24
   

Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people? Then why do you support him?

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:14 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It was actually a request for you to elucidate what you would have done differently. But you didn't take her up on it, preferring instead to hurl slings and arrows. Was greater enlightenment achieved by this?


Hopefully she learned one stupid way not to argue in the future, but I wouldn't count on it. If she wanted to know what I am advocating be done differently she can read the many times I have said what I advocate to be done differently within the last 24 hours in this thread.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:19 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:


I'm not sure where you got this notion. Obama is allowed to say whatever the **** he wants to. I, in turn, am free to say I don't want him to be the next president.


The only alternative is to put in place someone who is infinitely more likely to pursue actual warfare than Obama is. You profess to be against this, but want to put people in charge who actively state that this is what they want to do - repeatedly.

I can't take such a position seriously and I suspect that nobody else here does either.

Quote:

I can live with failing to convince you.


Who do you think you ARE convincing? Laughing

Quote:

I will give you a slight nod to your cherry picking accusation but not for the reasons you say so (the real cherry picking I am guilty of is deliberately excluding recently deposed despots like Gaddafi to try to get the figure to the Occupy's 1%) and I will agree with you that in the course of the last 50 years he is not much of a warmonger at all.

But like I said to you earlier, I think that the term has little meaning without being relative to current context.


Well, you're clearly wrong about that. The definition of Warmonger is not relative to current events in the slightest. It is a hard definition, not a soft one - someone who advocates war as a solution to international conflicts. Obama doesn't do that and has never done that.

We don't have to go back 50 years, either. Go back 10 years. Obama in no way can be considered a 'warmonger' when compared to the previous administration; so much so that the act of labeling him as one would make me question whether or not you're really serious about the argument you are forwarding.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:20 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It was actually a request for you to elucidate what you would have done differently. But you didn't take her up on it, preferring instead to hurl slings and arrows. Was greater enlightenment achieved by this?


Hopefully she learned one stupid way not to argue in the future, but I wouldn't count on it. If she wanted to know what I am advocating be done differently she can read the many times I have said what I advocate to be done differently within the last 24 hours in this thread.


Or, you could have just told her, in two simple sentences. You expended 3 times the energy insulting her as it would have taken to summarize your position.

I suspect that she did indeed learn something in that exchange.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:32 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The only alternative is to put in place someone who is infinitely more likely to pursue actual warfare than Obama is. You profess to be against this, but want to put people in charge who actively state that this is what they want to do - repeatedly.


I don't believe that they are much more likely to do so, even if they aren't just engaging in campaign bluster. The downsides of that war are so large that there will be plenty of people in the military warning against it.

Quote:
Who do you think you ARE convincing? Laughing


I've convinced several of my friends to withhold their support for Obama, but really could live with failing to convince anyone, you know. Do you base your positions upon a metric of how many people are convinced by them?

Quote:
Well, you're clearly wrong about that.


You know what, you've convinced me. "Warmonger" is an overstatement and the vapid logomachy we are engaged in is a bit of evidence in your favor, arguing the meaning of the word is not as edifying as arguing the validity of his degree of militarism (regardless of the way it is couched). So I retract that particular term and wish to replace it with the more emotionally neutral "inordinately militaristic."

If you accept my capitulation about being wrong to use the word I would be interested in hearing what you actually have to say about the actual substance of my criticisms.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:35 am
@Cycloptichorn,
What's your point? That my goal should be economy of my energy? I don't see why, I'd rather excoriate the stupidity and was perfectly willing to use energy towards that aim.

I think you are just trying to say I could have been nicer, and I can agree with that, but it was not and is not my aim.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:43 am
@Robert Gentel,
But what DID you want the US to do? That was Rev's question and you didn't answer it.
Okay.

No suggestions for you, just what would have wanted the US to do?

Joe(... )Nation
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:52 am
@Joe Nation,
I had already stated what I wanted done differently* multiple times and it really doesn't have anything to do with what I wanted the initial response to 9/11 to be and certainly doesn't suggest that I wanted no reaction for 9/11 and an apology to Al Qaeda, that argument deserved scorn.

*When this thread started the stated withdrawal date was 2014 and I was arguing that it should have been earlier, say 2010-11. Since this thread started the withdrawal has been advanced to next year meaning that the current strategy is much closer to what I preferred (but still must wait for the election year to pass to begin in earnest).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:58 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:


You know what, you've convinced me. "Warmonger" is an overstatement and the vapid logomachy we are engaged in is a bit of evidence in your favor, arguing the meaning of the word is not as edifying as arguing the validity of his degree of militarism (regardless of the way it is couched). So I retract that particular term and wish to replace it with the more emotionally neutral "inordinately militaristic."

If you accept my capitulation about being wrong to use the word I would be interested in hearing what you actually have to say about the actual substance of my criticisms.


Excellent, let's move on.

I believe Mr. Obama is in a tough spot here - he has a couple of conflicting goals:

1, to end the threat of Al Qaeda to the greatest degree possible.
2, to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as quick as possible.
3, to prevent the US from being drawn into a regional war in the ME while still supporting the spread of democracy and reform there.

Taken in order,

1) I think it's safe to say that Obama has accomplished this very well. I'm not a big fan of drone strikes or special forces assassinating people, but I take a 'least worst option' look on this issue. IF Obama is serious about taking out AQ bases and leaders in Pak/Afgh - which it seems he clearly is - THEN, what is the least destructive way to do this? Which method causes the least social unrest in the ME and here at home? The least loss of life? Keep in mind that the govt's of these regions will provide no help (and in large part actually assisted AQ in hiding from us!).

Given the objective, I believe that using drone strikes to kill known terrorists is likely the least destructive option. I worry, because once we start doing something like this, it's hard to stop; but I'd rather see us killing a very limited number of people than killing a lot of people, and it seems that this is the route that Obama chose.

From a personal viewpoint, I am very anti-AQ and think that taking out Bin Laden was essential for the US to move on from this last decade. Without doing that, we would have always had this dude hanging around out there, either causing trouble or at the very least being used by actual warmongers to start further trouble. I don't believe history will judge Obama all that poorly for his decision to do this.

2) Iraq has been wound down on schedule, which is fine with me. Obama didn't do much to facilitate an earlier leave of the country, but he also ceased actual combat operations for the last year leading up to the withdrawal. But we've really fucked that country, no two ways around it; I have a friend who is over there right now trying to help get all the Depleted Uranium that we left there cleaned up and she says the place is still pretty wrecked and will be for a long time. Not much talk about that in the media.

Re: Afghanistan, this is one of my biggest gripes with Obama: the 'surge' there was politically motivated and ineffective. I wish Obama had worked harder in 2009 to reject the advice of his military leaders (Echoed by the GOP) and had instead announced that we were leaving soon, and - if we ever have to come back - we won't be so kind next time as to not level everything, so please, police your own citizens appropriately.

Instead, they decided to give it 'one last shot,' which did apparently nothing at all. At least Obama and Pannetta have been talking about wrapping the whole thing up in 2013 for good, we'll have to see what happens.

3) This is both an interesting and tough one, in the face of the recent revolutions and uprisings we've seen in the ME. How much support should the US give to countries' rebels? Should we provide active military support in Syria the way we did in Libya? Does our pursuit of objective 1 mean that we won't be able to accomplish objective 3? What about the belligerence from our ally Israel, how do we handle this?

Obama (and some other nations) chose to intercede in Libya, and I had great reservations about that (I'm sure you saw them here on A2K), but luckily for him it turned out pretty well for the 'good guys.' But, the real game in the ME is Iran, and everyone knows it... I think Obama has to carefully avoid provoking a larger conflict with Iran while maintaining a tough posture, which is why you see statements on his part that sound tough.

These statements are just as politically motivated as the ones the GOP contenders throw out; but, Obama's actions have shown him time and time again turning away from possible points of contention with Iran. When the Iranian uprising occurred in 2009, Obama did not support them, other than with the blandest of encouragement. When Israel repeatedly (per leaks from Wikileaks and reports from the media) asked the US to green-light attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the US refused each time. Obama has been vocal about the fact that our own ally is engaging in actions (further settlements in the west bank) that enrage their enemies and set the peace process back. Our Navy has been ignoring Iranian aggression in the Straits of Hormuz and even has spent a significant amount of time saving their ships from pirates.

In each of the above cases, ACTUAL warmongers on the right-wing (and some Jewish Dems) were calling for open warfare with Iran - a first-strike, and immediately. They criticized Obama's criticism of our allies' actions. I see a dude who is trying to maintain a peaceful balance - not someone who is pushing for more war.

The real test for Obama will be to see if the drone attacks ramp down. If not, I'll probably start to agree with you a lot more than I do now.

Cycloptichorn
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:06 pm
@Robert Gentel,
You don't have to be nice, just answer what you have done differently if you were Obama in 2009. Obama chose to refocus on AQ/Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I have read back through some of the post and as much as I can gather, you think he should have negotiated with the Taliban rather than going after militants in Afghanistan/Pakistan and brought all the troops home rather than escalating number of troops and drones and raids.

My point is that by going into Iraq, the US bascially ignored AQ and supporters in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Before Obama was elected, he said he would refocus on the terrorist in those areas. He kept that promise. At the same time there has been talk and negotiations with some Taliban and a (maybe temporary) cease in drone attacks. They are not too keen on returning the favor.

Obama reaches out to Mullah Omar, Mullah Omar reaches out for more destruction

I have thought since the death of Bin Laden, that we should get out faster too. We are not going to win the hearts and minds of anyone there no matter how much we try to negotiate and get along. Do you believe that if we get out of Afghanistan that militants, Taliban and AQ will not have any interest in bombing western interest?





cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:07 pm
From Wiki (for whatever it's worth).

Quote:
Civilian and overall casualties (2009)


Victims of the Narang night raid that killed at least 10 Afghan civilians, including eight schoolchildren.
2009 was again the most lethal year for Afghan civilians in the American-led war since the fall of the Taliban government in late 2001. According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), 2,412 civilians were killed by the war in 2009, a jump of 14% over the number that lost their lives in 2008. An additional 3,566 Afghan civilians were wounded as a result of the war in 2009.[23][24]
Of these, UNAMA attributed two-thirds, or 1,630, of the deaths to the action of anti-government forces, around a quarter, 596, of the deaths to action by American-led military forces, and was not able to clearly attribute another 186 civilian deaths to any one side. Airstrikes continued to be the main cause of civilian deaths resulting from US-led military action, with 359 Afghan civilians killed by US/NATO airstrikes in 2009.[24]
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:11 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

You invariably mistake pithiness for wisdom.

I certainly recognize pissyness for what it is.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:37 pm


Obama wants to give the Muslim Brotherhood $800 million in aid... WTF?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:38 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
Obama chose to refocus on AQ/Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


This grouping doesn't make sense. I lack the patience to explain why to you in greater detail but the Taliban have pretty much nothing to do with AQ, and haven't for years. They have been openly offering to turn against them for years too:

http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/12/07/pakistan-talks-up-al-qaedataliban-split/

Quote:
I have read back through some of the post and as much as I can gather, you think he should have negotiated with the Taliban rather than going after militants in Afghanistan/Pakistan and brought all the troops home rather than escalating number of troops and drones and raids.


You need to understand the distinction between the Taliban and AQ first, because I am not advocating that all targeting of AQ should cease, and you guys need to stop just using these terms interchangeably and demonstrate better understanding of the belligerents involved. The insurgency doesn't have anything to do with AQ. You guys who keep saying AQ/Taliban completely miss the central thrust of my original point in this thread.

Quote:
My point is that by going into Iraq, the US bascially ignored AQ and supporters in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Before Obama was elected, he said he would refocus on the terrorist in those areas. He kept that promise.


The Taliban are not AQ supporters and really haven't been for nearly a decade. This is something you clearly don't seem to be aware of. Here, start with this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/asia/07afghan.html

They share a common enemy right now but do not have significant cooperation (AQ is largely vanquished and useless in that theater) and have openly offered to renounce them entirely and accept the Afghanistan central government if NATO exits (which is their core demand).

Quote:
At the same time there has been talk and negotiations with some Taliban and a cease in drone attacks. They are not too keen on returning the favor.

Obama reaches out to Mullah Omar, Mullah Omar reaches out for more destruction


So? We are also still fighting them while trying to forward negotiations. That is going to keep happening to some degree till the negotiations bear fruit. What is your point?

Quote:
Do you believe that if we get out of Afghanistan that militants, Taliban and AQ will not have any interest in bombing western interest?


This grouping of AQ/Taliban is nonsensical. So is the notion that the Taliban is interested in Westerners outside their region. If you pay any attention to this you'd notice that the Taliban have never operated outside of their region. They have repeatedly stated that their only goal is to drive the US back out of their country.

So yes, I do believe that they will not be a significant threat to the West as long as the West is withdraws.

As for AQ in the region I do not think they will cease to want to target the West but have long had no operational ability to do so. AQ in the region have been decimated, there are very few left and they have very little authority over the other AQ "franchises" that have sprung up (such as AQI, who we just learned last week have started operating outside of Iraq and are responsible for the bombings in Syria targeting the Syrian regime).

Withdrawing from Afghanistan now will not significantly increase any threat to the West because there hasn't been a significant threat to the West there for quite some time. Yemen and other areas are a much bigger worry but according to some interrogations that have leaked AQ may be down to as few as 40 men in Afghanistan and are largely considered useless by the other militants in the area as they are no longer strategically useful (no valuable resources human or otherwise to contribute)

So to answer the question you should have asked: no, withdrawing won't increase the terrorist threat to the West because the Taliban have never been about that and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has been routed for a long time and the negotiated peace with the Taliban is going to include assurances that the Taliban will not welcome them again (which is not a big stretch, the Taliban have never been huge fans of them and AQ is being the casus beli that got them invaded has only increased the split between them).
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:40 pm
@DrewDad,
Perhaps, but I was pointing out that your contributions are almost never more substantial than that, and that it is your only stock and store.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:04 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Secondly, I do not think he is a warmonger. I think that you are using that term gratuitously to scorn those who will choose to vote for Obama despite the fact that he has not been perfect in office.


I disagree both with the notion that he is not a warmonger as well as the risible notion that I say that he is just to scorn Obama voters (whom I don't give a flying **** about one way or the other).




Sorry, Robert, I noted that I came late to the discussion--and as you know, I have been gone from A2K for quite a while.

Back in the day, even though we disagreed often, I always considered you a reasonable person with whom to discuss contentious issues. You normally presented coherent, levelheaded, respectful arguments. As I remember it, you didn’t resort to the name calling and petty insults that are the norm in the forum.

Things seem to have changed--with you, not the forum.

Anyway, do your best to damage Obama as you see fit.

For what it is worth, I think your perspective is going to prevail. I think Obama will lose…and lose big. The nominee of the Republican Party, in my estimation, will prevail.

We’ll see if that improves the condition of America…and if you personally think it was best for the nation and the world that things worked out that way.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
For what it is worth, I think your perspective is going to prevail. I think Obama will lose…and lose big. The nominee of the Republican Party, in my estimation, will prevail.


I'm gonna have to start asking you to place money on this!

I say that, because polling shows him pulling farther and farther ahead of his hapless opponents as time goes along. That makes it tough for me to see the GOP candidate 'winning big.' I mean, what the heck are you basing any of this incessant pessimism on??

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
1) I think it's safe to say that Obama has accomplished this very well. I'm not a big fan of drone strikes or special forces assassinating people, but I take a 'least worst option' look on this issue. IF Obama is serious about taking out AQ bases and leaders in Pak/Afgh - which it seems he clearly is - THEN, what is the least destructive way to do this? Which method causes the least social unrest in the ME and here at home? The least loss of life? Keep in mind that the govt's of these regions will provide no help (and in large part actually assisted AQ in hiding from us!).


I agree that the use of drones is one of the best ways to minimize loss of life while prosecuting this war but disagree about it being the best way to minimize social unrest.

I think you underestimate the social unrest these attacks cause, and the core reasons for it. Have a quick look at this: http://www.google.com/search?q=pakistan+drones+protest&tbm=isch

The main qualm they have is that we've corrupted their government into lying to them about sanctioning the drone use and have undermined their sovereignty in ways that Pakistanis generally find very humiliating. It is hard to predict what threats, if any, might emerge to the west from this but it's pretty safe to say that we've lost the hearts and minds in Pakistan (culminating last year, at which point we reached the point of no return for a while).

But like I said, the tactics aren't as objectionable to me as the strategy. If you are going to decide to keep killing the insurgents (and let's be clear that the majority of the targets are cross-border insurgents) then drones aren't a horrible way to do it but that doesn't say much about whether we should still be trying to kill the insurgents in the first place.

It's been clear for years now that we weren't going to defeat them and that we were going to have to make a political peace with them and I think accelerating that process and winding down the targeting of them should have been a process that begun two years ago.

Quote:
From a personal viewpoint, I am very anti-AQ and think that taking out Bin Laden was essential for the US to move on from this last decade. Without doing that, we would have always had this dude hanging around out there, either causing trouble or at the very least being used by actual warmongers to start further trouble. I don't believe history will judge Obama all that poorly for his decision to do this.


Personally I don't really care about Osama either way. I don't mind him dead but him being alive hadn't been relevant (except symbolically) for some time. It made little strategic difference (except in that the way it was done, without cooperating with Pakistan undermined future cooperation greatly).

Quote:
2) Iraq has been wound down on schedule, which is fine with me. Obama didn't do much to facilitate an earlier leave of the country, but he also ceased actual combat operations for the last year leading up to the withdrawal. But we've really fucked that country, no two ways around it; I have a friend who is over there right now trying to help get all the Depleted Uranium that we left there cleaned up and she says the place is still pretty wrecked and will be for a long time. Not much talk about that in the media.


First of all, he withdrew on Bush's schedule, not his promised one, and was trying to negotiate an extension with the Iraqis up to the last minute.

He campaigned on immediate withdrawal that would conclude in 2009 (or as early as March 31 2008 in some campaign speeches) and said he's start it on "day one".

He gets no credit here, he campaigned on getting us out right away and once taking office tried to stay longer than even Bush had agreed to.

He completely failed to extract the diplomatic concessions needed (and that he campaigned about) the entire time as well and right now depleted uranium is the least of their concerns, the collapse of the political system and the re-ignition of sectarian violence mean we are leaving that place much worse than when we found it.

He gets no cookie on Iraq, he did not make it one bit better than when he inherited it.

Quote:
Re: Afghanistan, this is one of my biggest gripes with Obama: the 'surge' there was politically motivated and ineffective. I wish Obama had worked harder in 2009 to reject the advice of his military leaders (Echoed by the GOP) and had instead announced that we were leaving soon, and - if we ever have to come back - we won't be so kind next time as to not level everything, so please, police your own citizens appropriately.


This is my core qualm with him. He's terrified of being seen as soft and has bowed to pressure from hawks on nearly every issue he has faced.

Quote:
Instead, they decided to give it 'one last shot,' which did apparently nothing at all. At least Obama and Pannetta have been talking about wrapping the whole thing up in 2013 for good, we'll have to see what happens.


I think that the one last shot included the final straws for Pakistan. This didn't do anything positive but helped ensure a generation of Anti-Americanism in the region. Thankfully it should subside greatly when we leave but Pakistan will be a hotbed of Anti-Americanism for quite some time and repeatedly slapping the Pakistani government in the face severely limits both their willingness and their political ability (with the current government facing a strong possibility of a military coup) to cooperate with us in the future. And when we are gone having their cooperation would have been useful.

Quote:
3) This is both an interesting and tough one, in the face of the recent revolutions and uprisings we've seen in the ME. How much support should the US give to countries' rebels? Should we provide active military support in Syria the way we did in Libya? Does our pursuit of objective 1 mean that we won't be able to accomplish objective 3? What about the belligerence from our ally Israel, how do we handle this?


There is currently no military solution for Syria at all, as for Libya it was a big mistake to sell the regime change as a "no fly zone" and promise no boots on the ground. That created a vacuum of power and Libya's current lawlessness (with the rebels now fighting and torturing each other while the central government stands completely helpless) may degenerate to be a worse situation that under Gaddafi's rule.

The prevarications in getting the resolution are also a big reason why China and Russia are putting their foot down on Syria. Unfortunately Syria is a problem that the US can't solve, Obama has had this one right so far.

As for Israel, he just bent over and took it. Bibi has totally outmaneuvered him and the only way he can fix this is for him to care less about being re-elected and more about achieving his goals. But you and I both know he cares more about being president than doing the right thing there and has punted that issue out of this term entirely once he got his nose rubbed in it by Bibi on the settlement freeze.

Quote:
Obama (and some other nations) chose to intercede in Libya, and I had great reservations about that (I'm sure you saw them here on A2K), but luckily for him it turned out pretty well for the 'good guys.' But, the real game in the ME is Iran, and everyone knows it... I think Obama has to carefully avoid provoking a larger conflict with Iran while maintaining a tough posture, which is why you see statements on his part that sound tough.


Obama only has to do that if he cares about being re-elected enough to. If he were willing to just swing for the fences without worrying about being president longer he could have ignored these war drums but he'll beat them along with the others just so that Republicans can't contrast against him this way.

Quote:
These statements are just as politically motivated as the ones the GOP contenders throw out; but, Obama's actions have shown him time and time again turning away from possible points of contention with Iran. When the Iranian uprising occurred in 2009, Obama did not support them, other than with the blandest of encouragement.


Bending over because of the GOP is an excuse that does not resonate with me as well as it does with you. I think his priority of political survival is not worth the compromises he makes and this is a big reason I do not want to see these enormous compromises rewarded.

Quote:
When Israel repeatedly (per leaks from Wikileaks and reports from the media) asked the US to green-light attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the US refused each time.


This is nothing new, Bush said no too the US would have to be batshit insane to say yes (it's not just green-lighting the strike but basically joining the subsequent war).


Quote:
Obama has been vocal about the fact that our own ally is engaging in actions (further settlements in the west bank) that enrage their enemies and set the peace process back.


You don't get to use present perfect here (which implies a strong connection to the present) and should use the simple past tense. They only make meek statements about the general counterproductiveness of the Israeli settlements but barely pay lip service to this anymore.


Quote:
Our Navy has been ignoring Iranian aggression in the Straits of Hormuz and even has spent a significant amount of time saving their ships from pirates.


The last part is untrue, they rescued one Iranian ship as far as I know and did not spend "significant" time on it (spending more trumpeting it for political gain than it took to execute) and Iran has done the same without blowing their own horn. Fighting piracy is a global operation and that was just a bit of horn tooting for political gain (horn tooting that I support, by the way, it made Iran say thanks, I'm just not willing to list this as anything remotely significant of an event).

Quote:
In each of the above cases, ACTUAL warmongers on the right-wing (and some Jewish Dems) were calling for open warfare with Iran - a first-strike, and immediately. They criticized Obama's criticism of our allies' actions. I see a dude who is trying to maintain a peaceful balance - not someone who is pushing for more war.


Sure, and I wish Obama didn't sidle up to them a bit closer each time. The man's governing to win an election and is willing to compromise his ideals far too easily.

Quote:
The real test for Obama will be to see if the drone attacks ramp down. If not, I'll probably start to agree with you a lot more than I do now.


They already did. Since this thread started a huge amount of things I want to happen have started moving faster that way.

The real test for me is whether he really plans to wait out the election year to really wind it down. I think he will, I think him getting re-elected is what matters most to him and that we won't see him return to any sort of principles till he's achieved that.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
As I remember it, you didn’t resort to the name calling and petty insults that are the norm in the forum.


What particular namecalling are you complaining about?

Quote:
For what it is worth, I think your perspective is going to prevail. I think Obama will lose…and lose big. The nominee of the Republican Party, in my estimation, will prevail.


For what it's worth, no they won't. Obama will win by 3.6% (roughly) of the general vote.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:23 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Secondly, I do not think he is a warmonger. I think that you are using that term gratuitously to scorn those who will choose to vote for Obama despite the fact that he has not been perfect in office.


I disagree both with the notion that he is not a warmonger as well as the risible notion that I say that he is just to scorn Obama voters (whom I don't give a flying **** about one way or the other).

....................................................................................
Anyway, do your best to damage Obama as you see fit.
....................

Frank - you may have missed an explosive new report by Daniel L. Davis (Lt Colonel, US Army); here's the declassified part. It shows Obama was either completely uninformed, grossly negligent, or just plain incompetent. Some of those who really can't stand him will allege treason, but I'd wait until the full report becomes public.
Quote:
.......The inaccurate assigning of the reason for the 2007 Iraq surge’s success has profound implications for our current war in Afghanistan and doubly so for the surge forces ordered by the President in late 2009. Had the President known the truth of what really happened in 2007 Iraq it is unlikely he would not have made the decision he did in November/December 2009. In any case, the situation demonstrates a growing and expanding willingness on the part of our country’s senior military leaders to use “Information Operations” even on domestic audiences to manipulate the system in order to get what they want.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/291793/dereliction-of-duty-ii-january-15-2012.pdf
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:28 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
I agree that the use of drones is one of the best ways to minimize loss of life while prosecuting this war but disagree about it being the best way to minimize social unrest.

Also, no reason justifies that America wage this war in the first place---at least no reason that international law would recognize. Military action against another country violates international law, except as a response to military aggression. Pakistan has not committed military aggression against the US. Therefore, US special forces, US drones, indeed US military of any kind, have no lawful basis for being in Pakistan at all. This confirms your thesis that president Obama is a warmonger---just as president Bush was and president Romney would be if elected.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 03:21:27