Amazing how weak the USA is

[Purdue97]

Was hoping this was not true. Been some rumblings about it but nothing substantiated. Not even sure what to say besides Obama and Kerry are extremely weak on the international front.

1) Making any deal with Russia after the bombing(X2) is ridiculous

2) I can see letting the first one go-not really, but for diplomatic reasons I can. After calls on the emergency hotline were ignored, and a second bombing occurred, absolutely no reason for those planes not to be blown out of the sky-and the favor returned times 10.

3) It is amazing to me how absolutely weak Obama, Kerry, and Clinton were/are internationally. No we cannot make a deal, will not make a deal-bomb us? Ok, what do you want? Pathetic.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/22/russian-warplanes-reportedly-bombed-us-base-in-syria.html

 

[lbodel]

Was hoping this was not true. Been some rumblings about it but nothing substantiated. Not even sure what to say besides Obama and Kerry are extremely weak on the international front.

1) Making any deal with Russia after the bombing(X2) is ridiculous

2) I can see letting the first one go-not really, but for diplomatic reasons I can. After calls on the emergency hotline were ignored, and a second bombing occurred, absolutely no reason for those planes not to be blown out of the sky-and the favor returned times 10.

3) It is amazing to me how absolutely weak Obama, Kerry, and Clinton were/are internationally. No we cannot make a deal, will not make a deal-bomb us? Ok, what do you want? Pathetic.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/22/russian-warplanes-reportedly-bombed-us-base-in-syria.html

I can tell you right now - it has nothing to do with who was in charge. Any Republican in the White House wouldn't have blown up a Russian fighter jet either.

It's like the fight against ISIS - you hear all this tough talk, then you ask specifically what they would do differently - mum.

It's a lot easier said than done. It's why you see tough talk and when that person is actually in charge, they don't follow through. Obama has been much more "hawkish" than you would think leading up to his election.

Also, I didn't know Clinton was Secretary of State last month.

 

[lbodel]

Was hoping this was not true. Been some rumblings about it but nothing substantiated. Not even sure what to say besides Obama and Kerry are extremely weak on the international front.

1) Making any deal with Russia after the bombing(X2) is ridiculous

2) I can see letting the first one go-not really, but for diplomatic reasons I can. After calls on the emergency hotline were ignored, and a second bombing occurred, absolutely no reason for those planes not to be blown out of the sky-and the favor returned times 10.

3) It is amazing to me how absolutely weak Obama, Kerry, and Clinton were/are internationally. No we cannot make a deal, will not make a deal-bomb us? Ok, what do you want? Pathetic.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/22/russian-warplanes-reportedly-bombed-us-base-in-syria.html

And never mind what Trump said about NATO and say, the Baltic countries that Russia could very well invade, that has been in place since WW2 and has had staunch bipartisan support for decades.

 

[Bill4411]

Trump's not necessarily going to protect a NATO country because it may not have paid its fair share; however, he doubled down on protecting Israel who we spend billions of dollars every year protecting and we aren't asking them to help pay for its defense. I think there is a lot of incongruity in his thinking. It might be a good question to ask Paul Manafort who is campaign director. Paul is a paid lobbyist for Russia, which is enough in itself to have no use for Trump.

 

[Purdue97]

Trump's not necessarily going to protect a NATO country because it may not have paid its fair share; however, he doubled down on protecting Israel who we spend billions of dollars every year protecting and we aren't asking them to help pay for its defense. I think there is a lot of incongruity in his thinking. It might be a good question to ask Paul Manafort who is campaign director. Paul is a paid lobbyist for Russia, which is enough in itself to have no use for Trump.

I do not think Trump would bail from NATO. I do not think he would not stop aggression against a NATO country either. Just as I do not think he will build a wall and/or deport 12 million.

What I do think he is doing in the event he becomes President, is laying out very strong positions before negotiations start to get what he actually wants done. With NATO that involves getting countries to pay or contribute for their defense more and modernizing itself to better fight terror. As for immigration the reform leans to the right and stops sanctuary cities and has defense/security in mind.

In negotiations, never start out with what you want. One gives in some to make a deal and you get substantially less.

 

[Purdue97]

I can tell you right now - it has nothing to do with who was in charge. Any Republican in the White House wouldn't have blown up a Russian fighter jet either.

It's like the fight against ISIS - you hear all this tough talk, then you ask specifically what they would do differently - mum.

It's a lot easier said than done. It's why you see tough talk and when that person is actually in charge, they don't follow through. Obama has been much more "hawkish" than you would think leading up to his election.

Also, I didn't know Clinton was Secretary of State last month.

She was not SoS. But do not be so naive to think that her handling of ISIS/Iraq/Syria when she was did not contribute to this incident. I grouped her in with the weakness of the others. And like I said, I could see dealing with it after first attack. But ignoring emergency requests, allowing a second attack, and then listening to a bunch of bs lies, is too much.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Was hoping this was not true. Been some rumblings about it but nothing substantiated. Not even sure what to say besides Obama and Kerry are extremely weak on the international front.

1) Making any deal with Russia after the bombing(X2) is ridiculous

2) I can see letting the first one go-not really, but for diplomatic reasons I can. After calls on the emergency hotline were ignored, and a second bombing occurred, absolutely no reason for those planes not to be blown out of the sky-and the favor returned times 10.

3) It is amazing to me how absolutely weak Obama, Kerry, and Clinton were/are internationally. No we cannot make a deal, will not make a deal-bomb us? Ok, what do you want? Pathetic.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/22/russian-warplanes-reportedly-bombed-us-base-in-syria.html

That whole area is one big long giant Democrat/CIA ****up.
"The reality is telling that, since the beginning of the American airstrikes, the terrorism has been expanding and prevailing," Assad explained. "It only shrinked when the Russians intervened." He attributed that to a lack of political will from the U.S. — and a different end goal. "We wanted to defeat those terrorists, while the United States wanted to manage those groups in order to topple the government in Syria," Assad said.

 

[lbodel]

That whole area is one big long giant Democrat/CIA ****up.
"The reality is telling that, since the beginning of the American airstrikes, the terrorism has been expanding and prevailing," Assad explained. "It only shrinked when the Russians intervened." He attributed that to a lack of political will from the U.S. — and a different end goal. "We wanted to defeat those terrorists, while the United States wanted to manage those groups in order to topple the government in Syria," Assad said.

First off, please do not quote a DICTATOR in Assad to back up your points. SHOCKING he would not have positive things to say. This is no different than quoting Mussolini and being like well this is what he said about us, it must be true!? Find someone legit to at least quote.

I hate to break it to you - but a lot of it goes back to our original invasion of Iraq under Bush.

The thing is - Republicans can say it all they want - but they wouldn't have done much differently over this time. You ask them what they would do differently and it's crickets. They are first to criticize, but then offer up no alternative solutions. Ask them how they would "destroy" ISIS that they trumpet - then they refuse to say they'd send troops. So what the hell would be different? They don't offer any differences.

The fact of the matter is Republicans are just as much, if not more, "install Democracy" types.

 

[Purdue97]

First off, please do not quote a DICTATOR in Assad to back up your points. SHOCKING he would not have positive things to say. This is no different than quoting Mussolini and being like well this is what he said about us, it must be true!? Find someone legit to at least quote.

I hate to break it to you - but a lot of it goes back to our original invasion of Iraq under Bush.

The thing is - Republicans can say it all they want - but they wouldn't have done much differently over this time. You ask them what they would do differently and it's crickets. They are first to criticize, but then offer up no alternative solutions. Ask them how they would "destroy" ISIS that they trumpet - then they refuse to say they'd send troops. So what the hell would be different? They don't offer any differences.

The fact of the matter is Republicans are just as much, if not more, "install Democracy" types.

-At some point, Obama and his Admin have to own decisions they made in the ME and Afghanistan. Just like Bush did. Just like Clinton did. Point is, Bush can say Afghnaistan is such a mess because while Taliban/Al Qaeda were strengthening in 90's Clinton/Gore did nothing. In fact they mocked Col North for mentioning bin Laden. Issue is, once you have had eight years at some point you own the decisions you make. But I do not recall him saying that.

-As for dictators, I think the one thing the US has to get used to is that is how that part of the world operates, whether we like it or not. Replace a dictator, in comes a power vacuum, and major issues are the result. Really surprised after what Bush and Obama have done this was not learned yet.

-For overall strategy, I would say a lot of Reps were against the pullout, largely cause they listened to what military leaders stated would happen and did happen. As for this specific event, I just do not see Trump not giving okay(or have ROE not set up to) to take down that aircraft. Definitely do not see him giving Russia what they want in air space after Ally base was attacked not once, but twice.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

First off, please do not quote a DICTATOR in Assad to back up your points. SHOCKING he would not have positive things to say. This is no different than quoting Mussolini and being like well this is what he said about us, it must be true!? Find someone legit to at least quote.

I hate to break it to you - but a lot of it goes back to our original invasion of Iraq under Bush.

The thing is - Republicans can say it all they want - but they wouldn't have done much differently over this time. You ask them what they would do differently and it's crickets. They are first to criticize, but then offer up no alternative solutions. Ask them how they would "destroy" ISIS that they trumpet - then they refuse to say they'd send troops. So what the hell would be different? They don't offer any differences.

The fact of the matter is Republicans are just as much, if not more, "install Democracy" types.

Assad won elections with 73% voter turnout. Nice try.
The facts support Assad's statements. I'm not taking his statement as fact. You know who helped put Assad in power? Bush the first. Before Bashar there was a guy named Hafez, Ba'ath party member opposed to the muslim brotherhood. So what are you gonna tell me?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The pullout as executed from Iraq for political purposes was a mistake. Obama learned that lesson, and that's why he's not repeating it in Afghanistan. I commend him for that.

That said, there's an element of inevitability to a lot of this. AQ existed before the US intervened. ISIS or a similar jihadi caliphate movement would have grown at some point. I think it's silly to try to place blame on any specific politician or set of politicians for any of it, honestly.

When I see this kind of stuff come up, I frequently think: "What would you do differently? What's the obvious right answer?" 99% of the time, there isn't one.

 

[qazplm]

The pullout as executed from Iraq for political purposes was a mistake. Obama learned that lesson, and that's why he's not repeating it in Afghanistan. I commend him for that.

That said, there's an element of inevitability to a lot of this. AQ existed before the US intervened. ISIS or a similar jihadi caliphate movement would have grown at some point. I think it's silly to try to place blame on any specific politician or set of politicians for any of it, honestly.

When I see this kind of stuff come up, I frequently think: "What would you do differently? What's the obvious right answer?" 99% of the time, there isn't one.

While we disagree on Iraq, I agree that there are no good answers for the middle east. There will be some other terrorist organization that crops up even if we completely destroy ISIS and AQ. That organization(s) will blow stuff up, take lives, cause problems.

I think you can place some blame on policies (invading Iraq was a stupid, stupid policy) that do have an effect, but at the end of the day, terrorism is with us, and it's going to be with us. We fight it, and we try to insure that we don't let it change our way of life.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

The pullout as executed from Iraq for political purposes was a mistake. Obama learned that lesson, and that's why he's not repeating it in Afghanistan. I commend him for that.

That said, there's an element of inevitability to a lot of this. AQ existed before the US intervened. ISIS or a similar jihadi caliphate movement would have grown at some point. I think it's silly to try to place blame on any specific politician or set of politicians for any of it, honestly.

When I see this kind of stuff come up, I frequently think: "What would you do differently? What's the obvious right answer?" 99% of the time, there isn't one.

why is it silly? There was no reason to do this. Assad helped interrogate terrorism suspects after 9/11 and open the plots of AQ. His dad supported us in the first iraq war. We have been making a habit of funding sunni extremism on behalf of the saudis. It's disgusting, not silly.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

why is it silly? There was no reason to do this. Assad helped interrogate terrorism suspects after 9/11 and open the plots of AQ. His dad supported us in the first iraq war. We have been making a habit of funding sunni extremism on behalf of the saudis. It's disgusting, not silly.

To do what?

 

[Purdue97]

The pullout as executed from Iraq for political purposes was a mistake. Obama learned that lesson, and that's why he's not repeating it in Afghanistan. I commend him for that.

That said, there's an element of inevitability to a lot of this. AQ existed before the US intervened. ISIS or a similar jihadi caliphate movement would have grown at some point. I think it's silly to try to place blame on any specific politician or set of politicians for any of it, honestly.

When I see this kind of stuff come up, I frequently think: "What would you do differently? What's the obvious right answer?" 99% of the time, there isn't one.

Pretty sure ISIS actually 'started' in the late 90s.

I appreciate the ME is an enigma that the right move now will bite one 10-20 years down the road if not sooner.

As for this specific incident, like I said, I get the initial mistake although obviously hate it. The second bombing run while ignoring the emergency line is bs. Would shooting down plane escalate things-yes. But to sit here and let your base get attacked twice is the wrong answer.

 

[lbodel]

Assad won elections with 73% voter turnout. Nice try.
The facts support Assad's statements. I'm not taking his statement as fact. You know who helped put Assad in power? Bush the first. Before Bashar there was a guy named Hafez, Ba'ath party member opposed to the muslim brotherhood. So what are you gonna tell me?

LOL I love that you're defending Assad right now. That's a good clue not to bother taking you seriously.

You realize that Saddam Hussein was "elected" each time too?

First off, this was the FIRST time that there was someone else other than Assad on the ballot. I guess those previous elections were tough!

Secondly, 24 people filed to run for President. You know how many were "approved" and "met conditions" to run other than Assad? Two. 21 other people were ruled not to be able to run.

Third, 73% voter turnout eh? The only places you could vote were ASSAD CONTROLLED areas of the country. Why is part of the country not controlled? Because it was in the middle of a civil war - as an uprising AGAINST Assad!

Fourth, Assad is known as a typical dictator. For years, Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube were blocked for long periods of times. Anywhere that offered internet services were required to record any chat transcripts. Political opponents were killed, arrested, tortured, etc. There's been case after case of war crimes documented by the Assad regime.

But yes, please go ahead and promote how great a Democracy Syria is and how reputable Assad is.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

LOL I love that you're defending Assad right now. That's a good clue not to bother taking you seriously.

You realize that Saddam Hussein was "elected" each time too?

First off, this was the FIRST time that there was someone else other than Assad on the ballot. I guess those previous elections were tough!

Secondly, 24 people filed to run for President. You know how many were "approved" and "met conditions" to run other than Assad? Two. 21 other people were ruled not to be able to run.

Third, 73% voter turnout eh? The only places you could vote were ASSAD CONTROLLED areas of the country. Why is part of the country not controlled? Because it was in the middle of a civil war - as an uprising AGAINST Assad!

Fourth, Assad is known as a typical dictator. For years, Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube were blocked for long periods of times. Anywhere that offered internet services were required to record any chat transcripts. Political opponents were killed, arrested, tortured, etc. There's been case after case of war crimes documented by the Assad regime.

But yes, please go ahead and promote how great a Democracy Syria is and how reputable Assad is.

lol ok. go look up the statistics on that election. They got better turn out than most usa ones. He got something like 10M votes. I'm not saying assad is perfect, but they've been a good ally. Putin shot a plane of civilians out of the sky and jailed journalists and artists, are we gonna go depose him as well? stupid ass logic on this board. seriously. Now you have a war and refugee crisis 10x worse than whatever was going on before. Ya the syrian people are so much better off now!