6 ms·

Can he be please be President for the next 4 years as well? regards the rest of the world

by sien 10y ago

Mikeb85 10y ago
Because we need more Libyas and Syrias...
- pavlov 10y ago
  The Libyan intervention was probably a mistake (though it's important to note it was a NATO operation with full support from European partners, unlike the invasion of Iraq). But what should he have done about Syria?
  - postcarnival 10y ago
    stayed in iraq longer, stop supporting the saudis, stop selling arms to saudi/rebel/others
    - threeseed 10y ago
      Might want to brush up on your world affairs. Iraq is a sovereign country. They asked the US to leave and quite rightly they did. And all of this happened under GWB's watch.
    - pavlov 10y ago
      A permanent occupation of Iraq in a situation where you've intentionally broken relations with Iraq's large and powerful neighbor Saudi Arabia sounds like a recipe for much larger trouble than even current Syria!
  - meric 10y ago
    Stop defending Aleppo.
    - pavlov 10y ago
      Obama should stop defending Aleppo? How? Asking the rebels to surrender?
      - meric 10y ago
        http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/us-advisers-wounded-syria/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/us-advisers-wound... Stop giving terrorists (Al-Nusra) advisors.
        ceejayoz 10y ago
        Is there any reputable evidence that the US is supporting Al Nusra?
        meric 10y ago
        Yes. And who do you think these U.S. advisors were helping, really? The Syrian army? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-al-qaeda-l_b_10089410.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-al-nusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-w... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-equipment-idUSKCN0RP2HO20150926 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-equipme... http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715977/al-nusra-us-arming-jihadists-syria http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715977/al-nusra-us-armin...
        ceejayoz 10y ago
        > And who do you think these U.S. advisors were helping, really? The Syrian army? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces Your four links show zero cases of the US supporting Al Nusra. One's talking about how in the chaos the lines between groups get blurred, one's random op-ed spitballing from a newspaper owned by a Russian oligarch, one's talking about a rebel group negotiating for safe passage (six pickup trucks and some ammo - having to include that really helps make my point), and the last is claiming that the US supporting UAE/Saudis means the US is supporting Al Nusra.
  - _delirium 10y ago
    > it's important to note it was a NATO operation with full support from European partners, unlike the invasion of Iraq Not wrong in the general thrust, but I think "full support from European partners" is overstating it a bit. By raw numbers, it had support of about half of the European NATO members. It's true that the half supporting were generally more important/core members than the half abstaining or opposing though; the only really core NATO member who conspicuously abstained was Germany. Others abstaining were mostly new or more peripheral members, but still a significant number: Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Hungary.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Libya was going to happen with or without US support. And let's be clear the involvement of the US was limited to refuelling, air support i.e minimal. But remember Gaddafi was imminently going to wipe out significant numbers of opposition supporters. So it was always going to be a lose-lose situation.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  Obama's probably significantly less likely to create as many Libyas and Syrias than Clinton or Trump.
ChrisClark 10y ago
That's what's crazy. Some of the US wants Trump to be president, 99% of the world doesn't. What's the disconnect?
- postcarnival 10y ago
  if that were true, which it's not, what does it matter? it's not their country... sovereignty is a thing still
  - cyberferret 10y ago
    International treaties are a thing too - e.g. ANZUS treaty here in Australia at a time when China is sabre rattling in the region. We don't want a US president who is going to dismantle such treaties at a vital time.
    - postcarnival 10y ago
      So what? what does the United States care what anyone else thinks? We need to have a strong country first before we can share our prosperity. Nothing he has said is unreasonable...
      - cyberferret 10y ago
        So, outside of the war of Independence, can you show me a list of wars that the US has been involved in where they did NOT have any allied countries fighting alongside them? But lets just piss off all countries who have fought alongside the US in most of the conflicts in modern history anyway, because there can't be any negative ramifications, right? Isolationist policies are great in theory. Just ask Kim whatsisname in North Korea how it is working out for him.
        postcarnival 10y ago
        You're comparing "America First" to North Korean isolationism? That's not what he's saying. He's saying we need to be smart in our treaties and stop being the country that pays for everyone else. We have 20TRILLION in debt.

Can he be please be President for the next 4 years as well? regards the rest of the world

by sien 10y ago

Can he be please be President for the next 4 years as well? regards the rest of the world

Mikeb85 10y ago

Because we need more Libyas and Syrias...

pavlov 10y ago
The Libyan intervention was probably a mistake (though it's important to note it was a NATO operation with full support from European partners, unlike the invasion of Iraq). But what should he have done about Syria?
- postcarnival 10y ago
  stayed in iraq longer, stop supporting the saudis, stop selling arms to saudi/rebel/others
  - threeseed 10y ago
    Might want to brush up on your world affairs. Iraq is a sovereign country. They asked the US to leave and quite rightly they did. And all of this happened under GWB's watch.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    A permanent occupation of Iraq in a situation where you've intentionally broken relations with Iraq's large and powerful neighbor Saudi Arabia sounds like a recipe for much larger trouble than even current Syria!
- meric 10y ago
  Stop defending Aleppo.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    Obama should stop defending Aleppo? How? Asking the rebels to surrender?
    - meric 10y ago
      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/us-advisers-wounded-syria/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/us-advisers-wound... Stop giving terrorists (Al-Nusra) advisors.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        Is there any reputable evidence that the US is supporting Al Nusra?
        meric 10y ago
        Yes. And who do you think these U.S. advisors were helping, really? The Syrian army? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-al-qaeda-l_b_10089410.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-al-nusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-w... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-equipment-idUSKCN0RP2HO20150926 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-equipme... http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715977/al-nusra-us-arming-jihadists-syria http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715977/al-nusra-us-armin...
        ceejayoz 10y ago
        > And who do you think these U.S. advisors were helping, really? The Syrian army? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces Your four links show zero cases of the US supporting Al Nusra. One's talking about how in the chaos the lines between groups get blurred, one's random op-ed spitballing from a newspaper owned by a Russian oligarch, one's talking about a rebel group negotiating for safe passage (six pickup trucks and some ammo - having to include that really helps make my point), and the last is claiming that the US supporting UAE/Saudis means the US is supporting Al Nusra.
- _delirium 10y ago
  > it's important to note it was a NATO operation with full support from European partners, unlike the invasion of Iraq Not wrong in the general thrust, but I think "full support from European partners" is overstating it a bit. By raw numbers, it had support of about half of the European NATO members. It's true that the half supporting were generally more important/core members than the half abstaining or opposing though; the only really core NATO member who conspicuously abstained was Germany. Others abstaining were mostly new or more peripheral members, but still a significant number: Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Hungary.
threeseed 10y ago
Libya was going to happen with or without US support. And let's be clear the involvement of the US was limited to refuelling, air support i.e minimal. But remember Gaddafi was imminently going to wipe out significant numbers of opposition supporters. So it was always going to be a lose-lose situation.
ceejayoz 10y ago
Obama's probably significantly less likely to create as many Libyas and Syrias than Clinton or Trump.

ChrisClark 10y ago

That's what's crazy. Some of the US wants Trump to be president, 99% of the world doesn't. What's the disconnect?

postcarnival 10y ago
if that were true, which it's not, what does it matter? it's not their country... sovereignty is a thing still
- cyberferret 10y ago
  International treaties are a thing too - e.g. ANZUS treaty here in Australia at a time when China is sabre rattling in the region. We don't want a US president who is going to dismantle such treaties at a vital time.
  - postcarnival 10y ago
    So what? what does the United States care what anyone else thinks? We need to have a strong country first before we can share our prosperity. Nothing he has said is unreasonable...
    - cyberferret 10y ago
      So, outside of the war of Independence, can you show me a list of wars that the US has been involved in where they did NOT have any allied countries fighting alongside them? But lets just piss off all countries who have fought alongside the US in most of the conflicts in modern history anyway, because there can't be any negative ramifications, right? Isolationist policies are great in theory. Just ask Kim whatsisname in North Korea how it is working out for him.
      - postcarnival 10y ago
        You're comparing "America First" to North Korean isolationism? That's not what he's saying. He's saying we need to be smart in our treaties and stop being the country that pays for everyone else. We have 20TRILLION in debt.