UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

with other countries like Russia, China and Iran.

(no message)

(no message)

8 years ago we were in a horrible recession. Now we are not. The recovery has been slower than it should have been, and Obama deserves blame for that. But there is no rational way to say the economy is worse now.

But don't take my word for it. Read the Wall St Journal (certainly not liberal media).


Link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-posts-smallest-annual-budget-deficit-since-2007-1444937616

number currently drawing unemployment and is basically meaningless. It does not reflect the record number that have stopped looking. The number is at a record high since the late 70s. In short, the job market for Americans is a disaster.

Improved budget deficit. Perhaps a short term anomaly, the reality is in the massive spending and borrowing. Please explain why the national debt was 8 trillion in Jan of 2009 and will exceed 20 trillion a year from now if the budget is in such good shape.

Can't read the article, I do not subscribe.

I'm not saying that Obama's foreign policy is great, but I'd try to compare it to anyone other than Bush if I were you. The Iraq war is without a doubt the single biggest foreign policy mistake in our nation's history. We spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of troops, and the result is a country that wasn't previously a terror threat now controlled by ISIS.

Compared to W, every other American president looks good with regards to foreign policy.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Don't get me wrong the ultimate blame goes to the terrorists...but the question from BVZ is which admin has made America safer Obama or Bush. Neither is not an option. Although it's not saying much, the Bush admin was clearly more incompetent.

Link: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353

(no message)

(no message)

You can always end military deaths overseas by withdrawing and surrendering...but that is not success.

The military is willing to fight. The number of deaths can become irrelevant if the cause is sufficiently noble and just. Policy doesn't become bad when soldiers die; our soldiers just ask that our leaders not to waste their efforts by fighting for bad policy...cost is a factor, but not the determiner of a bad or good policy.

It rings hollow when liberals claim to want to save the lives of soldiers by not letting them do their job (while using the military at home as a test tube for domestic social experiments). If fewer soldiers die on foreign soil because of a policy that encourages evil and the deaths of civilians both abroad and at home, the policy may be a failure even with fewer "Americans dying on foreign soil."

I'm not making a specific comment about specific policies. We can have a reasonable debate about specific policies. I'm commenting generally about how we measure policy successes.

The video: I just watched this the other night. I often think that people just don't understand the military mind. The bottom line is that our soldiers are not sheep, and they are not wolves. They are the sheep dogs, and they hate to be told to stand down while sheep are being killed by wolves, even if it means they must risk themselves to save the sheep. I'm not arguing that we must use the military to correct every injustice; I am arguing that it is offensive to the military mind when politicians who don't have the will to fight evil pretend they are avoiding the fight to save military lives. Find another reason not to fight the good fight, and we can talk about it. There can be legitimate reasons not to fight, but don't use the soldiers as the excuse not to fight.

or daughter and we should have learned from Vietnam to not get involved in a civil war, especially a religious civil war like Iraq and Syria. For over a thousand years, the Shia have hated the Sunnis who hate the Kurds who hate the Turks. No military action will stop this long standing hatred of each other in the mid east. Why sacrifice our men and spend trillions of dollars to break up a conflict that will resume as soon as we pull out? We could stay in the mid east 50 years and another war would break out as soon as we pulled out. Why throw more money down a rat hole and sacrifice more lives for something that will not happen? Do you see a major shift towards democracy in the middle east? The answer is NO. Our military don't always understand that a war will not solve all the problems. No general wants to get into a losing fight and that's exactly what the middle east is. You haven't come to grips with the 21st century. You are allowed your opinion but not your facts

"We aren't the world's policeman." Fine. That is beside the point. Decide on policy: Either we will police certain evils, or we won't police certain evils. But don't cop out and say we are surrendering because the other side is killing too many of us when the death rates were historically low for the gains being achieved. Act like you have a pair, and just admit that you no longer want to achieve those objectives, and you feel no obligation to honor the objectives of the past president.

"We should have learned from Vietnam to not get involved in a civil war." Again, fine. Whatever. Irrelevant to my point.

"Why sacrifice our men and spend trillions of dollars to break up a conflict that will resume as soon as we pull out?" Good point. That was my concern before we went in. I consistently said the war would be easy, but the peace would be hard. Unfortunately, I was right. But at least Bush tried to manage a peace. Obama just decided to undo everything, calling surrender "peace." He's the president, so he can do that. There are legitimate reasons to not have gone in, and maybe even to withdraw. But the death rate was very low compared to what was being achieved, and I honestly think the death rate had nothing to do with the reason Obama withdrew. If that cost was too high, then you are basically an isolationist. Again, fine -- be an isolationist. I respect that viewpoint. But try not to insult the military when you decide you don't want to use them. They stand ready, and they were doing a damned fine job when they were asked to do it. Don't sit there and say they weren't. Admit that you are changing directions in foreign policy.

"Do you see a major shift towards democracy in the middle east?" No. They are not ready for democracy. Democracy cannot be given; it must be taken. It was foolish for Bush to try to establish democracy in the Middle East, just like it was foolish of Obama to support the Arab Spring in Libya and Egypt (while opposing the Green Revolution in Iran).

"Our military don't always understand that a war will not solve all the problems." Good thing our military's opinion matters little on that point. That is the president's job to understand that. It is the military's job to provide the president with all possible options. Even when the best option is a bad one, they provide the best possible option for the president to decide what to do. I don't know why you even typed that sentence.

"You are allowed your opinion but not your facts" ... this from the guy who thought our military lost the war in Iraq. Comical. The war plan against Iraq was perfect. And when the US military fought lesser groups, it did well. And if it was over there now, it would destroy ISIS. Your points on a sustained peace are legitimate, but don't confuse them with the war effort. (By the way, my 3500 was combat deaths, not overall deaths. My facts were accurate. Your number is also correct. Understand your numbers, and you will understand why number is also correct.)

Let me know when you want to answer my question below about global warming.

(no message)

I think you are getting stuck on the title of my post and not the content of it.

I agree you can't judge foreign policy success based on military deaths....but you can judge it on whether those deaths resulted in a positive outcome like WW1, WW2, Korea, and the first Gulf War or a negative outcome like Iraq and Vietnam.

And the more deaths there are, the more important it is that the war was a success.

...and the result of the deaths in Iraq is that a country that wasn't a threat to us now is a huge threat. In other words, wasted lives and wasted dollars. That's why W's foriegn policy was such a colossal failure. Although we accomplished nothing in Vietnam (country ended up ruled by the Commies) at least we didn't create a scenario that was worse (for us) than before we invaded. Iraq is the only military engagement we've ever had that made a situation worse. That's why it was the worst foreign policy mistake in our country's history and why W. Bush is our worst president ever when it comes to foreign policy.

(no message)

(no message)

The thing is: The military operation in Iraq was a total success. ISIS didn't come into play until Obama decided to surrender the gains of Bush.

Now, I agree that we should not have toppled Hussein. But there was still a net gain in Iraq until the withdrawal. The problem was that a long term commitment was required to maintain the gains...at least for the next 10-20 years, maybe even more. Obama was not willing to allow such a long term commitment, so he sacrificed the gains of the 3500 combat deaths, and he withdrew (remember: ISIS was just the JV team...no concern at all).

I don't disagree that he underestimated ISIS. That said, another 10-20 year occupation (which I agree would have been required) simply wasn't and isn't worth it. Many more than 3500 would die over that 10-20 year period, and the continued costs hurt our economy.

The failure to maintain what was won at a cost that isn't worth it is not nearly as big a blunder as the action that resulted in the power vacuum in the first place.

(no message)

(no message)

But you are both correct. They were strongly affiliated for a period of time. I was wrong.

4450 lives (not 3400 as you claim) plus 34,000 wounded plus spent several trillion dollars for nothing. The Iraq government wanted us out of Iraq and George Bush signed the document in December 2008 before leaving office. Another idiotic move that Obama inherited.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

ROE.

(no message)

biggest blunder ever regarding going to war by a US POTUS.

The terror threat in the ME had been reduced until Soetoro stepped in and got involved in the Arab spring and helped the MB / AQ overthrow non-threatening governments and turning them into threats, while watching ISIS develop into a threat while played golf and took vacations.

That agrees with me that Iraq was a mistake. Only the few blinder-wearing partisans like yourself view it otherwise.

the pounding by the LWRM sort of skews that result. Dems didn't disagree until it was politically advantageous to do so. A huge majority of Americans agreed at the time. It would be in a better place now if Soetoro had not given away what Americans fought for.






Link: Poll

(no message)

appear in spite of all of LWRM bias gobbled by those thinking that they are watching the news..

Vietnam was a bigger blunder than Iraq. Many more killed for no reason than Iraq. And I liked how you emphasized political party, as always.

But Iraq was no terror threat. Far from being a unique view, that is fact. Iraq was not a sponsor of terrorism, and it was an enemy of al Qaeda and the fundamentalists. So it posed no threat to anyone.

fuck up again. It is unconscionable that you do not understand the threat posed by Iraq and are allowed in a classroom with students. Even Dem polys were smart enough to understand the danger before GWB was ever in office.

And believe me old timer, I have forgotten far more about the war than you will ever know. If you can explain just how Iraq was a "terror threat" in a convincing way, you would be the first person to do so.

You seem to be the only one not to know that Iraq was a threat. Perhaps that is a short memory span problem also.

At least Vietnam had the domino theory going for it. It is easy for us to underestimate the Soviets now. Back then, things were different. I'm not saying it was right (or wrong) to go into Vietnam. I'm saying it was understandable at the time, and it is easy to dismiss now with hindsight.

(no message)

I guess I'm just saying that I wish we didn't make a practice of supporting the ouster of allies and secular leaders in Muslim nations.

Because I agree that none of those countries were sponsors of terror, at least since Lockerbie in 1988. Which is why I didn't cry much for Qaddafi.

That hurt our position in the Middle East and Africa more than any comment by a GOP candidate.

Or should we have ignored the civil war in Lybia and let it turn into Syria?

We basically had 3 options, none of them good, but I believe Obama made the right choice:
1) use the US military to prop up Qadaffi
2) ignore the civil war and humanitarian crisis and end up with a situation identical to Syria, or
3) enforce a no-fly zone to stop Qadaffi from bombing his own people, faclitate a quick transfer of power, and hope the new gov't will be somewhat grateful.

We betrayed both him and Mubarak. Obama wanted the secular leaders (and allies of the US) to fall, and they did.

Others who might ally with us in the future surely took notice.

Your concern for the "humanitarian crisis" in Libya rings hollow given what is going on in the Levant right now. Obama didn't even worry about Syria gassing his own people. I highly doubt he betrayed Qaddafi out of concern for the Libyan people.

Immediately after it happened Obama called for military action. Remember the infamous "red line" speech? If nothing else, it was tough talk that you say he doesn't do....and Assaad hasn't used them since.

Also, both Omar and Mubarak were going down...we could have let it turn into a protracted humanitarian crisis that has allowed ISIS to prosper (like in Syria) or facilitate a quick transition. Last time I checked Syria (where secular Assaad is technically still in power) is a much bigger terror threat than Egypt or Lybia. I believe that had we not stepped in both Egypt and Lybia would still be engaged in civil war and fundamentalist factions would be thriving, just like in Syria.

(no message)

We didn't help Saddam gas anybody. For Qadaffi to stay in power we would have had to help him while he was bombing civilians. The military situations on the ground were totally different.

Hussein was worse, but he was firmly in control of his country, meaning fundamentalists weren't. Qadaffi has already lost most of his territory and was going down.

Situation would be a thousand times better there.

He was still the same megalomaniac dictator. He deserved what he got.

That said, I basically agree that it was a strategic mistake to get rid of him. But there was a great deal of optimism in those days with the Arab Spring. It seemed like a better future was possible.

Qaddafi had turned over all of his nuclear program equipment, and he was interrogating prisoners for us. He was a secular leader who was suppressing radical Islam in his region.

Sounds like we agree, though. Qaddafi got what he deserved, but it was not good US foreign policy for him to get what he deserved when he got it. Same with Hussein.

Qadaffi was engaged in a civil war he had no hope of winning on his own, and as a result started bombing his own civilians.

Iraq (despite Hussein's past transgressions) was perfectly stable at the time.

(no message)

Hopefully Saddam is burning in hell, and he certainly got what he deserved.

That said what he deserved was still bad foreign policy. W's Dad knew as much.

(no message)

(no message)

But there is an old arab saying: better forty years of tyranny than one day of anarchy.

(no message)

No getting around the failure of Obama/Clinton. No way at all.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

has sacrificed many more American lives than GWB with his open border policy and his changes in ROE in Afghanistan.

Link: CNN

Even the far-left CNN admits that there was a recession in 2001? There's so much wrong with that statement. And it has nothing to do with 2008.

But the idea that more Americans were killed due to Obama's decisions is offensively stupid. So much so that you should apologize to the board. Which you would never do, obviously.

is known that more Americans died in Afghanistan under Soetoro due to his changes of ROE. It is known that more Americans have been killed in the US by illegals than Americans in combat due to the open border policy and his refusal to deport known criminals.

Obviously the article was a little over your head. It is perfectly clear that GWB inherited a cluster fuck economy form Comrade Clinocchio.

You should apologize to all of your students and their parents. Your ignorance of the topic your are paid to teach is appalling. Their money has been wasted. If you have an ounce of integrity, you would track down all your former students and issue refunds equal to the amount they paid in tuition thinking they would be learning something in your class worth the cost of tuition.

And the border policies have not changed - far more people came in under Dubya.

Does not compute! Does not compute!

And I would take your insults more seriously if you were not a walking caricature.

short memory kicking in again. Border policies haven't changed? The enforcement of the laws has changed radically. GWB sent 8 million back. Soetoro around 3 million. Try computing with all of the data, not just the part that makes your Commie idol look like he is on the American side. By the time he leaves office, your Commie idol will have brought in more in addition to sending home less.

You don't like the insults , then you shouldn't be the first to hurl them. Caricature? You are the one who falls for all the Commie BS. You exemplify the folks that Gruber was talking about. Put out a line of Commie BS, Chris will fall for it.