Obama 2012

The place for chat about anything not related to language.

Re: Obama 2012

Postby Talib » Sun 21 Feb 2010 8:46 pm

He didn't all that badly...
His approval ratings seem to indicate so.
Something that he did not do, was put Muslim/Arab-Americans into concentration camps like the Japanese were during WWII.
I don't get it. Should he have done this? Was there ever any reason to believe he would have?
While met with anger at home, he launched a war in Iraq that freed millions of Iraqis from an oppressive dictator.
And plunged them into a civil war that has caused millions of deaths and displaced persons.
His Afghan War, was a response to al-Qaeda which was believed/was residing in the country.
And they're still there.

I have no interest in a really long and protracted political argument (I have other outlets for that) but I think it's important to look at the other side of things. Bush may have had good intentions at first; I don't doubt that. But he failed to achieve tangible results.
العربية * 中文 * English * Français * Русский * Português * Español * हिन्दी/اردو * Deutsch * 日本語
Talib
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: Obama 2012

Postby Stosis » Mon 22 Feb 2010 5:24 am

I think that Obama will get a second term. People might be angry but if I understand America's politcal system, if Obama doesn't win then a Republican will. I think enough people are tired of them by now.
Stosis
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 11:32 am

Re: Obama 2012

Postby formiko » Tue 23 Feb 2010 6:42 am

Stosis wrote:I think that Obama will get a second term. People might be angry but if I understand America's politcal system, if Obama doesn't win then a Republican will. I think enough people are tired of them by now.

The trend for the past 200 years is to vote in a Republican who is tight with the money, keeps the budget, keeps taxes low and wins wars. After a republican, they ALWAYS vote in a democrat, because democrats have more of a heart, but they end up bankrupting the nation, and we get our buts kicked in war (or spend so much money fighting it, that it would have been better to lose). After WWII, and the Civil War we had democrats to rebuild the country and have more social awareness, then we vote in a republican after we've spent all our money :) Americans inherently WANT a Democrat, but we NEED a Republican. That's the way it's been since George Washington. There's a fragile dichotomy within every American. We all know we need universal health care, and we need to help the Haitians, but after we do those things, we like to tighten our belts. I think we Americans do that in our real life too. We want to help the battered, divorced mother, but THEN we want the flat screen. :roll:
ᏙᏒᏓᎵ ᏗᏑᎶ ᎭᏫ
User avatar
formiko
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:31 am
Location: Angola

Re: Obama 2012

Postby Talib » Tue 23 Feb 2010 8:20 am

It was a Democratic president who won WWII and a Republican who lost Vietnam.
but they end up bankrupting the nation, and we get our buts kicked in war (or spend so much money fighting it, that it would have been better to lose)
Isn't this exactly what Republicans just did?
العربية * 中文 * English * Français * Русский * Português * Español * हिन्दी/اردو * Deutsch * 日本語
Talib
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am
Location: Canada

Re: Obama 2012

Postby formiko » Wed 24 Feb 2010 6:08 am

Talib wrote:It was a Democratic president who won WWII and a Republican who lost Vietnam

Actually, the parties switched sides since the mid 1880's. Democrats became the new Republicans. :)
But Am. History was not my calling, so I am not emphatic about the statements made.
ᏙᏒᏓᎵ ᏗᏑᎶ ᎭᏫ
User avatar
formiko
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:31 am
Location: Angola

Re: Obama 2012

Postby Yaziq » Wed 24 Feb 2010 6:21 pm

Democrats could never claim that they wanted to win in Viet Nam and were very critical of LBJ's efforts in that country, so when President Ford allowed the South to be defeated there were no Democratic objections. We had simply become exhausted with all those years of fighting and bombing.
Yaziq
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 5:58 pm

Re: Obama 2012

Postby telal » Sat 27 Feb 2010 12:50 am

point of order:

no president or political party has ever 'won a war' that claim goes to the military members who were actually involved

remember presidents take a monstrous amount of advice from chief military advisers

political parties, per se, aren't involved at all in military decisions

please...continue
לא משנה
User avatar
telal
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Obama 2012

Postby Yaziq » Sat 27 Feb 2010 7:27 pm

I don't think there is such a wall of separation between the political and military spheres. If there were such a wall, we would have won that war, since we had an overwhelming technological advantage. I once met a veteran who commanded a PT boat on a river in Viet Nam and he told me that there were some zones along the river where he was under orders not to fire back when fired upon. All he could do was position the boat to minimize exposure to the incoming bullets. Remember that back in the Korean war MacArthur tried to do his own thing and was sacked by Truman.
Yaziq
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 5:58 pm

Re: Obama 2012

Postby telal » Tue 02 Mar 2010 1:37 pm

i think you might be confusing national politics, international politics and internal military politics

while these tend to be influenced by each of the others, they do have independent axises

also, Truman dismissed MacArthur for direct insubordination and for publicly denouncing the American strategy in Korea

this does not mean that Truman won the war
לא משנה
User avatar
telal
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Obama 2012

Postby Yaziq » Wed 03 Mar 2010 6:50 pm

My general point in all this is that when we become involved in wars that are not formally declared according to the Constitution we become bogged down in these conflicts and that "mission creep" sets in. It really doesn't matter which political party the President belongs to. Generally speaking, the Democratic party has a dovish tilt and the Republican party has a hawkish tilt. But this doesn't allow one to predict what decisions a President from either party will make in the conduct of one these "police actions". For instance, I've heard that Obama is killing more Al-Qaida or Taliban members per month by ordering the use of lethal drone rockets than the "hawkish" Bush did. Somehow the doves in the Democratic party are not affecting him as they would like. This kind of war can't be fought with only military tactics in mind. Various political agendas come into play and act to frustrate a sound military strategy. I am thinking of the failure of Bush to capture Bin Ladin at Tora-Bora as an example. It seems that simply being willing to engage in a conflict without any prospect of clear victory is what matters to today's politician. We don't want to be seen abandoning these projects.
Yaziq
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 5:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests