Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Forking this off from another thread.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

biccat wrote:Seriously, how can you blame Bush for starting the wars and not pass at least some of the blame onto Obama for continuing them?

"How can you blame Fred for setting the house on fire and not pass at least some of the blame onto Joe for not putting them out yet?". I think I'm being trolled here, I have a hard time believing someone seriously asked that.

I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have.

I consider myself a independent voter who generally leans liberal and generally, but by no means exclusively, vote Democrat - in the midterm elections my state votes were 50/50 D&R. I voted for Obama in 2008.

That being said, I agree with Biicat. At what point does Obama begin to own the wars started by his predecessor?

If the generals and the military minds decide that now we have troops there it is foolish to leave, then Obama has to stay.

Its pretty much Bush.

People slate Obama because they are ridiculously partisan, you cant tell me that any genuine "independent" would even attempt to lay half of the blame for this with Obama surely?

I'd say at one year into his term. If a policy is really that unendurable to you, that's plenty of time to try to at least start to change it. So either he's on board - because, as I assume all politicians lie constantly for their own benefit, arbitrarily take stances on issues based on how they will benefit them, and couldn't care less about anyone not in their elect circle; or he's afraid of changing something and having to take responsibility if things get worse because of that. I think its something of a blend of the two.

I'm not really sure what there is to 'own'.

I mean, can anyone give an acceptable set of conditions for declaring victory and getting out, and a list of policies that could have been followed by Obama to reach those conditions?

It's fair enough that people are tired of the wars, and the cost in lives and treasure. But to blame someone for something, you need to be able to explain what they ought to have done to have solved the issue.

Ouze wrote:Forking this off from another thread.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

biccat wrote:Seriously, how can you blame Bush for starting the wars and not pass at least some of the blame onto Obama for continuing them?

"How can you blame Fred for setting the house on fire and not pass at least some of the blame onto Joe for not putting them out yet?". I think I'm being trolled here, I have a hard time believing someone seriously asked that.

I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have.

I consider myself a independent voter who generally leans liberal and generally, but by no means exclusively, vote Democrat - in the midterm elections my state votes were 50/50 D&R. I voted for Obama in 2008.

That being said, I agree with Biicat. At what point does Obama begin to own the wars started by his predecessor?

As soon as he becomes president. It's a standard principle of international diplomacy that a nation's foreign policy commitments are continuous and do not get rescinded by a change of government.

That said, to extricate yourself from a mess like Iraq is not a quick and easy job.

mattyrm wrote: If the generals and the military minds decide that now we have troops there it is foolish to leave, then Obama has to stay.

In this country, there is a civilian control of the military. The thought that it's up to unelected generals is laughable. They supply the violence, we tell them where, and how much... and for how long.

mattyrm wrote: People slate Obama because they are ridiculously partisan, you cant tell me that any genuine "independent" would even attempt to lay half of the blame for this with Obama surely?

Are you saying there are no legitimate criticisms of Obama? That only people who have a partisan bent can find issue with any of his actions?

He's been president for three years. Nixon ended Vietnam in less then that.

Ouze wrote:

mattyrm wrote: If the generals and the military minds decide that now we have troops there it is foolish to leave, then Obama has to stay.

In this country, there is a civilian control of the military. The thought that it's up to unelected generals is laughable. They supply the violence, we tell them where, and how much... and for how long.

mattyrm wrote: People slate Obama because they are ridiculously partisan, you cant tell me that any genuine "independent" would even attempt to lay half of the blame for this with Obama surely?

Are you saying there are no legitimate criticisms of Obama? That only people who have a partisan bent can find issue with any of his actions?

He's been president for three years. Nixon ended Vietnam in less then that.

Yeah poor wording on my part, I didnt mean has to stay, what I meant was that if you ask the top soldiers for their advice, and they all tell you the same thing, then its ridiculously stupid to do otherwise. If your cars fethed, ask a mechnic for advice, if your healths fethed, ask a doctor, and if your in a war, ask a soldier. Ignoring said advice really is silly.

And no, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama, I dont particularly like the bloke. But lets be honest, 80% of it is just stupid. So its either partisan, or good old old fashioned racism.

Dammed if he does dammed if he doesn't.

Taking the approach that it is our (collective USA) mess so we should clean it up [or at least try to resolve it], seems only right.

He would look like an arsehat of George W Bush proportions if Obama turned round on day 1 of his term and said "well thats was his mistake, so i'll just be leaving the fire he created to burn on its own". As Ouze points out he is 3 years in and a wind down has begun, tht actually seems expedient to me when you consider what Afganistan was like even a couple of years ago.

As for the Vietnam example, thats hardly a good example of a successful outcome.

mattyrm wrote:

Ouze wrote:Are you saying there are no legitimate criticisms of Obama? That only people who have a partisan bent can find issue with any of his actions?

And no, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama, I dont particularly like the bloke. But lets be honest, 80% of it is just stupid. So its either partisan, or good old old fashioned racism.

So there you have it. The only legitimate criticisms of Obama are based on personality. The rest is partisan or racism.

Any time something goes wrong during Obama's term, it's Bush's fault. Although I do recall the President blaming the Japanese earthquake* for the lack of recovery. So maybe it's not entirely Bush's fault. Although...


(yes, it's a conservative news site, but I'm linking because it has a video of the idiot-in-chief making this statement)

Bush was to blame for anything from 2001-2009 when he left office. Obama is to blame from 2009 on.

Now if you want to blame who started the war, blame the terrorists who started the precipitous chain of events. If you want to blame Bush for the Iraq war, this is justified as it was an extra war tacked onto a gigantic search and destroy mission that turned into a war. Obama becomes responsible for the actions of our military now, but like any president, he is checked by the other branches of our government who have some level of say in the actions of our military overseas and what they do. So the American government is really an underlying blame as well.

Now if we want to go back and really peel through the layers of history, what really caused us to go to war in the first place? Do we have someone who wants to go and point to Charlie Wilson's War for an answer, or turn to the Gulf War for that one?

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Ouze wrote:Are you saying there are no legitimate criticisms of Obama? That only people who have a partisan bent can find issue with any of his actions?

And no, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama, I dont particularly like the bloke. But lets be honest, 80% of it is just stupid. So its either partisan, or good old old fashioned racism.

So there you have it. The only legitimate criticisms of Obama are based on personality. The rest is partisan or racism.

Any time something goes wrong during Obama's term, it's Bush's fault. Although I do recall the President blaming the Japanese earthquake* for the lack of recovery. So maybe it's not entirely Bush's fault. Although...


(yes, it's a conservative news site, but I'm linking because it has a video of the idiot-in-chief making this statement)

Seriously though, have you seen how right wing I am? I don't even remotely like the smug demenour of Obama, and I dislike many of his ideas and If a genuine criticism is aimed at him, Im happy to see the mud stick. But I'm man enough to admit what is and isn't the guys fault.

The fact of the matter is, a large amount of what the tea party types are slinging at him really IS ridiculous, and some of it absolutely is linked to racism.

Well Obama did make certain promises, and if he doesnt keep them then that much can be blamed on him.

I cannot recall if he promised the electorate to with draw by a certain timeline, and if he did and US troops are still there after that timeline its his fault. If he set no dealines he can justly claim its not his fault, wether the electorate or history will listen is another matter entirely. At least in this case we can blame Iraq on Bush clearly and honestly and not his own predecessors. Vietnam could not fully be blamed on Johnson, the seeds were sown by Kennedy and Johnson had little choice in 1965 but to continue on the path set for him and it could have worked at that time.

On a related note he promised to close Gitmo as soon as he was elected, he pretended to do so, but its still there, as in the detention camp is still running not just the base.

On the one hand, pulling it out now would be a monumental waste of all the lives that have been lost so far...

...but on the other, Afghanistan is one of those unwinable wars. There will always be people willing to fight against an occupying force and this will drag on and on.

Flashman wrote:On the one hand, pulling it out now would be a monumental waste of all the lives that have been lost so far...

...but on the other, Afghanistan is one of those unwinable wars. There will always be people willing to fight against an occupying force and this will drag on and on.

Learn from the Soviet union. We might have more gizmos than the soviets had, and can offset more of the combat roles onto bloodless drones, but we cannot match the true strength of the Soviet union, hordes on the ground. Even so hordes didnt work even from an adjacent step off point.

This lesson should have been learned.

mattyrm wrote:Seriously though, have you seen how right wing I am?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be a strong national socialist, minus the fascism and racism. You seem to be an early-20th century "right-winger." Maybe "anti-communist" or "right-wing socialist" would be more appropriate.

mattyrm wrote:The fact of the matter is, a large amount of what the tea party types are slinging at him really IS ridiculous, and some of it absolutely is linked to racism.

Like what? While I'm sure that there is some criticism based in racism (just as I'm sure some of the anti-Bush criticism was based in racism), the vast majority of criticism of Obama is based on his policies, not on his personality.

Orlanth wrote:Well Obama did make certain promises, and if he doesnt keep them then that much can be blamed on him.

I cannot recall if he promised the electorate to with draw by a certain timeline, and if he did and US troops are still there after that timeline its his fault.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3679777

After a stream of "Hey, I'm not Bush!" BS ->1:20. 16 months?

Why does it matter? Fix the problem, not the blame.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Well Obama did make certain promises, and if he doesnt keep them then that much can be blamed on him.

I cannot recall if he promised the electorate to with draw by a certain timeline, and if he did and US troops are still there after that timeline its his fault.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3679777

After a stream of "Hey, I'm not Bush!" BS ->1:20. 16 months?

Let's please not get into the "He's Not Bush!" style BS that "earned" him the Nobel Peace Prize 6 months or so into his presidency.

Platuan4th wrote:Let's please not get into the "He's Not Bush!" style BS that "earned" him the Nobel Peace Prize 6 months or so into his presidency.

Actually, I do think he earned a Nobel prize... but not for what he got it for. Which was undefined, at best, and he appeared pretty awkward getting it.

What I think earned him the prize was during the primary debates, when he stated that he would meet foreign leaders with no preconditions, and that he would strive to eliminate nuclear weapons. Saying those things, at that time, was a very risky thing for him to have said, with very real consequences - he was roundly claimed to be naive by all present* - but he said them and stuck by them anyway. I don't think it's possible to actually eliminate nuclear weapons, but striving to do something is a pretty peace-y thing to do .



*Come to think of it, when he said during the election he would pursue targets in Pakistan, he was also roundly decried as naive. History kinda proved him right on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flashman wrote:On the one hand, pulling it out now would be a monumental waste of all the lives that have been lost so far...

By that rationale, we'd still be in Vietnam.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Seriously though, have you seen how right wing I am?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be a strong national socialist.

How!? I even argue that we should feth the NHS off and do it like you guys!

In what way would you say I am a strong national socialist?

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Seriously though, have you seen how right wing I am?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be a strong national socialist.

How!? I even argue that we should feth the NHS off and do it like you guys!

In what way would you say I am a strong national socialist?

You've expressed strong support for the UK's social programs, including NHS, pensions, and welfare (unemployment). You remind me a lot of my dad, who's very conservative, but supports programs like Medicare and Social Security because he's paid into them.

Except what you "pay into" these systems isn't reserved for your benefit, it's given out to those currently on the dole. Just because you've been screwed out of your money doesn't give you the right to screw someone else out of theirs.

I think its the non-rascist swastica that you strong national socialists like to wear?

Seriously, trying to pigeon-hole matty is like trying to get yanks to accept free healthcare for all - it just ain't going to happen.

Damn, now i'm doing it!

Ouze wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Let's please not get into the "He's Not Bush!" style BS that "earned" him the Nobel Peace Prize 6 months or so into his presidency.

Actually, I do think he earned a Nobel prize... but not for what he got it for. Which was undefined, at best, and he appeared pretty awkward getting it.

What I think earned him the prize was during the primary debates, when he stated that he would meet foreign leaders with no preconditions, and that he would strive to eliminate nuclear weapons. Saying those things, at that time, was a very risky thing for him to have said, with very real consequences - he was roundly claimed to be naive by all present* - but he said them and stuck by them anyway. I don't think it's possible to actually eliminate nuclear weapons, but striving to do something is a pretty peace-y thing to do .



*Come to think of it, when he said during the election he would pursue targets in Pakistan, he was also roundly decried as naive. History kinda proved him right on that.

While I respect your opinion, I disagree. I believe the Nobel Prize should be based on merit of actually doing something, NOT promising that you will. The fact that he had 8 months to do it in(not even that, considering he was nominated 2 weeks into his presidency and they decide who gets it before the 8 months between the nominations and the presentations) isn't enough time to prove that he has the real merit to carry through on his promise. Other presidents that have received it during their presidency didn't receive it until 2-3 years into their term. It was premature and therefore undeserved at that time.

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Ouze wrote:Are you saying there are no legitimate criticisms of Obama? That only people who have a partisan bent can find issue with any of his actions?

And no, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama, I dont particularly like the bloke. But lets be honest, 80% of it is just stupid. So its either partisan, or good old old fashioned racism.

So there you have it. The only legitimate criticisms of Obama are based on personality. The rest is partisan or racism.

Any time something goes wrong during Obama's term, it's Bush's fault. Although I do recall the President blaming the Japanese earthquake* for the lack of recovery. So maybe it's not entirely Bush's fault. Although...


(yes, it's a conservative news site, but I'm linking because it has a video of the idiot-in-chief making this statement)

Seriously though, have you seen how right wing I am? I don't even remotely like the smug demenour of Obama, and I dislike many of his ideas and If a genuine criticism is aimed at him, Im happy to see the mud stick. But I'm man enough to admit what is and isn't the guys fault.

The fact of the matter is, a large amount of what the tea party types are slinging at him really IS ridiculous, and some of it absolutely is linked to racism.

The reason why I respect you <3 <3

QFT

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Seriously though, have you seen how right wing I am?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be a strong national socialist.

How!? I even argue that we should feth the NHS off and do it like you guys!

In what way would you say I am a strong national socialist?

You've expressed strong support for the UK's social programs, including NHS, pensions, and welfare (unemployment). You remind me a lot of my dad, who's very conservative, but supports programs like Medicare and Social Security because he's paid into them.

Except what you "pay into" these systems isn't reserved for your benefit, it's given out to those currently on the dole. Just because you've been screwed out of your money doesn't give you the right to screw someone else out of theirs.

I dont think Ive ever strongly supported the NHS or welfare because the NHS pays for gak like sex changes which I always complain about, in fact, didnt I just argue on your side on this issue two days ago? Hang on ill go find it.... from the healthcare thread a few days ago..

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:the notion you'd rather trust a profit driven insurance firm over the state to provide your medical care is boggling.

I feel exactly the opposite. The idea of trusing a 'free' medical system is completely boggling to me. Maybe it's a cultural thing.

Its not a cultural thing Bic, cos Im British and I agree with you. MGS is a screaming socialist and this is obviously playing havock with his common sense, I mean, isnt it pretty much a given fact that in the UK if you rock up to the doctors and he says "Oh that mole might be nasty, best get it lopped off" you will have to wait for 6 weeks, but if you are willing to pay an go private it can happen tomorrow? How then (MGS) do you reconcile that with "people trust the NHS more" if people regularly pay to go private?

I only don't pay for BUPA because im a stubborn bastard, and I figure if im forced to pay for the NHS, then Im using the fether if I get sick.

If I could get a 10% tax break, or pay 20% less national insurance if I paid for private, then I absolutely would take out private health insurance, BUPA has an excellent reputation.

If I go to the NHS waiting room, I'm behind illegal immigrants and hypochondriac health anxiety mother fethers and whatever other dregs of society are in the line in front of me. I find it offensive.

If I have paid into the system for 30 years, why the feth don't I get precedence over some fething Iraqi that's here illegally? Or some Somalian that lives in a nicer house than me but hasn't paid any taxes before? Or some white trash fething chav that's in with liver problems because he spends all his lovely dole money on special brew every week?

I have all sorts of issues with the NHS, Im just aware that its marginally better than the US system.

It doesnt mean I cant agree with what alot of guys like biccat say.

And I think people on wellfare do it for a fething career!

I mean, sure I think we should have some sort of government assistance for the sick, but I don't think im a strong supporter of the NHS, Pensions or wellfare as it shows above.

As I said, ive always thought of myself as centre right. Just because im left of you mate, doesn't mean I strongly support wellfare and socialised medicine.

"If I get the blame, than I get the credit too!"

By this point, while Obama might be making the best choice possible, he's still choosing to stay engaged in those wars. So, yes, he's part of the reason we're still there.

The flip side is that he'll be able to take credit for any positives.

I still argue that if you paint somebody into a corner, but it's stil the best decision for them stay there... well... you're still responsible. I think he could do a better job of explaining why it's better to stay there than to leave, but I've been saying that since soon after the fall of Baghdad.

That seems unlikely, at least the credit part: I saw an awful lot of conservatives crediting W when Osama was killed, despite the fact his largest "contribution" to the search for Bin Laden was disbanding Alec Station. That, and not following USCENTCOM's recommendation for extra troops at Tora Bora. That worked out well.

Of course, that's what you'd expect from Dubya, as he said in his own words: “He’s just a person who’s been marginalized . . . I don’t know where he is. I just don’t spend much time on him, to be homest with you."

Christ, just reading that reminds me that as disappointed as I have been with some of Obama's policies, he's still a pretty significant upgrade.

Platuan4th wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Let's please not get into the "He's Not Bush!" style BS that "earned" him the Nobel Peace Prize 6 months or so into his presidency.

Actually, I do think he earned a Nobel prize... but not for what he got it for. Which was undefined, at best, and he appeared pretty awkward getting it.

What I think earned him the prize was during the primary debates, when he stated that he would meet foreign leaders with no preconditions, and that he would strive to eliminate nuclear weapons. Saying those things, at that time, was a very risky thing for him to have said, with very real consequences - he was roundly claimed to be naive by all present* - but he said them and stuck by them anyway. I don't think it's possible to actually eliminate nuclear weapons, but striving to do something is a pretty peace-y thing to do .



*Come to think of it, when he said during the election he would pursue targets in Pakistan, he was also roundly decried as naive. History kinda proved him right on that.

While I respect your opinion, I disagree. I believe the Nobel Prize should be based on merit of actually doing something, NOT promising that you will. The fact that he had 8 months to do it in(not even that, considering he was nominated 2 weeks into his presidency and they decide who gets it before the 8 months between the nominations and the presentations) isn't enough time to prove that he has the real merit to carry through on his promise. Other presidents that have received it during their presidency didn't receive it until 2-3 years into their term. It was premature and therefore undeserved at that time.

Obama did not solicit the prize. Having been awarded it, it would have been a diplomatic insult for him to refuse the honour. He accepted with the minimum fanfare possible and seems to have ignored the incident ever since.

One reason he got nominated was that there weren't many viable candidates anyway. Of course, the prize doesn't have to be given. I suspect Obama won it mainly for not being Bush, whose prestige was very low in Europe at that time.

If Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks of their presidents, they needn't get worked up about these things.

Orlanth wrote:
Learn from the Soviet union. We might have more gizmos than the soviets had, and can offset more of the combat roles onto bloodless drones, but we cannot match the true strength of the Soviet union, hordes on the ground. Even so hordes didnt work even from an adjacent step off point.

This lesson should have been learned.

At the peak of deployment, the Soviet-Afghan forces outnumbered the present coalition deployment by ~40,000 and if the Afghan forces aren't considered, the coalition deployment is larger by ~15,000. Because the Brezhnev Doctrine, which isolated the various Communist Parties from one another, Moscow had a very limited ability to call on the collected Soviet army; meaning that it was practically limited to Russian forces. Still a large force, but, if estimates are to be believed, only about 1-1.5 million in excess of the United States, and with far more commitments at home.

Additionally, comparing the Soviet deployment to the coalition one without considering tactical approaches and strategic goals is a bit simplistic. While I agree that the invasion was likely ill-advised from a military perspective, the idea that it was so simply because the Soviets failed is unfounded.



As for Obama's responsibility, yes he is responsible for the choices made by his administration. Whether or not that means he is entirely to blame for our present deployment is a bit different. In the case of Afghanistan I would say yes, he actively chose to not only stay, but commit additional forces. However, he had explicitly said this is something that he would do from essentially the beginning of the Presidential campaign, so its difficult to really take umbrage. Regarding Iraq, he has indeed removed a large number of troops from the nation, which to wit is essentially what he promised to do. You blame him for not removing enough, as we still have a large deployment there, but he is still in consistency with the SOFA inked by the Bush Administration that specifies an end to deployment December 31st 2011 (which was calculated as the, optimistic, earliest possible date due to logistics).

The test will come if a new SOFA is negotiated, which is probably will be, at that point Obama would take a greater share of responsibility.