Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 164

Thread: What to do About ISIS?

  1. #31
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505

    What to do About ISIS?

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    You are throwing cheap shots and complaining when I show you to be wrong.

    Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes, second to "Let's go fight a ground war in Iraq, it will be easy!", was dismantling the Iraqi army (esp. the Republican Guard). Instead of sending them home, they should have kept them functional, paid their salary, fed them, and charged them to keep the peace and rebuild their country.
    We just disagree. No biggie. I didn't mean any cheap shots. (I'm actually surprised you feel that I did.). It's just that both sides of that issue have entrenched positions, and I'm kind of sick of the discussion. Besides, I like you and have no desire to get into a political debate with you that's not going to go anywhere.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by LA Ute; 12-15-2015 at 11:17 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  2. #32
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    We just disagree. No biggie. I didn't mean any cheap shots. (I'm actually surprised you feel that I did.). It's just that both sides of that issue have entrenched positions, and I'm kind of sick of the discussion. Besides, I like you and have no desire to get into a political debate with you that's not going to go anywhere.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    One thing I think we can agree on: this situation was made over by a bunch of sociopaths on both sides of the aisle who use the situation to try and score political points and I don't see anyone on the horizon with the political will to change that. Our election process all but ensures that this will continue.

  3. #33
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    Quote Originally Posted by U-Ute View Post
    One thing I think we can agree on: this situation was made over by a bunch of sociopaths on both sides of the aisle who use the situation to try and score political points and I don't see anyone on the horizon with the political will to change that. Our election process all but ensures that this will continue.
    I agree.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  4. #34
    Another problem is that we seem to live in a political dichotomy, with only two 'official' opposing sides.

    But the countries who are being affected by ISIL have multiple factions struggling for power, and multiple factions within those factions. And the way we view those factions is heavily influenced by our political ties to other groups in the region.

    One example is the Kurds. We seem to have a very healthy reciprocal relationship with the Kurdish peoples in the various countries. The US would likely support the creation of a single Kurdish nation carved out from Kurdish-held territories in Iraq, Syria, etc. But our strong ally Turkey is vehemently opposed to this, so we stick with the arbitrary borders drawn up after WWI (borders drawn by USA, UK, USSR, and France which supported their various interests in the former Ottoman Empire).

    In Syria we have a ruthless dictator (Assad) doing horrible things to his own people. But when compared to most of the other factions in hid country, he seems to be the only same person in the room with dozens of other factions trying to murder each other.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    We're not going to get anywhere with this discussion. Many people, smart and well-informed people, believe that the United States should have pressed harder to keep sufficient forces in Iraq to preserve what had been achieved there. I know what the response to that is. Let's just not go there.
    What we achieved with the surge was to give the Iraqis a window of opportunity for political reform while we exited gracefully. Maliki was actively undermining what had been achieved before Obama took the oath of office. At best, a residual force would have kept us from being taken totally by surprise by the rise of ISIS in the summer of 2014.

    Besides, I like you and have no desire to get into a political debate with you that's not going to go anywhere.
    It really shouldn't be a political debate in the first place. If we can't put politics aside we are doomed to learn the wrong lessons, IMHO.
    Last edited by USS Utah; 12-16-2015 at 08:01 PM.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  6. #36
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    Quote Originally Posted by USS Utah View Post
    It really shouldn't be a political debate in the first place. If we can't put politics aside we are doomed to learn the wrong lessons, IMHO.
    That would be fun.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  7. #37
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    Dan Lamothe on Chuck Hagel's book.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...house-matters/


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  8. #38
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    The Islamic State creates a new type of jihadist: Part terrorist, part gangster

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...6d2_story.html


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #39
    I think the most accurate way I can describe President Obama, after reading far too many accounts from former loyalists and very bright people is that he is a Professor President. He entered office with many laudable ideologies but when reality struck and continues to strike he is unable to depart from those ideologies and thus bumbles so many seemingly clear things. In other words he is unable to do the right thing because of what he thinks should be the right thing.

    I for one am tired of the incessant citing of the massive gaffes of GWB as an excuse. That is the mess inherited and the mess that he ran to inherit, none of it was a surprise. We can't operate on how things should be, but rather how they are. That bell has been rung. So yes it would be ideal if GWB didn't destabilize the region (duh) but we can't operate off that ideal because that isn't how things are. Our leaders should recognize that and stop shrugging their shoulders or be surprised with what is happening.

    I harped on this before as well but they all need to get out of rhetoric in claiming victory or saying that terrorism has been contained. We also shouldn't be telling our enemy where our line is drawn in what we will do. It is fine internally to say, "We will not put troops on the ground..." But it doesn't need to be said.

    I won't even get into the idiocy and damage the right is doing in the debates to fuel terrorism.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mormon Mecca (North)
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I think the most accurate way I can describe President Obama, after reading far too many accounts from former loyalists and very bright people is that he is a Professor President. He entered office with many laudable ideologies but when reality struck and continues to strike he is unable to depart from those ideologies and thus bumbles so many seemingly clear things. In other words he is unable to do the right thing because of what he thinks should be the right thing.

    I for one am tired of the incessant citing of the massive gaffes of GWB as an excuse. That is the mess inherited and the mess that he ran to inherit, none of it was a surprise. We can't operate on how things should be, but rather how they are. That bell has been rung. So yes it would be ideal if GWB didn't destabilize the region (duh) but we can't operate off that ideal because that isn't how things are. Our leaders should recognize that and stop shrugging their shoulders or be surprised with what is happening.

    I harped on this before as well but they all need to get out of rhetoric in claiming victory or saying that terrorism has been contained. We also shouldn't be telling our enemy where our line is drawn in what we will do. It is fine internally to say, "We will not put troops on the ground..." But it doesn't need to be said.

    I won't even get into the idiocy and damage the right is doing in the debates to fuel terrorism.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I suppose you now believe we should have left Saddam in power and allowed him to thumb his nose at UN weapons inspections and no-fly zones. He should have been left free to spend billions on arms and weaponry after completely disregarding all restrictions placed on him after the original Gulf War? So we didn't destabilize the fawkin' G.D. crazy ass region.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Devildog View Post
    I suppose you now believe we should have left Saddam in power and allowed him to thumb his nose at UN weapons inspections and no-fly zones. He should have been left free to spend billions on arms and weaponry after completely disregarding all restrictions placed on him after the original Gulf War? So we didn't destabilize the fawkin' G.D. crazy ass region.
    I think there were options short of invading, removing Saddam from power and occupying Iraq.

    The sanctions regime was eroding, and absolutely needed to be strengthened. And we had to get inspectors back into Iraq. There were also military operations short of invasion and occupation, but would have been steps employed more than once over time to keep Saddam in his box.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  12. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mormon Mecca (North)
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by USS Utah View Post
    I think there were options short of invading, removing Saddam from power and occupying Iraq.

    The sanctions regime was eroding, and absolutely needed to be strengthened. And we had to get inspectors back into Iraq. There were also military operations short of invasion and occupation, but would have been steps employed more than once over time to keep Saddam in his box.
    Hindsight is always 20/20. Where were these voices then?

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Devildog View Post
    I suppose you now believe we should have left Saddam in power and allowed him to thumb his nose at UN weapons inspections and no-fly zones. He should have been left free to spend billions on arms and weaponry after completely disregarding all restrictions placed on him after the original Gulf War? So we didn't destabilize the fawkin' G.D. crazy ass region.
    I might also suppose you didn't read the rest of what I wrote.

    The point is we can sit around and whine about what happened in the past, but we can't change it and need to operate on how things actually are, not how we'd like them to be. Obama seems to be incapable of doing just that.

  14. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mormon Mecca (North)
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I might also suppose you didn't read the rest of what I wrote.

    The point is we can sit around and whine about what happened in the past, but we can't change it and need to operate on how things actually are, not how we'd like them to be. Obama seems to be incapable of doing just that.
    What exactly was your commitment in Iraq?

    https://www.funker530.com/u-s-soldie...-iraqi-police/
    Last edited by Devildog; 12-22-2015 at 12:13 AM.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Devildog View Post
    What exactly was your commitment in Iraq?

    https://www.funker530.com/u-s-soldie...-iraqi-police/
    I can correctly identify it on a map 50% of the time. What exactly do you think I'm being critical of?

  16. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mormon Mecca (North)
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I can correctly identify it on a map 50% of the time. What exactly do you think I'm being critical of?
    Saddam could not be allowed to continue in power. His regime was oppressive and corrupt and he was an avowed enemy of the U.S. and was shooting missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. We did what we had to do. He WAS VIOLATING EVERY CONDITION OF THE CEASE FIRE ARMISTICE THAT ENDED THE ORIGINAL GULF WAR.

    ISIS is a result of Obama's weak ass. We should have left an American reaction force large enough to have steadied the new Iraqi army when they were first bloodied. If we had done this then, there would be no ISIS sanctuary there now. We walked away from our entire commitment there and left nothing to insure that what we had invested succeeded. He wanted to claim that he got us out of there. Well he did at a cost of everything that was worked for.
    Last edited by Devildog; 12-22-2015 at 01:00 AM.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Devildog View Post
    Saddam could not be allowed to continue in power. His regime was oppressive and corrupt and he was an avowed enemy of the U.S. and was shooting missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. We did what we had to do. He WAS VIOLATING EVERY CONDITION OF THE CEASE FIRE ARMISTICE THAT ENDED THE ORIGINAL GULF WAR.

    ISIS is a result of Obama's weak ass. We should have left an American reaction force large enough to have steadied the new Iraqi army when they were first bloodied. If we had done this then, there would be no ISIS sanctuary there now. We walked away from our entire commitment there and left nothing to insure that what we had invested succeeded. He wanted to claim that he got us out of there. Well he did at a cost of everything that was worked for.
    You do realize I'm being critical of Obama about his foreign policy and handling of Iraq right?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mormon Mecca (North)
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    You do realize I'm being critical of Obama about his foreign policy and handling of Iraq right?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm critical of Obama too. I believe he is a complete pussy. Seriously weak. I despise that America's foreign policy appears to the entire world as impotence. This guy is Urkel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTeOcVelYi0

  19. #49
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    Islamic State’s Deep, Poisonous Roots

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-...ots-1451684170


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Devildog View Post
    Saddam could not be allowed to continue in power. His regime was oppressive and corrupt and he was an avowed enemy of the U.S. and was shooting missiles at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. We did what we had to do. He WAS VIOLATING EVERY CONDITION OF THE CEASE FIRE ARMISTICE THAT ENDED THE ORIGINAL GULF WAR.

    ISIS is a result of Obama's weak ass. We should have left an American reaction force large enough to have steadied the new Iraqi army when they were first bloodied. If we had done this then, there would be no ISIS sanctuary there now. We walked away from our entire commitment there and left nothing to insure that what we had invested succeeded. He wanted to claim that he got us out of there. Well he did at a cost of everything that was worked for.
    The ISIS sanctuary would be in Syria...and/or Egypt, and/or Libya, and/or Tunisia, and/or...

    How are we supposed to turn over a democracy to the Iraqi people, as long as we're babysitting them?

    You need to blame this one on the Cheney / Bush Administration, who asserted it would "months, if not weeks", and "we'll be greeted as liberators".

    Long term occupation of nations is precisely the kind of economic drag our global economic enemy (China) would prefer. At some point, the training wheels need to be taken off, and people need to be accountable for their own freedom. If they're unwilling, or dysfunctionally divided themselves, do we just babysit them indefinitely?

    Remember when we brought the Shah out of retirement to take over Iran, after we & the Brits deposed Mohammed Mosadegh in 1954? How well did that intervention go?

    *Because* of that intervention, 25 years later, Iran had the Islamic Revolution and we had the American embassy in Teheran turned into a hostage center, until Reagan sold weapons to the Iranians, so he could get money to fund terrorists trying to overthrow a different government, Nicaragua.

    (In turn, how did *that* intervention go? Daniel Ortega is the elected president of Nicaragua, which is a whole lot more stable and safe than the nation the Contras were operating from, Honduras, which has turned into a hell-hole.)

    To a hammer, everything else is a nail, and military guys would have us in a shoot out with the Chinese in the South China Sea, right now.

    We would need the draft and enormous amounts of tax money to play whack-a-mole in the Islamic world *and* be battling the Chinese, *and* be fighting in Ukraine, *and* be engaged in Georgia, etc.

  21. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mormon Mecca (North)
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    The ISIS sanctuary would be in Syria...and/or Egypt, and/or Libya, and/or Tunisia, and/or...

    How are we supposed to turn over a democracy to the Iraqi people, as long as we're babysitting them?

    You need to blame this one on the Cheney / Bush Administration, who asserted it would "months, if not weeks", and "we'll be greeted as liberators".

    Long term occupation of nations is precisely the kind of economic drag our global economic enemy (China) would prefer. At some point, the training wheels need to be taken off, and people need to be accountable for their own freedom. If they're unwilling, or dysfunctionally divided themselves, do we just babysit them indefinitely?

    Remember when we brought the Shah out of retirement to take over Iran, after we & the Brits deposed Mohammed Mosadegh in 1954? How well did that intervention go?

    *Because* of that intervention, 25 years later, Iran had the Islamic Revolution and we had the American embassy in Teheran turned into a hostage center, until Reagan sold weapons to the Iranians, so he could get money to fund terrorists trying to overthrow a different government, Nicaragua.

    (In turn, how did *that* intervention go? Daniel Ortega is the elected president of Nicaragua, which is a whole lot more stable and safe than the nation the Contras were operating from, Honduras, which has turned into a hell-hole.)

    To a hammer, everything else is a nail, and military guys would have us in a shoot out with the Chinese in the South China Sea, right now.

    We would need the draft and enormous amounts of tax money to play whack-a-mole in the Islamic world *and* be battling the Chinese, *and* be fighting in Ukraine, *and* be engaged in Georgia, etc.
    This is a different spin on history. Did you think it a coincidence that the hostages were released the day before Reagan took office? Long before any Iran -Contra scandal.




    I'll admit... I like the hammer and nail analogy. To the Romans... a desert called peace... lasted a thousand years.

  22. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mormon Mecca (North)
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post

    To a hammer, everything else is a nail, and military guys would have us in a shoot out with the Chinese in the South China Sea, right now.
    Us? Or the rhetorical us? The military guys you speak of are the ones that do the fighting, bleeding, and dying away from home and family... it sure isn't most of, us. The real sacrifices are made by a mighty few.

    I'm posting this one just because I want another Reagan. We could sure as hell use another leader like him again. Especially coming on the heels of the embarrassing, America apologizing, weakling that has been running the show recently.

    Last edited by Devildog; 01-08-2016 at 02:03 AM.

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Devildog View Post
    Us? Or the rhetorical us? The military guys you speak of are the ones that do the fighting, bleeding, and dying away from home and family... it sure isn't most of, us. The real sacrifices are made by a mighty few.

    I'm posting this one just because I want another Reagan. We could sure as hell use another leader like him again. Especially coming on the heels of the embarrassing, America apologizing, weakling that has been running the show recently.

    What do you think Reagan would have done against ISIS? Reagan committed American troops to be part of a peacekeeping force in the Lebanese civil war. After more than 200 Marines were blown up in their barracks, he immediately withdrew all troops and cancelled the mission. He was accused of being a "weakling" and "cutting and running." But he realized the folly of putting American soldiers in harms way for an ill-defined mission. The only other time he committed American troops was Granada.

    Sounds like you would have been one of those accusing Reagan of being a weakling.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/...n-cut-and-run/
    Last edited by concerned; 01-08-2016 at 07:01 AM.

  24. #54
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    I don't think FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or either Bush would have called ISIS the "jayvee" or said that ISIS is "contained" when it clearly wasn't. I don't think any of them would have described the problem primarily as a law enforcement matter.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  25. #55
    Agreed those were very poor word choices. What policy difference would you make or should he have made if he had not said them?

    P s. You forgot Clinton. Have you erased him from your memory?
    Last edited by concerned; 01-08-2016 at 09:13 AM.

  26. #56
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Agreed those were very poor word choices. What policy difference would you make or should he have made if he had not said them?

    P s. You forgot Clinton. Have you erased him from your memory?
    I didn't forget Clinton. Or Carter. I was listing those presidents who represented the USA's post-WWII internationalist foreign policy tradition. Clinton only flirted verbally and half-heartedly with that approach. Carter, Clinton and now Obama (especially Obama) are McGovernites. That's not a pejorative, just a description.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I didn't forget Clinton. Or Carter. I was listing those presidents who represented the USA's post-WWII internationalist foreign policy tradition. Clinton only flirted verbally and half-heartedly with that approach. Carter, Clinton and now Obama (especially Obama) are McGovernites. That's not a pejorative, just a description.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    Clinton not an internationalist? You either have erased him from your memory or you have a very specific and exclusive definition of internationalist to exclude him from your definition. Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. You are just using a label of McGovernite (whatever you tell us that means.)

    Obama and the US military obviously underestimated the threat from ISIS, and were slow to react. But it is not clear to me that the strategy has not turned a corner. ISIS has significantly less territory than it had a year ago. the Kurds have taken the supply route to Mosul and significant territory in Iraq and Syria near the Turkish border. If the Iraqi's retake Mosul this year after retaking Remadi, esp. without any Shia militia participation, that will be huge.

    ISIS is becoming contained geographically; containing the ability to export terrorism to Europe or the US is much more difficult, and probably can never be completely achieved, esp. without a political solution in Syria.

  28. #58
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Clinton not an internationalist? You either have erased him from your memory or you have a very specific and exclusive definition of internationalist to exclude him from your definition. Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. You are just using a label of McGovernite (whatever you tell us that means.)

    Obama and the US military obviously underestimated the threat from ISIS, and were slow to react. But it is not clear to me that the strategy has not turned a corner. ISIS has significantly less territory than it had a year ago. the Kurds have taken the supply route to Mosul and significant territory in Iraq and Syria near the Turkish border. If the Iraqi's retake Mosul this year after retaking Remadi, esp. without any Shia militia participation, that will be huge.

    ISIS is becoming contained geographically; containing the ability to export terrorism to Europe or the US is much more difficult, and probably can never be completely achieved, esp. without a political solution in Syria.
    I think Clinton was a half-hearted internationalist. I don't mean McGovernite as a pejorative (you probably voted for him, I'm guessing). Maybe "non-interventionist" is the best term.

    Anyway, here's a pretty objective report on Obama's foreign policy going into his final year in office. Looking at his four main objectives -- "a nuclear deal with Iran, restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, a global climate-change agreement and a new trade pact with Asia," wouldn't you agree that the first three of those are goals George mcGovern would have loved?

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/president-obamas-recent-foreign-policy-strides-a-fragile-legacy-1450624694

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I think Clinton was a half-hearted internationalist. I don't mean McGovernite as a pejorative (you probably voted for him, I'm guessing). Maybe "non-interventionist" is the best term.

    Anyway, here's a pretty objective report on Obama's foreign policy going into his final year in office. Looking at his four main objectives -- "a nuclear deal with Iran, restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, a global climate-change agreement and a new trade pact with Asia," wouldn't you agree that the first three of those are goals George mcGovern would have loved?

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/president-obamas-recent-foreign-policy-strides-a-fragile-legacy-1450624694
    Not only did I vote for McGovern, I campaigned for him door to door in Manchester, New Hampshire before the N. H. primary (I was 18; you have to forgive my youth; still, I couldn't vote for Nixon). But many many other people love the four objectives you lay out; those objectives may have been radical in 1972, but not 2015. The Republican Senate did the heavy lifting on the trade pact, esp. Orrin Hatch.
    Last edited by concerned; 01-08-2016 at 10:53 AM.

  30. #60
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,505
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Not only did I vote for McGovern, I campaigned for him door to door in Manchester, New Hampshire before the N. H. primary (I was 18; you have to forgive my youth; still, I couldn't vote for Nixon). But many many other people love the four objectives you lay out; those objectives may have been radical in 1972, but not 2015. The Republican Senate did the heavy lifting on the trade pact, esp. Orrin Hatch.
    But I was talking about the first 3, not the trade agreement. Foul!

    I voted for Tricky Dick in 1972. The first election I could vote in. I made it by three weeks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •