Featured The Nobel Winner v. The Cowboy

Another great equation for how Republicans get to have it both ways. It's either "Obama is indecisive and does not listen to his military advisors who say we need boots on the ground" which in turn is followed by, "Obama is a warmonger and he promised to get us out of Iraq?"

Well which is it folks? You can't have it both ways.

 

Indecisive: Waiting months to take action on a subject, letting people wonder if we were going to take action or ignore it.

Does not listen to his military advisors: Proven by his statements, his National Security Advisor's statements, and his Secretary of State's statements that we will not have boots on ground -- even though is military advisors have told him that to achieve what he wants, he needs to have boots on ground.

Obama promised to get us out of Iraq: Yes, he did. As of July 1, 2014, we had a minimum of 770 troops in Baghdad, with authorizations to send more.

Obama is a warmonger: Guess it depends on how you define "warmonger." He just conducts his war differently, through the use of drones and airstrikes. But his actions have caused more deaths than Bush's.

Spin it any way you want. Facts are facts.

 

Source please.

In Afghanistan yes, in Iraq no. Total, more under Bush.

Below is a list of casualties of US Personnel in Iraq.

The first number is total, the second number is in combat.

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 4489 3528
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 4347 3424
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3627 2899
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09): 256 128
Since Operation New Dawn: 66 39

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/sample/read/9781595231031

 

Um...your source, please? That link took me to a Barnes & Noble page for "George Washington's Secret Six."

As my source: Re-look at the first page of this discussion. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2150785&postcount=2

 

Public correction: I made a statement that Obama's actions have caused more deaths than Bush's. The statement is correct in regards to drone strikes, the original topic of this thread. Taken as a general overall statement, the numbers are different.

The real topic of the statement is: what defines "warmonger"?

 

Uh, we have been bombing ISIS for months now. What we had in Iraq was Marine Corps contingents providing security for the embassy.

You just made my point for me. Warmonger vs inactive. Which would you prefer? Answer the question. Are you opposed to airstrikes against ISIS or would you rather ignore them? Are you in favor of sending actual brigade combat teams back into Iraq? I'm not. Generals would love to go back in becuase they get the feather in their cap of a "combat command." Generals advise on how to beat the enemy but they do not dictate foreign policy. Thank God for that. As far as causing more deaths than Bush. I would say why don't you add in American casualties and then rerun the numbers. If we are talking bad guys and you stand by the fact that Obama has a higher death count, then it sounds like he is better at taking on the enemy.:thumbs:

All of this is a futile argument anyway. The two wars are not comparable and it is a little disturbing and petty that we are now using body counts as some sort of "gotcha" moment. Bottom line is Bush started two wars that claimed countless American lives and Obama attempted to fulfill the commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan as best he could. At the end of the day, we can't stay there forever. I support the decision to remove the troops and I whole heartedly support not putting them back on the ground despite what some General says.

 

So you're saying we should never have gone after al qaeda in Afghanistan? I understand that position on Iraq, while disagreeing. But leave Al qaeda in Afghanistan? Really?

Obama did not fulfill the commitment to Iraq. The commitment was to leave up to 50,000 security troops there. He broke that commitment.

He doomed the Afghanistan effort when he authorized less than half the troops that were asked for. Considering the tribal corruption that rules in afghanistan, it may not have turned out well anyhow. And I was in favor of getting out when he took office. But he made that war his own when he authorized troop increases, and at the same time killed any chance of success by managing it poorly. Obama owns Afghanistan.

And he owns ISIS.

 

Bush almost abandoned Afghanistan after he went into Iraq. This let both Al Quada and the Telaban off the hook. He should not have gone into Iraq. Rather, he should have completely finished off both these groups.

Afghanistan was doomed to be a problem long into the future by Bush abandoning the war there. He or his advisers basically left before the job was nearly over. Obama and the next several presidents are going to have problems resulting from the Bush Administration making very bad decisions.

 

After 9/11, I don't think it would have mattered who was in office. We were going into a long term "war". I don't know about the rest of yall, but after that day, I knew that the United States would be at "war" until Jesus comes back because we have to be.

 

Gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan yes. Occupied the country no. I wouldn't have even touched Iraq. I'm more in favor of using our resources in the intelligence community and taking out key leaders through precision strikes. Where is this commitment for 50,000 troops in Iraq as well?

Anyways, if you are criticizing troop increases then you are essentially criticizing him for listening to his military advisors. Maybe we are seeing why we shouldn't just go with whatever the Generals tell us. There comes a point where you reach diminishing returns. You cut your losses and leave or occupy the country forever. Nobody is going to be able to fix Afghanistan. Saying Obama owns Afghanistan is laughable. You could put every Soldier in every branch of the military on the ground and it wouldn't make a difference in the long run. Same with Iraq. He did right by the Soldiers by removing them from a futile situation. Saying he owns ISIS is really laughable. If we don't topple the Iraqi Government, ISIS does not exist.

 

But not Syria.

Yes, I'm opposed to airstrikes. I'm opposed to putting boots on the ground. Why? Because we haven't clearly defined what the goal is.

If it's to stop terrorism, well, that's stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding of what creates and motivates terrorists.

If it's to save the lives of others, then stop wimpy-footing around and get the job done. If you're gonna do airstrikes, then understand that airstrikes are effective--but the end result is the enemy goes underground. If you're truly committed to winning, then satisfy all five of Warden's Five Rings and Musashi's five techniques. Get it over with, and get us out. All we've done is as the president has assured us: guaranteed that we're in for a long, protracted limited engagement.

Absolutely. They are supposed to be the last tool of diplomacy. Guess our president's diplomacy has reached its last tool, eh?

As you'll notice, I posted a correction about the numbers.

But let's look at your statement: You're right, he's got the higher death toll from drone strikes. I'll concede that makes him better at taking on the enemy.

Sounds just like a warmonger, doesn't it?

Then you're okay with all the troops that will have to forward-deploy in support of the air and drone strikes. You're okay with killing dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands from a distance. You're in favor of killing without getting our hands bloody.

There's a reason war is supposed to be bloody and terrible: to remind us of why we shouldn't want to engage in it.

 

We haven't been bombing Syria because we kind of had to clear it with Syria.

So now its "warmonger" vs "we haven't been bombing Syria" You keep walking right into these things man. What a surprise. You are trying to have it both ways again. It looks like you've attached your wagon to "Obama is a warmonger." Why don't you just try being honest and say that you are for whatever scenario makes Obama look the worst for you. It would save us all of this useless banter.

We actually have defined the goal and you would be surprised to know that it's actually a common military effect that was taught throughout my career. The goal is "disruption." Effectively trying to minimize their operational capacity and targeting their leaders with the SF community. It's been used throughout the last century.

As for your last comment, I'll just say it makes zero sense but to answer; you bet I am in favor of resolving this from a distance. We've only been doing airstrikes since World War I so it's a little late in the game to get squeamish about that type of warfare now. The technology has changed but the concept hasn't. Hit the enemy while minimizing their ability to hit you back.

 

Trick question.

Because . . .

They both served the same masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTbvoiTJKIs

 

You must have been in Intel during your military service. Your attempts at convolution are quite interesting.

While the president wasn't bombing Syria, he was authorizing strikes in Iraq and Pakistan; and sending troops into Africa.

Spin my statements any way you want. Facts are facts.

Yep, pretty dang effective, isn't it? They just keep coming back, and we keep disrupting them, and they keep coming back, and we keep disrupting them....

So you're in favor of not getting your hands dirty.

Yep; in conjunction with ground operations.

The true concept is to minimize their willingness to hit you. The use of war as a tool of diplomacy is to bend the enemy's will to yours. To convince their leaders that engaging in war will be more costly than finding other alternatives.

"The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him." - Musashi

 

Authorizing strikes by coordinating with the Iraqi and Pakistani Governments. Deploying aid to combat Ebola in coordination with their government. CONDUCTING AIRSTRIKES IN SYRIA WITH THE COORDINATION OF THEIR GOVERNMENT. See the trend there.

I don't think you know enough about the military intelligence community to take any swipes at them.

You said, "The true concept is to minimize their willingness to hit you. The use of war as a tool of diplomacy is to bend the enemy's will to yours. To convince their leaders that engaging in war will be more costly than finding other alternatives."

To which I say we just proved this theory untrue by spending ten years in two countries with little or nothing to show for it. Guess what. They still kept fighting.

All reports to date have shown the air strikes to be pretty much effective so yes I would say destroying their capabilities to train, transport and equip their forces is pretty effective. There is always going to be some jerk that wires together a bomb. You are never going to get them all. Putting troops on the ground is just another invitation to spend years letting our troops run over IED's and getting shot at by snipers. No thanks. Quit trying to sound like you are some profound military strategist.

As far as other wars using airstrikes in concert with ground operations, your point was that we somehow needed to kill the enemy up close so we know war is bad and that it shouldn't be repeated. Soldiers don't start wars. Politicians make the decisions. If it takes killing somebody up close for you to know that war is bad then you probably have a screw loose anyway wouldn't you think?

 

“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The same cannot be said of the military industrial complex.

 

We agree on this matter.

 

Congress authorized the war based on intelligence reports. Democrats and Republicans alike voted for it.

The truth is, ever since the Clinton Administration, the US had an official state policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power. However, during the Clinton Administration we also had a lovely member of the Clinton Justice Department, Jamie Gorelick, who instituted a "wall of separation" that kept counterterrorism agents and federal agents and prosecutors from properly sharing information.

If you (collective you, not "you" Crabtownboy) really want to assign blame, there's plenty to go around between both major parties.

Obama has done nothing but carry on the only form of Imperialism the US was able to take part in. See, way back in the dark days of the 1930s and 1940s, the US, an emerging superpower on the global stage, sought to create an empire similar to Britain. However, at the same time, the imperial nations were giving up their colonies. Since the US was not able to create colonies, they basically created police stations, or, as we call them, military bases. When you have a military base in every corner of the world, you have an empire, whether you call it that or not.

This is quite accurate. When the British created the modern borders of Iraq, they lumped three distinct groups of people (Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds) who really are not fond of each other into one country and basically said to them "Alright, play nice now."

Both sides of the aisle have always engaged in revisionist history. It's not something new to conservatives. I've actually seen legitimate articles talking about the "hatred and contempt" leveled at President Obama as though no President has ever been criticized. Apparently none of these people were in the country from November 2000 to January 2009.

 

They told me that if I voted for Romney, there would be a war in Syria. I voted for Romney and sure enough there was a war in Syria.