EPTYour choice of harping on red lines seems indicative of such.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1093
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Your choice of harping on red lines seems indicative of such. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
| ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
I don't see how making a huge error like that is any better than what Obama's done simply because Bush followed through on his idiocy. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
What do you think public support would be like for interventions in Libya/Syria would've been like without the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq? It doesn't take a military mastermind to figure out the American public will most likely not support foreign intervention if it's not a direct attack against the USA. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On June 06 2014 11:49 SnipedSoul wrote: I think Bush was flying by the seat of his pants, to be honest. Weren't they saying that the war would be over in a few months and the Iraqis would see Americans as heroes and hand over all their oil in gratitude? I don't see how making a huge error like that is any better than what Obama's done simply because Bush followed through on his idiocy. Neoconservatism was his mantra and he surrounded himself with neoconservatives. It is a foreign policy doctrine that focuses around 'democracy promotion' and (under Bush) nation-building. To neoconservatives, Iraq and Afghanistan were justified because of regime change. Obama on the other hand, lacks any rudder. His error is that he commits the United States to action but he doesn't realize when he does so. Two big examples: his statements on Ukraine and Syria were made for domestic political gains, without thinking about what 'red lines' mean (they mean you will consider crossing it an act of war). On June 06 2014 11:53 Adila wrote: What do you think public support would be like for interventions in Libya/Syria would've been like without the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq? It doesn't take a military mastermind to figure out the American public will most likely not support foreign intervention if it's not a direct attack against the USA. Iraq and Afghanistan do not impact the Bush I and Clinton era war weariness caused by their involvement and then retrenchment with United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. Even without Iraq and Afghanistan, the public support for intervention would have had to be carefully tailored by any administration. Clinton literally denied genocide because CNN told him the public didn't support peacekeeping and intervention anymore. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 06 2014 11:55 itsjustatank wrote: Neoconservatism was his mantra and he surrounded himself with neoconservatives. It is a foreign policy doctrine that focuses around 'democracy promotion' and (under Bush) nation-building. To neoconservatives, Iraq and Afghanistan were justified because of regime change. Obama on the other hand, lacks any rudder. His error is that he commits the United States to action but he doesn't realize when he does so. Two big examples: his statements on Ukraine and Syria were made for domestic political gains, without thinking about what 'red lines' mean (they mean you will consider crossing it an act of war). The key point here is that Bush had a plan. The issue is that there was a miscalculation regarding how Middle East and other Islamic countries (that largely lacked homogeneous populations) would accept democratization. The answer that was learned after the fact is "not very well." | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
A president changing plans in response to the will of the people is not a bad thing to me. It was dumb to not have a better gauge of that beforehand, but it's not surprising given how disconnected politicians are from the people these days. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:00 SnipedSoul wrote: I remember that there was a massive outcry against military action in Syria. I think that played a role in Obama not committing militarily. He likely would have gone ahead if he had the American people cheering him on. This analysis fails to account for the intervention in Libya, which was not popularly supported either but was gone ahead and done under his authority as commander-in-chief under the War Powers Act. He also ordered the surge in Afghanistan, prolonging a war that wasn't his and making it his own. Obama's 'oh shit' moment in Syria wasn't a CNN poll, it was David Cameron fucking up a vote in the Commons after Obama had pledged to consult Congress. His stated intent was to intervene and he committed the United States to it with his statements, but he got cold feet. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On June 06 2014 11:42 zlefin wrote: Or we disagree profoundly; and view you, based on a long pattern of such, as haters; that are going to hate on Obama no matter what he does, regardless of whether it's hate-worthy or not. Your choice of harping on red lines seems indicative of such. I will address this post as follows. I don't care what party holds office in the United States. They are both centre-right and they do not have a lot of policy differences despite their dumbshit rhetoric and the structural construction of false choice inherent in the political process in this country. I cannot abide by weakness in international relations because Obama's actions destroy the consensus that has existed and held true in this country for quite some time and across many handovers of power between the parties: that presidents, when they get down to it, act in the self-interest of the United States, termed as power. | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't both the Russians and the US moving ships into the Mediterranean? It appeared to me that Obama was preparing to launch missiles at Syria until Congress complained and they reached that deal with Syria to get rid of the chemical weapons. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:11 SnipedSoul wrote: It would have been a disaster if he had followed through on his statements. He made a mistake, but at least he didn't let it get out of hand just so that he could save face. The point is that when you make comments as President of the United States, you are not a private citizen and you are not a political candidate, you are the embodiment of American foreign policy and you create policy and commit the United States to it at all times. If he had a clear vision, he would have never said anything about Syria or even about Ukraine. The crisis in both instances occurred precisely because the United States had said "you can't do this or else (war)" and the rest of the world proceeded in reaction to it but it turned out he was talking out of his ass in the first place. There are no take-backs or do-overs in international relations. There is power creation and power destruction. | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
Do you think they would have negotiated if they didn't believe he was ready to use force? | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:16 SnipedSoul wrote: He got them to the negotiating table without firing a shot. Do you think they would have negotiated if they didn't believe he was ready to use force? If you are talking about Syria, they went to the negotiating table because Russia told them to. The use of chemical weapons by their ally or even the perception that they did is not a good thing for their self-interests. | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
| ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:19 SnipedSoul wrote: So, missile cruisers sitting a few miles from their shores had absolutely nothing to do with that? Not after Obama was embarrassed and retreated from his position of striking. American naval ships in various regions don't scare countries anymore. The Syrians acted after Putin made his PR gesture in the NYT and Lavrov told them to act in the way they did. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I maintain my claim that you are a hater, and will hate on Obama regardless. You also make multiple claims that while not exactly false, aren't that true either, Obama's actions didn't destroy consensus; he has tried very hard to build consensus, but the republican party made an intentional decision to be uncooperative across the board. And I believe Obama has acted in the self-interest of the united states quite consistently. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:23 zlefin wrote: Tank, we disagree that his actions were weak, we disagree that they were wrong or stupid. I maintain my claim that you are a hater, and will hate on Obama regardless. You also make multiple claims that while not exactly false, aren't that true either, Obama's actions didn't destroy consensus; he has tried very hard to build consensus, but the republican party made an intentional decision to be uncooperative across the board. And I believe Obama has acted in the self-interest of the united states quite consistently. Foreign policy is the domain of the President of the United States through the constitution. Blaming the other party is a cop-out. They had no bearing on his own personal idiocy becoming one with American foreign policy. But I'll accept your position. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9165 Posts
On June 06 2014 12:24 farvacola wrote: How dare you disagree with Rothkopf! And no mention of "grand strategy", zlefin? tsk tsk. You are free to engage any time. We can also return to regularly scheduled Talking Points Memo re-links, as well. | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
Did Obama get approval and then not act on it, or did Congress not approve military intervention in Syria? | ||
| ||
