Write Review
1,982,231 Total Reviews 3,948 New Reviews
10,482 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Answers
SteveO5711 1483 reads
posted

1. Our exit strategy is simple, we're not getting fully involved.  We're going to bomb a few targets making it easier for Europe to deal with the mess, then get out for the most part. (dear God I hope)

2.  Ground forces, two answers here:
 a.  We don't want our ground forces in another country.
 b. We don't want Taliban recruiters running around Afghanistan telling everyone that we're going to Libya (Like we went to Iraq.)

3.  The best way to protect Libyan civilians to to make it easier for the opposition to drag Gadaffi into the street and dismember him.
   (He deserves it, read some history on this.  Regan is rolling in his grave that the Republican base isn't screaming for more action.)

dncphil7845 reads

2. A short time ago the song and dance was you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER go to war without an "exit strategy.  What is our exit strategy?  (Of course, before 2002, there had never been a war with an exit strategy at the start.  But that did matter.)

2. Obama said that the US would not be involve in ground action.  Is it a good idea in a war to tell your enemy how far you will go?   Is it better to keep him afraid that you will do what it takes?

3.  In taking military action against Lybia, Obama said it was only for the narrow and clearly defined goal of protecting citizens.  How well defined is that goal?  What are the limits of actions that we will go to in protecting citizens?  Isn't taking out an air force battery that can be used against a rebel military stronghold also protecting the rebel military and beyond the goal of protecting civilians?

ReplyQuoteReport
BreakerMorant2000 reads

conspiracy. Little sad. In regards to your post, the Left are rather hypocritical in regards to Libya. I agree with everything you said. Where is the exit strategy and how smart is a strategy when you annouce to your enemy your intentions? I guess what do you expect from military action that's led by the French? The irony.  I wonder when is the last time the French won a battle?

I saw the movie "Of Gods and Men", Des hommes et des dieux, and I wondered who are the real enemy the terrorists or the government. The movie is about trappist monks during the Algerian civil war who must confront the decision of leaving or staying. Terrific movie, though I won't recommend it for Charlie445, because it talks about God and faith.



-- Modified on 3/20/2011 6:04:59 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
Priapus531243 reads

1966 classic "Battle of Algiers". IMO, one of the greatest & most exciting movies ever made.
Depicts war between Algerian guerillas & French military( 1954-62 ). Film has a great evenhanded approach toward Algerian & French combatants.
A must see & highly recommended.

Btw, Phil, it's spelled " Libya" ; I think you're confusing it with "labia"--------;)

-- Modified on 3/20/2011 5:56:09 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1881 reads


Of Gods and Men. Very well done.

Posted By: BreakerMorant
conspiracy. Little sad. In regards to your post, the Left are rather hypocritical in regards to Libya. I agree with everything you said. Where is the exit strategy and how smart is a strategy when you annouce to your enemy your intentions? I guess what do you expect from military action that's led by the French? The irony.  I wonder when is the last time the French won a battle?

I saw the movie "Of Gods and Men", Des hommes et des dieux, and I wondered who are the real enemy the terrorists or the government. The movie is about trappist monks during the Algerian civil war who must confront the decision of leaving or staying. Terrific movie, though I won't recommend it for Charlie445, because it talks about God and faith.



-- Modified on 3/20/2011 6:04:59 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
Timbow2199 reads

Posted By: dncphil
2. A short time ago the song and dance was you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER go to war without an "exit strategy.  What is our exit strategy?  (Of course, before 2002, there had never been a war with an exit strategy at the start.  But that did matter.)

2. Obama said that the US would not be involve in ground action.  Is it a good idea in a war to tell your enemy how far you will go?   Is it better to keep him afraid that you will do what it takes?

3.  In taking military action against Lybia, Obama said it was only for the narrow and clearly defined goal of protecting citizens.  How well defined is that goal?  What are the limits of actions that we will go to in protecting citizens?  Isn't taking out an air force battery that can be used against a rebel military stronghold also protecting the rebel military and beyond the goal of protecting civilians?
You may find this an interesting read.

http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/03/military-action-against-libya-is-not-illegal-not-about-democracy-and-very-limited/

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil2194 reads

It didn't address any of the questions I asked.  Just one example,  I asked if it was wise to tell the enemy the limits of what you will do.  

This may define the legality or what ever, but it does not say whether it is smart to tell the other side you limits.

Posted By: Timbow
Posted By: dncphil
2. A short time ago the song and dance was you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER go to war without an "exit strategy.  What is our exit strategy?  (Of course, before 2002, there had never been a war with an exit strategy at the start.  But that did matter.)

2. Obama said that the US would not be involve in ground action.  Is it a good idea in a war to tell your enemy how far you will go?   Is it better to keep him afraid that you will do what it takes?

3.  In taking military action against Lybia, Obama said it was only for the narrow and clearly defined goal of protecting citizens.  How well defined is that goal?  What are the limits of actions that we will go to in protecting citizens?  Isn't taking out an air force battery that can be used against a rebel military stronghold also protecting the rebel military and beyond the goal of protecting civilians?
You may find this an interesting read.

http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/03/military-action-against-libya-is-not-illegal-not-about-democracy-and-very-limited/

ReplyQuoteReport
Timbow2043 reads

Posted By: dncphil
It didn't address any of the questions I asked.  Just one example,  I asked if it was wise to tell the enemy the limits of what you will do.  

This may define the legality or what ever, but it does not say whether it is smart to tell the other side you limits.
Posted By: Timbow
Posted By: dncphil
2. A short time ago the song and dance was you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER go to war without an "exit strategy.  What is our exit strategy?  (Of course, before 2002, there had never been a war with an exit strategy at the start.  But that did matter.)

2. Obama said that the US would not be involve in ground action.  Is it a good idea in a war to tell your enemy how far you will go?   Is it better to keep him afraid that you will do what it takes?



But it probably shows why Obama did not use the phrase  “All necessary means” ;)
3.  In taking military action against Lybia, Obama said it was only for the narrow and clearly defined goal of protecting citizens.  How well defined is that goal?  What are the limits of actions that we will go to in protecting citizens?  Isn't taking out an air force battery that can be used against a rebel military stronghold also protecting the rebel military and beyond the goal of protecting civilians?
You may find this an interesting read.

http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/03/military-action-against-libya-is-not-illegal-not-about-democracy-and-very-limited/

ReplyQuoteReport
Fair_Use1870 reads

Just wondering if Gadhafi has threatened the US with WMD?  Is there even a rumor he will do so?  Do you think Obama will bother to make one up?  Not even half of one.

Sounds like another war for oil disguised as humanitarian with hopes of taking people's mind off of *fill-in-the-blank* issues here.  

I haven't noticed any anti-war protestors taking to the street yet.  Could be they are still waiting for their picket signs to be printed in China?  I suspect they will get around to marching once the weather stays nice.

As soon as it looks like we might not easily win — that's the exit strategy.  The Democrat battle cry — RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!

ReplyQuoteReport
Priapus532176 reads

Oh, that's right---------Holey & you "bunked together" in "The Pink Berets"------;)-------

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461364 reads

because they never served in the military, unless you count Dubya's time in the Texas Air Guard's "Champagne Wing."
Of course, there's the other definition of chickenhawk which requires membership in NAMBLA.

ReplyQuoteReport
Timbow1982 reads

Posted By: inicky46
because they never served in the military, unless you count Dubya's time in the Texas Air Guard's "Champagne Wing."
Of course, there's the other definition of chickenhawk which requires membership in NAMBLA.
Rumsfeld  served  in the United States Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator.

-- Modified on 3/20/2011 10:44:25 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461262 reads

I know and didn't mean to include him in the comment.  The rest of them: Fucking ChickenHawks.

ReplyQuoteReport
Fair_Use2875 reads

Only you drop the soap on purpose.  

Posted By: Priapus53
Oh, that's right---------Holey & you "bunked together" in "The Pink Berets"------;)-------

ReplyQuoteReport
Priapus532523 reads

Btw, keep this in mind : EVERYTIME you post stupid shit ( which you can't seem to stop ) like an idiotic troll, I will call you on it. No skin off my nose, but, if you like masochistic abuse, fine by me. I enjoy putting down "mental pygmies"-------:)

-- Modified on 3/20/2011 11:50:54 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
Fair_Use2181 reads

I'm starting to bottom out.  I like you nice and roomy.

Posted By: Priapus53
Btw, keep this in mind : EVERYTIME you post stupid shit ( which you can't seem to stop ) like an idiotic troll, I will call you on it. No skin off my nose, but, if you like masochistic abuse, fine by me. I enjoy putting down "mental pygmies"-------:)

-- Modified on 3/20/2011 11:50:54 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461211 reads

Good questions.
2) In an imperfect world, sometimes you have to make a decision that doesn't have all the answers lined up.  But if the cause is right, you act.  Besides, unless we put troops on the ground all we have to do is move our ships and planes away.
3) The French and Brits have not said they wouldn't provide troops, if necessary.  Obama wanted them to lead this time and they did.
That said, the Libyan situation is potentially a slippery slope.  The good news is the  population is very small so the downside is limited, unlike in heavily populated Iraq and mountainous Afghanistan.
As for the oil factor, raised by another  poster, I don't think that's  our motivation.  Libya only provides 2% of the world's oil, none of it to the US.  Italy and England are among the biggest buyers.  Saudi Arabia has already made up for the lost production.

ReplyQuoteReport
Timbow919 reads

Posted By: inicky46
Good questions.
2) In an imperfect world, sometimes you have to make a decision that doesn't have all the answers lined up.  But if the cause is right, you act.  Besides, unless we put troops on the ground all we have to do is move our ships and planes away.
3) The French and Brits have not said they wouldn't provide troops, if necessary.  Obama wanted them to lead this time and they did.
That said, the Libyan situation is potentially a slippery slope.  The good news is the  population is very small so the downside is limited, unlike in heavily populated Iraq and mountainous Afghanistan.
As for the oil factor, raised by another  poster, I don't think that's  our motivation.  Libya only provides 2% of the world's oil, none of it to the US.  Italy and England are among the biggest buyers.  Saudi Arabia has already made up for the lost production.

-- Modified on 3/20/2011 7:19:43 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun1559 reads

Libyan production is measly 1.2 million barrels a day and in the grand scheme of oil production it is drop in the bucket and would not be noticed. Saudi Arabia can producer additional 1.2 million barrels a day by a sneeze.

ReplyQuoteReport
Timbow2406 reads

Posted By: anonymousfun
Libyan production is measly 1.2 million barrels a day and in the grand scheme of oil production it is drop in the bucket and would not be noticed. Saudi Arabia can producer additional 1.2 million barrels a day by a sneeze.
You need to look at the history of Total oil company :)
http://www.libyaonline.com/business/details.php?id=15827

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1758 reads

I agree with some of what you said, but it didn't answer the question.

For example, I agree that in an imperfect world you may have to act before you know all the answers.  In an imperfect world you make hard choices at the moment.  We sided with the Butch Stalin because Uncle Adolf was 2 degrees worse.

Agreement aside, you didn't address anything I asked.  Yes, Obama wanted someone else to lead, and we can debate whether that is good or not.  But my question is regardless of who is leaving do you tell you enemy what you won't do.

Likewise, even if you let someone else lead, where is the exit strategy that was the be-all-and-end-all of Military Armchair Thinking 6 years ago?  Is the exit strategy "if you hold out for 10 days you win."

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461740 reads

The exit strategy is, you leave when you decide it's in your best interests to leave.  Sometimes it's not pretty.  Always there will be some who disagree.  As Lord Palmerston once said: "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Which is what I meant when I wrote, we can just take our toys and go home.  In any conflict, there may come a point where you have to "declare victory and get out."  It could happen in Libya or in Afghanistan.

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1316 reads

When people were screaming you need an exit strategy, the meaning was you don't go in until you have that.

All you have said is you leave when you have had enough.  That may be true, but then there was a built in exit strategy for Iraq, the one you are proposing, so what was the grousing about?



-- Modified on 3/20/2011 10:54:21 AM

-- Modified on 3/20/2011 10:55:57 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461929 reads

I can't quite follow your post so it's hard to respond.  As for an exit strategy for Iraq, I disagree there was one.  If there was it was totally inadequate and had to be changed.  We made the mistake of sending in enough troops to defeat Saddam but not enough to fully control the country after we won.  Then we compounded the error by disbanding the Iraqi army instead of using it to help enforce the peace.  The result, years of insurgency that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.  Finally, we had the "surge," which seems to have worked -- after 8 long years.  This may not respond to your question but, as I said, I didn't quite understand it.

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1239 reads

I am not saying that there was an exit strategy (ES) in Iraq.  

My point was that when Bush was in office one of the things people said was that you never go to war without an ES.  I thought that was silly then because there had never been a war in history with a "defined ES," other than winning.  

The only ES ever defined was when Reagan was asked how he saw the Cold War ending.  He said, "We win, they lose."

The only "ES" is winning. The rest is a plan on how to accomplish that, and plans always shift.  It is said the first casualty of war is the plan.

In reality, the "ES" was something people just kind of invented at the time to criticize Bush, claiming it was an established principle.  There may have been legit reasons to criticize him, but that one was bogus.  As I say, this was a new requirement.  What was the ESin WW II.  Korea.  Bosnia.  The "ES" is to win.

The specifics of what we did wrong were not part of the criticism of "no ES."  For the sake of argument, everything you said may be true, but, to use one example, disbanding the Iraqi army was not related to an "ES."  It may have been a mistake, but that is a different issue.

With that in mind, my point was everyone said you don't go to war without your ES.  I was asking all the critics where is the ES now?

I hope that clarifies. In summary, I was not saying that we had one in Iraq.  I was asking all the people who said that you had to have one, where is it in Lybia.

Posted By: inicky46
I can't quite follow your post so it's hard to respond.  As for an exit strategy for Iraq, I disagree there was one.  If there was it was totally inadequate and had to be changed.  We made the mistake of sending in enough troops to defeat Saddam but not enough to fully control the country after we won.  Then we compounded the error by disbanding the Iraqi army instead of using it to help enforce the peace.  The result, years of insurgency that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.  Finally, we had the "surge," which seems to have worked -- after 8 long years.  This may not respond to your question but, as I said, I didn't quite understand it.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky462084 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
dumba_boy1299 reads

Who really cares what Obama says?
He isn't in charge or running this country anyway.
He's just along for the ride.
When there is trouble in the world, when there is a tough decision to be made, he runs away on another "vacation".

Even many of his former supporters have grown tired of his incompetance.

The only reason the French and British took action is because they were tired of Obama's inaction and indecision.
He is the laughing stock of the world!!!!!

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun1635 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun3081 reads

Look up what happened there and thou shall have the answer. It was not that long ago and you have forgotten so, looking up oneself is better.

ReplyQuoteReport
SteveO57111484 reads

1. Our exit strategy is simple, we're not getting fully involved.  We're going to bomb a few targets making it easier for Europe to deal with the mess, then get out for the most part. (dear God I hope)

2.  Ground forces, two answers here:
 a.  We don't want our ground forces in another country.
 b. We don't want Taliban recruiters running around Afghanistan telling everyone that we're going to Libya (Like we went to Iraq.)

3.  The best way to protect Libyan civilians to to make it easier for the opposition to drag Gadaffi into the street and dismember him.
   (He deserves it, read some history on this.  Regan is rolling in his grave that the Republican base isn't screaming for more action.)

ReplyQuoteReport
charlie4451335 reads

Muammar Gaddafi as the leader of Libya. This is not a war (answer to Q1) so there is no need for an exit strategy. In case there needs to be a war he can always say that this is an extension of the war on terror. Obama lied about the ground forces. (answer to Q2) See the subject line for the answer to Q3.

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil1518 reads

I am sorry, but I am simple minded.  I understand that "war" has a legal defintion, and it may or may not involve a formal declaration of war.  

However, even if there is no legal declaration of war, when Nation A fires missles at Nation B, or if they use military force against Nation B, that is a war for me.

I view war as the opposite of peace, and when you are using military force it isn't peace.

Since we are in a state of military action against another country, I am asking what happened to the critics who said you didn't do that without an exit strategy.

Isn't this better than nasty comments and slogans.

ReplyQuoteReport
charlie4451607 reads

I am under the impression that US is involved in an ongoing "war against terrorism" so any attack on any country that harbors or aids any terrorist is fair game. Gaddafi  has long been an advocate of terrorist tactics. The US has been in an ongoing state of war since 1940 and has spent trillions in the process. Phil
there is no exit strategy for capitalist imperialism.

ReplyQuoteReport
ipeesittingdown1395 reads


..body part!???

http://www.sexylabia.com/01_take-care-of-your-labia.htm

ReplyQuoteReport
dncphil2118 reads

And at times I type way too fast.

ReplyQuoteReport
quadseasonal1640 reads

I am guilty of reading threw typos or a word misspeeled, with my own interpretaion of there meaning,when there authors had an entirely different intent, on there definition.
It's easy too do.
I'm with you on knot bean a good proof reader on the boards, because it dozen matter too me, and it's knot in my job description.
Once I opened your OP, I quickly realized, I was wrong with my interpretaion of your typo.
On the bright side, misspeeled words often gives bored geniuses, something too do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhGzo63vik





-- Modified on 3/21/2011 10:35:59 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!