Why 183 Raptors is NOT enough.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

usajoe1 7/6/2009 6:56:03 PM

Unlike you and others who to me it seems would generally disagree with any Democratic President no matter what they did.

Not true, in the 20th centuary I think FDR was a great president, I also like Woodrow Wilson, and Truman, and for every Roald Regan, Eisenhower there is a Nixon and Hoover.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/6/2009 7:02:30 PM

Unlike you and others who to me it seems would generally disagree with any Democratic President no matter what they did.

Not true, in the 20th centuary I think FDR was a great president, I also like Woodrow Wilson, and Truman, and for every Roald Regan, Eisenhower there is a Nixon and Hoover.

Well then in your case I stand corrected. However, I still have the opinion that your judgement of President Obama is premature and you should give this a bit more time before coming to definite conclusions. The key actions that will define the next decade or so with regard to strategy and procurement are still in

progress. Patience...

-DA

Quote Reply

albywan long time reader first time posting 7/6/2009 7:08:57 PM

Herald,

you really are flogging a dead horse. at first it seemed funny to view from the outside, but it has gotten way beyond the point of humour, actually it is way beyond anything now...

you are left looking more and more like a over opinionated tosser.

give it a rest, i think we all know your views on DA now.

Stick to posting what you are good at, knowledge. Or learn to argue - one of the keys to agruing in a open forum is to know when you've won.

Quote Reply

Reactive 7/6/2009 7:44:29 PM

Time will indeed tell, from an international perspective he has solved the problem of somewhat expiating the misadventures in Iraq. The idea of someone as vacant and clueless as Sarah Palin having to make strategic decisions in the event that McCain snuffed is hardly an idea that many people would welcome.

He has without question improved the perception of the US overseas, whether that is important to you or not (and that is a question for each individual to make) is not for me to say. In terms of foreign policy, we will see if he is able to stop countries like Iran from developing nuclear warheads. A lesson we should have learned from WW2 is that you don't win fights against extremists/theocratic fascists by demonstrating weakness, and the newfound "language of diplomacy" can only work if it is not the "only option considerable", if the worst ramifications for simply stalling (in Iran's case) until they have a credible threat are greater isolation from the west, then they have very little reason, in my opinion; to do anything whatsoever.

Diplomacy is a tool but is not a fail-safe argument, there are times that showing strength help, there are numerous examples of regimes who will sign anything and honour none of it, the rise of Nazi Germany is a sad example of countries sitting back and deluding themselves of the intentions of a man who was so obviously and openly gearing up for war. Neville Chamberlain was a ditherer, he couldn't accept the ramifications and reality of war, and viewed any option other than hoping for diplomacy and peace as unacceptable. The point is, pre-emptive action can be far less costly in the long run, and without that option on the table, we allow regimes and tyrants to pick and choose their conflicts, or simply sit back and develop weapons that are capable of mass destruction.

I don't see why we sit back and allow NK to continue to tread its population down into the mud, we pretend that talks will work, meanwhile, they developed nuclear weapons. We invaded a country that pretended to have WMD's whilst engaging in measured, soft dialogue with a dictator who was at that very point in time developing his first, clumsy nuclear warheads.

Force is not always the wrong solution, as diplomacy is not always the right one, it's the balance and thresholds which determine their respective uses that provide the difference between a good leader and a bad one. I think B.O has qualities that are to be admired, but when diplomacy is no longer an option, he must be able to use other measures.

ReactivE

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/7/2009 3:28:07 PM

Because NK is geographically insignificant by comparison to resource rich ME. Because we have treaty's and diplomatic tools to contain and inhibit NK progress such that it isn't necessary to enter into physical war over it. The Iraq/WMD thing was a failed attempt by the GWB admin to frighten the public into supporting the war. At the time it seemed a reasonable method since there was consensus that he had weapons. In most cases, a POTUS can't just up and go to war, in a first term, without broad public and international support. The nations that support OIF have economic and national security interest in the ME. That isn't the case with NK so we have the luxury of time and can use Lawfare against them.

ReactivE

Of course force is necessary sometimes. But BHO has been POTUS for 6 months and INHERITED TWO WARS AND AILING ECONOMY. The USA doesn't have the political, military or economic bandwidth to get into another major combat operation. Especially not considering the Russians WHO MUST BE BHO PRIORITY. This silly banter over PRC vs RoC, a highly unlikely scenario, compared to the actual real time Russian reassertion over it's past areas of influence shows that most people do not fully appreciate the current geopolitical reality. So what BHO is doing is securing up the USA geopolitical interest via diplomacy while that option still exist and while the war option is limited due to the current situation. If a sufficient threat presents itself, BHO will do what any POTUS would do, he will war. But now is not the time.

-DA

Quote Reply

warpig Bump 6/10/2010 10:08:47 AM

Another neat thread with a wide variety of discussion points.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21