-
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!
Obama's collateral damage
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Revmitchell said:
By your reasoning, will you also admit Bush was a disappointment?
From the same article:
"After a battle in August in the village of Azizabad, the U.S. military at first said no civilians were killed. A day later it said about five died, and eventually a more thorough U.S. investigation found 33 civilians were killed. The Afghan government and the U.N. said 90 civilians were killed."
(in case you forgot, Bush was president in August and 33 is a little more than twice 16).
BTW, I'm pointing this out not because I'm a supporter of Obama (check my post history and you'll see that), but because your post appears to be bashing Obama just for the sake of bashing him. Pick your battles. Don't resort to petty arguements.
matt wade said:
Point out what you want. the problem with your petty post is you do not know what my position on collateral damage is. Neither do you know about past discussions there has been on this board about collateral damage. Maybe you need to take your own advice.
Revmitchell said:
If your post serves some other purpose than bashing Obama for the sake of bashing, then why not make that clear? Do you expect every person that comes to this forum to read the 1,167,498 some odd posts in order to gain a full understanding of what everyone's positions are?
Your failure to provide more than a quote from an article, a link to that article, and the statement "Obama is becoming a real disappointment already." leads people to believe that you are simply out to bash him for no good reason. Would you go up to an unsaved person and say "You need to be saved!" and expect them to understand the full implications of your statement? I think not. You'd need to give them a little background and help them understand it.
Simply put, your post makes you seem petty. If that isn't your purpose, then give us reason to think it is not your purpose.
matt wade said:
We are not talking to unsaved people here your example falls flat. If you would like a clarification ask before you spout off with misconceived judgments. And petty is you continuing this rant. If you do not like the post and do not want to participate move on. if you are being petty because you do not like the content then have the nerve to admit it. Either way your done derailing this thread.
Revmitchell said:
You say that if I don't like the content then I should admit it? What exactly do you think I have been doing? How clear do I need to make it? Revmitchell, I do not like the content of your post. It appears you are bashing Obama just for the sake of bashing him.
Misconceived judgements? Hardly. If you look at my first post I clearly said, "your post appears to be bashing". I don't accuse you of anything I simply point out that your post appears to be bashing. I don't say it was bashing, but that it appears to be. The word "appears" is a big hint for you to jump in and tell me why it actually isn't bashing (if that is the case).
Done derailing the thread? I'm not derailing it to begin with. I'm discussing what you posted. Thanks anyway for letting me know that you hold the authority to tell me when to stop doing something. :laugh:
matt wade said:
Matt, you are correct. Some here defend Bush no matter what and some condemn Obama no matter what ... even when it is the same idea, action, or suggestion.
They will condemn Obama if he stays in Afghanstan and they will condemn him if he leaves. They will condemn him if he quotes scripture and will condemn him if he does not. To them he can do nothing right and anything he does will be wrong. Therefore they have no credibility, no fairness in them, and are taking a very un-Christian stance toward their president ... and ignoring scripture they like to quote to others about God placing leaders in their jobs.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe the point of the thread is that Obama said that he would do it BETTER and SMARTER and that he would CHANGE things.
The opening post points out the he has done none of the above in this situation.
Obama formerly criticized airstrikes - now he appears to defacto approve them.
He criticized the military and Bush over collateral damage - now he appears to defacto accept it as a cost of doing business.
So the question remains... if you are an Obama supporter are you disappointed in Obama for this action which is not BETTER, SMARTER or a CHANGE from what the Bush administration did?
The opening post points out the he has done none of the above in this situation.
Obama formerly criticized airstrikes - now he appears to defacto approve them.
He criticized the military and Bush over collateral damage - now he appears to defacto accept it as a cost of doing business.
So the question remains... if you are an Obama supporter are you disappointed in Obama for this action which is not BETTER, SMARTER or a CHANGE from what the Bush administration did?
Must Obama change everything? As of today he has been in office less than a week. How much change should be cone in a week? Do you not believe that he should be given at least a month or so before making a "no change" judgement?targus said:
Crabtownboy said:
You good folks voted for him in large part because of his stance on war. Yet he bombs these people with significant collateral damage. Why should it take a month to bomb the enemy without collateral damage as you good folks have insisted needed to happen? And why are you Obama folks not concerned about the collateral damage?
(The trick here is to respond with mentioning Bush....can you do it?)
Surely you are astute enough to know that in our system of government, critical input from the people is a corner stone to the operation of our Republican Democracy. To say that it is "un-Christian" to have that stance is to abdicate our responsibilities as citizens. In other words, it would be un-Christian not to condemn a leader that responsible citizens see as anti life.Crabtownboy said:
If you will please note, Crabby, in all my posts on this board, I have never condemned anyone for bashing President Bush, we have the right to hold our leaders responsible. President Obama will be criticized and if he can't take the heat then he should get out of the kitchen.
Palatka51 said:
I do not mind constructive criticism. However it seems at least hypocritical to criticize him for positions and/or actions that these same people defenced Bush for taking or doing.
I do agree that part of being a patriot is to criticize when a person feels it is warranted and to praise when a person feels it is warranted. However, let's be consistant. During the middle of the current decade I was called unpatriotic for giving this opinion. If you remember the just past administration pushed the idea that to critize them was unpatriotic, and many conservatives bought and repeated this assertion ... but now have turned 180 degrees and have declared open season on Obama. That, to me, is dishonest and thus no Christian.
No president does everything right or wrong.
targus said:
Now if this question and background had been provided in the OP I never would have made my comments. It brings up legitimate items to discuss and does not appear as simply bashing.
I can't answer your questions though since I'm not an Obama supporter. I didn't vote for him and I think his policies are bad for this country.
.I would then be justified to say that a supporter of an abortionist is not a Christian as you indicate here that those who supported a pro life President Bush but then condemn President Obama for collateral deaths are no Christian.Crabtownboy said:
Yet you were always at the forefront of the Bush bashers? I never recall anything positive from you about Mr Bush. That, to me, is dishonest and thus......... well if the shoe fits wear, it.
Palatka51 said:
Perhaps un-Christian stance or position would be more appropriate.
I have not criticized Bush on everything. As I pointed out in a previous post several weeks ago there are 4 areas that I have agreed with him and have supported him on. I expect if I think about it a bit I can find a few more areas where I agreed with him. I do think he made some terrible mistakes. I hope Obama does not make such grevious mistakes, only time will tell.
Palatka51 said:
Would love to have one with you. :thumbs: Make mine a diet Coke. My triglycerides are high and I'm cutting out carbs.