Obama "owns" Assad now?

I think you are frankly bonkers on this ODS now:

Assad came to power in 2000 (back when Bill Clinton was President). He has been backed by Iran - as his father was - and by Russia. If you want to see who really "owns" Assad, look at who is building bases there and backing him militarily. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

Obama has not attacked him, but as I asked (and you ignored), what would be the results of decapitation in 2012? Freedom, peace and democracy like in Iraq and Libya?

danivon wrote:Obama "owns" Assad now?

I think you are frankly bonkers on this ODS now:

Pssh. Who threatened him and then did nothing?

Obama.

Who has made Assad's patron, Iran, the regional hegemon?

Obama.

I'm sorry to confuse you with facts.

Obama has not attacked him, but as I asked (and you ignored), what would be the results of decapitation in 2012? Freedom, peace and democracy like in Iraq and Libya?

Could it be worse? Are there three worse hell-holes on Earth right now?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Obama "owns" Assad now?

I think you are frankly bonkers on this ODS now:

Pssh. Who threatened him and then did nothing?

Obama.

Who has made Assad's patron, Iran, the regional hegemon?

Obama.

I'm sorry to confuse you with facts.

Bald assertion is not fact, unless evidenced.

1) Others threatened to act against Assad and did nothing. That's still less than actively supporting hiim which Russia and Iran are doing.

2) Obama did not 'make' Iran a regional hegemon.
a) it is not a hegemon, just a major player like Saudi.
b) it has expanded influence over more than just the past 7 years - assiduously courting the Shia opponents of Israel and of Sunni governments across the region. And the biggest boost to Iran's power came in the post-invasion Iraq when power fell to the Shia clerics who had just come back from Iran to take power when the US-led occupation handed back to the locals. How did Obama do that before even getting elected to the Senate?

Obama has not attacked him, but as I asked (and you ignored), what would be the results of decapitation in 2012? Freedom, peace and democracy like in Iraq and Libya?

Could it be worse? Are there three worse hell-holes on Earth right now?

Congo. Somalia. North Korea. Burma. Sorry, that's four and just from the top of my head, and perhaps there are more.

fate

I've said what I would do about ISIS. Assad is not my problem; he belongs to Obama.

Your problem is trying to shoe horn reality to fit your world view.
Somehow you need to believe that Bush left Iraq as a modern functioning nation and not one saddled with a sectarian conflict exacerbated by a 10 year occupation and heavy handed colonial style governing by Paul Bremer. (firing the Iraqis professional military, for instance).
Somehow you need to believe that the Syrian conflict wasn't bubbling under as the 5 year long drought (a result of climate change) forced millions of farmers into Syrian cities where they often fell under the sway of Islamicpoliticians with extreme views.
Somehow you need to believe its possible to deal with ISIS as a separate discreet problem when ISIS is tied up in the whole stew of religious conflict, resentments over totalitarian regimes and economic dislocation.
All of this WAS unleashed when Bush invaded Iraq and failed in his occupation. Blaming Obama for acting as his nation wished, disengaging troops from the occupation, and being unable to control events without the use of overwhelming force ... is convenient. But only magical thinking would allow one to think that events in the Middle East can be tightly controlled by a distant foreign nation without an enormous military occupation. And maybe not even then..
But magical thinking is your specialty isn't it?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Obama "owns" Assad now?

I think you are frankly bonkers on this ODS now:

Pssh. Who threatened him and then did nothing?

Obama.

Who has made Assad's patron, Iran, the regional hegemon?

Obama.

I'm sorry to confuse you with facts.

Bald assertion is not fact, unless evidenced.

Feel free to ignore the real world then.

1) Others threatened to act against Assad and did nothing. That's still less than actively supporting hiim which Russia and Iran are doing.

So, it doesn't matter what Obama said? I mean, he's only the leader of the most powerful country on Earth. If you want to maintain he didn't threaten Assad, fine--go right ahead. He's so mealy-mouthed, he likely could not actually frighten a small child.

2) Obama did not 'make' Iran a regional hegemon.

Please. He has given them a free hand all over the region. In negotiations over the nuclear program, he didn't even fight for Americans being held hostage or get a deal including an agreement to not fund terror. In other words, he's given them the greenlight to expand their influence.

a) it is not a hegemon, just a major player like Saudi.

Are the Saudis sending troops, arms, and money in so many directions? Do they have a nuclear weapons program?

b) it has expanded influence over more than just the past 7 years - assiduously courting the Shia opponents of Israel and of Sunni governments across the region. And the biggest boost to Iran's power came in the post-invasion Iraq when power fell to the Shia clerics who had just come back from Iran to take power when the US-led occupation handed back to the locals. How did Obama do that before even getting elected to the Senate?

Yes, yes, blame Bush for Obama's failure to manage Iran. Never mind that Obama just removed all sanctions that will result in Iran being able to do even more.

Q: How long will the next President get to blame Obama? I just want a heads up.

Obama has not attacked him, but as I asked (and you ignored), what would be the results of decapitation in 2012? Freedom, peace and democracy like in Iraq and Libya?

Could it be worse? Are there three worse hell-holes on Earth right now?

Congo. Somalia. North Korea. Burma. Sorry, that's four and just from the top of my head, and perhaps there are more.

I can go with North Korea. I don't know that the others have hundreds of thousands of dead and refugees.

rickyp wrote:fate

I've said what I would do about ISIS. Assad is not my problem; he belongs to Obama.

Your problem is trying to shoe horn reality to fit your world view.
Somehow you need to believe that Bush left Iraq as a modern functioning nation . . .

Oh, so close . . . but, wrong President. I'm just taking your idol at his word:

President Obama announced the “end of America’s war in Iraq” on December 14, 2011, with the words, “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations.”

Read more at: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/arti ... osing-iraq

Somehow you need to believe its possible to deal with ISIS as a separate discreet problem when ISIS is tied up in the whole stew of religious conflict, resentments over totalitarian regimes and economic dislocation.

No, I don't have to believe that. However, unless we view ISIS rightly, we cannot begin to deal with it. This Administration buries the truth about ISIS so that it can lie to the American people.

All of this WAS unleashed when Bush invaded Iraq and failed in his occupation.

Problem: According to your god, the Iraq occupation was a success. Oops. You need to more fully memorize the propaganda emanating from the White House. Maybe they could put together a little book full of it--that would be handy for you.

Blaming Obama for acting as his nation wished, disengaging troops from the occupation, and being unable to control events without the use of overwhelming force ... is convenient.

Leaders lead . . . and blamers blame. Obama is a blamer.

But only magical thinking would allow one to think that events in the Middle East can be tightly controlled by a distant foreign nation without an enormous military occupation. And maybe not even then..
But magical thinking is your specialty isn't it?

No, your god does.

He believed it was possible to take Qaddaffi out without creating a failed state.

He believed ISIS was the "JV team."

He believed Assad was "a reformer."

He believed Putin would respond favorably to finding out he would have "more flexibility" after the 2012 election.

Frankly, your god believes in a world that does not exist. Again, where is the world safer because of Obama's leadership?

Fate

Oh, so close . . . but, wrong President. I'm just taking your idol at his word

On this but not his Christianity?
Upon taking leave of Iraq, if he had said, "Look we're pretty sure this is all going to fall apart pretty soon unless by some miracle the Shiites in Baghdad change the way they deal with the Sunnis and Kurds. Plus we're pretty sure that the Iranians are egging them on and its likely to end up in sectarian violence in less than 15 months. But we're out of here, anyway because we aren't welcome and the folks at home are tired of the waste of lives and money..... "

Would you give him points for honesty?
Or complain about his self fulfilled prophesy when the violence erupts.
The guy was selling a bag of crap .... that was the job at the time. You can't always be honest in foreign affairs. But the nation of the USA wanted out of Iraq and elected him in part to see that happen. Come hell or high water... So he put lip stick on the pig and said she'd fly.

The pig was Bushes. The lip stick was Obamas.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Oh, so close . . . but, wrong President. I'm just taking your idol at his word

The guy was selling a bag of crap .... that was the job at the time. You can't always be honest in foreign affairs. But the nation of the USA wanted out of Iraq and elected him in part to see that happen. Come hell or high water... So he put lip stick on the pig and said she'd fly.

The pig was Bushes. The lip stick was Obamas.

Wow.

I would love to see Obama say this. Approval rating: 5%.

"It's okay to lie to the American people if it's something they want to believe."

That's incredible. You've outdone yourself.

Doctor Fate wrote:Could it be worse? Are there three worse hell-holes on Earth right now?

Congo. Somalia. North Korea. Burma. Sorry, that's four and just from the top of my head, and perhaps there are more.[/quote]

I can go with North Korea. I don't know that the others have hundreds of thousands of dead and refugees.[/quote]
Congo has been a war zone for over 20 years. Burmais currently seeing the persecution of The Karen and Rohingya minorities and boat people trying to flee to Thailand and Malaysia have been in the news. Somalia, another 20-year war zone.

You could be a little curious and look them up...

Burma is a bit of a reach. Not a great place to live but it's no Syria.

Sassenach wrote:Burma is a bit of a reach. Not a great place to live but it's no Syria.

I did list four for insurance purposes

Burma has been in constant violent turmoil since 1948 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna ... in_Myanmar

Little is said about it in the West, and of course a lot of the more recent victims are the Rohingya who are Muslims so perhaps less sympathetic for us in the West. But victims nevertheless.

fate

"It's okay to lie to the American people if it's something they want to believe

"

"Want, and need , to believe."
Upon leaving Iraq, to allow the hope that something good might still come out of the adventure was not wrong. And, there still was a faint hope that something good might arise...

It is apparent to most Americans by now, that the sacrifices made by military families and by the American taxpayer in Iraq was a complete waste. Its not largely different than the sacrifice made in fighting the national independence movement in Viet Nam for over a decade. That left a scar.
But when Nixon left Viet Nam he made the same optimistic proclamations for the future of the Saigon regime... Because he had to.

I simply can't imagine a leader who wouldn't i the same circumstance.


Danivon

Congo has been a war zone for over 20 years

SInce the Belgians entered the region it has been, not just a war zone, but an area of repeated genocide. Over a hundred years.

A common tactic used in the Congo Free State was to demand a certain quota of rubber from each village. Missing a quota was punished violently. It was not uncommon for the hands and feet of men, women, and children to be amputated as punishment for not collecting enough rubber or ivory. Hostages were taken from villages and used as leverage when demanding quotas. Villagers knew that not gathering the specified quota of goods could mean the execution of their their family.
While the death toll in the Congo Free State can never be truly known due to a lack of accurate records, historians have offered estimates as high as 10 million dead between 1885 and 1908. Colonial mismanagement and oppression led not only to the killing and maiming of native peoples, but also to overwork, disease, starvation, and a host of other factors that all combined in a massive loss of life

.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/history ... ities.html
If there is any part of the world that has truly been hell for the last century it is the Congo.
Of course the perpetrators of the genocide were mostly white Christians . So lets not talk about that.

rickyp wrote:fate

"It's okay to lie to the American people if it's something they want to believe

"

"Want, and need , to believe."
Upon leaving Iraq, to allow the hope that something good might still come out of the adventure was not wrong. And, there still was a faint hope that something good might arise...

It is apparent to most Americans by now, that the sacrifices made by military families and by the American taxpayer in Iraq was a complete waste. Its not largely different than the sacrifice made in fighting the national independence movement in Viet Nam for over a decade. That left a scar.
But when Nixon left Viet Nam he made the same optimistic proclamations for the future of the Saigon regime... Because he had to.

I simply can't imagine a leader who wouldn't i the same circumstance.

Oh, goodnight!

Vietnam was fought on the idea of not permitting the "domino effect."

In Iraq, we are seeing the domino effect. Obama failed to manage the situation. If your best argument is that he "gave the people what they wanted (and "needed"), then he is a failure as a leader. He did what was popular instead of what was right. That is the ultimate sign of weakness.

How can anyone argue that he's taking the "right" course of action right now? Hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing two brutal forces. Russia and Iran are now working together in Syria and Iraq. Both of those regimes are opposed to the West--and this is "the right thing to do?"

Your argument would be very humorous if it weren't so tragic for millions upon millions of people.

fate

Vietnam was fought on the idea of not permitting the "domino effect."

That's what the American government told the American people.
From the Viet Namese point of view it was a war of national liberation against imperial colonialists.
From their point of view they had been fighting for a thousand year against the Cambodians, Chinese, French, Japanese, French again and finally the US.
SInce the domino effect never happened, which is the legitimate historical truth?



fate

How can anyone argue that he's taking the "right" course of action right now?

I don't think anyone

know

s what the right course of action is...
Except you and maybe Lindsey Graham.
SInce you dodge the question of what you'd do about Syria and Assad ... maybe not even you. Just Lyndsey.

Fate

Russia and Iran are now working together in Syria and Iraq. Both of those regimes are opposed to the West--and this is "the right thing to do?

"
So again .... whats your solution?

As usual, rickyp, your post is shaped by a crude understanding of English and a healthy dose of disinformation.

rickyp wrote:fate

Vietnam was fought on the idea of not permitting the "domino effect."

That's what the American government told the American people.
From the Viet Namese point of view it was a war of national liberation against imperial colonialists.
From their point of view they had been fighting for a thousand year against the Cambodians, Chinese, French, Japanese, French again and finally the US.
SInce the domino effect never happened, which is the legitimate historical truth?

I did not argue that the domino effect took place. That was the Cold War view--like it or not.

My point is that there actually IS a domino effect in the Middle East. It's visible!

fate

How can anyone argue that he's taking the "right" course of action right now?

I don't think anyone

know

s what the right course of action is...
Except you and maybe Lindsey Graham.
SInce you dodge the question of what you'd do about Syria and Assad ... maybe not even you. Just Lyndsey.

I have not dodged it. I have answered it. I have said I would use more aggressive means--and I've been very specific. It's nothing like Graham's approach. I'll be happy to re-explain it IF you will immediately respond with an apology for accusing me of dodging. I've never dodged this. I have said that my approach is immaterial as I'm not President, but I have proposed what I would do.

And, again, you miss the point: the Leader of the Free World is doing . . . nothing.

Fate

Russia and Iran are now working together in Syria and Iraq. Both of those regimes are opposed to the West--and this is "the right thing to do?

"
So again .... whats your solution?

What is Obama's solution?

Answer: let people die, take in refugees who cannot be vetted, expand the influence of Russia and Iran.