What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (3 Viewers)

timschochet said:
Americans yearn for simple solutions in foreign affairs and there aren't any. 

We never should have gone into Iraq but once there we probably left too early. 

We were right to support the revolutionary movement in Libya.  
Click to expand...
1) We left Iraq way too early.  The surge worked.  Things were settling.  We left a huge power vacuum when we left.  This isn't really hard to figure.

2) Right on Libya?  Are you ####### kidding?  Libya was a stable government.  Now it's largely controlled by 3-4 different jihadist factions.  It's a cesspool of chaos.  This was a horrible decision.

3) Syria?  That one is much tougher since Russia is pulling strings.  But, let's face it, Obama drawing a line in the sand and then turning tail when the line was crossed was easily the most absurd, embarrassing moment for US foreign policy in the last 30-40 years.  Shameful.

 
Sand said:
2) Right on Libya?  Are you ####### kidding?  Libya was a stable government.  Now it's largely controlled by 3-4 different jihadist factions.  It's a cesspool of chaos.  This was a horrible decision.
Click to expand...
Libya was NOT a stable government. There was a revolution going on that would have succeeded without our help, except the result would have even been more bloody and chaotic. We chose to support that revolution, not with troops but mostly financially. The hope was that it would eventually reap us benefits. It may still, it's too early to tell. So far it seems that the fall of Gaddafi has led to a situation worse for our interests. But just as in Egypt, we could not have prevented the fall of Gaddafi. We made the correct decision there. 

 
Sand said:
1) We left Iraq way too early.  The surge worked.  Things were settling.  We left a huge power vacuum when we left.  This isn't really hard to figure.
Click to expand...
I don't fully agree with this either. I think Obama should have at least tried to renegotiate Bush's agreement to leave. Or attempted to tie it to more rights for the Sunni population. But in the end, if the Iraqi government insisted that we leave, we had to do it. 

Also, the surge did not work by any measurable level of success. 

 
Trump still telling that dipping bullets in pig's blood tale. Scary stuff.  He comes off like one of those religious nuts in Iran.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Sand said:
1) We left Iraq way too early.  The surge worked.  Things were settling.  We left a huge power vacuum when we left.  This isn't really hard to figure.
Click to expand...
I don't fully agree with this either. I think Obama should have at least tried to renegotiate Bush's agreement to leave. Or attempted to tie it to more rights for the Sunni population. But in the end, if the Iraqi government insisted that we leave, we had to do it. 

Also, the surge did not work by any measurable level of success. 
Click to expand...
And I think this is what rubs people the wrong way and gets into that area of discussion around having the "stomach" to do what it takes.  When I look back on things like this and the numerous other examples where this approach has failed, there's an easy pattern to identify.  Having the "stomach" to do what it takes requires that.  We don't go in, destabilize the area then throw up our hands when the "government" of that country says it's time for us to leave.  Rather, we go in under our terms and should there come a time where the "new" government makes a demand, we make clear our intentions.  After all, they usually owe to us their power.  In light of what happened, when I hear comments like the bold I envision a 13 year old throwing their hand up in the air and whining about not being allowed to ever do anything.  Telling these new governments that we are doing things on our terms is part of having the stomach to do things through to the end.  It's ugly but it's necessary.

Again, if we want change in that area of the world, it's going to require permanent military presence to contain the radicals.  Until we are willing to acknowledge that, we will fail attempt after attempt.  If our government isn't willing to go that far they should stay out of it.

 
Yeah, as we go year up a country...we also tell sad country what's what and how long we will leave troops there.

That makes everyone love us too.

 
sho nuff said:
Yeah, as we go year up a country...we also tell sad country what's what and how long we will leave troops there.

That makes everyone love us too.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm ok with us staying the #### out of the area all together, but if there is one thing we should all agree on, it's that our approach of removing the people we don't like, then leaving isn't working.  Yet we take that approach time after time after time just dumping all kinds of money into an effort that doesn't change.  This country has become that three year old on the beach who doesn't understand why they are removing sand from the hole but somehow it's not getting any bigger.  Yay us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
The Commish said:
And I think this is what rubs people the wrong way and gets into that area of discussion around having the "stomach" to do what it takes.  When I look back on things like this and the numerous other examples where this approach has failed, there's an easy pattern to identify.  Having the "stomach" to do what it takes requires that.  We don't go in, destabilize the area then throw up our hands when the "government" of that country says it's time for us to leave.  Rather, we go in under our terms and should there come a time where the "new" government makes a demand, we make clear our intentions.  After all, they usually owe to us their power.  In light of what happened, when I hear comments like the bold I envision a 13 year old throwing their hand up in the air and whining about not being allowed to ever do anything.  Telling these new governments that we are doing things on our terms is part of having the stomach to do things through to the end.  It's ugly but it's necessary.

Again, if we want change in that area of the world, it's going to require permanent military presence to contain the radicals.  Until we are willing to acknowledge that, we will fail attempt after attempt.  If our government isn't willing to go that far they should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point a little bit. I agree with a lot of what you wrote here- but my point was that Bush made the agreement to leave. That was dumb, but once it happened it's very difficult for Obama to then renege. Our national honor is at stake. 

And that's yet another thing I despise about Trump. He's vowing to break our promises left and right as if our word means nothing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
To be clear, I'm ok with us staying the #### out of the area all together, but if there is one thing we should all agree on, it's that our approach of removing the people we don't like, then leaving isn't working.  Yet we take that approach time after time after time just dumping all kinds of money into an effort that doesn't change.  This country has become that three year old on the beach who doesn't understand why they are removing sand from the hole but somehow it's not getting any bigger.  Yay us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Yep.  And I'd add that IMO permanently occupying enough of the region to really keep a lid on things is totally unrealistic and likely wouldn't change things too much in the long haul anyway.  A huge part of the problem is our relationships with countries in the area that are every bit as repressive and awful as those we go in to try to remove.  It's kind of hard to position ourselves as the champions of democracy when we're in bed with the Saudis, etc.  Until we address that, we'll continue to be a lightning rod every time we do anything over there.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
And I think this is what rubs people the wrong way and gets into that area of discussion around having the "stomach" to do what it takes.  When I look back on things like this and the numerous other examples where this approach has failed, there's an easy pattern to identify.  Having the "stomach" to do what it takes requires that.  We don't go in, destabilize the area then throw up our hands when the "government" of that country says it's time for us to leave.  Rather, we go in under our terms and should there come a time where the "new" government makes a demand, we make clear our intentions.  After all, they usually owe to us their power.  In light of what happened, when I hear comments like the bold I envision a 13 year old throwing their hand up in the air and whining about not being allowed to ever do anything.  Telling these new governments that we are doing things on our terms is part of having the stomach to do things through to the end.  It's ugly but it's necessary.

Again, if we want change in that area of the world, it's going to require permanent military presence to contain the radicals.  Until we are willing to acknowledge that, we will fail attempt after attempt.  If our government isn't willing to go that far they should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point a little bit. I agree with a lot of what you wrote here- but my point was that Bush made the agreement to leave. That was dumb, but once it happened it's very difficult for Obama to them renege. Our national honor is at stake. 

And that's yet another thing I despise about Trump. He's vowing to break our promises left and right as if our word means nothing. 
Click to expand...
I'm looking at it from a broader picture, more from a systemic perspective.  I don't care about the individuals honestly.  Yeah, it was dumb for this country to commit to leaving, but I suspect it was necessary because of politics.  At that point, one says "screw it.  i'm not compromising my country and our resources if you aren't going to do things our way".  That's what it takes once in the middle of a situation.  In that area of the world, it's tough to buy into "national honor" as a reason not to do the needful.  There isn't a country over there that really likes us.  Are we worried about our allies?  I don't know why we would be.  It's clear what's going on and what it would take to fix it.  It's also clear that no other country over there wants to do the needful either.

 
The Commish said:
I'm looking at it from a broader picture, more from a systemic perspective.  I don't care about the individuals honestly.  Yeah, it was dumb for this country to commit to leaving, but I suspect it was necessary because of politics.  At that point, one says "screw it.  i'm not compromising my country and our resources if you aren't going to do things our way".  That's what it takes once in the middle of a situation.  In that area of the world, it's tough to buy into "national honor" as a reason not to do the needful.  There isn't a country over there that really likes us.  Are we worried about our allies?  I don't know why we would be.  It's clear what's going on and what it would take to fix it.  It's also clear that no other country over there wants to do the needful either.
Click to expand...
Eh, Israel-Palestine is a pretty big root issue over there, and I don't see any clear way to fix that at all, personally.  If that problem is ever solved, it will only be done so through a long and torturous process of compromise that likely leaves everyone unhappy.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
Yep...I'd use a nuke and convince Russia to use one as well...You want to stop the nonsense in the Middle East...that ought to do it,,,,...What are we worried about..that the sand may turn too sand...what have the people in that region contributed to the world other than oil and heartache......Has anything else worked...Maybe one of you can convince them how nice we are and that if they only took the chance and time to get to know us they would really like us....Most powerful military in the world sitting on our thumbs taking it from a bunch of rock throwers..
Click to expand...
Yeah!  Let's start lobbing nukes into the mix.  What could go wrong?

 
Coeur de Lion said:
The Commish said:
To be clear, I'm ok with us staying the #### out of the area all together, but if there is one thing we should all agree on, it's that our approach of removing the people we don't like, then leaving isn't working.  Yet we take that approach time after time after time just dumping all kinds of money into an effort that doesn't change.  This country has become that three year old on the beach who doesn't understand why they are removing sand from the hole but somehow it's not getting any bigger.  Yay us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Yep.  And I'd add that IMO permanently occupying enough of the region to really keep a lid on things is totally unrealistic and likely wouldn't change things too much in the long haul anyway.  A huge part of the problem is our relationships with countries in the area that are every bit as repressive and awful as those we go in to try to remove.  It's kind of hard to position ourselves as the champions of democracy when we're in bed with the Saudis, etc.  Until we address that, we'll continue to be a lightning rod every time we do anything over there.
Click to expand...
It's expensive, time consuming and a no win situation to try and be the world nanny.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Eh, Israel-Palestine is a pretty big root issue over there, and I don't see any clear way to fix that at all, personally.  If that problem is ever solved, it will only be done so through a long and torturous process of compromise that likely leaves everyone unhappy.
Click to expand...
There's a fix for that too though.  I have absolutely no interest in our government being part of it because of how gigantic it would be and a complete :moneybag:  suck on us as a country.  What it would take to fix it simply isn't worth it IMO, but that doesn't mean there isn't a fix.

 
The Commish said:
There's a fix for that too though.  I have absolutely no interest in our government being part of it because of how gigantic it would be and a complete :moneybag:  suck on us as a country.  What it would take to fix it simply isn't worth it IMO, but that doesn't mean there isn't a fix.
Click to expand...
Unpack please.  There are crappy solutions that aren't really solutions, but I don't see a real way to truly fix this one, particularly due to the fact that the other countries in the region will in no way stop stirring the pot to keep the radicals from focusing on what's going on in their own respective backyards.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Unpack please.  There are crappy solutions that aren't really solutions, but I don't see a real way to truly fix this one, particularly due to the fact that the other countries in the region will in no way stop stirring the pot to keep the radicals from focusing on what's going on in their own respective backyards.
Click to expand...
The fix here is to contain and manage.  So perhaps "fix" is a bit misleading.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Unpack please.  There are crappy solutions that aren't really solutions, but I don't see a real way to truly fix this one, particularly due to the fact that the other countries in the region will in no way stop stirring the pot to keep the radicals from focusing on what's going on in their own respective backyards.
Click to expand...
President Bartlett fixed it on The West Wing. 

 
You fix it by bankrupting the Saudis with a combination of at home oil production and reduction of dependence of fossil fuels overall to the point where the Saudi's deal with the issues themselves or end up with a head on spike situation.  There's not enough oil here to make this work so green energy needs to make up the gap.  

A combination of green and home based oil is the way forward and could ultimately be a bi-partisan solution.  

A lower dependence on oil money forces changes in the region including, but not limited to, education for women, opening up to manufacturing sector type jobs, and technology type workforce.  

Short term this will create a refugee crisis the world has never seen so EU will obviously not be super pleased.  

 
culdeus said:
You fix it by bankrupting the Saudis with a combination of at home oil production and reduction of dependence of fossil fuels overall to the point where the Saudi's deal with the issues themselves or end up with a head on spike situation.  There's not enough oil here to make this work so green energy needs to make up the gap.  

A combination of green and home based oil is the way forward and could ultimately be a bi-partisan solution.  

A lower dependence on oil money forces changes in the region including, but not limited to, education for women, opening up to manufacturing sector type jobs, and technology type workforce.  

Short term this will create a refugee crisis the world has never seen so EU will obviously not be super pleased.  
Click to expand...
Can't say I really disagree with much here

 
The Commish said:
Our government has a propensity for not doing the needful after they make a decision.  They go in half assed a good portion of the time and it ends poorly not just with military actions mind you.  That's because while, in the moment, people get on board and are all rah rah to get the "bad guy" but in reality they have no idea how ugly war really is and when they see it they recoil and wish they had never seen it.  I said it when we decided to go into Iraq.  We will need to have a permanent, strong presence or it's a waste of time and money.  We will never be able to leave the area in my lifetime if we want democracy to grow over there.  And I say it every time we go into another area of the ME.  The area will never stabilize itself.  There are way too many factions who want to rule the area.

I don't know if this is what DB was referring to when he made his comment, but it's the first thing that came to mind when I read it.
Click to expand...
So we stay out of there I assume?   AGREED.

Let them kill each other.  They seem to like it.

 
irishidiot said:
The Commish said:
Our government has a propensity for not doing the needful after they make a decision.  They go in half assed a good portion of the time and it ends poorly not just with military actions mind you.  That's because while, in the moment, people get on board and are all rah rah to get the "bad guy" but in reality they have no idea how ugly war really is and when they see it they recoil and wish they had never seen it.  I said it when we decided to go into Iraq.  We will need to have a permanent, strong presence or it's a waste of time and money.  We will never be able to leave the area in my lifetime if we want democracy to grow over there.  And I say it every time we go into another area of the ME.  The area will never stabilize itself.  There are way too many factions who want to rule the area.

I don't know if this is what DB was referring to when he made his comment, but it's the first thing that came to mind when I read it.
Click to expand...
So we stay out of there I assume?   AGREED.

Let them kill each other.  They seem to like it.
Click to expand...
If we aren't willing to be there for the long term yes, stay out of there.  We aren't helping anyone in the region with the approach we are taking.

 
avoiding injuries said:
Lots to criticize him over, mispronouncing a word during your first teleprompter speech isn't high up there. 

Who knows, next time he could say Marine CorPs. 
Click to expand...
The problem isn't simply that he didn't know how to say it, although that's a little weird considering it's fairly basic stuff for anyone with even a passing interest in foreign affairs.

The real problem comes when you think about what must have happened to get to that point. Either: (1) he didn't bother to read perhaps the biggest speech he's given in his campaign to date; or (2) he read it but was too lazy to bother figuring out how to pronounce something he didn't know.  Either one would show a childish lack of intellectual curiosity and attention to detail.

It's the same problem with all of his other "gaffes" that have shown he has no idea what he's talking about. It's fine if he didn't know much about the Iran deal or what the nuclear triad is or what the dispute in the South China Sea was about when he started his campaign, but he's been running for president for almost a year now (and in some sense for almost three decades now). Don't you think at some point he should find a little time to do some research into stuff he'll have to know about if he actually gets the job? Why do you think he hasn't? Many observers think it's because he's intellectually lazy, which is kind of a problem for a president. This is just the latest evidence that those observers are correct.

 
avoiding injuries said:
Lots to criticize him over, mispronouncing a word during your first teleprompter speech isn't high up there. 

Who knows, next time he could say Marine CorPs. 
Click to expand...
True.

There's some Hooked on Phonics going in though. Watching Donald on O'Reilly should have cured anyone of the fantasy that Donald really understands the concepts he was pronouncing correctly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's really going to happen, Republican nominee Trump!

He's going to be the best nominee with the best words, have really excellent people around him, and make deals that will be fantastic for the country.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
We like to say we are the most powerful military in the world....You have to be willing to go the whole nine yards...What difference does it make if you aren't willing to take it to the end...I have no doubt our men and women are committed, but they can't get the job done when our government makes them fight with one hand tied behind their back...Do think the government Russia or China would care about collateral damage...You better hope we never have to tangle with them...
Click to expand...
In an age of nuclear weapons, total war is not an option.  

 
The Commish said:
And I think this is what rubs people the wrong way and gets into that area of discussion around having the "stomach" to do what it takes.  When I look back on things like this and the numerous other examples where this approach has failed, there's an easy pattern to identify.  Having the "stomach" to do what it takes requires that.  We don't go in, destabilize the area then throw up our hands when the "government" of that country says it's time for us to leave.  Rather, we go in under our terms and should there come a time where the "new" government makes a demand, we make clear our intentions.  After all, they usually owe to us their power.  In light of what happened, when I hear comments like the bold I envision a 13 year old throwing their hand up in the air and whining about not being allowed to ever do anything.  Telling these new governments that we are doing things on our terms is part of having the stomach to do things through to the end.  It's ugly but it's necessary.

Again, if we want change in that area of the world, it's going to require permanent military presence to contain the radicals.  Until we are willing to acknowledge that, we will fail attempt after attempt.  If our government isn't willing to go that far they should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
Would you have liked it if after helping us gain our independence France came in and imposed democracy on their terms?

 
The Z Machine said:
France didn't know what democracy was since we invented it after the throwing off the yoke of the British monarchy.
Click to expand...
The Swiss Confederation had democracy for over 400 years at the time of the American Revolution.  PDF Link

The Swiss were a major influence on the Founding Fathers, this really deserves it's own thread.

 
cstu said:
The Commish said:
And I think this is what rubs people the wrong way and gets into that area of discussion around having the "stomach" to do what it takes.  When I look back on things like this and the numerous other examples where this approach has failed, there's an easy pattern to identify.  Having the "stomach" to do what it takes requires that.  We don't go in, destabilize the area then throw up our hands when the "government" of that country says it's time for us to leave.  Rather, we go in under our terms and should there come a time where the "new" government makes a demand, we make clear our intentions.  After all, they usually owe to us their power.  In light of what happened, when I hear comments like the bold I envision a 13 year old throwing their hand up in the air and whining about not being allowed to ever do anything.  Telling these new governments that we are doing things on our terms is part of having the stomach to do things through to the end.  It's ugly but it's necessary.

Again, if we want change in that area of the world, it's going to require permanent military presence to contain the radicals.  Until we are willing to acknowledge that, we will fail attempt after attempt.  If our government isn't willing to go that far they should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
Would you have liked it if after helping us gain our independence France came in and imposed democracy on their terms?
Click to expand...
I don't know where you're going other than helping to prove my point, but I don't think such help is necessary.  Maybe that wasn't clear though, so....thanks? :oldunsure:

 
over/under on the first debate television ratings? 

I mean holy Christ, this is going to be SuperBowl esque.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella said:
I love that kasich is still hanging in there. So good. 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  

So, any legitimate 3rd party candidates that could possibly give the two a run for their money??

Or am I stuck "wasting my vote" yet again for president, as I won't vote for either of the "Main" candidates :X ?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Old Man Cruz says God has anointed his son to become president and lead the nation into a new era of Christian leadership. But that's not too crazy for Our Donald to trump! He pulls a National Enquirer claim out about Rafe helping Oswald kill JFK and thrashes (far)Ted in Indiana, home of down-to-earth, common sensical Hoosiers.

Nobody has as many loons as we do. We have the best loons. You're gonna get tired of being the looniest, we have so many great loons.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lombardi
The Next POTUS - Here are the odds, who is the best bet?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
6K
Good Posting Judge
Good Posting Judge
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
1K
The General
The General
Chadstroma
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
Replies
32
Views
2K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top