This speech will consist of Obama saying/doing nothing and then retreating from the podium -- because that has been his foreign policy.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

This speech will consist of Obama saying/doing nothing and then retreating from the podium -- because that has been his foreign policy.

So, what you're saying is, he's just like you when it comes to the subject of Schenectady.

Got it.

Quoted from BuckStrider

So, what you're saying is, he's just like you when it comes to the subject of Schenectady.

Got it.

Absolutely not.  You are obviously confused, befuddled and bewildered by the whole topic.

Today, Obama, once again, sounded the retreat at West Point.

BURTON: A portrait of foreign-policy disaster
Obama has spawned chaos across the globe
by Former Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican, who was a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman of its Europe, Eurasia and emerging threats subcommittee.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com.....aster/#ixzz3466Qae4x
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

President Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster. He talks, but whatever he says carries no weight. Why? Let’s look at the record.
Mr. Obama and his team have squandered the hard-won security gains in Iraq, which is teetering on the brink of anarchy again. Disaster.
The president famously called the War in Afghanistan “the right war,” the war he was going to win. In truth, he never wanted to win; all he ever really wanted was to get out. Now, Afghanistan’s stability has come into serious question as international troops draw down. The U.S. spent 13 years in Afghanistan, and when we leave, the Taliban will be back and with al Qaeda. The president also famously once said al Qaeda was on the ropes. But al Qaeda’s flag is flying over more cities and villages in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa today than it did before Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, on May 20, CNN reported that the U.S. intelligence community is seriously concerned about a recent series of al Qaeda-based threats to attack American and other Western targets in Europe, as well as threats to launch attacks inside the United States. That doesn’t sound like an organization on the ropes. Disaster.
Egypt, which used to be an ally of the United States and a stabilizing force in the Middle East, is on the brink of either civil war or a military dictatorship and is dealing more and more with Russia. Disaster.
Mr. Obama ignored the Constitution and Congress to go to war in Libya “to stop the killing.” He so badly wanted to believe in the fantasy and that he’d won and stabilized Libya that he ignored a deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and cost four Americans their lives. Libya is no success — it is, in fact, so unstable that the Pentagon is reportedly moving military assets into place for a possible evacuation of Americans. Disaster.
The Syrian conflict, which began as a secular revolt, has taken on a radical Islamist dimension. Some reports have even suggested that radicalized Americans are training with the jihadists in Syria. Disaster.
The ill-advised interim nuclear accord between Iran and Western powers expires in July. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said during a recent visit to China that he is in “no hurry” to reach a final deal over the country’s nuclear program. In a separate interview with China’s CCTV network, he demanded that the Obama administration pay Tehran reparations for “hostile policies” that have cost the Iranian people “much loss and damage.” Apparently, the $7 billion in frozen assets released by the Obama administration isn’t enough. Iran is still a state sponsor of terrorism, actively working to undermine countries such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and Azerbaijan. It is actively working through surrogates such as Hamas and Hezbollah to destroy our closest ally in the region, Israel. The Iranians have also stepped up their efforts to confront the U.S. 5th Fleet and potentially close the vital Strait of Hormuz. Disaster.
In Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin is openly laughing at us. Disaster.
In North Korea, the Kim Jong-un regime has stepped up its provocative attacks on the South and is threatening to test a third nuclear device. Disaster.
In Nigeria, about 275 schoolgirls were kidnapped by the radical Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram (thought to be connected to other terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda). The Obama State Department repeatedly resisted and blocked efforts to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group, throwing away a major opportunity to track and target this deadly organization before it grew into a regional threat. Now, hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls have been taken to be either sold into slavery or killed. Disaster.
Finally, Mr. Obama released five of the worst terrorists in the world (who should have been tried in a military court years ago) in exchange for a deserter who, according to military leaders who served with him, cost six soldiers their lives and endangered hundreds of others. The president violated the law to do it. Major, major disaster.
It seems no matter where the Obama administration turns its head, disaster follows. Our enemies are mocking us and our allies no longer trust us to keep our word. Confronting foreign-policy challenges requires leadership and statesmanship. Mr. Obama hasn’t demonstrated either.

Obama Promised to Do 4 Big Things As President. Now He’s Done Them All.

"On January 20, 2009, when Obama delivered his inaugural address as president,
he outlined his coming domestic agenda in two sentences summarizing the challenges he
identified: 'Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too
costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we
use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.'"

"Those were the four major areas of domestic reform: economic recovery measures,
health-care reform, a response to climate change, and education reform.  With the
announcement of the largest piece of his environmental program last Monday, Obama
has now accomplished major policy responses on all these things."
(The New Yorker)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/obama-has-now-fulfilled-his-4-big-promises.html

Health Care is still too costly and if you are a Veteran impossible to get.

Housing market has still not recovered.

Schools are still failing.

The climate is still changing and Obama's environmental policy was only unveiled -- far from implemented .. which it may never be.

But Obama did deliver what he promised to the special interest groups and extremist liberals ---  
Wall Street (which heavily supported Obama in 200 has made BILLIONS of profits by being bailed out by taxpayers and still hasn't loosened it purse strings to lend money to help the economy grow.
Obama has surrendered Iraq - grabbing defeat from the hands of victory
Obama has allowed El Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorist groups to regroup and regain power
Obama is in the process of surrendering in Afghanistan
Obama has bent over time and time again -- and let Putin screw the Ukraine
Obama drew lines in the sand and let dictators piss on them -- in Syria and other places

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Obama has surrendered Iraq - grabbing defeat from the hands of victory

Is there anyone on this board who agrees with the above sentence???

Quoted from Box A Rox

Is there anyone on this board who agrees with the above sentence???

It should read Obama has accepted failure in Iraq, Afghanistan.

Good for him.

Bring all of our troops home.

Before they kill themselves or others.

5 Americans were killed by America this week.

But it's all good, it was friendly fire.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/12/dont-walk-away-from-war/

Don’t Walk Away From War
June 12, 2014
by Tom Engelhardt

The United States has been at war — major boots-on-the-ground conflicts and minor interventions, firefights, air strikes, drone assassination campaigns, occupations, special ops raids, proxy conflicts and covert actions — nearly nonstop since the Vietnam War began. That’s more than half a century of experience with war, American-style, and yet few in our world bother to draw the obvious conclusions.

Given the historical record, those conclusions should be staring us in the face. They are, however, the words that can’t be said in a country committed to a military-first approach to the world, a continual build-up of its forces, an emphasis on pioneering work in the development and deployment of the latest destructive technology and a repetitious cycling through styles of war from full-scale invasions and occupations to counterinsurgency, proxy wars and back again.

So here are five straightforward lessons — none acceptable in what passes for discussion and debate in this country — that could be drawn from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:

1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.

2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn’t solve them. Never.

3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to “stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.

4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its “warriors,” the US military is incapable of winning its wars.

5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the US military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it isn’t.

And here’s a bonus lesson: if as a polity we were to take these five no-brainers to heart and stop fighting endless wars, which drain us of national treasure, we would also have a long-term solution to the Veterans Administration health-care crisis. It’s not the sort of thing said in our world, but the VA is in a crisis of financing and caregiving that, in the present context, cannot be solved, no matter whom you hire or fire. The only long-term solution would be to stop fighting losing wars that the American people will pay for decades into the future, as the cost in broken bodies and broken lives is translated into medical care and dumped on the VA.

Heroes and Turncoats

One caveat. Think whatever you want about war and American war-making, but keep in mind that we are inside an enormous propaganda machine of militarism, even if we barely acknowledge the space in our lives that it fills. Inside it, only certain opinions, certain thoughts, are acceptable, or even in some sense possible.
Think whatever you want about war and American war-making, but keep in mind that we are inside an enormous propaganda machine of militarism.

Take for an example the recent freeing of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from five years as a captive of the Haqqani network. Much controversy has surrounded it, in part because he was traded for five former Taliban officials long kept uncharged and untried on the American Devil’s Island at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It has been suggested that Sgt. Bergdahl deserted his post and his unit in rural Afghanistan, simply walked away — which for opponents of the deal and of President Obama makes the “trade for terrorists” all the more shameful. Our options when it comes to what we know of Bergdahl’s actions are essentially to decry him as a “turncoat” or near-voluntary “terrorist prisoner” or ignore them, go into a “support the troops” mode and hail him as a “hero” of the war. And yet there is a third option.

According to his father, in the period before he was captured, his emails home reflected growing disillusionment with the military. (“The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools and bullies. The few good SGTs [sergeants] are getting out as soon as they can and they are telling us privates to do the same.”) He had also evidently grown increasingly uncomfortable as well with the American war in that country. (“I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.”) When he departed his base, he may even have left a note behind expressing such sentiments. He had reportedly told someone in his unit earlier, “If this deployment is lame… I’m just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan.”

That’s what we know. There is much that we don’t know. However, what if, having concluded that the war was no favor to Afghans or Americans and he shouldn’t participate in it, he had, however naively, walked away from it without his weapon and, as it turned out, not into freedom but directly into captivity? That Sgt. Bergdahl might have been neither a military-style hero, nor a turncoat, but someone who voted with his feet on the merits of war, American-style, in Afghanistan is not an option that can be discussed calmly here. Similarly, anyone who took such a position here, not just in terms of our disastrous almost 13-year Afghan War, but of American war-making generally, would be seen as another kind of turncoat. However Americans may feel about specific wars, walking away from war, American-style and the US military as it is presently configured is not a fit subject for conversation, nor an option to be considered.

It’s been a commonplace of official opinion and polling data for some time that the American public is “exhausted” with our recent wars, but far too much can be read into that. Responding to such a mood, the president, his administration and the Pentagon have been in a years-long process of “pivoting” from major wars and counterinsurgency campaigns to drone wars, special operations raids and proxy wars across huge swaths of the planet (even while planning for future wars of a very different kind continues). But war itself and the US military remain high on the American agenda. Military or militarized solutions continue to be the go-to response to global problems, the only question being: How much or how little? (In what passes for debate in this country, the president’s opponents regularly label him and his administration “weak” for not doubling down on war, from the Ukraine and Syria to Afghanistan).
Military or militarized solutions continue to be the go-to response to global problems, the only question being: How much or how little?

Meanwhile, investment in the military’s future and its capacity to make war on a global scale remains staggeringly beyond that of any other power or combination of powers. No other country comes faintly close, not the Russians, nor the Chinese, nor the Europeans just now being encouraged to up their military game by President Obama who recently pledged a billion dollars to strengthen the US military presence in Eastern Europe.

In such a context, to suggest the sweeping failure of the American military over these last decades without sapping support for the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex would involve making the most breathtaking stab-in-the-back argument in the historical record. This was tried after the Vietnam War, which engendered a vast antiwar movement at home. It was at least conceivable at the time to blame defeat on that movement, a “liberal” media and lily-livered, micromanaging politicians. Even then, however, the stab-in-the-back version of the war never quite stuck and in all subsequent wars, support for the military among the political class and everywhere else has been so high, the obligatory need to “support the troops” — left, right and center — so great that such an explanation would have been ludicrous.

A Record of Failure to Stagger the Imagination

The only option left was to ignore what should have been obvious to all. The result has been a record of failure that should stagger the imagination and remarkable silence on the subject. So let’s run through these points one at a time.

1. American-style war doesn’t work. Just ask yourself: Are there fewer terrorists or more in our world almost 13 years after the 9/11 attacks? Are al-Qaeda-like groups more or less common? Are they more or less well organized? Do they have more or fewer members? The answers to those questions are obvious: more, more, more and more. In fact, according to a new RAND report, between 2010 and 2013 alone, jihadist groups grew by 58 percent, their fighters doubled and their attacks nearly tripled.

On September 12, 2001, al-Qaeda was a relatively small organization with a few camps in arguably the most feudal and backward country on the planet and tiny numbers of adherents scattered elsewhere around the world. Today, al-Qaeda-style outfits and jihadist groups control significant parts of Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and even Yemen and are thriving and spreading in parts of Africa as well.
Are there fewer terrorists or more in our world almost 13 years after the 9/11 attacks? Are al-Qaeda-like groups more or less common? Are they more or less well organized?

Or try questions like these: Is Iraq a peaceful, liberated state allied with and under Washington’s aegis, with “enduring camps” filled with US troops on its territory? Or is it a riven, embattled, dilapidated country whose government is close to Iran and some of whose Sunni-dominated areas are under the control of a group that is more extreme than al-Qaeda? Is Afghanistan a peaceful, thriving, liberated land under the American aegis, or are Americans still fighting there almost 13 years later against the Taliban, an impossible-to-defeat minority movement it once destroyed and then, because it couldn’t stop fighting the “war on terror,” helped revive? Is Washington now supporting a weak, corrupt central government in a country that once again is planting record opium crops?

But let’s not belabor the point. Who, except a few neocons still plunking for the glories of “the surge” in Iraq, would claim military victory for this country, even of a limited sort, anywhere at any time in this century?

2. American-style wars don’t solve problems. In these years, you could argue that not a single US military campaign or militarized act ordered by Washington solved a single problem anywhere. In fact, it’s possible that just about every military move Washington has made only increased the burden of problems on this planet. To make the case, you don’t even have to focus on the obvious like, for example, the way a special operations and drone campaign in Yemen has actually al-Qaeda-ized some of that country’s rural areas. Take instead a rare Washington “success”: the killing of Osama bin Laden in a special ops raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (And leave aside the way even that act was over-militarized: an unarmed Bin Laden was shot down in his Pakistani lair largely, it’s plausible to assume, because officials in Washington feared what once would have been the American way — putting him on trial in a US civilian court for his crimes.) We now know that, in the hunt for bin Laden, the CIA launched a fake hepatitis B vaccination project. Though it proved of no use, once revealed it made local jihadists so nervous about medical health teams that they began killing groups of polio vaccination workers, an urge that has since spread to Boko Haram-controlled areas of Nigeria. In this way, according to Columbia University public health expert Leslie Roberts, “the distrust sowed by the sham campaign in Pakistan could conceivably postpone polio eradication for 20 years, leading to 100,000 more cases that might otherwise not have occurred.” The CIA has since promised not to do it again, but too late — and who at this point would believe the Agency anyway? This was, to say the least, an unanticipated consequence of the search for bin Laden, but blowback everywhere, invariably unexpected, has been a hallmark of American campaigns of all sorts.

Similarly, the NSA’s surveillance regime, another form of global intervention by Washington, has — experts are convinced — done little or nothing to protect Americans from terror attacks. It has, however, done a great deal to damage the interests of America’s tech corporations and to increase suspicion and anger over Washington’s policies even among allies. And by the way, congratulations are due on one of the latest military moves of the Obama administration, the sending of US military teams and drones into Nigeria and neighboring countries to help rescue those girls kidnapped by the extremist group Boko Haram. The rescue was a remarkable success… oops, didn’t happen (and we don’t even know yet what the blowback will be).


3. American-style war is a destabilizing force. Just look at the effects of American war in the twenty-first century. It’s clear, for instance, that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 unleashed a brutal, bloody, Sunni-Shiite civil war across the region (as well as the Arab Spring, one might argue). One result of that invasion and the subsequent occupation, as well as of the wars and civil wars that followed: the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese, while major areas of Syria and some parts of Iraq have fallen into the hands of armed supporters of al-Qaeda or, in one major case, a group that didn’t find that organization extreme enough. A significant part of the oil heartlands of the planet is, that is, being destabilized.

Meanwhile, the US war in Afghanistan and the CIA’s drone assassination campaign in the tribal borderlands of neighboring Pakistan have destabilized that country, which now has its own fierce Taliban movement. The 2011 US intervention in Libya initially seemed like a triumph, as had the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan before it. Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown and the rebels swept into power. Like Afghanistan and Iraq, however, Libya is now a basket case, riven by competing militias and ambitious generals, largely ungovernable and an open wound for the region. Arms from Gaddafi’s looted arsenals have made their way into the hands of Islamist rebels and jihadist extremists from the Sinai Peninsula to Mali, from Northern Africa to northern Nigeria, where Boko Haram is entrenched. It is even possible, as Nick Turse has done, to trace the growing US military presence in Africa to the destabilization of parts of that continent.

4. The US military can’t win its wars.  This is so obvious (though seldom said) that it hardly has to be explained. The US military has not won a serious engagement since World War II: the results of wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq ranged from stalemate to defeat and disaster. With the exception of a couple of campaigns against essentially no one (in Grenada and Panama), nothing, including the “Global War on Terror,” would qualify as a success on its own terms, no less anyone else’s. This was true, strategically speaking, despite the fact that, in all these wars, the US controlled the air space, the seas (where relevant) and just about any field of battle where the enemy might be met. Its firepower was overwhelming and its ability to lose in small-scale combat just about nil.

It would be folly to imagine that this record represents the historical norm. It doesn’t. It might be more relevant to suggest that the sorts of imperial wars and wars of pacification the US has fought in recent times, often against poorly armed, minimally trained, minority insurgencies (or terror outfits), are simply unwinnable. They seem to generate their own resistance. Their brutalities and even their “victories” simply act as recruitment posters for the enemy.

5. The US military is not “the finest fighting force the world has ever known” or “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known,” or any of the similar over-the-top descriptions that US presidents are now regularly obligated to use. If you want the explanation for why this is so, see points one through four above. A military whose way of war doesn’t work, doesn’t solve problems, destabilizes whatever it touches and never wins simply can’t be the greatest in history, no matter the firepower it musters. If you really need further proof of this, think about the crisis and scandals linked to the Veterans Administration. They are visibly the fruit of a military mired in frustration, despair and defeat, not a triumphant one holding high history’s banner of victory.
A military whose way of war doesn’t work, doesn’t solve problems, destabilizes whatever it touches and never wins simply can’t be the greatest in history, no matter the firepower it musters.

...

Don’t walk away from war. It’s not the American way.

BillMoyers.com

Quoted from Box A Rox

Is there anyone on this board who agrees with the above sentence???

When George W. Bush left office Mosul was in the hands of the legitimate Iraqi government -- now under Obama Mosul and other cities have fallen to Al-Qaeda.   Al-Qaeda -by the way - that was on the way to being crushed when George W. Bush left office - is now coming back strong and emboldened by the fact that Obama doesn't give a damn about terrorism.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

When George W. Bush left office Mosul was in the hands of the legitimate Iraqi government .

Again...
Quoted from Box A Rox


Is there anyone on this board who agrees with the above sentence???