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

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 4:41:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity 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. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of history. What could the u.s. have have done to stop hitler or hirohito? Hindsight being 20/20 and all though, we will just have to satisfy ourselves with learning historys lessons and applying them forward... Since you seem to be totally ignorant of history just how would that work.

thishereboi -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 4:59:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 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. Is this the one you are going on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury and if so, why does this link say he started the job in Jan of 2009?

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 5:29:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 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. Is this the one you are going on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury and if so, why does this link say he started the job in Jan of 2009? from your link Geithner's position includes a large role in directing the Federal Government's spending on the financial crisis of 2007–2011, including allocation of $350 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program enacted during the previous administration. Just click on his name

thishereboi -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 5:33:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 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. Is this the one you are going on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury and if so, why does this link say he started the job in Jan of 2009? from your link Geithner's position includes a large role in directing the Federal Government's spending on the financial crisis of 2007–2011, including allocation of $350 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program enacted during the previous administration. Just click on his name You claimed that timmy was bush's treasury secretary in the above posts. Either he was or he wasn't and according to the link I provided, he wasn't. Simple really[8D]

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 6:51:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 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. Is this the one you are going on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury and if so, why does this link say he started the job in Jan of 2009? from your link Geithner's position includes a large role in directing the Federal Government's spending on the financial crisis of 2007–2011, including allocation of $350 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program enacted during the previous administration. Just click on his name You claimed that timmy was bush's treasury secretary in the above posts. Either he was or he wasn't and according to the link I provided, he wasn't. Simple really[8D] quote: Geithner My bad he was the architect of the bail out not the sec. treasury. So the question remains... Were you unaware that obama kept bush's architect of the bailout...timmy...so what you are really doing with all of your pissing and moaning about the economy is bithcing about bush's economic policies. Unless of course you would prefer to argue about a mans title as opposed to his policies.

thishereboi -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 11:22:04 AM)
quote: My bad he was the architect of the bail out not the sec. treasury. So the question remains... Were you unaware that obama kept bush's architect of the bailout...timmy...so what you are really doing with all of your pissing and moaning about the economy is bithcing about bush's economic policies. Unless of course you would prefer to argue about a mans title as opposed to his policies. Pointing out that timmy was not under bush is not "pissing and moaning about the economy is bithcing about bush's economic policies." no matter how you spell it. Now chill out before you burst something[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 12:38:00 PM)
quote: Pointing out that timmy was not under bush He was the architect of the bush bail out. What part of that is unclear to you? Obama kept the architect of the bush bailout and continued with it. Is there some part of that that is unclear to you? The economic policy of bush&co. has been continued on by obama. If you do not feel that is true then please show how this president is any different than the last one...except he is more articulate.

thishereboi -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 12:40:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Pointing out that timmy was not under bush He was the architect of the bush bail out. What part of that is unclear to you? Obama kept the architect of the bush bailout and continued with it. Is there some part of that that is unclear to you? The economic policy of bush&co. has been continued on by obama. If you do not feel that is true then please show how this president is any different than the last one...except he is more articulate. It is very clear. You said one thing and once proven wrong, you changed it. Nice try but I think this hijack has gone on long enough. Go Obama[8D]

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 12:57:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Pointing out that timmy was not under bush He was the architect of the bush bail out. What part of that is unclear to you? Obama kept the architect of the bush bailout and continued with it. Is there some part of that that is unclear to you? The economic policy of bush&co. has been continued on by obama. If you do not feel that is true then please show how this president is any different than the last one...except he is more articulate. Please excuse me I have mistaken you for someone who was interested in discussion and not snark...my mistake...do try and have a nice day. It is very clear. You said one thing and once proven wrong, you changed it. Nice try but I think this hijack has gone on long enough. Go Obama[8D]

Brain -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 1:27:13 PM)
I don't know if this explains the doctrine.I think this is a really good article that explains a lot and I heard on MSNBC today that the United States government is investigating whether the Pakistani government's knew about this and supported it. Bin Laden raid years in the making, minutes in execution WASHINGTON — It took years for the U.S. military to track Osama bin Laden down, finding him not in a cave in the inaccessible tribal regions of Pakistan, but in a sumptuous luxury compound built just six years ago in the same city that is home to Pakistan's most prestigious military academy. Only U.S. personnel were involved in the raid, and Obama's decision to launch it wasn't shared with any other country, including Pakistan, whose most powerful intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, has long been suspected by U.S. officials of maintaining links to extremist groups close to al Qaida. Numerous experts said they doubted that bin Laden could have been living in the Abbottabad area, with its heavy concentration of military facilities and retired senior officers, without the knowledge of elements of the ISI and Pakistani military. “There is no way the ISI couldn’t have known about this. No way. Zero. In that area, they are absolute masters of their domain,” said a former senior defense official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. CIA Director Leon Panetta oversaw the operation from a special command center in his 7th floor conference room at CIA headquarters outside Washington, and then command of the operation was turned over to the SEALs commander once the “go order” for the raid was given, the U.S. official said… CIA analysts, working with the eavesdroppers of the National Security Agency and experts at the U.S. Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which analyzes satellite imagery, concluded "with strong probability" that a third family — bin Laden, his youngest wife and several family members — also were living there, he said. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/02/113479/bin-laden-raid-years-in-the-making.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz1LGoHdbIK People celebrate at the White House as President Barack Obama announces the death of Osama bin Laden. \| Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT [image]local://upfiles/392475/9B465AD15F224BA6915D0E86088B6073.jpg[/image]

farglebargle -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 2:29:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Neither did the Constitution require that we stop Hitler or Hirohito early on either, And we didn't stop them until after a Congress' formal declaration of war, conscription, mobilization of our economy to production of war materiel, etc...

hlen5 -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/3/2011 3:06:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Perhaps that is your problem Servant.....you have somehow missed the message ...we have many ideas...and more than a few ideals. It must suck to be you....missing out on so much that your country stands for....all because you closed the book after the one idea was broached [:(] Up til this post it would seem that you and servant4use were on the same page. Why the personal vitriol? Give it up fellas!!

DomYngBlk -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/5/2011 5:18:07 AM)
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. Thanks that was well thought out. His other strength seems to be patience when he knows he will be in the right. It has its downsides but he clearly learned from Dubya's impatience and lack of resolve when situations didn't change quickly. Also means we probably aren't leaving Afghanistan anytime soon.

DarkSteven -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/5/2011 5:32:17 AM)
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? Why? This is part of Obama's vision - a DoD that is not focused so much on boots on the ground and massive weaponry as much as short, precise operations in which good intelligence is vital. Think of his vision as being similar to the way the Israelis operate now. It's similar to one of the concepts in Reagan's Star Wars - brilliant pebbles as opposed to dumb rocks. In other words, highly targeted operations that use intelligence and try to pinpoint their impact.

thompsonx -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/5/2011 9:37:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Neither did the Constitution require that we stop Hitler or Hirohito early on either, And we didn't stop them until after a Congress' formal declaration of war, conscription, mobilization of our economy to production of war materiel, etc... quote: And we didn't stop them until after a Congress' formal declaration of war, conscription, mobilization of our economy to production of war materiel, etc... Actually it was the russians who stopped them.

slvemike4u -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/5/2011 9:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Perhaps that is your problem Servant.....you have somehow missed the message ...we have many ideas...and more than a few ideals. It must suck to be you....missing out on so much that your country stands for....all because you closed the book after the one idea was broached [:(] Up til this post it would seem that you and servant4use were on the same page. Why the personal vitriol? Give it up fellas!! Servant and I on the same page......not hardly.I really am quite confused as to how you reached that understanding Hlen....servant and I are poles apart....opposites in most everything(other than the fact that apparently we both like to kneel to the Female of the species....lol).

NewOCDaddy -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/5/2011 11:46:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Neither did the Constitution require that we stop Hitler or Hirohito early on either, And we didn't stop them until after a Congress' formal declaration of war, conscription, mobilization of our economy to production of war materiel, etc... quote: And we didn't stop them until after a Congress' formal declaration of war, conscription, mobilization of our economy to production of war materiel, etc... Actually it was the russians who stopped them. rofl. sure it was

pogo4pres -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/5/2011 12:06:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Actually it was the russians who stopped them. rofl. sure it was Your snide ROFL displays the complete lack of knowledge of history you posses. I would suggest you read up carefully on the 900 day siege of Leningrad (St Petersberg), the Battle of Kursk, and the battle for Stalingrad (Volgograd). Check the German forces tied up in those, and the losses, then think strongly about how the war would have differed if those forces had been able to fight in the west vs the allies. Once you've done that research kindly get back to us here in the forums. Historically, Some Knucklehead in NJ

NewOCDaddy -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/5/2011 12:19:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres quote: ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Actually it was the russians who stopped them. rofl. sure it was Your snide ROFL displays the complete lack of knowledge of history you posses. I would suggest you read up carefully on the 900 day siege of Leningrad (St Petersberg), the Battle of Kursk, and the battle for Stalingrad (Volgograd). Check the German forces tied up in those, and the losses, then think strongly about how the war would have differed if those forces had been able to fight in the west vs the allies. Once you've done that research kindly get back to us here in the forums. Historically, Some Knucklehead in NJ Once youve researched exactly where the Russians got their weaponsa and supplies kindly get back to us here in the forums....or dont. no one gives a fuck.

Lucylastic -> RE: The Obama doctrine, and its implications. (5/5/2011 12:41:15 PM)
SO...let me get this right, its not the army of the country that wins a war, its the suppliers of their arms and supplies? WHo the fuck knew that, wow colour me edumakated

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875