Reagan vs Obama, from “we win, they lose” to “shrink them to a manageable problem”

It shouldn’t be surprising he would say something like that. We know he’s weak and indecisive when it comes to acting in the best interests of the nation. We know he’s petulant and feckless when he doesn’t get his way. We know he’s not that smart as he claims to be. And, we know he’s beyond caring.

Unfortunately, the next man up is just as bad. Notice how Biden became invisible, only to reappear today?

@Greg:

Shrinking Axis military capabilities to the point where they were “a manageable problem” was what most of World War II was all about, wasn’t it?

So you think FDR really just wanted to defeat the Nazis until they were “manageable?” Yeah, I seem to remember FDR saying something like “Well, if we can just get Hitler to the point where we can manage him, all will be well.”

Again, you fail majorly while trying to make excuses for Obama and his failures. FDR had no intention of “managing” Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. He intended to pound them, and pound them again, and again, and again, until there were not enough of them left to ever threaten us again. And that is just what we did. We pounded Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan into the dirt, bombing them back to the stone age where they had nothing left to fight for.

We won. They lost. And they lost big enough that they will never come back to bite us again.

@Greg: Yep, Greg, you always leave room to wiggle out of your ignorant statements. We win, they lose is a strategic statement that allows planners to develop tactical plans to implement the strategy. Did you spend you military years as a deck swabber or a permanent KP? The strategy for the Normandy Landing was written very briefly on the back of an envelope. Then the tactical planners developed the detailed plans.

You really should write about things for which you have knowledge, but then we may not hear from you again.

@Randy, #5:

I’m not attempting to wiggle out out of a damn thing. People are exhibiting a willfulness to misunderstand the meaning of a perfectly straightforward statement. Either that, or they have genuine verbal comprehension problems, which I suppose might explain why Obama often seems to be talking over so many people’s heads.

@Greg:

Poor analogies, both the firemen and the ER doctor, in trying to compare them to the democrat method of.dealing with jihadists.

Firemen putting out a fire have the primary goal of extinguishing the fire, not just shrinking it down.

An ER doctor discussing the treatment of a trauma victim is not typically worried about his patient attempting to behead him once his injuries have been stabilized.

The attempts via sanctions and/or air interdiction to contain and manage Iran, or the 17 year attempt to contain Saddam, or the international efforts to quarantine the Taliban era Afghanistan all failed miserably. Hamstringing the US military, as the left worked furiously to do during Bush II’s terms, compounded with the Obama administration’s refusal to negotiate a new SOFA agreement in Iraq in the ideological insistence of pulling out before the country was stabilized, further (allegedly) compounded by the decision to arm Syrian opposition to Assad (which ended up in the hands of ISIS) – all of these leftist policies have served to weaken the US while emboldening these viscious jihadist animals. When even wahhabi Saudi Arabia is warning the west that ISIS is dangerous and must be stopped, the feckless, incompetent and woefully inadequate response of the Obama administration is absolute dereliction of duty.

January 2016 cannot come fast enough. God help us if another clueless democrat (but I repeat myself) gets elected to replace the craven, community (dis) organizing demagogue currently befouling the Oval Office.

@retire05, #10:

No comprehension problem. I even provided the definition of manage taken straight from Merriam-Webster on line.

You might want to refresh your memory concerning the difference between verbs and adjectives. Manageable belongs to the second category.

man·age·a·ble (adjective) Able to be managed, controlled, or accomplished without great difficulty.

As in:

“We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

That’s actually a sensible and comprehensible statement—assuming that you’re a sensible and comprehending listener—even taken out of its full context. If you’re not clear on the meaning, you might also want to consider the rest of what he said:

“Our objective is clear, and that is: degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat, not just to Iraq but also to the region and to the United States”

That seems entirely clear and unambiguous to me.

@Greg:

you might also want to consider the rest of what he said:

Greggie, you are the most dishonest person here. The rest of what he said? Problem is you have it exactly backwards. Obama first said:

“Our objective is clear, and that is: degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat, not just to Iraq but also to the region and to the United States”

It wasn’t until later in his speech in Estonia that he said:

“We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

Nice attempt at spin, Greggie, but again, a major fail on your part.

man·age·a·ble (adjective) Able to be managed, controlled, or accomplished without great difficulty.

If an entity no longer exists, it doesn’t require managing. We no longer “manage” the Nazi regime, do we?

@Greg:

Yes, the rest of what he said. The rest, as in the part that was omitted because including it would have revealed the right wing media’s assertions about it to be intentionally deceptive.

Actually, it was the right wing media where I heard both statements, not just the one you accuse them of only informing on. So your attempt to claim that “the right wing media” didn’t report both statements is blatantly false, like most of your claims.

It’s probably a waste of time to argue with people who are either unwilling or incapable of understanding a simple truth that is staring them straight in the face.

Well, if you are talking about yourself as being the one who is either unwilling or incapable of understand a simple truth, it would be the first time that you were actually honest. You refuse to answer questions even when you encourage them; you obfuscate, twist, fabricate and blatantly lie about things on a regular basis. And then, when caught in the trap like a rat, you obfuscate, twist, fabricate and blatantly lie some more.

You can manage your budget, you can manage your dandruff, you can manage a band, but you can’t manage an enemy. You decimate them. Totally, without prejudice, until they cease to exist.

@Greg: Greggie do you mean like the meaning of “is” by Clinton or “period” by 0-blama. Come on Greggie, you can’t even understand these words!! Still waiting on proof relevant to Romney’s taxes.