Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

Just trying to bring some humor to this place, but I forgot that Progs don't have a sense of humor.

[AlabamAlum]

Here's some humor:

Knock, knock.

Shut the fuck up, you toothless moron.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Just trying to bring some humor to this place, but I forgot that Progs don't have a sense of humor.

What is funny about it? Explain the joke.

[Da Geezer]

Well, admittedly, sarcasm is a low form of wit.

Russia invades Crimea, invades Ukraine, and bombs innocent citizens in Aleppo without any discernable response from Obama. But unproven "interference" in an election does bring a response, be it ever so weak. Classic Obama. More concerned with elections than with foreign policy.

So Obama kicks out 35 Russian diplomats who will be immediately replaced with clones. Does anyone else wonder about the "safe house" in Virginia where the moving vans were photographed leaving the compound? How the heck do you even allow such a place in the US?

[WM Wolverine]

If the US did go in to Ukraine/Crimea, the alt-right universe which you exist in Geezer would've taken issue with Obama.

[froot loops]

Unproven, haha, only by people who don't understand computers.

[Jeff Buchanan]

My sense is that BO's two term Middle East Policies were somewhat of a back stop to two terms of George W's massive over-reach there at the behest of prominent neoconservatives in his administration, namely Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. While Cheney and Rumsfeld, did not identify themselves as neoconservatives, they listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.

The Bush Doctrine was a massive failure and has, in large measure but not entirely, produced the mess that is Libya, Iraq, Syria and threatens the economic and political stability of Turkey. So, it goes way back and I'm not entirely sure BO and his administration could do anymore than contain the dangers to the US and its allies from the ME mess.

If we're counting, I guess you could say Obama has done a pretty decent job of doing that in this country. While we can't know of the depth of covert operations that may or may not have achieved that end, it's pretty clear to me that rather than over-reach like George W. did with his attempts at ME FP, BO has approached that shit-hole with a whole lot more realism than the Bush's and there neocon advisers ever did.

Where I'll drop the hammer on BO, though, is his failure to play hard-ball with the Saudis and perhaps to a lesser degree with Putin (his options were limited or more appropriately mis-directed there).

[Whitley]

It looks like Trump is going to be open to privatizing the VA.

[entropy]

I thought Oliver Stone's FB post on the situation was pretty good. But maybe I think it's good because I see a shift in what the Dem's/Republicans represent.

[entropy]

My sense is that BO's two term Middle East Policies were somewhat of a back stop to two terms of George W's massive over-reach there at the behest of prominent neoconservatives in his administration, namely Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. While Cheney and Rumsfeld, did not identify themselves as neoconservatives, they listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.

The Bush Doctrine was a massive failure and has, in large measure but not entirely, produced the mess that is Libya, Iraq, Syria and threatens the economic and political stability of Turkey. So, it goes way back and I'm not entirely sure BO and his administration could do anymore than contain the dangers to the US and its allies from the ME mess.

If we're counting, I guess you could say Obama has done a pretty decent job of doing that in this country. While we can't know of the depth of covert operations that may or may not have achieved that end, it's pretty clear to me that rather than over-reach like George W. did with his attempts at ME FP, BO has approached that shit-hole with a whole lot more realism than the Bush's and there neocon advisers ever did.

Where I'll drop the hammer on BO, though, is his failure to play hard-ball with the Saudis and perhaps to a lesser degree with Putin (his options were limited or more appropriately mis-directed there).

And BO should be judged on letting thousands die in Syria by standing on the sidelines. That's the nature of the job. There are times you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Two schools of thought really: assist those who are being trampled on (the great protector) or stay on the sidelines/don't get involved in tribal politics (avoid conflict). Both have pros and cons.

Ironically, the dem's were trying to elect someone who is more Bush than BO on ME policy.

[Da Geezer]

The Bush Doctrine was a massive failure and has, in large measure but not entirely, produced the mess that is Libya, Iraq, Syria and threatens the economic and political stability of Turkey.

I'm not sure what the "Bush Doctrine" is, but, Jeff, you seem to be blaming Bush43 for blowing up the ME. Even Biden said that Iraq was going to be one of the most positive stories to come out of the incoming administration (he said it in 2009). Libya is now in turmoil since Hillary recommended ousting Quadaffi. Syria is now a client of Russia and Iran, and of course, a victory in war has been turned into ISIL, the "J-V team" so to speak. BO has guaranteed Iran nuclear weapons in 8 years, and will have singlehandedly started nuclear proliferation in the region.

At some point, even you of the hard left have to deal with reality. These events were forseeable and avoidable.

[Jeff Buchanan]

And BO should be judged on letting thousands die in Syria by standing on the sidelines. That's the nature of the job. There are times you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Well, since Iraq I, the US has attempted to enlist broad support from the UN and from NATO Allies for both sanctions and for any contemplated military action. So, the lack of that being obtained, puts the US at risk if a decision is made to act unilaterally.

The US Congress and to a large extent the Executive has backed almost entirely away from using military force to extract political ends. I think history reflects that the political and economic cost of that sort of thing are way too high these days. Moreover, world leaders have fostered economic and financial interdependence as a means of avoiding armed conflict. In some instances this has worked; in others it hasn't.

The most glaring example of it not working is in trying to create some level of global interdependence among ME states. We're talking about trying to overcome two massive problems: (1) ME Tribalism that is fundamentally the cause of the constant friction between ME nation states, (2) Radical Islamic Extremism which rejects almost every level of the rational dialogue necessary to establish working global interdependence.

Syria? The human tragedy of that conflict? I dunno, man. This isn't the same set of circumstances surrounding the shit that went down in Eastern Europe in Bosnia during the Clinton Administration. There was world wide support to do something to intervene and stop the humanitarian crisis. In fact it was that support that overcame the US Congress's strong opposition to Clinton's wish to intervene (The War Powers Act stuff).

None of that support exists now or existed then when it was obvious that lots of innocents were going to suffer and die because Assad did't want to die himself at the hands of "rebel's," whoever those guys were. It's aggravating that the world seems to have wanted to ignore it and an open question about whether or not the US should have or could have intervened militarily in a unilateral way.

Iran's and Turkey's positions on Syria along with Putin's strengthening relations with these two countries would very likely have been severely at odd's with any escalation of BO's anemic support for Syrian opposition elements. Hand's tied? Probably unless BO wanted to start a major conflict in the ME over US intervention there.

[entropy]

Jeff..

You either believe in helping those who can't help themselves or you stay out of tribal conflicts. The US policy of being involved when there is a national interest reads to me like excuses. And I think both parties do that..

Hoss knows I've said for some time I'd rather be less involved in the ME. BO's policy is favorable to me than Bush's or Clinton's, but he is letting thousands die. That has to be part of the review.. else, you're excusing it away.

[Jeff Buchanan]

...... but he (BO) is letting thousands die. That has to be part of the review.. else, you're excusing it away.

I disagree with what I think is one of your underlying premises: It's a simple matter of black and white.

I agree with you on one level though. That the world doesn't care when thousands of innocents are suffering and dying as a result of armed conflict is not new. That there are no Churchills and FDRs on the scene to act on that kind of atrocity at the moment is new.

Moreover, to use a favorite phrase NIMBY or Not in My Backyard, is the most compelling argument, right or wrong, to stay the fuck out of Syria. IMO, the whole of the ME is a collection of authoritarians, radical Jews, and Palastinians along with angry Islamists who long for the establishment of a Caliphate. It's a mess.

It may be an unsolvable one ...... until solutions to the instability and human suffering are forced upon the Gulf States, Iran and Israel to sort out. The potential for that occurring is slim but in my book, American ME FP should be focusing on forcing those players to have to act to solve there own immense regional problems. Holding the Iranians and the Saudis publicly responsible for what has gone down in Syria along with forcing the Israeli's to work with the Palestinians would be a good start.

Having DT as POTUS and in love with and enabling Beebee's far right is a recipe for continued instability. DT enabling Putin's ME interests, that amount to nothing more than keeping the pot boiling there, is equally as unsettling.

I'm going on another cruise.

[entropy]

I'm not saying it's easy.. just the US presidents don't stick to a philosophy.