How many Com in Chiefs have overseen 3 wars?

[Kulindahr]

I wasn't talking about vacations, I was talking about a president who plays more than he works, taking his sweet time responding to anything that goes on. As for the charge of racism, nice try, no one buys that shit anymore. People can easily see that for what it is, a old trick to intimidate someone into silence, and to change the subject to something totally irrelevant. Nice Alinsky impersonation, but it won't do

So, basically you're indulging a private fantasy. Though you're right that the charge of racism was dumb.

It is fascinating watching some Americans wanting to rush in and play with soldiers. Why? To prove to the world or to themselves that the US is still the big swinging dick in the war locker room?

Iraq has probably once and for all destroyed any possibility for the next 50 years that the US will ever be considered the 'go-to' as the world's policeman. The entirely disastrous fuck-up in Iraq just in order to make Halliburton shareholders rich surely has taught everyone that sometimes tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars just aren't worth the cost.

The last thing that the US need is to have all the North African nations suddenly rally behind Libya in order to fight American hegemony. Let the EU nations and the Arab nations take the lead on this. Let the people of Libya rise and overthrow their own tyrants.

The US does not need to have soldiers in Libya at this point in time. It would only make everything much, much worse.

Pay better attention: Obama made it clear that we're not sending soldiers. We haven't even sent very many planes.

In fact so far, no one has talked about sending soldiers.

 

[Kulindahr]

The nation inherited two disastrously conceived and executed Halliburton fuck-ups.

Huh?

Afghanistan was well conceived, until the idiotic idea of invading Iraq came along and sidetracked things. It was hardly a "Haliburton fuck-up".

 

[NineOfClubs]

Huh?

Afghanistan was well conceived, until the idiotic idea of invading Iraq came along and sidetracked things. It was hardly a "Haliburton fuck-up".

I know.

Didn't the Left always call Afghanistan the "right" war while opposing Iraq?

Meanwhile, far more have died in that country under President Obama than under Bush, so it must be the war of preference...

 

[Kulindahr]

I know.

Didn't the Left always call Afghanistan the "right" war while opposing Iraq?

Meanwhile, far more have died in that country under President Obama than under Bush, so it must be the war of preference...

Afghanistan was Rumsfeld's fuck-up, him and his conception that once you'd driven the enemy out of the territory in which you were interested, you'd achieved success. I heard Powell again on TV recently saying we should have not only kept all the forces we had in Afghanistan, but added to them, and invested time and effort in what General Petraeus is now having to do. There would have been far fewer deaths because instead of having to make up for wasted time we'd have built something strong by now and could be coming home.

 

[rareboy]

Afghanistan was not well conceived or executed.

Because it was not the war Rumsfeld/Halliburton wanted to fight, it was poorly organized and fought from the start.

No huh about it.

 

[rareboy]

So, basically you're indulging a private fantasy. Though you're right that the charge of racism was dumb.





Pay better attention: Obama made it clear that we're not sending soldiers. We haven't even sent very many planes.

In fact so far, no one has talked about sending soldiers.

Pay better attention.

Read post 17.

And, in fact, there are some Americans who have talked about the need for the US to be at the forefront (which, incidentally they are at this moment) and to demonstrate to the African/Arab world that the US still is the alpha dog in any military ops.

 

[rareboy]

So I've had someone make the outlandish claim that the offshore shelling of military targets in Libya by the US as well as the Brits is the equivalent of the massive and indiscriminate bombing and boots on the ground invasion of Irag, you remember the one....born of lies to the American people and the UN about the danger that Saddam posed to the US and the West.

They wonder why this war waged by the left is somehow not the same as that war waged by the right.

All I can respond is that if a conservative American can't actually tell me what the difference is between enforcing the no-fly zone as only one of a number of countries trying to prevent a genocidal dictator from bombing his own people and the war of opportunity trumped up by BushCo. to effectively invade and occupy a nation, then all I can say is that any explanation would be wasted.

If they waited until he'd slaughtered his people and then invaded the same way as Iraq, then no, there would be no difference.

Iraq the same as Libya? Absurd.

 

[Kulindahr]

Afghanistan was not well conceived or executed.

Because it was not the war Rumsfeld/Halliburton wanted to fight, it was poorly organized and fought from the start.

No huh about it.

I followed that campaign closely.

They made a plan. They executed it admirably. Then once the basics had been taken care of, they pulled the resources to actually finish the job.

There was no problem in the planning for Afghanistan -- the problem was that Bush decided to go play elsewhere, and leave Afghanistan with the job just begun. That wasn't planning, that was idiocy.

Pay better attention.

Read post 17.

And, in fact, there are some Americans who have talked about the need for the US to be at the forefront (which, incidentally they are at this moment) and to demonstrate to the African/Arab world that the US still is the alpha dog in any military ops.

Ah -- changing the subject.

When you quote a post, you really ought to address it.

 

[rareboy]

^ Nope. I was talking about the some Americans who have been pushing for boots on the ground soldiers....despite the US commitment to limit their combat role to air and missile strikes that prevent Gaddaffi from rolling his military over his own people under the guise of fighting al Quaeda.

So no subject change.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Nope. I was talking about the some Americans who have been pushing for boots on the ground soldiers....despite the US commitment to limit their combat role to air and missile strikes that prevent Gaddaffi from rolling his military over his own people under the guise of fighting al Quaeda.

So no subject change.

Yes, that's what you were talking about.

But it isn't what I was talking about in the post you quoted.

That's changing the subject.