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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Whoever said politicians were leaders? Thats only a rare coincidence.

The job of a politician is to retain and gain more personal power.

Well... true. We can only blame ourselves (as voters).

Maybe I need to take off my rose-colored glasses once in awhile.

 whembly wrote:
In other words, you should only oppose a military action or policy because you think it is genuinely a bad idea, and not because your constituents demand it or you see any other political advantage in it.

I would prefer if the elected representatives, emphasis on representatives, in fact did the will of their constituents....

 whembly wrote:
Well... true. We can only blame ourselves (as voters).

and it sounds like you do, too.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
In other words, you should only oppose a military action or policy because you think it is genuinely a bad idea, and not because your constituents demand it or you see any other political advantage in it.

I would prefer if the elected representatives, emphasis on representatives, in fact did the will of their constituents....

There's a delicate balance... no?

No one knows what's it like to be a President or any "leadership" position for that matter.

I elect/hire my leaders to do the right thing that is tempered by the will of the constiuents.

Just like a CEO takes the company in a direction that is tempered by the will of the board... right.

That's why they're paid bookoo bucks to begin with...eh?

 whembly wrote:
Well... true. We can only blame ourselves (as voters).

and it sounds like you do, too.

Kinda...

I dont think its fair to blame voters...

when all you have to vote for is a turd sammich vs a giant douche, whats the point?

what if I dont want to give my peice of the power away to a rep?


in this day and age, it is perfectly possible to have 300million + votes on everything, and im sure the general public is just as able to not read the things they vote on as the currect house/senate/parlament/ect do....

why pay 30-100 guys (depends on country and level of government you are at OFC) to not read a bill/law that they might show up to vote on, when everyone can already do this themselves....

 whembly wrote:
No one knows what's it like to be a President or any "leadership" position for that matter.

I elect/hire my leaders to do the right thing that is tempered by the will of the constiuents.

Just like a CEO takes the company in a direction that is tempered by the will of the board... right.

Whembly, please never compare a President with a CEO again. We really don't want Government being run like a business.

 whembly wrote:
I would prefer if the elected representatives, emphasis on representatives, in fact did the will of their constituents....

There's a delicate balance... no?

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No one knows what's it like to be a President or any "leadership" position for that matter.

I elect/hire my leaders to do the right thing that is tempered by the will of the constiuents.

Just like a CEO takes the company in a direction that is tempered by the will of the board... right.

Whembly, please never compare a President with a CEO again. We really don't want Government being run like a business.

O.o

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying a CEO is the Executive Leadership for the company that is answerable to the board.... right?

I'm saying that a President is the Executive Leadership for our government that is answerable to voters... right?

It's not a stretch to compare the two... as both is a fething human being who has to shape their executive policies based on THEIR own belief/experiences that is tempered by whom they answer to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I would prefer if the elected representatives, emphasis on representatives, in fact did the will of their constituents....

There's a delicate balance... no?

Yes, I agree with that, but your previous post didn't calculate that element as much as I would have.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:
In other words, you should only oppose a military action or policy because you think it is genuinely a bad idea, and not because your constituents demand it or you see any other political advantage in it.

What a surprise, I'm not argeeing with Whembly. If you are an elected official you need to oppose something if your constituents demand that you oppose it.

Over the right thing? You know... being a leader is also doing the right thing, even if it's unpopular. It's up to the politician to convince the constituents.

So, in other words, you're advocating for robots in these leadership positions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Less than nothing. Iraq was a lot more stable and less violent when Saddam was in charge.

Um... it was a dictatorship.

I'd argue that those who lived that would reject that premise Killkrazy.

Are the terrorist gassing whole towns?

Our war aims were to remove the WMDs, reduce terrorism, and stabilise the region.

We failed very badly.

Actually, the war aim was to remove the Saddam regime. You are kind of adding in the other things.

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

People always gloss over what the #1 objective of Operation Iraqi Freedom was.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/04/operation-iraqi-freedom-military-objectives-met

Those were the 8 objectives of the operation, they were clearly stated from the get go.

Of those 8, the 5 were clearly met. 2 of them, the ones regarding WMD's can be considered to be succesful, given we ensured Iraq does not have them, but we know what people will argue to the contrary. The last was met with mixed success since yes we did capture plenty of terrorists, and delivered powerful blows to multiple organizations, in the end we were unable to completely dismantle many groups.

 Ahtman wrote:
"I respect the office but not the man" sounds a lot like "I support the troops but not the mission".

To me, and to put it into military terms, its exactly like saying "I respect the rank, not the person wearing it"

Because for many of us, having served under multiple Presidents, there were guys we respected both for the fact they were president, as well as them as a person. They said AND did things to back them up, that benefited both the military and the general populace.



I mean, I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NO REASON whatsoever to cut retirement benefits to those who have served their 20 years. There is even less reason to cut the same retirement benefits to those who have been or will be medically retired. I mean, when I signed that dotted line, there was a contract that said, I will do X for X amount of time, and in return I get Y. Now, we're seeing Y shrunk down to y, pretty soon, it'll be even less than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll also throw out there, in regards to the OP... Sure, Obama (and by extension ALL top level political candidates) gave great speeches regarding the direction he wanted to take the military and the wars that he was inheriting. The thing is, as he was NOT the president, he has no where near the level of knowledge that the President does, and probably doesnt have access to the Joint Chiefs and all that to properly develop a plan. Once he gets in office, and is slammed with the enormity of the chunk we bit off... yeah, he may have doubts and want to change what he originally said.

So I was looking for a model for someone on Hobbylink Japan, and came across this. This seems like as good a thread as any - doesn't this seem a little too soon-y?

 Ouze wrote:
So I was looking for a model for someone on Hobbylink Japan, and came across this. This seems like as good a thread as any - doesn't this seem a little too soon-y?

wat?

 whembly wrote:
Just like a CEO takes the company in a direction that is tempered by the will of the board... right.

Actually the board is tasked with setting the overall strategic direction of the company, the CEO is there to execute that strategy set by the board. The CEO is regularly a member of the board (and often it's most influential member) and so when that is the case the CEO will both formulate and execute strategy, but the roles are still clear - board sets strategic direction, CEO carries out that strategy.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So I was looking for a model for someone on Hobbylink Japan, and came across this. This seems like as good a thread as any - doesn't this seem a little too soon-y?

wat?

Improvised Explosive Device. It's a car bomb.

 Ouze wrote:
I would prefer if the elected representatives, emphasis on representatives, in fact did the will of their constituents....

It's complicated, because the people have information that is far from complete. Not just for reasons of secrecy, but the complexity of the issues at hand. Outside of a very few senior military officials, I doubt many people had the working knowledge to form an assessment on whether the Iraq and Afghanistan surges would actually work. Lots of us may have opinions, but at absolute best these are going to be moderately well informed guesses, and are much more likely to be absolute nonsense based on pre-held biases.

So just going with public opinion will result basically in ignoring expertise, which is a pretty terrible way to run a government.

But then on the other hand, relying purely on experts and ignoring public sentiment can lead to mistakes (its very easy to set up echo chambers where the only way to be accepted as an expert worth listening to is if you hold the same incorrect assumptions as everyone else already considered an expert ie French military command and the Maginot Line)... and then on top of that, the will of the people ought to count for something, even if it's mistaken.

All that produces a balancing act that I'm not sure any government has ever gotten completely right.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, the war aim was to remove the Saddam regime. You are kind of adding in the other things.

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

It was to get rid of the Saddam Regime because they had WMDs and supported international terrorism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This article on the BBC is pretty interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25659530

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, the war aim was to remove the Saddam regime. You are kind of adding in the other things.

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

It was to get rid of the Saddam Regime because they had WMDs and supported international terrorism.

That's amazing.

It's amazing when you realise that they didn't have WMDs and didn't support international terrorism.

Actually, I find it amazing that even when presented documented facts you decide to be wrong.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, I find it amazing that even when presented documented facts you decide to be wrong.

Bingo.

If memory serves, the actual resolution authorizing the use of force had eight or so points to it. Only one (WMDs) is remembered by most, it seems. Which is understandable; it's the one the media talked about the most, it was the most controversial, it was the most obviously incorrect.

But pretending it was the only justification is just downright weird, given the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Kilkrazy's a good example. You gave him four reasons; he parroted back two and ignored two. That's just weird.

 Seaward wrote:
Bingo.

If memory serves, the actual resolution authorizing the use of force had eight or so points to it. Only one (WMDs) is remembered by most, it seems. Which is understandable; it's the one the media talked about the most, it was the most controversial, it was the most obviously incorrect.

But pretending it was the only justification is just downright weird, given the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Kilkrazy's a good example. You gave him four reasons; he parroted back two and ignored two. That's just weird.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

On 12 September 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[2] These included:
- "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
- The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations
- Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
- Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
- Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's amazing when you realise that they didn't have WMDs and didn't support international terrorism.

They definitely supported international terrorism. IIRC they would make payments to the families of successful suicide bombers.

I thought we went into Iraq because we're REALLY good at bombing brown people.

 kronk wrote:
I thought we went into Iraq because we're REALLY good at bombing brown people.

It was the Hussein moustache. Bush was just couldn't handle that kind of facial hair superiority.
Thanks Obama!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll also throw out there, in regards to the OP... Sure, Obama (and by extension ALL top level political candidates) gave great speeches regarding the direction he wanted to take the military and the wars that he was inheriting. The thing is, as he was NOT the president, he has no where near the level of knowledge that the President does, and probably doesnt have access to the Joint Chiefs and all that to properly develop a plan. Once he gets in office, and is slammed with the enormity of the chunk we bit off... yeah, he may have doubts and want to change what he originally said.

Thats what I've been saying for years, especially every time theres an election.

If memory serves, the actual resolution authorizing the use of force had eight or so points to it. Only one (WMDs) is remembered by most, it seems. Which is understandable; it's the one the media talked about the most, it was the most controversial, it was the most obviously incorrect.

But pretending it was the only justification is just downright weird, given the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

As you said, its the one that was trumpeted by the media (and arguably most of our politicians) the most, thus becoming the 'casus belli' if not in actuality, then in public perception.

And in regards to Iraqs WMD's:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dni/dni_ltr_wmd_21jun06.pdf
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
Tinfoil hat time:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/forbidden-table-talk/2013/oct/1/iraq-did-have-weapons-mass-destruction-according-n/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/01/26/exclusive-former-top-military-aide-to-saddam-reveals-dictator-secret-plans/

and blah blah blah, we all know the KGB and Spetsnaz took Iraqs WMD arsenal and moved it to Syria and.. .aliens.

End the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Definitely accomplished.
Eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction so the entire premise of this objective is false.
Capture or drive out terrorists.
Well, arguably met. It's obvious however that there are large numbers of terrorists still active in the region, and the region is more violent.
Collect intelligence on terrorist networks
Achieved, I guess.
Collect intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activity.
Probably should have done this before deciding Point 1 was an objective.
Secure Iraq's oil fields.
Yeah, AFAIK successful?
Deliver humanitarian relief and end sanctions.
Achieved I guess? Probably slightly nullified by the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and the thousands of Coalition troop deaths, as well as god knows how many wounded.
Help Iraq achieve representative self-government and insure its territorial integrity.
This one I think was a failure.

It's far from a cut and dried success.

 Da Boss wrote:

Eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction so the entire premise of this objective is false.

Technically, if they didn't have any to begin with, the we've already accomplished the goal of eliminating them it becomes more a game of ensuring they dont have the capabilities to producing them at that point.

While we may not have eliminated WMDs, we sure as heck eliminated massive weapons of destruction some of the largest arms and munitions caches in recent memory... and boy were those explosions purdy

See what you should have done is sell them some WMD first -- and then used the money from that to offset the cost of the invasion.

Foreign policy based off of Palance in "Shane" kind of thing.

 Da Boss wrote:
End the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Definitely accomplished.
Eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction so the entire premise of this objective is false.
Capture or drive out terrorists.
Well, arguably met. It's obvious however that there are large numbers of terrorists still active in the region, and the region is more violent.
Collect intelligence on terrorist networks
Achieved, I guess.
Collect intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activity.
Probably should have done this before deciding Point 1 was an objective.
Secure Iraq's oil fields.
Yeah, AFAIK successful?
Deliver humanitarian relief and end sanctions.
Achieved I guess? Probably slightly nullified by the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and the thousands of Coalition troop deaths, as well as god knows how many wounded.
Help Iraq achieve representative self-government and insure its territorial integrity.
This one I think was a failure.

It's far from a cut and dried success.

True, so true.