Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber Pianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    31 Aug '14 07:26 / 2 edits
    "Just when you thought that the Leader of the Free World was secretly harbouring a calculated, well-developed plan for bringing ISIL under control and putting Russia's Imperial leader back in his box, Barack Obama banged that idea firmly on the head last week. He gave an extraordinary briefing, which the Washington press corps had been lead to believe would contain a major announcement on the White House strategy on foreign policy. It did. The announcement was that there was no White House strategy on foreign policy. Seriously. In the President's exact words: "We don't have a strategy yet."
    When that bizarre statement hit the news outlets, the White House spin team flew into full-on operation (ie panic) mode and began tweeting to the effect that what the Commander-in-Chief had meant was there was a "range of options" which were still being considered and that there certainly was something called "long term plan" blah-blah-blah..............
    So the crucial factor here is the paralysis of the President: it is the proper business of a national leader to decide, to make his choice of what Mr Obama calls the "range of options" and then to act. The hallmark of the Obama presidency in foreign policy has been a refusal to act."

    Janet Daley: The Sunday Telegraph
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    31 Aug '14 08:47
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    "Just when you thought that the Leader of the Free World was secretly harbouring a calculated, well-developed plan for bringing ISIL under control and putting Russia's Imperial leader back in his box, Barack Obama banged that idea firmly on the head last week. He gave an extraordinary briefing, which the Washington press corps had been lead to believe woul ...[text shortened]... ency in foreign policy has been a refusal to act."

    Janet Daley: The Sunday Telegraph
    Don't you know Obama has the more important duties of raising money to maintain some control of congress?
  3. Standard member Grampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    31 Aug '14 09:09
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    "Just when you thought that the Leader of the Free World was secretly harbouring a calculated, well-developed plan for bringing ISIL under control and putting Russia's Imperial leader back in his box, Barack Obama banged that idea firmly on the head last week. He gave an extraordinary briefing, which the Washington press corps had been lead to believe would c ...[text shortened]... esidency in foreign policy has been a refusal to act."

    Janet Daley: The Sunday Telegraph
    Mark Levin: Allowing ISIS To Grow Among "Worst National Security Screwups" In U.S. History

    "Mark Levin: I want the American people to understand something, Sean. The commander in chief, and we only have one, is the president of the United States and his name is Barack Obama. And these cockroaches organized, funded themselves, built a forceful military, started conquering geographic areas all around the world under his nose. He ignored it. He did nothing about it. He didn't talk to the American people about it. As a matter of fact, he downplayed it. This is one of the worst military national security screw ups in modern American history. And he's still screwing up. Has he rallied the American people? Has he spoken to congress? Has he asked for a declaration of war or at least a joint resolution to fund an aggressive offensive attack against these cockroaches? No, he hasn't. We're dealing with a very peculiar, petulant man who operates with a few advisors around him. A man who really needs as much counciling and expertise he can get given his thin resume and experience record." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    31 Aug '14 09:25
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]Mark Levin: Allowing ISIS To Grow Among "Worst National Security Screwups" In U.S. History

    "Mark Levin: I want the American people to understand something, Sean. The commander in chief, and we only have one, is the president of the United States and his name is Barack Obama. And these cockroaches organized, funded themselves, built a forceful ...[text shortened]... an get given his thin resume and experience record."[/i] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/[/b]
    Has he rallied the American people? Has he spoken to congress? Has he asked for a declaration of war or at least a joint resolution to fund an aggressive offensive attack against these cockroaches? No, he hasn't.
    Not declared instant war in a profoundly complicated regional conflict where nobody is quite clear what are the real battle lines? Crazy. Dick Cheney would have had a war plan up his sleeve just waiting for a pretext like this - such a great opportunity to unleash another wave of militarism and patriotic fervour behind which to pursue further in a neoliberal / neofascist agenda. God, these guys love a good war and Obama is not giving them one. Such a weak president.

    How does such a weak president stand up to those pressures and still say no? Maybe he is not so weak at all? Maybe he just disagrees and declines to be pushed around by the right wing media. (Of course you will know that in the UK the Telegraph is the chosen paper of retired and deluded right wing alcoholics).
  5. 31 Aug '14 11:18
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Don't you know Obama has the more important duties of raising money to maintain some control of congress?
    That is essentially his only skill, winning elections and maintaining power.
  6. Standard member Grampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    31 Aug '14 12:40
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Has he rallied the American people? Has he spoken to congress? Has he asked for a declaration of war or at least a joint resolution to fund an aggressive offensive attack against these cockroaches? No, he hasn't.
    Not declared instant war in a profoundly complicated regional conflict where nobody is quite clear what are the real battle lines? ...[text shortened]... that in the UK the Telegraph is the chosen paper of retired and deluded right wing alcoholics).
    "Obama out of his depth": Topic under discussion is capacity for effective leadership not political party affiliation or booze.
  7. Subscriber Pianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    31 Aug '14 15:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Has he rallied the American people? Has he spoken to congress? Has he asked for a declaration of war or at least a joint resolution to fund an aggressive offensive attack against these cockroaches? No, he hasn't.
    Not declared instant war in a profoundly complicated regional conflict where nobody is quite clear what are the real battle lines? ...[text shortened]... that in the UK the Telegraph is the chosen paper of retired and deluded right wing alcoholics).
    "(Of course you will know that in the UK the Telegraph is the chosen paper of retired and deluded right wing alcoholics)"

    Please. Yes, the telegraph is more Republican than Democrat, but that is neither here nor there. The facts are that the West is facing its most terrifying hour of need with terrorists hacking their way "in the name of jihad" through Syria and Irag, and the most powerful man in the world appears at a loss to take a decisive role in dealing with it.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    31 Aug '14 16:28
    He may never forgive me, but I have to agree with Finn on this one. What to do about ISIS is extremely complex. Strong arguments can be made that the best option is to do nothing. An argument can also be made that putting 50,000 boots on the ground and wiping out the ISIS infrastructure is a moral necessity... and everything in between.

    Whatever the ultimate decision, there's no requirement that we rush into this, one way or the other.
  9. Subscriber Pianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    31 Aug '14 17:04
    Originally posted by sh76
    Whatever the ultimate decision, there's no requirement that we rush into this, one way or the other.
    We clearly must avoid a knee-jerk reaction, and yet the longer that Obama prevaricates the more confident both Putin and ISIS become. Yes, an extremely complex situation, because ISIS does not recognise reason. How can you use diplomacy against a fanatical, psychotic movement that glories in dying for the cause?
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    31 Aug '14 17:16
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    "(Of course you will know that in the UK the Telegraph is the chosen paper of retired and deluded right wing alcoholics)"

    Please. Yes, the telegraph is more Republican than Democrat, but that is neither here nor there. The facts are that the West is facing its most terrifying hour of need with terrorists hacking their way "in the name of jihad" through ...[text shortened]... the most powerful man in the world appears at a loss to take a decisive role in dealing with it.
    Bwahahaha most terrifying hour of need snicker snicker
  11. Standard member Grampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    31 Aug '14 17:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    He may never forgive me, but I have to agree with Finn on this one. What to do about ISIS is extremely complex. Strong arguments can be made that the best option is to do nothing. An argument can also be made that putting 50,000 boots on the ground and wiping out the ISIS infrastructure is a moral necessity... and everything in between.

    Whatever the ultimate decision, there's no requirement that we rush into this, one way or the other.
    Nonetheless, the question remains: In what ways does "We don't have a strategy yet." benefit anyone's cause except ISIS?
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    31 Aug '14 17:55
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    We clearly must avoid a knee-jerk reaction, and yet the longer that Obama prevaricates the more confident both Putin and ISIS become. Yes, an extremely complex situation, because ISIS does not recognise reason. How can you use diplomacy against a fanatical, psychotic movement that glories in dying for the cause?
    Well just off the top of my head, one could use diplomacy to establish the capacity of local actors to handle ISIS subject perhaps to material support. ISIS seem to have you terribly frightened by pulling some stunts. They are unpleasant but not omnipotent and no match for any serious western power that took it into their head to swat them down. There are possible scenarios in which it might seem tolerable to leave them in place. I am not advocating anything but I am not joining in your evident hysterical over reaction.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    31 Aug '14 17:58
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Nonetheless, the question remains: In what ways does "We don't have a strategy yet." benefit anyone's cause except ISIS?
    Why are you worrying about these Asian squabbles?
  14. 31 Aug '14 17:58
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Nonetheless, the question remains: In what ways does "We don't have a strategy yet." benefit anyone's cause except ISIS?
    Presidents are elected to make the hard choices. Sometimes those decisions will be wrong, and the opposition will make hay. Jimmy Carter invented government by focus groups, and most Presidents since have followed suit, including the present one.
  15. 31 Aug '14 18:03
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]Mark Levin: Allowing ISIS To Grow Among "Worst National Security Screwups" In U.S. History

    "Mark Levin: I want the American people to understand something, Sean. The commander in chief, and we only have one, is the president of the United States and his name is Barack Obama. And these cockroaches organized, funded themselves, built a forceful ...[text shortened]... an get given his thin resume and experience record."[/i] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/[/b]
    Exactly whom should the U.S. and its allies support in the Middle East? The Islamic theocracies seem hell bent on a crude, violent, religious crusade and I am sure they would love to extend their fight beyond the Middle East. It is obvious that the desire for a nonsectarian democracy is very weak in this part of the word so whom do you propose we support in this mess?