General Saz on the Korean Situation

The place for general political discussion.

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby Philly » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:54 am

Kane wrote:My god...when was that?

During the 08 election. Bush spoke in Israel and took a veiled shot at Obama for saying he'd sit down at the table and negotiate with Iran. Bush alluded to appeasing Hitler. Then this fun little cringe moment happened.
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 949 times
Been thanked: 1116 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby ToddStarnes » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:28 am

Bush giving ME advice is hysterical.
ToddStarnes
Senator
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:11 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby NAB » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:21 pm

Philly wrote:
Kane wrote:My god...when was that?

During the 08 election. Bush spoke in Israel and took a veiled shot at Obama for saying he'd sit down at the table and negotiate with Iran. Bush alluded to appeasing Hitler. Then this fun little cringe moment happened.


Not a big fan of Chris Matthews, but he was pretty solid there. If it were me in that situation, there's no way I wouldn't have said stfu after so many repeated attempts of asking him that question (and him repeating appeasement over and over). Now that would have be prestige television.
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby John Galt » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:37 pm

ToddStarnes wrote:Bush giving ME advice is hysterical.


obama was a worse failure in the middle east. now we have russia playing games down there because of the complete disaster that was obama foreign relations. this isn't to say bush was leagues better or anything, but at least bush really only f**k up one country badly not a slew of them, and bush didn't allow наш враг крови to project power
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12350
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 577 times
Been thanked: 1284 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby exploited » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:43 pm

John Galt wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:Bush giving ME advice is hysterical.


obama was a worse failure in the middle east. now we have russia playing games down there because of the complete disaster that was obama foreign relations. this isn't to say bush was leagues better or anything, but at least bush really only f**k up one country badly not a slew of them, and bush didn't allow наш враг крови to project power


Obama handled Syria poorly, but I don't buy that he was more disastrous than Bush. The Iraq War was what allowed ISIS and Al Qaeda to really shine. Prior to that, Hussein and Assad had a lid on those organizations. After, it was a giant hotbed of extremism, perfectly suited to exporting those problems around the Middle East. Even Tony Blair finally got around to admitting that the War on Iraq was the principal cause of the rise of ISIS.

Once the decision was made to not support Assad, there was nothing to be done about Russian influence there. That is Obama's fault, but it never would have come to this if it weren't for GWB. The red line was dumb, but even more dumb would be actually attacking Syria for crossing it. It was a loss of face, but a loss that is minuscule in comparison to how people felt about America after 2003.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20964
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby ToddStarnes » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:55 pm

Most of the problems Obama failed to properly address were literally created by Bush.
ToddStarnes
Senator
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:11 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby John Galt » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:06 pm

ToddStarnes wrote:Most of the problems Obama failed to properly address were literally created by Bush.


libya? egypt? yemen? syria? no. they weren't literally created by bush at all, bush had next to nothing to do with any of those. obama f**k the arab spring. he had policy where different parts of government were supporting different leaders in egypt. he was demanding assad must go and then russia called the bluff. he f**k middle east policy across the whole region. it is deeply related to the return of russian cossacks in the crimea as well. obama's failing on international relations will be his dismal legacy
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12350
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 577 times
Been thanked: 1284 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby NAB » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:15 pm

John Galt wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:Most of the problems Obama failed to properly address were literally created by Bush.


libya? egypt? yemen? syria? no. they weren't literally created by bush at all, bush had next to nothing to do with any of those. obama f**k the arab spring. he had policy where different parts of government were supporting different leaders in egypt. he was demanding assad must go and then russia called the bluff. he f**k middle east policy across the whole region. it is deeply related to the return of russian cossacks in the crimea as well. obama's failing on international relations will be his dismal legacy


If one were to down the wormhole of Arab conspiracy theories, the Arab Spring and resulting outcomes were exactly what the US wanted. This goes back to a policy of Kissinger of dividing the ME into smaller factions.

That said, Obama isn't at fault across the region, because, in reality, the Arab Spring came from within the region, and trying to control and direct it was a near impossibility. You can't heard cats.
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby exploited » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:20 pm

John Galt wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:Most of the problems Obama failed to properly address were literally created by Bush.


libya? egypt? yemen? syria? no. they weren't literally created by bush at all, bush had next to nothing to do with any of those. obama f**k the arab spring. he had policy where different parts of government were supporting different leaders in egypt. he was demanding assad must go and then russia called the bluff. he f**k middle east policy across the whole region. it is deeply related to the return of russian cossacks in the crimea as well. obama's failing on international relations will be his dismal legacy


He f**k up the Arab Spring? How?

Bush literally got on TV and encouraged people to overthrow their governments, lol. And they either did or tried too.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20964
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: General Saz on the Korean Situation

Postby John Galt » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:36 pm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/ameri ... syrias-war

Judis: But Obama did intervene. In 2011, he called for Syrian President Basher al-Assad to step down. Didn’t saying that appear to commit the United States to do something about it?

Landis: It did, and it was a mistake. Obama’s statement that Assad had to step aside was an aspirational statement. He never intended to commit America to carrying it out. It is easy to understand why he said it. The whole world was looking at America during the early days of the Arab Spring to see what its policy would be. America was torn about the meaning of the Arab Spring uprising. Both the media, western pundits, and Arab activists in the Middle East had convinced the Western world that the Arab Spring was about democracy.

They said it was 1848, it was Paris 1968, it was the fall of communism in 1990.* The metaphors could go on and on. Journalists were grasping for every metaphor and similar episode in Western history to demonstrate that the Arab people were finally rising up against their bad governments to demand democracy and be more like the West. In his remarkable 1991 book The Third Wave Samuel Huntington argued that the modern world had seen three moments of liberalization and democratization. Western observers and Arab liberals alike hoped that the uprising, which they named a “Spring” to confirm their aspiration, would herald in a fourth wave.

The only problem is that the Arab uprisings were not primarily about democracy or even liberalism. Democracy was not a central demand voiced in the slogans of the demonstrators. “Dignity” or “karama” in Arabic and “freedom” or “hurriya” were central words used from Tunisia to Syria; so were phrases such as “down with the regime,” and “get out, Bashar.” Demonstrators were unanimous in wanting to get rid of the oppressive and corrupt dictators that ruled over them. The benefit of these general demands was that Islamists, who wanted a caliphate or Sharia law, could use them as readily as liberals who shared western values.

Judis:I remember Obama’s speech at the State Department in May 2011 when he extolled the Arab Spring and said “it will be the policy of the United States…to support transitions to democracy.”

Landis:[The administration] bought into this notion that they should put their shoulder to the wheel of regime change in order to help be a midwife to this democracy movement. The problem was that it was not a democracy movement. It was a change movement. People wanted dignity but it was a very disorganized and chaotic movement. The trouble is that in each of the Arab countries, once you destroy the very fragile state structures that have been assembled since World War I and the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, you don’t get a George Washington bringing together the 13 colonies. You get fragmentation and lots of warlords and emirs.

Nationalism is not a strong enough identity to bind the people of Libya, Yemen, Syria, or Iraq together. Or the Palestinians, for that matter. Instead, subnational and supranational identities emerged among the people of each country to undermine common national sentiment. Loyalty to clan, village, region, tribe and religion have bedeviled the Arab uprisings. This is why the opposition movements in Libya or Syria have been so fragmented. It is why thousands of militias formed in Syria. The US was powerless to unite them.

This is what America faced in Iraq when it destroyed Saddam’s regime. And it’s what happened in Libya. In Libya, western politicians argued that the opposition was sufficiently united for us to throw our weight behind it. We convinced the United Nations Security Council to declare it the legitimate government, based on this false assumption, and to shift all the money that belonged to Gadhafi’s state to the Libyan opposition. Of course, the opposition was not united. We just wanted it to be. It was a bunch of propaganda. And that’s the same propaganda we fell for in Iraq with [Ahmed] Chalabi.


obama f**k it up because he didn't know what it was f**k about
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12350
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 577 times
Been thanked: 1284 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron