washamericom
Gold Member
- Jun 19, 2010
- 13,703
- 1,908
- 245
- Banned
- #1
this is in politics so i'll justify it being here. it's obama's foreign policy, and would be bernie's or hillary's or martin o'malley's (or as trump calls o'malley "the third guy")
Trump would not have first drawn that ridiculous red line that would change our calculus.
i think security is slipping away. obama make's idle threats and then, telegraphs his plans to the enemy, i don't think that's good for America. trump wants to keep the enemy "off guard", not tell them what we will and won't do. that makes more sense to me. we are less secure than we were before obama. the world is a mess, and it's coming here.
Obama 'red line' erased as Bashar Assad's chemical weapons use goes unchecked by U.S. military - Washington Times
By James S. RobbinsOct. 13, 2015
On Sunday, President Barack Obama told Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" that despite Russia's armed intervention in Syria, he was going to stay the course. However, it is unclear what that course is, or why Obama believes it will lead to success.
RELATED
Obama’s Solution Lies in His Own Advice on Iraq and Syria
There is little to cheer about in Syria. The United States has met none of its strategic objectives. The Islamic State group still controls as much territory as it did a year ago, if not more. A half-billion dollar U.S. Defense Department investment in training opposition fighters produced "four or five" who are probably either dead or fighting with the enemy. Air and drone strikes seem infrequent, routine and ineffective. And Syrian strongman President Bashar Assad, whom Obama demanded be removed from power over four years ago, is still in Damascus. With Moscow's support, he is likely to remain there.
Part of the problem is the general aimlessness in the U.S. approach to Syria. The White House has consistently called for a negotiated transfer of power in Damascus to a coalition successor government, but it is unclear who would be part of it, what it would look like and, most importantly, how it would take power.
obama "staying the course" interesting choice of words.
Trump would not have first drawn that ridiculous red line that would change our calculus.
i think security is slipping away. obama make's idle threats and then, telegraphs his plans to the enemy, i don't think that's good for America. trump wants to keep the enemy "off guard", not tell them what we will and won't do. that makes more sense to me. we are less secure than we were before obama. the world is a mess, and it's coming here.
Obama 'red line' erased as Bashar Assad's chemical weapons use goes unchecked by U.S. military - Washington Times
By James S. RobbinsOct. 13, 2015
On Sunday, President Barack Obama told Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" that despite Russia's armed intervention in Syria, he was going to stay the course. However, it is unclear what that course is, or why Obama believes it will lead to success.
RELATED
Obama’s Solution Lies in His Own Advice on Iraq and Syria
There is little to cheer about in Syria. The United States has met none of its strategic objectives. The Islamic State group still controls as much territory as it did a year ago, if not more. A half-billion dollar U.S. Defense Department investment in training opposition fighters produced "four or five" who are probably either dead or fighting with the enemy. Air and drone strikes seem infrequent, routine and ineffective. And Syrian strongman President Bashar Assad, whom Obama demanded be removed from power over four years ago, is still in Damascus. With Moscow's support, he is likely to remain there.
Part of the problem is the general aimlessness in the U.S. approach to Syria. The White House has consistently called for a negotiated transfer of power in Damascus to a coalition successor government, but it is unclear who would be part of it, what it would look like and, most importantly, how it would take power.
obama "staying the course" interesting choice of words.
Last edited: