jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (39 posts)

Elections do have consequences...

  1. jackclee lm profile image71
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago

    Lucky for the Syrian people, election do have consequences.
    This week, we saw the reversal of our foreign policy in dealing with Syria.
    The crisis in Syria has been going on for 6 years.
    I guess, Barack Obama was right after all. "Elections have consequences..."
    Our past policies lead to the death of thousands and millions of refugees...
    We sat silent while ateocities were committed by the Assad regime.
    The red line was crossed numerous times...
    The election of Trump changed all that. For better or worse, he acted decisively.
    It was Edmund Burke who said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing"...
    How true under the Obama Administration.

    1. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      That statement by Burke , seems  totally lost on liberals , liberal  teachings and liberal politicians .    I truly believe that  these liberals  will casually await the day terror , or war aggression's by other nations arrive at our  US. borders before blaming  the" leaders "of BOTH ideologies  for the very fact that it DID !

      I say , Better in another country than our own

    2. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      So you accept the "America First" foreign policy platform Trump ran on was misguided then?

      1. jackclee lm profile image71
        jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Not really. You can have both. America first is more of an economic policy that put trade and jobs and borders ... you can still be for good government and defend human rights around the world and stop tyrants...

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Does not the amount of resources, whether monetary or lives, spent playing policeman of the world have a large effect on our economy?

          1. jackclee lm profile image71
            jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Yes and no. Would you rather spent a little up front to prevent and deter tyrants and stop terrorists, or pay the price later of funding 100 thousand refugees...? Or worse suffer a terrorist attack on the order of 9/11 ?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Well, we just spent 60 million, and didn't accomplish slowing down terrorism at all.  For that 60M, we got nothing in return; no roads, no cars, no refrigerators - it vanished into a black hole, but a hole we continue to fill with money produced by our economy.

              I'm also a little curious as to the price later of funding 100,000 refugees; that hardly fits with Trumps "America First", and in addition it seems rather presumptuous that we have to fund even one.  Much like assuming we are responsible for making the world into another copy of our own culture - something I at least would argue against.

              1. jackclee lm profile image71
                jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Under Obama, didn't we accepted 10,000 refugees from Syria and Hilliary Clinton promised more if she was elected President? How soon we forget?

                The Syrian refugee crisis was our doing. The fall of Libya was our doing. Benghazi was our mistake.
                The rise of ISIS was caused partly by our early withdraw from Iraq...

                The last 8 years has been one crisis after another.

                North Korea and Iran...terrorist acts around the world and domestic...

                Elections do have consequences and we are seeing how they play out.
                With each day, Trump is demonstrating how to conduct ourselves effectively while Obama's legacy is drifting into obscurity.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  No, the refugee crisis was not our doing.  Nor the fall of Libya.  Nor was the rise of ISIS our fault, unless you count playing policeman as causal to ISIS.

                  While I can support taking action against chemical warfare, I do not see us as the world's policeman.  We do NOT have a "duty" to police the world, and we do not have a "duty" to turn our country over to refugees.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image71
                    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    You are not connecting the dots. How did the refugee crisis occur? If not because of the rise of ISIS, and who allow ISIS to flourish? What did Benghazi have to do with all this you ask? The administration with the CIA, were trying to funnel weapons to the rebels in Syria against our laws... The lie created about the video was trying to distract and dis information about why the Ambassador was there in the first place...

                    I agree we don't want to be the world's policeman but unfortunately, sometimes we are the only one that can do it. If not us, then who? When there is a vacuum of power, someone else will fill it. That is exactly what happened in Iraq, when Obama pulled all our troops out. Isis and Iran took over and now we are going to go back to root them out...

                    How did the lead from behind policy of Obama help in all these situations? Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia and China...

            2. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              You can't fix the middle east until you include the cultural and religious interests of the people living there. The West in 1916 secretly split up the region according to the spoils of winning the war against the Ottoman Empire. The secretive Sykes-Picot agreement between the French and British was always being worked on since 1914 before the war ended. "The agreement largely neglected to allow for the future growth of Arab nationalism," 1 With that very detail omitted from the agreement set in action with the Balfour Declaration basically establishing Israel in 1917. "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." 2.

              We set this all in motion while traipsing all over the people living in the region. Where is it that Israel has adhered to the agreement whereby " it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"?

              So is extinguishing the problem we created over 100 years ago something we can do by still ignoring the source of contention and bombing the hell out of them and installing these dictators to fix it?



              1. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist … -agreement
              2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

              1. jackclee lm profile image71
                jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Thanks for the history lesson. I agree part of the problem is the results of actions of the colonial states in the past. That by itself is no excuse. You can point to other regions like China and India where similiar events have taken place. They have moved on and joined the civilized society. In the middle east, it is a different story. I don't know if there is an answer or what that may entail, but I do know this. ISIS cannot be justified in any form. They need to be confronted and iradicated. Other local conflicts can be left to the individual states, as in Syria but again within bounds. Unsing illegal chemical weapons is out of that bound and must be dealt with by the International community.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Really. Have we forgotten Pearl Harbor where we were invaded by another country? There are still deep feelings about the Japanese from this. How about China who were occupied by the Japanese? Of course we have the 911 attack in New York which still burns strongly in the ones left.

                  Just get past something that lives in your face everyday is pretty cavalier in my estimation. The Arab States that were formed by the British cut across all cultural and religious sectors of the region. It placed people who were not acclimated to each other within their own communities. Then you have the US installing dictators like the Shah and Hussein in brutal regimes we wholeheartedly supported.with money and arms. You see the problem is that we do not learn from history so maybe we have to hear it some more.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image71
                    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    You are cherry picking. There are plenty of successes. How about Germany after divided for 50 years were reunited into one. We are trading with Japan after a horrific war with use of nuclear bombs. China and Japan are not friends but they are trade partners even after the atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking. I feel like you ar making excuses why things are not better in the middle east. It is not our fault regardless what happen in the past. We are trying to stabilize the situation and even went to war in Iraq trying to change the status quo. We intervened in the former Yugoslavia and they are peaceful now. Even Vietnam is better today after we intervened and failed in a war. How did those people survive, regrouped and thrived?

    3. Jean Bakula profile image94
      Jean Bakulaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Obama wanted to bomb when the red line was crossed. He tried to do it the LEGAL way, by going through Congress, the way it's supposed to be done. Of course, the Rs wouldn't allow it. Trump broke the law, and also lied to his voters, as he was pursuing a sort of isolationist policy to put America first.  How do all these hypocrites live with themselves?

      I probably would have done the same thing, but now we may be a lot more involved in Syria than we wanted to be. Congress is pretty much dysfunctional.

      1. jackclee lm profile image71
        jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        That is what he said he wanted. He did not want to act when the red line was crossed.
        He used congress as a shield. If you read the wording of his appeal to Congress, it is a very limited scope. He basically used Congress to tie his hands so he could claim, I wanted to do it, but Congress won't let me... excuse
        The prove is this...
        He did many other things without Congress or the Courts with executive actions.

        My personal assessment of President Obama is he was indecisive and weak as a leader. It is the same pattern when he was serving in the State legislature by voting "present" in many proposed bills.

        As president, he chose to "lead from behind". It did not work too well. Many of our allies didn't trust in his leadership. The world became a more dangerous place in the last 8 years. Can anyone deny that statement?

      2. ahorseback profile image45
        ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Don't forget part of blame diplomacy is a lame duck president "asking " congress to allow  a  military retaliation  KNOWING they will refuse , why ? So the problem  and the blame for that problem doesn't have to be his to own .  I agree with you  about congress being lame , weak and unproductive.

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    Jean:  And those who forget these facts seem to be the very ones railing against "fake news".  How inconvenient facts are when you don't like them.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      That would be the "fake news" that congress must vote on all military actions?

      There are often times when the military must take immediate action, and Congress is incapable of doing anything in less than weeks, thus the President's ability to take limited action without approval.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image94
        Jean Bakulaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Wilderness,
        I agree that if we waited for Congress to do anything, nothing would get done. It's emotional when we see dictators gassing their own people. But I'm not sure we can keep getting involved in everyone's business either. And it's been discussed whether to take Assad out, but when we do stuff like that, there is often someone crazier to take their place.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          I absolutely HATE that we see ourselves as the policeman of the world.  I also recognize that gassing civilians (or soldiers) requires a little more than a police action, and I don't object to what he did - I think it was very nearly the perfect response.  An overwhelming barrage of missiles, without putting our soldiers in danger, to the location the gas came from.  An excellent choice, IMO.

          Can't see a reason to take Assad out, though - not only would it displease the Russians enormously, but we see what taking Saddam out did for the area.  He, too, gassed his own people (I think - at a minimum he tried genocide as a solution), but now that he's gone they've probably killed more of their own people there than he did.

          1. ahorseback profile image45
            ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Good points , excellent post.

  3. jackclee lm profile image71
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago

    Here is the article in NYT back in 2013-
    It seems even Democrats was not on board at Obama's proposal back then...
    Hence nothing was done.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world … syria.html
    That is the fact, not fake news.

  4. profile image60
    Gilbert Santosposted 2 months ago

    No comment

  5. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 2 months ago

    OH WOW , no comment !  Going back to Thomas Jefferson  who had a very outspoken opine of everything politcal , resembling , by the way, ..... Trump !...................let's see , that is where every liberal from  Whoopi to   Juimmy Carter fails every single time ...................."No comment "  Like a non- opinion actually wins the Cuppie doll.?

 
working