No one said it was easy and as many have, BHO has foundered on the rock of the middle east. What BHO has done is weaken our position by vacillating.He abandoned Mubarak, yet supports the Saudis and the pres of Yemen all of whom rule under similar circumstances. He has not offered a word of support to either the Iranian or Syrian revolutions and was a follower in Libya. It isn't his specific response to what happened this time (though they have disowned the original state department memo condemming the film) but allowing drift which has both friend and foe wondering where he stands. Our enemies in the middle east see us as weak today. I guess I used the term ruthless incorrectly. I should have said cold blooded and not be diverted from what ever path he choses.He either doesn't know what the path we should follow is or isn't capable of following one. He seems to confuse tactics with stratagy. He may kill terrorists with drones and seals but to what effect? He allows things to drift until he has no way to influence them. What I would do now is the same thing as he should have done from the beginning of his term. First I would have stated a clear policy of support of freedom of expression and democracy through out the region. Second I would have done my best to convince the entrenched regimes to change if at all possible under managed conditions. I would have traded military support for economic support that really flows through the population not enriches the existing rulers. That would be building roads, establishing secular schools on a $ for $ basis on the current military support. Those that wouldn't or couldn't change would not be supported. I would support uprisings against dictators where ever it happened though the support would vary depending on the circumstances. One thing I would NOT risk our military's lives without strong evidence of a specific obtainable objective following the Powell doctrine of the 90s. SO I would not send in the marines at the drop of a hat., Even though the world is smaller now I would do as Washington, Adams,Jefferson and Monroe did during the French Revolution stay out of it. BHO's style of "leading from behind will put us in a worse position. There is so much more that is required but the bottom line is we need leadership such as FDR, Reagan, Lincoln & Washington provided. We need someone to brace us for the future as Churchill did England. We aren't getting it from BHO No matter what we do there will be violence in the middle east for decades. This is a concequence of the middle east being held in the middle ages for 500 years. As I said earlier this is a 12th century society with 21st century tools. Our
Explain this statement. This war of choice gave 2 countries the ability to have democracy and allowed Obama to have his scalp. He won't thank Bush for that opportunity and perhaps neither will you. These countries appear to have no real interest in freedom so it is a hint to not do that sort of thing again. Our moral standing around the world is good. Everyone still wants our aid. Its just the muslim idiots that can't handle the loss of control.
I think Obama is thinking that we have done that before and what has it gotten us....Afganistan and Iraq is falling back into turmoil. As soon as our military leaves it will become chaos again. We have to understand that there is no hope for the middle east. The region is run by dictators, monarchy, or terrorists. They will not fall into western idealism. Why bother? This is where I depart from the conservative beliefs, or neoconservative beliefs. We tried it. It failed. The only reason we care is because of oil. Let those bastards figure it out...and kill the fuck out of them when they attack our embassy.
The only thing these jihadists understand is violence... and the only way to defeat them is with violence. We should be killing these camel jockeys by the multi-dozens for their actions over the last few days and withhold any and all aid as they can not be negotiated with nor can they be bought. Their charter is for Islam to rule the world, or to kill all of the infidels. All of these riots and violent protests (which are predicted to get worse after friday) are not the result of some stupid movie depicting their prophet in a negative way, they are nothing more than more terror against Americans on the anniversary on 9/11... so lets leave the blame where it belongs, and stop scapegoating these tards actions. If you can't get down with that, then might I suggest going and living with the cave dwellers... then come back and tell us how hospitable and lovely your new friends are.
you are just spewing talking points, Leading from behind is a myth. We are not inclined to get into more conflicts in the middle east in small countries like Syria. You just want someone to get up and talk big about democracy. He said many time that he wanted the leader in Syria out and Egypt, what did it get us in Egypt and leader that wants Sharia law. You are talking complete nonsense this isnt the 90's democracy in those regions failed, because the majority wants to be ruled by dictatorship.
huh, yes it is because of a movie and some might be mixed in because of 9/11, but why didnt they do this the past 10 years if its just about 9/11? Yes the movie incited this and thats how they roll because they are stupid and feelings get hurt quick over their prophet.
No it is because they are irrational. It wasn;t a movie or a cartoon, or a book. It was crazy. You can't apply logic to the actions of the crazy.
i think i said that but the movie didnt help and i was refuting the fact that it was because of 9/11, they would have done this every year since then. The movie provoked it and to deny that is just being blind.
He still may, of course. So what are you advocating its closure now? Obama actually compromised with the Republicans on this matter (keeping Gitmo is a Republican policy, after all) and you want to use that to accuse him of failure to show resolve? The voters a e not that stupid.
