The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Obama checks out - works on BB Bracket while world in turmoil!

  1. #11
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Exactly. Because there's no other reasonable courses of action available for the President take that fall in the spectrum somewhere between invading and not doing a GD thing.
    You used to be so much more amusing and erudite. What happen? You stop dating your ghost writer?
    Or you just get a bad sammich?



    JD
    Last edited by JDogger; 03-15-2011 at 11:21 PM.
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  2. #12
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the responses of two other posters who agreed with your post I'm apparently not the only one who interpreted your remarks as more of a comment than a question.

    For better or worse, the United States is the leader of the world. By extension, whoever the President is, whether he's a liberal or conservative, loved or hated, can have a HUGE influence on world events simple based on what he says. Obama could simply announce that he backed the Libyan rebels thereby bringing ENORMOUS pressure upon Khadafi, and it wouldn't have cost the United States one thin dime. Or Obama could have said, "Look, Khadafi sucks, but he has renounced his WMD program and is a lot less dangerous than before and he is therefore preferable to the rebels" and it would have had an ENORMOUS impact and not cost the US one thin dime. I'll concede that doing nothing, which has basically been the United States response re: Libya, might just be the best course of action...maybe we're hedging our bets. But I find it hard to believe that limp-wristed and tepid American responses have been the right course of action on nearly every global issue/crisis that Obama has faced...Libya, Egypt, Iran, now Bahrain, etc. And I find that given Obama's past history of voting "Present" instead of casting a vote, it is very possible/likely that our current foreign policy is a reflection of that same lack of conviction.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the responses of two other posters who agreed with your post I'm apparently not the only one who interpreted your remarks as more of a comment than a question.

    For better or worse, the United States is the leader of the world. By extension, whoever the President is, whether he's a liberal or conservative, loved or hated, can have a HUGE influence on world events simple based on what he says. Obama could simply announce that he backed the Libyan rebels thereby bringing ENORMOUS pressure upon Khadafi, and it wouldn't have cost the United States one thin dime. Or Obama could have said, "Look, Khadafi sucks, but he has renounced his WMD program and is a lot less dangerous than before and he is therefore preferable to the rebels" and it would have had an ENORMOUS impact and not cost the US one thin dime. I'll concede that doing nothing, which has basically been the United States response re: Libya, might just be the best course of action...maybe we're hedging our bets. But I find it hard to believe that limp-wristed and tepid American responses have been the right course of action on nearly every global issue/crisis that Obama has faced...Libya, Egypt, Iran, now Bahrain, etc. And I find that given Obama's past history of voting "Present" instead of casting a vote, it is very possible/likely that our current foreign policy is a reflection of that same lack of conviction.
    Given your last sentence maybe I am being a bit naive about Obama doing nothing. BUT then again you say he should at least say something about it and he has said multiple times that Khadafi needs to step down. With the culture of the middle east and what we have seen in the past regarding other countries, harsh words and sanctions do absolutely nothing. How many sanctions and harsh words has Iran received and still they have not changed their course whatsoever. Khadafi is a totalitarian dictator and I'm sorry but the things you suggest have both been tried and will NOT work on someone like him. I firmly believe that only military force will stop him. He is air raiding his own people for God's sake, is Obama saying stop going to change his mind?

  4. #14
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the responses of two other posters who agreed with your post I'm apparently not the only one who interpreted your remarks as more of a comment than a question.

    For better or worse, the United States is the leader of the world. By extension, whoever the President is, whether he's a liberal or conservative, loved or hated, can have a HUGE influence on world events simple based on what he says. Obama could simply announce that he backed the Libyan rebels thereby bringing ENORMOUS pressure upon Khadafi, and it wouldn't have cost the United States one thin dime. Or Obama could have said, "Look, Khadafi sucks, but he has renounced his WMD program and is a lot less dangerous than before and he is therefore preferable to the rebels" and it would have had an ENORMOUS impact and not cost the US one thin dime. I'll concede that doing nothing, which has basically been the United States response re: Libya, might just be the best course of action...maybe we're hedging our bets. But I find it hard to believe that limp-wristed and tepid American responses have been the right course of action on nearly every global issue/crisis that Obama has faced...Libya, Egypt, Iran, now Bahrain, etc. And I find that given Obama's past history of voting "Present" instead of casting a vote, it is very possible/likely that our current foreign policy is a reflection of that same lack of conviction.
    Most of the time, action has bigger consequences of inaction. Especially when talking potential military options. Sometimes if you're not sure of what to do, the best thing to do is NOTHING. In this case, at least up to now, by delaying, he has allowed the Arab League to come to our way of seeing things. If a no-fly zone is now implemented, we can proceed with reasonable assurances that it won't pizz off the rest of the middle east. FWIW.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  5. #15
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    my text is bold...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cody Covey View Post
    Given your last sentence maybe I am being a bit naive about Obama doing nothing. BUT then again you say he should at least say something about it and he has said multiple times that Khadafi needs to step down. Not to get all weasel wordy with you, but I didn't necessarily say that he should pick a side; I was simply offering that as a requested example of something he could do that was less than invading but more than doing nothing. Yes, Obama has recently said that Khadafi needed to step down, but as I recall that was AFTER a whole bunch of Euro leaders stepped out in front and made similar proclamations. And even as Obama's saying Khadafi must go, his Director of National Intelligence is saying that Khadafi will win, and the UN is passing a resolution calling for other countries to arrest Khadafi for war crimes if he flees to their country. Brilliant. But in the early days/weeks of Libya, Obama basically dithered and didn't do jacksh!t. With the culture of the middle east and what we have seen in the past regarding other countries, harsh words and sanctions do absolutely nothing. How many sanctions and harsh words has Iran received and still they have not changed their course whatsoever. There were a lot of posts/thread here last year during the Iranian uprisings bemoaning Obama for not being forceful enough. Harsh words and a strong, definitive stance that America stands on the side of freedom, etc, et al. might have emboldened the Iranian opposition or the Libyan opposition. We'll never know because instead of FDR, Kennedy or Reagan rhetoric we got wishywashy and indecisive from a Willy Loman-esque President who wants to be liked...and hopefully well-liked, by the rest of the world. Khadafi is a totalitarian dictator and I'm sorry but the things you suggest have both been tried and will NOT work on someone like him. I firmly believe that only military force will stop him. He is air raiding his own people for God's sake, is Obama saying stop going to change his mind?
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Most of the time, action has bigger consequences of inaction. Especially when talking potential military options. Sometimes if you're not sure of what to do, the best thing to do is NOTHING. I don't disagree with you one bit about that. Doing nothing, however, seems to be Obama's strategery for EVERY foreign policy crisis. In this case, at least up to now, by delaying, he has allowed the Arab League to come to our way of seeing things.If a no-fly zone is now implemented, we can proceed with reasonable assurances that it won't pizz off the rest of the middle east. Or, as I would argue, delaying/dithering has gotten us to a point where a no-fly zone isn't needed because the rebels are f'ing DEAD. What's a no-fly zone going to protect now...rotting corpses? FWIW.
    ...................
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  7. #17
    Senior Member BrianW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Athol, North Idaho
    Posts
    885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Most of the time, action has bigger consequences of inaction. Especially when talking potential military options. Sometimes if you're not sure of what to do, the best thing to do is NOTHING. In this case, at least up to now, by delaying, he has allowed the Arab League to come to our way of seeing things. If a no-fly zone is now implemented, we can proceed with reasonable assurances that it won't pizz off the rest of the middle east. FWIW.
    Yes, actions generally DO have consequences. Such is the plight of being the President, not just doing the Presidency.

    PBO is "not sure what to do" because of his core principles that conflict with 'what the American President is supposed to do/stand for".
    He was taught his whole life that people like "Daffy" are the good guys, what he should strive to emulate. A heroic anti-colonialist standing up to the evil exploiters/oppressors of the people. Now that the mask of Muammar is off and the world is seeing, again, the true "person", it isn't quiiiite what Barack wants to show he's really supported all these years.

    So he was for Gaddafi before he was against him. Sounds par for the course (Pun intended). And now he can conveniently hide behind Sarkozy, Merkel, Hu Jintao, etc which may be a good thing overall, since Italy, France, China, Germany and Spain are the largest buyers of Libyan oil, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Let them get some skin in the game.
    "It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
    Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    ________________________________________
    Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
    co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

  8. #18
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    If Obama does nothing, the right will complain that he is not doing anything. If he does something the right will say he did not do the right thing. It's a no win situation.
    Refresh my memory again why the opinons expressed on a dog board are an excuse for this or in fact any POTUS to dither and hand wring instead of assuming a leadership role? Because regardless of how weak and ineffective a leader he's proving to be, one thing you can take to the bank is the favorable treatment your boy gets from the mainstream media, so you surely aren't referring to the court of public opinion.


    And let's not forget Khadafi's outspoken support for Candidate Obama in the last election, either. After all it's obvious the POTUS spends more time worrying about his re-election than about world peace & harmony and he may need that endorsement again. LMAO.

    Nobel Peace Prize regards
    Julie R., Hope Springs Farm
    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers since 1981

  9. #19
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Morning Bell: Obama Dithers While American Credibility Burns


    "President Barack Obama invited ESPN into the White House yesterday so that The Worldwide Leader In Sports could tape his picks for the 2011 NCAA basketball tournament. The President picked all frontrunners. Good for him. Meanwhile, 5,000 miles away, a Libyan rebel defending the town of Ajdabiya from Muammar Qadhafi loyalists told The Washington Post: “These politicians are liars. They just talk and talk, but they do nothing.” One hundred miles north, in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, rebel spokeswoman Iman Bugaighis told The New York Times that Western nations had “lost any credibility.”

    President Obama cannot be blamed for the failure of the rebels to hold off advances by Qadhafi’s army. But he can be blamed for raising expectations for U.S. military action beyond what he was prepared to commit. On March 3, President Obama said: “With respect to our willingness to engage militarily, … I’ve instructed the Department of Defense … to examine a full range of options. I don’t want us hamstrung. … Going forward, we will continue to send a clear message: The violence must stop. Muammar Gaddafi has lost legitimacy to lead, and he must leave.” Heritage Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes writes: “This is the worst of all worlds. People in the Middle East (not to mention Americans) are rightly confused by the mismatch between the Administration’s rhetoric and actions.”

    The tragedy unfolding in Libya is just another example of why the Obama Doctrine was destined to fail. The Obama Doctrine is ill-suited to dealing with the world as it is. It assumes that big problems can be solved with big words while the messy details take care of themselves. It places far too much confidence in international entities, disregards for the importance of American independence, and fails to emphasize American exceptionalism.

    Diplomacy is fundamental to the conduct of American foreign policy. That is why the Founders removed the conduct of diplomacy from the states of the Union and placed its practice under the President of the United States. But the Obama Doctrine misunderstands how diplomacy ought to be practiced. Heritage Senior Research Fellow Ted Bromund explains:

    The purpose of American diplomacy never changes: It is to secure the national interests of the United States. … Irresponsible diplomacy comes in many forms. Diplomacy without strength does not even merit the name of diplomacy. Treaties that fail to respect President Ronald Reagan’s dictum of ‘trust, but verify’ are reckless. Treaties that are negotiated merely to encourage foreigners to think better of the United States are unwise.

    Far too often, President Obama has hoped that fancy words, grand apologies, and supplicant treaties would strengthen our security by making the world think better of us. They do not. This does not mean that the Obama Administration should do something rash, like implement a no-fly zone in Libya, just so it looks like it is doing something. It does mean that to save his presidency and protect the interests of the nation, business as usual in the White House has got to stop."
    ______________________________________________

    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #20
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,106

    Default

    POTUS...Putz of the United States
    Bill Davis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •