Our ball-less Commander in Cheif

[High_Gravity]

That is exactly how we got started in Vietnam.

I also heard we gave Uganda $500 million to rebuild areas of their country, how are we still giving our charity like this when we are broke? as soon as things go to shit in Uganda we will be the first people they blame.

Of which $4,999,999 was divided between the leaders; and $1 was to be divided between the people.

Probably, the Ugandan leaders are probably planning their trips to Monaco as we type this.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That is exactly how we got started in Vietnam.

I also heard we gave Uganda $500 million to rebuild areas of their country, how are we still giving our charity like this when we are broke? as soon as things go to shit in Uganda we will be the first people they blame.

Of which $4,999,999 was divided between the leaders; and $1 was to be divided between the people.

That's normally how it works. Line the pockets of the leaders to try to make them submissive and obedient, and call it a "humanitarian effort."

 

[geauxtohell]

Exactly.

So if they get out of line, bomb the shit out of them. If they stick to themselves, leave them alone to be the savages they want to be.

You guys still haven't figured out that this /\ doesn't work. You can't accomplish anything without boots on the ground. Perhaps you've forgotten Bush's shoot a camel in the ass comment.

Your basic tactical illiteracy is why we find ourselves in these stupid wars.

Uhhh, then why do democrats throw roses at Obama's feet for the war on terror and the war in Libya?

How many troops are involved with all the drone strikes in those places?

There were boots on the ground in Libya, they just weren't our boots.

That's much different than Afghanistan were the Northern Alliance was on the ropes and Iraq were there was no opposition whatsoever.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Which aspect of the operation did he take part in? None, other than give the nod.

If that's true, why didn't bush just NOD?

The pubs are turning themselves into pretzels trying to take credit for the death of bin Laden. Give it up. They walked away from even looking for him. Mittens said it would be a waste of money to go after our Number One Enemy but then did a flip flop because he sounded like the wimp he is.

One thing for sure, the pubs would much rather declare war, spend trillions and kill millions. They hate President Obama for pulling this off without one American life lost. Not to mention that he did the same with al Awaki, Gaddafi and many other Taliban and al Qeada.

Face it - the pubs are impotent. Damned expensive and impotent.

Nobody died in the Bin Laden hunt during the Obama administration?

Link?

 

[geauxtohell]

You guys still haven't figured out that this /\ doesn't work. You can't accomplish anything without boots on the ground. Perhaps you've forgotten Bush's shoot a camel in the ass comment.

Your basic tactical illiteracy is why we find ourselves in these stupid wars.

So, you're saying that Clinton's approach was stupid, and Bush was brilliant?

I think Bush's handling of the first six months of Afghanistan was brilliant.

Followed by seven years of blatant stupidity.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You guys still haven't figured out that this /\ doesn't work. You can't accomplish anything without boots on the ground. Perhaps you've forgotten Bush's shoot a camel in the ass comment.

Your basic tactical illiteracy is why we find ourselves in these stupid wars.

Uhhh, then why do democrats throw roses at Obama's feet for the war on terror and the war in Libya?

How many troops are involved with all the drone strikes in those places?

There were boots on the ground in Libya, they just weren't our boots.

That's much different than Afghanistan were the Northern Alliance was on the ropes and Iraq were there was no opposition whatsoever.

You didn't address the war on terror.

Drone strikes are what The Obama is all about, and democrats love this. If you disagree with your democrat brothers on this stance, then I agree.

 

[High_Gravity]

You guys still haven't figured out that this /\ doesn't work. You can't accomplish anything without boots on the ground. Perhaps you've forgotten Bush's shoot a camel in the ass comment.

Your basic tactical illiteracy is why we find ourselves in these stupid wars.

Uhhh, then why do democrats throw roses at Obama's feet for the war on terror and the war in Libya?

How many troops are involved with all the drone strikes in those places?

There were boots on the ground in Libya, they just weren't our boots.

That's much different than Afghanistan were the Northern Alliance was on the ropes and Iraq were there was no opposition whatsoever.

Yup, and after the Iraqis were butchered after Bush Senior urged them to rise up in 1992, I doubt they would trust us if we urged them to do it again. US Troops were necessary on the ground to bring about the demise of Saddam and his crew.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He's taken a winning situation in Afganistan and turned it into failure.....

Where do you fools GET this CRAP??

And, why can't one of you answer the simple question ... If all President Obama did was "nod", why didn't bush nod?

 

[geauxtohell]

Uhhh, then why do democrats throw roses at Obama's feet for the war on terror and the war in Libya?

How many troops are involved with all the drone strikes in those places?

There were boots on the ground in Libya, they just weren't our boots.

That's much different than Afghanistan were the Northern Alliance was on the ropes and Iraq were there was no opposition whatsoever.

You didn't address the war on terror.

Drone strikes are what The Obama is all about, and democrats love this. If you disagree with your democrat brothers on this stance, then I agree.

Drone strikes are good for select targets. I agree with that.

They aren't effective in regime change. Only Infantry can do that.

If you bomb a country into the stone age and leave a vacuum, then you often get a worse group of individuals running the show.

That is exactly how the Taliban came to power.

People act like nation building is something we can avoid when we use military force.

That is not the case.

 

[High_Gravity]

There were boots on the ground in Libya, they just weren't our boots.

That's much different than Afghanistan were the Northern Alliance was on the ropes and Iraq were there was no opposition whatsoever.

You didn't address the war on terror.

Drone strikes are what The Obama is all about, and democrats love this. If you disagree with your democrat brothers on this stance, then I agree.

Drone strikes are good for select targets. I agree with that.

They aren't effective in regime change. Only Infantry can do that.

If you bomb a country into the stone age and leave a vacuum, then you often get a worse group of individuals running the show.

That is exactly how the Taliban came to power.

People act like nation building is something we can avoid when we use military force.

That is not the case.

Well that depends on the mission, we got to avoid it during the First Gulf War but the mission was to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait, not to topple Saddam.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There were boots on the ground in Libya, they just weren't our boots.

That's much different than Afghanistan were the Northern Alliance was on the ropes and Iraq were there was no opposition whatsoever.

You didn't address the war on terror.

Drone strikes are what The Obama is all about, and democrats love this. If you disagree with your democrat brothers on this stance, then I agree.

Drone strikes are good for select targets. I agree with that.

They aren't effective in regime change. Only Infantry can do that.

If you bomb a country into the stone age and leave a vacuum, then you often get a worse group of individuals running the show.

That is exactly how the Taliban came to power.

People act like nation building is something we can avoid when we use military force.

That is not the case.

I'd rather leave it up to the people of the area to decide. When we create the gov't, then give the ppl a handful of puppets to choose from, the people end up hating us, rising up and you have anti-americans running the country.

I've never understood why Obama hasn't won over more republican hearts with his warmongering. I figured their hate of arab muslims would be stronger than their hate of democrats, I was wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Drone strikes are good for select targets. I agree with that.

They aren't effective in regime change. Only Infantry can do that.

If you bomb a country into the stone age and leave a vacuum, then you often get a worse group of individuals running the show.

That is exactly how the Taliban came to power.

People act like nation building is something we can avoid when we use military force.

That is not the case.

Where I get stuck is with; what gives us the right or responsibility to effect regime change?

We have the ethical right and obligation to protect our own nation. We do not have the right, much less the obligation, to determine the structure or membership of the leaders of other nations.

I find the arrogance of the entire question to be a bit too much.

 

[geauxtohell]

You didn't address the war on terror.

Drone strikes are what The Obama is all about, and democrats love this. If you disagree with your democrat brothers on this stance, then I agree.

Drone strikes are good for select targets. I agree with that.

They aren't effective in regime change. Only Infantry can do that.

If you bomb a country into the stone age and leave a vacuum, then you often get a worse group of individuals running the show.

That is exactly how the Taliban came to power.

People act like nation building is something we can avoid when we use military force.

That is not the case.

I'd rather leave it up to the people of the area to decide. When we create the gov't, then give the ppl a handful of puppets to choose from, the people end up hating us, rising up and you have anti-americans running the country.

I've never understood why Obama hasn't won over more republican hearts with his warmongering. I figured their hate of arab muslims would be stronger than their hate of democrats, I was wrong.

That's a separate issue. The bottom line is that removing governmental infrastructure obligates us to nation build. I am not advocating nation building, I am just pointing out that people should consider this reality before supporting these fucking military actions.

As for the second: because they hate him and will continue to do so regardless of what he does.

 

[ginscpy]

Obama has one less ball than Hitler did.

 

[High_Gravity]

Obama has one less ball than Hitler did.

Thats 1 more than you have bitch.

 

[Sunni Man]

Obama has one less ball than Hitler did.

Thats 1 more than you have bitch.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Iraqi people rose up against Saddam after the first Gulf War and were slaughtered, even if we bombed the holy hell out of Iraq and destroyed their infrastructure somebody would have still had to go in and arrest or kill these top regime figures, we had to have Troops find Saddam hiding in a freakin spider hole in the ground. If we had just bombed Iraq like you said these guys would have stayed hidden and theres no guarantee what would have happened on the ground, the reason bombing Libya worked out is because we had a rebel force working with us on the ground fighting Gaddafi and his forces, we had no such thing in Iraq. You can only mercilessly pound a country for so long until the UN steps in and people start accusing us of war crimes also.

I guess that where we disagree is that I don't see it as our job to arrest or kill these leaders. To defend our nation, we need to make the price of fucking with us greater than they are willing to pay. The Iraqi people put the communist Ba'ath assholes in power. They allowed Saddam to stay in power. Frankly, he was their problem, not ours.

Defending ourselves means that if a dictator gets aggressive, we reduce his country to rubble. If the people get tired of having their homes and cities destroyed, then they can act against the root cause. But I don't see it as our problem.

Wrong again Bob!

And when Hussein finally expelled Abu Nidal, the mastermind of the bloody Rome airport massacre, the U.S. took Iraq off its official list of terrorist nations. Then full diplomatic relations were restored in October 1984, for the first time in 17 years.


Transcript - The Arming Of Iraq | The Long Road To War | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Dr.Drock]

Drone strikes are good for select targets. I agree with that.

They aren't effective in regime change. Only Infantry can do that.

If you bomb a country into the stone age and leave a vacuum, then you often get a worse group of individuals running the show.

That is exactly how the Taliban came to power.

People act like nation building is something we can avoid when we use military force.

That is not the case.

I'd rather leave it up to the people of the area to decide. When we create the gov't, then give the ppl a handful of puppets to choose from, the people end up hating us, rising up and you have anti-americans running the country.

I've never understood why Obama hasn't won over more republican hearts with his warmongering. I figured their hate of arab muslims would be stronger than their hate of democrats, I was wrong.

That's a separate issue. The bottom line is that removing governmental infrastructure obligates us to nation build. I am not advocating nation building, I am just pointing out that people should consider this reality before supporting these fucking military actions.

As for the second: because they hate him and will continue to do so regardless of what he does.

Not sure why it obligates us to nation build. 9/11 wasn't my fault, I (and every other tax paying citizen) shouldn't have to pay to rebuild gov't buildings in Afghanistan.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'd rather leave it up to the people of the area to decide. When we create the gov't, then give the ppl a handful of puppets to choose from, the people end up hating us, rising up and you have anti-americans running the country.

I've never understood why Obama hasn't won over more republican hearts with his warmongering. I figured their hate of arab muslims would be stronger than their hate of democrats, I was wrong.

That's a separate issue. The bottom line is that removing governmental infrastructure obligates us to nation build. I am not advocating nation building, I am just pointing out that people should consider this reality before supporting these fucking military actions.

As for the second: because they hate him and will continue to do so regardless of what he does.

Not sure why it obligates us to nation build. 9/11 wasn't my fault, I (and every other tax paying citizen) shouldn't have to pay to rebuild gov't buildings in Afghanistan.

It's not a moral obligation. It's a tactical one.

 

[Roudy]

Exactly.

So if they get out of line, bomb the shit out of them. If they stick to themselves, leave them alone to be the savages they want to be.

You guys still haven't figured out that this /\ doesn't work. You can't accomplish anything without boots on the ground. Perhaps you've forgotten Bush's shoot a camel in the ass comment.

Your basic tactical illiteracy is why we find ourselves in these stupid wars.

Uhhh, then why do democrats throw roses at Obama's feet for the war on terror and the war in Libya?

How many troops are involved with all the drone strikes in those places?

Libya? Oh please, how exactly was "Libya" a threat to anybody. The Gadaffi regime was reigned in and we even removed them off the terrorist nation list. Gadaffi granted deserved every bit of what he and his sons got in the end. He was a brutal barbaric dictator. We went into Libya because it was a "humanitarian mission" remember? Gadaffi was slaughtering his own people. But you look at what the Syrians and Iranians are doing and have done, our ball-less president should have gone in long ago, or at least bombed the Syrian army and created a no fly zone. The bullshit artist is also a big hypocrite.