Putin schools Obama again

[Yssup Rider]

Ignorant fuck

[WTF]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Don't get me wrong...Putin is a commie asshole. But once again we are seeing a teenager being out maneuvered by a ruthless Kremlin goon.

The Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy has been a disaster.

So much for leading from behind and letting the international community fix the worlds problems. I bet the Iranians and Russkies are have a good laugh at the fools they have made of this administration. This would have never happened if we had a leader that knew and understood enemy identification. So much for the politics of cut and run.

You Dems are pussies.

I think it is brilliant.....on Obama's part to let Russia try and fix the unfixable.

We should pull out and stay out of that region. Let our Israeli buddies fend for themselves.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I remember the good old day's when we had a president with balls. 7 years seems like such a long time... fuckers

Yea , the one with balls and no brain. Bush is the reason Iran has risen in power. You do realize Iran wanted America to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam? Saddam was a counterweight to Iran....but you dumb fucks do not understand the politics of the region and you think a bull in a China Cabinet strategy best!

[filbone]

Originally Posted by WTF

You do realize Iran wanted America to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam? Saddam was a counterweight to Iran....but you dumb fucks do not understand the politics of the region and you think a bull in a China Cabinet strategy best!

But according to Obama: "Iraq’s future will be in the hands of the people. America’s war in Iraq will be over. Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people."

So Iraq was Bush's fault, then Obama's success, and now Bush's fault again?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by filbone

But according to Obama: "Iraq’s future will be in the hands of the people. America’s war in Iraq will be over. Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people."

So Iraq was Bush's fault, then Obama's success, and now Bush's fault again?

It was never a success. Period

there was a reason the elder Bush left Saddam in power in the early 90's

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

An Unteachable President

For Obama, it isn’t the man in the arena who counts. It’s the speaker on the stage.

By BRET STEPHENS
Sept. 28, 2015 8:10 p.m. ET

Barack Obama told the U.N.’s General Assembly on Monday he’s concerned that “dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.” It’s nice of the president to notice, just don’t expect him to do much about it.

Recall that it wasn’t long ago that Mr. Obama took a sunnier view of world affairs. The tide of war was receding. Al Qaeda was on a path to defeat. ISIS was “a jayvee team” in “Lakers uniforms.” Iraq was an Obama administration success story. Bashar Assad’s days were numbered. The Arab Spring was a rejoinder to, rather than an opportunity for, Islamist violence. The intervention in Libya was vindication for the “lead from behind” approach to intervention. The reset with Russia was a success, a position he maintained as late as September 2013. In Latin America, the “trend lines are good.”

“Overall,” as he told Tom Friedman in August 2014—shortly after ISIS had seized control of Mosul and as Vladimir Putin was muscling his way into eastern Ukraine—“I think there’s still cause for optimism.”

It’s a remarkable record of prediction. One hundred percent wrong. The professor president who loves to talk about teachable moments is himself unteachable. Why is that?

Some of the explanations are ordinary and almost forgivable. All politicians like to boast. The predictions seemed reasonably well-founded at the time they were made. Mr. Obama wasn’t really making predictions: He was choosing optimism, placing a bet on hope. His successes were of his own making; the failures owed to forces beyond his control. And so on.

But there’s a deeper logic to the president’s thinking, starting with ideological necessity. The president had to declare our foreign policy dilemmas solved so he could focus on his favorite task of “nation-building at home.” A strategy of retreat and accommodation, a bias against intervention, a preference for minimal responses—all this was about getting America off the hook, doing away with the distraction of other people’s tragedies.

When you’ve defined your political task as “fundamentally transforming the United States of America”—as Mr. Obama did on the eve of his election in 2008—then your hands are full. Let other people sort out their own problems.

But that isn’t all. The president also has an overarching moral theory about American power, expressed in his 2009 contention in Prague that “moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon.”

At the time, Mr. Obama was speaking about the end of the Cold War—which, he claimed, came about as a result of “peaceful protest”—and of his desire to see a world without nuclear weapons. It didn’t seem to occur to him that the possession of such weapons by the U.S. also had a hand in winning the Cold War. Nor did he seem to contemplate the idea that moral leadership can never safely be a substitute for weapons unless those leaders are willing to throw themselves at the mercy of their enemies’ capacity for shame.

In late-era South Africa and the Soviet Union, where men like F.W. de Klerk and Mikhail Gorbachev had a sense of shame, the Obama theory had a chance to work. In Iran in 2009, or in Syria today, it doesn’t.

Then again, that distinction doesn’t much matter to this president, since he seems to think that seizing the moral high ground is victory enough. Under Mr. Obama, the U.S. is on “the right side of history” when it comes to the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine, or the killing fields in Syria, or the importance of keeping Afghan girls in school.

Having declared our good intentions, why muck it up with the raw and compromising exercise of power? In Mr. Obama’s view, it isn’t the man in the arena who counts. It’s the speaker on the stage.

Finally, Mr. Obama believes history is going his way. “What? Me worry?” says the immortal Alfred E. Neuman, and that seems to be the president’s attitude toward Mr. Putin’s interventions in Syria (“doomed to fail”) and Ukraine (“not so smart”), to say nothing of his sang-froid when it comes to the rest of his foreign-policy debacles.

In this cheapened Hegelian world view, the U.S. can relax because History is on our side, and the arc of history bends toward justice. Why waste your energies to fulfill a destiny that is already inevitable? And why get in the way of your adversary’s certain doom?

It’s easy to accept this view of life if you owe your accelerated good fortune to a superficial charm and understanding of the way the world works. It’s also easier to lecture than to learn, to preach than to act. History will remember Barack Obama as the president who conducted foreign policy less as a principled exercise in the application of American power than as an extended attempt to justify the evasion of it.

From Aleppo to Donetsk to Kunduz, people are living with the consequences of that evasion.

.

Great WSJ article, LL!

Originally Posted by lustylad

Putin looks at the world the way it is and reacts to it.

Odumbo looks at the world the way he wants it to be and does nothing.

.

+1

Originally Posted by timpage

Right. The pussy POTUS who got OBL. And, who has droned the shit out of bad guys left and right for the last 5 years. The one who has authorized and ordered US air strikes in support of Syrian freedom fighters for how long now?

But you lily-livered lib-retards have memories shorter than your puny pricks, Little Timmy-tard, because it was W who established the FOB of operations and contracted the operators for the assault that killed bin Laden in Abbottabad, Little Timmy-tard.

[gary5912]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're about as welcome around here as a turd in a hot tub.

Small dick? That's seriously the best you got, you fucking cock gobbler? We all know you got a small dick. We can ask any of the poor whoooores who were unfortunate enough to get paired up with you. They'll tell us all about your button dick

hey small dick I see you and woomby have teamed up, so that confirms it ,you are a liberal ,so have fun down at the holes with woomby doing all that cock gobbling he is famous for, and woomby I see escorts not fat whooores like you do

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by gary5912

hey small dick I see you and woomby have teamed up, so that confirms it ,you are a liberal ,so have fun down at the holes with woomby doing all that cock gobbling he is famous for, and woomby I see escorts not fat whooores like you do

Who, exactly, do you think you quoted? And you see whooores, just like the rest of us, dirtbag. And I feel sorry for the whooore that has to act like you're a good time

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I remember the good old day's when we had a president with balls. 7 years seems like such a long time... fuckers

That was about 52 years ago. This country has been going south ever since.


Jim

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

It was never a success. Period

there was a reason the elder Bush left Saddam in power in the early 90's

He should have shared that secret with his son.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by timpage

Right. The pussy POTUS who got OBL. And, who has droned the shit out of bad guys left and right for the last 5 years. The one who has authorized and ordered US air strikes in support of Syrian freedom fighters for how long now?

You and the rest of the whackjobs are premature ejaculators. What's going on in Syria and the middle east so far as Putin and Russia go is just beginning to play out.

Two questions for you, O Wise One...

1. What should the US be doing in relation to Putin and Russia?

2. Define "disaster".

The only thing Trump has ever said that I agree with is why not let the Russians fight ISIS? Fuck it. We've done our part and then some in the Middle East. Let them have the mess.

I hate like hell to agree with Timmy, but absent the gratuitous insults, he is right. We will not achieve anything more than killing people over there, and riling them up against us.

Russia tried to intervene and it was a disaster for them, also. Unless we want to kill them all we should just occasionally drone strike a key target and otherwise leave them alone. We cannot control the world and pay all the bills.

Shit, if we quit bombing the poor bastards, maybe they won't want to come over here and live, let alone kill us.

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by timpage

Right. The pussy POTUS who got OBL. And, who has droned the shit out of bad guys left and right for the last 5 years. The one who has authorized and ordered US air strikes in support of Syrian freedom fighters for how long now?

So Timmy... do you actually SUPPORT Obama's "droning the shit" out of folks? Weren't the anti-Bush folks whining about all the "innocent bystanders" being killed by drone strikes when Bush ordered them? Has Obama managed NOT to kill any women and children in the same hut as the AQ/Terrorist in the hut with them?

And is bombing a SOVERIGN NATION an act of war or not? If it is, how do you feel about the SEVEN (7) Wars Obama has started by bombing that many different nations, almost TWICE as many as that 'evil warmonger' Bush?

If its not an act of war, then Obama should be able to bomb Iran without any problems right? Or is Obama just a "bully" on the world stage... hitting only those he knows can't hit back? And running scared of any that might stand up and shoot back?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

I think it is brilliant.....on Obama's part to let Russia try and fix the unfixable.

We should pull out and stay out of that region. Let our Israeli buddies fend for themselves.

Riiiiiiiight. Obama meant to step in that dog shit. Just like he meant to stabilize Libya. Or Egypt. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or not enable Iran to acquire nukes.

Newflash to WDF: we're pretty much already pulled out. That's the "Obama Doctrine." We "lead from behind" and let the appropriate nations "step up."

Then the US will take hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Brilliant to WDF, the moronic buffoon, who hears it daily from the dull bimbos he surrounds himself with.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

So Timmy... do you actually SUPPORT Obama's "droning the shit" out of folks? Weren't the anti-Bush folks whining about all the "innocent bystanders" being killed by drone strikes when Bush ordered them? Has Obama managed NOT to kill any women and children in the same hut as the AQ/Terrorist in the hut with them?....

Red, I documented this in a post over a year ago. Obama had the collateral damage definition changed so that any droning victims over 13 year of age and older was deemed a fighter. Seriously. The media is aware of the change and the fact that the number of drone attacks have far exceeded the number under Bush II. No media blowback.

Obama has also had several Americans killed with drones without the benefit of the "Terror Tuesday" approval he promised or trial in US court. Again, no media blowback.

[TheDaliLama]

If we didn't have whinny pussy democrats pissing over our shoulders all the time we might be able to actually win a war without their cowardly cut and running everytime the going get tough. But I guess we're stuck with you big pussies.

The Russkies are a third rate power and we could go through them like crap through a goose. You Dems are scared too death of them. Get some fucking back bone and call their bluff. We could kick their asses and they know it. We should never back down to those commie bastards or let them get the upper hand. Some one needs to slap some sense into BO. Put some fucking air to air missles on our jets and blow a few of theirs out of the sky. Let's see who backs off then. Jesus Christ you Dems are cowards!!!!!