What have we learned in the past five years?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by northgagator, Sep 1, 2014.

  1. northgagator
    Offline

    northgagator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    7,940
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Metro Atlanta Ga Gwinnet County
    Ratings Received:
    +132
    In the year following Obama's election there were several threads on this board that dealt with Obama's leadership skills (a lack of or an abundance of, take your pick) and the role that USA should play on the world stage, AKA Foreign Policy. These threads quickly became divisive and became a whizzing contest between the Liberal Left and the Conservative Right. Four years have passed since those threads started and became archived (or ended up the data dumpster). I guess we are now at a good point to stop for a moment and do a quick review to see if we now have enough information on those two debates and can we come to a consensus on those two debates.

    Item One: Has Obama displayed the leaderships skills that are required for the office of the US Presidency?

    Item two: Has the Left Liberal approach to foreign policy in dealing with terrorist, rouge states, China, Russia, and Iran been successful?
  2. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,341
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    We've learned the universe is better without neocons.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,611
    Likes Received:
    5,295
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,456
    you just cannot answer the questions without some baiting comment can you
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. JerseyGator01
    Offline

    JerseyGator01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,455
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +785
    Hillary Clinton = neocon.

    We should have learned not to be in the business of nation building (or bombing an aspirin factory for that matter if you go way back). We should focus on small, precise operations to take out key components of the enemy instead a la Osama. Make them feel like we have felt (i.e. being worried about an attack any second from anywhere).
    • Agree Agree x 4
  5. northgagator
    Offline

    northgagator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    7,940
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Metro Atlanta Ga Gwinnet County
    Ratings Received:
    +132
    Judging from your comment I can guess that you are saying Obama would be a better leader and his foreign policy would of been better he had not followed Bush.

    Are you saing that a president's leadership and a successful foreign policy is only possible if their predecessor was successful?
  6. Gatormb
    Online

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,380
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,152
    When he does the boards, not to mention Hell, will freeze over.:cool::)
    • Funny Funny x 2
  7. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,293
    1) Obama has no leadership skills. He delivers speeches, not results. He blames others for not getting on board with his program. A real leader finds a way to get people on board by getting them to think it is their program. This usually requires compromise or great negotiating skills. Obama does not believe in the use of those skills. He tells people what to think, and if they refuse to think that way, it is their fault, not his.

    2) I don't think that Obama's failure is necessarily a failure of the Left in foreign policy. Remember, Obama was the third most liberal member of the Senate when he was elected president, so he is on the extreme end of the Left with his beliefs that force is never necessary (which he has now been forced to eat crow on). He just assumed that he could naturally outsmart any other world leader and get what he wanted. After Putin handed Obama his a$$ on several occasions and even Assad humiliated him, Obama realizes that he is not as smart as he thought he was. Most democrat presidents are not as lazy as Obama seems to be, either.

    He also didn't realize that a chain of events can be set in motion by an action of the U.S. president that presents both opportunities and hazards, and he needs to be prepared to deal with those issues, and not spend so much time focused on trivial, domestic police matters. Obama did not realize when he sent in the military to rescue a town in Libya that he would be fanning the pro-democracy flames in the ME, and that people in other countries would expect the U.S. to give them the same kind of support. And when they didn't get that support, they would turn to Al Qaeda before they died in the streets.

    A democrat president is not automatically a failure in foriegn policy. But it takes a lot of work to make foreign policy successful, whether the policy is implemented through warfare or diplomacy. Obama's opening round of insults in seemingly trivial things like gifts to England were a clear indication that he has opted for the lazy man's path in foreign relations.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  8. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,611
    Likes Received:
    5,295
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,456
    work and obama in the same sentence is an oxymoron
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. northgagator
    Offline

    northgagator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    7,940
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Metro Atlanta Ga Gwinnet County
    Ratings Received:
    +132
    Chemgator, you are on the exact same page that I was on when I started this thread.

    When Obama is critisize for his poor or lack of leadership skills his supporters respond back saying that the Repubs are not cooperating. A good leader works through problems like that and resolves them. Bottom line there is no excuse for Obama not being a good leader. You also hit the nail on the head about the foreign policy fiasco we are now seeing. The Left (especially the Far Left) are in a fantasyland when it comes to the hard reality that a good part of the world could not give a chit about circling around the fire and sing Kumbaya.
  10. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,341
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    The Middle East is a mess because it was destabilized between 2003 and 2009.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. OklahomaGator
    Online

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    36,480
    Likes Received:
    1,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +3,295
    So what explains:
    the Iran-Iraq war;
    the Iranian hostage crisis;
    the Russian invasion of Afghanistan;
    the Libyan terror attacks in Italy in the 80's;
    the 8 day war;
    assassination of Anwar Sadat;
    overthrow of the Shah of Iran;
    Iraq's invasion of Kuwait;
    9/11;
    attack on USS Cole;
    etc......

    I don't think GWB was President for those except 9/11.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,600
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,123
    Obama:

    1. Inexperienced in running anything comes home to roost. Lesson learned: You can't take a guy off the street and make him the leader of the free world. Speaking of leader:
    2. Possesses zero leadership skills. This includes the inability to "work with congress". He will never be able to cobble together a coalition of anything foreign or domestic. Why?
    3. He doesn't listen. And guess what?
    4. He is not that smart. He can say a good line, but the theory of cause and effect escapes him. But on thing he is starting to realize:
    5. He is in way over his head, and it scares him witless. Which leads to:
    6. No ability to make a decision
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,586
    Likes Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,489
    To be fair, the middle east has long been a mess, well before 2003.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  14. OklahomaGator
    Online

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    36,480
    Likes Received:
    1,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +3,295
    It is all Urban's fault.
    • Funny Funny x 3
  15. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,586
    Likes Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,489
    Pope Urban II? :D
  16. OklahomaGator
    Online

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    36,480
    Likes Received:
    1,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +3,295
    You got it! Those dang Crusades really upset everything.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,990
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,569
    1. No, but neither did his predecessor. BA showed us the worst of (R) ideas and OA showed us the worst of (D) ideas. So why do people vote in lockstep with one or the other? Logic would like to know.

    1. No more so than (R)s. Again, the Bush of the left is no better in this regards than the Bush of the right, just the flip side of the same awful coin. There is probably a middle ground between arrogant, unilateral overreaching (going to Iraq in the first place on the whims of idiots/corporate hacks) and the feckless, non-committal pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approach of the OA.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,990
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,569
    It is interesting to hear the incessant whining of Arabs/Muslims re. the Crusades when, in fact, it was merely a blip on the screen with respect to the amount of horror and death brought upon them by the Mongols. And, yet, no car bombings in Ulan Bator that I know of.

    Allah frowns.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. sappanama
    Offline

    sappanama VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,683
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +252
    or could it be that the last 3500 years of civil war, war, unrest and lack of civilization is the reason that the area is STILL unstable
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,586
    Likes Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,489
    To me it's slightly different. With Bush, I think the unnecessary Iraq war was a big problem. No reason to go, and then once their, massively mishandled, not to mention, fought off the books. I actually don't blame "Bush" directly for the economic collapse as there were many fathers and mothers to that hot mess, and many of them were Clinton admin folk, and well, our entire banking/eco system is just a dysfunctional playground for the few. Bush of course didn't help himself in many ways given his own lack of curiosity and kind of aw shucks rancher bit, but I also don't think he was as bad in this way as folks on the left made him out to be. Much of the criticism I have are less about major legislation besides the problematical tax cuts since he didn't have all that much (Soc Sec failed) besides problematical tax cuts.

    I also don't think the legislation from Obama has been terrible, knowing that I do tend to support dem/lib policies. I would have preferred universal health care or single payer, but am happy the ACA passed. It's forcing us to confront this massive problem. I also support on principle movement to expand gay rights and gender pay equality (recognizing the latter is not so much a problem as many on the left believe it to be). Where I am most disappointed is the lack of reigning in the big banks and the kind of practices that led to the economic collapse. They have shaped the rules for way too long in ways that just damage the middle class. And heck, even a chunk of the "upper class" i.e. those not filthy rich but might have very high incomes. Whereas Bush seems to be too folksy cowboy/frat boy, Obama is certainly too aloof to many, and I think his messaging, i.e. his communications team is an utter disaster. And just as Bush wasn't actually served well by Cheney, and some of his staff, neither has Obama by his.

    Presidents as "people" have to rely on good staff that can read the electorate well and respond accordingly. Yes, it might seem like cynical positioning but that is how policies get sold and that is how people come to support presidents. After all, presidenting is largely and firstly about perceptions, and in this way both have not done well at all in managing them.
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page