| Name: |
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
The chaos begins in Iraq
|
|
Date:
|
1/5/2012 10:07:02 AM
|
Well even I did not expect it to devolve as quickly as it has in Iraq. To wit, more than 50 people were killed in a bombing spree in Iraq. And that is just the beginning of the murder and mayhem to follow. That didn't take long.........
Oblamer........adding to his legacy as a failed President by grasping defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. And all this despite the adamant opposition of his generals who knew what would happen. If it weren't so sickening it would be sad......
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The chaos begins in
|
|
Date:
|
1/5/2012 10:39:43 AM
|
What would you have done differently?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The chaos begins in
|
|
Date:
|
1/5/2012 11:13:53 AM
|
Stayed the course as requested by the generals who were close to the situation and begged the administration to leave the troops in Iraq for a little longer. We could argue all day whether it was advisable to go into Iraq in the first place and principled individuals can honestly disagree. But he fact is for better or worse we were in Iraq at the cost of a lot of blood, sweat, tears and treasure and Obama has pissed it away for purely political reasons.
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The chaos begins in
|
|
Date:
|
1/5/2012 1:21:00 PM
|
A little longer??? I think what is going to happen now is exactly the same thing that would have happened if we left 2 or 3 years ago or if we left 3, 4, or 5 years in the future. There is too large of a percentage that hate the West and demand radical fundamentalism. Give an example in history where the military achieved final victory by "winning hearts and minds"? With a $16T debt continuing to grow, we can't afford that strategy.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Really?
|
|
Date:
|
1/5/2012 1:41:57 PM
|
The violence in Iraq has nothing to do with hatred of the west. It is sectarian (Shiites and Sunnis) violence that frankly rarely happened under Saddam because of his military and police (and no I don't want him back). The point is that our presence prevented a fair amount of that violence that has already accelerated as I and many others predicted it would. And the current state of the Iraqi government and their military/police forces will either be unable or maybe even unwilling to do so. Either way, I would have deferred to those in the military that knew better and their concerns are well founded. And if you think the Messiah pulled out the troops to save money you are sadly mistaken. He did so for one reason only, and that is to shore up his base for November.
As for an example where the military achieved victory and won hearts and minds I would point you to Germany and Japan. Of course after 60 years we still have a military presence in both countries. I doubt if we had cut and run as quickly after WWII we would have seen 60 years of peace. We saw what happens when we did so after WWI leading to WWII. If you want to save money on the military we should look at our presence in Europe before pulling out of Iraq.
And on a final note, the cost of staying in Iraq with the level of troops requested by Petreus pales in comparison the the structural causes of our annual debt. Let's focus on entitlements where the real money can be saved and listen to our military commanders rather than catering to the left wing nuts.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Really?
|
|
Date:
|
1/5/2012 3:14:06 PM
|
I agree that we should not have a military presence in the EU unless we are PAID on a cost plus basis. Back it up the the border, we should have been out of Iraq years ago, and should NOT be the policeman of the world. It does not matter when we withdraw troops - as soon as we do, the feces will hit the rotary oscillator - you pick the trouble spot.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not exactly my point...
|
|
Date:
|
1/5/2012 5:05:04 PM
|
My point is that the reason we had long-term stability in Europe and Japan after WWII was because of our military presence, especially in the first 10-15 years after fighting ended. Has it gone on too long? Absolutely. I too am tired of paying for Europe's defense while they expand their socialist agenda. However, I still defer to the generals on the ground in Iraq about what is needed to maintain a modicum of stability. If you are willing to accept the loss of whatever gains have been made assuming we can roll it back to our border you need only to look at the history of the 20th century to understand why that will not work.
I am not proposing we be the policeman to the world but I do think we should project our military influence where there is a national security interest. If you don't think happenings in the middle east will impact us then you have reverted to a pre-9/11 perspective like Ron Paul. As an avid reader of history I think that is the wrong approach and will only endanger Americans here and abroad. National security is job one for POTUS and on this score Oblamer is AWOL or worse.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not exactly my point...
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 12:26:13 AM
|
I think you can make the same national security arguments regarding multiple targets..... You might argue we need to be aggressive against Pakistan, occupy Afganistan as a colony, keep Iraq under American occupation for a decade more because we need bases from which we can fight Iran. I don't think we invaded Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction, but we were told that this rationale was truthful and invasion critical to protection of US interests. Of course, there were no WMD's. Now, our economy is weak.... funding wars is very expensive.... and yet Obama's decision to follow thru on (Bush's) commitments to end the war seems to be earning him great criticism. Don't mistake Iraqi's in 2012 for French in WWII who saw the US military as liberators.
History does not favor empires lasting forever, but do note the longevity of those whose vision led them to avoid policies of militaristic over-reach. Conservatives want a smaller government that spends less national treasure, so I don't understand their double-think of charging into wars without exit strategies... with rationales cobbled together out of misinformation or outright deception. This war had to end, but it was never going to end neatly or according to our dictates.....because we changed the balance of power in a highly fractured region of the world. Now, for better or worse, we will have to live with what we have done.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not exactly my point...
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 9:12:41 AM
|
You act as if our involvement or lack of involvement outside our borders has any bearing on what threatens us. Do you really think we should let Iran obtain nuclear weapons and they won't use them? Do you really think we should just sit back and allow the middle east to be controlled by Islamofascists and it will have no bearing on our national security? That is the Ron Paul head in the sand approach and it is naive and dangerous. Everyone who subscribes to this approach acts like it is a novel idea and has never been tried. We tried it before WWI and look where it got us. We tried it before WWII and viola, the same result. We built up our military strength after Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency and lo and behold, the Soviet empire collapsed without having to fire a shot. From that Bill Clinton took advantage of a huge peace dividend and followed the GOP controlled Congress to balance the budget. History is rife with the results of military weakness and the millions of lives lost as a result. I am one that believes that we can avoid repeating the mistake of the past over and over again and do it responsibly.
As for the shot at conservatives let me help you understand so there is no doubt where we stand and why there is no contradiction. We believe in the wisdom of the founding fathers that created a federal government with limited and enumerated powers. One of those and the only one relegated solely to the federal government is the national defense. It is the first and most important responsibility. So if you ask me where the cuts should occur I would instantly say in all the areas of federal government that go beyond its true purpose and if we did that we not only would be able to significantly cut taxes but also pay for as much national defense as we wanted. Unlike Rick Perry I would have no problem giving you a list....in fact, I would give you the list of agencies I would keep......it will be shorter.
So don't ask me to cut $1 trillion from our national defense while we continue to spend $4 trillion on entitlement programs and other discretionary spending that were never intended to be the role of the federal government. The only contradiction is with neo-isolationists that are willing to weaken our national security to save a few bucks while ignoring the elephant in the room which is out of control federal spending on entitlement programs and federal agencies that should have never been created in the first place. Ron Paul is a nut....and a dangerous one at that. The only person more dangerous than him in the WH is the current occupant.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Small Government
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 9:45:01 AM
|
That should be the goal of conservatives, I agree with very limited military actions outside our borders, but we should NOT take actions aimed at combating INTERNAL strife. When we do that - we are deciding another country's future, we are NOT promoting national defense. Too many times our servicemen and women have been harmed by our own weapons that we have given to another country.
Some simple questions. Are we the only country in the world that should pick winners in other countries? If you believe that is true and we are threatening the national security of another country, do they have the right to take action against us?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Very good question
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 10:06:43 AM
|
My view is that to the extent another country threatens our national security interests our federal government has a moral obligation to protect us. I am not in favor of police actions in places like the Sudan where there is no clear national security interest. I am firmly in favor of military action in those countries where they threaten our national security. Interestingly, way too many neo-isolationists and libtards are all for interventions like these but oppose anything that actually will protect our national security......why is that?!?!?
And unlike bozos like Ron Paul, I actually take countries like Iran at their word. They say they want to destroy us (the Big Satan) and nuclear weapons given to a third party proxy like Islamofascist terrorists is exactly the same as putting them on the tip of a missile and shooting them here.....just a different delivery system. And if they want to attack us because they think we are a threat to their national security I would recommend they wait a couple of years so Oblamer and Panetta can do half the job for them.
I reject this whole concept of moral equivalency and the ascribing of nefarious motives to our military actions. We were inundated with baseless claims that we invaded Iraq for the oil. Well, that never happened did it? The fact is the world is full of dangerous regimes with all sorts of desires that are kept in check because they know if they get on our wrong side they will end up swinging from the end of a rope like Saddam. That is a good thing and worth every penny we spend on the military. If you want to make cuts I can give you a list and will save you a whole lot more money and keep you safer at night.
|
| Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Very good question
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 10:33:08 AM (updated 1/6/2012 10:35:40 AM)
|
Let's throw out some facts (???) and see if we have agreement:
(1) We have tried to police the world and it can't be done
(2) We cannot settle internal strife, and we should not.
(3) For every person in places like Iraq that see us as a liberator, 7 see us as "The Satan"
(4) We have nuclear weapons
(5) Korea has nuclear weapons
(6) It is not clear who should decide who has what weapons
(7) Another country's national security is just as important to them as ours is to us
(8) WWII battles and victories and aftermath are worlds different than those of today.
(9) Previous opponents used guns and bullets and were fighting to live. Current opponents ARE
the guns and bullets, and are fighting to die. That is a dangerous opponent.
(10) It is not Ron Paul vs Opposite Ron Paul. Sure he is an extremist, but we cannot settle down on the complete opposite of him.
(11) Siding with Generals in political decisions = spending more money on military. There is waste there as well.
others??
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Very good question
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 10:59:10 AM
|
I agree that our Government (at all levels) should NOT be the entitlement/redistibutive King that it has become, we are to the point that more people are dependent on Government than are not. I also agree that our military should be the strongest in the world, and that Jimmy Carter II will destroy our capabilities just as Jimmy Carter I had done. My biggest problem with preventative intervention is simply that I know if someone hits me, I will do my best to hit them back. I would also expect someone that I hit to try to return the favor...
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
One additional
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 11:04:04 AM (updated 1/6/2012 11:05:26 AM)
|
If we could all sit down on our dock with some cold beer and BBQ, while being surrounded by bumpers - the world would be a better place.
And tomatoes too... :-)
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Very good question
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 11:10:52 AM
|
Not sure if these are all facts but they are all thesis statements and I will opine as to what I think of each of them.
(1) We have tried to police the world and it can't be done - agreed where it is not in our national security interest
(2) We cannot settle internal strife, and we should not. - agreed where it is not in our national security interest
(3) For every person in places like Iraq that see us as a liberator, 7 see us as "The Satan" - agreed but am not sure about the numbers. I do know based on recent surveys that Bush is becoming more popular in the middle east than Oblamer
(4) We have nuclear weapons - agreed
(5) Korea has nuclear weapons - by this I assume you mean North Korea and I understand that is correct. However, they did not always have nuclear weapons and frankly our options to deal with them should they begin to misbehave are limited because of this. Being in this situation with NK is unfortunate and should be yet another reason why we should prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability. MAD will not work with Iran because of their bizarre religious beliefs. MAD is somewhat of a constraint even with the atheist nut jobs in NK.
(6) It is not clear who should decide who has what weapons - I disagree. What is clear is that the U.S. has had nuclear weapons since the close of WWII and has never used them for offensive purposes. In fact, they have deterred other less savory nations from using theirs to promote their ambitions. There is no moral equivalency between us and countries like Iran and NK. They are evil and we are not and any suggestion to the contrary is just plain wrong.
(7) Another country's national security is just as important to them as ours is to us - Agreed and as long as they do not participate in activities that threaten us or promote others to do so then they have not a thing to worry about.
(8) WWII battles and victories and aftermath are worlds different than those of today. - I totally disagree with this statement in any aspect other than the details. Man and his fallen nature have not changed. Evil still exists. The tools of war are more sophisticated and deadly but no victory is ever assured without boots on the ground. There is a reason George Santayana said those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Every generation ignorant of history assumes they are experiencing things for the first time. The more you learn from history the more you realize there is truly nothing new under the sun. I could list example after example but this is one you have to learn for yourself.
(9) Previous opponents used guns and bullets and were fighting to live. Current opponents ARE
the guns and bullets, and are fighting to die. That is a dangerous opponent. - I agree that our current opponents seem determined to die but as Stormin Norman said when asked by a reporter how we deal with someone willing to die for their cause, "we accommodate them in large numbers and quickly". But again, you fall into the trap of thinking this is something new and it just isn't....not even close. Millions of German men willingly died for their country and were an incredible weapon. Do you forget about Kamakazi pilots in WWII? Read about the fanaticism of the Japanese on Okinawa, Iwo Jima and Peleliu (recommend a great book called With The Old Breed about the latter two battles). Every single one of them was willing to die for their cause (warped sense of bushido) and a great many of them used their bodies as weapons. Look at the Turks on Gallipoli in WWI and their willingness to send wave after wave of soldiers that were mowed down by the thousands.....all screaming allah, allah......sound familiar? Can't you see that none of this is new? Its the same old fanaticism, maybe under a different name. In fact its not even new under the name of Mohammed. These same battles were fought in the 10th-13th centuries with fanatics screaming allah, alleh as they were slaughtered. Again, the means of delivery and the power of the weapons are better but then so are the means to defend ourselves. Don't fall into the trap of assuming we are dealing with some new threat......it simply isn't historically true.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I like this idea a lot!
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 11:11:50 AM
|
|
| Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
| Subject: |
One additional
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 11:23:55 AM
|
Yall just don't take my political comments seriously. I cannot imagine why not!!
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not true at all..... :-)
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 11:27:58 AM
|
I answered your post in detail below but you have to admit that the suggestion above is pretty good.....doesn't solve any of the problems of the world but will make us all feel better.....
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not true at all..... :-)
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 11:43:28 AM
|
I take what you say far more seriously than anyone with whom I disagree...
|
| Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not true at all..... :-)
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 12:45:00 PM (updated 1/6/2012 12:45:42 PM)
|
I guess the rub comes with WHO defines "our national interest" and who defines another country's goodness and badness. I do not like Oblamer apologizing to the world for America. That is not going to help get us in any favor anywhere. But neither am I blind to wrong turns we have made. We need to be proud, but not arrogant.
Everyone looks out for their own interest, whether country, department, party, politician or individual. It is when I define what is in your best interest that the rub comes. And we have rubbed.
P.S. If all goes well this year then......"Tomatoes for everyone"
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not true at all..... :-)
|
|
Date:
|
1/6/2012 1:21:40 PM
|
I agree that there is a chance of subjectiveness with defining our national interests. But is there any doubt that it is in our best national interests that Iran not get a nuclear weapon? Is there any doubt that it is not in our best national interests that the entire middle east not be controlled by Islamofascists dedicated to the destruction of the Great Satan? Do you doubt that it is a bad thing if North Korea invades South Korea? I could go on and on but my point is that our national interests are being served by a stable middle east and one that is moving into modernity as opposed to away from it. On this score, every single on of Obama's foreign policy decisions have made the world a less safe place for Americans and our allies. That is why we have a military and we ought to use it when it is in our interests to do so.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Very good question
|
|
Date:
|
1/17/2012 2:18:15 AM
|
Summer you are absolutely right. And if they hit us we should hit back, with everything we have.Not some meandering pointless deployment that maximizes our time to create new enemies. Martini let me see if I have this right. If we can't get the majority of 535 people in congress to agree that we need to hit back then the commander in chief should assume that authority and as a good quasi-fascist lead us towards our socialist republic utopia. That is your belief isn't it Martini? We have a constitution. It spells out the way we are to go to war. It tells up how to pass laws and nominate people to offices. Unfortunately we have a broken system. Congress is much more concerned with reelection than they are with checking the power of the executive office. If we give up our values in order to destroy them we have still lost. We must obey our laws. Failure to embrace ideas that are new, means that we are doomed to repeat our failures. The fact that men like Martini think Paul is dangerous tell me we are on the right track.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not exactly my point...
|
|
Date:
|
1/17/2012 2:30:04 AM
|
Martini after reading your comments I think you may becoming a Paulitarian:
- We believe in the wisdom of the founding fathers that created a federal
government with limited and enumerated powers.
- One of those and the
only one relegated solely to the federal government is the national
defense. It is the first and most important responsibility. So if you
ask me where the cuts should occur I would instantly say in all the
areas of federal government that go beyond its true purpose and if we
did that we not only would be able to significantly cut taxes but also
pay for as much national defense as we wanted. Unlike Rick Perry I
would have no problem giving you a list....in fact, I would give you the
list of agencies I would keep......it will be shorter.
- while we continue to spend $4 trillion on entitlement programs and other
discretionary spending that were never intended to be the role of the
federal government.the elephant in the room which is out of control federal spending on
entitlement programs and federal agencies that should have never been
created in the first place.
I dare say Ron Paul may be the only candidate who would agree with you on these statements.
|
| Name: |
buzzbuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not exactly my point...
|
|
Date:
|
1/18/2012 11:35:25 PM
|
I think we should just live the golden rule like Ron Paul said and everyone would like us, NOT! Ron Paul is a NUT when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe he needs to be a community organizer. Never mind, we already have one of those.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
