The disengaged obama

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Nov 2, 2013.

  1. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +754
    Didn't you know? The world is only 5 and a half years old. And every bad thing that's happened in those 5.5 years is because of Obama.
  2. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,786
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,230
    Interesting that you brought up Afghanistan, because there are similarities to Syria. Reagan was not at fault for what happened in Afghanistan; Bush, Sr. was. Afghanistan could have easily made the transition to a pro-western country (if not a democracy) had they received any support at all from the west after the Russians left. They received none. Their country was devastated after a decade of war, and needed major reconstruction and basic services. We had an opportunity to rebuild a country from scratch (and on the cheap) and create an ally for decades. Bush, Sr. allocated $0.00 in foreign aid to Afghanistan. The pro-western leader of the resistance was in charge of reconstructing the devastated country, but without any resources to do so. He was assassinated by an opposition leader with a KGB-style gun concealed as a camera. Things went downhill from there, and the Taliban took over in 1993 or 1994. Al Qaeda moved in a couple years later.

    In Syria, Obama abandoned the rebels early on, and allowed the situation to deteriorate until the people got desperate enough to accept any help they could get, which turned out to be Al Qaeda.

    Lesson: don't let people get desperate enough to accept any help they can get, because that help will come with strings attached and their motives will not be pure.
  3. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,786
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,230
    Have there been any good things that have happened because of Obama?
  4. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,786
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,230
    You obviously didn't understand what I was saying. It is immature to hold the position that a president is held strictly responsible for the things that happen only during his term of office, and it is immature to hold the idea that once a president gets involved with a major action in a country, then from that day forward, everything that happens in that country is that president's fault. If something bad happens in Germany tomorrow, we should blame FDR and Truman.

    You see it a lot with people who are desperately clinging to an untenable position. They will cling to any logic, no matter how illogical, that supports their position, rather than admit they were wrong. We saw it with GWB supporters in 2004 - 2006, and with Obama supporters in 2010-2014. It helps bad presidents get re-elected.
  5. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39,336
    Likes Received:
    3,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,458
    re: (bolded)
    jeez. we've said this only about a gazillion times. but the only response we get is 'bbbbbbb bush', no one, and i'm not exaggerating here, no one will engage in any sort of discussion at all regarding #43 and what policies instituted by his administration were proven to be damaging not only to this country, but to the entire middle east.

    around here, iraq is now obama's fault. if we are to agree with your stance here, that means that it's bush's fault.
    doubtful i'm going to see anyone (on the right)agreeing with that point of view.

    if that's what you believe, then i'd consider that a fairly enlightened opinion.
  6. secgator
    Offline

    secgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,739
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +963
    In a nutshell.... NO!
  7. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    72,232
    Likes Received:
    4,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +10,445
    verti who made the decision to pull all the troops out and who is now having to put troops back in Iraq
  8. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +677
    I think a lawless Afghanistan would probably have been an acceptable strategic risk when the payoff was the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. The Taliban may have harbored AQ but they were not immediately involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Share This Page