Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The New (and On Notice) Obama Thread

14041434546

Posts

  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Actually, I don't think the red line thing was quite so stupid anymore because getting Assad to give up his chemical stockpiles was a major diplomatic victory. However, because it was a diplomatic victory it's automatically less sexy than our nation's traditional pastime of bombing brown people. Therefore, Obama is weak on foreign policy.

    The fact that we actually got them to get rid of a large number of chemical weapons if not all of their stockpiles is an amazing win. No amount of bombing runs that Mccain and company were pushing for would have gotten much if any of their stock piles.

    AManFromEarthshrykeenlightenedbumSquigieGnome-Interruptuschrishallett83MillzagdrobCorehealerStollsemp123
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    Actually, I don't think the red line thing was quite so stupid anymore because getting Assad to give up his chemical stockpiles was a major diplomatic victory. However, because it was a diplomatic victory it's automatically less sexy than our nation's traditional pastime of bombing brown people. Therefore, Obama is weak on foreign policy.

    The fact that we actually got them to get rid of a large number of chemical weapons if not all of their stockpiles is an amazing win. No amount of bombing runs that Mccain and company were pushing for would have gotten much if any of their stock piles.

    This gives America respect from the international community, which isn't what the GOP wants. They want every country to fear them - do what America says or they'll get bombed to the stone age.

    Squigiechrishallett83
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Eh, McCain is full of shit anyway. And everyone knows it. He and Lindsey Graham know full well that their slots on the sunday news shows are all but guaranteed as long as they make with the hawkish criticism of Obama's administration. Their vanity is all that drives their "concern." Cheney OTOH...I think really does believe brown dudes in turbans are going to abduct him in the night.

    Dark_Side on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I can not stand that McCain is all running around running his mouth about how he was right about iraq and Obama. Because one time you were right about something literally everyone else could have predicted and you've been wrong every other fucking foreign policy thing, and you are probably wrong about this in some way because fuck you John McCain.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Geth
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Saying that Iraq would go to shit when we left doesn't make you a fucking savant. We all knew that, or at least I hope we did. It's just that most of us saw no point on spending blood and treasure on an endeavor we never should have undertaken.

    Now if John McCain had predicted in 2008 that leaving Iraq would have led to the Syrian civil war spilling over the border and leading to attrocities in Iraq, well that would have been pretty prescient

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    GethshrykeQuidFlying CouchMild ConfusionArdoljoshofalltradesGnome-Interruptuschrishallett83zagdrobLovelyEncCommunistCowStollsJihadJesusemp123
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Did the red line talk actually much to do with that though? I tend to think the diplomatic pressure was high enough on Assad and Russia that it made sense to just give them up, rather than risk the US and other countries taking a more focused look at the situation.

    I felt the red line was just a rhetorical bluff, that he probably shouldn't have used unless crossing it meant an immediate reaction of some sort, which didn't happen. But I don't think it necessarily weakened American foreign policy heft or anything, regardless of what Obama's american critics have said.

    There is also the potential reality that Assad did not personally want the chemical weapons used and getting rid of them means any potential rogue faction couldn't utilize them as blackmail against him/use them again to ensure NATO ends his regime. The thing about MAD is that it's mutual.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Or maybe to Assad the chemical weapons were like used furniture he just didn't know how to be rid of.

    "What the fuck do you do with all this anthrax?"

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    RedTide wrote: »
    Saying that Iraq would go to shit when we left doesn't make you a fucking savant. We all knew that, or at least I hope we did. It's just that most of us saw no point on spending blood and treasure on an endeavor we never should have undertaken.

    Now if John McCain had predicted in 2008 that leaving Iraq would have led to the Syrian civil war spilling over the border and leading to attrocities in Iraq, well that would have been pretty prescient

    "If you take that completely brain-dead patient off life-support, he will die! Look, now he's dead! I told you soooo why does nobody listen to meeeeeeeeee."

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Harry DresdenNo-QuarterPreacherMild ConfusionSquigieyossarian_livesLovelyCorehealerStolls
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Saying that Iraq would go to shit when we left doesn't make you a fucking savant. We all knew that, or at least I hope we did. It's just that most of us saw no point on spending blood and treasure on an endeavor we never should have undertaken.

    Now if John McCain had predicted in 2008 that leaving Iraq would have led to the Syrian civil war spilling over the border and leading to attrocities in Iraq, well that would have been pretty prescient

    "If you take that completely brain-dead patient off life-support, he will die! Look, now he's dead! I told you soooo why does nobody listen to meeeeeeeeee."

    Actually, that would have meant he was more prescient than his colleagues in 2005...

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    And Hillary already started walking back her comments in that interview about Syria; called the old boss today to do some groveling. I wonder what Obama thinks when he gets that call.."Hey Barack just called to tell you I made some comments saying you were wrong on Syria, and I heard you called them horseshit..Sorry? I totally didn't mean them in the way that I exactly meant them. Ok bye."
    The White House initially said Obama didn't plan to see Clinton while she was on the island. But after the interview was published, the White House said Obama decided to go to the party.

    Whoops...

    Dark_Side on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Saying that Iraq would go to shit when we left doesn't make you a fucking savant. We all knew that, or at least I hope we did. It's just that most of us saw no point on spending blood and treasure on an endeavor we never should have undertaken.

    Now if John McCain had predicted in 2008 that leaving Iraq would have led to the Syrian civil war spilling over the border and leading to attrocities in Iraq, well that would have been pretty prescient

    "If you take that completely brain-dead patient off life-support, he will die! Look, now he's dead! I told you soooo why does nobody listen to meeeeeeeeee."

    Actually, that would have meant he was more prescient than his colleagues in 2005...

    Amazing how quickly Republicans moved to get shit done when they were in power right?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    And Hillary already started walking back her comments in that interview about Syria; called the old boss today to do some groveling. I wonder what Obama thinks when he gets that call.."Hey Barack just called to tell you I made some comments saying you were wrong on Syria, and I heard you called them horseshit..Sorry? I totally didn't mean them in the way that I exactly meant them. Ok bye."
    The White House initially said Obama didn't plan to see Clinton while she was on the island. But after the interview was published, the White House said Obama decided to go to the party.

    Whoops...

    My guess someone talked to democratic donors and suddenly Barack is ok again.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    And Hillary already started walking back her comments in that interview about Syria; called the old boss today to do some groveling. I wonder what Obama thinks when he gets that call.."Hey Barack just called to tell you I made some comments saying you were wrong on Syria, and I heard you called them horseshit..Sorry? I totally didn't mean them in the way that I exactly meant them. Ok bye."
    The White House initially said Obama didn't plan to see Clinton while she was on the island. But after the interview was published, the White House said Obama decided to go to the party.

    Whoops...

    My guess someone talked to democratic donors and suddenly Barack is ok again.

    Or Obama threatened to cut her off from the OFA mailing lists and infrastructure

    CptKemzik
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Eh, McCain is full of shit anyway. And everyone knows it. He and Lindsey Graham know full well that their slots on the sunday news shows are all but guaranteed as long as they make with the hawkish criticism of Obama's administration. Their vanity is all that drives their "concern." Cheney OTOH...I think really does believe brown dudes in turbans are going to abduct him in the night.

    Cheney should be afraid of that. God knows he deserves to be.

    Gnome-InterruptusAndy Joe
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    Actually, I don't think the red line thing was quite so stupid anymore because getting Assad to give up his chemical stockpiles was a major diplomatic victory. However, because it was a diplomatic victory it's automatically less sexy than our nation's traditional pastime of bombing brown people. Therefore, Obama is weak on foreign policy.

    The fact that we actually got them to get rid of a large number of chemical weapons if not all of their stockpiles is an amazing win. No amount of bombing runs that Mccain and company were pushing for would have gotten much if any of their stock piles.

    This gives America respect from the international community, which isn't what the GOP wants. They want every country to fear them - do what America says or they'll get bombed to the stone age.

    Not sure they even know the difference between respect and fear. It's schoolyard bullying as a political philosophy.

    Lovelychrishallett83Squigie
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    20/20 hindsight is a marvelous thing. If the GOP takes the opposite stance to Obama on everything, then they will automatically seem prescient on everything he gets wrong.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    20/20 hindsight is a marvelous thing. If the GOP takes the opposite stance to Obama on everything, then they will automatically seem prescient on everything he gets wrong.

    Obama didn't get it 'wrong'. I don't think anyone thought that when we pulled out of Iraq it was going to suddenly turn into a land of sunshine and rainbows.

    This was one of the anticipated outcomes. Maybe not letter for letter, but it was pretty much a given that Iraq was going to be a disaster and not getting better.

    Just...staying there wasn't doing good for anyone - it was costing billions, costing both American and Iraqi lives, eroding America's soft power, and none of that was going to change.

    Pulling out of Iraq was the right thing to do. Staying was digging a deeper hole - leaving just didn't make the hole go away.

    Harry DresdenQuidSyphonBlueshrykeArdolAManFromEarthStollsGnome-InterruptusCorehealeroverride367Rchanenchrishallett83JihadJesusjoshofalltradesSquigieemp123
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    20/20 hindsight is a marvelous thing. If the GOP takes the opposite stance to Obama on everything, then they will automatically seem prescient on everything he gets wrong.

    Obama didn't get it 'wrong'. I don't think anyone thought that when we pulled out of Iraq it was going to suddenly turn into a land of sunshine and rainbows.

    That's the marvelous thing of course. Anyone could predict that Iraq was probably going to go wrong. If Obama had insisted that the USA stayed until peace was complete, the GOP would have been urging him to get out, and haranguing him for whatever went wrong in that course of action.

    Politics is like a big game of the Witcher - every choice is wrong. And the opposition is the post-credits slideshow telling you how much you sucked.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    20/20 hindsight is a marvelous thing. If the GOP takes the opposite stance to Obama on everything, then they will automatically seem prescient on everything he gets wrong.

    Obama didn't get it 'wrong'. I don't think anyone thought that when we pulled out of Iraq it was going to suddenly turn into a land of sunshine and rainbows.

    This was one of the anticipated outcomes. Maybe not letter for letter, but it was pretty much a given that Iraq was going to be a disaster and not getting better.

    Just...staying there wasn't doing good for anyone - it was costing billions, costing both American and Iraqi lives, eroding America's soft power, and none of that was going to change.

    Pulling out of Iraq was the right thing to do. Staying was digging a deeper hole - leaving just didn't make the hole go away.

    What is happening in Iraq is basically exactly what was predicted, only moreso. How much more depends on whether you thought Maliki was dependable as a head of state or not.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Harry Dresden
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    20/20 hindsight is a marvelous thing. If the GOP takes the opposite stance to Obama on everything, then they will automatically seem prescient on everything he gets wrong.

    Obama didn't get it 'wrong'. I don't think anyone thought that when we pulled out of Iraq it was going to suddenly turn into a land of sunshine and rainbows.

    That's the marvelous thing of course. Anyone could predict that Iraq was probably going to go wrong. If Obama had insisted that the USA stayed until peace was complete, the GOP would have been urging him to get out, and haranguing him for whatever went wrong in that course of action.

    Politics is like a big game of the Witcher - every choice is wrong. And the opposition is the post-credits slideshow telling you how much you sucked.

    That's not politics, it's the GOP. If they actually cared about governing properly and believed in personal responsibility like they claim every choice a Democrat made wouldn't be wrong to them.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Also Obama highlighted this but its getting lost in our countries stupidly selfish view on everything. The Iraqis would not allow the US to remain in country and be immune from prosecution for potential crimes, so they forced us out. We were no longer welcome there, so there was a good reason we left.

    Hell we should have pulled out of Afganistan after the first few green on blue attacks, that shit is unconscionable.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Harry DresdenAManFromEarthNijaCorehealerStolls
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Also Obama highlighted this but its getting lost in our countries stupidly selfish view on everything. The Iraqis would not allow the US to remain in country and be immune from prosecution for potential crimes, so they forced us out. We were no longer welcome there, so there was a good reason we left

    Civilian massacres will do that kind of thing. Frankly I can't blame the Iraqi parliament for saying enough with the mercs, enough with the rambo bullshit, etc. Nor do I blame the US for saying hell no, you're not trying US soldiers in your fledgling govt.'s judicial system. But you're right, a lot of people forget that we didn't just pull out for no reason, we were pretty much kicked out. Now there might be some criticism that Obama bungled the Status of Forces Agreement, but that criticism doesn't have much truck with me.

    ArdolAManFromEarth
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Well that agreement was also struck while Bush was in office, we just abided by it. Which is funny because when leaving was seen as a positive the GOP was all over "THIS WASN"T OBAMA IT WAS BUSH BUSH!!!!!" Now that things have turned to shit, shockingly its all Obama.

    and whatever gets us out of Iraq could never be considered a "bungle" for me. Because seriously fuck that place, should have never gone, should never have stayed.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Seriously, the drawdown was signed in 2008.

    As much as Fox News would like us to think otherwise, Obama was not president since 2001.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    The soldier immunity thing was a fig-leaf; the Iraqis didn't want us there, we didn't want to stay, and we needed a disagreement to cover what we were going to do anything.

    It wasn't actually a legitimate disagreement; US soldiers had been in Iraq without immunity already, the chances of Iraq actually arresting and prosecuting a US soldier for war crimes was negligible.

  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I admit as an american I'm fresh out of shit to give about people dying in the middle east. Its horrible, I'm awful for admitting it and we broke a lot of it, but I don't want more americans to die in a desert to stop people from murdering each other and instead murder americans. At best we can delay this shit, like the worlds worst dam.

    So Obama is a better man than I am, at least he's trying to stave off genocide in Iraq.

    This is awful for more than a few reasons but I think primarily because of the false dichotomy presented. It's not a matter of isolationism or military occupation; we could also stop taking hardline approaches, supporting coups as in Egypt, and generally aiming for "just unstable enough that economic colonialism continues unabated".

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    The soldier immunity thing was a fig-leaf; the Iraqis didn't want us there, we didn't want to stay, and we needed a disagreement to cover what we were going to do anything.

    It wasn't actually a legitimate disagreement; US soldiers had been in Iraq without immunity already, the chances of Iraq actually arresting and prosecuting a US soldier for war crimes was negligible.

    It was less the US soldiers, and more the US contractors, who weren't under military jurisdiction for punishment for crimes, but also had immunity from the Iraqi government.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    The soldier immunity thing was a fig-leaf; the Iraqis didn't want us there, we didn't want to stay, and we needed a disagreement to cover what we were going to do anything.

    It wasn't actually a legitimate disagreement; US soldiers had been in Iraq without immunity already, the chances of Iraq actually arresting and prosecuting a US soldier for war crimes was negligible.

    It was less the US soldiers, and more the US contractors, who weren't under military jurisdiction for punishment for crimes, but also had immunity from the Iraqi government.

    yeah it was the worthless fucking Mercenaries who were being paid 3x more to be there by the US Government than actual soldiers were being paid going nuts and fucking shit up and smearing the US name.

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Seriously, the drawdown was signed in 2008.

    As much as Fox News would like us to think otherwise, Obama was not president since 2001.

    I think the framing they're trying to establish is, "Bush signed this agreement because he was totally going to turn Iraq into a democratic utopia before we left. Then Obama came and fucked everything up, so of course we should now stay until the job is done properly."

    Well, that's the framing they'd use if they cared about basic consistency, anyway. I guess the real framing is more, "Obama=bad, so leaving=bad."

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    V1m
  • CapekCapek Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Seriously, the drawdown was signed in 2008.

    As much as Fox News would like us to think otherwise, Obama was not president since 2001.

    I think the framing they're trying to establish is, "Bush signed this agreement because he was totally going to turn Iraq into a democratic utopia before we left. Then Obama came and fucked everything up, so of course we should now stay until the job is done properly."

    Well, that's the framing they'd use if they cared about basic consistency, anyway. I guess the real framing is more, "Obama=bad, so leaving=bad."

    It's not fair to expect Republicans to answer for anything that happened before 2010, when those RINOs of insufficient purity were in charge.

    So they tell me.

    So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. - Fitzgerald
    Gethchrishallett83Quid
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Seriously, the drawdown was signed in 2008.

    As much as Fox News would like us to think otherwise, Obama was not president since 2001.

    I think the framing they're trying to establish is, "Bush signed this agreement because he was totally going to turn Iraq into a democratic utopia before we left. Then Obama came and fucked everything up, so of course we should now stay until the job is done properly."

    Well, that's the framing they'd use if they cared about basic consistency, anyway. I guess the real framing is more, "Obama=bad, so leaving=bad."

    Now they're getting huffy about the additional advisors

    NO MORE BOOTS ON THE GROUND

    when literally two days ago they were calling Obama a coward for not putting boots on the ground

    Geth
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The president decided against sending troops to that mountain, by the way.

    So unless things change it's just Eisenhower/JFK style "advisors" for now.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Seriously, the drawdown was signed in 2008.

    As much as Fox News would like us to think otherwise, Obama was not president since 2001.

    I think the framing they're trying to establish is, "Bush signed this agreement because he was totally going to turn Iraq into a democratic utopia before we left. Then Obama came and fucked everything up, so of course we should now stay until the job is done properly."

    Well, that's the framing they'd use if they cared about basic consistency, anyway. I guess the real framing is more, "Obama=bad, so leaving=bad."

    Now they're getting huffy about the additional advisors

    NO MORE BOOTS ON THE GROUND

    when literally two days ago they were calling Obama a coward for not putting boots on the ground

    Republicans arguing for two completely contradictory things at the exact same thing? In other words..a day that ends in y?

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
  • GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Seriously, the drawdown was signed in 2008.

    As much as Fox News would like us to think otherwise, Obama was not president since 2001.

    I think the framing they're trying to establish is, "Bush signed this agreement because he was totally going to turn Iraq into a democratic utopia before we left. Then Obama came and fucked everything up, so of course we should now stay until the job is done properly."

    Well, that's the framing they'd use if they cared about basic consistency, anyway. I guess the real framing is more, "Obama=bad, so leaving=bad."

    Now they're getting huffy about the additional advisors

    NO MORE BOOTS ON THE GROUND

    when literally two days ago they were calling Obama a coward for not putting boots on the ground

    Republicans arguing for two completely contradictory things at the exact same thing? In other words..a day that ends in why?

    Wraith260Mild ConfusionKid PresentableSquigieRchanen
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    The only allowable tool of foreign policy is firing extremely expensive missiles from astoundingly expensive planes.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Bombs are acceptable I suppose, if they're the very expensive laser-guided kind and you need to kill large concentrations of people, but only if there are cool videos of them entering buildings through a window or something.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    We should use more drones.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • CapekCapek Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    I think Chait makes a good point here.
    President Obama’s plan to effectively legalize millions of unauthorized immigrants, the outlines of which have been widely reported, rests on solid legal foundations. The legal basis for Obama’s plan is that the president has wide latitude to use the federal government’s scarce immigration law enforcement resources as he sees fit. Obama could announce that the president will stop pursuing some 5 million legal immigrants and grant them some kind of work visas. Having failed to persuade Congress to change the law, he will effectively have suspended it on his own.

    Ross Douthat argues that Obama’s reported action, while legal, is nonetheless unfair and sets a dangerous precedent. Douthat opposes the ends of Obama’s plan as well as its means. I fully support Obama’s immigration policy goals. But the defenses of Obama’s methods seem weak and short-sighted.

    To imagine how this method might be dangerous, you have to abstract it away from the specific end it advances and consider another administration using similar methods for policies liberals might not like. What if a Republican president announced that he would stop enforcing the payment of estate taxes? Or suspend enforcement of regulations on industrial pollution? Or laws on workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians?

    Capek on
    So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. - Fitzgerald
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    What if congress bothered to do its job?

    HounKid PresentableDracomicronchrishallett83
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    I'd be more sympathetic to the GOPs whining if they had any kind plan of their own. Even if it was a moronic 5 trillion dollar plan to build a wall. the best they could come up with was change the 2008 law to make the kids easier to deport.

This discussion has been closed.