• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS claims it will have a nuke in a year.

sawdust said:
If you have a different set of facts, it would be fascinating.
Click to expand...

America's strategy is arming the folks actually on the ground fighting against ISIS, and providing intelligence and air support.

Maybe personally you'd throw ten thousand Americans in harms way, but don't pretend there isn't a strategy.
 
sawdust said:
Tell me who the next president is and I'll take a stab. There are so many candidates it's impossible to guess. Rand Paul on one end would be pretty isolationist, Ted Cruz more of a hawk. Jeb Bush a little more squishy. Personally I'm intrigued by Firoina and I don't really know how she would use the military. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Presently, I'm working under the assumption that it will be Jeb Bush. He's the only one with the funding.

Stop playing games and let's hear it. You think that any Repub will have a better policy than Obama. If you think it's not Bush, then tell me who you think it will be and what is superior about their policy.
 
Deuce said:
America's strategy is arming the folks actually on the ground fighting against ISIS, and providing intelligence and air support.

Maybe personally you'd throw ten thousand Americans in harms way, but don't pretend there isn't a strategy.
Click to expand...

If that's a strategy, how's it working' out? Personally I think that's just sitting on your ass and watching things happen while making noise about how the fall of Ramadi is meaningless in the long run when the short run is all you've got left.

Maybe is a big word. If Obama had left ground forces there and not put our military equipment in the hands of buffoons would would just walk away from it and let it be captured we'd not have the problems we have now. The war at this point has to be fought in every nation globally and fought by a commander in chief who is respected internationally. Respect is earned and Obama doesn't have it. That was brought to the forefront recently by the attendance at the Middle Eastern summit at the White House that was attended by lower level diplomats rather than national leaders. Nobody in the Middle East trusts Obama's word, intentions, choices or use of power.

ISIS first has to be starved of all international assistance, including oil markets, banking, munition sales, and basic necessities of life from toilet paper to tomatoes. When that's done, a military assessment can be made but the world has to understand the threat.
 
rocket88 said:
Presently, I'm working under the assumption that it will be Jeb Bush. He's the only one with the funding.

Stop playing games and let's hear it. You think that any Repub will have a better policy than Obama. If you think it's not Bush, then tell me who you think it will be and what is superior about their policy.
Click to expand...

I have several candidates that I like but I'm not sure who the candidate will be. Bush is the establishment candidate. I've met him. I like him personally and I think he was a good governor. Domestically, I think he would be a fine administrator. Internationally, I have no clue how he would lead and honestly he is down the list on my wish list.

I think in the final analysis Rubio will be involved somehow. This cycle, the republicans have several decent choices and some really bad ones, Huckabee and Graham come to mind.

Regardless of who the nominee is, they will create a firm understanding of who our friends and enemies are because that's the kind of people who are in the field. Organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood will not be included in the friends list, as they were in Egypt. Our relationship with Israel will be repaired and hopefully nations will come to understand that our actions match our rhetoric.

I'm not picking a nominee. I'm not willing to coronate Bush because of his brothers negatives and my desire to move away from the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
 
sawdust said:
Don't know who the next President will be but Obama is going to hand them a big pile of misery.
Click to expand...

A big pile of misery is what Obama got. I did not vote for him, but I knew that whomever followed Bush would have a rough row to hoe. The destabilization of the Middle East as a result of the misguided notion of empire and a looming depression brought on by a decade of predatory capitalism was what greeted your man Obama at the front door of the White House.

President Obama pretty much punted on foreign policy, though he did pull out of Iraq. It was a tough slog but Obama managed to pull the nation back from the brink of depression. No small feat, that.

Still the Middle East and north Africa is a bloody nightmare. Obama and company have done little to insure that Wall Street won't rape the nation once again. Too big to fail is now even too much bigger. No heads rolled. Games continued to be played.

Now that isn't all Obama's fault. Congress should be tried for treason, but so should a largely somnolent American public.

Bottom line: Washington is owned and controlled by Big Money, domestic and foreign. That includes any president likely to be elected and damn near every elected official in Congress. Americans do not live in a democratic republic. Most Americans refuse to accept that, but it is fact. So, yeah the next President will face a pile of misery but his or her owners will direct his or her efforts until the money runs out.
 
rocket88 said:
Then it really won't be much better than Obama's policy will it?
Click to expand...

Sure it will.....don't forget, BO has never been big on coming up with his own Original Ideas. So Right out of the gate.....its a win win.
 
Risky Thicket said:
A big pile of misery is what Obama got. I did not vote for him, but I knew that whomever followed Bush would have a rough row to hoe. The destabilization of the Middle East as a result of the misguided notion of empire and a looming depression brought on by a decade of predatory capitalism was what greeted your man Obama at the front door of the White House.

President Obama pretty much punted on foreign policy, though he did pull out of Iraq. It was a tough slog but Obama managed to pull the nation back from the brink of depression. No small feat, that.

Still the Middle East and north Africa is a bloody nightmare. Obama and company have done little to insure that Wall Street won't rape the nation once again. Too big to fail is now even too much bigger. No heads rolled. Games continued to be played.

Now that isn't all Obama's fault. Congress should be tried for treason, but so should a largely somnolent American public.

Bottom line: Washington is owned and controlled by Big Money, domestic and foreign. That includes any president likely to be elected and damn near every elected official in Congress. Americans do not live in a democratic republic. Most Americans refuse to accept that, but it is fact. So, yeah the next President will face a pile of misery but his or her owners will direct his or her efforts until the money runs out.
Click to expand...

It's true that Obama took over at a difficult time. His reliance on Keynesian economics slowed our recovery. His over regulation and growth of the federal government also slowed the recovery. Many economists believe that we would have recovered more quickly if too big to fail didn't exist and stimulus didn't happen. Markets always correct themselves if you let them. What we were subjected to however was constant tinkering and continued support of fanny and freddie which had much to do with the housing bubble in the first place. So, while Obama was handed a difficult economic situation, his actions inhibited recovery by the natural business cycle. You are absolutely correct that big money drove these actions.

I agree with much of what you said about foreign policy with the exception that Obama's outreach to Middle Eastern countries who were unfavorable to western interests made our position weaker in the region so wile he punted, the punt was for negative yardage.
 
sawdust said:
If that's a strategy, how's it working' out? Personally I think that's just sitting on your ass and watching things happen while making noise about how the fall of Ramadi is meaningless in the long run when the short run is all you've got left.
Click to expand...

Uhh, the best long-term strategy is for the middle east to sort this out themselves. How many times does America have to fail at imposing order before folks like yourself figure out that it doesn't work that way? Occupation never creates stability. It's just sticking your finger in the leaking dam.

Maybe is a big word. If Obama had left ground forces there and not put our military equipment in the hands of buffoons would would just walk away from it and let it be captured we'd not have the problems we have now. The war at this point has to be fought in every nation globally and fought by a commander in chief who is respected internationally. Respect is earned and Obama doesn't have it.
Click to expand...
No, it really can't be done that way. Imagine UN forces occupying parts of America. Are you going to be ok with that because the leader of that occupation is "respected internationally?"

That was brought to the forefront recently by the attendance at the Middle Eastern summit at the White House that was attended by lower level diplomats rather than national leaders. Nobody in the Middle East trusts Obama's word, intentions, choices or use of power.
Click to expand...
Random meaningless anecdote.

ISIS first has to be starved of all international assistance, including oil markets, banking, munition sales, and basic necessities of life from toilet paper to tomatoes. When that's done, a military assessment can be made but the world has to understand the threat.
Click to expand...

That's why we've been going after their oil revenue. I guess that's another part of the strategy you assume doesn't exist.
 
sawdust said:
I'm reaching into a news paper. In your honor from now on I'll call him Hussain.
Click to expand...
Correct spelling
Barack Hussein Obama
 
JANFU said:
Correct spelling
Barack Hussein Obama
Click to expand...

Mornin JF. :2wave: AKA. Putz!
hugegrin.gif
 
Deuce said:
Uhh, the best long-term strategy is for the middle east to sort this out themselves. How many times does America have to fail at imposing order before folks like yourself figure out that it doesn't work that way? Occupation never creates stability. It's just sticking your finger in the leaking dam.


No, it really can't be done that way. Imagine UN forces occupying parts of America. Are you going to be ok with that because the leader of that occupation is "respected internationally?"


Random meaningless anecdote.



That's why we've been going after their oil revenue. I guess that's another part of the strategy you assume doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

First, the speculation is that ISIS is selling most of the oil it controls to Turkey and Turkey doesn't respect or cooperate with us. They rebuffed Obama when he attempted to use their space to marshall the air campaign against ISIS.

Saudi Arabia is discouraged enough with Obama's handling of the nuclear Iran situation that they are looking for their own nukes so their lack of meaningful representation in the Middle Eastern summit is far from meaningless. It's symptomatic.

Foreign relations has much to do with the proper application of political, military and economic power. Obama ceded much of that power when he tried to turn our relationships around in the Middle East on his apology tour. In public he was warmly received, in private the parties knew we was malleable and weak. They took advantage of his weakness.

If your attitude is lets let them fight it out and let god sort it out, you are ignoring the fact that we live in a global economic society. Iran is the dominant power in the Middle East and unchecked they will gain more power and that is not a good situation, given the unfriendliness of their regime to America. There is a place for us in the Middle East but we have to have a coalition in place to occupy it. Obama's major failure in foreign policy is that he's lost the respect of our enemies and the trust of our allies. He's a foreign policy failure.
 
MMC said:
Mornin JF. :2wave: AKA. Putz!
hugegrin.gif
Click to expand...

Morning to you as well, and Putz, have not heard that term in many a year.
 
sawdust said:
I have several candidates that I like but I'm not sure who the candidate will be. Bush is the establishment candidate. I've met him. I like him personally and I think he was a good governor. Domestically, I think he would be a fine administrator. Internationally, I have no clue how he would lead and honestly he is down the list on my wish list.

I think in the final analysis Rubio will be involved somehow. This cycle, the republicans have several decent choices and some really bad ones, Huckabee and Graham come to mind.

Regardless of who the nominee is, they will create a firm understanding of who our friends and enemies are because that's the kind of people who are in the field. Organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood will not be included in the friends list, as they were in Egypt. Our relationship with Israel will be repaired and hopefully nations will come to understand that our actions match our rhetoric.

I'm not picking a nominee. I'm not willing to coronate Bush because of his brothers negatives and my desire to move away from the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
Click to expand...

To be honest, of the current crop of candidates from the 2 major parties, Bush is probably my favorite. I'll probably end up voting 3rd party again, but if someone were to hold a gun to my head and tell me I must vote for one of the clowns, I'd vote for Bush.
 
rocket88 said:
To be honest, of the current crop of candidates from the 2 major parties, Bush is probably my favorite. I'll probably end up voting 3rd party again, but if someone were to hold a gun to my head and tell me I must vote for one of the clowns, I'd vote for Bush.
Click to expand...

On a personal level, Jeb is very nice. He has a firm hand, looks you in the eye when he speaks, doesn't make you believe he has better things to do than talk to you, is patient and comfortable with himself. I have nothing bad to say about him other than I don't believe he would shake up the power structure in Washington that it needs. He would probably surround himself with advisors who are familiar to his dad and his brother. I would prefer fresh blood but if he got the nod, I could vote for him. I could not vote for either Huckabee or Graham. As much as I like Carson because our world views are similar, excluding the evangelical bent, I would have a difficult time seeing him as president. Vice president while grooming him for the top spot possibly. I think that Christy is probably right when he says governors make the best presidents, but my favorites aren't governors. Honestly, Trump would be the most entertaining. The king of the deal makers. Four years of him would either be a disaster or brilliant. No clue which.
 
MMC said:
I was being kind.....no, really I was. :lol:
Click to expand...

Some people think being kind can be a bad habit. Gotta be careful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom