Obama defends the Isis jobs comment with "kill them with kindness".

This comment by Obama struck me as an almost Carter-like mentality.

I then was struck by the similarities of recent cycles of Democrat-Republican Presidencies.

Carter to Reagan. Largely an appeasing international mentality in the face of continued Soviet expansion and the Iran hostage fiasco. Then Reagan, to off-set Democrat policies of the previous administration, massive recovery/expansion of military expenditures and at least a policy of matching/countering Soviet/Communist moves.

Clinton to G.W.. Lacking a better term , I will use appeasement here as well. Multiple Embassy attacks, the USS Cole, and initial and unsuccessful attack on the World Trade center as highlights of his international policies which gave us 9/11 early in G.W.'s term.

Now Obama to whomever, more international appeasement, 'kill them with kindness'. Largely ceding Iraq and, perhaps Afghanistan to the radicals. A rampant Isis killing anyone they choose to.

All left to an assumed Republican replacement. Of course, correcting all these 'imbalances' makes Republicans 'war-mongers'.

Same old, same old...all over again.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Obama needs a clue.

If it wasn't for ''kindness'' they would all be over there and not here.

Kindness is a Mk 20 Rockeye II, delivered by an A-10.

Errr Clinton was responsible for one of the most horrific war crimes of the 20th century, bombed Iraq on a regular basis too, also cruise missled the Sudan and Afghanistan I seem to rmbr.

And why has "appeasement" become the trendy word to use for propaganda these days?, what blog is behind this trend?

a reply to: JIMC5499

I remember the old Italian military jokes. "Italy just came out with a new tank...four gears reverse and one forward."

Now the Italians have a bigger pair than we do. On top of Jordan and now Egypt... Who's next? Not us....

a reply to: nwtrucker

This is the leadership that America voted (twice) for.

I don't have much to say other than, perhaps the leadership is a reflection of America. So we deserve whatever we get.

*shakes head and hops away*

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Hmm, any bombing in Iraq would have been in response to violations of the cease-fire reached by Bush 41. If I recall correctly, that would be the no-fly-zone violations and, in that case, fully justified.

In any event, I do not consider Clinton as bad as Obama and was pointing out similarities in the Republican-Democrat Presidency cycles. Of course there are distinctions/differences as well.

War crimes are usually defined by the winner. All the more reason to ensure 'winning'.....

a reply to: beezzer

Hard to argue otherwise....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Just slightly confused why you refer to them as being practitioners of "appeasement", seems to be most American presidents, including Obama do not in any way adhere to that political doctrine.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

OK. Then you give me a better description/label for "kill them with kindness".

I consider my description as mild. I could have said 'insane', 'deluded'. Numerous others come to mind, but I'm sure you get the idea.

When we capture their combatants, they receive almost hotel level accommodations. When they capture combatants, they behead them, burn them alive or just shoot them.

Apparently, killing them with kindness has already been shown to not work.

Hmmm, now that I think of it, 'appeasement' is too kind.

It's too late to edit, so let's just call it lunacy....that better?

On the one hand you have threads bashing Obama for his drone policies, not getting us out of the wars, etc. And then others saying we need boots on the ground (presumably forever) in very country with violence: Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen... We go in, destroy the country's infrastructure and economy and wonder why we have a huge 'terrorist' problem. It's quite clear to anyone able to discern that the Administration is not suggesting that by simply providing jobs to the aforementioned countries that problem will go away. You can be sure, with the huge money to be made waging war, we won't be getting out of that business any time soon. The suggestion is that a desperate people without hope is dangerous. Look at the gang culture in the U.S. thriving in economically depressed areas. Human nature is to have a 'cause'. If you can't have your own you'll align with whatever is available. Providing some mechanism whereby people have some degree of hope and future only makes sense. God knows the alternative has [proven to be an unmitigated disaster.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It is political double speak.

They really mean ''bomb them and 'look after' their gold / land /oil'' whilst pretending to be the nice guy, using 'kindness'' in the form of propaganda (nothing new there then).

Such double speak normally precedes something major, like pretending they are all kind whilst plotting something not so kind.

The first rule of understanding politics is not taking words to mean that which they appear to mean, and to always suspect an agenda.

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: nwtrucker

Just slightly confused why you refer to them as being practitioners of "appeasement", seems to be most American presidents, including Obama do not in any way adhere to that political doctrine.

Russia gets to just annex sovereign territory of another state Obama does nothing...check

Iran defies UN mandates and continues to bs around as they approach breakout...check

Isis takes entire swaths of sovereign nations over committing atrocities and crimes against humanity, Obama wants to give them a jobs bill and address their grievances by killing them with kindness...check

This is the ww2 definition of the appeasement doctrine attempted on hitler.

" they feel slighted, so if we make this one consession it will be enough to appease them."

" well there are still German speaking people in Poland, he is only freeing them"

" Yugoslavia does have numerous German speaking people, this last concession will appease him".......

You must draw line and actually stick to it, at least once this pussified wimp of a Sherman, this Nancy has let everyone cross every line he has drawn without consequences, this is the textbook definition of appeasement, and the application of the appeasement doctrine.

Or have you not read the history of ww2?

He's living in that delusional realm with people here calling for educating ISIS instead of turning them into a smouldering mound of ash...



Buffoon!

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: nwtrucker

This is the leadership that America voted (twice) for.

I don't have much to say other than, perhaps the leadership is a reflection of America. So we deserve whatever we get.

*shakes head and hops away*

what part of bush's leadership worked so well for America?.... I'd much rather see Arab soldiers fighting against these ISIS a** holes than our own American servicemen. I guess you don't

a reply to: theabsolutetruth
No disagreements from me on the 'doublespeak'.

I do, however, apply 'look, don't listen' to the equation.

The empirical evidence in the case of the Obama administration matches the rhetoric. Is he capable of a relatively minor move, not unlike Clinton with a target specific bombing coincidently with a impeachment hearing or some such? Sure.

Major move? It would take some event, real or false-flagged, to change his chosen course. Just a guess, on my part.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

When we capture their combatants, they receive almost hotel level accommodations.

Yes, I've heard that Guantanamo Bay is a real Savoy-style luxury break from the drama...

& breakfast in bed comes with a few free gallons of water that the porters & bell boys will even help you to drink.




Real 5 Star accommodation!

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: nwtrucker

This is the leadership that America voted (twice) for.

I don't have much to say other than, perhaps the leadership is a reflection of America. So we deserve whatever we get.

*shakes head and hops away*

what part of bush's leadership worked so well for America?.... I'd much rather see Arab soldiers fighting against these ISIS a** holes than our own American servicemen. I guess you don't

What part of my statement is incorrect?

a reply to: nwtrucker

He seems capable of instigating rather a lot, both in the US and elsewhere. The world was a mess before he was elected, it is more of a mess now, and he has played a part in that.

Is he being a puppet? Perhaps, either way, it is obvious international politics could be played for peace but instead have been played otherwise.