Obama Sinks Deeper into the Quagmire of his Own Making
Jigsaw1695
Do you ever wonder why Obama hasn’t pulled the troops out of
Afghanistan as he promised during his election campaign?
The answer is not complicated at all. He is downright worried about
the majority of people not liking him.
His problem is that if he ends the fighting in Afghanistan thousands
upon thousands of troops will come home, get discharged and go back
into the work force.
The problem is that the industries involved in production of military
equipment and technology will already have laid off thousands of
employees into an unemployed population. And there is nothing like
rampant unemployment to destroy a president.
Does that mean Obama will send more troops to the Mideast? Only time
will tell, but the odds are on the side that gives Obama a personal
winning advantage regardless of what it does to the country.
Jigsaw
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Before you were all for having US troops committed to the Middle East.
Has your opinion changed? If so, why?
I think that you've painted yourself into a corner here, Jiggy. If it
was a good idea before and still a good idea then Obama may well be
doing the right thing. If it was a bad idea before and a good idea now
then Obama was right before and right now. If it was a bad idea before
and a bad idea now then Obama was right for almost the whole time and
has now mis-stepped.
In fact, the only way that Obama could have been wrong all along is if
it was a good idea before and has suddenly become a bad idea. I do hope
that you realise just how wildly implausible that scenario is ...
--
The Professor: Ha! A Dolphin! Well I'll be buggered.
Satan: Never say that in Hell, Prof.
- Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Jigsaw1695 wrote:
>
> Do you ever wonder why Obama hasn�t pulled the troops out of
> Afghanistan as he promised during his election campaign?
>
Because he was willing to say things to get elected that he
wouldn't do as actual policy?
> The answer is not complicated at all. He is downright worried about
> the majority of people not liking him.
>
> His problem is that if he ends the fighting in Afghanistan thousands
> upon thousands of troops will come home, get discharged and go back
> into the work force.
>
While that would raise the unemployment rate a bit, I suspect that
the facts on the ground in Afghanistan and what would happen if it
was given back to bin Laden are more of a driving force.
> The problem is that the industries involved in production of military
> equipment and technology will already have laid off thousands of
> employees into an unemployed population. And there is nothing like
> rampant unemployment to destroy a president.
>
Watergate was better.
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
> Philip 'Shit-For-Brains' Bruzzichesi <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Do you ever wonder why Obama hasn't pulled the troops out of
>> Afghanistan as he promised during his election campaign?
> Before you were all for having US troops committed to the Middle East.
> Has your opinion changed? If so, why?
Because a black man is in the White House now.
Those with long memories will perhaps recall the exchange between Hugh
Neary and Super-Retard, when the Retard was asked if he considered Iraq a
threat. His response: 'yes'.
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
AADP's 'left-wing Israeli intellectual'
'The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of
one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that
oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the
beginning if it is to be stopped at all'
(H.L. Mencken)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Mr Jigsaw is saying, it seems to me, that the choice that Obama
will make will be motivated by what it does for his poll numbers
and not the law term US interest. You didn't really respond to that
claim.
Jigsaw1695
Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmmm...... apprently you didnt read the first sentence as it is not a
statement, it is a question. Please refer to your fifth grade text
book for the definition of the difference between a "statement" and a
"question" and what each infers.
However, I can understand your problem of interrpretation as you are a
socialist and read, hear and see only what you want to.
Jigsaw
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
wrote:
> Hmmmm...... apprently you didnt read the first sentence as it is not a
> statement, it is a question. Please refer to your fifth grade text
> book for the definition of the difference between a "statement" and a
> "question" and what each infers.
Please go and learn what 'infer' means.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> On Nov 23, 11:18?am, dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net (Mr
> Q. Z. Diablo) wrote:
> > Jigsaw1695 <Jigsaw1...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Do you ever wonder why Obama hasn't pulled the troops out of
> > > Afghanistan as he promised during his election campaign?
> >
> > > The answer is not complicated at all. He is downright worried about
> > > the majority of people not liking him.
> >
> > > His problem is that if he ends the fighting in Afghanistan thousands
> > > upon thousands of troops will come home, get discharged and go back
> > > into the work force.
> >
> > > The problem is that the industries involved in production of military
> > > equipment and technology will already have laid off thousands of
> > > employees into an unemployed population. And there is nothing like
> > > rampant unemployment to destroy a president.
> >
> > > Does that mean Obama will send more troops to the Mideast? Only time
> > > will tell, but the odds are on the side that gives Obama a personal
> > > winning advantage regardless of what it does to the country.
> >
> > Before you were all for having US troops committed to the Middle East.
> > Has your opinion changed? ?If so, why?
> >
> > I think that you've painted yourself into a corner here, Jiggy. ?If it
> > was a good idea before and still a good idea then Obama may well be
> > doing the right thing. ?If it was a bad idea before and a good idea now
> > then Obama was right before and right now. ?If it was a bad idea before
> > and a bad idea now then Obama was right for almost the whole time and
> > has now mis-stepped.
> >
> > In fact, the only way that Obama could have been wrong all along is if
> > it was a good idea before and has suddenly become a bad idea. ?I do hope
> > that you realise just how wildly implausible that scenario is ...
> >
> > --
> > The Professor: Ha! ?A Dolphin! ?Well I'll be buggered.
> > Satan: Never say that in Hell, Prof.
> > - Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hmmmm...... apprently you didnt read the first sentence as it is not a
> statement, it is a question. Please refer to your fifth grade text
> book for the definition of the difference between a "statement" and a
> "question" and what each infers.
Perhaps you might care to obtain a dictionary, Jiggy, and look up
"infer".
You might also want to look up "nuance" while you're at it as you appear
to have missed the nuance in my post.
> However, I can understand your problem of interrpretation as you are a
> socialist and read, hear and see only what you want to.
Pot.
Kettle.
Pitchy, pitch black.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
He'll do what he thinks is right, Bill. The problem is that he's a
ditherer, most probably because he appears to be very poor at
delegating. At present, it's anybody's guess as to what he decides is
the right thing.
Of course, the sensible amongst us know full well that getting the fuck
out of Dodge is the only sane response.
PJ O'Donovan
<...Of course, the sensible amongst us know full well that getting the
fuck
out of Dodge is the only sane response. ..
Diablow>
Obama plans to send 34,000
more troops to Afghanistan
McClatchy, by Jonathan S. Landay
Original Article
Posted , 11/24/2009 4:28:14 AM
WASHINGTON — "President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his
national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000
additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war
of necessity" in Afghanistan,...."
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
And Obama is wrong about this, Peabrain. You may be dogmatic, unbending
and and ideologue but I am not.
John Rennie
was his speeches during his campaign where he spun out very much the
same rhetoric re Afghanistan as the Bush administration that alerted me
to the fact that he would be just another American President or as you
have posted, a mediocre president. As I responded to 'normal' Mike,
the best thing about Obama's election was the election result. I knew it
would be much the same story, except for the health bill, that
Washington has been spilling for years.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
> > and not the long term US interest. You didn't really respond to that
> > claim.
>
> He'll do what he thinks is right, Bill. The problem is that he's a
> ditherer, most probably because he appears to be very poor at
> delegating.
>
You think he's got Clintonitise? Bush was good at making decisions.
Even if you disagree with them, he made them. Sometimes it's better
to just move forward, to hell with what choice is made. It's like
you are taking fire and will be overrun by dawn and someone steps
up and says we are going this way, we could go that way or that way
but we're going this and and we are doing it now. That is
leadership. Sometimes leadership is wrong but it is decisive every
time.
> At present, it's anybody's guess as to what he decides is
> the right thing.
>
I don't believe he's actively choosing himself over the long term
US interest. I think he cares about himself, but I don't think he's
evil. So I have to part with those who ascribe such to him.
> Of course, the sensible amongst us know full well that getting the fuck
> out of Dodge is the only sane response.
>
You mean Afghanistan? If the US leaves, it gives that place to
Osama. Meanwhile he'll expand his control of Pakistan and probably
it will fail. I don't see any way out right now. That Iraq seems to
be calming down is a good thing. It's also a wild coincidence that
people shouldn't dismiss lightly. I think that the turmoil in Iraq
had at least some direction from bin Laden. I think that bin Laden
has decided that that's hopeless and to concentrate on Afghanistan.
You'll notice that IEDs started getting real bad in Afghanistan
about the time they became less of a problem in Iraq.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
That'll be the politician's syllogism.
Premise: We must do something.
Premise: This is something.
Conslusion: Therefore we must do this.
Obvious nonsense.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
But that's not the actual argument I was making. I know that it's
not true that we must do something therefore we must do this
something. But leadership says that this is where I'm leading you,
get up and let's go there. Leadership can be wrong, so the "obvious
nonsense" you submit is non-applicable.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
It's exactly the argument you were making, you kook.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:51:11 +0000
> Subject: Re: Obama Sinks Deeper into the Quagmire of his Own Making
So do tell us now about the charge of the Light Brigade. Here's what
Wikipedia says about that one:
The Charge of the Light Brigade was a disastrous charge of British cavalry
led by Lord Cardigan against Russian forces during the Battle of Balaclava
on 25 October 1854 in the Crimean War. It is best remembered as the subject
of a famous poem entitled The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord
Tennyson, whose lines have made the charge a symbol of warfare at both its
most courageous and its most tragic.
A similar leadership event occurred during World War I under the leadership
of French general Robert Georges Nivelle. Here is what Wikipedia has to say
about him:
Robert Georges Nivelle (15 October 1856 � 22 March 1924) was a French
artillery officer who served in the Boxer Rebellion, and the First World
War. He took command of one of the main French armies engaged in the Battle
of Verdun, leading it during its successful counter-offensives against the
Germans, but was accused of wasting French lives during some of his attacks.
He became Commander-in-Chief of the French armies on the Western Front in
December 1916, and was criticised in that capacity for not exploiting good
opportunities to attack the Germans. He was responsible for the Nivelle
Offensive, which faced a very large degree of opposition during its planning
stage. When the offensive failed to achieve a breakthrough on the Western
Front, Nivelle was replaced as Commander-in-Chief.
So when you say, "But leadership says that this is where I'm leading you,
get up and let's go there," this seems to me to be subject to considerable
criticism. Leadership also needs to do some thinking before rushing in
headlong and ordering everyone else to "get up and let's go there".
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
There's a poem, at least one, in "Leaves of Grass" dealing with
that. There's also one where they are battling on ships and they
are just about to lose, everything is shot up and they are taking
on water but then the other side gives up. They were bad, but their
opponents were worse.
Also, two films:
"Glory", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/ .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_%28film%29#Historical_Accuracy
#begin quote
# The manner in which Colonel Shaw dies in the movie is based on
fact. His final words were "Forward, Fifty-fourth!" before he was
shot several times in the chest. The film depicts him falling on
the parapet; in fact, he made it to the top, and his body fell into
the fort.[4]
# The final scene of the film shows Shaw's body being thrown into
the burial pit alongside his fallen men. This is historically
accurate, although his body was first stripped of its uniform;[5]
in the film, only his shoes and socks are missing. In addition, he
was thrown in first and his soldiers were buried on top of him.
When Shaw's parents inquired about his body, the Confederate
commander responded, "We buried him with his niggers." It seems to
have been intended as an insult, but Shaw's father later said that
he was proud that his son was buried with his men.[2] After the
war, Shaw's parents visited the site of Fort Wagner, where their
son was buried. The commander of a U.S. Army unit that was
stationed at the wreckage of the fort offered to dig up the mass
grave to find and remove Shaw's body so that it could be taken home
for burial. Shaw's parents refused the offer, saying they could
think of no better place for their son to be buried than with the
soldiers he had commanded.
...
# In the movie, Shaw appears surprised when the men refuse pay that
was reduced because they are a "colored" regiment (though he
eventually joins them in their refusal). In reality, the refusal
was his idea, and he encouraged them to do it.
# In the film, Colonel Shaw volunteers his regiment for leading the
charge. In reality, General Strong asked Shaw if he wanted to lead
the charge. Although Shaw could have declined because his regiment
was tired and hungry, he accepted because "if black men could storm
the fort and open the door to the birthplace of the rebellion, the
symbolism would be enormous."[6]
#end quote
And "Paths of Glory" (1957),
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050825/
#begin quote
An arrogant French general (a superb George Macready) orders his
men on a suicide mission and then has the gall to try to court
marshal and execute three of them for cowardice in the face of the
enemy. A former lawyer turned colonel (Kirk Douglas in his prime)
is the voice of reason against gross injustice. This excellently
staged and wonderfully acted production is as much an acting
showcase for Douglas as it is a directorial masterstroke by a young
Stanley Kubrick who adapted this to the screen from a novel based
on actual accounts.
...
Ultimately, this holds up very well to modern scrutiny thanks to
... the surprising depth of its philosophical and psychological
pondering. "Paths of Glory" is more anti-arrogance than anti-war,
and is unapologetically sentimental and pro-soldier. As such, much
can still be gleaned from its message.
#end quote
Pondering all right, note that it's "paths", plural. Sometimes it's
the right thing to stand up to insane leadership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paths_of_glory
#begin quote
The attack on the German position proceeds, beginning with a first
wave of soldiers, and with Colonel Dax leading, but ends in
complete failure. None of the men who attack reach the German
trenches, and one-third of the soldiers (B Company) refuse to even
leave the trench because of heavy enemy fire. General Mireau,
enraged, is convinced that his troops who remained in the trench
are cowardly, and orders his own artillery to open fire on them to
force them onto the battlefield. The artillery commander refuses to
fire on his own men without written confirmation of the orders.
Colonel Dax returns to the trenches, visibly disgusted that B
Company under the command of Lt. Roget is staying in cover instead
of charging along with rest of the men. Dax quickly tries to rally
B Company to join the battle, but when he climbs up a trench
ladder, a retreating French soldier from his own company knocks him
down, demonstrating that all of his men have now given up on the
charge and the attack has already failed.
As a result of the failure of the attack, General Mireau tries to
transfer blame from himself to the soldiers, so he decides to
publicly execute 100 of them as an example. General Broulard
convinces Mireau to reduce the number to three, one from each
company. Corporal Paris is chosen because his commanding officer,
Lt. Roget (the one who had thrown a grenade earlier), has a
personal vendetta against him. Private Ferol (Timothy Carey) is
picked by his commanding officer because he is a "social
undesirable." The last man, Private Arnaud (Joe Turkel), is chosen
randomly by lot, despite being one of the best and most courageous
soldiers.
#end quote
> A similar leadership event occurred during World War I under the leadership
> of French general Robert Georges Nivelle. Here is what Wikipedia has to say
> about him:
>
> Robert Georges Nivelle (15 October 1856 � 22 March 1924) was a French
> artillery officer who served in the Boxer Rebellion, and the First World
> War. He took command of one of the main French armies engaged in the Battle
> of Verdun, leading it during its successful counter-offensives against the
> Germans, but was accused of wasting French lives during some of his attacks.
> He became Commander-in-Chief of the French armies on the Western Front in
> December 1916, and was criticised in that capacity for not exploiting good
> opportunities to attack the Germans. He was responsible for the Nivelle
> Offensive, which faced a very large degree of opposition during its planning
> stage. When the offensive failed to achieve a breakthrough on the Western
> Front, Nivelle was replaced as Commander-in-Chief.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9raud_R%C3%A9veilhac
#begin quote
G�raud Fran�ois Gustave R�veilhac (16 February 1851 in Aurillac
(France) - 1937[2] ) was a French career officer, raised to the
rank of G�n�ral de brigade on December 21, 1909,[2] commanding
officer of the 42nd Infantry Brigade, he was then Commandeur of the
L�gion d'honneur.
At the beginning of World War I, he was commanding the 119th
Infantry Brigade, part of the 60th Infantry Division, under General
Jopp�[3] whom he replaced on September 25, 1914 as commanding
officer of the division.
In February 1915, after three attempts to take a strong German
position failed, showing sovereign contempt of the life of his
men,[4] he ordered artillery to shell a French trench, to force his
troops to attack. However, the artillery commander refused to obey
without a written order. On another occasion, he ordered his troops
to relaunch an attack pretending the percentage of acceptable
losses had not been reached for that day. The movie Paths of Glory
is partly based on these events.
At the end of the war, General R�veilhac was made Grand Officier of
the L�gion d'honneur.[5] He retired to his country estate, and died
in bed in 1937.
#end quote
> So when you say, "But leadership says that this is where I'm leading you,
> get up and let's go there," this seems to me to be subject to considerable
> criticism. Leadership also needs to do some thinking before rushing in
> headlong and ordering everyone else to "get up and let's go there".
>
Of course leadership has to think. This is the balance that is
required. I believe that Clinton was a poor president because he
couldn't make the hard decisions before he was forced to make them.
This is why he vacillated and couldn't decide what to do about
Afghanistan and bin Laden. A leader leads. He might make the wrong
decisions, but he makes decisions and he accepts that his decisions
are his responsibility.
Both Presidents Bush knew this and they could make tough decisions.
I think that Obama is somewhere between Clinton and the Bushes. I
would hope that he's not another Clinton because the United States
(and the world) can't afford a president who can't decide.