Jon Stewart on Learning Curves

[Tsing Tao]

My point is that you guys like blaming those who are perhaps the least to blame. Not that anyone is blameless.

I think maybe you guys should follow the historical sequence of events to see who was most to blame at critical junctures, and not just when it most suits you.

Oh do be still. People "blame" the guy in charge. Right now, that's Obama. Unless he's part of the solution, he's part of the problem. And it's the latter.

Bush had plenty of years of blame (and even the entire first term of Obama, from you guys). All current politicians hear more about what they are doing wrong than past politicians hear about what they did wrong long ago.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

There are many glass houses in the foreign policy neighborhood. And as CaptainObvious pointed out, they go back many years.

From what I gather, Fox et al and their various panels of "experts" place the blame for ISIS entirely on Obama. Am I mistaken in this observation?

 

[Tsing Tao]

There are many glass houses in the foreign policy neighborhood. And as CaptainObvious said, they go back many years.

From what I gather, Fox et al place the blame for ISIS entirely on Obama. Am I mistaken in this observation?

I don't know, I really don't watch much of Fox. The clip in Stewart's show sure indicates that, but I'm sure he picked clips to illustrate his point.

Pulling troops out of Iraq - either prematurely or without first securing weaponry, etc did - in fact - cause the creation of ISIS. That's on Obama's watch. But it is also correct to say that if Iraq had been left alone from the start, ISIS/ISIL wouldn't be in Iraq right now. That fault lies on Bush (as well as all that voted in favor of invading).

Perhaps 9/11 would not have taken place if Clinton didn't let OBL get away in the first place when he had the chance. Who the hell knows? The ME has been one screw up after another, and there is blood on the hands of both Democrats and the GOP. If you wish to piss and moan about how particular news outlets are pointing fingers unfairly (or not assigning blame across the board) go for it. It's no different than liberal outlets blaming republicans entirely for things democrats had a hand in and it certainly doesn't bring us any closer to a solution.

What people should be focused on is correcting the past decades of errors by not getting involved in conflicts like this in the first place. Ever. Hmmm, which politicians preach non-intervention and more isolationist foreign policy...

 

[CaptainObvious]

There are many glass houses in the foreign policy neighborhood. And as CaptainObvious pointed out, they go back many years.

From what I gather, Fox et al and their various panels of "experts" place the blame for ISIS entirely on Obama. Am I mistaken in this observation?

When I watcxh FOX with the sound on,(usually I'm just looking at the short skirts), they do pound Obama, but I don't see that as unwarranted. As Tsing wrote, he is the guy in the hot seat at the moment, and if he'd spend more time dealing with things as they are and not as he wished they would be, ISIS could have been squashed much more easily than it will take now. He and many on the left have spent way too much time and energy looking for and blaming the original sin while making excuses/apologies for that action. We, WE as a nation screwed the pooch on this one, and the current events are much too pressing for us to spend this much time with the finger pointing game. Tough decisions must now be made and lives will be lost to unscramble this mess. It's just how it is at this stage of the game. A political solution is a pipe dream that does not address the reality of the ISIS mentality and their overall goal. Like it or not, this is going to take some mean mofo's with rifles and bayonets.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

...What people should be focused on is correcting the past decades of errors by not getting involved in conflicts like this in the first place. Ever. Hmmm, which politicians preach non-intervention and more isolationist foreign policy...

No, I think that we live in an international community and should all endeavor to be good neighbors to one another. There's a difference between helping a neighbor in trouble and having a hand in causing that trouble. Isolationism is an extreme response to past troubles. Extremes are seldom the answer. The best answers are always found somewhere in the middle. I don't see why it would be any different here.

 

[Tsing Tao]

No, I think that we live in an international community and should all endeavor to be good neighbors to one another. There's a difference between helping a neighbor in trouble and having a hand in causing that trouble. Isolationism is an extreme response to past troubles. Extremes are seldom the answer. The best answers are always found somewhere in the middle. I don't see why it would be any different here.

No one is preaching complete isolationism. Don't let the term fool ya. All these politicians are saying is that we shouldn't meddle in the Middle East or around the world when it does not affect us directly, and there have been no requests for us to get involved. Pretty much what you're saying.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Throwing the taliban out of afghanistan was a good idea. We did that in a few weeks using local forces and special ops. We should have pulled out then. But no, we had to spend the next decade, billions of dollars and a lot of lives to try toturn it into Switzerland. And we're now far worse off than we were after the Northern Alliance and other local groups had taken over. That's largely on Bush.

Iraq was a mistake from the getgo, not because of the reasons we went in but because we had no rational plan for replacing the Saddam Hussein power vacuum. Because of international law, media, etc we were never going to do what was necessary to subdue Iraq. A break up into three religiously defined provinces or states would have been a second best idea, but no, again the neo-cons had these ridiculous plans. Now they want to blame it all on obama for not leaving enough troops there to prevent chaos.

Obama was dealt a lousy hand, but he played it poorly. He pulled out of Iraq but also stirred up a hornet's nest in libya, after undermining a stable Egyptian government. Libya turned out to be far more troublesome than anticipated, leading to a failed state, Benghazi, proliferation of islamist groups across Africa and of course, the rise of ISIS. Obama famously underestimated ISIS, calling it the JV team.

At the end of the day, the problem in Iraq has to go to the Iraqi government. If their troops will throw their weapons down and run in the face of an attacking ISIS force they outnumber 10-1, there is not a lot we can do. Giving them more equipment is foolish, as it will just be abandoned to ISIS. ISIS was bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. If you want to go to the root of the problem, start there.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

When I watcxh FOX with the sound on,(usually I'm just looking at the short skirts), they do pound Obama, but I don't see that as unwarranted. As Tsing wrote, he is the guy in the hot seat at the moment, and if he'd spend more time dealing with things as they are and not as he wished they would be, ISIS could have been squashed much more easily than it will take now. He and many on the left have spent way too much time and energy looking for and blaming the original sin while making excuses/apologies for that action. We, WE as a nation screwed the pooch on this one, and the current events are much too pressing for us to spend this much time with the finger pointing game. Tough decisions must now be made and lives will be lost to unscramble this mess. It's just how it is at this stage of the game. A political solution is a pipe dream that does not address the reality of the ISIS mentality and their overall goal. Like it or not, this is going to take some mean mofo's with rifles and bayonets.

While I'm not going to hold the current administration blameless, I don't think if Obama had been more proactive that ISIS would have been quashed. It is more dynamic that a conventional opponent.

As General Stanley McChrystal wrote in his new book, Team of Teams (haven't read it yet), the military is trained to deal with problems that look like this:

However, the problem it currently faces looks more like this:

Adapting to that kind of change takes a lot more training, preparation and mobilization than we can readily appreciate. I hope that the task is underway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stanley-mcchrystal-isis-is-brilliant-2015-5

 

[blah12345678]

The military-industrial complex is the white mouse holding the marionette strings. Our elected officials are the puppets in a grand cosmic farce, teased and taunted by the puppet master (i.e the white mouse).

Nothing like watching a mischievous person whisper something in the ear of person A that person B supposedly said, and then whispering something in person B's ear that person A supposedly said, then stepping back to watch the ensuing chaos and build-up to the inevitable dramatic conclusion....

Multiply that by 10 million, and now you understand the geo-political storyline that has reigned supreme for the last 600+ years...

 

[loyek590]

My point is that you guys like blaming those who are perhaps the least to blame. Not that anyone is blameless.

I think maybe you guys should follow the historical sequence of events to see who was most to blame at critical junctures, and not just when it most suits you.

I'm getting about tired of your elitist stereotyping. Who is "you guys"? Every post you expose yourself as more and more shallow. You're just a bigot who doesn't understand conservatives. And like all you bigots, you try to mischaracterize us to make yourselves feel superior, and that is how you deal with your fear of us.