Baculus Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 What two wars started during his presidency? (The war started before his presidency - it only takes one side to start or have a war and Al Qaeda started their war with the United States before Bush was president). Afghanistan and Irag. The War on Terror is a conflict above and beyond either of these conflicts. Some would argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary as a response to the 9-11 attacks, but either way, the conflict has expanded beyond the scope of engaging Al-Qaida. We are now fighting Taliban Afghani insurgents that have nothing to do with international terrorism, no matter our views on their conservative religious philosophies. The same is true of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Bac, Forget the conservatives, I still want you to address the part where Obama is actively escalating a major war that is killing large numbers of civilians with no plans to stop. Obama didn't even deserve to be in the conversation let alone win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Afghanistan and Irag. The War on Terror is a conflict above and beyond either of these conflicts. Some would argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary as a response to the 9-11 attacks, but either way, the conflict has expanded beyond the scope of engaging Al-Qaida. We are now fighting Taliban Afghani insurgents that have nothing to do with international terrorism, no matter our views on their conservative religious philosophies. The same is true of Iraq. Perhaps this sort of thing confused them? At the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to "finish the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/10/dems_change_stance_on_military_and_afghanistan_98665.html Perhaps his definition of 'finish' is as liberal as his one for TAX? Seems many Dems are losing sight of how "Just" a war Afghanistan is,since they no longer need it as a prop to get elected. Hopefully the Nobel winning president is not among them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Hopefully the Nobel winning president is not among them. Sadly, he is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Bac,Forget the conservatives, I still want you to address the part where Obama is actively escalating a major war that is killing large numbers of civilians with no plans to stop. Obama didn't even deserve to be in the conversation let alone win. I think the general consensus is that the alternative of leaving Afghanistan is far worse. The Taliban would perhaps take back control and they could fuel the destabilization of Pakistan even more than they already are-which would be really bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Bac,Forget the conservatives, I still want you to address the part where Obama is actively escalating a major war that is killing large numbers of civilians with no plans to stop. Obama didn't even deserve to be in the conversation let alone win. We'll have to see what the next move is, as far as the Afghan war is concerned, before I can really address that issue. Yes, Obama has not played the "peace hand" in the conflict because that approach has yet to be defined. And he has increased the regional troop presence, as requested by the military, in addition to continuing air and drone strikes on targets, so he isn't exactly playing a Gandhi-like roll in the region. Should the ongoing Afghan conflict been a disqualification for Obama winning the Nobel Peace prize? Possibly. But I suppose the Nobel committee took into account the reality of the situation: that Obama inherited a conflict which cannot be resolved in short order. And that he is attempting to deescalate conflict in other areas of the globe. Of course, this answer isn't sufficient for those who see a hypocrisy in awarding the Peace prize to a President who is leading a nation at war. The attributes of your argument cannot be so easily denied -- I will agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Perhaps this sort of thing confused them?At the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to "finish the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/10/dems_change_stance_on_military_and_afghanistan_98665.html Perhaps his definition of 'finish' is as liberal as his one for TAX? Seems many Dems are losing sight of how "Just" a war Afghanistan is,since they no longer need it as a prop to get elected. Hopefully the Nobel winning president is not among them. Here is the question: Are use of arms the only route to resolving our role in that country? Can we "finish" the war via other means? That is a quandary that the Obama administration is having to face at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Should the ongoing Afghan conflict been a disqualification for Obama winning the Nobel Peace prize? Possibly. But I suppose the Nobel committee took into account the reality of the situation: that Obama inherited a conflict which cannot be resolved in short order. And that he is attempt to deescalate conflict in other areas of the globe. Oh nice answer,I suppose he would not have invaded Afghanistan in W's shoes? Thanks to Fred at smalldead animals I have the found the answer to the medal issue;) Obama has been awarded the Nobel Speech Prize....not Peace dude:hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I think the general consensus is that the alternative of leaving Afghanistan is far worse. The Taliban would perhaps take back control and they could fuel the destabilization of Pakistan even more than they already are-which would be really bad. Is it really the consensus? Even if it was, consensus type arguments do nothing for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Is it really the consensus? Even if it was, consensus type arguments do nothing for me. OK, take out the word consensus then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Oh nice answer,I suppose he would not have invaded Afghanistan in W's shoes? He possibly would have, but here is the other question: Would Obama have invaded Iraq, a conflict that drew resources away from resolving the Afghan situation? That is a key point that is often missed -- Iraq did nothing to help capture and end the original targets in the first blow of the post-9/11 War on Terror. Thanks to Fred at smalldead animals I have the found the answer to the medal issue;)Obama has been awarded the Nobel Speech Prize....not Peace dude:hysterical: You are ignoring a tangible deal struck with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons, which is one reason why he won the prize. Is that enough unto itself for such an award? Maybe. Maybe not. But it was up to the committee, and not Pres. Obama, to make such a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 even Obama said he didn't deserve it, why is there an argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 He possibly would have, but here is the other question: Would Obama have invaded Iraq, a conflict that drew resources away from resolving the Afghan situation?That is a key point that is often missed -- Iraq did nothing to help capture and end the original targets in the first blow of the post-9/11 War on Terror. Original targets no,but it could very well do more to end religion based terrorism than our Afghanistan effort....time will tell. Adding more resources in Afghanistan is gonna crank up the body count on both sides....those 'resources' gave their lives on a much more favorable terrain than we face in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Original targets no,but it could very well do more to end religion based terrorism than our Afghanistan effort....time will tell.Adding more resources in Afghanistan is gonna crank up the body count on both sides....those 'resources' gave their lives on a much more favorable terrain than we face in Afghanistan. The situation in Iraq will do nothing to end religious based terrorism. In fact, it may worsen it -- keep in mind that Iraq before the invasion was a secular nation. Now we have extremists in various parts of that country, both Sunni and Shiite in nature. If you want to see one of the largest influences in religious extremism, look at our ally, Saudi Arabia. Now, adding more resources in Afghanistan will crank up the body count. If we had done this five years ago the situation may be a little different. Of course, if we had never invaded Afghanistan in the first place, then maybe this wouldn't be an issue, either. We have to remember that the Taliban were offering to hand over Bin Laden if we provided evidence of his involvement in the attacks. Sadly, though, that is neither here nor there: We are where we are. And Obama has a big choice to make in determining our future role in that country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 even Obama said he didn't deserve it, why is there an argument? Much of the argument is over details. Details, details, details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 The situation in Iraq will do nothing to end religious based terrorism. In fact, it may worsen it -- keep in mind that Iraq before the invasion was a secular nation. Now we have extremists in various parts of that country, both Sunni and Shiite in nature.If you want to see one of the largest influences in religious extremism, look at our ally, Saudi Arabia. Now, adding more resources in Afghanistan will crank up the body count. If we had done this five years ago the situation may be a little different. Of course, if we had never invaded Afghanistan in the first place, then maybe this wouldn't be an issue, either. We have to remember that the Taliban were offering to hand over Bin Laden if we provided evidence of his involvement in the attacks. Sadly, though, that is neither here nor there: We are where we are. And Obama has a big choice to make in determining our future role in that country. Oh I certainly agree on SA,but you are fooling yourself if you don't believe Iraq will not have a major impact there...it already has if you look closely. The fanatics have been exposed as frauds and a danger to Islam. I don't think you have a clue how difficult a major invasion would have been in Afghanistan..or would be now with bases established. Iraq was a cakewalk compared to that logistical hellhole. Obama IS facing a tough choice,and I pray he chooses wisely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Oh I certainly agree on SA,but you are fooling yourself if you don't believe Iraq will not have a major impact there...it already has if you look closely.The fanatics have been exposed as frauds and a danger to Islam. Right. But they only became prevelant after the secular dictator, Saddam Hussein, was taken out of the picture. Saddam was a tyrant, but he didn't accept challenges to his rule. That is why people such as Al Sadr's father was repressed, because Saddam saw him as a threat. Saddam's internal security was effective enough to deal with religious threats to his Ba'athist regime. Once a vacuum was created in Iraq, you saw many groups find a place to fill the lack of centralized power in Iraq. I don't think you have a clue how difficult a major invasion would have been in Afghanistan..or would be now with bases established.Iraq was a cakewalk compared to that logistical hellhole. Obama IS facing a tough choice,and I pray he chooses wisely Of course I have a clue -- I study military history, strategy, and tactics, and I followed very closely the events leading up to the Afghan invasion. Just because I am a civilian doesn't mean I am witless in all military matters. Iraq is much easier of a battle, but that doesn't change the fact that the invasion of that country change our ability to operate on a larger scale in Afghanistan. And that, in turn, has affected the ability for Kabul to govern effectively and for the Afghan National Army to become a more successful fighting force. Keep in mind that some of the areas where we had pushed out the Taliban are now reoccupied by their forces. Why? Because we didn't have the boots on the ground to maintain a garrisoning presence in those same regions. We're just now starting to do that. Imagine if we had more troops to cordon off Tora Bora -- maybe events would have ended up differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Imagine if we had more troops to cordon off Tora Bora -- maybe events would have ended up differently. Yeah we might not be seeing this;) http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/best-of-stunned-obama-nobel-prize.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 hey, it's God-Emperor to you pal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 :notworthy Your choice smug elitists "Because we say so, peasants" on the Left or the self righteous populists "You're wrong because we're right" on the Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Your choice smug elitists "Because we say so, peasants" on the Left or the self righteous populists "You're wrong because we're right" on the Right. Great gig they have carved out ain't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Your choice smug elitists "Because we say so, peasants" on the Left or the self righteous populists "You're wrong because we're right" on the Right. There's this right-wing radio guy on Sirius Patriot named Andrew Wilkow who's tagline is literally, "We're right, they're wrong, that's the end of the story." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 The point is, he took a bold stand in the name of peace. And for that he deserves the award. I though America got the award? I like This suggestion:evilg: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28161.html Liz Cheney said Sunday that President Barack Obama should send a message to the Nobel Committee at the Dec. 10 awards ceremony in Oslo, suggesting he skip the ceremony and send the mother of a fallen soldier to show the importance of the war efforts. "I think what the committee believes is that they want to live in the world where the U.S. is not dominant," the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday." "He could send a real signal here." Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28161.html#ixzz0Tdv3lNPi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Of course I have a clue -- I study military history, strategy, and tactics, and I followed very closely the events leading up to the Afghan invasion. Just because I am a civilian doesn't mean I am witless in all military matters. Iraq is much easier of a battle, but that doesn't change the fact that the invasion of that country change our ability to operate on a larger scale in Afghanistan. And that, in turn, has affected the ability for Kabul to govern effectively and for the Afghan National Army to become a more successful fighting force. Keep in mind that some of the areas where we had pushed out the Taliban are now reoccupied by their forces. Why? Because we didn't have the boots on the ground to maintain a garrisoning presence in those same regions. We're just now starting to do that. Imagine if we had more troops to cordon off Tora Bora -- maybe events would have ended up differently. Tactics are for amateurs. More troops in Tora Bora maybe would have changed history. When did the battle of Tora Bora take place? Which units should have been there? Why weren't they there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.