RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications.

RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:25:39 PM)
To get back to the OP: My feeling is that your analysis is spot on DS. It's also consistent with my understanding of Obama's personality. You would have to say, based on the evidence and results to date, that this shift in policy has been highly successful. A lot more bang for a lot fewer dollars. I can't think of a single reason why reducing military budgets isn't a good thing in principle. As it's accompanied by increased effectiveness, it's got to be a win-win situation for everyone.

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:31:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I think that this country has only one ideal. FREEDOM. You obviously have not read the patriot acts vol.1&2 .I also think that most of us think that the rest of the world should also be free. Funny how we only want those countries to be free who cannot protect themselves from us and have natural resources that we want.

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I wish that Obama would do as good as a job on our economy as he is doing on this other stuff. Who would have figured ? Go OBama on killing these terrorists.. Were you unaware that obama kept bush's treasury secretary...timmy...so what you are really doing with all of your pissing and moaning about the economy is bithcing about bush's economic policies.

Brain -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:42:08 PM)
And how is he supposed to fix the economy when Republicans are obsessed with cutting spending in areas that are vital for the economy to thrive and giving tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations that don't need them which do nothing to improve the economy quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse I wish that Obama would do as good as a job on our economy as he is doing on this other stuff. Who would have figured ? Go OBama on killing these terrorists..

servantforuse -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:43:04 PM)
Obama got timmy all on his own. After he paid his back taxes..

Brain -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:52:29 PM)
As far as the Obama doctrine is concerned when he tells us that he has a doctrine and what it is I will know that I'm talking about something of which I have some certainty but right now we're just guessing that he has a doctrine. For all we know in the future he could approach the terrorist problem in a very different and surprising way we don't expect and the terrorists don't expect either. I think he should do whatever he wants as long as it's legal and it works. Hopefully it will also be affordable.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:54:10 PM)
There is something a bit unsettling about putting the CIA Director in charge of DOD, and replacing him with a 4 star general, Steve. Shouldn't those forms of service be kept separate?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:55:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Bush introduced the Bush Doctrine years back. Basically it said that if the US considers another nation to be an imminent threat, it will attack militarily. Subsequently, this was put into practice in Iraq - a nation which posed no direct threat, but which we invaded based on (take your pick) - poor intelligence, or ignored good intelligence. Obama has not officially declared it, but based on the recent assassination and the Somali pirate operation, his style is becoming evident. 1. Make damn sure that you have a clear target, preferably an unsuspecting one. 2. Send a small, crack team to do a surgical, precision operation. Notice how he just nominated an intelligence head to head up DoD. The message is clear - intelligence is a vital part of warfare, possibly more important than numerical superiority. The implications: Hardware manufacturers must be scared. Elite tactical units need small weaponry. Tanks especially will not be needed much. Data crunchers and number analysts will be in demand. Foot soldiers, not so much. The Pentagon budget could be reduced. Small forces are cheaper than massive operations. Sorry, but none of this is a "doctrine".

Sanity -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:57:02 PM)
That is really weird, struck me as the oddest thing. Dont know what to make of it, but honestly? I am doubtingt hat its from the "dazzle them with brilliance" hat, I am thinking its from the other one quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic There is something a bit unsettling about putting the CIA Director in charge of DOD, and replacing him with a 4 star general, Steve. Shouldn't those forms of service be kept separate?

pahunkboy -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 7:58:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u This,to me will be very interesting....how hard will we go about in finding the truth to the "what did Pakistan know and when did they know it ?" question. And how much will our gov't allow us to know about these findings? Knowing the public outcry should it become clear that Osama was being protected by one of our erstwhile allies....will arms get bent and accommodations reached without us,the public,being given a clear and full accounting of the investigatio n? and what about Cashmiere?

slvemike4u -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 8:15:58 PM)
Do you mean Kashmir?....or do you wist to discuss a sweater...or gloves? Anyway,what about it(as long as we are discussing the disputed territory...and not some sweater you are thinking of wearing [:D])?

Real0ne -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 8:48:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle To get back to the OP: My feeling is that your analysis is spot on DS. It's also consistent with my understanding of Obama's personality. You would have to say, based on the evidence and results to date, that this shift in policy has been highly successful. A lot more bang for a lot fewer dollars. I can't think of a single reason why reducing military budgets isn't a good thing in principle. As it's accompanied by increased effectiveness, it's got to be a win-win situation for everyone. its not fair to the banks

Real0ne -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 8:52:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic There is something a bit unsettling about putting the CIA Director in charge of DOD, and replacing him with a 4 star general, Steve. Shouldn't those forms of service be kept separate? I like the idea! Wonderful things are right around the corner. you know those mooooooslems are gonna be really pissed so we need a patriot act 3.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 10:00:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Hardware manufacturers must be scared. Elite tactical units need small weaponry. Tanks especially will not be needed much. Data crunchers and number analysts will be in demand. Foot soldiers, not so much. The Pentagon budget could be reduced. Small forces are cheaper than massive operations. I'm not so sure about this part, Steve. Those elite units like all the niftiest gadgetry and hardware, and they need to be backed up by competent regular forces who keep the helicopters from breaking down, and let's not forget all the wonders of the Space Command at their disposal. Abbottabad is one thing (one helluva thing!), and armed drones are another, but boots and tank treads are still the way to take and hold ground. The limits of airpower are currently on display in the Libya mess.

tj444 -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/2/2011 10:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I'll be very curious to learn at exactly what point the Pakistani government was "consulted" about this. I'm guessing - and hoping - that it was something along the lines of, "Hello, Mr. Zardari? Barry here. Salaam a a'laykum... say, you know those helicopters you hear? That's us finding bin Laden all by ourselves. I'm sure you'll understand why he didn't have time to thank you on the way out. Bye now; and fuck off, by the way." Nope. The Pakistanis were notified after it was all over. Obviously, Obama was concerned that one of them might have tipped off OBL. If what has been reported is correct, the US didnt know who was in that compound, all they were doing was following 2 couriers. I am sure they thought he might be there but from the reports, the US didnt actually know with any certainty. So, if that is true then the US couldnt tell the Pakistani govt something that they didnt know. That could very well have been a good thing if there are certain people in the Pakistani govt that was warning OBL of what the US was doing. I would expect there are people in all those countries that work against the US govt and help AQ when they can. Of course, the media and public is only told what the govt wants us to know.

Sanity -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 3:24:49 AM)
How many elite units would be required to deter China from forcibly taking Taiwan, or to keep Iran from overrunning the entire gulf region etc

farglebargle -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 4:08:39 AM)
quote: How many elite units would be required to deter China from forcibly taking Taiwan, or to keep Iran from overrunning the entire gulf region etc Where in the Constitution does it say You and I gotta pay the bills for defending Taiwan and the Middle East? We're not at war with Iran or China, so I don't know what Constitutional clause authorizes these expenses. Wasn't that a big Boehner promise or something?

Sanity -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 4:19:25 AM)
Neither did the Constitution require that we stop Hitler or Hirohito early on either, though if youre going to talk about paying the bills thats when it would have been least expensive to have done so. Hindsight being 20/20 and all though, we will just have to satisfy ourselves with learning historys lessons and applying them forward...

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 4:29:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Obama got timmy all on his own. After he paid his back taxes.. Is it your position that timmy was not bush's sec. treasury? Is it your position that timmy's current policy is different than his old policy under bush?

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 4:33:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How many elite units would be required to deter China from forcibly taking Taiwan, or to keep Iran from overrunning the entire gulf region etc Are you really suggesting that taiwan is not part of china?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125