mikecohen;842613847 said:

---

Also don't forget the Japanese Buddhist cult which killed people in the Tokyo subway by infusing it with Sarin gas; and the Buddhist government of Sri Lanka, which gave horror for horror in its civil war with the Tamil Tigers, at the end, herding the civilian Tamil population into a smaller and smaller geographical location, and expelling many, in a kind of mass ethnic cleansing.

---

Correct. I think the Japanese subway tragedy was very much more cult-like, rather than Buddhist related. I seem to recall a cult of personality there.

calbear93;842613690 said:

---

Look, I believe Bush just had bad intel from the CIA. If you believe that Bush hid information and intentionally lied to Congress and to the UN to start a war that he knew was not justified, I think there would be a Watergate like incident. He would be tried as a war criminal. I'm sure there were some biases involved that caused the Bush administration to give more credibility to one type of evidence over another. That makes them incompetent. If he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, they would not have made the hunt for those weapons so public that made them look so inept.

Likewise, I'm sure Obama and Clinton had biases that caused them to misjudge and miscalculate as often as they have been. That is human nature. That makes them incompetent but not criminal.

---

The way especially Chaney limited and hid the relevant information (called "stove-piping") is already notorious. I'm sure they all thought they were justified (as has almost every villainous monster in history). Within the intelligence communities, upon whom notoriously unjustified pressure was being applied to come up with the "right" intel, the unreliability of that "right" intel (especially as to WMD) was universally known (as it had to have been to Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.) Even Bush-1 lied to get us into War with Saddam over Kuwait, by getting a beautiful young woman member of the Kuwait Royal Family to testify in front of a nationally televised quasi-congressional committee about personal atrocities that did not exist.

calbear93;842613690 said:

---

Look, I believe Bush just had bad intel from the CIA. If you believe that Bush hid information and intentionally lied to Congress and to the UN to start a war that he knew was not justified, I think there would be a Watergate like incident. He would be tried as a war criminal. I'm sure there were some biases involved that caused the Bush administration to give more credibility to one type of evidence over another. That makes them incompetent. If he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, they would not have made the hunt for those weapons so public that made them look so inept.

Likewise, I'm sure Obama and Clinton had biases that caused them to misjudge and miscalculate as often as they have been. That is human nature. That makes them incompetent but not criminal.

---

I think Bush-2 was too stupid to know what was going on. But Cheney/Rumsfeld, who essentially manufactured the bad intel by "stove-piping" knew (but they thought they were justified - they may have even believed their own propaganda about the likely results of invading Iraq and dismantling its infrastructure -- but a lot of good minds in and out of the administration knew better.

BearsWiin;842613863 said:

---

Saddam had gotten rid of his chemical weapons by the mid-90's. He was acting like he still had them in order to deter the Iranians.

The WMD issue was always a red herring. It was a way to exert pressure on Saddam's regime, and keep the tinpot dictator in his box. Even if he had been able to develop nuclear weapons (the only real WMD; the others are disruptive, not destructive) he would never have given them to AQ. Forget that as a secular leader he didn't trust the jihadis; he wasn't going to give a terrorist organization that kind of weaponry, lest they use it on his own regime. And if they had used them against the West, he would have no plausible deniability. He would have to pay the cost of their use even though he would have had little or no say over when, how, where, or against whom they would have been used. Smoking gun/mushroom cloud is probably the most irresponsible thing that has ever come out of Condi's mouth, because she knew better than to say something so stupid.

The Iraq invasion was about ideas, not WMDs, or oil, or Halliburton profits. It was the culmination of the post-9/11 neocon takeover of an otherwise noninterventionist Bush administration. It was about extending American influence into the ME through the establishment of a foothold democratic regime. Bush bought into it because he had no strategic foreign-policy vision, and he allowed the people working for him to define his vision for him. He placed a high level of trust/faith in his inner circle and a hierarchical system of both information transfer and decisionmaking, which made him vulnerable to the "gatekeepers" of information in his inner circle who could frame his decisions for him.

I recall in a rare moment of candor, Wolfowitz admitted in a spring 2003 press conference that different elements in the administration all had different reasons for invading Iraq, but they agreed that the WMD angle was the one they could sell.

---

mikecohen;842613868 said:

---

The way especially Chaney limited and hid the relevant information (called "stove-piping") is already notorious. I'm sure they all thought they were justified (as has almost every villainous monster in history). Within the intelligence communities, upon whom notoriously unjustified pressure was being applied to come up with the "right" intel, the unreliability of that "right" intel (especially as to WMD) was universally known (as it had to have been to Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.) Even Bush-1 lied to get us into War with Saddam over Kuwait, by getting a beautiful young woman member of the Kuwait Royal Family to testify in front of a nationally televised quasi-congressional committee about personal atrocities that did not exist.

---

Interesting. What other football site would provide this much education on history and politics.

At least Bush 1 was smart enough to pull back at the end instead of overthrowing the existing government.

sycasey;842613695 said:

---

I didn't say criminal (it's possible, but I don't know for sure). But if this kind of massive misinformation leading to a destructive war happens on your watch, I don't care what the reasons are. That's on Bush and his administration.

I'm also sure that Obama hasn't been perfect in this regard. But from where I'm sitting I don't see anywhere near the massive blunders we saw under the previous administration.

---

not just the massiveness of the blunders, but the horrendous cost in human lives - hundreds of thousands of killed/maimed, millions of displaced -- but I think it is fair to say that the Neocons perps didn't give a sh*t about that; and one has the impression that it's still almost disloyal/treasonous/hate-America-First to talk about that cost even now.

mikecohen;842613874 said:

---

not just the massiveness of the blunders, but the horrendous cost in human lives - hundreds of thousands of killed/maimed, millions of displaced -- but I think it is fair to say that the Neocons perps didn't give a sh*t about that; and one has the impression that it's still almost disloyal/treasonous/hate-America-First to talk about that cost even now.

---

I'm sorry. What do you mean by "Neocon"? Who qualifies? When you say something like "neocon" perps don't care about death of innocent, that's a pretty heavy accusation against someone. Who are you accusing exactly? If you have a valid point to make, you don't need to needlessly make character attacks. If you mean the standard definition of Neoconservative who promotes democracy and American interest world wide through political or military strength, I would argue even Bill Clinton would quality. What do you mean?

Phantomfan;842613474 said:

---

I REALLY want to help people understand why gun laws are NOT "common sense" and WILL NOT work as proposed, and how to craft reasonable arguments in the future.

Because... those laws defining "Assault weapons" dont work ... because they dont actually address anything aside from inconsequential things and cosmetics.

Assault Weapon's are not a real thing: the term is literally marketing to sell things that cosmetically LOOK like Assault Rifles (something that does exist) to idiots that didnt know the difference. To ban them you would have to ban cosmetics. That is why banning them has always been a failure. It does not diminish the killing power of the weapon AT ALL. The Newtown shooter bought a weapon that was sold in a very strict assault weapon ban state as legal! It was 0% safer than an "assault weapon" and as a matter of fact, was called an "assault weapon" by nearly everyone anyway. Because cosmetics do NOT make a firearm.

Step one is determining what exactly you are trying to prevent and why:
1. Most gun deaths are not caused by long rifles. They are caused by Handguns. About 70%
2. Rifles account for 4% of gun deaths, right in line with shotguns. Less than hammers, less than knives.
3. Cosmetically styled "Assault Weapons" are not listed, because they do not function differently than any other semi-automatic rifle.

Sometimes rifles that look like military rifles and fire low-power are used in mass shootings. Not often, but sometimes. Lets say you focus on on THOSE shootings, and you will deal with the 96% of gun homicides through, lets say, social programs to curb gang violence. OK. How?

To be honest, the very first step you would need to take to get a hold of this issue is to stop acting as though scary looking equates to more dangerous. Look at why a weapon you think is dangerous is dangerous, then look at what you can do to overcome that: Fair enough. Where to start?

Lets dispel the most prevalent myth first: Cosmetics do not matter. A gun is lethal. The attachments are not. Semi-automatic is nearly meaningless in today's world. Automatic is already heavily regulated.

What is termed "Assault Weapons" shoot a small, low power, high velocity round, typically .223 (about the size of a 22, but ridiculously faster) - they are not "high powered." Nearly ALL ammunition available is hollow point because hunting with FMJ is illegal in most places (because it wounds, not kills). There IS reason to own them (ie small predator hunting for protection of livestock, et al). The most common type (made to look like a US military rifle) has two parts called an "Upper" containing the bolt group and barrel, and the receiver (lower), containing the trigger group and magazine well. The lower is the gun. The upper is not well unregulated, unless attached to the lower. The draw of these weapons is the ease of use, and the individual rounds they put down range. They are easy to shoot because the round is so low power, and they are small rounds, so a magazine can hold a lot. What makes them so lethal if they shoot such a ***** round? Hollow Point Ammunition. Full Jacket ammunition will go through you pretty well. Unless it hits something immediately vital (brain, heart) you will very likely survive. Even if you are shot in an artery, you have an OK chance. A HP round? You are fucked a high percentage of the time. If you dont die, the damage is ... very bad (best example I could find quickly ).

So, some common sense ideas that will not work:
1. Reduce the number of rounds in a magazine -why it is hard to do: a magazine is a box and a spring. I can make one out of a coke can and a wire. I can print one. They are not traceable. They are not regulated unless you are caught with it. TRUST that someone trying to kill a lot of people will find a way to get magazines that fit their need. OK start. Not real world workable.
2. Eliminate detachable magazines - quite possibly the only solution to the issue. but is asinine (for reasons I will show later) but a start. More workable than mag restriction, but can be overcome with some effort. Better start.
3. Ban cosmetic attachments and outlaw already non-purchasable attachments - cosmetics do NOT change the ability to send 30 WELL AIMED rounds down range in 15 seconds. No one is being bayoneted to death in these attacks and knifes are legal. Grenade launchers are the most ridiculous thing I have heard of (if you can legally get one, you can get a machine gun anyway). Dumbest **** I have ever seen attempted.


So what would actually work to prevent deaths, and may be politically achievable?
1. Something NO ONE talks about: Outlaw Hollowpoint rifle ammunition for general sale.
- VERY touchy because the VAST majority of killing is hunting, and this would cause ridiculous amounts of suffering to animals, but for argument sake, lets say you can specially purchase hunting ammunition with a game tag, with the casings returned after the season/6 months whatever: not ideal, but preventing human death is the goal, not animal suffering. The difference in lethality between FMJ and HP rounds is RIDICULOUS. Most victims would not have died if they were shot with FMJ's given emergency response times and proximity to hospitals. I have no data, aside from Military casualty data, where FMJ is the only legal ammunition, but knowing a few "Blackwater" types who have used HP in theater and vouch for its killing power over standard ball ammunition. You dont need hollow point for target shooting. For home defense it is good because it wont go through material as well, but even with HP, they go through **** pretty well. A glaring issue here is that anyone can poke a hole in an FMJ and make their own HP's, but I doubt most mass shooters would even think about it. Worse is that FMJ will **** people up behind cars, behind walls, behind doors, etc. Not much hiding. Less dying if hit. Maybe more hits?
2. Treat the upper (as mentioned above) as a firearm, and regulate them. They matter because they are half of what makes the gun work. Right now you can buy one, make one, sell one, etc with no oversight.
3. Treat ANY manufacture of lowers as firearm manufacturing. Currently you can purchase an "80%" lower with no regulation, complete it yourself, and have an untraceable gun. It is extremely uncommon, but has happened, and will become more popular as rifle laws are passed.
4. Ban .223 ammunition sale. The side effect here is that every other rifle round is exponentially more lethal, but they are much harder to use and take more training to use effectively. So that is a plus. It is only legal to kill game smaller than a coyote with it, so not a huge livestock protection loss, I dont think, and certainly not a a huge hunting loss, but perhaps a significant "fun at the range loss." I take that as a win, personally.

Those are three simple things we can do to at the very least reduce lethality and improve tracability, and one thing we can do to increase lethality but decrease ease of use.

The problem with assualt weapon bans is they are a mythical type of weapon. NOTHING about them is unique to "assault weapons." They are semi-automatic rifles. A VERY widely used rifle everywhere. It is politically IMPOSSIBLE to ban semi-automatic rifles, and that is the "dangerous" technology regardless of what the rifle LOOKS like.

Remember the term was INVENTED to sell guns based on LOOKS alone. It is now being used to try to ban guns. A term invented to sell guns based on looks will NEVER work to ban guns. Focus on what makes them uniquely dangerous, and solve those problems. What is more important? A couple dozen people a year, or animal suffering. That is a VERY real question in this, because it is the number one reason these weapons are so lethal.

Anyway, anyone that talks about Assault Weapons is ignorant. It was a marketing tool to sell to soldier of fortune wannabes and is still used to trap ignorant people. To stop the problem you see, you need to think more clearly, understand the issue, take a less reactionary approach, etc. We dont stop terrorism like this by putting Muslims in camps, because we are smarter than that (I hope). We should be equally smart in not reacting through ignorance on gun control.

---

I appreciate the information you present - and mostly your approach. But the name calling isn't necessary. I find the argument, "since you don't know the correct term for magazine, you have no say in the debate!" VERY tiresome. As if ignorance of the details of firearm manufacture makes someone's opinion about gun violence, or worse, grief over the loss of a loved one, means they can't vote one way or another. Absurd.

That said, the simplest solution to firearm violence on a mass fatality scale would be banning semi-automatic (also called "automatic," but also including truly automatic [aka machine guns] weapons). That's right, no more semi-auto pistols or rifles. Single-shot and/or bolt action rifles and single shot pistols or revolvers.

Shotguns? I assume they can be limited to a reasonable number of rounds (six?) and fall within the intent of the "no semi-auto" firearms legislation.

This still allows for all types of hunting and self protection. You still get your Second Amendment right to bear arms, but you will no longer own semi-auto or automatic weapons.

calbear93;842613824 said:

---

I guess you and I would disagree on this. 9/11 was a complete game changer. There was so much anger and shock that Bush's approval rating was through the roof. He received standing ovation from both parties in Congress. He wasted all that goodwill domestically and with other world leaders with his miscalculation in Iraq, but I don't think Obama would have done nothing if he thought Saddam was supporting AQ (Obama redoubled our efforts in Afghanistan without much success) and had weapons of mass destruction that could go to terrorists. I think he would have been compelled to act aggressive and quickly, but if he took this passive, lecturing tone after 9/11, he would have been denounced even by his own party.

---

It was obvious to anyone with a brain at the time that Saddam and AQ were bitter enemies (as, by the way, were Iran and AQ, which is why Iran was particularly helpful to us in attacking Afghanistan).

juarezbear;842613867 said:

---

Correct. I think the Japanese subway tragedy was very much more cult-like, rather than Buddhist related. I seem to recall a cult of personality there.

---

I do think that Al Bagdhadi's Daesh is not unlike a cult of personality.

mikecohen;842613881 said:

---

It was obvious to anyone with a brain at the time that Saddam and AQ were bitter enemies (as, by the way, were Iran and AQ, which is why Iran was particularly helpful to us in attacking Afghanistan).

---

This kind of statement doesn't help your argument. Why was it obvious in the beginning? Just because you say so and just because you otherwise claim that if they believed it, they didn't have a brain? Please, that's weak. Obviously, Iran and AQ were enemies since one is Sunni and the other Shia. But AQ and Saddam enemies? Why? Even AQ and US were not enemies until Saudi invited US military into their kingdom to help against the threat posed by Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. Eventually, it became clear that there was no tie, and even the Bush administration backed off that claim, but to say they were bitter enemies? Saddam was not interested in any political Islam, but that didn't make them enemies.

calbear93;842613877 said:

---

I'm sorry. What do you mean by "Neocon"? Who qualifies? When you say something like "neocon" perps don't care about death of innocent, that's a pretty heavy accusation against someone. Who are you accusing exactly? If you have a valid point to make, you don't need to needlessly make character attacks. If you mean the standard definition of Neoconservative who promotes democracy and American interest world wide through political or military strength, I would argue even Bill Clinton would quality. What do you mean?

---

The invasion of Iraq was "aggressive war" against a country which did not threaten us in the least. Even if it hadn't been based on lies, it still qualifies as a flat-out War Crime. The, to put it charitably, blindness to the absolute slaughter and dispersal of the inhabitants of that area, can at best be characterized as cavalier. Whatever Clinton's faults (and I don't deny them), there's nothing even approaching this disaster on a human scale; and, based on the testimony of Richard Clarke (who is among the most knowledgeable relevantly, and who served under both Clinton and Bush), 9/11 would not have happened but for Bush-2 Administration negligence in the face of "hair-on-fire" warnings.

calbear93;842613885 said:

---

This kind of statement doesn't help your argument. Why was it obvious in the beginning? Just because you say so and just because you otherwise claim that if they believed it, they didn't have a brain? Please, that's weak. Obviously, Iran and AQ were enemies since one is Sunni and the other Shia. But AQ and Saddam enemies? Why? Even AQ and US were not enemies until Saudi invited US military into their kingdom to help against the threat posed by Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. Eventually, it became clear that there was no tie, and even the Bush administration backed off that claim, but to say they were bitter enemies? Saddam was not interested in any political Islam, but that didn't make them enemies.

---

Saddam was resolutely secular, and one of the corrupt secular arab governments that AQ basically set themselves up against from the beginning. And this was no secret.

mikecohen;842613887 said:

---

The invasion of Iraq was "aggressive war" against a country which did not threaten us in the least. Even if it hadn't been based on lies, it still qualifies as a flat-out War Crime. The, to put it charitably, blindness to the absolute slaughter and dispersal of the inhabitants of that area, can at best be characterized as cavalier. Whatever Clinton's faults (and I don't deny them), there's nothing even approaching this disaster on a human scale; and, based on the testimony of Richard Clarke (who is among the most knowledgeable relevantly, and who served under both Clinton and Bush), 9/11 would not have happened but for Bush-2 Administration negligence in the face of "hair-on-fire" warnings.

---

That doesn't answer my question. You say Neocons don't care about death. Yes, Neocons had a heavy influence on the Bush administration, but they also did during Clinton's administration. As you may recall, Neocons were an offshoot of the Democratic party. They believe in US exceptionalism and believe that US should use its military might or political influence to force democracy and US interest in every country. They were upset with Bush 1 for not removing Saddam and installing a democratic government. They proposed to Clinton to remove Saddam to install a democratic government. They promoted support of Arab Spring and installation of a democratic government in Egypt and Syria (well, until we didn't like who was actually elected in Egypt). Who are the neocons? Bush definitely wasn't. Cheney historically wasn't. The Clintons were and still are. Rumsfeld definitely was.

mikecohen;842613890 said:

---

Saddam was resolutely secular, and one of the corrupt secular arab governments that AQ basically set themselves up against from the beginning. And this was no secret.

---

I'm sorry, just because you claim it was no secret doesn't make it so. AQ was basically established (and trained by CIA) to fight Russian invasion in Afghanistan. After the withdrawal, AQ wanted to be the militia for Saudi Arabia but were rejected by the monarchy, with US instead being invited. There was tension between Saudi Arabia and AQ, but it wasn't as if AQ declared war on all secular Muslim countries. Instead they declared war against any foreign countries that put their military in what they believed were sacred soil. The only time AQ attacked in Iraq was after Saddam was removed by US and the Shia government took over. Only then did they try to incite violence in Iraq to start a secular war to remove the Shia government and US military. That AQ force in Iraq was dominated by the former Sunni soldiers who supported Saddam and has now become ISIS. To say that AQ and Saddam/Iraq were always enemies is flat out wrong.

beelzebear;842613902 said:

---

---

He is really a muppet. That would explain a lot.

calbear93;842613893 said:

---

That doesn't answer my question. You say Neocons don't care about death. Yes, Neocons had a heavy influence on the Bush administration, but they also did during Clinton's administration. As you may recall, Neocons were an offshoot of the Democratic party. They believe in US exceptionalism and believe that US should use its military might or political influence to force democracy and US interest in every country. They were upset with Bush 1 for not removing Saddam and installing a democratic government. They proposed to Clinton to remove Saddam to install a democratic government. They promoted support of Arab Spring and installation of a democratic government in Egypt and Syria (well, until we didn't like who was actually elected in Egypt). Who are the neocons? Bush definitely wasn't. Cheney historically wasn't. The Clintons were and still are. Rumsfeld definitely was.

---

New American Century - W's boyz and into his administration, also signed by Jebbie -the NeoCons

calbear93;842613829 said:

---

Maybe you're right. And maybe Saddam would not have gotten rid of weapons of mass destruction if he knew he could cross the red line set by Obama by using more chemical weapons against the Kurds, knowing all he would get would be a lecture. I don't know. Neither leader inspired too much confidence. And I'm not smart enough to know which way is the right way.

---

1. Did I miss the memo or something.
Saddam DID NOT have any weapons of mass destruction as the UN inspectors proved.
Let's not re-write history.

2. President Obama has not hesitated to use force (primariy drones and jets) to kill our enemies in various countries. More so than many within his own party believe is necessary.

What he has been reluctant to do is send in troops on the ground. They have a way of (i) requiring more troups on the ground in ever increasing numbers.; (ii) becoming targets for Iraqis and Afghanis on both sides of the fighting; (iii) difficult to extract once they are in a country. It is diffcult to have a surgical strike of 10,000 troops.
Many of President Obama's opponents like to portray him as a wuss. They KNOW how to deal with our enemies. crush them with our military might. like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
5,000+ dead and $3 Trillion + 7 years of war = great and glorious US victory with both countries being left as breeding grounds for terrorists.

That's the way a REAL He-man would handle the problem.

SonOfCalVa;842613906 said:

---

New American Century - W's boyz and into his administration, also signed by Jebbie -the NeoCons

---

You do realize that Neoconservatives started in the 60s when a faction of the Democratic party believed that the Democratic party wasn't doing enough to battle communism.

68great;842613908 said:

---

1. Did I miss the memo or something.
Saddam DID NOT have any weapons of mass destruction as the UN inspectors proved.
Let's not re-write history.

2. President Obama has not hesitated to use force (primariy drones and jets) to kill our enemies in various countries. More so than many within his own party believe is necessary.

What he has been reluctant to do is send in troops on the ground. They have a way of (i) requiring more troups on the ground in ever increasing numbers.; (ii) becoming targets for Iraqis and Afghanis on both sides of the fighting; (iii) difficult to extract once they are in a country. It is diffcult to have a surgical strike of 10,000 troops.
Many of President Obama's opponents like to portray him as a wuss. They KNOW how to deal with our enemies. crush them with our military might. like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
5,000+ dead and $3 Trillion + 7 years of war = great and glorious US victory with both countries being left as breeding grounds for terrorists.

That's the way a REAL He-man would handle the problem.

---

They did have WMD that were destroyed around 1998. However, they still had the capability to create more WMD. Saddam obviously didn't but he still wanted to pretend that he did by kicking out inspectors, etc. to maintain the deterrence against Iran. US was obviously wrong in thinking that he had created more WMD. For me, if we were going to invade based on that, how could we justify India having nuclear weapons, condone Pakistan and Israel having nuclear weapons, condone Syria having chemical weapons, etc. Even if true, not enough of a reason to start a war.

I'm sorry. I don't understand how you think risking our lives is wrong but using drones to kill our "enemies" is OK when it results in so many civilian deaths. I agree with him in not sending troops on the ground (he did send more troops to Afghanistan without much success), but it does bother me that we seem completely indifferent to civilian death using drones. And have the drone attacks done anything really?

calbear93;842613913 said:

---

I'm sorry. I don't understand how you think risking our lives is wrong but using drones to kill our "enemies" is OK when it results in so many civilian deaths. I agree with him in not sending troops on the ground (he did send more troops to Afghanistan without much success), but it does bother me that we seem completely indifferent to civilian death using drones. And have the drone attacks done anything really?

---

Plenty of Democrats would agree with you on this point. I think 68's only point here is that Obama is not quite as afraid to use military force as Republicans like to claim; he's not saying that using such force is morally correct.

sycasey;842613917 said:

---

Plenty of Democrats would agree with you on this point. I think 68's only point here is that Obama is not quite as afraid to use military force as Republicans like to claim; he's not saying that using such force is morally correct.

---

I think most people accuse Obama not of being shy about using military might (he may have dropped more bombs than any other president) but of being arrogant (he hasn't developed humility even when he is often wrong and his timing is horrible) enough to dismiss actual threat that results in him not developing an effective, timely strategy but instead always reacting when it is too late and leading from behind. Again, look at how inspirational someone questionable like Hollande was and how pedantic Obama is. Reagan was not a good president but one thing he did do well was inspire.

calbear93;842613924 said:

---

I think most people accuse Obama

---

I think you are missing a qualifier. Most people don't accuse Obama. You are talking about the subset of people who accuse Obama.

What I don't get is that the republicans supposedly favor fiscal conservatism and the free market, yet when it comes to military action, they seem more than happy to spend untold trillions to engage in wars that don't concern us in the short term. As a fiscal conservative, I have always thought that we should get the rest of the world to do its part and that we don't need to always take the lead and spend our money and lives of young people. I've said this a million times but I will say it again: the military is like a republican entitlement program. It's a huge percentage of our budget and we have a very low return on investment. We should seek to spread that cost among the people who benefit - eg the rest of the world.

The one thing I like about Obama with respect to foreign policy (well other than the fact that he's not a total embarrassment to the country the way that W was - I say this based on the perception of perhaps 100% of people I've met abroad who had an opinion on Obama and Bush) is that he's willing to let things play out and give other countries a chance to get involved. I suspect we will see the UK and perhaps even France now get involved in the middle east and commit money and troops. It sucks that it took terrorism against their people for it to happen, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for protecting the rest of the world free of charge and with our own citizens.

I'm not a Pat Buchanan fan by any stretch, but I do think there's something to be said for isolationism, if done properly. As he has said we don't need to be compulsively interventionist. If a republican had taken the approach Obama has, I think you'd see him widely supported by democrats and the republicans would probably laud him as being a forward thinking leader. Because Obama is a democrat, the republicans have been quite predictable in their evaluation of his approach.

Unit2Sucks;842613981 said:

---

I think you are missing a qualifier. Most people don't accuse Obama. You are talking about the subset of people who accuse Obama.

What I don't get is that the republicans supposedly favor fiscal conservatism and the free market, yet when it comes to military action, they seem more than happy to spend untold trillions to engage in wars that don't concern us in the short term. As a fiscal conservative, I have always thought that we should get the rest of the world to do its part and that we don't need to always take the lead and spend our money and lives of young people. I've said this a million times but I will say it again: the military is like a republican entitlement program. It's a huge percentage of our budget and we have a very low return on investment. We should seek to spread that cost among the people who benefit - eg the rest of the world.

The one thing I like about Obama with respect to foreign policy (well other than the fact that he's not a total embarrassment to the country the way that W was - I say this based on the perception of perhaps 100% of people I've met abroad who had an opinion on Obama and Bush) is that he's willing to let things play out and give other countries a chance to get involved. I suspect we will see the UK and perhaps even France now get involved in the middle east and commit money and troops. It sucks that it took terrorism against their people for it to happen, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for protecting the rest of the world free of charge and with our own citizens.

I'm not a Pat Buchanan fan by any stretch, but I do think there's something to be said for isolationism, if done properly. As he has said we don't need to be compulsively interventionist. If a republican had taken the approach Obama has, I think you'd see him widely supported by democrats and the republicans would probably laud him as being a forward thinking leader. Because Obama is a democrat, the republicans have been quite predictable in their evaluation of his approach.

---

I'm not sure if you are responding to my post. What you wrote doesn't seem relevant to what I wrote.

What qualifier am I missing? His approval is now 47%, and was as low as 38% couple of months ago (almost the same as W around the same time of his second term). It did rise recently with the attacks (as Bush's did after 9/11) to 47%, but most people are unhappy with his leadership.

I am also a fiscal conservative. While I am not an isolationist and believe that what happens beyond our borders affects us, and we are too global to think locally, I don't want us to engage in wars to be the world's police force. Furthermore, I don't believe in dominating other countries with our military might but would prefer we respect our allies and even those with whom we disagree.

As far as letting other countries a chance to get involved...involved in what? That is the problem. There is no true coalition (just bunch of planes dropping bombs, not knowing which faction we support, etc) and no strategy. We have the most despicable organization in our lifetime, and we can't get a strong coalition. Russia has been attacked. Iran is interested in getting rid of ISIS. France has been attacked. What more do the world leaders need to put their difference aside? There is a difference between being a team player in implementing a strategy and just winging it.

And I do think Obama is a bit of an embarrassment to the country. Of course you don't, but just like my opinion isn't universally shared, I assume you understand that your opinion is not a fact or universally adopted.

For example, don't say there is a red line someone cannot cross if you are not going to back it up. I am not saying I wanted him to back it up in Syria, but I don't want him to make empty threats either. Don't call ISIS a JV organization without understanding who they are. Don't say US is safe the day before we have the most deadly terrorist attack since 9/11. Don't say ISIS is contained the day before the Paris attack. Don't call viewing Russia as a threat a '90's way of thinking without understanding NATO / Russia issues that have been percolating since the bombing in Yugoslavia. So, yes, I think he has been an embarrassment.

If a Republican had taken the steps Obama has, I would definitely criticize the Republican president the same way. I was vocal about my displeasure with Bush during his presidency. I am not shy about calling out Republican leaders. You may think all Republicans are like Trump and Cruz, but most of us are closer to the middle just like I assume most Democrats are not like Reid, Pelosi or Sanders but are closer to the middle with an understanding that we do need to exercise some fiscal discipline.

calbear93;842614002 said:

---

What qualifier am I missing? His approval is now 47%, and was as low as 38% couple of months ago (almost the same as W around the same time of his second term). It did rise recently with the attacks (as Bush's did after 9/11) to 47%, but most people are unhappy with his leadership.

---

It is not safe to assume that this is related to his foreign policy, nor that people find him as embarrassing as Bush in this regard. I think you need a little more than that to make an assertion about "most" people.

sycasey;842614008 said:

---

It is not safe to assume that this is related to his foreign policy, nor that people find him as embarrassing as Bush in this regard. I think you need a little more than that to make an assertion about "most" people.

---

Fair enough. He hasn't been that great with domestic policies either (although I has less complaints there), so who knows why almost the same percentage of people disapprove of Obama as they did Bush during the tail end of their second term.

Correction: I was looking at Bush's first term. Bush was about 10% below during the second term. I guess people liked him less with Iraq and the 2007-8 crash.

calbear93;842613924 said:

---

I think most people accuse Obama not of being shy about using military might (he may have dropped more bombs than any other president) but of being arrogant (he hasn't developed humility even when he is often wrong and his timing is horrible) enough to dismiss actual threat that results in him not developing an effective, timely strategy but instead always reacting when it is too late and leading from behind. Again, look at how inspirational someone questionable like Hollande was and how pedantic Obama is. Reagan was not a good president but one thing he did do well was inspire.

---

Reagan was not a good president, he was a great president. God Bless Him.

Chapman_is_Gone;842614015 said:

---

Reagan was not a good president, he was a great president. God Bless Him.

---

Ya..dismantled mental health system/institutions...great guy..

calbear93;842613924 said:

---

I think most people accuse Obama not of being shy about using military might (he may have dropped more bombs than any other president) but of being arrogant (he hasn't developed humility even when he is often wrong and his timing is horrible) enough to dismiss actual threat that results in him not developing an effective, timely strategy but instead always reacting when it is too late and leading from behind. Again, look at how inspirational someone questionable like Hollande was and how pedantic Obama is. Reagan was not a good president but one thing he did do well was inspire.

---

You should fact check that remark.

It shows ignorance of history.

[video=youtube;l_pQdzhdD50][/video]

MinotStateBeav;842614050 said:

---

Ya..dismantled mental health system/institutions...great guy..

---

That's a myth, do some research... The move toward deinstitutionalization and local care started long before Reagan. To assign such direct blame for such a complex problem is ignorant.

I have no interest in debating politics or religion on a football board, so this will be my last post in this thread. You circle jerkers are now free to bash Reagan all you want.

calbear93;842614002 said:

---

Don't say ISIS is contained the day before the Paris attack.

---

This stood out to me from your post. ISIS is contained within the framework that he was discussing them; i.e. they are no longer expanding their territorial control. They are at a net even for recruitment (new recruits are roughly the same number of ISIS casualties). So they are trending even with respect to military numbers and they are losing territory. Their finances are also being depleted with the coalitions increased bombing of their oil infrastructure.

It bears repeating - it is expected when a terrorist organization is feeling the pressure, they will lash out and attempt lavish attacks in order to re-establish their "control" or perception of strength. The more proverbial ground they lose, the more motivation they will have for expanding their sphere of terror, as it is central to their recruitment strategy. Accordingly, attacks (or at the least, attempted attacks) in the west will in all likelihood become more frequent before ISIS is destroyed.

One last thing, in my opinion the media's infatuation with how complex the Paris attack was is really missing the point. The most difficult part of implementing that attack was getting the bombs made and getting in the AK-47's and ammo in country. The suicide vests were probably the most sophisticated portion of the attack, but you can get instructions on how to make those bombs via the internet with easily obtainable ingredients. After that it's a matter of deciding your (soft) target locations, getting the rental cars, and synchronizing their watches to commence the attacks at the same time. The fact that it does not take much sophistication is what makes their style of attack so difficult to stop.

Chapman_is_Gone;842614055 said:

---

That's a myth, do some research... The move toward deinstitutionalization and local care started long before Reagan. To assign such direct blame for such a complex problem is ignorant.

I have no interest in debating politics or religion on a football board, so this will be my last post in this thread. You circle jerkers are now free to bash Reagan all you want.

---

I suggest you follow your own advice. Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.

He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization. As someone who has dealt with mental illness from a family member..good luck trying to get them to admit themselves into a hospital voluntarily when they are full blown manic.

MinotStateBeav;842614067 said:

---

I suggest you follow your own advice. Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.

He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization.

---

Having studied in that area, (I have forgot a ton since then..LOL), I do know that much of the Psychiatric Hospital patients being turned out started long before Regan was Governor. In fact, it was not Reagan who started all this but actually Psychiatrists and the National Institute of Mental Health along with Government Bureaucrats that initiated this policy. In fact, the ACLU actually sued to let patients leave if they wanted. I forgot a lot of details, but I looked up an old article from the NYT (hardly a right wing rag), that detailed a lot of what happened. Jerry Brown's dad actually let out more patients than Regan and Jerry Brown Jr. did likewise. This is one case where the onus falls on the medical and Psychiatric community who basically led the fight to release them to Community Centers and given meds. In hindsight, a terrible decision and we know now that Meds actually don't help as much as other interventions except for the most serious of organic mental disorders like Paranoid Schizophrenia etc......

If I remember correctly, Democrats controlled the Congress then, but I don't knee jerk blame them willy nilly, because at the time, the professionals were telling them it was the right thing to do. They controlled the purse strings and revenue dried up after the initial period. I don't remember what Reagan did as President, but if you want to blame him, then you can equally blame Jerry Brown, his dad, the Democratic Congress and Calif State Legislature and MAINLY the Medical Community along with the ACLU.

Quote:

---

Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950's and 1960's said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society.

The records show that the politicians were dogged by the image and financial problems posed by the state hospitals and that the scientific and medical establishment sold Congress and the state legislatures a quick fix for a complicated problem that was bought sight unseen.

'They've Gone Far, Too Far'

In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''

---

Quote:

---

Dr. John A. Talbott, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said, ''The psychiatrists involved in the policy making at that time certainly oversold community treatment, and our credibility today is probably damaged because of it.'' He said the policies ''were based partly on wishful thinking, partly on the enormousness of the problem and the lack of a silver bullet to resolve it, then as now.''

The original policy changes were backed by scores of national professional and philanthropic organizations and several hundred people prominent in medicine, academia and politics. The belief then was widespread that the same scientific researchers who had conjured up antibiotics and vaccines during the outburst of medical discovery in the 50's and 60's had also developed penicillins to cure psychoses and thus revolutionize the treatment of the mentally ill.

---

Quote:

---

Dr. Brown said he and the other architects of the community centers legislation believed that while there was a risk of homelessness, that it would not happen if Federal, state, local and private financial support ''was sufficient'' to do the job.

Resources Vanished Quickly

The legislation sought to create a nationwide network of locally based mental health centers which, rather than large state hospitals, would be the main source of treatment. The center concept was aided by Federal funds for four and a half years, after which it was hoped that the states and local governments would assume responsibility.

''We knew that there were not enough resources in the community to do the whole job, so that some people would be in the streets facing society head on and questions would be raised about the necessity to send them back to the state hospitals,'' Dr. Brown said.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html?pagewanted=all

Cal_Fan2;842614072 said:

---

If I remember correctly, Democrats controlled the Congress then, but I don't knee jerk blame them willy nilly, because at the time, the professionals were telling them it was the right thing to do. They controlled the purse strings and revenue dried up after the initial period. I don't remember what Reagan did as President, but if you want to blame him, then you can equally blame Jerry Brown, his dad, the Democratic Congress and Calif State Legislature and MAINLY the Medical Community along with the ACLU.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html?pagewanted=all

---

I'm not blaming Reagan willy nilly. He cut off funding and you can't spin that. I was very young, but I remember there was a lot of backlash over that decision. Reagan essentially put the final nail in the coffin and completely destroyed it. I remember almost immediately the massive wave of homelessness that swept across San Francisco because of it.