PDA

View Full Version : Obama goes to war?


piece-itpete
05-21-2010, 09:45 AM
Hillary is ratcheting up the rhetoric regarding North Korea.

Based on how and what 'they' (the US SK and allies) are saying they know for sure NK torpedo'd that ship.

It was a 'legal' action in the eyes of international law by NK 'cause NK and SK are still technically at war.

If SK fires back and this goes up in a big way, the US will support SK, no doubt.

Isn't that overrreaching and imperialism?

Pete

d-ray657
05-21-2010, 09:49 AM
Hillary is ratcheting up the rhetoric regarding North Korea.

Based on how and what 'they' (the US SK and allies) are saying they know for sure NK torpedo'd that ship.

It was a 'legal' action in the eyes of international law by NK 'cause NK and SK are still technically at war.

If SK fires back and this goes up in a big way, the US will support SK, no doubt.

Isn't that overrreaching and imperialism?

Pete

Are alliances imperialism?

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
05-21-2010, 09:57 AM
I don't think so, but it's your party :p

Pete

Zeke
05-21-2010, 12:06 PM
Isn't that overrreaching and imperialism?

Only if we don't slap Israel should they get preemptively froggy in the Middle East.

It's the same standard.

BlueStreak
05-21-2010, 12:19 PM
If SK fires back and this goes up in a big way, the US will support SK, no doubt.

Isn't that overrreaching and imperialism?

Pete


No, it isn't. "Pre-emption" is. Wars launched on deliberate misinformation are.

Dave

Fast_Eddie
05-21-2010, 12:42 PM
It's just like when Sadam sunk that... oh, it's not even close to the same. Sorry. I got confused.

Was there a point?

Wonder what will happen if we really need to fight a war- I mean one we need to fight. We're pretty thin fighting the optional ones right now. We went looking for WMDs. Well, we found some. They're just in North Korea and we're in tough shape to do anything about it.

piece-itpete
05-21-2010, 12:45 PM
Pre-emptive - like fighting Europes' fight in Bosnia?

So if we start bombing the hell out of NK the left's OK with it?

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-21-2010, 12:52 PM
So if we start bombing the hell out of NK the left's OK with it?

Can't speak for "the left". As for me, no, not at this point- not "bombing the heel out of NK." I would be okay with some targeted response at a military target. If they could take out the nuke infrastructure it might be okay - assuming all diplomatic options have failed. I don't know. I have faith in Obama not to make the kind of catastrophic errors in judgment Bush made. I would not be in favor of any Iraq type action. No more countries to be tied up in for 100 years.

Wonder if the Tea folk would be willing to pay more taxes to support a military response?

finnbow
05-21-2010, 01:07 PM
Peruse this article (http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm)and see how smart it would be to invade or bomb Korea. If a bunch of ragtag Taliban can keep us occupied for nearly a decade in Afghanistan, think how badly we would fare against a standing Army of 80 divisions and brigades who are armed to the teeth. If the war stayed conventional, methink they would kick our ass, not to mention demolish Seoul within days with an artillery force made up of 18,000 heavy guns.

piece-itpete
05-21-2010, 01:11 PM
If Obama initiates it rightly or wrongly no, and of course he would own it for better or worse.

NK has proved over and over that there is no diplomatic solution, they're 100% FOS. I'm guessing that, on the unlikely assumption it actually happens, it'll start tit for tat with the NK and SK navies before any bombing action.

Remember China standing over NKs' shoulder.

I'm still surprised at the lefts' response to the administrations' sabre-rattling, given their large anti-military wing.

Pete

piece-itpete
05-21-2010, 01:14 PM
If China stayed out we would walk over them. Not bragging, just a fact.

Occupation may be harder, but maybe not.

For the record, I'm not advocating action at this point. But if SK opens fire it's probably on.

Pete

piece-itpete
05-21-2010, 01:21 PM
Btw, I'm not saying they wouldn't do any damage, just the forgone conclusion.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-21-2010, 01:37 PM
If China stayed out we would walk over them. Not bragging, just a fact.

Man, does that sound familiar. Will we be greeted as "liberators" too Mr. Cheney?

piece-itpete
05-21-2010, 01:52 PM
Er, we did walk all over the 4th largest army in the world with the best defenses Russia could build, and that's a fact.

What is this - 'Obama, at least he's not quite as bad as Bush'?

I'm not the one threatening NK, your dudes are.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-21-2010, 02:08 PM
Er, we did walk all over the 4th largest army in the world with the best defenses Russia could build, and that's a fact.

That is exactly my point. Beating their Army isn't the issue. As I said, I'd not be easily convinced another Iraq style invasion is in our best interest. How many young Americans do we have to occupy these nations? No, I think a more Clinton like containment strategy backed up by narrowly focused strategic strikes makes a lot more sense. The lesson of Iraq should be that Clinton’s policy worked. Sadam was effectively contained and did not have WMD. Who knows what would have happened with North Korea if a similar policy had been in place? I don’t pretend to be an international policy expert, but it would seem plausible that we were distracted by Afghanistan and Iraq.

And no, this is Obama: he's a damn sight better than Bush. He won the election by being less Bush-like than the other guy. A pretty decent yard stick to be sure. I think it's a great idea to continue to vote for the least Bush like President we can find.

Zeke
05-21-2010, 02:19 PM
No, it isn't. "Pre-emption" is. Wars launched on deliberate misinformation are.

Precisely the point that I made.

I'm still surprised at the lefts' response to the administrations' sabre-rattling, given their large anti-military wing.

I don't perceive the left -- or me, if you include self-proclaimed moderates as such -- as, "anti-military." I tend to see us as, "anti-dumbass."

The military is a viable option when called for, but gleefully maneuvering yourself into a position wherein the military becomes your best option is not sound strategy... :rolleyes: (It's merely our modus operandi.)

And, if we're going to play World Mommy, not spanking belligerent nations, equally, is weak...

Fast_Eddie
05-21-2010, 02:22 PM
I don't perceive the left -- or me, if you include self-proclaimed moderates as such -- as, "anti-military." I tend to see us as, "anti-dumbass."

God I wish I had said that. Bravo. Post of the month for srue!

And exactly right. Why do right wingers always want to say Democrats are "anti-military"? No, we're not. We need a military and we need to use it wisely. Which, really, is exactly what Zeke just said with a lot fewer words.

piece-itpete
05-21-2010, 02:28 PM
The fact remains - you guys are arguing with me, because I brought up what Obama is doing.

Furthermore if SK opens fire on NK or the other way around all our discussion is moot. It certainly isn't 'my' strategy.

Withdrawing the US military world wide is not anti-dumbass, or wouldn't Obama have done it? Or is Obama a dumbass too?

Is there a Code Pink parking space at the White House now? :)

Do I get to type dumbass again? :D

Pete

Zeke
05-21-2010, 02:52 PM
The fact remains - you guys are arguing with me, because I brought up what Obama is doing.

I'm not arguing, I'm just keeping it real.

If we stare down North Korea for being an aggressor nation, I want us to do the same to Israel if they get all froggy and preemptive: as is their style...

Charles
05-21-2010, 03:09 PM
I don't understand the fascination with Afghanistan, has anyone ever won there? Besides, we wouldn't be able to support a force there if we didn't have Iraq for a staging area.

Now Shrub may have been an idiot, but he had enough sense not to get bogged down in Afghanistan.

And Korea is another Tar Baby.

Chas

d-ray657
05-21-2010, 03:13 PM
And Korea is another Tar Baby.

Chas

What an astute reference. I don't think I've read that story for over forty years.

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles
05-21-2010, 03:28 PM
What an astute reference. I don't think I've read that story for over forty years.

Regards,

D-Ray

At times, I wonder if our fearless leaders have ever read it at all.

Chas

piece-itpete
05-24-2010, 11:59 AM
"Fellow citizens, we have always tolerated North Korea's brutality, time and again. We did so because we have always had a genuine longing for peace on the Korean Peninsula," he [South Korean President Lee Myung-bak] said. "But now things are different. North Korea will pay a price corresponding to its provocative acts."

"The United States fully supports President Lee's responsible handling of the Cheonan incident," said Clinton. "The measures that President Lee announced in his speech are both prudent and entirely appropriate."

(PiP: SK has ruled out military action for now. But wanna bet what happens if NK fires again?)

Shook up the Japanese:

'The attack has provided political cover for Japan's government -- only the second opposition party to take power in nearly 50 years -- to end an eight-month-long feud with the United States and accept a plan to relocate a U.S. Marine base within Okinawa. On Sunday, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama announced that his country would abide by a 14-year-old agreement to move the Futenma air base in Okinawa to a less populated part of the island.

Hatoyama's government had campaigned on a platform that rejected the Futenma deal and advocated a more Asia-centric view of Japan's place in the world. But the Cheonan incident reminded them "that this is still a very dangerous neighborhood and that the U.S.-Japan alliance and the basing arrangements that are part of that are critical to Japan's security," the senior U.S. official said. '

It's really putting China on the spot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052400140.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

Pete

JCricket
05-24-2010, 12:28 PM
Pre-emptive - like fighting Europes' fight in Bosnia?

So if we start bombing the hell out of NK the left's OK with it?

Pete

Is the right okay with it?

This kind of lumping together of people puts a bad taste in my mouth.

I doubt anyone is really oaky with it. I also bet there is a very wide range of opinions on boths sides of the line. I doubt there really could be a categorization based on party affiliation here.

Mark

piece-itpete
05-24-2010, 12:42 PM
If NK fires on SKs ships again it won't really matter if anyone's OK with it, I can't imagine us not supporting SK up to and including militarily.

I was wondering if the left would support Obama on it.

Pete

JCricket
05-24-2010, 12:47 PM
If NK fires on SKs ships again it won't really matter if anyone's OK with it, I can't imagine us not supporting SK up to and including militarily.

I was wondering if the left would support Obama on it.

Pete

Like I said, no one group in its entirety will support or condem it. I think this categorization and "support" of division(party line politics) is what is harming this country most.

Boreas
05-24-2010, 12:48 PM
If NK fires on SKs ships again it won't really matter if anyone's OK with it, I can't imagine us not supporting SK up to and including militarily.

I was wondering if the left would support Obama on it.

Pete

I don't really think "the left" would have a unified response to it. Of course, the exact nature of the "it" would be important.

John

piece-itpete
05-24-2010, 12:55 PM
Like I said, no one group in its entirety will support or condem it. I think this categorization and "support" of division(party line politics) is what is harming this country most.

We are a two party system.

I don't really think "the left" would have a unified response to it. Of course, the exact nature of the "it" would be important.

John

OK, perhaps to go further then, in the event of the resumption of hostilities NK will (most likely) walk over SK. The only thing that can (will?) stop them is the US.

That does mean ground troops in combat.

Pete

merrylander
05-24-2010, 01:14 PM
So the south has terminated all trade and investment in the north, no shots fired and now that stupid little fart will have to eat crow.

Zeke
05-24-2010, 06:33 PM
If NK fires on SKs ships again it won't really matter if anyone's OK with it...

Bullshit.

If fired upon, it kind of matters to me what South Korea's ships were doing, at the time, before I pledge support.

I realize nobody wants to touch the subject of Israel for fear of being branded with the BS anti-Semitic brush, but it's the same model: What IF Iran attacks Israel? Before we willy-nilly support them, I'd like to know what the Mossad was doing in Tehran, for example... :rolleyes:

Everything is relative. If you aren't "hands clean," support should NOT be guaranteed.

Boreas
05-24-2010, 09:05 PM
OK, perhaps to go further then, in the event of the resumption of hostilities NK will (most likely) walk over SK. The only thing that can (will?) stop them is the US.

That does mean ground troops in combat.

Pete

First, I don't think you give the ROK troops enough credit. They are VERY tough soldiers. There was a brigade of them in Vietnam. The VC were terrified of them, enough so that they offered a bounty on killed ROKs.

Also, I think you'd find Japan quite willing to come to Seoul's aid and, most importantly, I think China would squash Kim Jong Il like a bug if he tried to go to war with the South. Right now China is concentrating on becoming the world's commercial and industrial leader. A war in their part of the world, particularly when one participant is a nut with nukes, is not anything they would tolerate.

John

finnbow
05-24-2010, 09:37 PM
...most importantly, I think China would squash Kim Jong Il like a bug if he tried to go to war with the South. Right now China is concentrating on becoming the world's commercial and industrial leader. A war in their part of the world, particularly when one participant is a nut with nukes, is not anything they would tolerate.


OTOH, China prefers the status quo to a united, democratic Korea on their border. They're walking a fine line on this one.

Charles
05-24-2010, 09:45 PM
"Tis Barry this, an' Barry that, an' toss him out, the lout,

But 'tis savior of our Nation, when the lib's begin to shout,

'TIS THE SAVIOR OF OUR NATION...when the lib's begin to shout"

Apologies to Kipling...I couldn't help myself.

Besides, isn't this thread about Obama's war???

Chas

JCricket
05-24-2010, 09:50 PM
We are a two party system.



OK, perhaps to go further then, in the event of the resumption of hostilities NK will (most likely) walk over SK. The only thing that can (will?) stop them is the US.

That does mean ground troops in combat.

Pete

First, why?

And why does that mean we can't have people in the middle who agree and disagree with each parties platforms. Since when do we(I) have to belomng strictly to one side or the other. For that matter, why do I have to belong to either?

So second, BS. We are not really a two party system. We currently present as that form, but that is only because of the political power currently held by the two parties. It has changed in the past, and will again in the future.

A lot of theings need to change, that is one of the main ones.

JCricket
05-24-2010, 09:52 PM
"Tis Barry this, an' Barry that, an' toss him out, the lout,

But 'tis savior of our Nation, when the lib's begin to shout,

'TIS THE SAVIOR OF OUR NATION...when the lib's begin to shout"

Apologies to Kipling...I couldn't help myself.

Besides, isn't this thread about Obama's war???

Chas


Supposed to be. OOPS!

How could this be his war? He didn't start it? He inherited it. I doubt he wants it. He just has to try and find a way to fix it.

Boreas
05-24-2010, 09:58 PM
How could this be his war? He didn't start it? He inherited it. I doubt he wants it. He just has to try and find a way to fix it.

I know I'll get heat for this but North Korea is yet another problem Bush allowed to spin out of control.

John

Charles
05-25-2010, 06:36 AM
I know I'll get heat for this but North Korea is yet another problem Bush allowed to spin out of control.

John

None of these conflicts predate the Boosch Administration?

Chas

merrylander
05-25-2010, 06:47 AM
Most of them pre-date everyone and are mainly due to an appaling lack of knowledge of other people's history.

Charles
05-25-2010, 07:03 AM
Most of them pre-date everyone and are mainly due to an appaling lack of knowledge of other people's history.

I think you're onto something.

Chas

piece-itpete
05-25-2010, 08:43 AM
Well JC one either supports Obama or he doesn't. I agree that there are many different groups funneled into either party, but that is the way it is and has worked out very well for us.

Man, everything is Bush. The guy is omnipotent. As a matter of fact, he caused the war between NK and SK. It's true because I say so, and it couldn't be the masters' fault.

The rhetoric is REALLY heating up now. Joint US and SK naval exercises in the area in question. I pray NK doesn't do anything stupid.

Pete

Combwork
05-26-2010, 05:53 AM
Btw, I'm not saying they wouldn't do any damage, just the forgone conclusion.

Pete

This kind of conflicts with the link Finnbow posted (9). I've no idea if the article is accurate or not but as a side issue, could it simply have been a mistake? Torpedo meant to be a warning shot, not a hit?

merrylander
05-26-2010, 07:00 AM
As to NK rolling over SK, the relative military is; NK 5.3 million troops, SK 5.2 million troops, hardly outnumbered. NK GDP $1.900 per capita, SK $28,000 per capita.

piece-itpete
05-26-2010, 08:02 AM
This kind of conflicts with the link Finnbow posted (9). I've no idea if the article is accurate or not but as a side issue, could it simply have been a mistake? Torpedo meant to be a warning shot, not a hit?

That link has an agenda. Notice buried in there it says their tank production capability is 200 annually. If pressed we could easily take out that many a day, I'm sure, regardless of their assessment of our 'known' weapons.

I think it'll blow over. NK couldn't possibly be that stupid, to escalate this. Or could they? :hdscrtch:

As to NK rolling over SK, the relative military is; NK 5.3 million troops, SK 5.2 million troops, hardly outnumbered. NK GDP $1.900 per capita, SK $28,000 per capita.

I'm thinking old, um, thoughts, remembering how overall bad SK was last time around (unless that was only perception). Good news indeed!

Those poor N Koreans. I understand they're ready to march off cliffs rather than capture because of how beastly they've been told we are.

Pete

Combwork
05-26-2010, 09:39 AM
Those poor N Koreans. I understand they're ready to march off cliffs rather than capture because of how beastly they've been told we are.

Pete

That's another point Pete. They've had over half a century to indoctrinate the population, and they've succeeded. The people 'know' they need to be militarily strong to survive. They 'know' South Korea is trying to destroy them. According to the news NK's into another famine. Is SK self sufficient for food?

The US and UK military have a great ability for long range fighting but as we've seen in Afghanistan, sophisticated weapons are of limited use when you're fighting an enemy at close range; one that knows the terrain far better than you do.

If Kim Yon San is even half as crazy as he's painted, given what he sees as enough provocation he could act and leave the rest of the world to react after the event. He's promised his people that any "act of aggression" by SK will immediately trigger a full scale war. Having made the promise, wouldn't he lose too much face if he didn't back it up?

piece-itpete
05-26-2010, 09:53 AM
I'd assume that although we're about to give a fantastic show of force we'll be careful.

I'm not arguing for war. NK is playing a stupid game. I agree that if Kim doesn't respond to military agression he's probably in trouble, but it wouldn't be him responding to our aggression, it would be the other way around. That stupid thug. Probably wrangling for another bribe.

Btw, our guys are fierce close quarter fighters, as the cavemen taliban found out. Advanced training appears to be good :)

Pete

finnbow
05-26-2010, 12:23 PM
Btw, our guys are fierce close quarter fighters, as the cavemen taliban found out.

I wouldn't exactly call Tora Bora an unqualified success. Osama and his boys did succeed in sneaking out the back door IIRC. Fighting guerrillas isn't exactly our specialty. We're much better at fighting a big, slow mechanized army toe-to-toe than folks who blend back into a (mostly friendly) civilian population after popping off a few shots or laying down an IED. If this weren't the case, Dubya's "Mission Accomplished" speech would have actually meant what it said.

While we (the US) are likely able to beat the North Koreans toe-to-toe in a conventional war (and that's perhaps debatable after Iraq/Afghanistan and considering there's only about 20,000 American troops in SK). But at what cost? NK could lay waste to Seoul without even crossing the DMZ as it is well within artillery range of the North.

piece-itpete
05-26-2010, 12:44 PM
The foreign soldier who does not respect a US soldier one on one is an idiot. Osama yo' Momma might have slipped away, but the Afgan general who said 'taking those caves will turn my black beard white' must've been referring to his own troops, not ours.

Last I heard we were drawing down troops in Iraq and handing control over to the Iraqis - not Saddams or Osamas boys. Strange way of losing there.

If NK opens fire on a SK warship in international waters (again), or worse yet ours, we do - nothing?

Pete

merrylander
05-26-2010, 02:21 PM
The US soldier is fine, it is the effing generals who are hopeless. We missed Osama at Tora Bora because Tommy Franks was running thr war from Florida.

Boreas
05-26-2010, 02:53 PM
The US soldier is fine, it is the effing generals who are hopeless. We missed Osama at Tora Bora because Tommy Franks was running thr war from Florida.

More specifically, it was a decision to assign the area of al Qaeda's rear to Afghan troops. They negotiated a cease fire with bin Laden and he walked into Pakistan.

John

Fast_Eddie
05-26-2010, 03:04 PM
Last I heard we were drawing down troops in Iraq and handing control over to the Iraqis - not Saddams or Osamas boys. Strange way of losing there.

Losing is all there is to be had. If you mean we "won" because we, I don't know, kicked some ass or got rid of Saddam, then you're right. If you mean we accomplished anything with regard to making America safe, we lost. We went to the wrong place and took out the wrong guy. It has been made very clear at this point that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He had nothing to do with WMDs. He was not a significant threat to our safety or security.

We, however, have lost thousands of good young Americans and billions of dollars. We gave Osama exactly what he wanted. We went to his back yard where he could pick off Americans much more easily. At the same time, he blead billions of dollars from our coffers.

He got exactly what he was after. We got nothing we were after. Saddam had nothing to do with anything and we had no case for taking him out. Yeah, he was a bad guy. There are a lot of bad guys out there. But we don't really have the resources to take out every bad guy on Earth. Hell, a lot of folks here don't even think we can afford reasonable health care for AMERICANS. How do they think we can afford to "liberate Iraq"? It's great we're building hospitals and schools there, but while we're doing that, AMERICANS are going without decent health care or education.

piece-itpete
05-26-2010, 03:10 PM
We can turn this into Iraq or not. To beat Hillary Obama said 16 months and all out no matter what. That's next month. It's safe to say that there is a reason we're there, or he'd make good on that.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-26-2010, 03:16 PM
But Pete, you said we won!

Fast_Eddie
05-26-2010, 03:18 PM
We can turn this into Iraq or not. To beat Hillary Obama said 16 months and all out no matter what. That's next month.

Well Pete, last I heard we were drawing down troops in Iraq and handing control over to the Iraqis. Wait, what? Deja vu.

piece-itpete
05-26-2010, 03:27 PM
Lol. But the reality is we're going to be there (at the invitation of the Iraqi gov't) for some time.

Hillary originally said this, but Obama lying about total withdrawal caused so much trouble for her with the stupid kids that she had to change her primary position.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-26-2010, 03:41 PM
Lol. But the reality is we're going to be there (at the invitation of the Iraqi gov't) for some time.

Of course. Obama never said any different. He is, once again, doing exactly what he said he would do. And once again, those who don't like him are trying to twist it to be something else.

That was my point about the North Korea thing. We could certainly go in and bomb them into the stone age. But we'd be stuck there for ages, just like Iraq. How many countries can we afford to "liberate"?

piece-itpete
05-26-2010, 03:45 PM
Obama said during the primary debate that he would have all troops out in 16 months regardless.

Since he changed his tune as soon as he beat Hillary: he is, once again, doing exactly what he said he would do. Nice.

So if NK opens fire, our response should be what?

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-26-2010, 04:13 PM
Obama said during the primary debate that he would have all troops out in 16 months regardless.

Since he changed his tune as soon as he beat Hillary: he is, once again, doing exactly what he said he would do. Nice.

So if NK opens fire, our response should be what?

Pete

No. He didn't. That's a lie.

"16 months regardless". Find me that quote. You won't. He didn't say it. And you're criticizing him for doing exactly what people said he needed to do. He looked at the situation once he became President, as he said he would do, and responded to the situation on the ground. He is doing what he said he would do. And he is doing it right. And that's rough on people who don't support him. I know many of you want him to fail. But he's not failing. And that's got to sting.

The plan, as you said, is to get combat troops out and it's happening. So if you sleep better saying "Ha! You said 16 months but it will take 19! LIAR!" well, good for you. McCain promised 100 years in Iraq. So Obama will best him by about 98 years. Playing "gotcha" over three months is really missing the point when young men and women are serving with honor and the President is trying to act in their best interest.

You know, Bush said we'd get Osama. We got Saddam. When you think about it, that's kind of a lot bigger deal than a few weeks in the summer of 2010.

Jesus may have turned water into wine, but it wasn't very good wine - HA! Fail! And I wanted WHITE wine but he made RED! What a loser! I'm disgusted by these half assed miracles.

Fast_Eddie
05-26-2010, 04:18 PM
Here's a pretty good write up on what he said and what he's doing. Just in case the facts interest you at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/world/americas/04iht-04military.18385946.html

Charles
05-26-2010, 08:05 PM
I heard Obama say many times that he was going to get the troops out of Iraq, never did I hear him differate between combat and support troops.

No doubt he did, but I was under the assumption that he was being disingenuous on purpose for political gain. Something politicians do. Or at least something the media does for them.

When McCain said they'd be there for a hundred years he was being straight up about the situation.

My two cents,

Chas

noonereal
05-26-2010, 08:32 PM
I am pretty sure Obie was of the mind set that George and the boys committed a crime to go into Iraq but that just indiscriminately just pulling them out would be just as irresponsible as sending them was.

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 08:50 AM
"I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,"

Oooooooh, with the understanding. I see. The kids he was lying to, they understood that perfectly. He didn't have to actually SAY it, like Hillary did at first.

Pete

finnbow
05-27-2010, 08:57 AM
I'm no fan of the Iraq folly, but what Obama is doing there seems quite reasonable considering the circumstances. I read your posts, Pete, and don't understand exactly what your beef is. What exactly do you think is an appropriate course of action over there and how does it differ dramatically from what he's doing?

Fast_Eddie
05-27-2010, 09:01 AM
I heard Obama say many times that he was going to get the troops out of Iraq, never did I hear him differate between combat and support troops.

You weren't listening.

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 09:27 AM
I'm no fan of the Iraq folly, but what Obama is doing there seems quite reasonable considering the circumstances. I read your posts, Pete, and don't understand exactly what your beef is. What exactly do you think is an appropriate course of action over there and how does it differ dramatically from what he's doing?

I have no beef with his Iraq policy, which is a continuation of Bushes.

I'm just calling him on his campaign bullshit. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Pete

finnbow
05-27-2010, 09:32 AM
I'm just calling him on his campaign bullshit. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Pete

Yeh, kinda like Dubya promising a humble foreign policy during his 2000 campaign:

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble."

Oh, and he added the following, "I would be very careful about using troops as nation builders."

How did that work out?

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 09:45 AM
Sadly, things changed shortly thereafter.....

Fast_Eddie
05-27-2010, 09:57 AM
I have no beef with his Iraq policy, which is a continuation of Bushes.

I'm just calling him on his campaign bullshit. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Pete

Except he's doing exactly what he said he would do. But whatever.

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 10:01 AM
Sure he is. I missed the understanding.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-27-2010, 10:27 AM
Sure he is. I missed the understanding.

Pete

You weren't listening either. Or you're intentionally misrepresenting his actions for political gain. Oh wait, you *are* a Republican. I guess that second bit goes as understood. "We caused this mess in Iraq, so who better to fix it?!"

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 10:32 AM
Yeah, I didn't watch the Dem primary debates, I'm just making stuff up to make Obama look bad.

With the understanding of something or the other. [/sarcasm]

Pete

Zeke
05-27-2010, 10:44 AM
Sadly, things changed shortly thereafter.....

NO!

Things didn't, fundamentally, change. Right-wing, hawkish, nutjobs were merely given an excuse.

The leviathan, some might say rightfully, received a bloody nose for ongoing World Police interference and reacted by swatting flies with Buicks: further proving the model. :rolleyes:

Boreas
05-27-2010, 11:00 AM
Yeah, I didn't watch the Dem primary debates, I'm just making stuff up to make Obama look bad.

With the understanding of something or the other. [/sarcasm]

Pete

Pete, let's just say that what you're saying is incorrect without getting into your possible motives. Obama is doing pretty much exactly what he said he would do, with a few adjustments based on the situation as it actually exists.

Would you rather he stuck to the exact letter of what he had said nearly two years ago, despite subsequent developments or newer information?

Oh, wait! You voted for Bush.

Twice, right?

Never mind.

John

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 11:05 AM
Your own link! He said 16 and out. Now it's 'with the understanding' :rolleyes:

Sucks to be you guys.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-27-2010, 12:28 PM
"He said 16 but it's going to take 19! How could he lie like that?!" Yeah, you got him there Pete.

Fast_Eddie
05-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Your own link! He said 16 and out. Now it's 'with the understanding' :rolleyes:

Oohhhhh. Wait a minute Pete.

You need to look at the date on that article. It was written *before* the election. It's not "now". It's "then". He said alllllll of those things--- BEFORE the voters elected him. And yes, it was all over the news. I should have pointed it out when I posted the link. I was specifically looking for old articles to show clearly what the candidate said.

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 12:47 PM
As I said, he changed his tune as soon as he beat Hillary. Whatever it takes, for change. :p

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-27-2010, 12:55 PM
Your own link! He said 16 and out. Now it's 'with the understanding' :rolleyes:

As I said, he changed his tune as soon as he beat Hillary.

Pretty sure you said "now". Sooooo, yeah.

But man, really, what is the point? We're, you know, getting out of Iraq. He said we'd get out of Iraq. Hell, by that point even Bush said we'd get out of Iraq. Folks trusted Obama more to actually do it. And what do you know, he's donig it. I'm missing the point you're trying to make. I didn't realize you were a Hillary supporter still feeling the sting of losing to Obama.

Here's what I know. When it comes election day (for him) he'll be able to say "I got combat troops out of Iraq". Does he play politics? Um, yes. He's a politician. A good one. If you don't play politics you're an angry dude on a web forum that aobut 20 people acutally read.

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 12:56 PM
Btw, 30-50K troops for 'support'? The left, um, supports this?

Pete

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 01:07 PM
Do you think I'm angry? Lmao!

I'm enjoying myself. Take darn near 1/2 our troops and call them 'support' and shazam! Obama leads us down the yellow brick road, except he's just following Bushes plan.

And, he gets to say he withdrew from Iraq. Yes, things have changed indeed if the left buys it.

Pete

finnbow
05-27-2010, 01:24 PM
Obama leads us down the yellow brick road, except he's just following Bushes plan.

I think the ad hoc fumbling around by Bush for years in Iraq could hardly be called a plan. There were countless well-sourced and award-winning books written specifically about the lack of a coherent plan. Among them:

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Tom Ricks
Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Read them and come back here and try to make an argument that Dubya and Co. had a plan.

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 01:39 PM
The drawdown of troops started BEFORE Obama took office - the surge worked.

Pete

finnbow
05-27-2010, 02:06 PM
... the surge worked.

It seems it did (at least in part). However, it came in 2007, fours years after a successful invasion that lacked a plan for the subsequent occupation. Baghdad fell in 3 weeks and we fumbled around for fours years trying to consolidate our gains. The "surge" was a last ditch contingency effort to try to make good on four years of Gawd-awful management of the occupation.

Fast_Eddie
05-27-2010, 02:23 PM
Take darn near 1/2 our troops and call them 'support' and shazam!

Might check your math there Pete. 30,000 would be 20%.

Boreas
05-27-2010, 02:33 PM
Might check your math there Pete. 30,000 would be 20%.

There you go! Typical left winger, showin' off all yer book learnin'.

John

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 02:46 PM
Earlier this year, there were 98,000 troops in Iraq (and we've still been drawing down). 30K would be 30%, 50K would be 51%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2010-02-16-iraq-troops_N.htm

Pete

Fast_Eddie
05-27-2010, 02:51 PM
Earlier this year, there were 98,000 troops in Iraq (and we've still been drawing down). 30K would be 30%, 50K would be 51%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2010-02-16-iraq-troops_N.htm

Pete

You keep time shifting Pete. We're talking about the campaign. You are correct in pointing out that he has already started making good on that campaign promise. When he said it it was 149,000.

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 02:56 PM
Alright, 20 to 30%. A withdrawal, except for the measly 50,000 US soldiers that aren't withdrawing. Bu-bu-but they're support troops now, so it's OK.

YES WE DID.

Pete

Boreas
05-27-2010, 02:59 PM
Earlier this year, there were 98,000 troops in Iraq (and we've still been drawing down). 30K would be 30%, 50K would be 51%.

And if you check the numbers the day below the deadline and the day after you'll find that Obama didn't remove hardly any troops, that lying SOB!

Um, Pete, "earlier this year" the withdrawal had been in progress for some time. What don't you understand about the word "gradual"?

John

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 03:03 PM
You are correct in pointing out that he has already started making good on that campaign promise.

Very nice Eddie :D

Pete

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 03:05 PM
John, I'm not the one who told the kids and anyone who would believe me I'd have the troops out in 16 months. Obama has just been continuing Bushes 'failed' policies.

Pete

finnbow
05-27-2010, 03:07 PM
The obtuseness of this thread makes my head hurt.

piece-itpete
05-27-2010, 03:12 PM
Right, or left?

Or because it's about the wise and mighty Obama....

Pete

finnbow
05-27-2010, 03:34 PM
More of a Macbeth thing, I guess ...

"...it is a tale ...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Charles
05-27-2010, 03:38 PM
More of a Macbeth thing, I guess ...

"...it is a tale ...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I thought about saying something about hip waders and bullshit, but...

you have outclassed me, Kind Sir,

Chas

Boreas
05-27-2010, 08:22 PM
More of a Macbeth thing, I guess ...

"...it is a tale ...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

A very politic and thoughtful edit of the the Scottish play. ;)

John

merrylander
05-28-2010, 07:13 AM
A very politic and thoughtful edit of the the Scottish play. ;)

John

And with luck to this thread?:rolleyes:

finnbow
05-28-2010, 10:34 AM
At the risk of continuing the obtuseness of this thread, I thought it was probably the best place to provide a link to a very interesting op-ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/28myers.html)in the NYTimes about the crisis in Korea. It seems that we Americans are far more worked up about the attack on the South Korean ship than the Koreans.

d-ray657
05-28-2010, 02:17 PM
There was a story covering it on NPR today. The SK president met with the Chinese Premier. China's position is that their primary aim is stability in the region. They know Kim is nuts, but better the devil they know.

Regards,

D-Ray

finnbow
05-28-2010, 03:12 PM
There was a story covering it on NPR today. The SK president met with the Chinese Premier. China's position is that their primary aim is stability in the region. They know Kim is nuts, but better the devil they know.

Regards,

D-Ray

From what I've read, China feels it's better off with the status quo than with a unified, wealthy and competitive Korea on their border. North Korea is no threat, but they are uncertain about a greater, democratic Korea.

I read something else interesting. The author was saying that Crazy Kim did this on purpose as part of his succession planning for his son. He knew South Korea wouldn't attack, but he could blame the incident on the S. Korean/American intelligence services, and rally the populace around him and his son against the greater enemy. Trial by (controlled) fire, as it were.

piece-itpete
06-01-2010, 09:50 AM
Watching the news shows from SK and Japan, they are indeed worked up about it, evacuation plans, full alert, .....

Pete

merrylander
06-01-2010, 10:40 AM
Really? Is that why the joint manufacturing plant in NK is still going full blast with SK workers?

piece-itpete
06-01-2010, 10:51 AM
Perhaps their government is bustering. If say the Mexican navy (do they have one?) hit a US warship, what would we do?

Pete

finnbow
06-01-2010, 11:02 AM
Perhaps their government is bustering. If say the Mexican navy (do they have one?) hit a US warship, what would we do?

Pete

Send the Texas Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Navy)after 'em?

Seriously though, I'm relatively certain we wouldn't invade. There's definitely a lesson we need to learn from Iraq and Afghanistan. Namely, it's relatively easy to win the first part of a hostile conflict. Achieving a lasting peace, not so much. Can you imagine rebuilding North Korea? It would make the $1 trillion reunification of East Germany seem like child's play.

piece-itpete
06-01-2010, 11:20 AM
So once again we come back to the unanswered question - if NK is stupid enough to open fire on a SK or US warship - again - what should Obamas response be?

Pete

finnbow
06-01-2010, 01:07 PM
So once again we come back to the unanswered question - if NK is stupid enough to open fire on a SK or US warship - again - what should Obamas response be?

Pete

Probably just the same as this time - think before acting. Kind of the opposite approach of Dubya (ready, fire, aim). If there's any doubt as to an appropriate course of action, consult with Dick Chaney - and then do the exact opposite. Really.

piece-itpete
06-01-2010, 01:23 PM
'Think before acting' implies action, you know :)

What action? Sanctions? Taking out a few warships? Spot bombing government buildings?

Pete

Boreas
06-01-2010, 10:27 PM
Probably just the same as this time - think before acting. Kind of the opposite approach of Dubya (ready, fire, aim).

Fire, aim, ready.

John

finnbow
06-01-2010, 10:30 PM
Fire, aim, ready.

John

I did give the chimp too much credit. Thanks for the fix.

merrylander
06-02-2010, 06:52 AM
'Think before acting' implies action, you know :)

What action? Sanctions? Taking out a few warships? Spot bombing government buildings?

Pete

Not really, if you stop and think then you may decide that there is no action necessary.:rolleyes:

Zeke
06-02-2010, 08:53 AM
Not really, if you stop and think then you may decide that there is no action necessary.:rolleyes:

Or, if you bother to think, at all... :rolleyes:

finnbow
06-02-2010, 08:59 AM
Pete - At the risk of being flippant, it seems to me that you're advocating tossing a few bombs at anyone who pisses us off at any time, regardless of the consequences. If so, we perhaps should be lobbing a few onto Tel Aviv at this very moment.

piece-itpete
06-02-2010, 09:04 AM
No, I'm not. But thinking doesn't stop these folks. I don't think ( :) ) doing nothing when attacked is a very good idea?

Pete

PS Israel is an ally . Interesting word that.

Sandy G
06-02-2010, 09:22 AM
There's a pretty good discussion this week in "The Economist" about what could happen when The Gargoyle finally does take his Eternal Dirt Nap...It ain't too purty...China & SK are looking to be initially overrun w/refugees, which neither of 'em want...East Germany was at least a semi-functioning state, its people weren't starving..And East Germans lived like kings compared to the poor bastards of North Korea..

Boreas
06-02-2010, 11:10 AM
PS Israel is an ally . Interesting word that.

So, once upon a time was Iraq.

At times I think there's little difference between the character of Iraq under Bathists and Israel under Likud. Real politik sux.

John

piece-itpete
06-02-2010, 11:20 AM
I assume you're serious. The arabs living in Israel have a good life, their kids aren't raped and tortured by the PMs sons and last I heard they haven't even gassed Iranian troops or their own minorities.

Pete

Boreas
06-02-2010, 11:41 AM
I assume you're serious.


You should never assume I'm serious.

The arabs living in Israel have a good life,

I assume you're serious.

their kids aren't raped and tortured by the PMs sons

Arabs and Palestinians in Israeli custody are routinely tortured by the Mossad and IDF. A lot of the techniques we've been using we learned from them.

and last I heard they haven't even gassed Iranian troops or their own minorities.

No, they just starve them and deprive them of shelter and a livelihood.

John

piece-itpete
06-02-2010, 11:48 AM
Why are the Israelis in Gaza and the West Bank?

Why haven't other arab countries helped the Palestinians?

Pete

Boreas
06-02-2010, 12:13 PM
Why are the Israelis in Gaza and the West Bank?

Good question. Why do you think they're there?

Why haven't other arab countries helped the Palestinians?

You're speaking of the Gazans, right? They can't without defying Israel. Israel has blockaded Gaza. Nothing in, nothing out. Hell, you can't even get concrete in there to rebuild the houses that the IDF flattened. The Gazans are rebuilding, such as they can, by using rubble.

John

BlueStreak
06-02-2010, 12:33 PM
So once again we come back to the unanswered question - if NK is stupid enough to open fire on a SK or US warship - again - what should Obamas response be?

Pete


Inside, or outside of their waters?

Dave

merrylander
06-02-2010, 12:34 PM
Oddly enough so is Egypt. When people like Hamas insist that all Isreaelis be driven into the sea, or spend their spare time lobbing rockets into Israel are they supposed to welcome them with a warm embrace?

The arabs had their chance back in the early thirties and blew it.

BlueStreak
06-02-2010, 12:38 PM
No, I'm not. But thinking doesn't stop these folks. I don't think ( :) ) doing nothing when attacked is a very good idea?

Pete

PS Israel is an ally . Interesting word that.

An ally that is constantly doing things that go against our (supposed) principles and expecting us to back them up. That's why all of these "peace agreements" are such a waste of time, and why so many in this world are angry with us for supporting them. I say just step back and let them fight it out, with NO help from us for either side.

Dave

piece-itpete
06-02-2010, 12:51 PM
Good question. Why do you think they're there?



You're speaking of the Gazans, right? They can't without defying Israel. Israel has blockaded Gaza. Nothing in, nothing out. Hell, you can't even get concrete in there to rebuild the houses that the IDF flattened. The Gazans are rebuilding, such as they can, by using rubble.

John

I don't have any opinions on why they are there, it's known history.

The other arab and persian states had years and years to help them. Some even threw them out.

When Israel did as you wanted a few years ago, and withdrew, the idiots immediately started firing rockets into Israel. Smart, huh? Those poor peaceful folk.

Inside, or outside of their waters?

Dave

They are still at war, so it really doesn't matter. I expect we wouldn't though, unless it was outside.

Oddly enough so is Egypt. When people like Hamas insist that all Isreaelis be driven into the sea, or spend their spare time lobbing rockets into Israel are they supposed to welcome them with a warm embrace?

The arabs had their chance back in the early thirties and blew it.

They love Hitler and teach their children the blood libel. How can there be peace when they allow themselves to be controlled by such hate. It's astounding!

An ally that is constantly doing things that go against our (supposed) principles and expecting us to back them up. That's why all of these "peace agreements" are such a waste of time, and why so many in this world are angry with us for supporting them. I say just step back and let them fight it out, with NO help from us for either side.

Dave

Israel is fighting for its' very survival every day. Even Obama has tactically agreed that civillian casualties are unavoidable.

Pete

BlueStreak
06-02-2010, 01:04 PM
They are still at war, so it really doesn't matter. I expect we wouldn't though, unless it was outside.
Pete

Right. Technically, the Korean War never ended.

d-ray657
06-02-2010, 01:06 PM
Right. Technically, the Korean War never ended.

It was a Police Action, not a war. Isn't that what we were told as to why it was constitutional to pursue an undeclared war.

Regards

D-Ray

Boreas
06-02-2010, 01:28 PM
It was a Police Action, not a war. Isn't that what we were told as to why it was constitutional to pursue an undeclared war.

Regards

D-Ray

That's what we were told, alright. Even got the UN to play ventriloquist dummy so that a: we didn't have to acknowledge our own part in promoting the war and b: we could force the UN to take sides against the communist bloc.

John

Zeke
06-02-2010, 04:48 PM
An ally that is constantly doing things that go against our (supposed) principles and expecting us to back them up. That's why all of these "peace agreements" are such a waste of time, and why so many in this world are angry with us for supporting them. I say just step back and let them fight it out, with NO help from us for either side.

Dave

Precisely.

We owe Israel, NOTHING. :cool:

BlueStreak
06-03-2010, 12:36 AM
It was a Police Action, not a war. Isn't that what we were told as to why it was constitutional to pursue an undeclared war.

Regards

D-Ray

Okay, so technically the Korean Police Action never ended. Whatever. To my mind thousands of soldiers from different countries sent by their respective governments to kill each other is a war, whatever label we stick on it. Just my opinion.

At any rate, what I was going to say in my earlier post, but was interrupted by work, is this; If a ship, any ship even one of ours, enters NK waters uninvited and gets fired upon,-------They shouldn't have gone there. It would be the natural impulse of any nation to do the same.

I say this having been part of an exercise (1983) in which our Navy entered Soviet waters in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response. And they did come out, as a matter of fact, they virtually surrounded us and escorted us back out into International waters. Fortunately there were no shots fired, but the message was clear---GET OUT! If they had fired, it would have sucked for me and my shipmates, (And probably the rest of the world.) but they would have been within their rights to do so.:eek:

That's just reality. (As Zeke says.)

Dave

Sandy G
06-03-2010, 05:16 AM
Oh, I think Navies & Air Forces "probe" each other like that all the time. The Russkies did it constantly w/Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" bombers, "straying" into our airspace & there was always a Soviet "Fishing boat" that trailed the navy on exercises. I'm sure we had our share of "Accidents" where WE poked at THEM, too. All part of "the game", both us & the Soviets understood that, & it rarely, if ever, rose above that level. I dunno if the Norks & the South Koreans, given the rhetoric & bluster, see THAT aspect of things, though...

BlueStreak
06-03-2010, 10:47 AM
Right.

Dave