Obama, the new War President

Obama, the new War President

Postby Peace Takes Strength » Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:23 pm

Just out of curiosity, with US drones over Syria and the US/Israeli alliance on the cusp of war with Iran, when and where will the first anti-war marches be?

I can't wait to get my "No blood for Oil" sign out to protest against the warmonger President. Especially considering his support for the evil Israelis.
"This is following through not just on a commitment I made during the campaign (Closing GITMO) but an understanding that dates back to our Founding Fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct — not just when it's easy but also when it's hard,"--Obama

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."--Obama
User avatar
Peace Takes Strength
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:49 am
Location: Standing on the wall protecting those I care about from harm

Re: Obama, the new War President

Postby hwmnbn » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:00 pm

Peace Takes Strength wrote: Just out of curiosity, with US drones over Syria and the US/Israeli alliance on the cusp of war with Iran, when and where will the first anti-war marches be?

You are believing the Fox News hype. The lead up to Iraq should have taught you something. If this were Bush/Cheney, they would have already attacked Iran without considering the consequences. That's the difference between a fake cowboy and a competent commander-in-chief.






Peace Takes Strength wrote:I can't wait to get my "No blood for Oil" sign out to protest against the warmonger President.

Let's recap..

He has ended the Iraq war.

He is already drawing down troops in Afghanistan.

By MY count, that's two major wars you guys started and were too inept to finish. He's cleaning up YOUR messes. If you had any manners, you'd send him a thank you note.

He got Bin Laden in two years and 4 months. You guys had seven and a half years and couldn't come close to accomplishing the mission even with all the waterboarding stupidity you pulled. Total fucking incompetence.

He also "regime changed" Khadaffi with ZERO American casualties.

And yet he never had to put on a flight suit, or talk macho bullshit, he just DID IT.



My guess is the wingnuts can't stand that Obama has been way more effective in his foreign policy and war strategy than his predecessor. They still root for his failure, those unpatriotic pricks! :evil:

He hasn't STARTED one conflict, but he's already successfully ended three and ending the fourth. Yet you call him a warmonger. Do you see your mistake?









BTW... you might want to update your avatar.. .... .... ....because this mofo is dead ---> Image
"I drank WHAT?!?"

-Socrates-
User avatar
hwmnbn
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:02 am
Location: beyond rhyme or reason
Role: a drifter, the prime suspect with a perfect alibi

Re: Obama, the new War President

Postby Bo Thompson » Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:16 pm

h the facts you relate are true enough and I hope your right that he doesn`t allow us to get drawn into Israel`s attemp
at controling Iran.If control is all it is.We need to beware of goats in sheeps clothing.
Bo Thompson
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: Obama, the new War President

Postby Peace Takes Strength » Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:43 pm

hwmnbn wrote: Let's recap..

He has ended the Iraq war.


He ended the Iraq war? I guess that's a fair assessment if you call a unilateral withdrawal an "end". I would question whether his unilateral withdrawal was timed for valid national security and strategic reasons or to appease his political base. I think it had more to do with the latter but so far it appears he's gotten lucky thanks to the groundwork laid by the previous administration and the troops on the ground (remember the surge which Obama and the Dems opposed?). Only time will tell if his "end" (aka a withdrawal) was timely or premature.

hwmnbn wrote: He is already drawing down troops in Afghanistan.


See above. A “withdrawal” is also known as “retreat” if your national security objectives have not been met. If Obama withdraws the troops and in 10 yrs Afghanistan is a thriving, stable nation with a functioning government then kudos to him. He timed it right. If it devolves into a failed state harboring terrorists within its borders then Obama will be known as only the second US President to lose a war. From what I know and what I hear from colleagues still on the ground in Afghanistan this withdrawal is ill timed and has everything to do with domestic politics. Guess we'll see.

hwmnbn wrote: By MY count, that's two major wars you guys started and were too inept to finish. He's cleaning up YOUR messes. If you had any manners, you'd send him a thank you note.


I'll wait to send him a thank you note once we know the withdrawal wasn't actually a retreat meant to placate the anti-war base of his party.

hwmnbn wrote: He got Bin Laden in two years and 4 months. You guys had seven and a half years and couldn't come close to accomplishing the mission even with all the waterboarding stupidity you pulled. Total fucking incompetence.


We've been over this before. I'm very pleased that Obama had the intestinal fortitude to send Special Forces into Pakistan to get Osama. That took guts and he deserves a fair amount of credit. But if you're so naive to believe that the training, intelligence, equipment, networks, personnel and doctrine just materialized after Obama took the oath of office then there's nothing I can do for you. You know nothing of military operations, special forces or intelligence and your continuing statements highlight this. The killing of Osama was the culmination of years of groundwork begun under the Bush administration.

BTW if you want to call Bush incompetent for not getting Osama during his administration then I'm sure you meant to include Bill Clinton in your statement as well. Right?

hwmnbn wrote: He also "regime changed" Khadaffi with ZERO American casualties.


Wrong. The Europeans “regime changed” Libya. Obama abdicated the US leadership role from the beginning.

hwmnbn wrote:My guess is the wingnuts can't stand that Obama has been way more effective in his foreign policy and war strategy than his predecessor. They still root for his failure, those unpatriotic pricks!


The only foreign policy and war strategy I see, and which you’ve highlighted, is withdrawals and an abdication of leadership. It’s certainly a lot easier to run from a fight than to stay and take the punches.

hwmnbn wrote:He hasn't STARTED one conflict, but he's already successfully ended three and ending the fourth. Yet you call him a warmonger. Do you see your mistake?


Didn’t you just say Obama “regime changed” Libya?! If you’re going to give him credit for starting a civil war in Libya that “regime changed” Quaddafi, it’s hypocritical to say in the next sentence that he didn’t start a war.
The reality is Obama and the US did start a war in Libya, they just didn’t want to get their hands dirty so they passed the dirty work off to the French and British.

I’m missing the fourth war he’s withdrawing from. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. …. Syria?

It must really bother the anti-war left to hear the rhetoric by this administration with regards to Israel and Iran. Can you imagine the vitriolic, apoplectic fits the left would have gone through if Bush had gone to AIPAC and said that he’s ‘got Israel’s back’ or he’d go to war with Iran to defend Israel. Man I could just imagine all the radical anti-war lefties building tent encampments in city parks right before their heads exploded as they screamed “no blood for oil”.

The irony would be supreme if the anti-war left’s messiah President gets the US involved in a war with Iran to defend Israel and US access to Persian Gulf oil.

Obama, change you can believe in
"This is following through not just on a commitment I made during the campaign (Closing GITMO) but an understanding that dates back to our Founding Fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct — not just when it's easy but also when it's hard,"--Obama

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."--Obama
User avatar
Peace Takes Strength
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:49 am
Location: Standing on the wall protecting those I care about from harm

Re: Obama, the new War President

Postby hwmnbn » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:03 pm

Cool, I'll play along


Peace Takes Strength wrote:
He ended the Iraq war?

Yep, it was in all the papers. There are many communities that have scheduled parades to celebrate the troops and their service in Iraq.





Peace Takes Strength wrote: I guess that's a fair assessment if you call a unilateral withdrawal an "end".

Call it whatever you want. Bottom line, no more troops are getting killed or maimed and we're saving $2 billion dollars a month we would have been pissing away. You might question if that's a good thing, I'm certain of it.




Peace Takes Strength wrote: I would question whether his unilateral withdrawal was timed for valid national security and strategic reasons ....

You conveniently forget there were no WMD's, no Al Qaida connection, no nuclear capacity, and hence NO NATIONAL SECURITY or STRATEGIC REASONS for being there in the first place. It was, is, and will always be, Bush's biggest foreign policy fiasco. It came at an exhorbitant cost which you seem to STILL support. #-o





Peace Takes Strength wrote: If Obama withdraws the troops and in 10 yrs Afghanistan is a thriving, stable nation with a functioning government then kudos to him.

See what you're doing? Afghanistan HAS NEVER been "a thriving, stable nation with a functioning government". So why are you setting the bar that high before you give President Obama kudos?





Peace Takes Strength wrote:We've been over this before. You know nothing of military operations, special forces or intelligence and your continuing statements highlight this. The killing of Osama was the culmination of years of groundwork begun under the Bush administration.

I concede I'm rather slow, but it seems counter-intuitive that if you really wanted to bring Bin Laden to justice, you would first shut down the CIA unit focused on capturing him. That never made sense to me.


C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
...Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.

link



That's what your brilliant war-time "smoke 'em out" president did. Now you tell me, who was being naive?





Peace Takes Strength wrote:Wrong. The Europeans “regime changed” Libya. Obama abdicated the US leadership role from the beginning.

We've been thru this before.Bottom line, he completed the mission with no loss of American troops and minimal expense, over the fevered opposition from the repugs. He won on two fronts.





Peace Takes Strength wrote:The only foreign policy and war strategy I see, and which you’ve highlighted, is withdrawals and an abdication of leadership. It’s certainly a lot easier to run from a fight than to stay and take the punches.

By this logic, you would still have us in Viet Nam "taking punches" until we achieved our "national security" objectives there. Those objectives were as much bullshit then as the Iraq objectives were in 2003.
You seem to confuse political bluster with military effectiveness. As Obama stated recently, you shouldn't be so casual about going to war.

And BTW, you need a new avatar. The last one has been rendered obsolete. :lol:





Peace Takes Strength wrote:I’m missing the fourth war he’s withdrawing from. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. …. Syria?

Bin Laden... Obama went on the hunt and he got the kill. Game over.





Peace Takes Strength wrote:It must really bother the anti-war left to hear the rhetoric by this administration with regards to Israel and Iran. Can you imagine the vitriolic, apoplectic fits the left would have gone through if Bush had gone to AIPAC and said that he’s ‘got Israel’s back’ or he’d go to war with Iran to defend Israel. Man I could just imagine all the radical anti-war lefties building tent encampments in city parks right before their heads exploded as they screamed “no blood for oil”.

Two points....

What war has he started against Iran? Let's stick to FACTS in the here and now, not speculation.

Secondly, we "radical anti-war lefties" never protested Bush's "speeches." We knew he was always full of shit. We protested his action of starting an unnecessary war on hyped pretenses.

History has shown we were correct AGAIN.



Image
"I drank WHAT?!?"

-Socrates-
User avatar
hwmnbn
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:02 am
Location: beyond rhyme or reason
Role: a drifter, the prime suspect with a perfect alibi


Return to War And Peace

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron