USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Once Sir Hilary Rodham Clinton takes office.
Once Sir Hilary Rodham Clinton takes office.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
He's responsible for falling for this ISIS BS and going to war again. Afghanistan, Iraq, and the overall instability of the ENTIRE Middle East is on Bush.
He's responsible for falling for this ISIS BS and going to war again. Afghanistan, Iraq, and the overall instability of the ENTIRE Middle East is on Bush.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
That's a low blow. "Hillary" has two l's.
That's a low blow. "Hillary" has two l's.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
He says we need boots on the ground. I say we don't even need planes in the air. If Obama caves to these clowns and puts boots on the ground he will have failed even more than he already has in so many ways.
http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2014/09/30/paul-ryan-obama-cannot-keep-promise-of-no-boots-on-ground/
He says we need boots on the ground. I say we don't even need planes in the air. If Obama caves to these clowns and puts boots on the ground he will have failed even more than he already has in so many ways.
http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2014/09/30/paul-ryan-obama-cannot-keep-promise-of-no-boots-on-ground/
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
So as soon as he does send in the troops, it's probably safe to assume that Ryan will change his narrative to, "Obama said no boots on the ground! LIAR!"
So as soon as he does send in the troops, it's probably safe to assume that Ryan will change his narrative to, "Obama said no boots on the ground! LIAR!"
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
He becomes responsible the minute he steps into office. But the more important question is what he is responsible for. To me, he and every other president or chairman is responsible for the extent to which his policies made a situation worse under circumstances when it should have been made better. Or for the extent to which his policies made a situation better which ought to have been made much better.
You pointed out a while ago that Nixon should not be held responsible for our presence in Vietnam, and you were right. It was an unholy mess when he took over, and he was not going to magically change that.
Clinton took over with a deficit and left with a surplus, but his policies also contributed to the lending offenses that were a big part of the economic collapse, so Bush should not be held solely responsible for the financial disaster he left us with either. To be sure, he made it worse, and the continual right wing chorus of keeping government out of business led to serious lack of oversight of the banking industry (my under educated and uninformed opinion). But we liberals deserve criticism for laying it all on Bush.
So Obama definitely deserves to be held accountable for that part of the economic problem that reasonably should have been resolved or improved by now. A while ago, I posted a question asking posters to identify who would have guided us to a better situation with the economy and with what policies. No answer. Our coping mechanism for dealing with the size and complexity of fiscal policy issues is to just dig in and wallow in the most simplistic and useless generalizations. I do it.
Something like Iraq? Bush's baby, no doubt, though most politicians were just too chicken to let wisdom prevail over overheated and much abused appeal to patriotism. Whoever inherited the mess Bush left in Iraq was going to have to deal with the kinds of problems Cheney warned about. If Obama fails to apply policies to improve the situation or gets us in a worse situation when another policy could foreseeably have avoided that, it's on him.
Short answer, though? Never.
He becomes responsible the minute he steps into office. But the more important question is what he is responsible for. To me, he and every other president or chairman is responsible for the extent to which his policies made a situation worse under circumstances when it should have been made better. Or for the extent to which his policies made a situation better which ought to have been made much better.
You pointed out a while ago that Nixon should not be held responsible for our presence in Vietnam, and you were right. It was an unholy mess when he took over, and he was not going to magically change that.
Clinton took over with a deficit and left with a surplus, but his policies also contributed to the lending offenses that were a big part of the economic collapse, so Bush should not be held solely responsible for the financial disaster he left us with either. To be sure, he made it worse, and the continual right wing chorus of keeping government out of business led to serious lack of oversight of the banking industry (my under educated and uninformed opinion). But we liberals deserve criticism for laying it all on Bush.
So Obama definitely deserves to be held accountable for that part of the economic problem that reasonably should have been resolved or improved by now. A while ago, I posted a question asking posters to identify who would have guided us to a better situation with the economy and with what policies. No answer. Our coping mechanism for dealing with the size and complexity of fiscal policy issues is to just dig in and wallow in the most simplistic and useless generalizations. I do it.
Something like Iraq? Bush's baby, no doubt, though most politicians were just too chicken to let wisdom prevail over overheated and much abused appeal to patriotism. Whoever inherited the mess Bush left in Iraq was going to have to deal with the kinds of problems Cheney warned about. If Obama fails to apply policies to improve the situation or gets us in a worse situation when another policy could foreseeably have avoided that, it's on him.
Short answer, though? Never.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Since when is responsibility mutually exclusive? Republicans bear complete responsibility for just one thing: torture. Democrats ended that. But all the other foolish and dangerous errors of the permanent surveillance and warfare state have been extended by Democrats. Some, like drone policy, have been made even worse.
Since when is responsibility mutually exclusive? Republicans bear complete responsibility for just one thing: torture. Democrats ended that. But all the other foolish and dangerous errors of the permanent surveillance and warfare state have been extended by Democrats. Some, like drone policy, have been made even worse.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Well, thanks for 'splaining that, Lucy. Responsibility became mutually exclusive the day the Empty Suit in Chief first took the oath. And you d*mn well know it. To hear the ladies of the chorale tell it, he's not responsible for anything, ever.
"Surveillance and warfare state?" Hysterical paranoia much? Maybe Snowden needs a roomie.
Well, thanks for 'splaining that, Lucy. Responsibility became mutually exclusive the day the Empty Suit in Chief first took the oath. And you d*mn well know it. To hear the ladies of the chorale tell it, he's not responsible for anything, ever.
"Surveillance and warfare state?" Hysterical paranoia much? Maybe Snowden needs a roomie.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Do any of you right wingers read history, or remember it? You should maybe read up on the Iraqi history of the last 14 years or so and get back to us.
Do any of you right wingers read history, or remember it? You should maybe read up on the Iraqi history of the last 14 years or so and get back to us.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
When does Obama become responsible?
He becomes responsible the minute he steps into office. But the more important question is what he is responsible for. To me, he and every other president or chairman is responsible for the extent to which his policies made a situation worse under circumstances when it should have been made better. Or for the extent to which his policies made a situation better which ought to have been made much better.
You pointed out a while ago that Nixon should not be held responsible for our presence in Vietnam, and you were right. It was an unholy mess when he took over, and he was not going to magically change that.
Clinton took over with a deficit and left with a surplus, but his policies also contributed to the lending offenses that were a big part of the economic collapse, so Bush should not be held solely responsible for the financial disaster he left us with either. To be sure, he made it worse, and the continual right wing chorus of keeping government out of business led to serious lack of oversight of the banking industry (my under educated and uninformed opinion). But we liberals deserve criticism for laying it all on Bush.
So Obama definitely deserves to be held accountable for that part of the economic problem that reasonably should have been resolved or improved by now. A while ago, I posted a question asking posters to identify who would have guided us to a better situation with the economy and with what policies. No answer. Our coping mechanism for dealing with the size and complexity of fiscal policy issues is to just dig in and wallow in the most simplistic and useless generalizations. I do it.
Something like Iraq? Bush's baby, no doubt, though most politicians were just too chicken to let wisdom prevail over overheated and much abused appeal to patriotism. Whoever inherited the mess Bush left in Iraq was going to have to deal with the kinds of problems Cheney warned about. If Obama fails to apply policies to improve the situation or gets us in a worse situation when another policy could foreseeably have avoided that, it's on him.
Short answer, though? Never.
When does Obama become responsible?
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
She was named after Sir Edmund before he climbed Everest.
She was named after Sir Edmund before he climbed Everest.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Let's be clear, here Metternich, the Middle East was stable before Bush?
Let's be clear, here Metternich, the Middle East was stable before Bush?
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Of course it was Opie. Nothing ever bad happened on Reagan's watch in the Middle East (cough Beirut cough).
Of course it was Opie. Nothing ever bad happened on Reagan's watch in the Middle East (cough Beirut cough).
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
It's OK, Pio; we know you weren't always this slow.
It's OK, Pio; we know you weren't always this slow.
He needs Congressional authorization to make sure the i's are dotted and t's crossed. It will also give him cover if he needs to go full LBJ.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
At the very least Opie doesn't read any posts here. He gets his panties in a bunch daily here over sine supposed chorale even when no one is pushing the agenda he's upset about.
- Status