Obama did not take out Bin Laden our military did. The mechanisms that were used to kill Bin Laden were put in place by Bush. Something Obama refused to acknowledge. The very same mechanisms that Obama is now dismantleing.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No Strategy for Defeating ISIS
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
Obama did not take out Bin Laden our military did. The mechanisms that were used to kill Bin Laden were put in place by Bush. Something Obama refused to acknowledge. The very same mechanisms that Obama is now dismantleing.
You're simply wrong. Sour grapes never taste all that good.
Your guy is generally despised by the troops. He could double their pay. It wouldn't change a thing. They're not in it for the money. They want leadership and victory. Bush gave them both. Obama is pathetic and they know it.
0bam@ is going to manage ISIS just as the West managed the Third Reich?
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Not sure to which Bush you refer, but if you are suggesting that GWB gave leadership and victory you are dead wrong. While you could certainly argue that Obama has not handled this well, this is GWB's mess.
There was a reason former President George Herbert Walker Bush (who in terms of foreign policy was a great President) did not take out SH in Iraq: no viable exit strategy. Though he was a despot (and we should know), he provided something in the region: balance. He also protected Jews and Christians (don't forget: his former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was/is a Christian). Now SH is gone, along with most of the Jews and Christians.
GWB listened to the crazy NeoCons, who all but assured us that we would be embraced as liberators. His Administration is the one who gave the order to invade Iraq. Now there is no way out of this quagmire, as we are now forced to return to Iraq (yet again), attempt to restore order in Iraq (yet again), and spend billions of dollars (yet again). If this is "victory," I shudder to think of what would constitute defeat. If he was a "leader," exactly what was the exit plan?
Until January 20, 2017, GWB is, IMO, the worst president ever. He will be the 2nd worst on January 21st. By that time, we will have - at least - 3 endless wars. But then again, there is, unfortunately, still plenty of time to start more wars. Perhaps we can start one in Syria, and take out Assad, who also protects Jews and Christians, along with the Alawite Muslims.....
Last edited by a moderator:
This. I can't think of any fellow Soldiers that thought we were fighting for American freedom. Dubya should have listened to his father who did it right the first time. Push SH out of Kuwait and back into Iraq to curtail his Middle Eastern aggression. That campaign took the better part of a few months.
I thinks some folks are either ignorant of some facts regarding Iraq or just ignoring them.
Fact is the Iraq war did not begin and end with Bush 1 and then a second one get started by Bush 2.
The Iraq war never ended but was in fact under a cease fire for more than 12 years.
I would like to know just who these so called neocons Bush listened to were specifically. That would be news to the rest of the world.
Fact is the Iraq war did not begin and end with Bush 1 and then a second one get started by Bush 2.
The Iraq war never ended but was in fact under a cease fire for more than 12 years.
I would like to know just who these so called neocons Bush listened to were specifically. That would be news to the rest of the world.
The people we were fighting in 03 were not even close to the same people we were fighting in the early 90's. Jaish al-Mahdi, AQI and foreign insurgency cells like such as the ones led by al Zarqawi to name a few. You might be able to make a case for the Ba'athists in early 03 but to lump them altogether is making too much of a leap. Some of these cells even fought against each other. Equating them to the Republican Guard is simply being uninformed. The Ba'athist resistance died a quick death after Saddam's capture and many of these individuals were either captured or blended into Iraqi National politics. The only thing comparable is geography.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton and other Democrats called for the removal of SH and voted for it.
BiR and others need to define neo-con because I don't think that Clinton is a neo-con even though he used Jewish women, as we know.
The talk after Nine Eleven was that GHWB should have finished the job while he had the coalition in place.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
:thumbsup:
Despite the fact that you and your fellow Soldiers saw that for what it was, thank you for serving your country. That is an honest message of appreciation, not some politically-motivated rah-rah patronization.
Hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR
Very much appreciate the kind words.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
FACT: Under George Walker Bush, we invaded Iraq. Up until then, SH and the Iraqi government/military were contained. That is a FACT, Revmitchell.
Correct, and that sorta reinforces my contention. We had a cease fire and Saddam was contained. In fact, he was unable to even challenge the "no fly zone" we placed over the country. When GWB ordered the invasion of Iraq - he started an endless war. I know Obama wanted to get us out, but there was (and is) no way out of Iraq. Of course, it will be virtually impossible for you and I to pay for this endless war that Dubya started, so we will have to pass the bill on to our great-grandkids.
That is easy. It is the group of people (Democrats and Republicans, by the way) that used to work under the name Project for a New American Century. Unfortunately, their website is no longer up and running.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...entury#Signatories_to_Statement_of_Principles
Specifically, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Woolsey, Bolton, Rumsfeld, and of course Cheney (though he really wasn't a Neocon).
Of course, the folks at the Weekly Standard (in some cases the same people), most notably, Bill Kristol, whose father - Irving Kristol - is considered by many to be the "godfather" of the Neoconservatives.
These Neocons wanted to invade Iraq back during the Clinton Administration.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030321070617/www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20131021171040/http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Prior to 9/11/01, they were still making their case:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131011003041/http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
Regards,
BiR
Asked and answered. Good job.
[and for some reason BB wouldn't let me include the final URL in my quotation of you. I got the forbidden error code, then selectively started redacting bits of your post until BB deemed my post "clean".]
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
HUH??
Clinton was not a Neocon. Who said or wrote anything about Clinton?
And are you referring to Ms. Lewinsky's ethnic heritage in a derogatory way? What does her cultural heritage have to do with the topic at hand?
Ah, here we go again.
Let's revisit this: Iraq and SH had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the attacks on 9/11.
I will write that again: Iraq and SH had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the attacks on 9/11.
The link between SH and a-Q was trumpted by the NeoCons:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030221100432/www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-080602.htm
Regards,
BiR
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
You're less than 2 hours away - in Virginia Beach: I've got your back!!
Hope you have a great week,
BiR
The problem is that the short list of people given as neo-cons no longer have any influence and yet 0bam@ has golf shoes on the ground in Iraq and is trying to get our allies to send more troops.
This war has a lot of liberal Democrats involved, including Clinton and Kerry and 0bam@.
Iraq was open to terrorists activities under SH. Here is from the CFR, hardly a source friendly to the GOP but friendly to the Dems:
Now you can argue that Clinton did not have good information on Iraq when he called for regime change but Hussein was called even by Mubarak as the Butcher of Bagdad and Baathist were an off-shoot of the Nazi Party. So I think that it is time that the liberal Democrats own up to their doing.
As for the GOP, the Democrat controlled US Senate under Harry Reid does not need any GOP votes and should not get any. As for the GOP in the House, they should insist that Minority Leader Pelosi deliver the Democrats in the House to support 0bam@ as a precondition for the GOP to provide just enough votes to pass the Senate Democrats' bill.
This current Iraq war is a Democrat war.
This war has a lot of liberal Democrats involved, including Clinton and Kerry and 0bam@.
Iraq was open to terrorists activities under SH. Here is from the CFR, hardly a source friendly to the GOP but friendly to the Dems:
Now you can argue that Clinton did not have good information on Iraq when he called for regime change but Hussein was called even by Mubarak as the Butcher of Bagdad and Baathist were an off-shoot of the Nazi Party. So I think that it is time that the liberal Democrats own up to their doing.
As for the GOP, the Democrat controlled US Senate under Harry Reid does not need any GOP votes and should not get any. As for the GOP in the House, they should insist that Minority Leader Pelosi deliver the Democrats in the House to support 0bam@ as a precondition for the GOP to provide just enough votes to pass the Senate Democrats' bill.
This current Iraq war is a Democrat war.
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
The problem with this argument as with most of your other arguments over "foreign policy" is that the democrats and republicans have different foreign policies.
This is simply not true.
The fact of the matter is both parties are controlled by the same corporate interests that "sponsor" all the think tanks that "advise" both parties on how to carry on the same insane foreign policy from one administration to the next no matter which party is in power.
For the thousandth time stop thinking in terms of right vs left. Our government has been co opted by multinational banks and corporations. We no longer have a republican form of government. We now have a corporatist form of government.
Both parties serve the same corporate interests.
Naming Names: Your Real Government
This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European's way of life. When the "left" is carrying the torch for two "Neo-Con" wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD's, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.
What's wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.
The following list, however extensive, is by far not all-inclusive. However after these examples, a pattern should become self-evident with the same names and corporations being listed again and again. It should be self-evident to readers of how dangerously pervasive these corporations have become in our daily lives. Finally, it should be self-evident as to how necessary it is to excise these corporations from our lives, our communities, and ultimately our nations, with the utmost expediency.
Read More At: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html
Last edited by a moderator:
The GOP is more expert at foreign policy than the Democrats and they do not support the 0bam@ foreign policy but a lot of non-Republicans don't know what is going on inside the GOP.
A democrat war? :laugh: You say this on one side of your mouth while criticizing the lack of boots on the ground from the other side of your mouth. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too. Pick a position and stand by it man.
I have not called for more boots on the ground so I think that you confused me with someone else. I was responding to the notion that the neo-cons started this war by pointing out that Clinton and some other liberal Democrats voted for it before they voted against it.
Whatever happens from here on out is up to the Democrats. They control the Senate and the House Republicans can vote against the Democrats at no charge just as long as a few of them peel off and give the Democrats a majority in the House providing the Democrats deliver their House votes to 0bam@. If the Democrats in the Senate and House do not support 0bam@, then there is no need for the GOP to support 0bam@, but I have not called for more boots on the ground but I do agree that Air Power cannot win a war and I think that the bombing of Germany alone did not win the war against Germany, for example. OK?
Whatever happens from here on out is up to the Democrats. They control the Senate and the House Republicans can vote against the Democrats at no charge just as long as a few of them peel off and give the Democrats a majority in the House providing the Democrats deliver their House votes to 0bam@. If the Democrats in the Senate and House do not support 0bam@, then there is no need for the GOP to support 0bam@, but I have not called for more boots on the ground but I do agree that Air Power cannot win a war and I think that the bombing of Germany alone did not win the war against Germany, for example. OK?
Fine but saying that Air Power alone never wins a war is pretty much implying boots on the ground don't you think? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. What do you suggest we do to supplement airstrikes aside from putting boots on the ground?