Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is Obama Really Pro-(Not His But Some Future Admin's That Is) War
CJH    10/23/2011 11:39:12 AM
No administration should be "kicking the Can" of military involvement down the road to look good at some future administration's expense.

But too often that is what Democrat administrations do. Bill Clinton mishandled Somalia in a way which emboldened Bin Laden. Bill Clinton's failure to do something about Bin Laden resulted in Bush having to unwillingly be a war time president.

Obama is making the grand gesture of deference to the Iranian mullahs and also that of precipitously withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The danger is that we will be militarily involved heavily in the region in the future.

The apparent Iranian assassination plot would indicate a definite contempt for Obama's handling of US interests on the part of the Iranian mullahs which can translate to some serious crisis for us in the future.

And throwing Israel to the wolves would be very foolish policy indeed.

ROSENBERG: Confronting the threat from Iran

"The Obama administration is not taking decisive action to neutralize Iran. President Obama’s policy of engagement with the mullahs has morphed into a policy of appeasement, and it has failed. Yet the White House has all but taken the use of force off the table. In September 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, “The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time.” In April 2010, the New York Times reported that Mr. Gates had “warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.” Little has changed in the past 18 months. What’s more, the administration is pressuring Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran despite the growing threat of a second Holocaust."

 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
YelliChink       10/23/2011 1:20:54 PM
Historically, wars get presidents re-elected.
So they might not even want it to be next president's war.
 
However, war with Iran is highly unlikely in the near future. With US military withdraw from Iraq, they might have a chance to subvert Iraq. However, none of that is US business anymore.
 
Whenever entering a war, one must have clear idea of its political goals and chances of exerting will over his opponents. The US is in no shape to fight another war with ill-defined goals and political correctness. Any wars and conflicts that is not vital to US survival should be regarded as excessive and subject to extreme public scrutiny now.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/23/2011 1:36:50 PM
YC, question: 
 
Does that include a theoretical war over Taiwan? 
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/23/2011 1:54:05 PM
However, war with Iran is highly unlikely in the near future. With US military withdraw from Iraq, they might have a chance to subvert Iraq. However, none of that is US business anymore.
 
Whenever entering a war, one must have clear idea of its political goals and chances of exerting will over his opponents. The US is in no shape to fight another war with ill-defined goals and political correctness. Any wars and conflicts that is not vital to US survival should be regarded as excessive and subject to extreme public scrutiny now.
 
...Well I probably was not clear about what I meant.
 
It would be desirable and I would certainly like it if the US could perfectly isolate itself from international conditions.
 
But the problem with that is that although we may run, we really cannot hide, particularly because of who we are in the world, from a deterioration in security situations in many parts of the world.
 
It is generally safer and less expensive for us to be pro-active than to be merely reactive. So when we turn loose of a security role somewhere we risk being forced, much against our will, to return later to deal with something which has come to verge on getting out of control.
 
More specificly in the case of Iraq and Iran and Israel is the possibility that the Iranians will blunder into inducing the outbreak of a regional war involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, the emerates, etc. Such an event might attract intervention by possibly competing nations such as China, India and conceivably Russia.
 
Add the possibilty of the threat of use of nuclear weapons.
 
Maybe we could get away without being threatened by this but we shouldn't bet on that.
 
Having spent so much blood and treasure trying to stabilize the region, it could be wasteful to slack off before the job is finished.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/23/2011 2:07:45 PM
I like a lot about Ron Paul but I have a hard time believing we are not riding the tiger of entangling alliances. He who rides a tiger may never dismount - was that Kipling?
 
WWI was God's correcting judgement on the negative worldwide influence of an apostate Western Europe. We should have stayed out of WWI but our leaders were not sensitive to God's providential work in the world. They were not godly men, apparently.
 
WWII was the result of our WWI intervention.
 
After that it became more and more complicated for us not to be involved in entangling alliances.
 
It will take time and persistent effort to disentangle ourselves.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/23/2011 4:21:21 PM

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       10/23/2011 9:20:26 PM
Nations do not really have allies. Only common interest, we are not throwing Israel to the wolves. But our mutual interest are beginning to diverge. It has nothing to do with Obama, Bush or the next President. I told you all long ago that Obama wasn't going to come in and declare world peace and that geopolitical imperatives would drive even more conflicts REGARDLESS of who the President was. That was true obviously. With regards to appeasing Iran, get real. I was there when we were getting blown up daily by bombs made in Iran. We didn't exactly respond by sending in the TLAMs. The reason is the same as it is now. We are over committed and don't need another land war in SWA/ME. All we need is a counter balance to Iranian regional ambitions which 2007 "Surge" troops provided. Now it's time to build Iraq up and empower Turkey to fill that void. We cannot afford to permanently garrison Iraq for that purpose. Iran understands the limits of US patience and the US military can handle any miscalculation. Getting out of Iraq will make the US Military stronger and better able to handle the threats that are soon to come. -DA
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/24/2011 1:30:16 PM


YC, question: 

 

Does that include a theoretical war over Taiwan? 

 



No. It is much more tempting to sell us out for the right price.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/24/2011 1:39:22 PM

 Now it's time to build Iraq up and empower Turkey to fill that void.
-DA


All agree except the above sentence.
 
Iraq is unstable construct left over by the Brits. There is no way you can build a stable Iraq for the next 50 years without a strong man glue the country together. The most likely outcome will be Iran and Saudi tearing apart the country after last US military men fly away.
 
Turks are narrow minded on their Kurdish problem, which they will face in near future is the population trend is not reversed. Turks are more European than Islamic, and so is their birth rate. The population of Turkey is rapidly replacing by Kurds.
 
No bet on Turks and Arabs in Iraq to counter Iranians. Things will get funny when they test their first. Since direct control is verboten on the menu, it might not be a bad idea to let them fight it out.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/24/2011 2:03:39 PM
"Any wars and conflicts that is not vital to US survival should be regarded as excessive and subject to extreme public scrutiny now."
 
 
Does that include a theoretical war over Taiwan? 

 

 
 
No. It is much more tempting to sell us out for the right price. 
 
 
So you're hypocritical yet again : any wars and conflicts that is not vital to US survival should be regarded as excessive and subject to extreme public scrutiny now  Unless it is Taiwan in which case US involvement and active military industrial support (ground sea & air) is necessary for your survival. It won't be a matter of exacting a price, it will be Chinese diplomacy as usual, no concessions except perhaps a promise to give Taiwan the same sorts of "freedoms" that those in Hong Kong currently "enjoy".
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/24/2011 3:28:23 PM


So you're hypocritical yet again :
any wars and conflicts that is not vital to US survival should be regarded as excessive and subject to extreme public scrutiny now 
Unless it is Taiwan in which case US involvement and active military industrial support (ground sea & air) is necessary for your survival. It won't be a matter of exacting a price, it will be Chinese diplomacy as usual, no concessions except perhaps a promise to give Taiwan the same sorts of "freedoms" that those in Hong Kong currently "enjoy".



 



You can only be hypocrite when you pretend to be moral.
 
In this case, I am not discussing morality.
 
Commies won't use force on Taiwan in the near future. However, a concensus between Washington DC and Beijing on a political resolutoin that will be forced upon Taiwan is possible, even though very unlikely.
 
High commies are more interested in saving their individual asses than taking over Taiwan. Even all the assets of Taiwan won't save the hole they created. Things will change in China very soon. Which way, I have no clue, most likely military dictatorship rising on the ashes of PAP and PLA.
 
Since low possibility of going hot, Taiwan scenario does not play. This period is likely to extend between 2 to 4 years.
 
It is like the situation of Israel. Ostensibly still tense, but actually none issue in short term. What matters are Iran and Pakistan. Whatever they touch turns into crap, and they are dipping their fingers everywhere. Eventually, Chinese focus will be forced to the western side of the country, not eastern, if commies survived the economic collapse.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics