President Obama has sent in lots of ground troops - in fact he increased the numbers in Afghanistan by many tens of thousands.
You simply can't win a war without boots on the ground and the current debacle in Libya is a clear case in point. What a clusterf**k.
So Obama didn't yank 1000s of troops out in one go? As he has to clear up the God awful mess left by his predecessor.
Poor old Nixon had the same mess with Vietnam.
Quote: Marc P @ April 11 2011, 8:43 AM BSTWhat on earth has that got to do with anything?
If the constituents of a local politician reject him then it's a good sign that he'll probably prove unpopular on the national level. If the people of Illinois were unhappy with Obama's senatorial performance he never would have become president.
Quote: DaButt @ April 11 2011, 8:36 AM BSTYou'll recall that America's fights with Iraq and Al Qaeda began long before he took office. President Gore would have fought the same wars.
A serious question, DaButt. Do you genuinely think that Bush was a good president and that his lousy reputation is purely down to some liberal smear machine?
Quote: sootyj @ April 11 2011, 8:47 AM BSTSo Obama didn't yank 1000s of troops out in one go? As he has to clear up the God awful mess left by his predecessor.
Adding tens of thousands is exactly the opposite of withdrawing and certainly counts as "sending in ground troops."
You guys are putting way too much power in one man's hands. These wars were inevitable and are not controlled by a single person. You have an entire government (consisting of two parties which can barely agree on anything) as well as a huge military and let's not forget about the 300 million citizens. George Bush didn't start those wars any more than Obama started the one in Libya.
No I don't think he had that much power, leaders rarely do and the US system seems purposely designed to keep one sector from having too much control (as opposed to Blair who was famous for having real control)
But the President sets the tone, promotes decisions and chooses advisers.
And Bush certainly knew what he wanted and where he was going
Quote: chipolata @ April 11 2011, 8:51 AM BSTA serious question, DaButt. Do you genuinely think that Bush was a good president and that his lousy reputation is purely down to some liberal smear machine?
I'd say he was an average president on the whole. He did what he thought was best for the country and managed to keep his cool while being vilified for political purposes by his opponents. My biggest gripe is that he got a little sloppy with spending near the end. I'm hoping that whoever gets elected next year will cut spending and the debt in a meaningful way.
The economy is a mysterious creature. The idea that debt is an inerently bad thing is a bit of a dangerous conservative cannard. The idea that the economy will solve all is lethal.
Quote: sootyj @ April 11 2011, 9:03 AM BSTAnd Bush certainly knew what he wanted and where he was going
He had no choice in Aghanistan and Iraq was bound to happen sooner or later. People seem to have forgotten just how many scuffles we had with Saddam from 1991 until 2003. It's a pity that Iraq decided to have a civil war after Saddam was deposed and that we let Syria and Iran get away with fanning the flames.
Quote: DaButt @ April 11 2011, 9:04 AM BSTI'd say he was an average president on the whole. He did what he thought was best for the country and managed to keep his cool while being vilified for political purposes by his opponents.
And Obama hasn't been vilified for political purposes by his opponents? He's Muslim, not a true American, Nazi death panels, etc, etc, etc.
Quote: sootyj @ April 11 2011, 9:09 AM BSTThe economy is a mysterious creature. The idea that debt is an inerently bad thing is a bit of a dangerous conservative cannard. The idea that the economy will solve all is lethal.
When your debt outpaces your income the only outcome is disaster. With exceptions for emergencies, the government shouldn't spend more than it takes in.
If you and I handled our personal finances like our governments handle theirs we'd all be living in cardboard boxes under a bridge.
Quote: DaButt @ April 11 2011, 9:13 AM BSTWhen your debt outpaces your income the only outcome is disaster. With exceptions for emergencies, the government shouldn't spend more than it takes in. If you and I handled our personal finances like our governments handle theirs we'd all be living in cardboard boxes under a bridge.
I agree, DaButt. The US needs to regulate the bankers and Wall Street more.
Quote: DaButt @ April 11 2011, 9:04 AM BSTwhile being vilified for political purposes
Oh come on
Bush is accused of being a former drunk, alcoholic, cocaine addict, being reliant on his dads influence, dodging service in Vietnam, pissing on peoples cars, being massively indebted for political capital to big corps who hugely benefited from his foolish foreign adventures.
All true.
Obama accused of being a none American, a Muslim, racist, a socialist and other things. None true.
You can accuse Bush's critics of being unfair, and a little unforgiving of past mistakes.
Obama's are frankly f**king insane and question the role of the right wing media in a functional democracy,.
Quote: chipolata @ April 11 2011, 9:10 AM BSTAnd Obama hasn't been vilified for political purposes by his opponents? He's Muslim, not a true American, Nazi death panels, etc, etc, etc.
Sure, it's all part of the game. But the press has only recently begun to feel brave enough to criticize him and Europeans still seem almost incapable of doing so. Nobel Peace Prize, anyone?
I detest people who treat political parties like they were sports rivalries. "My team can do no wrong and yours can do no right" makes me sick. The amount of vitriol directed at Bush was 50x more than he deserved and damaging to our nation for the precedent that it set for future political battles.
Quote: chipolata @ April 11 2011, 9:16 AM BSTI agree, DaButt. The US needs to regulate the bankers and Wall Street more.
Except it's government spending that has us mired in debt. Can't blame that on Wall Street. The blame lies at the feet of politicians who spent wildly over the last few decades and seem unwilling to change their ways. They will or they'll find themselves looking for new jobs very soonish.
Quote: sootyj @ April 11 2011, 9:17 AM BSTOh come on
Bush is accused of being a former drunk, alcoholic, cocaine addict, being reliant on his dads influence, dodging service in Vietnam, pissing on peoples cars, being massively indebted for political capital to big corps who hugely benefited from his foolish foreign adventures.
An awful lot of those hold true for our current president, too.
Catch up we've been slating him since he bottled it on healthcare and releasing the Guantanomo prisoners.
We look at him as being the best of a bad lot.
And it must be nice for Obama to be criticised for something he genuinely got wrong. As opposed to the fever dreams of right wing lunatics.
Quote: DaButt @ April 11 2011, 9:29 AM BSTAn awful lot of those hold true for our current president, too.
If it was true 1000s of troops would be patrolling Trippoli and Qadaffi's execution videos would be racking up the views on YouTube.
Oh and a cheery sniff of the Bolivian marching powder at uni is not the same as being a puling self pitying addict, with all the dangers of relapse.