Threadjack here, but I think that's an unfair and biased opinion. How can you say that we should've taken them into this county, and that not doing so was wrong, in the 20's and 30's based on what happened 10 years afterwords?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Dear Mr. Obama
- Thread starter PigzFly
- Start date
Threadjack here, but I think that's an unfair and biased opinion. How can you say that we should've taken them into this county, and that not doing so was wrong, in the 20's and 30's based on what happened 10 years afterwords?
I'm not talking about the 20's. I was mostly referring to the time period when the smokestacks were making Jewish clouds over eastern Europe. The death camps were open for business and Jews were turned away. I'm just saying that isolationism isn't the right course of action (at least in my mind) and I think what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is important and noble, despite the casualties we are incurring.
Sorry if I contributed to the conception of this threadjack - it was merely a jest at Otto. I didn't mean to help in the opening of a whole 'nother can of worms.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
There wasn't "one reason" we went to war in Iraq. There were several. WMDs were just the most publicized one.
Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean that they did not exist, or still do. There was a lot of time between the build up to the war and the invasion.
The threat of WMD was a problem in and of itself. As a crude example, consider this:
A trusted friend tells you that your teenageer has a gun in his room. You don't really want to "invade his privacy", but you don't want your kid to kill himself or go Columbine at school. You know he'll go batshit when you search his room, and he in fact has told you several times that there is no gun, but you can't look anyway.
What do you do? Let's say you search his room anyway, by force if necessary. There is no gun. Now what? Did you "lie about it"? Was it worth it?
By the way,.....does this mean he doesn't have a gun? Anywhere?
I realize that Iraq is not "our child", but I think that the analogy still makes my point.
Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean that they did not exist, or still do. There was a lot of time between the build up to the war and the invasion.
The threat of WMD was a problem in and of itself. As a crude example, consider this:
A trusted friend tells you that your teenageer has a gun in his room. You don't really want to "invade his privacy", but you don't want your kid to kill himself or go Columbine at school. You know he'll go batshit when you search his room, and he in fact has told you several times that there is no gun, but you can't look anyway.
What do you do? Let's say you search his room anyway, by force if necessary. There is no gun. Now what? Did you "lie about it"? Was it worth it?
By the way,.....does this mean he doesn't have a gun? Anywhere?
I realize that Iraq is not "our child", but I think that the analogy still makes my point.
Never mind the fact that we have found several tons of mustard gas and other chemical weapons in Iraq. They were "old" and "outdated". Still deadly as hell, but that's not the point. Never mind the tons of yellow cake uranium that was being stored to produce nuclear weapons and/or dirty bombs. None of that counts.
Same old tired useless talk. We did the right thing. Only problem was that it was about 10 years to late.
Same old tired useless talk. We did the right thing. Only problem was that it was about 10 years to late.
We do know now that Saddam Hussein posed no credible threat when we invaded, and containing him cost billions per year less than the current costs.
Just because our men and women volunteer does not mean that poor decisions made by leadership that get them in extremis should be ignored. Military men and women volunteer with the knowledge that they will not be sacrificed needlessly, and that any decision to send them into combat will be carefully made.
To say that "They volunteered, so... (shrug)", makes me question your decision making capability regarding leadership. I would hate it if a CO of mine sent a buddy on a mission with failure written all over it and said "Well, he volunteered to serve and by doing so accepted the risks of his duty", thereby absolving himself of the real responsibility.
We don't live in the future or the past, so whether getting into the present situation was a mistake or not should only serve as a lesson to prevent us from making another mistake, not dictate our actions. We cannot undo what we have done, and so abandoning the burden of Iraq that we have placed on ourselves (or the Bush administration has placed on us, if you will) I believe is much more of a mistake than trying to change the past and withdraw as if we were never there.
Senator Obama believes it was a mistake to go in, but I don't recall him saying that it is a mistake to be there presently. If he has, then so be it, and the video is spot on.
Senator Obama believes it was a mistake to go in, but I don't recall him saying that it is a mistake to be there presently. If he has, then so be it, and the video is spot on.
I am sorry you misunderstood my statement. Let me attempt to clarify by saying that I do not believe decisions made by the leadership should be ignored.
As I said before I do not have the knowledge to know what the 500-pounders do when they're thinking about sending men out into dangerous situations but I'm willing to believe that they are mission-oriented.
I also believe that achieving the mission with the minimal amount of casualties sustained is of the utmost importance. The problem is that some "leaders" will focus more on the mission than they will the safety of their men. I think you would agree with me in saying that is the wrong way to go after completing any mission.
I do not have the information required to make a judgement as to whether anyone was sacrificed needlessly but it would be understandable to make that assumption.
The point I'd like to close with is that the men under you are the men who help you get the mission done and if you don't take care of them, they will not take care of you and the overall mission will suffer for that.
Factual point, the 'Final Solution' was decided on at the Wansee Conference in Jan 1942. It was only after that the death camps opened for the sole purpose of killing Jewish people, the smokestacks you reference. By that time we were at war with Germany and there were no ships to turn away, that happened in the summer of 1939 with the St. Louis.
There was plenty of persecution and widespread killing of Jews in Europe before the death camps opened, but there is no straight line between us turning Jewish refugees away at our borders and them being marched off the death camps. Our policies concerning Jewish refugees was very poor, reprehensible in hindsight, before and during WWII, but not as bad as you suggest.
Being against isolationism and supporting the Bush Doctrine are two entirely different things. Just because you don't support some of the policies of the current administration does not make one an isolationist. There is little argument about Afghanistan among those in power and in the opposition, we need to be there, but there are many people who have a long history of engagement and experience in US affairs with the world that vehemently disagree with the invasion and conduct of the war in Iraq and some other policies. Why don't you look up Anthony Zinni and Brent Scowcroft for starters.
Scowcroft Arguing not to Invade Iraq
Zinni Sounding the Alarm in 2004
Quit trying to draw straight lines between two widely divergent points, it is not buttressing your arguments very well to cough up inaccurate or misleading claims.
m0tbaillie
Former SWO
Oh please. Iraq could not project contemporary power against anyone, not even their neighbors. The only reason Hussein talked as much crap as he did was because he was afraid of Iran and was trying to bolster his capabilities. Find me a source that cites even one single instance where Iraq/Hussein in any way shape or form directly threatened the US?
Yet, when Russia or Iran or North Korea does it - and they do, on a regular basis - we stand here and take it on all fours. And, you don't think we've lost a lot of credibility already? You really think us pulling out would cause us to lose more credibility as opposed to perhaps some people thinking "hey, it looks like the Americans finally cut their losses and moved on"?
Ever read any of the polls on the BBC? It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.
Why are you trying to liken the politics of WW2 to this current war in Iraq? Apples and oranges entirely.
First off, we were directly attacked by Japan and the following day both Japan and Germany declared war on the US, with us responding in kind.
When did Iraq declare war on us? When did they directly attack us? What did the UN do except sanction the country deeper and deeper into poverty for a decade? One of the biggest and longest-standing criticisms of this war was the fact that it was a preemptive strike based on completely faulty, hackneyed, possibly fabricated intelligence. Also, if you're going to reference WW2 then why not bring up the fact that we had little camps of our own?
So I am to believe that since Hussein was not a direct threat then that he would and could never have become a threat in the future?
You're nearly implying that Hussein and his regime did not pose any threat to the United States. Perhaps it did not pose any direct threat in the way of him attacking, but there is reason to believe that he posed a threat to our National Interests.
But defense of the homeland is not the only part of our NSP. Seems to me that Iraq could potentially pose a threat to our National Security and having the capability to strike first is always a good thing to have.
And as far as cutting losses and moving on as compared to making it a success...yea I'm going to say making it a success is a lot better for our credibility.
You're nearly implying that Hussein and his regime did not pose any threat to the United States. Perhaps it did not pose any direct threat in the way of him attacking, but there is reason to believe that he posed a threat to our National Interests.
But defense of the homeland is not the only part of our NSP. Seems to me that Iraq could potentially pose a threat to our National Security and having the capability to strike first is always a good thing to have.
And as far as cutting losses and moving on as compared to making it a success...yea I'm going to say making it a success is a lot better for our credibility.
Interesting read.
At this point in 2008 it's easy to make the claim that the war in Iraq was a mistake. I mean, there are even MadTV skits about it...
but regardless of all this dribble, the fact remains that at the time we invaded Iraq, many more Americans supported the invasion because we (rightly) feel we've been deceived or manipulated. We may never know what would have happened if we hadn't invaded or perhaps if we hadn't we never would have had the chance to wonder. The bottom line is that these matters are never black and white. I think it's fair to claim that the pretext under which we invaded has proved false, but it's probably still too soon to state definitively whether the entire war was a mistake. I don't think Obama is really in a position to make that call just yet.
but regardless of all this dribble, the fact remains that at the time we invaded Iraq, many more Americans supported the invasion because we (rightly) feel we've been deceived or manipulated. We may never know what would have happened if we hadn't invaded or perhaps if we hadn't we never would have had the chance to wonder. The bottom line is that these matters are never black and white. I think it's fair to claim that the pretext under which we invaded has proved false, but it's probably still too soon to state definitively whether the entire war was a mistake. I don't think Obama is really in a position to make that call just yet.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Lazers said:
And, unless you are someday elected President, you never will. That's why character matters more than anything in an election.
Does shooting at us count?
That's because they are nuclear powers to one degree or another. Confronting them takes on a whole new level of risk once they join that club. That's why it is so important to keep other countries (including Iran) from getting nukes.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Did Iraq have nukes? Not really. The Israelis took care of that the first time. Do you think that they gave up on it forever?
I don't. And I sure as hell didn't want to be wrong and find out the hard way.
But that's just me.
very interesting read. thanks for the post, random