Originally posted by whodey Yes, NATO did a fine job fighting in Lybia. LOL.
Why did you not think N.A.T.O. would not intervene? You profess surprise. So you thought that the U.S. would sit out on a N.A.T.O. operation or veto it or what?
Originally posted by FMF Why did you not think N.A.T.O. would not intervene? You profess surprise. So you thought that the U.S. would sit out on a N.A.T.O. operation or veto it or what?
I bought into the whole notion that Obama was mortified that "W" went to war in Iraq.
So what were the reasons given for going into Libya? Was it not to "save" the Libyan people? If so, Saddam was a far worse dictator than Gaddaf in this respecti. First of all, the standard of living was far better in Libya than Iraq, and Gaddafi had not attacked bordering soverign countries nor used WMD's against his own people, yet we are to believe that attacking Saddam was wrong but attacking Gaddafi was OK to "save" the Libyian people but not the Iraqi people?
Originally posted by whodey I bought into the whole notion that Obama was mortified that "W" went to war in Iraq.
So what were the reasons given for going into Libya? Was it not to "save" the Libyan people? If so, Saddam was a far worse dictator than Gaddaf in this respecti. First of all, the standard of living was far better in Libya than Iraq, and Gaddafi had not attacked bord ...[text shortened]... e" the Libyian people but not the Iraqi people?
Pfft.
Just show us the oil baby!!
"I bought into the whole notion that Obama was mortified that "W" went to war in Iraq."
Yeah, me too. Very shocking considering he ended the war as promised.
But yes, obviously opposing the Iraq war means opposing all wars.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper "I bought into the whole notion that Obama was mortified that "W" went to war in Iraq."
Yeah, me too. Very shocking considering he ended the war as promised.
But yes, obviously opposing the Iraq war means opposing all wars.
Obama ended the war as Bush promised. Obama did not end the war when he promised to. He took an extra 2 years and kept the Bush time line for ending the occupation.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper There's no way in hell we're going to war with Iran.
BTW, does anyone know if Iran came out with any statements about the US Navy saving one of their boats?
These strict and extreme sanctions are an act of war. Why do you think Iran is freaking out about it? They know they are on the chopping block and the axe is being sharpened.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper "I bought into the whole notion that Obama was mortified that "W" went to war in Iraq."
Yeah, me too. Very shocking considering he ended the war as promised.
But yes, obviously opposing the Iraq war means opposing all wars.
No, if you are to be consistant and say you favor fighting wars to "save" the populace then Saddam should have been a bigger target for Obama than Gaddafi, simply because of his history of genocide and tendency to attack soveriegn nations. Gaddafi was a puppy dog compared to Saddam, yet somehow we are to believe that Obama favored killing Gaddafi but not Saddam?
Simply put, dumping on "W" for the Iraq war was mere political convenience. There is no real difference between the two men.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper "I bought into the whole notion that Obama was mortified that "W" went to war in Iraq."
Yeah, me too. Very shocking considering he ended the war as promised.
But yes, obviously opposing the Iraq war means opposing all wars.
Very shocking considering he ended the war as promised. USArmyParatrooper
You say you have fought in Iraq. I take your word for that. That being said, do you feel this promise kept was a sound choice based on what the Generals on the ground recommend or a choice for Obama based on politics ?
Very shocking considering he ended the war as promised. USArmyParatrooper
You say you have fought in Iraq. I take your word for that. That being said, do you feel this promise kept was a sound choice based on what the Generals on the ground recommend or a choice for Obama based on politics ?
when is any decision made by an elected leader not informed by some overriding political necessity. The idea that any positively received action would not have been formulated with the view to exploit all of its potential political capital is surely naive?
Originally posted by kmax87 when is any decision made by an elected leader not informed by some overriding political necessity. The idea that any positively received action would not have been formulated with the view to exploit all of its potential political capital is surely naive?
I will rephrase it.
Was taking the troops out of Iraq the best thing to do militarily and for Iraq and the region ? Or was it seemingly the best thing for Obama to do politically on the home front ? "Campaign promise kept"so to speak.
Originally posted by utherpendragon I will rephrase it.
Was taking the troops out of Iraq the best thing to do militarily and for Iraq and the region ? Or was it seemingly the best thing for Obama to do politically on the home front ? "Campaign promise kept"so to speak.
Maybe the Iraqi people should have more of a say whether foreign troops occupy their country than American Generals.
War is politics by other means - Clausewitz
The US is a democratic republic and leaders should generally do what the people want them to. Or would you prefer we appoint some Generals to decide all our foreign policy including what countries we should war on?
Originally posted by no1marauder Maybe the Iraqi people should have more of a say whether foreign troops occupy their country than American Generals.
War is politics by other means - Clausewitz
The US is a democratic republic and leaders should generally do what the people want them to. Or would you prefer we appoint some Generals to decide all our foreign policy including what countries we should war on?
I never said that. I dont want Generals telling us who to war on. But while in theater they are the experts. Not politicians. And they know if our goals have been met, are the Iraq people receptive to us staying there, do they feel comfortable doing it on their own at this point, are they capable etc ?
I am really still undecided. I dont know if this was a good move based on sound advice from the people who would know, or a premature decision based solely on politicking for a re-election.
Originally posted by utherpendragon I never said that. I dont want Generals telling us who to war on. But while in theater they are the experts. Not politicians. And they know if our goals have been met, are the Iraq people receptive to us staying there, do they feel comfortable doing it on their own at this point etc ?
I am really still undecided. I dont know if this was a good move ...[text shortened]... he people who would know, or a premature decision based solely on politicking for a re-election.
Generals are experts in nothing as our history repeatedly shows. And our governmental structure subordinates them to civilian elected officials (you may call them "politicians" if you chose, but they are the legitimate leaders under our Constitution).
In case you forgot, the US and Iraq had an agreement that US troops would withdraw by the end of December 2011, an agreement negotiated and entered into under the previous President. Is it your claim that this President should simply violate agreements with other countries if he feels like it or because some Generals say it would be a good idea to?
Originally posted by no1marauder Generals are experts in nothing as our history repeatedly shows. And our governmental structure subordinates them to civilian elected officials (you may call them "politicians" if you chose, but they are the legitimate leaders under our Constitution).
In case you forgot, the US and Iraq had an agreement that US troops would withdraw by ...[text shortened]... h other countries if he feels like it or because some Generals say it would be a good idea to?
In case you forgot, the US and Iraq had an agreement that US troops would withdraw by the end of December 2011, an agreement negotiated and entered into under the previous President.-no1marauder
So then, Obama was not really fulfilling a campaign promise but rather honoring a contract that GW had arranged ?
In case you forgot, the US and Iraq had an agreement that US troops would withdraw by the end of December 2011, an agreement negotiated and entered into under the previous President.-no1marauder
So then, Obama was not really fulfilling a campaign promise but rather honoring a contract that GW had arranged ?
He was doing both though at times in his campaign he suggested that he'd "end the war" within a year. Apparently Trooper and others consider the withdrawal of US troops from most active operations as fulfillment of the "end the war" pledge though they were still suffering combat losses.
Originally posted by FMF Why did you not think N.A.T.O. would not intervene? You profess surprise. So you thought that the U.S. would sit out on a N.A.T.O. operation or veto it or what?
N-orth A tlantic T reaty O rganization.
What treaty was NATO conforming to in going to war with Libya?
09 Jan '12 05:042 edits
We declare war on IRAN
Back to Top