Posted on 10/02/2015 7:42:32 PM PDT by aught-6
President Obama defended his response to the growing crisis in Syria on Friday by pointing to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cautioning against a commitment that risks drawing the U.S. into a new quagmire in the Middle East.
Obama appeared determined to take on critics whom he portrayed as impatient and ignorant of the complexity of the warring factions in Syria. He laughed off suggestions that Russian airstrikes in recent days against fighters opposed to President Bashar Assad, an ally of Moscow’s, have President Vladimir Putin looking stronger than Obama in Syria.
“We’re not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia,” Obama insisted during an afternoon news conference at the White House. “This is not some superpower chessboard contest. And anybody who frames it in that way isn’t paying very close attention to what’s been happening on the chessboard"
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Strange chessboard arrangement there. Two bishops on the same color square (possible, but unlikely), a six by seven chessboard. Not sure what game Putin is playing here either. Clearly Obama doesn’t seem to know the difference.
You think all it takes to build a military force is money. You are wrong.
I didn’t see FDR and Reagan taking your advice (i.e., cut waste, fraud, and abuse) when building up our military. Instead I saw them SPENDING MORE MONEY.
So go on and keep trying to get something for nothing...and you’ll learn just what we get for nothing.
“Instead I saw them SPENDING MORE MONEY.”
Friend, if spending money is all it took to build a world class military, Saudi Arabia would have a military teeming with courage and valor.
No, it takes more than just spending money.
Where does the money go that we spend now - the half trillion a year must go somewhere?
If we prioritized combat capability, we would not be in the situation we are in now.
Combat capability is not the priority at the moment. Somehow $500B doesn’t get us much.
It’s reasonable to ask “why”.
The sad thing is that people of your mindset DOMINATE the Republican Party, and also seem convinced that money isn’t important which is why we barely have a navy and barely have an army at this point.
Sad, but hopefully some ADULTS will take charge and will again be willing to spend what is necessary to pay the troops, build the ships, and develop the weapons.
...and SORRY, that does take money - regardless of what they teach you guys these days at DeVry.
“which is why we barely have a navy and barely have an army at this point.”
You’ve made the point I’ve been trying to explain to you.
Don’t you think $500+ Billion a year should buy us more than the barest Army and the barest Navy?
I know, I make it sound like $500B is a lot of money. Shame on me.
“...and SORRY, that does take money - regardless of what they teach you guys these days at DeVry.”
Friend, A DeVry graduate would run circles around you - you can’t even grasp basic math or basic accounting.
Your solution of “More money” is a classic example of a self-important government employee way over his head trying to understand important geopolitical events.
You are clueless like John Kerry, but without the yacht, but with the cocksure attitude that you know what you are talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.