Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy - A Delusional Failure

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't get to redefine words to meet your fantasies.

The essence of terrorism is terror--the objective is to scare people into doing what you want.

Collateral damage has no such objective.

The invasion of Iraq was "shock and awe".

It was terrorism if there ever was terrorism.

A deliberate attack where no attack was necessary on such a scale that the attacker knew many innocents would be killed and millions would be terrorized.

You don't get to define words so they are stripped of all meaning.

If deliberately attacking for no good reason with such force that you know many innocents will die isn't terrorism then nothing is.

You could in a sense say that shock and awe is terrorism applied to military forces but the essence of terrorism is that it's applied to civilians to effect political change. Scaring the enemy army into giving up is simply good military practice.

 

[arkirk]

The invasion of Iraq was "shock and awe".

It was terrorism if there ever was terrorism.

A deliberate attack where no attack was necessary on such a scale that the attacker knew many innocents would be killed and millions would be terrorized.

You don't get to define words so they are stripped of all meaning.

If deliberately attacking for no good reason with such force that you know many innocents will die isn't terrorism then nothing is.

You could in a sense say that shock and awe is terrorism applied to military forces but the essence of terrorism is that it's applied to civilians to effect political change. Scaring the enemy army into giving up is simply good military practice.

What a preposterous statement! Shock and awe killed thousands of civilians. You really cannot imagine a single Arab that is not some sort of soldier can you?

 

[maxparrish]

Not wanting to kill civilians. Obama is such a fucking psychopath. The asshole probably also gets pissed off when his police officers kill unarmed civilians.

If Obama thinks his primary objective has been to avoid killing civilians, he should called up the Salvation Army, not the US/Navy Air Forces. Didn't anyone tell "the one" that the primary objective of the military is the kill the enemy and break their things, even if it results in some civilian deaths and collateral damage? That is war. Don't like it, don't fight.

What Obama is doing is making a crippled "war" aiming for neither victory nor accepting defeat; it is putting restrictions on military strikes to the point that 75 percent of ISIS targets are ignored - an echo of Johnson and his failed micro-management of Air Strike packages.

And the result of 'crippled war' has been little more than (at best) a stalemate, the prolonged agony of Syria and the millions of refugees that have given up on returning to Syria and are now heading to Europe.

Is that a great strategy or what?

 

[arkirk]

Not wanting to kill civilians. Obama is such a fucking psychopath. The asshole probably also gets pissed off when his police officers kill unarmed civilians.

If Obama thinks his primary objective has been to avoid killing civilians, he should called up the Salvation Army, not the US/Navy Air Forces. Didn't anyone tell "the one" that the primary objective of the military is the kill the enemy and break their things, even if it results in some civilian deaths and collateral damage? That is war. Don't like it, don't fight.

What Obama is doing is making a crippled "war" aiming for neither victory nor accepting defeat; it is putting restrictions on military strikes to the point that 75 percent of ISIS targets are ignored - an echo of Johnson and his failed micro-management of Air Strike packages.

And the result of 'crippled war' has been little more than (at best) a stalemate, the prolonged agony of Syria and the millions of refugees that have given up on returning to Syria and are now heading to Europe.

Is that a great strategy or what?

But it does wonders for the bottom line and stock values in the war industries. It is always better for those folks if the wars carry on indefinitely. That just means a continuing income stream. You seem to think these wars can be won, when they are already being won by the war supplies industries and they do not want the wars to stop. They really can't be won anyway. We have no business doing this half assed military harrassment and calling it war...on that point, I agree with you. But I would hate to see you in charge.:devil-smiley-029:

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Appointment in Samarra

Obama extended the Neo-Conservatives' ignorant and meddlesome policy of regime change in Syria, Libya, and Egypt. Just like Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, he expected imaginary moderate Muslims to take over the stability and democratization of these perpetually failing nations without much dangerous participation by our own troops. As As we should have learned in Vietnam, the natives who weren't vicious killers, the ones "on our side," were crooks, cowards, and collaborators.

 

[Jayjay]

A hurricane doesn't care how many victims it kills either. Does it mean hurricanes are terrorists? What you are doing is making "terrorist" a completely meaningless word. It seems you only want to call US terrorism because you think "terrorism = bad" and "USA = bad" and therefore "USA = terrorist".

If there is no intent to terrorize, it's not terrorism.

If you terrorize and kill innocents but you don't care that you are terrorizing and killing innocents it is worse than if you care.

Intentions are the last refuge of scoundrels.

It's not about what's worse, it's about what the word "terrorism" means. If you don't care about intent, then there is no difference between getting blown up by an Islamic militant and slipping in the shower.

Besides, I think it's highly debatable whether accidentally killing innocent people is worse than deliberately doing so. In what bizarre world does one defend the Paris shooters as some sort of noble down-trodden heroes like you do on the basis of their "caring" about their victims?

 

[Perspicuo]

You can complain all you want, but what's undeniable is that if Obama or Hillary had been President instead of GWB, there would have never been an ISIL.

Or let's dig a bit deeper: Foregt GWB... If there had not been a Cheney, there would have never been an ISIL!

 

[barbos]

But what creates new terrorists is blowing up women and children and rounding up innocent people in the middle of the night and taking them away to be tortured.

What creates terrorists is those with deep pockets (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran) pouring money into funding terrorism. Large scale terrorism never exists without such funding.

You mean like US funding Afghan terrorists before and during Soviet occupation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You could in a sense say that shock and awe is terrorism applied to military forces but the essence of terrorism is that it's applied to civilians to effect political change. Scaring the enemy army into giving up is simply good military practice.

What a preposterous statement! Shock and awe killed thousands of civilians. You really cannot imagine a single Arab that is not some sort of soldier can you?

Look earlier in this thread--collateral damage is not an objective and thus any fear that comes from it can't be an objective of the attack.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you terrorize and kill innocents but you don't care that you are terrorizing and killing innocents it is worse than if you care.

Intentions are the last refuge of scoundrels.

It's not about what's worse, it's about what the word "terrorism" means. If you don't care about intent, then there is no difference between getting blown up by an Islamic militant and slipping in the shower.

Besides, I think it's highly debatable whether accidentally killing innocent people is worse than deliberately doing so. In what bizarre world does one defend the Paris shooters as some sort of noble down-trodden heroes like you do on the basis of their "caring" about their victims?

In his world those who oppose the US are good, those that aid it are bad. Period, it matters not what they do.

- - - Updated - - -

What creates terrorists is those with deep pockets (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran) pouring money into funding terrorism. Large scale terrorism never exists without such funding.

You mean like US funding Afghan terrorists before and during Soviet occupation?

We were funding insurgents, not terrorists. They were shooting at the Soviet troops.

After the war was over most went on to form the Afghan government but some didn't want to put down arms and went on to become the Taliban.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

To claim Obama is responsible for the mess in Syria and that there was ever an easy solution to anything after GW Bush blew the whole region apart is not persuasive in the least.

Syria was not blown apart by Bush. The Arab Spring happened under Obama's watch. The collapse of Syria and his failure to deal with it is clear. Hillary Clinton was correct on this one, Obama was not.

But then, Hillary has always had more moxie than Barry in international affairs. She has rejected the idea of mere containment, as she should have.

We weren't allies with Syria. Quite the contrary. Russian and Syria have been long time allies, yet Putin did exactly jack shit until a few weeks ago. But now he's doing it right? Whatever.

"Boots on the ground." Yeah, that's a good idea. It's as good as the one that's worked out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. could put an end to ISIS and it could fix Syria. But really, what's in it for the U.S.? What good will it do the region? The last question is particularly important because to defeat ISIS and calm Syria down, it would take a WW2 style of military campaign. You think there's a lot of dead people now? A total war strategy combined with ruthless marshall law would kill more than all who have been killed in Syria since that particular meltdown started.

And what justification would we (the U.S.) have for it?

We haven't actually been attacked by ISIS, and we certainly haven't been attacked by Syria. And do you think Russia will surrender that mediterranean seaport they have in Syria just because we need to kick some ass once and for all?

It's absurd. As others have mentioned, maybe Obama would have had the option to do more in Syria had the prior 12 years of conflict there begun by that feckless fucking set of fucks known as the Bush administration not happened. But then again, the Syrian meltdown probably wouldn't have occurred and so there wouldn't have been anything to do there. But it did happen and when it did, no sensible person in the U.S. had any desire to get involved in yet another ME/Muslim shit/blood fest.

And what's so bad about letting France or Russia take the lead? Let 'em have it. Our oil interests in Iraq are more than secure. They're even more secure in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But now we need to go on some moral conquest?

Fuck that.

 

[barbos]

It's not about what's worse, it's about what the word "terrorism" means. If you don't care about intent, then there is no difference between getting blown up by an Islamic militant and slipping in the shower.

Besides, I think it's highly debatable whether accidentally killing innocent people is worse than deliberately doing so. In what bizarre world does one defend the Paris shooters as some sort of noble down-trodden heroes like you do on the basis of their "caring" about their victims?

In his world those who oppose the US are good, those that aid it are bad. Period, it matters not what they do.

- - - Updated - - -

What creates terrorists is those with deep pockets (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran) pouring money into funding terrorism. Large scale terrorism never exists without such funding.

You mean like US funding Afghan terrorists before and during Soviet occupation?

We were funding insurgents, not terrorists. They were shooting at the Soviet troops.

After the war was over most went on to form the Afghan government but some didn't want to put down arms and went on to become the Taliban.

Rught, when terrorists are on your side they are insurgents. And no, they could not possibly be shooting at Soviet troops because there were not any at the time. They were shooting at afghan forces.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In his world those who oppose the US are good, those that aid it are bad. Period, it matters not what they do.

- - - Updated - - -

What creates terrorists is those with deep pockets (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran) pouring money into funding terrorism. Large scale terrorism never exists without such funding.

You mean like US funding Afghan terrorists before and during Soviet occupation?

We were funding insurgents, not terrorists. They were shooting at the Soviet troops.

After the war was over most went on to form the Afghan government but some didn't want to put down arms and went on to become the Taliban.

Rught, when terrorists are on your side they are insurgents. And no, they could not possibly be shooting at Soviet troops because there were not any at the time. They were shooting at afghan forces.

Insurgent: Shoots at enemy forces or government.

Terrorist: Shoots at civilians.

It's usually very easy to tell them apart.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Satanic Verses

You can complain all you want, but what's undeniable is that if Obama or Hillary had been President instead of GWB, there would have never been an ISIL.

Or let's dig a bit deeper: Foregt GWB... If there had not been a Cheney, there would have never been an ISIL!

Only if Mohammed had never lived would there have never been an ISIL. Ignorance of and appeasement of Islam go back to President Eisenhower's behavior in the 1956 Suez War, when he betrayed England, France, and Israel.

 

[Trausti]

You can complain all you want, but what's undeniable is that if Obama or Hillary had been President instead of GWB, there would have never been an ISIL.

Or let's dig a bit deeper: Foregt GWB... If there had not been a Cheney, there would have never been an ISIL!

Well, you could say if Obama had not been president there would never have been an ISIS. His administration turned a blind eye to Sunni persecution by the Iraq government, which made ISIS's punitive raid of Western (Sunni) Iraq into an occupation. ISIS was nothing more than another ragtag group in the alphabet soup of Syrian rebels before this. He is also a terrible commander-in-chief. Arming "moderate" rebels Syria was insanely stupid. (Yes, I appreciate this was somewhat of a bipartisan fuck up - thank you, John McCain.) And then when air strikes began, they were surprisingly ineffectual. Why? Because Obama: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/us-military-pilots-complain-hands-tied-in-frustrating-fight-against-isis.html

Yet now, ISIS's oil money is finally being targeted. Not with American jets, but by the country which has supplanted the US as the major power in the region.

 

[Turambar]

Yet now, ISIS's oil money is finally being targeted. Not with American jets, but by the country which has supplanted the US as the major power in the region.

Sorry to interrupt your masturbating session to a picture of Vladimir Pudding, but if the US goes to war with Russia all it needs to do in order to destroy Russia's army is throw leaflets offering a green card and a pick-up truck to any deserting Russian soldier. Check this map of countries by GDP: http://www.vox.com/maps/2015/8/21/9186715/countries-by-gdp

The Russian "superpower" contributes to the world economy more or less the same as Canada. So one could argue that if Russia wants to pick a fight with an adversary of similar capabilities it should fight Canada, not the US. So much for your "new major power in the region" argument. The US may be relatively inactive in Syria until now, but a sleeping giant is still a giant. The Japanese learned that the hard way back in 1941.

 

[fromderinside]

... great strategy or what?

Yes. A great strategy. Russia is driven to militarism to counter moves by former client states to the west, to dropping in to a depression because of the success of westerns sanction on Russia against their militarism. Further Russia has been swept up in the DASH thing in defense of their client state Syria and forced to accept limits on another client state Iran in nuclear development, again, because of successful western sanctions without the massive loss of life approach taken by Bush in his "They all want freedom" if we invade.

Our economic engine is working with the addition of ACA, more Americans have been legally deemed acceptable with concurrence of a majority of the population and we are now seen as leaders rather than obstructionists on cleaning up the atmosphere. And we've come back from the collapse of the economy brought on by rampant speculation during the Bush term.

Interesting that maxparrish in setting up this thread entirely missed what I just wrote. I understand that through the eyes of a "we're the savior of the world" 'merican things are pretty bleak. Gays got rights now, blacks matter too now, 10 million more have health coverage now, we're not encumbered by soldiers exposed to daily death now, Russia is reduced to a third rate despotary while losing control of former clients rather than reinstating anything resembling a bipolar struggle, 'merica becoming more socialist every day, and oil is actually dirty now, have to be bitter medicine to those who want us to be an exclusive white run almost money-theocracy run for the benefit of the wealthy.

Damn that Obama.