Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Winning means there is no doubt who the victor is.
Not having a decisive victory means the war will continue indefinitely.
It's amazing that this still has to be explained, but perhaps that's just the age in which we live.
Winning means there is no doubt who the victor is.
Not having a decisive victory means the war will continue indefinitely.
It's amazing that this still has to be explained, but perhaps that's just the age in which we live.
QUOTE=Boo Radley;1059919443]I repost this for you Grant.
The American people were very much against involving themselves in WWII just 20 years after "The War To End All Wars" but that proved impossible. Since then there has been Communism with its 100 million plus victims and now Islamic terrorism. This goes well beyond trade and diplomatic relations and there is really nothing anyone can do about it except to meet the challenges the bad guys are always creating. That's just the way of the world.
Thank you.
This is indeed what I said.
To make the claim that this involved the Iraq war is either disingenuous or dishonest. Why should i have to defend statements from you regarding something I never said, intimidated or intended to day.
It goes well beyond "subtle", to use your word, into an area that I wasn't debating at all. From that you could mention the Boxer Rebellion or Mao's Little Red Book and be equally subtle.. I was making a singular point about a specific area and not mentioning the Iraq War at all, as you suggested. If you read things into what I post and debate that, rather than reading the post itself, then it turns whatever worthwhile debate their might have been into sludge.
You have a very floppy definition of winning. Also, this is why we have Declaration of Wars, it makes it oh so much easier. Declare war, go in, someone signs a surrender treaty, end.
It's a lot better when we follow the Constitution instead of just play lip service to it while allowing the government to do anything it wants.
So, we're not in Iraq for any of the things you mention? So why are we there?
Ostensibly to nail Saddam Hussein, which was quite legitimate (and made more sense than Gadaffi at this point) but I feel it also allowed the United States and its Allies to gain a foothold in the Middle East to have an insight, literally and figuratively, about what's going on there.
Massive U.S. Embassy In Iraq Will Expand Further As Soldiers Leave
If that Embassy is ever attacked then it is my hope that NATO forces respond very quickly and very aggressively.
Kind of like saying winning is winning. Really doesn't explain much. When will you know we've won? What will be the critieria? The metrics?
No, Saddam was a noboody and a limited threat. He was contained, and not growing, had a crumbling infrastructure and no way to even house wmds. nothing has been more reckless than invading Iraq.
That's what is called "historical revisionism".
Unlike Iraq, Obama did not on his own push to invade Lybia.
Really? Who did the pushing?
As for the embassy, a huge expense that assures we will always be there, thus under risk, seems kind of foolish to me. To stay where we're not wanted, to subject ourselves to being in harms way for speciulative reasons, seems rather like a bad investment to me.
In fact it is an excellent investment and makes full use use of the US advantage of high technology.
In WWI they called it a draw and the Germans were back 20 years later and even greater carnage resulted. They did not allow the same thing to happen in WWII. Both Japan and Germany were beaten to the point where, 65 years later, they still don't want to go near a weapon.
That has to happen with anyone who does harm against the United States or any of its Allies. It is over quickly and those on the receiving end get peaceful for a long while after the very clear point is made.
That's what is called "historical revisionism".
Really? Who did the pushing?
In fact it is an excellent investment and makes full use use of the US advantage of high technology.
No, it's called truth.
First the rebals, the Lybian people. Then I think the french were the ones pushing for intervention. Do you need a link?
Explain. What technology? For what purpose?
And this means what? Comparing what? Germany is a country, quite capable of surrendering. Islamofascism is not. There is no one to surrender. No one to invade. The ilitary is simply limited in what it can do to fight such a conflict. in fact, it is too large, too cumbersome, too blunt an insturment to be effective.
Again, I ask as related to this conflict what does winning look like? What are the metrics?
We'll call it your truth, okay?
Barrack Obama takes his orders from the French and the Libyan people? When did that start? Wasn;' Congress supposed to get involved in these decisions also?
Did you know that the United States has enemies in the Middle East?
In theory I agree, but "winning" isn't the same concept that it was only 50 years ago.Fighting to win is the solution.
In theory I agree, but "winning" isn't the same concept that it was only 50 years ago.
Besides, we don't have the guts to do what it takes to win anymore, anyway.
In theory I agree, but "winning" isn't the same concept that it was only 50 years ago.
Besides, we don't have the guts to do what it takes to win anymore, anyway.
Relate it to what we're doing and define winning for me. ;coffeepap
That's another problem for too many Americans. They need 'winning' defined for them.
It's your second statement that is spot on. Now Americans are more worried about someone getting hurt, a concern that doesn't bother your enemies.
I prefer congress declare war, but congress did sign agreements with the UN, so the question is does the president need approval each time they keep the agreement iwht the UN? I for one would like the president to, but I'm not sure there isn't a legal point that that says it isn't needed. however, for OUR purpose, I don't argue that Obama shouldn't have had to go before congress. i prefer a declaration of war before we start killing folks.
Yep, but that doesn't answer what I asked you. Are you trying to divert away frm the question?
Yes, that would be the usual route but now he is killing people in a more whimsical fashion and without a glance to the future
If you know you have enemies in the area, why do you ask the question?
Perhaps its to keep up on what they are saying and doing? Spying for example? Why does this have to be explained?
That's just your partisanship talking. Again, there is a timeline of events. nothing whimiscal about it.
You can read the question can't you? You do see it linked to your comment, right?
Now spying would be an answer, but is that what we're doing there? Can you support that? Spying on Iran? Pakistan? SA? All the above? Would you say that makes the thousands of deaths worth losing?
A timeline is not a reason, nor is it an explanation for taking out the legitimate leader of a UN Member, nor should he be get his permission to attack another country from France. And now he has troops in Central Africa, murdering more people. Where is the US government in any of this?
Of course that's what's happening there! I cannot take your questions seriously because I have no idea whether you are joking or serious or what. Why not read about that Iraqi Embassy before you start asking silly questions?
I think its very useful to be there because it makes it more difficult for ME terrorists. Do you feel otherwise? Do you trust the Middle Eastern leaders and feel everyone should pack up their troubles in their old kit bag?
It gives you a good idea what happened. We did not take him out either. And france didn't give permission. Again you frame it dishonestly.
The US was involved in taking him out, Read the reports. So Barrack Obama led from the rear for several months, with France pushing somehow, and all without anyone's approval, even that of the US Congress. Just his own whimsical idea, huh?
.I wish you would take your answers seriously. We did not need to invade Iraq to spy on anyone
You've forgetten the quote system already. Where did I say the US had to invade Iraq to spy on anyone?
Our technology is good enough that killing thousands for a base should not be acceptable. And I don't have to trust anyone to believe we should not be in the business of agression without actual justification, without following rule of law, and without being honest about why we're putting Aemricans in ahrms way.
Good for you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?