for us or against us, that was leadership. When Bush stood on the rubble pile with a megaphone and said soon they all will be hearing from us, the enemies of the US knew they were coming. When Obama says something, the enemies of the US laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 My question is, who is he acting for? Who is he trying to pull the wool over on? ...When Obama says something, the enemies of the US laugh. He is still acting for the audience that got him elected and the nonsense he promised them...idealist Nobel Prize candidate Obama became President Obama and he was forced to understand what he had signed up for...which includes the "Dark Side". But all he has done on foreign policy is disappoint everybody ! Even Hillary Clinton wishes he had "bigger balls" and decisiveness. I can't wait to read the tell-all books from President Obama's cabinet members and staff. President Clinton would just deal with all the stress the same way he always did ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 This thread is quite the joke. Putin, he's so badass strong he has to drop bombs in Syria in the hopes it will raise the price of oil so Russia's trade balance doesn't sink to 2008/2009 levels. My gawd people sure get taken in by a "show of force." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Normally a president, when he makes a landscape changing policy(leaving the ME) he does so to gain benefits or deals for his country. I mean, he's abandoned a major ally in the region, Israel. What deal did he get for the US? A treaty to pay Iran billions. He's done this all without so much as an explanation to the American people. No debates or votes in Congress or the Senate. And since there is no gain for the US here you have to ask, why did he do it? And why is the lap dog press not putting his feet to the fire? And as for Russia, dictators with money problems do desperate things. Russia may be just getting started. Edited October 14, 2015 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 America gets the Israel elephant off its back. Good riddance to an ungrateful people who have done nothing for the US but bring them grief. They get to PO Saudi while they are at it. Sell weapons to them while the Saudis can squander them with their proxy wars against Iran. The US can become friendly with Iran which also makes other US allies happy (Euro). The US is gaining lots by leaving the ME. Russia can do its best to rise the price of oil but it may come at a cost of alienating many in the ME and Turkey. None of this matters as the US becomes more energy independent thanks to shale, NG, and renewables. The US can finally tell the rest of the world to F off and the rest of the world has it coming (although many will be thankful the US isn't killing their people for the "reasons" made up during the "glory days" of George W Bush). Good for them and good for Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 You still haven't bothered to address Obama's deceit, which means you are fine with it. I guess we are cut from a different cloth. A huge policy like this will have a few unintended results, including a major war that the US will be dragged into. Just because Obama doesn't want to fight, that doesn't mean that peace will break out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 You still haven't bothered to address Obama's deceit, which means you are fine with it. I guess we are cut from a different cloth. A huge policy like this will have a few unintended results, including a major war that the US will be dragged into. Just because Obama doesn't want to fight, that doesn't mean that peace will break out. It's not that big a deal....U.S. foreign policy survived President Carter and it will survive President Obama as well. That's the beauty of our system, every four years we get to choose a new prick if we want one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Carter left a huge mess to clean up, it wasn't exactly easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 What you need to do is have the dog put down. Some idiots keep dogs around that bite their children. So...nuke Russia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 So when you said this: I never argued that force is always inappropriate, so strawman. My point is, when you force a dog into a corner it's going to growl and bite back. When you yank a dog's chain and kick it around it may have to submit in the short-term but it's going to resent & hate you, and if the opportunity pops up it might bite back. you were speaking of Russia? So Russia's been kicked around and forced into a corner? I thought you were speaking in generic terms since you were responding to a post about South Africa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) You still haven't bothered to address Obama's deceit, which means you are fine with it. I guess we are cut from a different cloth. A huge policy like this will have a few unintended results, including a major war that the US will be dragged into. Just because Obama doesn't want to fight, that doesn't mean that peace will break out. The problem is any intervention you dreamed up would just make things worse... again. And the question is... is it really in the US's best interests to borrow money from China to fight unending wars in the middle east. We are talking about trillions of dollars here. And US interests in the region have changed now. Its much much less dependant on oil from the region. Normally a president, when he makes a landscape changing policy(leaving the ME) he does so to gain benefits or deals for his country. Ending a policy that sees Americans paying hundreds of billions of dollars to police the middle east and failed attempts to solve other peoples problems is a huge benefit for Americans in and of itself. Edited October 14, 2015 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Any intervention would make things worse? Stepping out of the ME, and therefore allowing a thug like Putin to step in makes things much worse. Not intervening in Syria has lead to millions of refugees which will cost Europe billions. How much worse would it have been for the US to do something after Obama threatened with his red line in the sand? Leaving Iraq was also a big mistake, now Isis has become a force that murders people, blows up historic sites and brainwashes young kids to come join the fun. Let's face it, Obama's efforts have been a big disaster over there. Doing nothing has led to much grief. And instead of Americans paying billions to maintain a presence in the ME, they are now paying Iran billions to not develop nukes, since that strategy was so successful with NK. Edited October 14, 2015 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.