Will Obama's Syrian debacle blot his legacy?
- Thread starter Big Money
- Start date
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
The Left has always embraced diplomacy without war while the Right constantly talks "War now! Think later!"
I think that since Obama was pushing for invasion, yes, it does, has and will hurt his reputation.....But the Left hasn't been stating he is Mr.Perfect since about '11. Try to keep up with Left media.
I think that since Obama was pushing for invasion, yes, it does, has and will hurt his reputation.....But the Left hasn't been stating he is Mr.Perfect since about '11. Try to keep up with Left media.
Not sure. There will be a war against Syria but I don't know whether or not Obama will get the credit for it. If he does then it will take quite a while for the real facts to come out that the evidence against Assad was faked.
Therefore, we would be looking at a similar situation to Bush2's legacy. Was it tarnished by his lies for a phony criminal war?
Not really. The American people still haven't come to accept that it was a phony criminal war. And so why would Obama be any different.
My prediction would be that both of them will remain popular with their own supporters regardless.
But in any case, isn't this poll just an attempt to take the light off my own poll? Now how about you going there and registering your opinion?
Therefore, we would be looking at a similar situation to Bush2's legacy. Was it tarnished by his lies for a phony criminal war?
Not really. The American people still haven't come to accept that it was a phony criminal war. And so why would Obama be any different.
My prediction would be that both of them will remain popular with their own supporters regardless.
But in any case, isn't this poll just an attempt to take the light off my own poll? Now how about you going there and registering your opinion?
If the decision for war is left to the congress then it will be quite indeciseive on who to blame. That is the only saving factor in Bush's case with Iraq. He gets to distribute the blame on the congress except for the fact that it was his cohorts and accomplices who fabricated the lies.
This situation with Obama is somewhat different and I think it's likely to play out differently. The push for war will be spearheaded by the US congress eventually and that will have the potential of leaving Obama's hands relatively clean.
An excerpt from President Clinton's speech 8-20-1998 concerning the attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan.
Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan
Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million lbs of bombs on Iraq
Kosovo:" 38,000 combat missions."
Ever hear of Korea ?
Ever hear of Vietnam ?
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
I say yes because it was a terrible reason to even be discussing war and/or strikes. The Muslim Brotherhood are not allies with the US so it is none of our concern. Plus to my knowledge there was only suspicions of who used the gas and no one could say they were 100% who used it.
It will be lost in time now as the discussion of "Did Obama scare Assad with a false threat" It's the American way, it's what we did with the indians.
It will be lost in time now as the discussion of "Did Obama scare Assad with a false threat" It's the American way, it's what we did with the indians.
Kosovo was Clinton's war and was another phony war for phony reasons that never was discovered completely. Suffice to say that the reasons for war which were mass graves of ethnic Albanians never were found. And then there's also the fact that the UN wouldn't grant the US it's war and it had to resort to NATO.
Most Americans will remain completely in the dark over the details of this one and not care one bit about the slaughter their country took part in for phony reasons. In fact, most Americans probably aren't even able to make the connection with Clinton only 14 years later.
Fwiw, the political right was opposed to Kosovo because it wasn't their president's war.
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
First I would like you to google when the Vietnam war was started, then google the president that was in office at that time.....
Then I would like you to tell me why things that happened 50+ years ago are significant but the Left isn't supposed to talk about Bush because he's not in office anymore............
Also tell me what did more damage to Americans armed forces and the tax payers wallets.....Clintons bombing or Bush's war.....
Political newbie..
I guess you could go back to September 1950, the United States created the Military Assistance Group to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers. By 1954, the US spent US$1 billion in support of the French military effort, 80 percent of the cost of the war.
US advisors might have been present, but not combat troops
Truman was President (D) or
http://tinyurl.com/2ff6f6k
First U.S. Ground Troops Sent to Vietnam
As the fighting between the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese continued, the U.S. continued to send additional advisers to South Vietnam. When the North Vietnamese fired directly upon two U.S. ships in international waters on August 2 and 4, 1964 (known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident), Congress responded with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This resolution gave the President the authority to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam. President Lyndon Johnson used that authority to order the first U.S. ground troops to Vietnam in March 1965.
All history is significant....feel free....
This Anti-Party post was bullshit...:The Left has always embraced diplomacy without war while the Right constantly talks "War now! Think later!"
as history proves....
:"tell me what did more damage to Americans armed forces and the tax payers wallets.....Clintons bombing or Bush's war.....:"
Why? its quite irrelevant....but neither cost the country more in lives or dollars as much as LBJ's fiasco in Vietnam...we lost that war....
Last edited:
Try to make it at least look like you have something in your makeup other than pure Obama hate. Don't you understand that you're supposed to keep up the appearance at least?
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Honestly, you are like a good spelling Desh.
Sometimes Desh is correct. I am a terrible speller. You are like a good looking Dixie.
I really want to see "Dixie's" posts, but can't find any.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Well I don't have a Confederate flag. Dixie was sometimes right too.
Very rarely!
Annie
Not So Junior Member
More often than Desh, more coherent too.
IDK, Id put them in the same category. You are just blind because you agree with Dix more.