Jump to content

U.S. Politics: The Bipartisan Dismemberment of the VA


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maester Drew said:

Obama deserves credit on many things such as healthcare reform, but on peace? No.

Why not? 

Obama made the decision to not get the US involved in Libya more. He made the decision not to get the US involved in Syria more. He's negotiated a NPT with Iran and actually got Iran talking to people. The US is now not involved much in Iraq and involved less in Afghanistan. There are fewer people in gitmo than when he started, and we're on pace to get out entirely.

The US is more peaceful than they've been in the last 20 years - ironically, the only president more peaceful has been Clinton in 1993-1994. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why not? 

Did you even watch the video? :huh:

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Obama made the decision to not get the US involved in Libya more. He made the decision not to get the US involved in Syria more. He's negotiated a NPT with Iran and actually got Iran talking to people. The US is now not involved much in Iraq and involved less in Afghanistan. There are fewer people in gitmo than when he started, and we're on pace to get out entirely.

The US is more peaceful than they've been in the last 20 years - ironically, the only president more peaceful has been Clinton in 1993-1994. 

I applaud him for the Iran Deal and normalizing relations with Cuba. But, Obama promised to get the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we are still involved in some way. Gitmo, wasn't that supposed to be a top priority? Now, after seven years in office, he decides to do something about it.

Years ago, I thought he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Now? Not anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I didn't bother watching the video. I don't tend to because it's much slower than reading. But it doesn't really matter; my points are still valid.

We are in some way militarily involved in Germany and Japan. Does that mean that Truman didn't end WW2? Being 'involved' doesn't mean that we are at war, and it doesn't mean we are heavily involved militarily. For intents and purposes the US is out of Iraq. The US cannot project any kind of military power in Iraq right now. Point of fact, I'd say that Obama getting out of Iraq on a timeline was a problem - but it is simply ludicrous to state that he didn't do it. 

I guess it's just disheartening to note that despite the US being more peaceful than it's been in over 20 years and despite Obama specifically doing things to help peace- things that were considered impossible 15 years ago - you are willing to give him no credit for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, I didn't bother watching the video. I don't tend to because it's much slower than reading. But it doesn't really matter; my points are still valid.

I guess it's just disheartening to note that despite the US being more peaceful than it's been in over 20 years and despite Obama specifically doing things to help peace- things that were considered impossible 15 years ago - you are willing to give him no credit for it. 

Did I not say that I appaulded Obama on Iran and Cuba? What part of that was not giving the President credit?

Furthermore, that video I posted actually addresses many of your points. Please watch it because it does reflect my own views on Obama's foreign policy and you could then understand why I think like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maester Drew said:

Did I not say that I appaulded Obama on Iran and Cuba? What part of that was not giving the President credit?

Furthermore, that video I posted actually addresses many of your points. Please watch it because it does reflect my own views on Obama's foreign policy and you could then understand why I think like that.

The part where you said 'Obama deserves credit for many things, but peace? no'. That would be the part that you're not giving Obama credit. 

I'm not going to bother watching a 7 minute video that you can't bother to articulate. Sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the NYT Article:

Quote

WASHINGTON — President Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.

If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama’s term — a near-certainty given the president’s recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria — he will leave behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

Mr. Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and spent his years in the White House trying to fulfill the promises he made as an antiwar candidate, would have a longer tour of duty as a wartime president than Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon or his hero Abraham Lincoln.

Granted, Mr. Obama is leaving far fewer soldiers in harm’s way — at least 4,087 in Iraq and 9,800 in Afghanistan — than the 200,000 troops he inherited from Mr. Bush in the two countries. But Mr. Obama has also approved strikes against terrorist groups in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, for a total of seven countries where his administration has taken military action.

[...]

But Mr. Obama has found those conflicts maddeningly hard to end. On Oct. 21, 2011, he announced that the last combat soldier would leave Iraq by the end of that year, drawing that eight-year war to a close. “Our troops will definitely be home for the holidays,” Mr. Obama said at the White House.

Less than three years later, he told a national television audience that he would send 475 military advisers back to Iraq to help in the battle against the Islamic State, the brutal terrorist group that swept into the security vacuum left by the absent Americans. By last month, more than 5,000 American troops were in Iraq.

A furious firefight this month between Islamic State fighters and Navy SEALs in northern Iraq, in which Special Warfare Operator First Class Charles Keating IV became the third American to die since the campaign against the Islamic State began, harked back to the bloodiest days of the Iraq war. It also made the administration’s argument that the Americans were only advising and assisting Iraqi forces seem ever less plausible.

[...]

Afghanistan followed a similar cycle of hope and disappointment. In May 2014, Mr. Obama announced that the United States would withdraw the last combat soldier from the country by the end of 2016.

[...]

Seventeen months later, Mr. Obama halted the withdrawal, telling Americans that he planned to leave more than 5,000 troops in Afghanistan until early 2017, the end of his presidency. By then, the Taliban controlled more territory in the country than at any time since 2001.

Taliban fighters even briefly conquered the northern city of Kunduz. In the bitter battle for control, an American warplane mistakenly fired its missiles into a Doctors Without Borders hospital, killing 42 people and prompting accusations that the United States had committed a war crime.

 

That makes for an abysmal record. Any peace he did achieve was negated by other actions. If his war and peace legacies were to be placed on a scale, the war legacy would outweigh the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gitmo was disappointing. I was hoping he would manage enough support to get it done, but I guess not.

 

The rest? It's hard to not do anything in that region. Things are/were volatile and given the past U.S. action, we're mired deep into it. It's like a second-hand car you inherited that you kept putting money into fixing. You'd like to stop, except it's the only means of transportation you have. Dampening the hostility with Iran and distancing ourselves from Israel and Saudi Arabia are all necessary first steps to slowly disentangle ourselves from the region. I am sad that Hillary is unlikely to fully pursue this policy, but that's the U.S.' inability to let Israel go for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maester Drew said:

From the NYT Article:

 

That makes for an abysmal record. Any peace he did achieve was negated by other actions. If his war and peace legacies were to be placed on a scale, the war legacy would outweigh the other.

And I just disagree, period. 

We aren't spending massive money on war. Point of fact the NYT article is wrong - we currently are not in a state of war with anyone. But aside from that, this entire thing ignores all the work that he did do, and did do well. 

The other issue is this: the only war that we are currently engaged with (if you want to call it that) is Afghanistan - which Obama started out in. Obama hasn't started any new wars, but wars in general have a habit of, ya know, continuing on. They don't just end unless you get a decisive victory. Now, you can decide that letting Afghanistan go back into the hands of fundamentalist dictators who routinely repress women more than anyone else in the world is totally cool because hey, at least we can say we aren't at war - but that kind of sucks for the people there. 

So Maester Drew, is that what you want - to just leave Afghanistan and let that country go back to people who have one of the worst human rights records in the world, and who happily harbored terrorists who, ya know, actually succeeded in attacking the US? I'm curious how you would have resolved Afghanistan or at least made it less 'dismal'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And I just disagree, period. 

We aren't spending massive money on war. Point of fact the NYT article is wrong - we currently are not in a state of war with anyone. But aside from that, this entire thing ignores all the work that he did do, and did do well. 

The other issue is this: the only war that we are currently engaged with (if you want to call it that) is Afghanistan - which Obama started out in. Obama hasn't started any new wars, but wars in general have a habit of, ya know, continuing on. They don't just end unless you get a decisive victory. Now, you can decide that letting Afghanistan go back into the hands of fundamentalist dictators who routinely repress women more than anyone else in the world is totally cool because hey, at least we can say we aren't at war - but that kind of sucks for the people there. 

So Maester Drew, is that what you want - to just leave Afghanistan and let that country go back to people who have one of the worst human rights records in the world, and who happily harbored terrorists who, ya know, actually succeeded in attacking the US? I'm curious how you would have resolved Afghanistan or at least made it less 'dismal'. 

How dare you accuse me of supporting terrorism or dictatorships!

What I gather from your statement is this: There are evil dictatorships around the world? Let's invade them and bring democracy to them!

Well then, we've done a piss-poor job at it (e.g. North Korea, why haven't we brought democracy to a flagrant human rights violator that is the DPRK?) Why has our history after the Second World War been supporting one dictatorship after another? (Pinochet for example).

 

It was your beloved President Obama (who apparently does no wrong, according to you) that said he'd get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible, and he's botched it up. I agree that it is a herculean effort for any president to sort that mess out, but Obama clearly stated we'd be done in Afghanistan by 2014, so I expected he had a clear plan to get us out by that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

The Gitmo was disappointing. I was hoping he would manage enough support to get it done, but I guess not.

 

The rest? It's hard to not do anything in that region. Things are/were volatile and given the past U.S. action, we're mired deep into it. It's like a second-hand car you inherited that you kept putting money into fixing. You'd like to stop, except it's the only means of transportation you have. Dampening the hostility with Iran and distancing ourselves from Israel and Saudi Arabia are all necessary first steps to slowly disentangle ourselves from the region. I am sad that Hillary is unlikely to fully pursue this policy, but that's the U.S.' inability to let Israel go for you.

Obama has said he doesn't see much future in the Middle East and wants little to do with the region. He wants to focus on Asia. But there's only so much you can change course on that kind of thing and at the end of the day the region doesn't stop being important for global foreign policy just because you want to ignore it. The US will have material interests there so long as it wants to continue being powerful on a global scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maester Drew said:

How dare you accuse me of supporting terrorism or dictatorships!

I didn't, but you keep being you man. 

Just now, Maester Drew said:

What I gather from your statement is this: There are evil dictatorships around the world? Let's invade them and bring democracy to them!

No wonder you watch videos. You apparently aren't that strong at reading. 

There was an evil dictatorship that attacked the US. We invaded them. Then Obama became President.Said dictatorship was deposed but was fighting a guerrila war. And has been doing so for almost 15 years now. 

What do you do? 

Just now, Maester Drew said:

 

Well then, we've done a piss-poor job at it (e.g. North Korea, why haven't we brought democracy to a flagrant human rights violator that is the DPRK?) Why has our history after the Second World War been supporting one dictatorship after another? (Pinochet for example).

Is this about the US' dismal role in general? If so, don't put that on Obama. You remind me of the guy who blamed Obama for not opening up Cuba relations - in 1980. 

 

Just now, Maester Drew said:

It was your beloved President Obama (who apparently does no wrong, according to you) that said he'd get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible, and he's botched it up. I agree that it is a herculean effort for any president to sort that mess out, but Obama clearly stated we'd be done in Afghanistan by 2014, so I expected he had a clear plan to get us out by that year.

I didn't say he did no wrong. I disagreed with the characterization that his record was dismal.

Obama stated that his goal was to get us out of Afghanistan by 2014. He was wrong. We did have a plan. It didn't work. I get that you're upset by that, but plans not working happens. The other guy has plans, too. 

So again, I ask - you wanted to be out by 2014, but it's clear when 2014 rolls around that if you simply leave the country will go back into control of the people you deposed, making your decade effort completely pointless and leaving a dangerous dictatorship in command. In addition, you'll probably be condemning all the allies that you had to death. What do you, Maester Drew, actually advocate? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maester Drew said:

I advocate peace.

How do you achieve that? I suspect a great many people would like to know the answer. 

But since you completely chickened out of the question, I'll answer it more directly: what actions do you advocate taking in Afghanistan? What should Obama have done differently that would make you approve of him more? 

And if you advocate peace and hate that we're still in Afghanistan, why are you voting for Sanders given that he also voted to fight the war in Afghanistan and has voted to fund it every single year he's been a senator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed that Sachs essay. He's pretty even handed, gave Obama credit where credit was due but is also critical of him where he feels he came up short. From the article-

Obama deserves credit for acknowledging some of the hard truths concerning America’s failed foreign policy. In the recent Atlantic Monthly interview, he describes how Washington unthinkingly drifts toward war; how the Pentagon repeatedly “jammed” him to escalate military force; how the “playbook” responses of the foreign policy establishment “tend to be militarized responses”; how US allies in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey, tend to “exploit American ‘muscle’ for their own narrow and sectarian ends”; how some military leaders “believed they could fix any problem if the commander in chief would simply give them what they wanted; how foreign-policy think tanks in Washington “are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders; how America’s Sunni Arab allies foment anti-American terrorism; how it “became obvious to Obama [in 2014, three years after the start of the CIA-backed Syrian War] that defeating [ISIS] was of more immediate urgency than overthrowing Bashar al-Assad; how “Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp, and [did] exactly the same in Syria; and how “the competition between the Saudis and Iranians ... helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen.”

Yet, there is also much to bemoan as well in Obama’s reflections and actions. Most obviously, despite his misgivings, he went along with the CIA, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey in the Syrian war. He exceeded the UN Security Council mandate in Libya by using NATO forces to topple Muammar Qaddafi. He expanded covert operations, in particular drone warfare. And he displays the typical US arrogance that the United States must lead because without it, nothing good happens in the world. “The fact is,” says Obama, “there is not a summit I’ve attended since I’ve been President where we [the US] are not setting the agenda, where we are not responsible for the key results. That’s true whether you’re talking about nuclear security, whether you’re talking about saving the world financial system, whether you’re talking about climate.” What makes this statement utterly misguided is that the United States was the main cause of the financial crisis, and the major laggard, not leader, on climate change during the past twenty years. 

My concern was always the same regarding the priority of concentrating on ISIS and that the overthrow of Bassar-Assad was a misstep that we should avoid taking the bait on. After a few years Obama was able come to this correct position. Kudos to him, Bush would never have got that right in twenty tries.....still I remain hopeful to someday have a President that could get that right immediately not after a 2+ yr. misstep. Better late than never though, I can give Obama that credit.

The concern now though is Hillary's (and her teams) decision making, especially what Sachs notes here- Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has been a life-long advocate of the MIC. As senator and secretary of state, she enthusiastically backed every CIA misadventure that came along, from Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s to the recent debacles in Libya and Syria. As senator, she enthusiastically and provocatively campaigned for NATO enlargement to the borders of Russia in Ukraine and Georgia. It is hard to recall a proposed military action that Clinton has opposed. 

Seriously can anyone name a proposed military action she has ever opposed? I'm willing to be open minded and give Obama some credit over coming around to the correct course eventually in Syria, are the Hillary voters open minded enough to concede that she may need some tempering over this very concerning appearance of her being too eager to get in entanglements?

Anyways I hope some of you read the Sachs article I posted on the previous page, I think it's quite fair and evenhanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary is indisputedly hawkish. I'm not going to spend time denying the truth. I can only hope there's enough push back from the Democrats in the Congress to temper her stance in this area.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the biggest thing that Clinton didn't support - attacking Iran. That comes to mind as kind of a big deal. She even talked the Israelis out of doing so. 

She is in general against major wars, especially against bigger states - she's said repeatedly she wants to not deal with China militarily, as an example. But yeah, she's pretty hawkish otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

Hillary is indisputedly hawkish. I'm not going to spend time denying the truth. I can only hope there's enough push back from the Democrats in the Congress to temper her stance in this area.

 

It's less about Democratic push back in the Congress and more about who she surrounds herself with, both in her cabinet and who she taps to be her advisers.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Probably the biggest thing that Clinton didn't support - attacking Iran. 

I don't believe that is correct.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/hillary-clinton-threatens-war-enforce-iran-deal/?page=all

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

She's threatened to take military actions against Iran if they violate the NPT or attack Israel. And while she was SoS she advocated that the Obama Administration take a much firmer stance against Iran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's less about Democratic push back in the Congress and more about who she surrounds herself with, both in her cabinet and who she taps to be her advisers.

I don't believe that is correct.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/hillary-clinton-threatens-war-enforce-iran-deal/?page=all

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

She's threatened to take military actions against Iran if they violate the NPT or attack Israel. And while she was SoS she advocated that the Obama Administration take a much firmer stance against Iran. 

Yes, all of that is true. But she also told Israel to back off and let the US deal with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...