The Middle East continues to burn, where is Obama?

It is an inherited situation. The Middle East unrest, which is an understatement, has many complexities. We can all find fault in the Obama response. If we are thinking clearly, we can recognize the difficulties, given the complexities. At this point, in the modern world's history, the U.S. has one of the least defensible foreign policy records. Any improvement in the record is likely going to be incremental. The Iran Nuke agreement is clearly a dramatic step in the direction of improvement, as is the detente with Cuba. We will have to wait and see , all our bitching has no effect.
 
I agree here. I was pissed off when the shoe was thrown for sure. I don't care if I didn't like Bush as president, he WAS president and deserved the full respect of the office. The shoe thrower should have been shot.

Alright Ricter we agree on something.
 
I agree here. I was pissed off when the shoe was thrown for sure. I don't care if I didn't like Bush as president, he WAS president and deserved the full respect of the office. The shoe thrower should have been shot.

I will give you extra credit if you can name the well-known liberal foundation which produced the on-line flash game where you threw shoes at Bush directly after this incident.
 
It is an inherited situation. The Middle East unrest, which is an understatement, has many complexities. We can all find fault in the Obama response. If we are thinking clearly, we can recognize the difficulties, given the complexities. At this point, in the modern world's history, the U.S. has one of the least defensible foreign policy records. Any improvement in the record is likely going to be incremental. The Iran Nuke agreement is clearly a dramatic step in the direction of improvement, as is the detente with Cuba. We will have to wait and see , all our bitching has no effect.

At some point the obvious conclusion is that the U.S. policy in the Middle East is to keep the entire area stirred up, using the complexities of the region to foster continual unrest. The primary reason driving the policy is to dis-allow any single nation in the Middle East from becoming a regional power whether it be Turkey or Iran. If this is U.S. policy for the region then you will have to say it has been marvelously successful but at a significant cost. Unfortunately the instability has also had the nasty side effect of enhancing terrorist organizations such as ISIS -- that may have reach beyond Syria in future years.

As for the detente with Cuba it was long overdue to improve our engagement. I am just hoping the Castro brothers slip from power before many Americans become tourists.
 
At some point the obvious conclusion is that the U.S. policy in the Middle East is to keep the entire area stirred up, using the complexities of the region to foster continual unrest. The primary reason driving the policy is to dis-allow any single nation in the Middle East from becoming a regional power whether it be Turkey or Iran. If this is U.S. policy for the region then you will have to say it has been marvelously successful but at a significant cost. Unfortunately the instability has also had the nasty side effect of enhancing terrorist organizations such as ISIS -- that may have reach beyond Syria in future years.

As for the detente with Cuba it was long overdue to improve our engagement. I am just hoping the Castro brothers slip from power before many Americans become tourists.
You may be right. At least what we see is consistent with your hypothesis.

When we invaded Iraq the outcome was to remove and kill the one individual who, through ruthlessness, was able to keep that cobbled together country from flying apart at the seams and thus maintain an uneasy stalemate. The result of our meddling in Iraq would be consistent with your idea, but there I would question whether the outcome was by intention. But Syria is a different, though related, matter. The question in my mind is whether the unrest is the result of a conscious policy, which we could never admit of course, or the result of continual bungling, or something else entirely. Is it possible that continuous unrest as a policy is the result of what in the minds of the administration is a second to best outcome of a horrible and costly mistake, i.e., the metamorphosis of error into policy?

If what you suggest is true, I fear that fomenting continual conflict will open, if it hasn't already, a Pandora's box. The result, rather than being clever and useful from a U.S. foreign policy perspective, is likely to be just another in a long line of mistakes that will cost us dearly in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Bush deserved the shoe and much worse. He brought an entire region to flames and destruction. Obama hasn't got a clue but all he is doing is trying to pick up the pieces.
 
Bush deserved the shoe and much worse. He brought an entire region to flames and destruction. Obama hasn't got a clue but all he is doing is trying to pick up the pieces.

I'm not sure if your statement is being overly generous to Obama or not, but even if true, I'd argue that incompetence is just as bad/dangerous as malevolence when it comes to the ME.
 
I was listening to the BBC yesterday. The USA - notably Kerry and Obama - are whining ( or screaming) because Russian fighters flew along the border of turkey and Syria. Russia said it was a mistake but that is not enough for the mouthpieces.

Yet last week the US actually bombed the
Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Syria - killing 30. And still haven't properly apologised. It makes the US look like political idiots.
 
I was listening to the BBC yesterday. The USA - notably Kerry and Obama - are whining ( or screaming) because Russian fighters flew along the border of turkey and Syria. Russia said it was a mistake but that is not enough for the mouthpieces.

Yet last week the US actually bombed the
Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Syria - killing 30. And still haven't properly apologised. It makes the US look like political idiots.

The US administration is full of political idiots.
 
I believe Odumbo wants ISIS and Iran to flourish (after all, he's the quintessential Islamic terrorist who wants to destroy America... and no force on earth could do more damage to us than such a person in America's White House).

Odumbo is piss'n and moan'n because Putin is queering his play!

Putin is "shovin' it up Odumbo's ass"... and the whole world knows it.

Never before imagined I'd ever say... "Oohrah, Putin!"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top