DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 26, 2014, 08:53:28 PM
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734363/US-forces-Syria-Middle-East-crisis-deepens-Obama-authorizes-surveillance-flights-ahead-possible-strikes-ISIS-despite-Assad-s-warning-attack-considered-aggression.html
-
Moving drones over Syria is not the same as moving ground troops in the title of this does not merit the usual obligatory C4 exclamation point.
-
Why do people want us to commit little acts of war?
-
Because perhaps they have noticed that Americans get killed in droves when they make BIG wars and it also costs a friggin fortune.
-
If you commit small , you can loose everything you commit.
So that you limit your loss to the tiny bit you were willing to send , but you loose all of that .
This makes a certain sort of sense , if you don't plan on winning anyway.
-
How could the United States win a Syrian Civil War?
I suggest that it would be impossible. It would also be impossible to exterminate the ISIS bunch. We could kill some of their leaders and make them unhappy.
The US should never get involved in any war unless the objectives are clear and attainable.
Do you think that this could apply to Assad's Civil War?
-
It is easier to define the loss.
If we leave ISIS alone they will create a cruel dictatorship that is a happy place for training the next century's conquistadors.
If we leave them alone everyone else probably will too , then they will try to set a new standard of attack surpassing 9-11.
I think this because they say so , and we have the experience of Afganistan being left alone to remember.
I don't think we can create heaven on earth where we defeat ISIS, but defeating ISIS is still a worthy project.
-
I do not think that the American public wants another major war in the Middle East, or anywhere. I do not see how the US could effect any sort of specific desirable result without starting a major war. We know how Iraq and Afghanistan turned out. This is something this country is not good at. We cannot invade Syria, as they have done nothing to us and will not give us permission to invade.
-
Of course we don't want war.
I don't want war either , and I am in the business.
Who in America wants war?
But if you don't want war , it is a lot like not wanting to be robbed or raped.
Nothing will absolutely prevent it, nothing.
It will always be a possibility.
But being vulnerable and advertising that vulnerability isn't trying to prevent it.
-
The US would have to be deliberately attacked to go to war in the Middle East.
It is not going to happen.
-
The US would have to be deliberately attacked to go to war in the Middle East.
It is not going to happen.
It has happened before.
It is promised to happen again.
Lets fire half the sailors in the Navy and retire hundreds of Army officers to make it more likely.
-
I did not say that we should cut the military drastically. I said that if there is a war specifically over who rund=s Syria, it will be against the desires and interests of most Americans. Some "terrorist" event that can be blamed on Syria would be required at the very least.
-
I did not say that we should cut the military drastically..................
You re a bit late there, The military is reduced drastically already.
Good thing that the President has been asked about this , and has assured us that due to the recent invention of the submarine and aircraft carrier the Navy will not need horses nearly as much as it used to.
-
That was a dumb remark.
-
I thought it was a shame that Romney was nonplused by this non sequester.
Mitt Romney was not the best possible candidate, on that remark he was just too slow and perhaps even reluctant to attack .
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
More to the point of this thread, our commander in chief knows little about the military, he is not prepared to make military strategy, he will be dependent on his staff to make the strategy which he will have to sell to the public.
Whether he chooses to be aggressive or defensive , he will have a hard time convincing the public that he understands what can and should be done.
-
Supposedly, Rumsfeld was some sort of military genius. We saw how that went.
Every president has generals to advise him.
-
So what is wrong with the advisors of President Obama?
Would having the best in the world as advisors really correct abysmal ignorance on the part of the chief?
Does the buck ever stop?
http://www.defense.gov/home/top-leaders/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff
(http://www.defense.gov/home/top-leaders/Hagel_Chuck_Portrait_sm.jpg)
Chuck Hagel
The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy ..........
(http://www.defense.gov/home/features/travels/images/portrait_work2.jpg)
Robert O. Work
The Deputy Secretary of Defense is delegated full power and authority to act for the Secretary of Defense
(http://media.dma.mil/2013/Apr/10/2000014868/260/200/0/130410-D-ZZ999-001.JPG)
General Martin E. Dempsey
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Zukunft_June_2014.jpg/75px-Zukunft_June_2014.jpg)
Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Paul F. Zukunft,
-
The US cannot be invading Syria alone. No one wants that except perhaps CU4 but he is a Muslim hating fanatic.
-
The US cannot be invading Syria alone. No one wants that except perhaps CU4 but he is a Muslim hating fanatic.
Well this is not really true, we can make war in the Clinton style , and why shouldn't we?
If all of Europe supported a bombing campaign they might be able to do almost as much bombing as the US. Europe really, really depends on us for their defense.
Airpower is pretty fair for ruining stuff and taking the fight out of an enemy, but then just do not try to hold the territory, instead just keep bombing and bombing and bombing.
The Serbs kept waiting for our invasion, they were well prepared to fight as an insurgency, imagine the moment of epiphany when they realized that the invasion would never be coming, President Clinton did not need anything that he was not getting by just bombing them and shutting down their infrastructure.
Imagine waiting on Europe for leadership...infinite....wait...
-
No matter what you say, I am not going to vote for some politicians because he was in the military, no more than I would vote for someone who had a career in banking.
It is not as esoteric a field as you think. Romney, of course, spent the years he could have been a soldier as a missionary, failing to convert Frenchmen to Mormonism.
I am sure it was an endeavor that taught him humility and how to accept defeat.
For the French, wine is more important than religion. For some it IS their religion. My French girlfriend's brother, a retired postman, had hundreds and hundreds of bottles of wine in his basement. Most were from tiny chateaus that only sold to individuals, never through stores. I was there for four days, and three of those nights, some friend would drop by with several bottles to swap with him. They talked about wine the way guys at a dragstrip talk about engines.
Imagine trying to convert guys like this to a teetotaling religion. C'est impossible!
Romney is a good loser. The GOP seems poised to allow him to lose again.
-
No matter what you say, I am not going to vote for some politicians because he was in the military, no more than I would vote for someone who had a career in banking.
There two fields are exactly where Obama could use better understanding.
Not having a job in the field is not an excuse for not doing the homework.
-
I have no evidence that Obama has not done his homework. He just does not agree with you about foreign policy.
The American Public has even less a clue what to do about ISIS than the President.
I think most Americans want the snap their fingers and make it vanish. They think it is unfair that after all we have spent on the Middle East, they should stop fighting and , as Bill and Ted might say, Be EXCELLENT to one another.
Lamentably, the world is unfair and this is not possible.
-
I see no sign that President Obama has done his homework , and knows what his military can and cannot accomplish ,nor does he seem to know what is needed or what already works , nor what needs to be changed.
Corpsmen , indeed.
-
Oh,wow, he mispronounced ONE WORD seven years ago and you are still harping on that?
Puh leeze!
-
Would you like to produce One Incident of president Obama showing profound understanding of military affairs?
equipment?
deployment?
responsibilities?
capabilities?
Not knowing how "corps" is pronounced merely proves that he seldom speaks to Marines, strange since they are in his household now.
What bothers me a lot worse is that absence of any demonstration that he understands how these things work.
There are serious choices to be made ,how is this man equipped?
-
He mispronounced that word ONCE. You have a spelling problem. Give the guy a break.
He certainly has showed that he knows more about invading Iraq than Donald Rumsfeld who was said to be some sort of expert and admired because he had a stand-up desk.
-
When the Obama presidency comes to its natural closing , the blooper reel can be played and it will run for three solid hours.
No one will produce this blooper reel because ex presidents are not that interesting.
Rumsfeld was a strong believer in elite force placing the right size (often small)team in the right place just in time.
This worked very well in making the Taliban give up power and chasing the AlQueda out of their holes .
Less success in managing an ongoing insurgency.
President Bush and President Obama were persuaded to go bigger and use the "surge" to get the insurgency sorted out, this worked better. But neither Bush nor Obama should claim to be the originator of this idea the "surge " was from their experts who were not Rumsfeld.
But President Obama now is moving strongly in a rumsfeldian direction as he must to reduce the military in size anything like the amount he wants to.
To Justify the military getting smaller he has to go Rumsfeld and claim that the lesser and lighter can be effective if it is elite and modern.
Remember the debate with Mitt Romney? When he claimed that the more modern Navy didn't need to be as big as the elder Navy.
Obama just does not disagree with Rumsfeld except that he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Secretary Rumsfeld was going to war with the small force that was ready and available , President Obama is determining what shall be available in the future shall be small.
"You Go To War With The Army You Have---not The Army You Might Want Or Wish To Have At A Later Time. -Donald Rumsfeld
http://crooksandliars.com/2006/12/15/remebering-rumsfeld-you-go-to-war-with-the-army-you-have-not-the-army-you-might-want-or-wish-to-have-at-a-later-time
-
The new Navy does NOT need as many ships. We have more navy than the rest of the world put together. Congress voted to build a carrier group that the Navy said it did not need.
I do not care if the President said "corpse man" once. It is the most trivial complaint than anyone has made about him. He was reading off a teleprompter , most likely without rehearsing it. If he mispronounced "acetaminophen", the doctors would not get upset. If he said Grand Proicks, Pontiac owners would not get upset. This is a very, very stupid issue.
Rumsfeld was a fool. The war was useless and a bad idea, and far worse because he had made no coherent plans for how to manage Iraq.
I do not think anyone is going to call Rumsfeld a decent strategist. Al Qaeda has not vanished, Rumsfeld failed to catch Bin Laden, because of the war in Iraq.
He may become the Hero of Stand Up Desk manufacturers, though. There was not one story that did not mention his stupid stand up desks.
-
I do not care if the President said "corpse man" once. It is the most trivial complaint than anyone has made about him. He was reading off a teleprompter , most likely without rehearsing it. If he mispronounced "acetaminophen", the doctors would not get upset. If he said Grand Proicks, Pontiac owners would not get upset. This is a very, very stupid issue.
and when I bring it up a single time , you ping pong it back to me ad nausium, this is hardly the presidents worst faux pas , it probably won't make his top two hundred.
Rumsfeld was a fool. The war was useless and a bad idea, and far worse because he had made no coherent plans for how to manage Iraq.
I do not think anyone is going to call Rumsfeld a decent strategist. Al Qaeda has not vanished, Rumsfeld failed to catch Bin Laden, because of the war in Iraq.
He may become the Hero of Stand Up Desk manufacturers, though. There was not one story that did not mention his stupid stand up desks.
[/quote]
The point here is that smaller force is very Rumsfeldian you cannot mock president Obama for imitating the Rumsfeld he emulates.
Oh wait , that is me that can't do that.
You can't praise President Obama for becoming more like Rumsfeld as you mock Rumsfeld.
Well, yes you can , but do be aware of how funny it really is.
The new Navy does NOT need as many ships. We have more navy than the rest of the world put together. Congress voted to build a carrier group that the Navy said it did not need.
The Navy must have a right number of ships .
There must be a number that allows us to fulfill the treatys we have obliged ourselves to, a right number to surpress piracy and a right number to prevent war.
Less than that right number is wrong , no matter what it is compared with.
This makes it perhaps right to reduce the Navy to the right number to get its job done with a few in harbor or dry dock and a couple of spares to replace battle loss.
BUT here is the point, reducing the Navy to this right number ought to be the responsibility of people who can define well the job the Navy is required to do.
In this our President is woefully deficient.
-
Rumsfeld mongered a war with too few troops and no plans.
I do not think Obama would have invaded in the first place.
Piracy is not a major issue presently, and we are not in danger of .
So I deem the Navy has all it needs and not too many.
-
I am very reassured to have your expert opinion on the proper size of the Navy.
I wish the President could explain his thinking that well.
-
I do not care if the President said "corpse man" once. It is the most trivial complaint than anyone has made about him. He was reading off a teleprompter , most likely without rehearsing it. If he mispronounced "acetaminophen", the doctors would not get upset. If he said Grand Proicks, Pontiac owners would not get upset. This is a very, very stupid issue.
and when I bring it up a single time , you ping pong it back to me ad nausium, this is hardly the presidents worst faux pas , it probably won't make his top two hundred.
Common professor tactic....argue a point never really made :o
Less than that right number is wrong , no matter what it is compared with.
This makes it perhaps right to reduce the Navy to the right number to get its job done with a few in harbor or dry dock and a couple of spares to replace battle loss.
BUT here is the point, reducing the Navy to this right number ought to be the responsibility of people who can define well the job the Navy is required to do.
In this our President is woefully deficient.
Spot on, Plane
-
If you do not want to be called a Johny One-Note dummy when you rant about the way that the President ONCE pronounced the word "corpse" man, just don't mention it at all. It reveals nothing about the man or his opinions.
-
If you do not want to be called a Johny One-Note dummy when you rant about the way that the President ONCE pronounced the word "corpse" man, just don't mention it at all. It reveals nothing about the man or his opinions.
Really it does.
If I had Spanish speaking people in my house and I deigned to speak to them what would you think of me?
-
That is entirely unclear.
One word, mispronounced while reading a teleprompter years ago is insignificant.
-
So you are really asking me to prove that President Obama has had more than one gaffe?
That is pretty easy.
Or are you asking me to gather together all of the hundreds of gaffes that President Obama has made on and off teleprompter?
That sounds like an enormous amount of work, is there any way I could get paid?
-
President Obama is a very good public speaker, far better than Juniorbush, Olebush or Cheney.
-
No.
Well ,when his speech is written for him and is shown on a teleprompter , he is pretty good. Under these circumstances he only flubs words he is unfamiliar with.
Like military terms.
-
;D
-
Note that in the English language, the letter S is vary rarely silent.
This is an incredibly trivial thing to get hung up about.
-
And guess who's repeating this incredibly trivial issue, adnauseum? Here's a hint, its not Plane, nor myself
-
I did not bring this stupid topic up.
You do not want to hear again how stupid it is, refrain from mentioning it.
You have no one but yourself to blame.
-
I did not bring this stupid topic up.
Didn't say you did. I said who keeps bringing it up adnauseum, as if it is a big deal, when it is an incredibly trivial issue??
You do not want to hear again how stupid it is, refrain from mentioning it.
More projection ::) ....So stop bringing it up. Seems like you're the only one making hay out of an issue that every agrees is ridiculously trivial
-
Again, I did not being it up, Plane did, and claimed it was not trivial.
I have no idea what the poo you mean by "projection" I am not projecting anything.
-
I don't want to claim it is not trivial , I do reject the notion that it is a rare flub. The guy has a million of them only Vice president Biden might have more.
That silent "s " is this characteristic of a French origin? Like gaffe and faux pas?
This is just the sort of mistake I might make myself , especially with words I seldom hear.
Remember the time that Obama mentioned the 57 states? This accidentally got mentioned in the NYTimes three years later, in a story about how often Republicans were flubbing their lines.
Obama's '57 States' Gaffe Finally Makes the New York Times News Page
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2011/11/18/obamas-57-states-gaffe-finally-makes-new-york-times-news-page#ixzz3C7UaSVWE
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/obama-buffalo-mayor_n_3796603.html
This is pretty funny , just the sort of flub I might do, I am no good with names.
-
Here we go!
An article about why gaffes are important, even though they are not.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-20/john-barron-on-us-presidential-campaign-gaffes/4210972
-
Again, I did not being it up
And AGAIN, I NEVER SAID YOU DID "being" it up, or even bring it up :o
-
Sirs, just shut up. You are babbling.
Herman Cain did not just emit gaffes, he revealed a profound ignorance of he world, among other things.
-
Herman Cain did not just emit gaffes, he revealed a profound ignorance of he world, among other things.
Umm, I thought gaffes were a profoundly trivial thing. Now they're not?? Or does it simply depend on if they have an R vs a D after their name?? :o
-
Why don't you compare the massive stupidity of all the idiotic things Cain said with a mispronunciation of one word?
There is a reason that even the GOP dropped this philandering pizza tool like a hot potato.
-
Why don't you compare the massive stupidity of all the idiotic things Cain said with a mispronunciation of one word?
You really want a laundry list of Obama's gaffe's? Here's a hint, its far more than the mispronunciation of just one word, and just as idiotic (57 states ring a bell?) as anything Cain may have supposedly said. And don't even get me started on Biden ::)
Then again I thought this was a trivial matter. Is it not, anymore?
-
It is of course, trivial what Cain said, because Cain has sunk into his well-deserved obscurity. Herman Cain achieved triviality in about one week, as I recall.
-
So Obama's gaffes make him just as trivial? ok, if you say so
-
Now you are resorting to the classic "I know what you are, but what am I ?" Peewee Herman argument.
-
Apparently just as trivial. I mean, if Cain's gaffe's make him so trivial, Obama's must as well