boards of FL wrote: gatorfan wrote: boards of FL wrote: gatorfan wrote: boards of FL wrote: gatorfan wrote: Salinsky wrote:Actually, President Obama has done a pretty remarkable job of keeping us out of that tar baby.
He has so far resisted the clamor from the MIC, much of Congress, and most of the presidential candidates to put troops on the ground and/or enforce a no-fly zone over Syria.
Meanwhile, Russia has gotten itself into a confrontation with Turkey, without whose acquiescence they're going to have one hell of a time resupplying their bases in Syria, and simultaneously the Ukraine and Crimean Peninsula are percolating nicely.
Putin has shot Russia in both feet, and critics are bitching about Obama's leadership because he's keeping our powder dry.
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the "Obama Strategy". You know the one, salt around a few hundred ground troops here and there as pseudo-advisors while launching hundreds of air strikes along with specops missions. Don't forget the mega-million train the runaway rebel strategy. That's involvement and shooting "gunpowder" no matter how you choose to parse the situation.
This strategy that you have just described, would you prefer that or another war in the middle east?
If you had bothered reading the whole thread you would already know what I thought.
I repeat:
"Obama needs to withdraw from the Mideast hot spots and let the directly involved countries solve their problems."
You conveniently forgot that 3rd strategy Cherry Picker.
But assuming your two options are 1) the strategy that you just described and 2) another war in the middle east, which would you choose?
Explain, if you can, why your little selections are the only two options, I prefer to deal with reality and there is a third which I won't bother mentioning AGAIN. That is the option I would take (as is obvious to even the most casual observer but not you).
Keep bouncing your little ball.
Because those are roughly the options available to us as voters at this point. The republican candidate will push for another war and the democratic candidate will push for something comparable to what we have now, more or less.
Which do you prefer? The strategy that you described in this thread or another war?
Neither.
I'd do what I said I'd do in posts here three years ago and ever since.
If I was President, I would travel in person to the Al Jazeera studios in Qatar. And I would deliver this message.
That starting tomorrow, I will begin the process of removing all U.S. military assets and personnel from the entire Middle East with the exception of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
And I would pledge to learn from history and produce a sequel to the Manhattan Project with the goal of speeding up the complete elimination of our need for mideast oil and, once that has happened, it's sayonara to you Saudis too.
But I would tell them that I've read Trump's "Art of the Deal" and learned a thing or two about negotiatin. And here's the negotiation and it's not negotiable.
From this day forward, if anyone who harms an American asset or citizen is identified and located and think how fast it happened in Paris and that's those lousy frogs, think about how fast I can find you. From this day forward when identified and located, you will be turned into a burned out cinder and so will everything in close range because I WILL NOT give a rat's ass about collateral damage and might even try to make it happen.
So there's the deal. We stop fucking with you and you stop fucking with us. And as I said, it's non-negotiable.
Home
