-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If you criticized the Iraq war...
- Thread starter rbell
- Start date
- Status
North Carolina Tentmaker
New Member
It is really unbelievable. Where is our exit strategy? What are our goals? It looked like Qaddafi had his insurrection about crushed and now we have brought them back to life. What is our goal, to draw the conflict out as long as possible? If we want Qaddafi out then why not target him and get it over with? Is killing a few thousand of his followers somehow more humane than just killing him? If the rebel force gets close to winning will we switch sides and bomb them? Keep them fighting till they kill thousands more? I don’t understand.
poncho
Well-Known Member
I believe the goal as I have said (here) is to save the petrodollar from extinction.
Oh yeah, and I was a critic of the Iraq debacle long before it became fashionable. As it turns out Iraq and Libya aren't different "wars" they are just different theaters of the same long running ongoing crusade to save the petrodollar from becoming extinct. Does that make it any easier to understand North Carolina Tentmaker?
Last edited by a moderator:
Not necessarily. I was not a fan of the Iraq War because I thought it was unwise to get involved in a ground war when we had Afghanistan still going on.
With Libya, I think the president made the opposite mistake--waiting too long. We could have intervened earlier, and Gadhafi would already be gone.
North Carolina Tentmaker
New Member
I guess that makes sense, scary though. But if we are in a war for oil then why are we not pumping our own?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
As soon as President Obama puts troops on the ground in harms way I will oppose this action as well. I don't like action do far, but it is not yet the same as sending in combat troops.
Look, its clearly time for this Islamo-Fascist dictator to go. We need a new Islamo-Fascist dictator in Libya. This guy's act grew tiresome decades ago.
Meanwhile, in Rwanda.....
Well, there is one slight difference, those who are being killed - are not able to see the face of the individual dropping the bomb.
Reminds me of an episode of M*A*S*H. An air force pilot is mended at MASH - and learns the cruelty of war - on the ground
(if someone knows the exact episode, please post)
Sarge Salty
Well, I just don't believe we can excuse the illegal killing of foreign nationals in their own homeland just because we don't put boots on the ground.
If we do, then we might as well just nuke 'em and go on about our business.
And I don't use the term "illegal" lightly. With Libya representing no danger to the security of this country and no Americans to protect, we shouldn't be there without congressional approval. We don't even know who we're fighting for. But we chose up sides and started killing anyhow.
The president must believe he is above the law. He should be impeached.
If we do, then we might as well just nuke 'em and go on about our business.
And I don't use the term "illegal" lightly. With Libya representing no danger to the security of this country and no Americans to protect, we shouldn't be there without congressional approval. We don't even know who we're fighting for. But we chose up sides and started killing anyhow.
The president must believe he is above the law. He should be impeached.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
When the left uses this kind of anti-war talk they are accused of not supporting the troops.
I am glad to see that folks realise that speaking against the war does not mean a lack of support for the military, but is an attack on bad policy.
I am glad to see that folks realise that speaking against the war does not mean a lack of support for the military, but is an attack on bad policy.
Yes, I have been criticizing the war. It is an ill founded adventure and again the folk in our gov. seem to have a limited understanding of the mid-east, how they view us from past history, and how this will influence their view of us in the future. I hope I am very wrong on the future part of this sentence.
I have not posted on the BB on this topic until now.
I do feel that so many presidents have violated the Constitution in taking us to war that it has become, sadly, meaningless.
I have wondered why he agreed to help the British and French. I can think of two reasons, neither of which may have played a part.
1. They called in some chips, especially the British, for helping in Iraq.
2. To build up good will that he or a future president can call in sometime during the future.
I do not see these as compelling reasons.
C4K said:
Amen!
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama made his choice, without congressional approval.
Bush had congressional approval.
Obama acted because of the criticism he was recieving,
Bush acted his despite it.
That's how I see it.
Bush had congressional approval.
Obama acted because of the criticism he was recieving,
Bush acted his despite it.
That's how I see it.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
No, opposition to the Iraq war does not mean you must criticize the Libya intervention. However, I'm going to do so anyway. President Obama, by acting without congressional approval, has violated the Constitution and has led us into what may become another quagmire.
I am not in favor of the expense in lives, money, or national morale that military conflict involves, accept as a last resort against a direct attack against us. I also reject the notion that conflict between armies is somehow more moral than assassination. Both are murder, and murdering 10 leaders responsible for a decision is always more moral that killing 5,000 troops that are forced to obey orders.
If a situation arises where action is required, I am in favor of covert operations as a first response, whether it be political assassinations, spy infiltration, paramilitary operations, or stealthed missile or similar attacks.
I am in favor of devoting much more of our efforts to border security and much less to policing the world. There are great financial and political considerations for such a move, such as leaving allies we have previously protected to build their own defenses, and they should be addressed now.
How many Muslim nations will we attack? What are we up to now? 4 that we know of? Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, not counting the weapons we have supplied to Israel. Did I forget any?
It's disgusting for a president to go on vacation or play golf with 4 wars/conflicts happening at the same time, a nation budget deadlock, the largest national disaster in their history affecting one of our closest allies (and a nuclear disaster a possibility, with unknown implications for our western states). Mr. Obama is now challenging Jimmy Carter for running the most passive administration of the modern era.
Imo it is illogical and usually an attempt to vent or stir up anger to claim that these conflicts are all because of oil. These conflicts have harmed the flow of oil, not secured it. They have damaged our economy both in the costs of the conflicts and in the slowing of the economic growth and recovery that escalating energy prices cause. In other words, fighting for oil is counter-productive.
Lastly, while I have no proof, it is my firm assertion that these regimes we are forcefully changing in several Islamic countries will sooner or later be replaced with regimes every bit as anti-American as those replaced, and with more money, better infrastructure, and more capable militaries than previously.
If a situation arises where action is required, I am in favor of covert operations as a first response, whether it be political assassinations, spy infiltration, paramilitary operations, or stealthed missile or similar attacks.
I am in favor of devoting much more of our efforts to border security and much less to policing the world. There are great financial and political considerations for such a move, such as leaving allies we have previously protected to build their own defenses, and they should be addressed now.
How many Muslim nations will we attack? What are we up to now? 4 that we know of? Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, not counting the weapons we have supplied to Israel. Did I forget any?
It's disgusting for a president to go on vacation or play golf with 4 wars/conflicts happening at the same time, a nation budget deadlock, the largest national disaster in their history affecting one of our closest allies (and a nuclear disaster a possibility, with unknown implications for our western states). Mr. Obama is now challenging Jimmy Carter for running the most passive administration of the modern era.
Imo it is illogical and usually an attempt to vent or stir up anger to claim that these conflicts are all because of oil. These conflicts have harmed the flow of oil, not secured it. They have damaged our economy both in the costs of the conflicts and in the slowing of the economic growth and recovery that escalating energy prices cause. In other words, fighting for oil is counter-productive.
Lastly, while I have no proof, it is my firm assertion that these regimes we are forcefully changing in several Islamic countries will sooner or later be replaced with regimes every bit as anti-American as those replaced, and with more money, better infrastructure, and more capable militaries than previously.
The difference between the two is a good example of a leader with character and respect for the law and a wannabe without either.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I agree with the general consensus. The problem with the president is not his birth cert or supposed Muslim ties or picking his NCAA bracket or any of that nonsense. The problem is that he is not a leader. He has no experience in executive leadership. That was always going to come out eventually. The situation in Libya is a prime example.
First he did nothing. Then he acted arbitrarily by ordering bombings. Now he wants to turn it over to NATO.
This lack of leadership ability has been my problem with President Obama since the campaign.
If this had been the focus during the campaign instead of whether or not he would take the oath on the Koran he might not be president today.
Of course, was the alternative a whole lot better?
First he did nothing. Then he acted arbitrarily by ordering bombings. Now he wants to turn it over to NATO.
This lack of leadership ability has been my problem with President Obama since the campaign.
If this had been the focus during the campaign instead of whether or not he would take the oath on the Koran he might not be president today.
Of course, was the alternative a whole lot better?
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice swipe, but there was a lot of talk about the comparison of executive experience between him and the Palin. There was also a lot of talk about his philosophy. Certainly, as moderator, you remember me being called a racist for bringing this up. We exposed his racist writings, we exposed who his mentors were, and yes, we brought up how he likes to hide his past.
The main stream media did not vett this guy, they covered for him. I really don't think you can blame the birthers for this mess.
The main stream media did not vett this guy, they covered for him. I really don't think you can blame the birthers for this mess.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Because we aren't in a war for oil. We're in a war to maintain the global oil trade in dollars.
The dollar is all but washed up. The oil producing nations know this and they may wish to start trading their oil for other currencies besides the dying dollar. In November of 2000 Saddam Hussien announced his plan to do just that. Result? Regime change!
Saddam was an example to the rest of the oil producing nations of what might happen should they also decide to accept other currencies or move away from the dying dollar altogether.
Why is it so important that the globalists (think, "international community") maintain the global oil trade in dollars? Because they have the ability to create them out of nothing! Not only do they have the ability to create the dollar from nothing, they have a blessed monopoly on it's creation. Our congress blessed them with this monopoly in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act.
Is it getting any easier to understand?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status