HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama "whether one y...

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:28 PM

 

Obama "whether one year from now or 10. I can promise you America will remain engaged in the region"

Who pays? If the threat is real, we need a special wealth tax now, they are the people who can afford another 10 year war.... Working Ameticans are tapped.

Seems like a continuation of the perpetual war doctrine of the neocons. Ten years of war got us ISIL.... What new Hydra will emerge from the next ten years?

Link to quote from today NYT: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/middleeast/obama-syria-un-isis.html?smid=re-share&_r=0&referrer=

55 replies, 3296 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama "whether one year from now or 10. I can promise you America will remain engaged in the region" (Original post)
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 OP
frazzled Sep 2014 #1
Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #4
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #6
JaneyVee Sep 2014 #12
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #22
JaneyVee Sep 2014 #47
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #48
msanthrope Sep 2014 #17
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #23
msanthrope Sep 2014 #24
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #30
msanthrope Sep 2014 #39
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #41
msanthrope Sep 2014 #45
Zorra Sep 2014 #28
sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #14
Baclava Sep 2014 #49
sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #53
leftstreet Sep 2014 #2
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #5
leftstreet Sep 2014 #7
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #9
leftstreet Sep 2014 #13
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #31
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #33
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #37
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #38
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #42
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #43
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #46
Erose999 Sep 2014 #8
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #11
Erose999 Sep 2014 #16
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #19
Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #25
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #32
sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #15
leftstreet Sep 2014 #18
frazzled Sep 2014 #20
sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #29
woo me with science Sep 2014 #27
sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #34
liberal_at_heart Sep 2014 #35
woo me with science Sep 2014 #36
sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #54
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2014 #44
sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #50
CJCRANE Sep 2014 #3
GeorgeGist Sep 2014 #10
pampango Sep 2014 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #26
babylonsister Sep 2014 #52
Taitertots Sep 2014 #40
babylonsister Sep 2014 #51
grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #55

Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:34 PM

1. How about full (and correct) quote

But the only lasting solution to Syrias civil war is political an inclusive political transition that responds to the legitimate aspirations of all Syrian citizens, regardless of ethnicity or creed.

Cynics may argue that such an outcome can never come to pass. But there is no other way for this madness to end whether one year from now or ten. Indeed, its time for a broader negotiation in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding proxies. I can promise you America will remain engaged in the region, and we are prepared to engage in that effort.


So, he was saying that a political solution is the only way out of this, and whether that takes one year or ten, the US will remain engaged in that effort.

So he's not saying he wants to bomb for ten years. But nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:42 PM

4. K & R

It seems easy to make a partial statement if it suits your needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:55 PM

6. How's he going to pay for the war?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:00 PM

12. Congress holds the checkbook.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:02 PM

22. Not an answer. His war. Who pays?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 06:16 PM

47. We'll find out in November...

 

We know who will pay with a GOP majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #47)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:06 PM

48. Who does Obama want to have pay for the war? You?

 

Come on. This is not difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:15 PM

17. "He" won't. Congress will. GOTV 2014. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:02 PM

23. Not an answer. His war. Who pays?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:03 PM

24. According to the Constitution, it is your answer. GOTV 2014 and change the people making

 

the money decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:21 PM

30. Misdirection. Where does the money come from? CCPI - Grandma's retirement like he suggested before??

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:21 PM

39. The money comes from the Treasury. GOTV 2014 and help decide how it is spent. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:33 PM

41. No. The money needs to come from a special tax on those that can afford it to defend their

 

"Interests" in Iraq.

If this was really a problem, Obama should have no qualms about pushing this through.

We elected him to represent us. We GOTV. Now he needs to do the job he was em extend to do. Primary on that list is to get us out of Iraq.

If he can't do that, he needs to pay for his war of choice..... Not grandma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:39 PM

45. Absolutely a grand idea. Of course, since the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax,

 

it would not be the President who is "pushing" that through.

Here's a primer--



And I disagree with you about "getting out of Iraq." Right now, the government of Iraq has asked for us to be there. We owe them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:16 PM

28. Rhetorical question? We the people will pay for this war, in more ways than one. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:08 PM

14. It sounds like the rational for Libya. Which political entities is he referring to? Does it include

that government already there? Shouldn't THEY be a part of these 'political solutions'?

A nebulous statement. If we had actual journalists anymore, there are a whole lot of questions that arise out of that broad brush, Libya style statement.

Btw, Libya is now a failed state. It went from being one of Africa's most developed states, to resembling Mad Max.

Iraq has suffered from our altruism in much the same way.

Afghanistan also.

Next is Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 11:13 PM

49. It's becoming a trend, isn't it







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baclava (Reply #49)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:01 AM

53. They had a plan. The PNACers. Starting with Iraq but, as they said, 'in order to get

the people to support such a war would require an event of catastrophic proportions on the magnitude of Pearl Harbor'. They made a list of seven countries. They got their 'Pearl Harbor' and they lied their way into Iraq. They can cross Libya and Afghanistan off the list, they are destroyed, regime change has been accomplished, in the most brutal way possible.

Syria has been difficult for them, but you have to hand it to those neocons, they NEVER GIVE UP.

Soon, they will be able to cross Syria off the list also. It was clever, what they came up to accomplish the invasion of Syria, but I am willing to bet regime change will be accomplished before too long. Soon we will hear how Assad is refusing to 'cooperate' or some such charge.

I remember Michael Ledeen, the liar who was part of Cheney's Shadow Government stating they would turn the ME into a Parking Lot. When asked how long that it would take, he replied 'Faster Please'.

How quickly some people have forgotten the goals of those who signed the Project For A New American Century.

The neocons are smiling tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:38 PM

2. How does Syria want to handle their problems?

Did anyone from Syria speak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:53 PM

5. ISIL Is not JUST in Syria .

 

They claimed Iraqi land too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:56 PM

7. How does Iraq want to handle their problems?

Did anyone from Iraq speak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:58 PM

9. a brand new govt in Iraq.....

 

Very very new....How much you want to bet theysupport it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:03 PM

13. We all wish them well n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:22 PM

31. You mean the military that abandoned their weapons to ISIL?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:25 PM

33. and you condemn the Yadziki and Kurds

 

Because of those few cowards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:09 PM

37. Few? It's a 400,000 man army trained with 25 billion of grandmas retirement money,

 

That not only can't defeat 20,000 guys in pickup trucks, but intentionally gives them grandmas tanks, and then joins forces with them.

It's a 1400 year old war.

In my view, we are the problem, not the solution, in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:20 PM

38. you condemn all the Iraqi soldiers fo the

 

Coeardice of a few? Your position is becoming very clear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:34 PM

42. Cowardice? They are fighting us. Still.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:37 PM

43. they joined ISIS or ran away..

 

Please link where it said they joined them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:58 PM

8. Because Iraq let them have it by putting up no resistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:59 PM

11. they were overwhelmed

 

ISILare not al Queda they are worse...Do we just stand by and let ISIL take over Iraq? Who do YOU think would get blamedfor THAT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:09 PM

16. Iraq has a standing army of 270,000 and a reserve/paramilitary capacity of 500,000. They are at the


very least evenly matched to ISIS (if not vastly superior) in terms of equipment and funding. Why can't they fight their own war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:53 PM

19. perhaps because they currentky have weak leadership?

 

A brand new Govt

Why dont more Americans vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:04 PM

25. Iraq's leaders was weak, hopefully the new ones will start getting their country going.

I look around and possible weakness with potential candidates, we need a strong leader to work for the majority of the US, Iraq had a leader who only wanted his "friends" doing better. I don't know how long it will take to get rid of the radicals but with the threats to US facilities it is not something to hide one's head in the sand. Do I like war, no, but reality dictates courses to be taken. I believe in our leader, we will work through this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:24 PM

32. i agree.. this knee jerk response to a leader who

 

Is deliberative is discocerting to say the least...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:09 PM

15. The Syrian people voted but when you are on a PNAC list of countries where

'regime change' is the goal, no one cares what you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:20 PM

18. Truth n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:57 PM

20. Wow, an actual Assad apologist here!

It's amazing. He surely was democratically elected, with 97.6% of the vote! (Of course, no other candidate was on the ballot.) And he's sure an advocate of democracy:

A 2007 law required internet cafes to record all the comments users post on chat forums.[44] Websites such as Wikipedia Arabic, YouTube and Facebook were blocked intermittently between 2008 and February 2011.[45][46][47]

Human Rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have detailed how Assads's government and secret police routinely tortured, imprisoned, and killed political opponents, and those who speak out against the government.[48][49] Since 2006 it expanded the use of travel bans against dissidents. In that regard, Syria is the worst offender among Arab states.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad


200,000 people are now dead in Syria over the past three years, many of them killed by Assad's forces. More than 2 million are refugees.

You certainly seem to like dictators like Assad and Qadaffi: things are ever so much more stable when they're in power, aren't they, and we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about the oppressed there, so everything's cool.

There are moral dilemmas in this world that are not simple. And not pretty. But ignoring oppression is to side with it. That's a valid choice. But if you think it makes our hands clean when we do it, you're dead wrong. There were many isolationists on the left who fought our entrance into World War II as well. For as much blood as we shed (on our side and theirs) in that war--and it was far worse than anything we've seen today--had we stayed out we would have blood on our hands still, and a world none of us would want to inhabit.

Just don't talk about "the people" when you're dealing with dictatorships. That's so low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:17 PM

29. Are you a citizen of that country? Any reason why you feel you have any right to intervene

that country's business?

'Ignoring oppression'. Giving the people who actually live in a country the right to determine their own futures, unlike Iraq eg, where over the decades, we consistently PREVENTED opposition to Hussein, while he was our puppet, then we go in when we have no more uses for him and destroy the country.

WE did that. rather than get out of their affairs and allow the people there to do it themselves without having to hand over control of more than 80% of their oil revenues, which we forced them to do otherwise we were not leaving, THAT is being an apologist for what again?

I could say YOU are being an apologist for the theft of these countries' resources and their right to determine their own futures.

Btw, since you are so concerned about opression, I have never seen you speak on behave of the victims of one our closest allies, Karamov in Uzbekistan. A man known for boiling people in oil, genocide against his own people, to whom we pay MILLIONS of tax dollars to keep in power.

Where is your 'concern' for those people to whose oppression we have been contributing for years?

Don't you call me an apologist for dictators when anyone who knows me knows how I have spoken out against them for as long as I have been aware of them.

Mubarak, Saddam, the Shah of Iran, Karamov, the Bahrain Dictatorship.

Are you an apologist now for the Bahrain Dictatorship because they are helping us to bomb Syria? Or are you consistent in your 'concern' for people who are oppressed and expressing your disgust at this country using such an oppressive regime to 'stop oppression'? Seriously?

Who elected the Bahrain Regime, the Saudi Regime, the Qatar Regime, Jordon's royal family?

You expose a certain selective 'concern' for those who are oppressed.

I object to our enabling of dictators all over the world. Without our assistance, most of them would have been toppled long ago by their own people.

I take it you object to the US now aligning itself with several of the world's worst OPPRESSIVE Dictatorships in order to go to Syria to end 'oppression' there? I have not seen you say how you feel about those dictatorships or especially about their seriously oppressed victims.

Amazing comment ftrom you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:13 PM

27. ^^^^^ This is the correct answer. ^^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:26 PM

34. Thank you! i note the hypocrisy of those claimiing we are only 'helping the oppressed' when I ask

how they feel about our five 'allies' in this endeavor. Bahrain eg, not a single comment on that brutal regime's oppression of its own people.

The 'concern' about elections in Syria, eg. Who elected the brutal regime in Bahrain? I am hoping I will get an answer as to why there is no concern about these 'allies' and THEIR 'elections'. Qatar? Saudi Arabia? Elections? But they are our ALLIES in helping the oppressed!!

It's unbelievable the level of hypocrisy that has to be engaged in to try to support this latest endeavor. They can't claim we are there for humanitarian purposes without being reminded WHO our allies really are, can they?

And they dare to call those of us who refuse to ignore OPPRESSION that WE are enabling.

Just simply amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:31 PM

35. the only reason they are supporting it is because we have a democratic president. If we had a

republican president right now the board would be almost unanimous in opposition to the war. The reason for the war is not altruistic and neither are the reasons people are supporting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:06 PM

36. What a moral sewer we are witnessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #36)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:08 AM

54. Yes, it has been very revealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:38 PM

44. proof please....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 11:35 PM

50. I know. And it is important to know that while WE, who were against Iraq not just because it

was a Republican there, but because it was WRONG, actually thought we among people who shared those principles, it's important to know that this was not the case at all.

You can't 'change' anything if you are simply being USED as we were. The problem for them now however is that those who were sincere in their opposition to our brutal foreign policies, won't be fooled again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:59 PM

10. Clusterfuck forever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:00 PM

21. I hope we "remain engaged" (not militarily) with the entire globe.

FDR: "The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity - or it will move apart."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/franklind401920.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:11 PM

26. Yep. Same war, same reason.

 

?w=655

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #26)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 11:44 PM

52. Wrong.

I hope. I have faith in this Prez. He hasn't let me down much, unlike dim son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:25 PM

40. We are always at war with everyone and no one

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 11:39 PM

51. STOP IT! See post #1. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #51)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:19 AM

55. Really? Do I need to debunk that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread