What Obama said tonight.... (sorry if this comes out looking like ass)

[BigRedBuster]

 

I'm going to throw out what one of the first political arguments is going to be. What's the exit plan? This was said over and over and over and over during the last few military actions by democrats who made political hay out of it. Interestingly, I haven't heard them asking the same things about this action.

That's a very good point. Honestly, I doubt that there is one. When we declared war on a tactic, terror, instead of declaring war on a country or distinct group we committed ourselves to endless war. That's why we've been constantly at war for the last ~dozen years. There isn't an endpoint . . . and there isn't even the potential for "victory."

 

Similarly, while you didn't devote too much time to it . . . where are the fiscal conservatives? Where are the investigations into waste and corruption?

 

 

But hey. There's something in this for everyone. Democrats including Obama can talk about how tough on terror they are (even while being pounded by Fox et al. for weakness/fecklessness). The military industrial complex can make billions or trillions of dollars. Middle Eastern countries who wink or outright support terrorists can demand billions in aid and assistance. Republicans like John McCain and Ted Cruz can growl about bombing _________ back into the stone age and arming every rebel who can pull a trigger. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

All while our schools, highways, and bridges crumble, our unemployment rate remains too high, our tax code needs to be overhauled, and our immigration crisis needs to be addressed. Look at that shiny explosion over there!

 

The problem I have with the entire "exit plan" argument is, you never know. We didn't go into WWI or WWII with the President then laying out a complete plan as to how we are going to get out. It is inconceivable to have a complete plan on how something like this is going to end and that is even if we are going against a country or a specific entity. Sure, we said we were going to go defeat Germany. Well, we said we were going to go defeat Saddam also.

 

Heck, we had such a great exit plan for WWII that....ummm.....we are still there. Oh...Korea we had one...oh...never mind.

 

These issues are extremely complex and strategies adjust as the situation changes. BUT, when that change is needed, one group flies to the first media outlet that will listen and claim..."AHHH HAAAA...See??? They didn't know what they were doing."

 

It's absolutely disgusting how these things transpire in the American public/political arena anymore.

[carlfense]

The problem I have with the entire "exit plan" argument is, you never know. We didn't go into WWI or WWII with the President then laying out a complete plan as to how we are going to get out. It is inconceivable to have a complete plan on how something like this is going to end and that is even if we are going against a country or a specific entity. Sure, we said we were going to go defeat Germany. Well, we said we were going to go defeat Saddam also.

I think that it's somewhat illustrative that you included WWI and WWII as examples. Given the scope and nature of those wars we eventually were left without much choice to get involved.

 

That's not remotely comparable to Iraq. Iraq was a war of choice. It wasn't necessary. We were lied to and told that it was necessary . . . but I think it should be clear to everyone that it absolutely was not. And we did have an exit plan, remember? The Iraqi people were going to welcome us as liberators and they were going to be America-light in the Middle East.

[tschu]

Let's not compare needing to fight ISIS with "well we think Saddam has weapons"

 

And this is what conflict is in the modern day - we don't just have war, and then it ends, and then we have peace. Weapons and technology are far too powerful for that to happen between two large countries without utter destruction. So large countries avoid open war at all cost...so most conflicts are either civil wars, ethnic struggles, rebellions, guerrilla-type conflicts between one small group and one large nation, where both the means and the end are totally ambiguous. Once (if) ISIS dissolves, then what? The next USA-hating group takes its place, and so on. So probably just dig in for a long, continuous involvement over there for the next couple of decades, and pray that it doesn't escalate any more.

[BigRedBuster]

Let's not compare needing to fight ISIS with "well we think Saddam has weapons"

 

 

I'm not comparing this....but, since you brought it up.

 

Saddam....well, we think he has weapons.

 

ISIS....well, we think at some point in the future they are going to try to attack us.

 

Sounds fairly similar.

[tschu]

You're conveniently leaving out the part where we knew Saddam didn't have weapons and actively created that nonsense as a ruse

[BigRedBuster]

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that when Bush was attacking people, a large part of the uproar was the fact we attacked Iraq when Iraq hadn't attacked us.

 

I don't remember ISIS attacking us.

[tschu]

They've beheaded two Americans in a very provoking fashion and made numerous threats against us. Just this week we uncovered several terrorist plots. They're also destabilizing the region to a huge degree and unlike last time, it's our fault for leaving such a void there for them to fill in the first place. This feels much more like a continuation of our involvement in a region rather than a new war being started - Bush's Iraq was a brand new thing. You can't equate the two.

[tschu]

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to get involved either, but at some point you gotta do something, or at least look like you are. These idiots are basically bluffing Obama in order to attract attention, so we had to go ahead and lay the cards down. So I guess the air strikes are fine for now. It's a mess regardless.

[BigRedBuster]

Why do you think they beheaded Americans? Do you think it was so we would leave the region or do you think it was so they could provoke us into another war?

I think it's the second option and it obviously worked.

 

So, if some group kills an American and video tapes it, we are supposed to get into an extremely expensive (both dollars and probably ultimately lives) war with them?

 

Saddam was also a destabilizing factor in the region. He had attacked his neighbors and had repeatedly shot scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia. He also had at one time chemical weapons that he used on his own people. Now, I have no clue what happened to those chemical weapons. He obviously didn't have them when we went in.

 

During all of Bush's escapades in Iraq, all I heard was how doing this produces more terrorists that want to attack us.

 

So....now we have a group that wants to attack us, they provoke us into a war by beheading two Americans. Why do you think they want us to bomb them? It's quite possibly because it makes their recruitment even easier.

 

So....one war is horrible because it produces more terrorists that hate us.

 

The other war is fine because it's fighting people who hate us.

 

Sounds like people are supporting various wars based on the politics of the person in the white house.

 

 

Oh...and I have a question....those terrorist attacks that were thwarted, what group was going to do those?

[carlfense]

Saddam was also a destabilizing factor in the region. He had attacked his neighbors and had repeatedly shot scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Maybe? I think that it would be tough to argue that the Middle East has been more stable after Saddam's regime was eliminated. He was evil . .. but quite possibly the lesser evil.

 

So....one war is horrible because it produces more terrorists that hate us.

 

The other war is fine because it's fighting people who hate us.

 

Sounds like people are supporting various wars based on the politics of the person in the white house.

Listen, BRB. I agree with your broad point that we're foolishly rushing off to war. I, too, don't really see any way that our current trajectory has a positive ending.

 

That said, you're really trying too hard to draw what looks like a false equivalency. Our current actions in Iraq and Syria are in no way comparable to W lying us into a ground war of choice. That's not really up for debate. And that's leaving aside the whole issue that the reason why we're confronting these groups that have filled the vacuum is because we chose to create that vacuum in the first place.

 

Ground invasion based on lies against a relatively stable state =/= air strikes against a terrorist organization. That doesn't mean that the latter is a good (or even better!) idea . . . but beyond that they're not particularly comparable.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Saddam was also a destabilizing factor in the region. He had attacked his neighbors and had repeatedly shot scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Maybe? I think that it would be tough to argue that the Middle East has been more stable after Saddam's regime was eliminated. He was evil . .. but quite possibly the lesser evil.

 

So....one war is horrible because it produces more terrorists that hate us.

 

The other war is fine because it's fighting people who hate us.

 

Sounds like people are supporting various wars based on the politics of the person in the white house.

Listen, BRB. I agree with your broad point that we're foolishly rushing off to war. I, too, don't really see any way that our current trajectory has a positive ending.

 

That said, you're really trying too hard to draw what looks like a false equivalency. Our current actions in Iraq and Syria are in no way comparable to W lying us into a ground war of choice. That's not really up for debate. And that's leaving aside the whole issue that the reason why we're confronting these groups that have filled the vacuum is because we chose to create that vacuum in the first place.

 

Ground invasion based on lies against a relatively stable state =/= air strikes against a terrorist organization. That doesn't mean that the latter is a good (or even better!) idea . . . but beyond that they're not particularly comparable.

 

I agree they aren't comparable directly.

 

However, some of the arguments being made as to why we need to get into this are strangely similar to what was said before we went into Iraq. Some people for some reason are supporting those reasons now when they were making arguments against it before.

 

Simply looking at the fact they haven't attacked us but they MIGHT attack us. While we were in Iraq, it was constantly harped on that we shouldn't be attacking foreign countries or groups unless they attack us. Now, all of a sudden it's OK to attack someone that "might" attack us.

 

Also, it was said over and over again that the more we do militarily in that region, the easier it is for these groups to recruit more terrorists. Well, again....why do you think they beheaded two Americans? I believe it was to provoke us to do exactly what we are doing so they can recruit easier.

 

And, again, at least the reports I'm reading, ISIS isn't the group that was planning attacks on the US. It was Khorasan Group.

 

So, the administration wants to go bomb ISIS. They start bombing them and claim...ahaaa...see, we thwarted terrorist attacks. Hmmm....well, thats great but ISIS wasn't the ones planning the attacks. Al-Qaeda and their subs groups were and they stand to gain by us taking out ISIS.

[carlfense]

However, some of the arguments being made as to why we need to get into this are strangely similar to what was said before we went into Iraq. Some people for some reason are supporting those reasons now when they were making arguments against it before.

Who?

[carlfense]

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

 

Prescient. Unless he knows something that we don't know I wish he'd re-read his own words.

[BigRedBuster]

 

However, some of the arguments being made as to why we need to get into this are strangely similar to what was said before we went into Iraq. Some people for some reason are supporting those reasons now when they were making arguments against it before.

Who?

 

I'm specifically talking about politicians and political hacks that was extremely critical of our actions before due to these arguments but now all of a sudden, they are perfectly fine with them.

[BigRedBuster]

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

 

Prescient. Unless he knows something that we don't know I wish he'd re-read his own words.

I know Saddam didn't have chemical weapons when we went in. However, I found this one part o this speech interesting.

 

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

 

I just find it ironic that he included that in his speech.