Well, I stand informed that the war will go away now.

Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I stand informed that the war will go away now.

President Obama said that in August 2010, the troops are coming home. Was that last week or next week? I am not really clear on that question.

 

Would someone who knows this stuff explain how it is a presidential power to say that war is not going to happen? After telling me, you also need to tell presidents Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt.

 

War is icky and bad. It ought not to happen.

 

To some extent, I can agree with that. Well, I also have this general idea that people ought to not be serial killers. However, Obama has not specifically stated that it is a presidential power to control the minds of bad people.

 

So um yeah...

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
If one president can declare

If one president can declare war, another (or the same) president could declare war over.  So? 

 

Flashman by George MacDonald Fraser is a great read for the British view of getting out of Afghanistan circa 1845 (?).  The main character, Harry Flashman is not a real person, though it is easy to get sucked into thinking so.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Flashman by George

cj wrote:

Flashman by George MacDonald Fraser is a great read for the British view of getting out of Afghanistan circa 1845 (?).  The main character, Harry Flashman is not a real person, though it is easy to get sucked into thinking so.

Isn't that supposed to be the bully from Tom Brown's schooldays, grown up to be an even bigger bastard ?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4403
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

President Obama said that in August 2010, the troops are coming home. Was that last week or next week? I am not really clear on that question.

 

Would someone who knows this stuff explain how it is a presidential power to say that war is not going to happen? After telling me, you also need to tell presidents Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt.

 

War is icky and bad. It ought not to happen.

 

To some extent, I can agree with that. Well, I also have this general idea that people ought to not be serial killers. However, Obama has not specifically stated that it is a presidential power to control the minds of bad people.

 

So um yeah...

 

The President does have the power to singlehandedly order where the troops go, so bringing them home would effectively end the wars over seas. Of course that doesn't really end war, just our involvement in it beyond our borders. Personally I think we need to get out of the nation building business. There is no reason Afghanistan and Iraq should be taking as long as they are. We should have gone in with crushing force (which means stop being so obsessed about collateral damage), occupy then set up a rough government and get the hell out. I don't see a good reason for our troops to die for other peoples freedoms and act as a police force for another country. Soldiers are killers not policemen.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, he does have the

Well, he does have the ability to order withdrawal. In fact, he could have done so a year and a half ago.

 

Still though, a few of my co-workers are having nutty season over the matter. After all, he promised that we would be leaving the middle east in August of 2010, so according to that, people are running around stating that the war will be ending any day now.

 

These are of course the people who claimed that the war was over when W. stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a banner that said “mission accomplished”. They also had much hand wringing over the idea that on some special magical date, more soldiers had died since the war was over than had died during it.

 

As far as I am aware, there are, even to this day, fewer dead American soldiers from the current war than died at the battle of Cold Harbor, the bloodiest single hour in US history.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:cj

Anonymouse wrote:

cj wrote:

Flashman by George MacDonald Fraser is a great read for the British view of getting out of Afghanistan circa 1845 (?).  The main character, Harry Flashman is not a real person, though it is easy to get sucked into thinking so.

Isn't that supposed to be the bully from Tom Brown's schooldays, grown up to be an even bigger bastard ?

 

Oh, he is a bastard - gloriously so.  But between the story of the bastard bully Flashman, is a lot of history and geology and the story of the real life retreat from Afghanistan.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The President does have the power to singlehandedly order where the troops go, so bringing them home would effectively end the wars over seas. Of course that doesn't really end war, just our involvement in it beyond our borders. Personally I think we need to get out of the nation building business. There is no reason Afghanistan and Iraq should be taking as long as they are. We should have gone in with crushing force (which means stop being so obsessed about collateral damage), occupy then set up a rough government and get the hell out. I don't see a good reason for our troops to die for other peoples freedoms and act as a police force for another country. Soldiers are killers not policemen.  

 

There are plenty of reasons for the middle east conflict to have gone on so long.

When you have an extreme disparity between technologies and education - as in Europeans and American Indians or African tribesmen or South American Indians or ...... - then there can be a "conqueror" and "conquered".

But that is not the situation.  They have access to the same technology and education (ie the Internet) as any foreign troops.  They know about guerrilla tactics, they don't have to invent them.  We can crush them here, and they will pop up elsewhere.

Ever see an old movie, Red Dawn?  I didn't, but I read the reviews and saw a trailer or two.  Same idea - the people in the back country can get a hold of the same weapons the US troops have.  It isn't and never was a winnable war - unless nuking them into oblivion is an option.  Seriously.  Any of the military types who thought so are - military types who always believe you can win a war.  And you can't always win.  This is one of those cases where the people who are going to win are the people who know the country and can lay low when necessary. 

If some country tried to invade the US, they wouldn't win either.  For the exact same reasons.

And I don't think nuking them would be a good idea - the collateral damage would include the US.  Climate change with a vengeance.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, he does have the ability to order withdrawal. In fact, he could have done so a year and a half ago.

 

 

The reason he didn't is the military advisers.  It is hard to argue with someone 20 years older than you and a career professional soldier.  In my experience, career soldiers have a mind set that all problems can be solved by war, that all wars are potentially winnable, and all we have to do is throw in more bodies and more munitions and tah-da.  But then, Obama does not have my experience of being a military wife for 11 years and personally knowing the idiots.

Not all wars are winnable.  More firepower does not equal a win.  More dead bodies does not equal a win.  Many people in Iraq and Afghanistan do not wish to be ruled by "the Great Satan" and will fight their own people to prevent this.  This ain't rocket science and if they had two brain cells to rub together, they could have figured it out before they sent anyone over there to be killed.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Obama made a huge campaign

Obama made a huge campaign around saying that the troops would be out of Iraq by February 2010...last I checked he is still a little behind on that.

 

Sure the president can declare war, and end war and so on. However, even the president must answer to the troops. I don't really have a great input on whether we should be there or not, we have highly trained and highly paid people to take care of that stuff. While it's the presidents job to 'push the button' so to speak, I believe the generals know best. And if the generals are saying let's go then let's go. If not, the president is playing a GIANT political game here and making a huge mistake simply because the democrats are getting trashed this election.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4403
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
cj wrote:There are plenty of

cj wrote:

There are plenty of reasons for the middle east conflict to have gone on so long.

When you have an extreme disparity between technologies and education - as in Europeans and American Indians or African tribesmen or South American Indians or ...... - then there can be a "conqueror" and "conquered".

But that is not the situation.  They have access to the same technology and education (ie the Internet) as any foreign troops.  They know about guerrilla tactics, they don't have to invent them.  We can crush them here, and they will pop up elsewhere.

Ever see an old movie, Red Dawn?  I didn't, but I read the reviews and saw a trailer or two.  Same idea - the people in the back country can get a hold of the same weapons the US troops have.  It isn't and never was a winnable war - unless nuking them into oblivion is an option.  Seriously.  Any of the military types who thought so are - military types who always believe you can win a war.  And you can't always win.  This is one of those cases where the people who are going to win are the people who know the country and can lay low when necessary. 

If some country tried to invade the US, they wouldn't win either.  For the exact same reasons.

And I don't think nuking them would be a good idea - the collateral damage would include the US.  Climate change with a vengeance.

I have to disagree with you cj. We could win both wars but it would require unleashing the full force of our military. In Iraq for example, many of the people laying road bombs are simply doing it for the money. Considering their economic situation you can't blame them. They are not idealogical bad guys. Currently, we handle the situation by attempting to arrest them and bring them to an Iraqi court. Even when they are caught they often are not convicted and return a few weeks later and place more bombs. The solution is simple, put a sniper covering the road. Shoot a few of them in the head and suddenly the few bucks they make for placing a bomb doesn't seem worth it. We have the tech and skills to track down and kill the enemy with ruthless efficiency. We don't do it because we are paranoid about killing a few civilians. Then we turn around and bring up charges on our own troops because they broke a terrorists nose??? You can't win a war by being nice. War is an ugly business. 

 

Look at the wars we have won in the past. We killed massive numbers of civilians but to win a war the civilian population that supports the enemy needs to be defeated as well. You destroy their infrastructure and make life as miserable as possible so that they willingly throw out the enemy to improve their own lives. Using your logic there certainly would not have been a way to defeat Germany or especially Japan in WWII. The Japanese especially were fanatics willing to die for their cause and fight to the last man. A couple hundred thousand civilian deaths changed even their minds. Today, we don't even need Nukes our conventional arsenal is just as terrifying. 

 

Now, we probably wont win because I don't see our country as having the guts to do what is necessary. But it is certainly possible.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson