@redhouse and those who agree with him - I couldn't disagree more. When Obama became president and Thatcher became UK's Prime Minister they both had to overcome some hostility because they were the first black/woman leader. They also gave hope to blacks/women who could be inspired to strive for high office. I don't think either of those leaders would have risen to their positions without being good leaders. Thatcher is now regarded as one of the UK's greatest leaders because she won a conflict, armed servicemen had to die for her to be considered great, but so what? It seems that Obama is now to be considered a failure for not seeking to put American lives at risk. Be careful what you wish for. We all seem to think that the world's problems are so easy, all we need a a great leader, a Churchill or a thatcher and things will be OK. That is a million miles from where we are. The greatest leaders in history would struggle to solve the Syrian and Middle East situations and they would suffer as much at the hands of dedicated terrorists. There are no magic wands, every potential leader is likely to fail, I'm just glad there are good men willing to raise their head above the parapet.

I really wish this happened during the election season. It probably would have tipped the balance of power in the election and pushed Romney to presidency.

"I really wish this happened during the election season. It probably would have tipped the balance of power in the election and pushed Romney to presidency."

Yes but then you would have had Romney as POTUS and that is just ridiculous, the reason why he lost because there were not enough right-wing nutters to vote for him, but that doesn't mean there is a shortage of right-wing nutters, if this forum is representative then there are way more nutters than are actually required to prop up a healthy functioning democracy in the US.

"Love him or hate him, we can all agree that Obama messed this one up."

He has so far avoided in over two years to embroil the US military in another Middle East War, what other US President could have resisted the opportunity to wade in feet first with guns a-blazin' 'Saving the World'.
And anyway when have US Presidents been respected for their skill and diplomacy unless the message is attached to a bomb; if the US had the kind of President that proposed the changes you need he would be assassinated because some people don't want the truth, they can't handle the truth.
Get your own country sorted out, when you've managed to sort that out then you'll be in prime position to help sort out the rest of the World, Congress is incapable of passing laws for much needed tax reforms ...... concerning themselves with sorting out Syria is way beyond their intellectual capacity, the country is being run by individuals sponsored by big lobby groups ..... the lunatics are running the asylum.
Wake up America ..... sooner or later reality has to bite !!

@ Maniac

"It seems that Obama is now to be considered a failure for not seeking to put American lives at risk."

Dude, he *has* put American lives at risk. We have destroyers and probably submarines in a potential warzone. Besides, accidents happen. What if a Tomahawk suffers a complete failure in its VLS and blows up? What if an ASW bird is looking for Russian subs and has a mechanical failure? He would have invaded Syria if he had the political capital to do so.

@ NigeeBaby

"the reason why he lost because there were not enough right-wing nutters to vote for him"

Romney lost because Obama is one of the best campaigners that the world has ever seen. Also, the American people are easily swayed by rhetoric and hollow arguments. It's all well and good that we have democratic elections, but the system only works if the voters are informed.

"He has so far avoided in over two years to embroil the US military in another Middle East War, what other US President could have resisted the opportunity to wade in feet first with guns a-blazin' 'Saving the World'."

Let's not bullshit. Any president before, say, Truman would have said and done absolutely nothing about the Syrian situation. I can't picture James K. Polk or Andrew Jackson (two of our more pugnacious presidents) meddling in a civil war thousands of miles from home when America has zero strategic interest in the outcome of the aforementioned civil war.

"And anyway when have US Presidents been respected for their skill and diplomacy unless the message is attached to a bomb"

That's the goddamned problem, and I'm criticizing Obama for his pathetic attempt at shotgun diplomacy.

"they can't handle the truth."

"A Few Good Men" quote. Nice.

"Get your own country sorted out"

I would love nothing more than to get my own country sorted out, but our president has other ideas.

Man FUCK this thread.

"I would love nothing more than to get my own country sorted out, but our president has other ideas."

I think if who you voted in President was the only issue then you have no problems at all.
You need intelligent people writing following policy because it is serious.
From the outside it looks like foreign policy is controlled by the Military, I know that is not the case but there always seems this 'we've got to act tough with the foreigners attitude', the Chinese don't behave in this manner, nor the Indians, nor the Europeans apart from Thatcher wannabee Cameron.
I just feel the concept of what is acceptable and normal behaviour gets lost somewhere. If only the USA could be 'normal' with their foreign policy for a while, (and of course stop chucking deadly arms around the globe like it was confetti at a gypsy wedding), everybody might calm down a bit, sometimes less is more.
The only issue is what do you do with the 5m people working in the arms industry if the bombs stop falling and the wars stop happening, maybe you're gonna have to face up to some redundancies there....... that's where the reality bites !!
Capitalism and growth should not be built on the destruction and then re-construction of foreign towns and cities, and the ever increasing sales of arms to anyone who's got the money.
You've sold so much military stuff to the Saudis, I don't see those guys rushing to help anyone in Syria, why would they if they think the good old USA will pick up the cheque on this one yet again .... they're taking you guys for mugs !!

"If only the USA could be 'normal' with their foreign policy for a while, (and of course stop chucking deadly arms around the globe like it was confetti at a gypsy wedding), everybody might calm down a bit, sometimes less is more."

That is a hell of a line... kudos to you.

If I didn't love the USA I wouldn't care this much ..... but I do.
One day I may come and live in the States, not sure where though.

New York is better than LA.

I'll be in Maine or Montana or Alaska or something.

Your criticisms of US foreign policy are valid, but you're preaching to the choir. The overwhelming majority of Americans posting here, and I dare even say majority of Americans period, rather dislike how hawkish the US has been on foreign policy and would be thrilled to see changes; but there's not really a serious option politically for making that happen right now, since all major US parties still largely support our hawkishness.

@ NigeeBaby

What are you bitching at me for? *I* don't support our abnormal and counterproductive international relations.

Also, the arms industry is a very important part of our economy, and to be fair if we weren't supplying everyone, the Russians and the Chinese would be. Furthermore, there *is* a huge demand and we *are* the best when it comes to making things that go boom and kill people. If the world didn't need weapons, we wouldn't sell them.

I just wish we were manufacturing automatic weapons and milling ammunition for domestic civilian use instead of sending it overseas. Seriously, are the "rebels" who are getting American guns having to do background checks and waiting periods? Our own government treats us like common criminals but radical Muslim terrorists get a free pass.

Also, New York and LA both suck. Move to Iowa or Montana or North Dakota or Alaska. Low taxes, no crime, and no government!

@ bo_sox

Dude, we should move to Alaska (no homo). It's a kickass state. It's like Texas but less douche-y, much colder, and much more badass.

Yeah, what PE said.

I fully support America keeping a lower profile abroad.

@BoSox,
"I'll be in Maine or Montana or Alaska or something."

Haven't followed this thread; just popped in to say, "Woo! Yeah Maine!" (Maine residents have to say that every time someone from outside the state says "Maine". It's a law.)

To clarify my statement further re: Invictus

The big problem Obama has - reflected in his obsession with color - is that he simply fails to think of himself as an institution. The Syria crisis is a prime example.

If he would think of himself as one of the offices of power of his nation, the decision to strike would be easier. He would simply have to add up the different advices he's being given by military, diplomats and senior politicians. The decision to strike would not be a singular moment in history, but rather the natural convolution of a number of considerations.

One of these considerations could be the opinion of the house of representatives. Earlier in my post, I spoke about sensitivity. A sensitive president would be aware of the House and the people's opinions without necessarily asking for a vote.

Obama sees himself as a person and not an institution (when you listen to him talk about bin Laden he sounds like the person pulling the trigger); for this reason, he feels that it his "decision" to strike Syria. Yes, that would be an impossible decision to take. Alas, that's not how it works. International law, history, generals, diplomats and other nations would all have a great deal to say about the situation and he could make a synthesis of these views to lead to an American view. Limited of character as he is, he fails to synthesize these elements into one, let's his foreign policy go into all directions except for a coherent one and the best defense mounted in his favor was Maniac's. I rest my case.

@Gun ... Yeah, hopefully Shell and Marathon can't beat me to it.

@Hecks ... Maine is so damn beautiful. I've probably sold 30 pictures that I took there in the last couple of months of the night skies in Acadia and overlooking the ocean. Got some great shots of the sunrise from atop the hills too. It beat Key West, and that's saying something (I've practically paid that trip off in pictures by now; only other place I managed that was Yellowstone). Let me know if you want some, I'll send them online free.

@ bo_sox

Yeah lol. Energy companies. Such goofballs.

@ redhouse

Obama's OBL speech drove me insane. There were *way* too many "I's" in that speech. Obama did not pull the goddamned trigger. SEAL Team 6 did.

No one is impressed by Obama on a personal or a political level, especially Putin.

I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to call the Syria crisis as a whole our Suez. I don't just mean the current affair involving the chemical weapons. That's almost a sideshow compared to the wider issues of the civil war and its implications for the region. We've done everything wrong since the very beginning of the uprising against Assad, and although we dodged the debacle of direct intervention in the last few weeks (knock wood) the "deal" from Putin only weakens our position further and bolsters Assad. It's a domestic victory of sorts for Obama among people who don't look at these issues too closely, but there has been an erosion of confidence in us with our allies.

Frankly, I think it's inevitable now that Israel will strike Iran in the coming months. If I had to guess probably around the winter solstice so the nights will be as long as possible. If Obama can't bring himself to intervene in Syria why should Israel believe anything he's said about intervention in Iran to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon? With Russia set to deliver a new air defense system Israel may see this as its last chance to ever do anything. That would spark a conflict that will inevitable draw us in too.

All this because the administration didn't do a few simple things in 2011 and 2012 to influence the rebels in Syria and bring Assad down when there was still a state in Syria. Now there's just an endless cycle of atrocities and reprisals for past atrocities by all sides, with no end in sight and no vision for what a post-war Syria would look like. Again, it's our Suez being played out right now. I just hope it's strung along long enough for the next president to fix before it turns out for us like it did for Britain and France. It doesn't matter which party the next president is from. We just need a new person in that office. Obama has failed entirely on the most important aspect of his job.

I disagree with you, Invictus. Intervening on the side of the rebels is a mistake. They're AQ affiliated or at least AQ sympathetic, and giving the bad guys guns is a bad idea, especially when the American public is suffering through the worst ammunition shortage in decades.

I'm glad you brought up Israel, though. Their actions in the coming months will have a very long-lasting impact on the entire region. I would agree with you; I think they may take initiative and strike Iran on their own, however I don't think it's a guarantee. Israel has been a little less pugnacious in the last few years than they have been in the past.

You can't be this fucking stupid. I'm against intervention and have been clear about it numerous times. Even in the post right above.

@ Invictus:

"You can't be this fucking stupid."

Is this your first time on the Webdip forum? Are you knew?

Ask the people of Gaza if Israel is less pugnacious than its been in the past.

"All this because the administration didn't do a few simple things in 2011 and 2012 to influence the rebels in Syria and bring Assad down when there was still a state in Syria."

Influence them how? Clarify that point. I thought you were insinuating that you would have been in favor of giving them weapons in 2011 or 2012.

"Ask the people of Gaza if Israel is less pugnacious than its been in the past."

Just saying; Israel isn't storming across the Sinai peninsula or anything huge like that.

At the beginning of the uprising the rebels were not Islamists. They threw flowers at the American ambassador! There was a liberal, secular movement seeking to replace the Baathist regime with liberal democracy. It was analogous to Tunisia. Then Assad used brutal force to crack down on protests and full-on fighting started. Instead of giving support to like-minded groups Obama did nothing, and continued doing nothing as the opposition radicalized and Al Qaeda influence crept in, with Islamist groups forming the preponderance of the fighters now. It didn't have to be that way, and it realistically could have not been if we had had competent policy makers in the administration when it comes to foreign affairs.


As for Israel, you really just don't know what you're talking about. Sure, they haven't fought in the Sinai for a while, but Egypt hasn't been an enemy of theirs for over thirty years. Just in 2006 they invaded Lebanon, and in 2008 and 2012 they blew up lots of Gaza. I'm not making a value judgement on whether that action was justified, I'm just saying it's definitely pugnacious by any reasonable definition.

@ Invictus

"Then Assad used brutal force to crack down on protests and full-on fighting started. Instead of giving support to like-minded groups Obama did nothing, and continued doing nothing as the opposition radicalized and Al Qaeda influence crept in"

The rebellion would have radicalized regardless of what Obama did, and the end result would be the same: Our guys getting shot at by American guns and ammunition in the hands of bad guys.

"Sure, they haven't fought in the Sinai for a while, but Egypt hasn't been an enemy of theirs for over thirty years. Just in 2006 they invaded Lebanon, and in 2008 and 2012 they blew up lots of Gaza. I'm not making a value judgement on whether that action was justified, I'm just saying it's definitely pugnacious by any reasonable definition."

Well, they're not seizing massive amounts of territory and most of their actions have been provoked. Not saying that Israel is the good guys or anything, but there's been no big shit going down like in 1967 or 1973. Also, you'd probably be a little jumpy too if you were surrounded by people hell-bent on killing you and taking your land.

"you'd probably be a little jumpy too if you were surrounded by people hell-bent on killing you and taking your land. "

And why are all their neighbors hell bent on killing them and taking their lands? Could it be because *they* stole the lands and were aggressors throughout the 60s and 70s with US help? I don't support terrorism, but I do believe there is a price to be paid for helping Israel the conquerors and I believe We need to pay it but turning our backs on Israel and what happens, happens. If Israel is wiped off the map by Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt, so be it.

I once heard a wise man say "If you have a problem with every one of your neighbors, the problem isn't with the neighbors. It's with you." Truer words were never spoken in regards to Israel.