President Obama

[kbohip]

Would you rather Iran set off a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv?

No. I'd rather give Israel free reign to do what they feel is necessary with Iran. Instead, we continue to tell Israel that they should not act without our consent, so consequently nothing happens. Hmm, where have I seen this exact same thing happen before? Oh yeah, Palestine.

[Keven]

No. I'd rather give Israel free reign to do what they feel is necessary with Iran. Instead, we continue to tell Israel that they should not act without our consent, so consequently nothing happens. Hmm, where have I seen this exact same thing happen before? Oh yeah, Palestine.

Well, a war between Iran and Israel would destabilize the entire region, drive the price of oil up to $500/barrel, drive the price of gas up to $20/gal. So, I disagree with you. The US and Europe needs to have a tact hand in dealing with Iran, and that might include military action against them.

We don't need to make the same mistake we made in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll agree that "nation building" is dead. The US will never be able to create little Germanys, Japans and South Koreas where ever we go. I say, if something needs to be done in Iran, we get in, do it, and get out. Like Bush 41 did with Iraq the first time, or Obama did in Libya.

Though I disagree with the entire premise of our involvement in Libya. I will admit that Obama handled that military action without completely ••••••• it up. Good thing Eric Holder isn't the Secretary of Defense.

[Bearded Frog]

Would you rather Iran set off a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv?

As long as it isnt America. Do I want them to? Of course not. Do I think we should have anything to do with it? No. Let our troops defend us instead of the rest of the world.

Also as far as gas prices go, when you impliment the intelligent foreign policy of letting the middle east as well as the rest of the world wage their own wars you also start drilling in america and building certain pipelines and refineries and lowering taxes so that problem is solved by step 2.

[Keven]

As long as it isnt America. Do I want them to? Of course not. Do I think we should have anything to do with it? No. Let our troops defend us instead of the rest of the world.

Also as far as gas prices go, when you impliment the intelligent foreign policy of letting the middle east as well as the rest of the world wage their own wars you also start drilling in america and building certain pipelines and refineries and lowering taxes so that problem is solved by step 2.

Well, we're dependent on foreign oil and even if we weren't, the price of oil drilled in Texas or Canada would be affected by the supply of oil from the Middle East being restricted. Most of our oil comes from Canada, but the price of gasoline and oil are still affected by ripple waves caused by instability in the Middle East.

[Mountain Mania]

The USA's oil reserves NEVER get tapped.......We'd rather let thousands of our young men and women die or get permanently maimed and keep being a puppet for the Middle East.

If we are the greatest nation on earth how can we let the Middle East dictate our foreign policy?

I agree with Bearded Frog.....America is broke from aiding foreign countries, trying to nation build and never tapping into our own oil reserves........

[Bearded Frog]

Well, we're dependent on foreign oil and even if we weren't, the price of oil drilled in Texas or Canada would be affected by the supply of oil from the Middle East being restricted. Most of our oil comes from Canada, but the price of gasoline and oil are still affected by ripple waves caused by instability in the Middle East.

We could EASILY cut off all oil supply from the middle east and never deal with them again. We choose not to. It doesnt have to be that way.

Obama doesnt care because he thinks high gas prices will lead to people somehow buying electric cars and building wind farms. the GOP doesnt care because they like war.

[kbohip]

Well, a war between Iran and Israel would destabilize the entire region, drive the price of oil up to $500/barrel, drive the price of gas up to $20/gal. So, I disagree with you. The US and Europe needs to have a tact hand in dealing with Iran, and that might include military action against them.

There is no way oil would ever hit $500 a barrel as there wouldn't be anyone buying it even at $300. We saw that same thing happen once oil even started to get close to $150 a barrel back in July of '08. The higher it gets, the less gets sold. All of those dictator led ME countries love to rattle their sabers and paint the US as the devil, but in the backs of their little minds they know that they are biting the hands that feed their lavish lifestyles. They also know that if it were not for the US holding back Israel on an almost daily basis, Israel would do their very best to level them.

[Keven]

We could EASILY cut off all oil supply from the middle east and never deal with them again. We choose not to. It doesnt have to be that way.

Okay. Now you're living in fantasy land.

Even if that was possible, the price of oil will still be dictated by the worldwide price of oil. The price of oil is affected by the oil futures, which is affected by the supply and demand of oil.

Obama doesnt care because he thinks high gas prices will lead to people somehow buying electric cars and building wind farms.

That's true.

the GOP doesnt care because they like war.

Well, now you're just being silly.

[Keven]

There is no way oil would ever hit $500 a barrel as there wouldn't be anyone buying it even at $300. We saw that same thing happen once oil even started to get close to $150 a barrel back in July of '08. The higher it gets, the less gets sold. All of those dictator led ME countries love to rattle their sabers and paint the US as the devil, but in the backs of their little minds they know that they are biting the hands that feed their lavish lifestyles. They also know that if it were not for the US holding back Israel on an almost daily basis, Israel would do their very best to level them.

I don't think the Middle Eastern autocracts would restrict oil sales if war broke out between Israel and Iran (though there would be some of that). Just the fact that two regional powers would be shooting at each other would be enough to drive oil futures through the roof. If Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, then you're talking about a real hamper to the world supply of oil.

[Bearded Frog]

Okay. Now you're living in fantasy land.

Even if that was possible, the price of oil will still be dictated by the worldwide price of oil. The price of oil is affected by the oil futures, which is affected by the supply and demand of oil.

You really think there isn't enough oil in the rest of the world to supply America? You dont think that us exploring our options here combined with canada and even russia wouldnt be enough to supply us? Even if it wasnt the fact is like you said with supply and demand, supply would go WAY up, and thus demand staying the same price goes down

Well, now you're just being silly.

Whos the one in fantasy land :P

[Keven]

You really think there isn't enough oil in the rest of the world to supply America? You dont think that us exploring our options here combined with canada and even russia wouldnt be enough to supply us? Even if it wasnt the fact is like you said with supply and demand, supply would go WAY up, and thus demand staying the same price goes down

Let's say the international price of oil is $100 per barrel and we get all our oil from Canada.

If war breaks out on the Middle East and the international price of oil goes up to $400 per barrel, you expect the Canadians to sell the oil to us at a discount because we're buddies? They have a product, and they will sell it to us at the going price of oil.

[Enmore]

We'd rather let thousands of our young men and women die or get permanently maimed and keep being a puppet for the Middle East.

And ironically the biggest single consumer of oil is the US military. It uses the same amount as Sweden apparently I heard the other day.

[Keven]

Back to Obama for a minute, great editorial from the Wall Street Journal and how Obama has continually mismanaged the war in Afghanistan since he took office in 2009. I don't agree with everything they say, but a lot of it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...758438750.html

No one but a rogue Army Sergeant is responsible for the crime of killing 16 Afghan civilians on the weekend. And no one but rogue Afghan soldiers are responsible for the recent killings of American GIs. But the events take place against a political backdrop in which everyone, friend and foe alike, knows the U.S. is heading toward the exits in Afghanistan. Retreats are messy in warfare, and they can quickly become disorderly when the mission becomes something other than military victory.

That's the big picture to keep in mind as U.S. and Afghan leaders try to quell any violent reaction to the GI's murderous rampage in Kandahar province. His motive and identity aren't publicly known. The Taliban and antiwar Americans want to turn the killings into a 21st century My Lai and a symbol of American mistakes.

But the striking fact is that nothing like this has happened over 10 years of difficult, counterinsurgency warfare. Coalition troops have been disciplined and professional despite the constant ambushes, roadside bombs and even (rare) betrayals by Afghans fighting at their side. Perhaps the explanation is as simple as the sergeant snapped.

President Obama and other officials have apologized for the killings, and rightly so. Afghan leaders have to contend with public anger and need help to calm passions. President Hamid Karzai, who isn't immune to anti-American outbursts, has little to gain from a repeat of last month's violent riots after GIs burned copies of the Quran at Bagram air base. Tempers were falling over that incident when the Army sergeant struck.

The larger problem is the perception of discord and disarray that all of this is promoting—in the U.S. and Afghanistan. On the ground, Mr. Obama's decision last summer to speed America's withdrawal has made it harder to build the trust and Afghan institutions needed to transfer the security lead by the American-imposed deadline of 2014.

Afghan leaders are worried about their future, and many are hedging their bets in Kabul and elsewhere. Mr. Karzai has reached out to Iran and Pakistan. He has been pushed into driving a harder bargain on a possible deal on the U.S. role after 2014.

America's allies in the government have expressed their frustration. "A catastrophe," said Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak recently, in response to an American proposal to slim the ranks of the Afghan National Army, one success story of the war. The army, which would be reduced to 230,000 troops after 2014 from 352,000 troops today, is supposed to take the baton from the U.S.

With its eye on the exits, the U.S. has been pressing (over Afghan government objections) for talks and a truce with Mullah Omar and the Taliban, who still operate with impunity out of Pakistan. But no wonder those talks are going nowhere. With the U.S. signalling it won't maintain a robust military presence into the future, Omar knows he can insist on maximum demands (prisoner releases, no night raids) while waiting until the U.S. departs.

The Taliban also know that attacks on coalition soldiers by Afghan army or police is a way to sap support for the war in home capitals. When four French soldiers were killed by a man in an Afghan military uniform in January, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced a faster withdrawal timetable. Mr. Obama's rare recent public comments on the war have been moments of apology to Afghans, rather than explaining to Americans the progress our troops have made and the support they receive from the vast majority of Afghans. Rarely has a U.S. President in wartime said so little so infrequently about his own strategy and the forces fighting to make it work.

The tragedy is that Mr. Obama pulled the plug on his own surge in mid-course, just as it was starting to work. With 30,000 surge troops sent to the fight in 2010, Marines, Army troops and special forces have cleared and held the Taliban heartland in Helmand and Kandahar. But with 10,000 fewer surge troops than generals on the ground requested, the U.S. couldn't devote as many resources to the east of Afghanistan.

That was supposed to be the next military priority when in June Mr. Obama ordered the entire surge force home by this summer. Media leaks say the Administration plans an announcement soon to end all combat operations by next year. This can't be good for morale. No soldier wants to be the last to die in a conflict that his Commander in Chief has politically checked out of.

Americans are understandably tired of war, and a Washington Post-ABC poll this weekend showed that 60% think Afghanistan wasn't worth the cost. GOP candidate Newt Gingrich, ever the opportunist, quickly declared that Afghanistan was probably "not doable."

One GI's killing spree should not be able to undermine a war effort for which Americans have sacrificed so much. But that's what can happen when everyone concludes that a President's timetable is geared more to an election than to military success. If only Mr. Obama spoke as clearly about U.S. purposes in Afghanistan as he has about the risks of an Israeli attack on Iran.

Since it's been clear that Obama has no interest in doing anything in Afghanistan, why are we still there? What's the point? The community organizer-in-chief has completely mismanaged Afghanistan since he took over in 2009.

And where is the anti-war left? Where are all the stop the war bumper stickers? Apparently, the American Left's opposition to the war in Afghanistan stopped as soon as a Democrat became president.

[BlackDragon24]

Back to Obama for a minute, great editorial from the Wall Street Journal and how Obama has continually mismanaged the war in Afghanistan since he took office in 2009. I don't agree with everything they say, but a lot of it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...758438750.html



Since it's been clear that Obama has no interest in doing anything in Afghanistan, why are we still there? What's the point? The community organizer-in-chief has completely mismanaged Afghanistan since he took over in 2009.

And where is the anti-war left? Where are all the stop the war bumper stickers? Apparently, the American Left's opposition to the war in Afghanistan stopped as soon as a Democrat became president.

Maddow spent the first 15 min of her show last night basically saying the same thing....time to bounce.

[jimzinsocal]

Cost of Obamacare were a little off Id say

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/1...1-76-trillion/

If all this was about insuring 50 million people? Sheesh