BO Appeases

[Mr. Shaman]

I got one better? How about we the people make it mandatory for any politician serving in Washington D.C. have at least 4 years of military service whether it be Congress, The WH or hell lets include the U.S. Supreme court.

Well....you are talking-about people who're conditioned to take-orders.....which is why corporate-Amerika LOVES to hire Vets.

Granted, they've got a much-more heightened-sense of discipline (moreso, than your average frat-boy)....but, we also need people with a sense of creativity/innovation.....'cause the Status Quo just ain't workin'!​

 

[BigRob]

would you mind posting how many American troops died in combat in his 8 years? then Bush's?

Yea... I'll post that in 7 years when both have had 8. Assuming Obama gets 8.

 

[BigRob]

Aw, jeez!!!!

Already you're fatigued from singing-the-praises of The DICK; Patriot Extraordinaire???

​

I take it you cannot point a military service record then?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I take it you cannot point a military service record then?

....As if that's pertinent....like most-other distractions you post.

​

 

[BigRob]

....As if that's pertinent....like most-other distractions you post.

​

Well.. you claim everyone and their brother is a "chickenhawk" for not serving in the military for the wars of their youth... I am asking where is Obama's military service, since he is increasing our wartime posture? That seems to fit your definition of a "chickenhawk."

 

[GenSeneca]

That makes no sense at all. When we declared our independence, our strategy was to win it. We weren't going anywhere.

Are we going to stay in Afganistan forever, or is there some goal we want to achieve before we leave? If there is, then that's the exit strategy.

Alrighty then... When Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor sparking our entry into WWII, what was our exit strategy? I seem to recall that in that war we also went to war with a second nation, Germany, which hadn't attacked us... I don't recall any pronouncements along the lines of achieving victory within X number of years and then after that deadline we would stop fighting.

So what was the exit strategy in WWII? It seems to me that it was the same strategy we had in the revolutionary war - to win.

Of course, if we're going to use our military like an international police force, gathering evidence for use in court cases against terrorists who are to be given miranda rights and constitutional rights so they can be tried in US civilian courts... Then we should leave immediately because clearly victory is not our priority.

 

[PLC1]

Alrighty then... When Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor sparking our entry into WWII, what was our exit strategy? I seem to recall that in that war we also went to war with a second nation, Germany, which hadn't attacked us... I don't recall any pronouncements along the lines of achieving victory within X number of years and then after that deadline we would stop fighting.
So what was the exit strategy in WWII? It seems to me that it was the same strategy we had in the revolutionary war - to win.

The exit strategy was surrender by Germany and japan. I thought that was obvious, but maybe not.

In Afganistan, who has to surrender? The Taliban? If that's the case, then it is never going to happen. There is no one speaking for the Taliban, so no one can say that they have surrendered. Is the goal to wipe the Taliban out entirely? Is that even possible? Just what is the goal in Afganistan? What is "winning" going to look like? What is the goal in Iraq? How will we know when we have won? The government has already surrendered, hasn't it?

Of course, if we're going to use our military like an international police force, gathering evidence for use in court cases against terrorists who are to be given miranda rights and constitutional rights so they can be tried in US civilian courts... Then we should leave immediately because clearly victory is not our priority.

Then what is our priority? What is "victory" in such a war? who are we expecting to capitulate?

WWII was entirely different. We knew what the goal was, we reached that goal, and the war was over. In the Middle East, we don't know what our goal is, so we won't know when to declare victory and come home. The war will just continue to drag on and on, and will still end badly, if we don't know what we are seeking.

 

[BigRob]

The exit strategy was surrender by Germany and japan. I thought that was obvious, but maybe not.

Yet, we have thousands of soldiers in both countries still today. Why is that OK and it must be different for Iraq/Afghanistan?

 

[PLC1]

Yet, we have thousands of soldiers in both countries still today. Why is that OK and it must be different for Iraq/Afghanistan?

I'm not sure it is OK. When I ask the question about why we still have soldiers in places that are more peaceful than some of our own cities, and where the government is now a reliable ally, I get responses about how we need to have them deployed around the world in case they're needed.

It seems to me that we're spending money needlessly to keep soldiers where they're really not needed, but then, that's just my opinion.

 

[GenSeneca]

The exit strategy was surrender by Germany and japan. I thought that was obvious, but maybe not.

There was something bigger than the countries involved, we had to defeat the ideology of Nazi'ism in Germany and Imperialism in Japan.

Then what is our priority? What is "victory" in such a war? who are we expecting to capitulate?

Even with our victories over the countries of Germany and Japan, the ideologies of Nazi'ism and Imperialism survived but only exist on the fringes of society and not one nation in the world is willing to adopt them as national policy... They're not even willing to allow Nazi's to set up training camps from which to carry out attacks on other countries.

So I'd say our priority is to make the ideology of Jihad as much of a worldwide pariah as Nazi'ism. Victory would be accomplishing that goal. We cannot achieve that victory if we treat acts of terrorism as criminal acts, terrorists as common criminals, and ignore the ideology.

 

[BigRob]

I'm not sure it is OK. When I ask the question about why we still have soldiers in places that are more peaceful than some of our own cities, and where the government is now a reliable ally, I get responses about how we need to have them deployed around the world in case they're needed.

It seems to me that we're spending money needlessly to keep soldiers where they're really not needed, but then, that's just my opinion.

Well, I absolutely agree that we need forces deployed around the world, I just wanted to see how you would respond to that...

 

[PLC1]

There was something bigger than the countries involved, we had to defeat the ideology of Nazi'ism in Germany and Imperialism in Japan.


Even with our victories over the countries of Germany and Japan, the ideologies of Nazi'ism and Imperialism survived but only exist on the fringes of society and not one nation in the world is willing to adopt them as national policy... They're not even willing to allow Nazi's to set up training camps from which to carry out attacks on other countries.

So I'd say our priority is to make the ideology of Jihad as much of a worldwide pariah as Nazi'ism. Victory would be accomplishing that goal. We cannot achieve that victory if we treat acts of terrorism as criminal acts, terrorists as common criminals, and ignore the ideology.

So, now we have an exit strategy, at least one you can see. I'm not sure that the people making the decisions would agree or not. They might.

Supposing that the goal is to make Jihad as much of a worldwide pariah as Naziism, how would we go about doing so?

What are the root causes of Jihadism?

 

[Gipper]

 

[Pandora]

Ah thats a funny one,
thanks for posting... I have added it to my album obama Memories

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" - Ronald Reagan, 1980​

​