Which Democrat is right?

[Ibelsd]

Well, which Democrat is right?

Clinton is blaming Obama for the rise if ISIL and Islamic jihadists.

http://nypost.com/2014/08/10/obamas-...ides-of-aisle/
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

Did Obama's foreign policy cause the mess we are currently seeing in the Middle East? Hillary called Obama to the mat and described his foreign policy sophomoric
http://nypost.com/2014/08/10/obamas-...ides-of-aisle/
“Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” said Clinton

Obama countered with
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...sy-109890.html
Obama said the idea that arming rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy.”

So... who's right here. How does a Democrat partisan defend Obama and Hillary here? Whose side to take? OMG! Could this be a sign of an impending apocalypse? Which side will JJ choose? I predict JJ will somehow spin this discord into away as insignificant differences between the two. He'll then introduce some GOP talking point and side-step the entire thing. Should he be forced to confront this issue head on, I am sure his head would blow into tiny bits as he'd be forced to admit one of his shining heroes is flawed.

[Ibelsd, you're not able to change the title of a thread, so I did. As you know, a debate topic should not be about personally attacking or addressing another ODN member. Your OP is interesting, but it's not really about JJ.]

[JimJones8934]

Please remove this post and rephrase it to be a little less antagonistic.

[Sigfried]

Interesting questions but were not supposed to call out individual members in our posts.

That said...

When it comes to hindsight and would could have or would have worked we will never really know who is correct. We do know what happened, we don't know exactly why but we can make some observations about it. We know ISIS came up in the Syria conflict and that they the kind of group that makes Sadam and even the Taliban look like good neighbors. We know a big part of why there are there is power vacuum and their ability and desire to fill it.

I think the notion that if we had just armed they Syrian resistance this would not have happened is probably wrong. Just giving people arms doesn't in any way ensure their victory. They have to be organized, determined and unified. ISIS was, the other groups were not. As a result ISIS and its allies seized a great many armaments in the region (of which there is little shortage) and while they didn't defeat Assad, they did manage to crush a very weak and willing section of Iraq and hold part of Syria letting Assad crush their local rivals.

I think if we had armed they Syrian resistance we would have further armed ISIS and then we really would be to blame for their rampage. We'd have american weapons killing american Allies... well more than is already happening. Much of the armament they already are using came from us, seized in Syria and especially in Iraq. We armed the Iraqis, we gave them training and organization and lots of money and support, and when ISIS came calling they abandoned all those weapons and for the most part ran away. Giving guns to people ISIS can beat is just giving guns to ISIS. Great for arms dealers, dumb for everyone else.

Indeed one of the huge failings in Iraq in the first place was not securing all the arms we captured there initially and letting them get in the hands of the militants, the same suni militants that have now joined up with ISIS. Throwing around weapons that are not secure or in the hands of capable fighters is stupid.

Given the history there, I think we aught to firmly back the Kurds. They have been the only group to really take democracy and freedom to heart and would very much welcome the help. We may piss off Turkey (which is bad) but only to a degree. We'd have to watch out for aggression North on their part but they are worth helping and have been good allies for the most part. They are organized and responsible and have at least put up some resistance to ISIS.

So while I think its clear Obama failed to prevent ISIS (not that I think this is a primary responsibility he holds) I think that Hillary's prescription would have been like pouring gas on the fire rather than water and thus is trying to correct a failed policy by suggesting a worse one.

[Ibelsd]

Ahhh. But you are missing the point. My real question is how the party faithful will reconcile the disagreement. There is a cult like following for both Democrats. This riff means the believers will have to side with one. Who will they choose? The original namesake of this thread sidestepped the question and felt it was antagonism. In fact I was not singling him out. If I was discussing Catholicism I'd ask the Pope if he were available. If seems reasonable to ask our resident Obama-Hillary and all things Democratic fanboy how he will reconcile this great divide.

Here is my bargain with whomever believes I am mistaken. If you can point me to a post where he actively opposed their position, I'll retract my question.


P.S.
I find it fantastic that I got a warning from mod and a positive Rep from another.

[JimJones8934]

P.S. I find it fantastic that I got a warning from mod and a positive Rep from another.

I believe they both pointed out your inappropriateness in calling other members out. When you stop the personal attacks or attacking people for what you believe they are as opposed to their arguments (which on the GOP side tend to be either exaggerations or lies or anti-Constitutionally religious) then we can get somewhere.

[Ibelsd]

I believe they both pointed out your inappropriateness in calling other members out. When you stop the personal attacks or attacking people for what you believe they are as opposed to their arguments (which on the GOP side tend to be either exaggerations or lies or anti-Constitutionally religious) then we can get somewhere.

Then by all means. Please, choose whose side you are on. Which Democrat is blatantly wrong? Is it the current Preident or is it the next likely Democratic nominee for the job?

[JimJones8934]

Then by all means. Please, choose whose side you are on. Which Democrat is blatantly wrong? Is it the current Preident or is it the next likely Democratic nominee for the job?

I have no idea but your premise that it's impossible or difficult to choose is a silly one. Obama has been wrong on many things; as has Clinton. The way you frame it makes no sense. Please ask a sensible question that can be answered.

[Sigfried]

JJ: Setting aside Ibelsd for the moment, Do you think we should have sent more arms to the Syrian Opposition earlier in the conflict? That seems to be the crux of the critique from Hillary.

Ibelsd: What do you think on the matter, should we have sent more arms to the Syrian Opposition?

I found it an interesting and specific question, far more interesting than whether or not Jim is a died in the wool democrat/liberal.

[Ibelsd]

JJ: Setting aside Ibelsd for the moment, Do you think we should have sent more arms to the Syrian Opposition earlier in the conflict? That seems to be the crux of the critique from Hillary.

Ibelsd: What do you think on the matter, should we have sent more arms to the Syrian Opposition?

I found it an interesting and specific question, far more interesting than whether or not Jim is a died in the wool democrat/liberal.

Well.. then you can make your own thread. lol. In seriousness, while I have an opinion (SHOCK!) on the Syrian question, it is not the question in this thread. JJ aside, my question is about party politics not political policy. The Demcoratic party, as I see it, is built up on two camps which based on cult of personality. You have the Obama camp and the Clinton camp. While the two camps got along, all was well in Democratic liberal land. Now that there may be a schism based on political necessity, how do the rank and file followers reconcile this? It is one thing to choose Hillary over Biden or Warren over Reid. Biden and Reid do not have the cult-like followers of Obama and Hillary. So, when those two clash, I think it is bound to cause some ripples in the party and I think it is an interesting question to try to determine how it will play out.

If my question was not interesting on its face consider my OP and my prediction:
" JJ will somehow spin this discord into away as insignificant differences between the two."

Now, if we can decipher through my typos.... you will notice that I correctly predicted he'd avoid the confrontation. Even when I simply asked him to opine who is correct he answered with
"I have no idea but your premise that it's impossible or difficult to choose is a silly one."

Silly for sure. So silly, he has no idea who is right. Do you suppose he'd be so wishy washy had either policy come from a Republican? Again, it is not that I am trying to pick on anyone. I really am not. He was simply the best and most blatant partisan example on this website and I believe his answer is indicative of the sort of answer you'd find from others in the Democratic party right now. What makes this interesting? I find the election implications here intriguing.

[Sigfried]

Well.. then you can make your own thread. lol. In seriousness, while I have an opinion (SHOCK!) on the Syrian question, it is not the question in this thread. JJ aside, my question is about party politics not political policy. The Demcoratic party, as I see it, is built up on two camps which based on cult of personality. You have the Obama camp and the Clinton camp. While the two camps got along, all was well in Democratic liberal land. Now that there may be a schism based on political necessity, how do the rank and file followers reconcile this? It is one thing to choose Hillary over Biden or Warren over Reid. Biden and Reid do not have the cult-like followers of Obama and Hillary. So, when those two clash, I think it is bound to cause some ripples in the party and I think it is an interesting question to try to determine how it will play out.

Isbeld, I'll point out that this is a debate thread. One of the OP requirements in the debate threads is you take a position on a question or issue. Your question is clearly stated. "So... who's right here?" And that means the debate must be at least to a degree about which democrat's argument is right, and by the rules you have to take a position on that or have this moved off to shooting the breeze or what not where those rules don't apply.

I'll tell you how most human beings, including democratic loyalists decide... the think about it and make a decision based on the information they have at hand and the arguments offered.

Now, if we can decipher through my typos.... you will notice that I correctly predicted he'd avoid the confrontation. Even when I simply asked him to opine who is correct he answered with

He's just playing the same game you are, making this about something other than the stated subject. You refused to answer because you say this is about him, he refuses to answer because you made it about him. I'm the only person here willing to address the actual question it seems.

Silly for sure. So silly, he has no idea who is right.

I'm pretty sure he has an opinion but he's so distracted by your presentation of it he won't answer. Why not do him one better and answer for yourself?

[Ibelsd]

Isbeld, I'll point out that this is a debate thread. One of the OP requirements in the debate threads is you take a position on a question or issue. Your question is clearly stated. "So... who's right here?" And that means the debate must be at least to a degree about which democrat's argument is right, and by the rules you have to take a position on that or have this moved off to shooting the breeze or what not where those rules don't apply.

I'll tell you how most human beings, including democratic loyalists decide... the think about it and make a decision based on the information they have at hand and the arguments offered.



He's just playing the same game you are, making this about something other than the stated subject. You refused to answer because you say this is about him, he refuses to answer because you made it about him. I'm the only person here willing to address the actual question it seems.



I'm pretty sure he has an opinion but he's so distracted by your presentation of it he won't answer. Why not do him one better and answer for yourself?

I have taken a position. I have taken a position for the topic of this thread, not for the topic you have assumed for this thread. With that being said. I'll step aside. Should you and JJ wish to debate this topic, then have at it. Yet to my argument, MSNBC, the generally accepted mainstream liberal mouthpice has several stories on Syria and they all sidestepped the big question, which one is right
http://www.msnbc.com/search/Syria

They explained how the differences were minimal. They explained how the media is blowing this out of proportion. What they have no actually discussed is the actual efficacy of Hillary's policy position juxtaposed to Obama's. And I wouldn't expect them to. They all understand that this riffs hurts democrats precisely because it is their two demigods who are in disagreement. The partisan outlets don't dare take sides for fear of alienating one group of rabid supporters.

This is the part of this that I find interesting and it is the actual topic of this thread.

[Sigfried]

So you think political jockeying is more interesting than the war and the lives of innocent people caught in said war?

I find that rather disheartening.

[JimJones8934]

They explained how the differences were minimal. They explained how the media is blowing this out of proportion. What they have no actually discussed is the actual efficacy of Hillary's policy position juxtaposed to Obama's. And I wouldn't expect them to. They all understand that this riffs hurts democrats precisely because it is their two demigods who are in disagreement. The partisan outlets don't dare take sides for fear of alienating one group of rabid supporters.

This is the part of this that I find interesting and it is the actual topic of this thread.

I don't know why you find it interesting that MSNBC would try not to do political damage to the Democratic Party given your belief that they are a partisan station. Isn't that what partisans do?


At the same time, you are exaggerating the 'rift', you are also ignoring the elephant in the room, that no matter who gets the blame on cleaning up Bush's mess; it is still a mess of his doing. Forgetting that the GOP hindered Obama's efforts in Syria last year is just typical of the current GOP modus operandi: to either cause problems or not help, thus making a particular situation worse, and then turning around and blaming Obama.

There is not much that you can say about either person that rises to the level of harm that the GOP has done. Nice try though.

[Ibelsd]

So you think political jockeying is more interesting than the war and the lives of innocent people caught in said war?

I find that rather disheartening.

I find it disheartening that you cannot discuss anything other than war and death.... Seriously though. The geopolitical situation in Syria is interesting in its own right, but it is not the direction I was heading in this particular thread.

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ----------

At the same time, you are exaggerating the 'rift', you are also ignoring the elephant in the room, that no matter who gets the blame on cleaning up Bush's mess; it is still a mess of his doing. Forgetting that the GOP hindered Obama's efforts in Syria last year is just typical of the current GOP modus operandi: to either cause problems or not help, thus making a particular situation worse, and then turning around and blaming Obama.

There is not much that you can say about either person that rises to the level of harm that the GOP has done. Nice try though.

And to prove the merit of my OP.... here we have it. Somehow, JJ brings this to a discussion of the GOP. Clinton and Obama engage in a fundamental disagreement over foreign policy and JJ somehow blames the GOP for the discord. Honestly, I'd expect nothing less from our resident, self-proclaimed, independent. See, he reconciled the rift, not by taking sides in the actual political debate, but in giving Clinton and Obama a pass and dismissing any disagreement as insignificant because it was all induced by someone else ... or something like that. Given, his logic is poor and the argument makes no sense. He throws up some sort of straw man, arguing against some level of harm I never claimed in the first place. But, there it is. There is the fantastical spin you can expect from the true Beliebers of the Democratic party.

Thanks for the shits and giggles JJ. Sigfried, you may now direct this thread in any direction you please. My work here is done.

[JimJones8934]

And to prove the merit of my OP.... here we have it. Somehow, JJ brings this to a discussion of the GOP. Clinton and Obama engage in a fundamental disagreement over foreign policy and JJ somehow blames the GOP for the discord. Honestly, I'd expect nothing less from our resident, self-proclaimed, independent. See, he reconciled the rift, not by taking sides in the actual political debate, but in giving Clinton and Obama a pass and dismissing any disagreement as insignificant because it was all induced by someone else ... or something like that. Given, his logic is poor and the argument makes no sense. He throws up some sort of straw man, arguing against some level of harm I never claimed in the first place. But, there it is. There is the fantastical spin you can expect from the true Beliebers of the Democratic party.

Thanks for the shits and giggles JJ. Sigfried, you may now direct this thread in any direction you please. My work here is done.

I trust you realize the significance of the orange jumpsuit that Foley was forced to wear as he was beheaded. Follow that orange back and tell me where it leads and then tell me that the Clinton statements are really worth discussing.

Otherwise, your attempts at trying to understand my thinking needs to begin with my stated positions on the opposition of the GOP. The 'rift' as you want to put it is no different from any Democrat might have with each other on any number of topics. I am baffled you think there would be anything substantive to discuss in that regard.

I haven't even bothered to 'reconcile' or choose sides because there is nothing worthwhile doing other than satisfying your weird fetish with seeing me criticize Obama. Which you could easily do by bringing up his complicity with the NSA or his terrible handling of Snowden and other whistleblowers. Instead you concoct a schoolboy scenario that makes no senses to respond to (other than criticizing it).

[Vandaler]

It seems reasonable to ask our resident Obama-Hillary and all things Democratic fanboy how he will reconcile this great divide.

Your question strikes me as very simple. There is always room to debate over difficult policy questions within the Democratic Party. I think the simple demonstration of this is that the rift does not seems to interest anyone but you.

[JimJones8934]

I trust you realize the significance of the orange jumpsuit that Foley was forced to wear as he was beheaded. Follow that orange back and tell me where it leads and then tell me that the Clinton statements are really worth discussing.

Otherwise, your attempts at trying to understand my thinking needs to begin with my stated positions on the opposition of the GOP. The 'rift' as you want to put it is no different from any Democrat might have with each other on any number of topics. I am baffled you think there would be anything substantive to discuss in that regard.

I haven't even bothered to 'reconcile' or choose sides because there is nothing worthwhile doing other than satisfying your weird fetish with seeing me criticize Obama. Which you could easily do by bringing up his complicity with the NSA or his terrible handling of Snowden and other whistleblowers. Instead you concoct a schoolboy scenario that makes no senses to respond to (other than criticizing it).

Update: Guess where the leadership of ISIS is being drawn from?

BAGHDAD — As fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria continue

to seize territory, the group has quietly built an effective management

structure of mostly middle-aged Iraqis overseeing departments of finance,

arms, local governance, military operations and recruitment.

At the top the organization is the self-declared leader of all Muslims,

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a radical chief executive officer of sorts, who

handpicked many of his deputies from among the men he met while a

prisoner in American custody at the Camp Bucca detention center a

decade ago.

He had a preference for military men, and so his leadership team

includes many officers from Saddam Hussein’s long-disbanded army.

They include former Iraqi officers like Fadel al-Hayali, the top deputy

for Iraq, who once served Mr. Hussein as a lieutenant colonel, and Adnan

al-Sweidawi, a former lieutenant colonel who now heads the group’s

military council.

Source

Thanks Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld! Yet again, the preference for trivia while ignoring the larger picture of responsibility becomes stark.

[Ibelsd]

Your question strikes me as very simple. There is always room to debate over difficult policy questions within the Democratic Party. I think the simple demonstration of this is that the rift does not seems to interest anyone but you.

Of course there is room for debate in the party. That is unquestionable. If Biden said one thing and Reid said another, ho-hum. Commence the debate. The issue is when the two mystical beasts of the party collide. Clinton's and Obama's followers are not mere party members, they compose of significant numbers of fanatics. There is a significant portion of that group that are fanatical about both. It would be akin to 1980's Republicans having to choose sides between Ronald Reagan and George Will. Two absolute lions of the party who simply had dedicated followers. To my knowledge, though, Will and Reagan never publicly collided and were not every rivals. So, we did not get to see the same sort of battle take place. And, to prove my point, our resident fanboy won't even take sides, choosing instead to wave his hands and point at an ex-President who has not been in office for over six years.

As an aside. I created this thread. So, whether anyone else is interested other than me is fairly unimportant. Thanks for your vote of confidence though.

[JimJones8934]

. And, to prove my point, our resident fanboy won't even take sides, choosing instead to wave his hands and point at an ex-President who has not been in office for over six years.

Fanboy reporting for duty to emphasize that you are again forgetting history. You do know that ISIS also water boarded our recently beheaded countryman? Right? The one wearing the orange jumpsuit whose significance you appear to be ignoring.

So while you can pretend that there is something substantive between Obama and Clinton whilst ignoring Bush's legacy; those of us who still seek justice on the horrors his administration wreaked on the world, find your petty fetishes another partisan attempt to deflect blame not a little specious.


Perhaps if you stop following right wing media you can get back to the middle but the moment you repeat a GOP talking point or scenario without looking at the larger picture, you can expect some pushback. I'm sorry you can't say anything more substantive to justify your OP; that you have to resort to side swipes and name calling speaks much about the lack of argument you really have. Again, this is a symptom of following Fox Lies so much. You need to stop!

[Sigfried]

Of course there is room for debate in the party. That is unquestionable. If Biden said one thing and Reid said another, ho-hum. Commence the debate. The issue is when the two mystical beasts of the party collide. Clinton's and Obama's followers are not mere party members, they compose of significant numbers of fanatics. There is a significant portion of that group that are fanatical about both.

While it is anecdotal... on Obama's first run when Hillary was also running and it was not yet clear who would win I attended the democratic Caucus here in Seattle to support Obama. The two camps were not only fairly divided and a bit antagonistic but the character of the two sets of core supporters were dramatically different int style, tone, and policy interests. The Obama supporters were a mix of independents, hippie types, and largely were newcomers. The Hillary camp was lots of soccer moms, party loyalists, and older people. The Obama camp was considerably larger and less organized.

7 Years later things have changed but I have to say the core demographic and loyalists of the two politicians are pretty different, at least here in Seattle.

---------- Post added at 10:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 AM ----------

Perhaps if you stop following right wing media you can get back to the middle but the moment you repeat a GOP talking point or scenario without looking at the larger picture, you can expect some pushback. I'm sorry you can't say anything more substantive to justify your OP; that you have to resort to side swipes and name calling speaks much about the lack of argument you really have. Again, this is a symptom of following Fox Lies so much. You need to stop!

Jim, if you have been paying much attention you will find Ibelsd is something of an independent minded guy. I think his perception of the left is a bit distorted by core party politics, but he's not a Fox news proclaiing right wing ideologue. More the firebrand independent minded type. At least that is my experience.