Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206805/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

i didn't have too much of a problem when the obama/clinton said they wouldn't put US troops in harm's way but now they're apparently not being used in just a support role (AWACs and air-to-air refueling). a US aircraft went down (albeit due to mechanical difficulties and not enemy fire) OVER libya... although i didn't vote for him, i certainly do remember a certain campaign stance that his goal was to pull out our troops from wars in muslim countries and not to send them to more. i support our troops and the justification for war in afghanistan (not so much in iraq but i'll leave that for another thread); we certainly don't need another front to fight on.

IIRC, it was Iraq he wanted out of specifically. Over here we get the impression that he's not that keen on the whole Libya thing and is trying to give control to ourselves and the French.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"

Barack Obama, 2007

I think his campaign IIRC was to get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan.

Monster Rain wrote:“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"

Barack Obama, 2007

unilaterally... pfft! hillary ok'ed it too so that makes two and that largely invisible biden guy probably rubber stamped it too. i guess its ok to criticize republicans for joining/starting military actions yet still ok to do it yourself. i'm sure the US media will cover this about-face in the fair and just fashion that they did during the election (i.e. worshipping at the altar of the obama-ssiah).

To be fair he does have a UN resolution for it this time and it's quite obvious he really doesn't want to be involved.

Well, as you guys all know, things change on a day to day basis. New threats pop up that need quelling, but that's all I'm going to say about that, because I haven't really been paying attention to the fighting going on right now.

Two things you need to know about Obama, though:

1) He's a politician.

2) He's a liar.

Though that's really only one thing......

Can I say this is typical, though? Remember with the health care bill, he stressed, over and over "Covering all these people will NOT increase the cost of coverage!". Bill passes, and he states "Well yeah the cost is going to increase, we are adding alot of people to be covered, how can the cost NOT increase!?"

First off, we're conducting an air campaign, not putting troops on the ground. (Yet)

In terms of Obama: He's a politician! And, he had little to no experience! And, he's from Chicago! That means that at best, he was naive, and at worst, outright bribed his way into office.

But, that's what you get from our election process. Incredibly complex issues (like health care, or defense policy) needs to get boiled down to a single sound bite. No one is capable of accurately describing what they'd do in office. You'd need to go into an enormous amount of detail to get the mouth-breathers to understand that issues aren't all black and white. And, while you're doing that, your opponent will just be mocking you all the way to the victory.

Yes, elections are very much popularity contests, or in our case the person who we hate the least.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I believe the Obama message was around withdrawal from the Iraq and Afghani campaigns, which at the time were clearly in difficulty and people wanted shot of them.

Obviously as history rolls on, new opportunities and dangers present themselves, and must be dealt with.

It would be a foolish president who failed to adapt his foreign and if necessary military policy to changing world conditions.

Actually, if you parse his language, he's actually correct. The power to authorize military attacks unilaterally comes from legislation and precedent, not the constitution.

there is a big difference between "not having the power under the Constitution" and "being forbidden by the Constitution."

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I believe the Obama message was around withdrawal from the Iraq and Afghani campaigns, which at the time were clearly in difficulty and people wanted shot of them.

Obviously as history rolls on, new opportunities and dangers present themselves, and must be dealt with.

It would be a foolish president who failed to adapt his foreign and if necessary military policy to changing world conditions.

He campaigned on escalating in Afghanistan, not withdrawing.

There has been escalation in Afghanistan.

(Off topic; I don't think we British are terribly keen on it, but we hate it less than we hated Iraq.)

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I believe the Obama message was around withdrawal from the Iraq and Afghani campaigns, which at the time were clearly in difficulty and people wanted shot of them.

Obviously as history rolls on, new opportunities and dangers present themselves, and must be dealt with.

It would be a foolish president who failed to adapt his foreign and if necessary military policy to changing world conditions.

there's a difference between adapting foreign policy and doing a complete about-face regarding the issue that was arguably tied for his biggest campaign platform idea (the other being the economy). i support the deployment (with the obvious risking of US lives) of US troops when combating something that is an immiment threat to the US (which was the case in afghanistan but not iraq); there is ZERO threat from libya in that regard. i'm all for supporting the rebels financially and politically in a grand, worldwide effort to promote democracy but not in risking US lives there. he did support a surge in afghanistan but its a hard politcal sell to NOT support the fight against the same organization that actually attacked us.

either way, its pretty amazing that someone with his experience is "tweaking" his position once he encounters actual new world conflict; you'd think all that experience as a community organizer and 2 years as a freshman senator would have prepared him better for the role as the single most powerful person on the planet. [/sarcasm] either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

warboss wrote:either way, its pretty amazing that someone with his experience is "tweaking" his position once he encounters actual world conflict; you'd think all that experience as a community organizer and 2 years as a freshman senator would have prepared him better for the role as the single most powerful person on the planet. [/sarcasm] either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

I think you've snarkily hit the nail on the head: he didn't know everything when he said what he said. Everybody has ideas about a job before they take it, and rarely are they 100% correct.

I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

The other difference is that the Obama is a politician by trade, but he holds the office of the Soveriegn. There are simply demands on the US that have to met, regardless of his personal thoughts.

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw.

When a man has principles, he doesn't need to change his mind! He know's what's right from the start!

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw.

When a man has principles, he doesn't need to change his mind! He know's what's right from the start!

Even principles change when responsibilities change. I know men who wouldn't hurt a fly normally but would commit untold violence to protect their children.

Being personally responsible for a nation will change the way you view principles.

This isn't to say that Obama is somehow not a shifty politician that lucked his way into the White House.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw.

When a man has principles, he doesn't need to change his mind! He know's what's right from the start!

Hitler had principles and stuck to them right to the end.

To err is human.

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

It would seem it is only a character flaw in people you thought were flawed to begin with. It's confirmation bias, and it is nifty. Part of being President (or human really) is having to do things you originally might have been against but realize that the reality of a situation requires it. Raising taxes cost Bush Sr. re-election but he was right to do it even though he had promised not to becuase the reality of the situation called for a tax raise. The alternative was much more problematic and he recognized. Campaign in poetry, but govern in prose, as it were.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

I'm interested in how you feel that Romney's switch (right before the primaries) wasn't for gain, while Obama's was. I'm genuinely interested.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

As stated a number of times above, getting involved does Obama no favours whatsoever. The only political reason would be to stabilise one of the world's oil producers but obviously he can't say that's what he's doing, so no benefit there either.

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

Of course not. This action is angering and pleasing people on both sides of the aisle; truly a bi-partisan action.

This is a surprise?

Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his presidency, but after being elected, it changed within a few weeks of him taking office to "thinking about removing some troops within 23 months".

Remember, the president is not the man in power. There are far more people working the shadows that dictate things, mainly both political parties (which at the highest level are just a single political party anyway) and the World Bank.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you elect. It is all one political party with agendas not known to the public.

I'm just saying don't blame obama for being a liar, that just comes with the political territory of being a puppet.

So no, it is not your imagination. Just about everything Obama campaigned for turned out to be a lie, but as I said, what president hasn't? What elected official in high seat positions haven't?

It's politics. It's another day.

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

Yes. Next question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BuFFo wrote:This is a surprise?

Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his presidency, but after being elected, it changed within a few weeks of him taking office to "thinking about removing some troops within 23 months".

Remember, the president is not the man in power. There are far more people working the shadows that dictate things, mainly both political parties (which at the highest level are just a single political party anyway) and the World Bank.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you elect. It is all one political party with agendas not known to the public.

I'm just saying don't blame obama for being a liar, that just comes with the political territory of being a puppet.

So no, it is not your imagination. Just about everything Obama campaigned for turned out to be a lie, but as I said, what president hasn't? What elected official in high seat positions haven't?

It's politics. It's another day.

Oh is it time for this thread again?

CT GAMER wrote:Oh is it time for this thread again?

Lol, you can't have a war going on (especially a new one) and not have the whys and wherefores debated on Dakka (or indeed the internet at large).

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

Depends on what you mean by conservatives. Traditional conservatives will like it on the theory of interventionism in the defense of democracy, neocons will like it because neocons just flat out like war. On the other hand much of the right these days has been more caught up in The Con than usual, and will oppose this simply because its a Democrat president doing it.

Seems you are the only conservative who's glad, because to be anything else might indicate that some thin veil of common ground with that terrible undercover muslim in the Whitehouse might have been achieved and that would immediately mark you as a filthy nazicommunistsocialistislamicblackpresidentlover.

Far better to do nothing whilst civilians are being bombed back into the stone age than actually agree with the Great Satan masquerading as President...

And lets forget that all those crowing over Obama sending in aircraft and missiles against Colonel 'remember Lockerbie' Gaddafi were spanking themselves into a frenzy of joy when GeeDubYa rolled into Iraq for those WMDs...

So lets gloss over the opportunity presented to oust one of the major bad guys of the world because he's using his military to liquidate his own civilian population and instead concentrate on making sure that whatever Obama does, whenever he does it, that you take an opposing stance, because you didn't vote for him and Rush Limbaugh told you he was a bad man trying to steal money from those nice pharmaceutical corporations...

Also, minor footnote but the plane ditched due to mechanical failure.