IDBillzFan Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 There....next. That's funny. we need to stick to the principle that involvement in war is justified only by major national security risks. that criteria would have kept us out of at least 2/3 of our most recent wars. i'm reminded of a military analyst i recently saw commenting on d- day. "soldiers are the currency of war", we need to think long and hard before spending that currency and it should never be a trade of one currency for another. Weak minds spend too much time focusing on blame. We should think longer and harder about the currency after it's been spent. Regardless of why we were there, the falling of Iraq right now lands squarely on the president's shoulders as it was his specific decision to pull out against all the recommendations from people considerably smarter than him.
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 That's funny. Weak minds spend too much time focusing on blame. We should think longer and harder about the currency after it's been spent. Regardless of why we were there, the falling of Iraq right now lands squarely on the president's shoulders as it was his specific decision to pull out against all the recommendations from people considerably smarter than him. weaker minds are destined to relive history.
truth on hold Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) That's funny. Weak minds spend too much time focusing on blame. We should think longer and harder about the currency after it's been spent. Regardless of why we were there, the falling of Iraq right now lands squarely on the president's shoulders as it was his specific decision to pull out against all the recommendations from people considerably smarter than him. baloney, we couldnt afford to keep spending billions every year occupying it, with no end in sight. The mistake was destabilizing Syria, paving the way for Al Qaeda to set up shop on Syria's border with Iraq Edited June 13, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
Magox Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) we need to stick to the principle that involvement in war is justified only by major national security risks. I agree with this principle. However, how do you determine a "major national security risk"? I'm assuming 9/11 in your view, falls in this category. So what could we have done before 9/11 to have prevented this? What about the reasoning that many have, that if you create a void, it's possible that it gets filled by some characters who wish and intend to do harm to the US? Is this not a valid concern? What ISIS is attempting to do is create an Islamic caliphate, don't you think this has risks to our US security interest through out the world and even possibly here? So the question is, how do we determine what a major national security risk, and how do we go about it? The mistake was destabilizing Syria, paving the way for Al Qaeda to set up shop on Syria's border with Iraq Are you a retard or do you just pretend to be one? No, what destabilized Syria were the actions of Assad and the ones he oppressed and gassed with chemical weapons that reacted ya nitwit Edited June 13, 2014 by Magox
truth on hold Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Clearly Syria was not a national security risk. yet there we are providing weapons, training and support to "rebels". Would have been over long time ago had foreign powers, including US, stayed out. Now death toll approaching 200,000, millions of refugees, Al Qaeda using as springboard to invade Iraq ....
B-Man Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Some 'reporter' should ask the Obama administration, If our new philosophy really is "we won't help because it fosters dependency", can we apply that domestically, too? .
IDBillzFan Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Clearly Syria was not a national security risk. yet there we are providing weapons, training and support to "rebels". Would have been over long time ago had foreign powers, including US, stayed out. Now death toll approaching 200,000, millions of refugees, Al Qaeda using as springboard to invade Iraq .... Tell me...what would life be like today for all Syrians had we just stayed out?
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I agree with this principle. However, how do you determine a "major national security risk"? I'm assuming 9/11 in your view, falls in this category. So what could we have done before 9/11 to have prevented this? What about the reasoning that many have, that if you create a void, it's possible that it gets filled by some characters who wish and intend to do harm to the US? Is this not a valid concern? What ISIS is attempting to do is create an Islamic caliphate, don't you think this has risks to our US security interest through out the world and even possibly here? So the question is, how do we determine what a major national security risk, and how do we go about it? Are you a retard or do you just pretend to be one? No, what destabilized Syria were the actions of Assad and the ones he oppressed and gassed with chemical weapons that reacted ya nitwit 9/11? iraq? they weren't related then and they aren't now despite over 1/2 the population believing that they were. how did that happen?
Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Are you a retard or do you just pretend to be one? No, what destabilized Syria were the actions of Assad and the ones he oppressed and gassed with chemical weapons that reacted ya nitwit But that's our fault. We're a bad, bad country.
Tiberius Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 But that's our fault. We're a bad, bad country. Who is saying we are a bad country? Who are the ones saying our whole system is so rotten the country will fall apart?
Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Who is saying we are a bad country? The Obama administration for one. Remember the apology tour 2009? It was awesome. I dropped some acid and got a t-shirt.
Tiberius Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 The Obama administration for one. Remember the apology tour 2009? It was awesome. I dropped some acid and got a t-shirt. That's stupid. Did he we were "a bad country"?
Magox Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) 9/11? iraq? they weren't related then and they aren't now despite over 1/2 the population believing that they were. how did that happen? Did you even read what I wrote? Can you please attempt to substantively respond to the questions I posed. Edited June 13, 2014 by Magox
IDBillzFan Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Did he we were "a bad country"? You're inability to type a complete sentence is, if nothing else, consistent.
Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 That's stupid. Did he we were "a bad country"? So you're asking did he pee "we're a bad country" in the snow? I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised.
B-Large Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 we need to stick to the principle that involvement in war is justified only by major national security risks. that criteria would have kept us out of at least 2/3 of our most recent wars. i'm reminded of a military analyst i recently saw commenting on d- day. "soldiers are the currency of war", we need to think long and hard before spending that currency and it should never be a trade of one currency for another. We enbark on Trillion dollar "National Security" protection endeavors, and one of the biggest security risk is right in our own country- the border spaning from Texas to California. Heres an idea- we don't start any wars until we figure out how to protect our southern border....
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Did you even read what I wrote? Can you please attempt to substantively respond to the questions I posed. Did you even read what I wrote? Can you please attempt to substantively respond to the questions I posed. you linked the 2. power vacuums are ubiquitous throughout the globe. while they may represent a relative security threat, they can't reasonably preemptively be filled as we are witnessing.
Nanker Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 We enbark on Trillion dollar "National Security" protection endeavors, and one of the biggest security risk is right in our own country- the border spaning from Texas to California. Heres an idea- we don't start any wars until we figure out how to protect our southern border.... RACIST!
Magox Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) power vacuums are ubiquitous throughout the globe. while they may represent a relative security threat, they can't reasonably preemptively be filled as we are witnessing. I think that answers it. In other words your foreign policy on this matter can fairly be characterized as - Create a vaccum and whatever happens, happens *fingers crossed* - Edited June 13, 2014 by Magox
Nanker Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I think that answers it. In other words your foreign policy on this matter can fairly be characterized as - Create a vaccum and whatever happens, happens *fingers crossed* - That's the current administration's position. From Morning Joe & Mika: David ignatius' response to Dan Henninger's "While Obama Fiddles..."
Recommended Posts