- This topic has 1,004 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
urbanrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM #727073September 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM #727159
Anonymous
GuestAlso, where has Gaddafi gone?
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?
September 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM #727759GuestAlso, where has Gaddafi gone?
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?
September 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM #727914GuestAlso, where has Gaddafi gone?
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?
September 1, 2011 at 7:34 AM #727078Arraya
Participant[quote=pri_dk]
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]The more important question is how many millionaires will defeating him make?
September 1, 2011 at 7:34 AM #727163Participant[quote=pri_dk]
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]The more important question is how many millionaires will defeating him make?
September 1, 2011 at 7:34 AM #727764Participant[quote=pri_dk]
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]The more important question is how many millionaires will defeating him make?
September 1, 2011 at 7:34 AM #727919Participant[quote=pri_dk]
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]The more important question is how many millionaires will defeating him make?
September 1, 2011 at 8:24 AM #727132Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Also, where has Gaddafi gone?
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]
Pri: Ah, yes, the new meme and the new “Obama Doctrine”.
Low-Intensity Conflict taken to a whole new level. “Intervention Lite” as it were. Because, you know, we can use the same model to unseat the Assad regime in Syria, right? Maybe even take out I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran. Strategic airpower certainly would’ve worked wonders in Afghanistan (you know, the war that Obama liked).
Except that it didn’t. This was a one-off and although Obama handled it deftly, you’d think from Leftist crowing that he’d won WWII or something. Unfortunately, strategic airpower is extremely limited, which you know, having spent time amongst the ground-pounders during your Army days.
It is funny, though. Those on the Left speak incessantly of the “complexities” facing us in the Arab world and then create a “Doctrine” from a single data point. Leaving as well the question of: What follows? Personally, I don’t the US is gonna like that answer AT ALL.
September 1, 2011 at 8:24 AM #727219Participant[quote=pri_dk]Also, where has Gaddafi gone?
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]
Pri: Ah, yes, the new meme and the new “Obama Doctrine”.
Low-Intensity Conflict taken to a whole new level. “Intervention Lite” as it were. Because, you know, we can use the same model to unseat the Assad regime in Syria, right? Maybe even take out I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran. Strategic airpower certainly would’ve worked wonders in Afghanistan (you know, the war that Obama liked).
Except that it didn’t. This was a one-off and although Obama handled it deftly, you’d think from Leftist crowing that he’d won WWII or something. Unfortunately, strategic airpower is extremely limited, which you know, having spent time amongst the ground-pounders during your Army days.
It is funny, though. Those on the Left speak incessantly of the “complexities” facing us in the Arab world and then create a “Doctrine” from a single data point. Leaving as well the question of: What follows? Personally, I don’t the US is gonna like that answer AT ALL.
September 1, 2011 at 8:24 AM #727818Participant[quote=pri_dk]Also, where has Gaddafi gone?
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]
Pri: Ah, yes, the new meme and the new “Obama Doctrine”.
Low-Intensity Conflict taken to a whole new level. “Intervention Lite” as it were. Because, you know, we can use the same model to unseat the Assad regime in Syria, right? Maybe even take out I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran. Strategic airpower certainly would’ve worked wonders in Afghanistan (you know, the war that Obama liked).
Except that it didn’t. This was a one-off and although Obama handled it deftly, you’d think from Leftist crowing that he’d won WWII or something. Unfortunately, strategic airpower is extremely limited, which you know, having spent time amongst the ground-pounders during your Army days.
It is funny, though. Those on the Left speak incessantly of the “complexities” facing us in the Arab world and then create a “Doctrine” from a single data point. Leaving as well the question of: What follows? Personally, I don’t the US is gonna like that answer AT ALL.
September 1, 2011 at 8:24 AM #727975Participant[quote=pri_dk]Also, where has Gaddafi gone?
And how many casualties did the US suffer defeating him?[/quote]
Pri: Ah, yes, the new meme and the new “Obama Doctrine”.
Low-Intensity Conflict taken to a whole new level. “Intervention Lite” as it were. Because, you know, we can use the same model to unseat the Assad regime in Syria, right? Maybe even take out I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran. Strategic airpower certainly would’ve worked wonders in Afghanistan (you know, the war that Obama liked).
Except that it didn’t. This was a one-off and although Obama handled it deftly, you’d think from Leftist crowing that he’d won WWII or something. Unfortunately, strategic airpower is extremely limited, which you know, having spent time amongst the ground-pounders during your Army days.
It is funny, though. Those on the Left speak incessantly of the “complexities” facing us in the Arab world and then create a “Doctrine” from a single data point. Leaving as well the question of: What follows? Personally, I don’t the US is gonna like that answer AT ALL.
September 1, 2011 at 9:33 AM #727196GuestRight on cue, Allan. 😉
Summary of your argument:
Since Obama will not solve all the problems in the Middle East (during his first term, no less), he is an ineffective leader.
You seem to get awfully worked up about what you hear the “leftist crowd” saying. Seems to be more your point than what Obama is actually doing.
And are you claiming that the Arab World/Middle East is not “complex?”
Nobody with a clue about military history ever expected Afghanistan to be a “victory.” Obama shifted to fight there to differntiate himself from McBush, to get us out of Iraq, and to show that he not “soft” on the “war on terror” (another possible reason was the hopes of getting Bin Laden.) Indeed, there were political motives behind his choices.
Like I’ve explained before: Show me a first-term President that doesn’t let politics influence their choices, and I’ll show you a one-term President.
After Nov. 2012, no matter who wins, we’ll be on our way out of Afghanistan. It’s been ten years; Americans have had enough. (Remember “Vietnamization?” – they’ll have to come up with another word, because “Afghanistanization” is unpronounceable.)
As for the rest of the Arab trouble spots: The “ground ponders” are already deployed in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. They’re not nearly as effective as our boys, but their blood is not nearly as dear to me either.
September 1, 2011 at 9:33 AM #727284GuestRight on cue, Allan. 😉
Summary of your argument:
Since Obama will not solve all the problems in the Middle East (during his first term, no less), he is an ineffective leader.
You seem to get awfully worked up about what you hear the “leftist crowd” saying. Seems to be more your point than what Obama is actually doing.
And are you claiming that the Arab World/Middle East is not “complex?”
Nobody with a clue about military history ever expected Afghanistan to be a “victory.” Obama shifted to fight there to differntiate himself from McBush, to get us out of Iraq, and to show that he not “soft” on the “war on terror” (another possible reason was the hopes of getting Bin Laden.) Indeed, there were political motives behind his choices.
Like I’ve explained before: Show me a first-term President that doesn’t let politics influence their choices, and I’ll show you a one-term President.
After Nov. 2012, no matter who wins, we’ll be on our way out of Afghanistan. It’s been ten years; Americans have had enough. (Remember “Vietnamization?” – they’ll have to come up with another word, because “Afghanistanization” is unpronounceable.)
As for the rest of the Arab trouble spots: The “ground ponders” are already deployed in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. They’re not nearly as effective as our boys, but their blood is not nearly as dear to me either.
September 1, 2011 at 9:33 AM #727883GuestRight on cue, Allan. 😉
Summary of your argument:
Since Obama will not solve all the problems in the Middle East (during his first term, no less), he is an ineffective leader.
You seem to get awfully worked up about what you hear the “leftist crowd” saying. Seems to be more your point than what Obama is actually doing.
And are you claiming that the Arab World/Middle East is not “complex?”
Nobody with a clue about military history ever expected Afghanistan to be a “victory.” Obama shifted to fight there to differntiate himself from McBush, to get us out of Iraq, and to show that he not “soft” on the “war on terror” (another possible reason was the hopes of getting Bin Laden.) Indeed, there were political motives behind his choices.
Like I’ve explained before: Show me a first-term President that doesn’t let politics influence their choices, and I’ll show you a one-term President.
After Nov. 2012, no matter who wins, we’ll be on our way out of Afghanistan. It’s been ten years; Americans have had enough. (Remember “Vietnamization?” – they’ll have to come up with another word, because “Afghanistanization” is unpronounceable.)
As for the rest of the Arab trouble spots: The “ground ponders” are already deployed in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. They’re not nearly as effective as our boys, but their blood is not nearly as dear to me either.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.