Obama's legacy (excised)

All things Rugby
Post Reply
free_safety
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Obama's legacy (excised)

Post by free_safety »

eldanielfire wrote: Did you even read the link?

You made the claim that Democrats did not support Obamacare because Obama was distant. You also made the claim that there were 182 republicans who would have been willing to work with Obama. That is a ridiculous assertion that is not bolstered by anything in that article. As I said before, republicans made it clear in 2008 that they would oppose everything Obama proposed so that he could be a one term president. Then you made the claim that republicans worked well with Clinton, only to contradict yourself as say they opposed him just as they did with Obama.
SO your refusal is to ignore the fact when Obama's spying was revealed it very clearly showed David Cameron wasn't spied upon but you revert to "all countries spy on each other" dispite the fact even the US doesn't spy on all their allies. This is not just a crap argument to justify someone but it's factually false.
It is bogus to call it "Obama' spying".
If you bothered to read about the wikileaks revelations, you would have noted that the USA spied on Angela Markel before Obama was elected. Not only that, the USA also spied on Merkel's predecessor (Gerhard Schroeder) starting in 1998. The point I am making is that Obama has no way of knowing every single thing that the CIA and the NSA does. He is pre-occupied with issues affecting the American people not with nonsense like who the CIA is spying on.
And my other point is that CIA likely spied on the UK long before Obama became president and they are probably spying on the UK prime minister now whether trump authorized it or not. The CIA and NSA have a lot of autonomy. The UK is also spying on the USA as shown by that Guardian article I posted.
Obama could have intervened and demanded the Military clean up it's act. He also didn't ahve to side agaisnt her until the end of his predidency.
There is nothing to clean up. Shooting at civilians is already illegal and any American soldier caught deliberately killing civilians is court martialed. This happened even under pro-military leaders like Bush and trump.

Secondly if you think that Obama or any president would read the riot act to military officials publicly then you are incredibly naive. No American president would do that. It would be political suicide not just for Obama but for the entire Democratic party. If Obama or any president wants to reform the military then he has to do it on private not in public.
Eh? Without interference Gadaffi and Asard would have like suppressed the uprising and neither would have led to a prolonged war or a more stable country afterwards.
This is laughable and is not borne out by reality. If this is true then how come Assaad still can't suppress the uprising despite the fact that America has basically decided to sit on the sideline and Assaad is getting plenty of help from Russia and Iran?
You don't understand the mentality of a Jihadi fighter. They simply don't stop fighting. A conventional army can't defeat jihadis because these are people who are willing to die. So there is no way Gaddaffi would have suppressed the uprising no matter how many civilians he bombed and neither will Assad.
And again stop rewriting history, the US didn't move against ISIS until long after they were supporting the removal of Assad. They were aiming to go all in until the UK parliament blocked Cameron and Obama had to step back.
Yes the US supported the removal of Assad as I pointed out earlier. This is a good thing. Why would you support a leader who uses chemical weapons on his own people?

When the US got involved in Syria in 2011, it was primarily to train the Free Syrian army. The actual military intervention came in 2014 and it was aimed at fighting ISIS

As Is aid Obama's hawksih foreign policies were terrible and rehashed the mistakes of the Bush era. For that
Bush intervened in Iraq without provocation. Obama intervened in Syria because Assad was killing innocent civilians and gassing children.

I repeat. There is nothing wrong with trying to remove a tyrant like Assad who uses chemical weapons on little children. In fact Obama's hesitation to get involved in Syria was criticized even by people in his own party and in his own administration who thought he should have intervened sooner.

In America, there were images all over the papers of little children who were victims of Assad's chemical weapons. If Obama did nothing, the American people would have found it unacceptable. Images like these were being flashed all over:

https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/iCV ... EEBLGQ.jpg
Post Reply