Obama's Foreign Policy

[B-Man]

SHOT: The US has said it is suspending talks with Russia over Syria, accusing Moscow of having “failed to live up” to its commitments under a ceasefire deal.

 

 

CHASER: White House Warns of ‘Actions’ If Russia Won’t Negotiate.

 

 

 

Who’s in charge of our foreign policy, anyway?

[/dev/null]

SHOT: The US has said it is suspending talks with Russia over Syria, accusing Moscow of having “failed to live up” to its commitments under a ceasefire deal.

 

 

CHASER: White House Warns of ‘Actions’ If Russia Won’t Negotiate.

 

 

 

Who’s in charge of our foreign policy, anyway?

After an a brief initial policy of "We're sorry", this Administration has had a steady policy of "It's our predecessor’s fault and our successors problem. Now stop being a Racist© by interrupting the back nine"

[DC Tom]

SHOT: The US has said it is suspending talks with Russia over Syria, accusing Moscow of having “failed to live up” to its commitments under a ceasefire deal.

 

 

CHASER: White House Warns of ‘Actions’ If Russia Won’t Negotiate.

 

 

 

Who’s in charge of our foreign policy, anyway?

 

At this point I'm just waiting for Kerry to announce that if Putin likes his doctor, he can keep him.

[Deranged Rhino]

Are you not the one who's outraged that the US government is providing support & logistics to groups fighting Assad, but haven't said a peep about Assad's & Putin's actions.

 

Not true.

 

You've already said you don't know my positions or understand them -- so why you keep making declarations about what I said as if they're true and proving that you indeed know nothing about my positions? Is it an ego thing? Try putting that aside and having a real conversation. You might be surprised at what you learn.

 

If anything, many of your posts rationalize Putin's actions. After all, since you use US & UK interchangeably this would fall into a war crimes bucket based on your logic.

 

Whataboutisms. It's all you got.

 

Again, since you've offered no position of your own, other than post links to anti-US commentary and conspiracy theories, we can only surmise. Prove us wrong.

 

I've offered plenty of positions of my own, constantly in fact, but by your own admission you don't know what I've said so you should stop making definitive statements about a topic you're admittedly ignorant about. All you've got are whataboutisms and invented narratives. It's a really poor position to try to argue from.

 

And, since you don't pay attention, all the anti-Putin threads in this forum recently have been started by me and I've actively participated in them all. So, you're wrong. Again. Shocking.

 

And yes, if you have a force that refuses to stop fighting, you have to force them into submission because the alternative is much worse.

 

So, to repeat, you have no plan or opinion on what should be done in Syria other than more fighting. Even if that means going toe to toe with the Iranians and Russians. This is despite the fact you have yet to articulate or even offer a strategic goal or US interest that we're serving and protecting by intervening and prolonging the violence in Syria.

 

Brilliant and completely dishonest all at once. Well done.

 

So now you're defending Obama's actions? Why haven't your Russian and intel sources picked up on the idiocy of Obama's policy to give Iran $2 billion at the same time they're fighting Assad & Russia? Or could it be that the entire foreign policy is FUBAR, and the only reason anything is happening is that Joint Chiefs are squeezing Ash Carter's balls, because they know the **** mess they will be cleaning up while Obama is raking up millions on the speech circuit on how he won the Nobel peace prize.

 

Only a fool would take what I wrote as a defense of Obama. My comment was pointing out the shortsightedness of your historical examples. Rwanda is not in any way analogous to this situation and Bosnia barely is. Get better examples when you try to make a point and maybe you won't have to keep embarrassing yourself by ranting about something no one said. You just go off on whatever tangent you wish and argue with ghosts.

 

It's a sure sign of someone grasping for straws when they know their geopolitical philosophy is a proven failure.

 

Again, prove us wrong

 

Prove you wrong about you not understanding my positions because you've never taken the time to consider them?

 

I can tell you with a 100% certainty that Google knows far more about my activities, interests and whereabouts than any government entity.

 

Bob & weave.

 

Bob & weave was directed at you, right? Because that's what you just did in your answer... since when is being a writer in any way related to Google?

 

That's right it isn't. Because the point you made about me working for an industry that's been more intrusive than any act of government is complete bunk. Care to revise your bullshite statement? Or are you just going to go down with this particular ship?

 

By the way.... Who funded Google at the start? Here's a hint, it was the intelligence apparatus. Google has more connections to the intelligence community than it does the writers of the world. So you're kind of arguing against your own point.

 

But that makes sense considering you've shown, again, that you're full of complete shite on this topic and haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

 

Anyone who compares Alex Jones to the Intercept as if they're one in the same isn't a very serious person.

 

Sorry, you disqualified yourself from any serious consideration in this topic when you demonstrated the true scope of your partisan blinders.

[Magox]

[Deranged Rhino]

Remember that time your candidate got run off the national stage by a carnival barker with a dead animal stapled to his head because he decided to talk about the size of his rooster? That was fun.

 

Considering you don't know the difference between a cut-out and a journalist, it's no wonder you're so asleep.

 

[Magox]

[Deranged Rhino]

When you got nothing else to fall back on, post nonsense like equating Alex Jones to the Intercept. At least when you're blue you can always remember this moment:

 

[Magox]

Says

 

Mr Tinfoil hat who can't back up any of his points. Not a single one.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Says

 

Mr Tinfoil hat who can't back up any of his points. Not a single one.

 

And yet I'm the only one who has provided sources while the two jingoists have repeatedly ignored and tried to everything you can to shift the attention away from the fact neither of you want to discuss the blatant act of war committed by US forces. Remember, that was the original topic of discussion, one you swore you were coming back to... but instead you've gone quite. Wonder why that is.

 

You got nothing but tired tin foil hat jokes (the 1980s want their material back, Mags), whataboutisms, and proving you don't know the difference between cut outs and journalists -- which makes you ill equipped to handle a serious discussion about geopolitics.

 

You're out of your element here. You've proven you have nothing serious to offer this conversation because you're a partisan hack who is too blinded by his support of an antiquated and backwards geopolitical philosophy to admit that it has been a proven failure.

 

But you still got Rubio. The guy you swore was going to win the nomination, remember that? You laughed me off when I said he had zero chance. Guess what, you were wrong then and you're wrong now.

[Deranged Rhino]

[Dante]

Truly ruled by true evil and kooks. Where the f did they find this war monger? Didn't check but is this one of Barry's dudes he hired to replace the reasonable guys he axed from the military? You don't start a war with Russia dumb a$$. Check your history it never works out well. For either side. Again, Russia wants no part of the open borders. No part of the NWO they just shook off the communist screw job. That's why you and your psycho buddies got it up their a$$. Nut job neo cons are going to end the friggen world if left to their own devices. I only hope there are sane people left in the military after Barry cleaned house.

 

 

https://www.army.mil/article/158386/milley_russia_no1_threat_to_us

[Nanker]

Romney had it right four years ago, but he was roundly mocked by the greatest intellectual President in the history of the universe and the MSM, oh, and HiLiary Clinton for his view. Unfortunately, Vlad saw things differently and bent B. O. over and gave him a Ukraine porking. Seeing how feckless B. O. is, he saw there was no time like the present to expand his influence in the M. E. and is backing Assad to the hilt. While we're supporting the "rebels" which is an odd assortment of fruits and nuts, many of whom would like to put the entire West to the sword. That's what "leading from behind", doing empty ghetto threats daring your foe to cross a "red line in the sand", and fleeing from an unstable region will get you. It's a shi t show of the first order.

[Magox]

Romney had it right four years ago, but he was roundly mocked by the greatest intellectual President in the history of the universe and the MSM, oh, and HiLiary Clinton for his view. Unfortunately, Vlad saw things differently and bent B. O. over and gave him a Ukraine porking. Seeing how feckless B. O. is, he saw there was no time like the present to expand his influence in the M. E. and is backing Assad to the hilt. While we're supporting the "rebels" which is an odd assortment of fruits and nuts, many of whom would like to put the entire West to the sword. That's what "leading from behind", doing empty ghetto threats daring your foe to cross a "red line in the sand", and fleeing from an unstable region will get you. It's a shi t show of the first order.

 

 

You've got it all wrong Nanker, Romney was also wanting to secretly fund Al Qaeda and ISIS so that we could stop those pesky Russians. Don't you get it? It's not about Romney or B.O, it's all about US multinational corporations!! Duh!!! Those two are just puppets.

 

If the Russians get to Syria's oil first, then companies such as Exxon and Chevron won't be able to profit off of their massive oil reserves that they have which is about .5% of the world's oil. Yeah! .5%!!!! KACHING!!!!!! BABY!!!!!!

 

I mean think about it.

 

Our corporations will get to drill in a country that ranks 68th in the world in oil production. That's a huge prize.

 

And the risk would only be the largest scandal in American history which is that we are funding and allying with a group that caused over 3k deaths in our homeland and another group that is causing mass atrocities in the ME. Plus we get to risk going to actual war with the only country that could deep six many of our major cities. This is a great !@#$ing deal! The risk-benefit analysis is damn solid!!!

 

Hold on, did I imply that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11? My bad, that isn't verifiable. That is a mainstream media concoction, we all know it was some other greater nefarious source that probably involved the US and the Saudi's.

 

In any case, Nanker, you got it all wrong.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Magox

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

You've got it all wrong Nanker, Romney was also wanting to secretly fund Al Qaeda and ISIS so that we could stop those pesky Russians. Don't you get it? It's not about Romney or B.O, it's all about US multinational corporations!! Duh!!! Those two are just puppets.

 

If the Russians get to Syria's oil first, then companies such as Exxon and Chevron won't be able to profit off of their massive oil reserves that they have which is about .5% of the world's oil. Yeah! .5%!!!! KACHING!!!!!! BABY!!!!!!

 

I mean think about it.

 

Our corporations will get to drill in a country that ranks 68th in the world in oil production. That's a huge prize.

 

And the risk would only be the largest scandal in American history which is that we are funding and allying with a group that caused over 3k deaths in our homeland and another group that is causing mass atrocities in the ME. Plus we get to risk going to actual war with the only country that could deep six many of our major cities. This is a great !@#$ing deal! The risk-benefit analysis is damn solid!!!

 

Hold on, did I imply that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11? My bad, that isn't verifiable. That is a mainstream media concoction, we all know it was some other greater nefarious source that probably involved the US and the Saudi's.

 

In any case, Nanker, you got it all wrong.

 

 

I will get to that, I promise... But let's first tackle one thing at a time. I promise you we will get to the rest.

 

 

 

And yet we never did, because it's tough to admit you're wrong, especially when all you have to bring to this discussion are insults. You're just not very good at them.

 

Tell us again how Alex Jones and the Intercept are the same. Only a really dishonest person would ever compare those two as if they were synonymous, well, I guess a really uninformed person would too. So which one are you?

[Magox]

That's because you never provided proof of your statement, tinfoil nut.

 

Until you do, we don't move forward.

[Deranged Rhino]

That's because you never provided proof of your statement, tinfoil nut.

 

Until you do, we don't move forward.

 

Copy. So you're full of it. Got it. At least you're being honest for once.

[Magox]

In other words, you can't back up your words. Just like the rest of the tinfoil nuts.

[Deranged Rhino]

In other words, you can't back up your words. Just like the rest of the tinfoil nuts.

 

 

I will get to that, I promise...

 

Who's the one not backing up their words again? Last I checked I provided multiple "mainstream" links about the topic which you dismissed. I can lead you to water but I can't do the critical thinking and contextual analysis for you.

 

Keep running. Yellow is a good look on you.

[Magox]

So, no proof?