• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

It's about time, Obama! Finally, you grow a pair!

Cicero said:
"And as for national security - well, as Krugman sees things, it was not Democratic bungling in the Iranian hostage crisis or humiliation in Somalia or feeble responses to the first bombing attack on the World Trade Center or the assault on the U.S.S. Cole, but the runaway popularity of the Rambo films (I'm not making this up) that hoodwinked the public into believing that the party of Carter and Clinton (not to mention McGovern and Kucinich) might not be the most steadfast guardian of the Republic's safety..."
Click to expand...

Krugman is right in stating that people have gotten a too-simplistic idea of how military force is to be applied.

Face it, Republicans (at least the kind that go into government rather than actually put on a uniform,) have no clue about military science. The last one who knew what he was doing was Eisenhower.
 
leftysergeant said:
Krugman is right in stating that people have gotten a too-simplistic idea of how military force is to be applied.

Face it, Republicans (at least the kind that go into government rather than actually put on a uniform,) have no clue about military science. The last one who knew what he was doing was Eisenhower.
Click to expand...

Despite becoming a five star general, Ike's blunders during WWII are legendary. As POTUS, Ike also believed that the military would be mostly reliant upon nuclear weapons. Of course this was anything but accurate.

The last POTUS who served in the military with distinction was Bush 41. He managed to get Iraq out of Kuwait, even if he did leave the Gulf War unfinished.
 
Last edited:
Eisenhower? The same guy that had approved a plan for invading Cuba that was comparable to Operation Sealion in implausibility?
 
Cicero said:
Despite becoming a five star general, Ike's blunders during WWII are legendary. As POTUS, Ike also believed that the military would be mostly reliant upon nuclear weapons. Of course this was anything but accurate.

The last POTUS who served in the military with distinction was Bush 41. He did managed to get Iraq out of Kuwait, even if he did leave the Gulf War unfinished.
Click to expand...

Of course, he also gave Saddam the wink and a nod to invade Kuwait in the first place,...damn the details.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Of course, he also gave Saddam the wink and a nod to invade Kuwait in the first place,...damn the details.
Click to expand...

Perhaps U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie didn't make her boss's case clear enough, but the U.S. was never going to sit back and allow Saddam to take Kuwait by force.


"Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest." Kenneth Pollack, the New York Times, February 21, 2003
 
Regnad Kcin said:
So on each inauguration day the clock is reset? Who knew?
Click to expand...

Everybody who understood what POTUS Truman meant when he said:

TrumanBuckStopsHere.jpg
 
Cicero said:
Despite becoming a five star general, Ike's blunders during WWII are legendary. As POTUS, Ike also believed that the military would be mostly reliant upon nuclear weapons. Of course this was anything but accurate.
Click to expand...

He was going to supply strategic services to another force other than our own troops. Bad idea, but no worse idea than invading an uninvolved country when you are fighting a war against a country that has never been conquered.

The last POTUS who served in the military with distinction was Bush 41. He managed to get Iraq out of Kuwait, even if he did leave the Gulf War unfinished.
Click to expand...

The dummy had a reputation for not finishing things well.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Macedons
Mongols
Mughals
Persians
British
USSR (although the Mujihadeen relied extensively on foreign support)
Click to expand...

So which of them unified the country and made them obey international treaties without constantly fighting brush fire wars?
 
NWO Sentryman said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188404b9ec2fdb1516.gif[/qimg]

I see what you did there.
Click to expand...
Who ever incorporated it into their empire and made them pay tribute or form a government with real central power according to the dictates of the conquerer?
 
leftysergeant said:
Ermmmm....

Please explain why there is no more Soviet Union, then.
Click to expand...

188404b9ec2fdb1516.gif


The Soviet Control of Afghanistan was initially successful and they DID gain near total control of the area until the Stinger Missile shipments put the Kabosh on COIN efforts.
 
Is this the same Obama that talked about no more mudslinging and about "reaching across the isle?"

I love it when politicians bash the other, the one side always grins and cheers like idiots.

This thread is basically a liberal circle-jerk. YAAAAY GOOOBAMA WHOO HOO YEAH YOU TELL EM BARRY
 
Right, he tried reaching across the aisle for 2 years and it didn't work. It's about time he figured it out. The GOP has no interest in actually fixing the country. They just want to get control back. Their strategy is to make the government FAIL, this is evidenced by the record number of filibusters, even to policies they've supported in the past.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
The Soviet Control of Afghanistan was initially successful and they DID gain near total control of the area until the Stinger Missile shipments put the Kabosh on COIN efforts.
Click to expand...

I highlited where your argument went down the rabbit hole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom