A not-stupid war.

A not-stupid war. (Full Version)

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

Message

DarkSteven -> A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 7:41:27 AM)
As a candidate, Obama said something like "I'm not against all wars. I'm against stupid wars." He was clearly referring to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. He has recently taken out bin Laden and Kashmiri. Surgically. With no loss of US life. The US effect has been weird. Dems are turning from pacifists to chest thumpers. Republicans are urging caution in waging war, especially in Libya. Obama could run as the President that is taking down Al Qaeda. As a Dem/Republican, how do you feel about a Dem President successfully waging war? Kinda breaks the stereotypes. Personally, I'm more then ready to move into a world that involves less invasion, occupation, and loss of US life.

eihwaz -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 8:14:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven [...] Dems are turning from pacifists to chest thumpers. Republicans are urging caution in waging war, especially in Libya. Obama could run as the President that is taking down Al Qaeda. As a Dem/Republican, how do you feel about a Dem President successfully waging war? Kinda breaks the stereotypes. Personally, I'm more then ready to move into a world that involves less invasion, occupation, and loss of US life. The stereotype of Dems as pacifists -- "weak on national security" -- is a canard promulgated by conservatives. A brief survey of major 20th Century wars illustrates that Dems have been quite interventionist and have had no qualms about engaging in war. With the notable exception of neocons, conservatives have tended toward isolationism. WWI -- Wilson (D) WWII -- FDR (D) Korean War -- HST (D) Vietnam War -- DDE (R), JFK (D), LBJ (D), RMN (R), with LBJ responsible for the escalation of the war from merely "advisors" to ground and air actions Afghanistan 1 (via proxy) -- Carter (D) Iraq I -- GHWB (R) Iraq II -- GWB (R) Afghanistan II -- GWB (R) WWI and WWII can certainly be considered successful from an American perspective.

DomKen -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 8:16:45 AM)
Most US wars have been run, quite successfully, by Democratic Presidents so the stereotype is flat wrong. As a very liberal Democrat and a vet I've always been a bit of a hawk so my support for Afghanistan and Libya is not unusual. I even initially supported the Iraq debacle until it became clear it was grossly mismanaged, based on lies and not being undertaken to achieve any recognizable goals beyond enriching Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater. I understand and sympathise with the pacifists on the left and have nothing but contempt and laughter for the faux doves on the right.

juliaoceania -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 8:34:12 AM)
I am an independent, so my response was not asked for... I am mostly a pacifist. I do not think we should be engaging our forces anywhere at this point. We cannot afford it. I do not think we should have engaged our troops in Libya, either.

Owner59 -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 8:48:48 AM)
Those are just charactatures of what conservatives and liberal are. Viet Nam was a huge shaper of opinion that turned many against (that)war.Without that event,I don`t think kolks would feel as they do today. My dad was a liberal who worked for ending jim crow and for voting rights but didn`t protest the Viet Nam war.My folks also seriously considered adopting children orphaned in that war and instead helped our church sponsor a family to come to the US.That was there way to contributed. I was just speaking with a costumer of mine who was and still is a flower-child about bin-laden and she was very happy he was killed.She called him "an evil man". So there ya go.It`s more complicated than can be stated in a few sentences. There really are distinctions between wars.Some are justified and some aren`t.Before we commit our young GI`s lives,we should at the very least know that it is justified. The folks who want to conflate all war(s) and call them all the same, aren`t really sincere.

provfivetine -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 9:08:54 AM)
I don't really see much of a difference between the two parties when it comes to war. Obama is the biggest war-mongerer that the US has had in a while. Bush started wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama started wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya, while continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The democrats love war-mongering just as much as the republicans. It's only when a republican is in office that the democrats get all riled up because it's not one of their guys "spreading democracy." It's not just the democratic politicians, it's the democratic fanboys/girls as well. This graph highlights that issue well. Notice, the change in democratic war protestors once Obama got elected. [image]http://orgtheory.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/demdump.jpg[/image] Conversely, this whole democrat war thing is analogous to the republicans with deficits and debts. The republicans are only against massive deficits and debts when a democrat is in power. The two parties may disagree on trivial issues, like if income taxes on the rich should be 35% or 39.6%, but regarding big picture things they are basically the same.

juliaoceania -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 9:12:29 AM)
quote: I don't really see much of a difference between the two parties when it comes to war. There isn't a difference...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 9:16:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I was just speaking with a costumer of mine You have one on call? What did you dress up as this weekend? Or are you in theater? [:D] Aside from that, we actually agree for a change?

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 9:53:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven As a candidate, Obama said something like "I'm not against all wars. I'm against stupid wars." He was clearly referring to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. He has recently taken out bin Laden and Kashmiri. Surgically. With no loss of US life. The US effect has been weird. Dems are turning from pacifists to chest thumpers. Republicans are urging caution in waging war, especially in Libya. Obama could run as the President that is taking down Al Qaeda. What was achieved in killing Osama was great and Obama should get a thumbs up for that (if not a vote!!) but surely it was down to good fortune as much as anything due to new intelligence info? Besides that he blundered in a big way over decisions an' withdrawal announcements before so I can't really see how his military strategy is really that impressive.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 10:11:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven As a candidate, Obama said something like "I'm not against all wars. I'm against stupid wars." He was clearly referring to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. He has recently taken out bin Laden and Kashmiri. Surgically. With no loss of US life. The US effect has been weird. Dems are turning from pacifists to chest thumpers. Republicans are urging caution in waging war, especially in Libya. Obama could run as the President that is taking down Al Qaeda. What was achieved in killing Osama was great and Obama should get a thumbs up for that (if not a vote!!) but surely it was down to good fortune as much as anything due to new intelligence info? Besides that he blundered in a big way over decisions an' withdrawal announcements before so I can't really see how his military strategy is really that impressive. The only things Obama has seriously blundered on military wise is Afghanistan, which has no purpose and is unwinnable in todays political environment, no matter what your objective is. The rest of his policies conflict with the image he tries to present, but honesty hasn't been one of his qualties.

DarkSteven -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 10:18:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven As a candidate, Obama said something like "I'm not against all wars. I'm against stupid wars." He was clearly referring to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. He has recently taken out bin Laden and Kashmiri. Surgically. With no loss of US life. The US effect has been weird. Dems are turning from pacifists to chest thumpers. Republicans are urging caution in waging war, especially in Libya. Obama could run as the President that is taking down Al Qaeda. What was achieved in killing Osama was great and Obama should get a thumbs up for that (if not a vote!!) but surely it was down to good fortune as much as anything due to new intelligence info? Besides that he blundered in a big way over decisions an' withdrawal announcements before so I can't really see how his military strategy is really that impressive. He took intelligence from the Bush administration and quietly and patiently worked it until he had a location for OBL. Then he made the decision to send in a SEAL team into sovereign territory in a damn near perfect operation. Had anything gone wrong, it would have been worse for him than the Iran hostage situation was for Carter. Not so much good fortune as much as the intelligence to use what he was given, the faith in his intelligence and military orgs, and guts. His military strategy is to go in unannounced and do surgical ops, unlike the Bush administration, which is famous for "Mission Accomplished", "Bring it", and a steely commitment to kill OBL, later watered down to not giving a damn about him. As well as massive commitment of resources, and poor use of intelligence.

TheHeretic -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 10:22:13 AM)
Steve, nobody is going to confuse me with a pacifist, but I haven't been a fan of any of the wars we are in. Our justification for invading Afghanistan is undeniable, but it's fucking Afghanistan. That's where empires go to die. We needed to be in, and right back out again. We are not obligated to them. We went into Iraq because Bush wanted to, and, despite the shrieks of denial and excuses of their incompetent idiocy since, the Democrats went right along. As soon as we crossed the border, we owned it, and we were stuck there. An analogy I've used was that we had not only shoved the people of Iraq off the bridge and into the river, but that we had stocked the river with crocodiles as well. And now we have Libya, where US involvement is rolling along strictly on President Obama's authority. Despite the ballet of passing command in a matter of "days, not weeks," the buck still stops on his desk. There is also the nature of our tactics. We are apparently trying to assassinate a foreign leader, by remote control. As Bugs Bunny would say of such an act, "of course you know, THIS means war!," and Bugs would be right. There isn't any deniability here. I think we should count our blessings that we have missed so far, and get the hell out of there. We still have time to return this mess, before we own it, too. quote: Dems are turning from pacifists to chest thumpers. My reaction to this ranges from ROFLing, to amused, to dismayed, to repulsed.

juliaoceania -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 10:36:18 AM)
quote: His military strategy is to go in unannounced and do surgical ops, unlike the Bush administration, which is famous for "Mission Accomplished", "Bring it", and a steely commitment to kill OBL, later watered down to not giving a damn about him. As well as massive commitment of resources, and poor use of intelligence. I have to give you this, from a military standpoint, Obama seems much more successful in being able to have exit strategies, goals, and objectives that he can realistically meet, and without all the John Wayne swagger that made the United States so reviled internationally. Those with real power do not need to bolster themselves by bragging, showing instead of saying is much more impactful.

luckydawg -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 11:04:32 AM)
I don't really see how Obama took a huge risk. It would have been a back page one parragraph with no follow up, if it had failed. Like it is everytime a chopper goes down, or some soldiers get killed. Pakistan is furious, and the blowback from this may be horrendous. Pakistan has nukes. I think the old adage Obama is fucking up is "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" And we gave away our secret stealth copter advantage. Changing story designed to boost his poll numbers... Though I do like the US blowing away our enemies, it should be done by black ops. Not for campaign ads. I find it interesting how Dennis Kucinich went from being a "consience" and important leader of the left Especially in here) to a nobody. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) charged on Tuesday that President Obama is in violation of both the Constitution, by sending troops to Libya without consulting Congress, and the War Powers Act, by failing to obtain congressional authorization now that 60 days have elapsed since troops were first sent. "The war is unconstitutional," he said on the House floor. "The president did not come to this Congress, he went to the U.N. Security Council."

Fellow -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 11:19:22 AM)
quote: "The war is unconstitutional," he said on the House floor. Rep. Dennis Kucinich is making a mistake. It is "Kinetic Military Action" not a war.

lockedaway -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 11:56:18 AM)
Breaks stereotypes??? It was a democrat that ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs. It was a democrat that ordered a radical escalation of the war in Vietnam. Don't get me wrong...I support the use of our atomic weapons in WWII. I'm not disparaging it. As far as O'scumbag successfully waging war, he relied on information that came from W's administration and the use of waterboarding. He said the wars were stupid and he was opposed to waterboarding and, yet, we are not only still fighting those wars but we are expanding our efforts to Lybia. He allegedly killed Usama....good. It is the only thing he has accomplished that I support. Oh...wait....missile strikes killed some other piece of shit this weekend and I support that as well. Here's the short answer: I am in support of any president that wages war, successfully, in pursuit of a vital, national interest.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 12:15:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven As a candidate, Obama said something like "I'm not against all wars. I'm against stupid wars." He was clearly referring to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. He has recently taken out bin Laden and Kashmiri. Surgically. With no loss of US life. The US effect has been weird. Dems are turning from pacifists to chest thumpers. Republicans are urging caution in waging war, especially in Libya. Obama could run as the President that is taking down Al Qaeda. What was achieved in killing Osama was great and Obama should get a thumbs up for that (if not a vote!!) but surely it was down to good fortune as much as anything due to new intelligence info? Besides that he blundered in a big way over decisions an' withdrawal announcements before so I can't really see how his military strategy is really that impressive. He took intelligence from the Bush administration and quietly and patiently worked it until he had a location for OBL. Then he made the decision to send in a SEAL team into sovereign territory in a damn near perfect operation. Had anything gone wrong, it would have been worse for him than the Iran hostage situation was for Carter. Not so much good fortune as much as the intelligence to use what he was given, the faith in his intelligence and military orgs, and guts. His military strategy is to go in unannounced and do surgical ops, unlike the Bush administration, which is famous for "Mission Accomplished", "Bring it", and a steely commitment to kill OBL, later watered down to not giving a damn about him. As well as massive commitment of resources, and poor use of intelligence. If it was discovered that he had the opportunity to do something and passed up on it, it would have been the end of his political career. Nothing that could have gone wrong is even in the same zipcode as that risk. His decision wasnt the least bit "Brave", he was in the right place at the right time, and did the only thing he could.

BamaD -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 12:26:56 PM)
The difference between the parties is not so much their conduct of war but their preparation. When we are not at war Dems want to cut the military to the bone and the repubs want to maintain defense spending. So when we go to war after peacetime with repubs in charge we are ready if dems have been in charge we aren't. WWI Dems we were using leftover French Equipment, WWII totally unprepared.Korea ditto. The only time war has followed extensive repub control we were ready for first Gulf War.

juliaoceania -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 12:45:17 PM)
quote: I find it interesting how Dennis Kucinich went from being a "consience" and important leader of the left Especially in here) to a nobody. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) charged on Tuesday that President Obama is in violation of both the Constitution, by sending troops to Libya without consulting Congress, and the War Powers Act, by failing to obtain congressional authorization now that 60 days have elapsed since troops were first sent. I think DK is right, and as I said, I do not think we should have engaged in Libya. I think I am the only DK fan on this forum....

luckydawg -> RE: A not-stupid war. (6/5/2011 12:46:28 PM)
And I give you credit for that Julia. He used to have a lot more fans here though....

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02