It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is the US military puked out over Coward Commander in Chief?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:56 AM
Barack Obama has no experience in anything, especially matters pertaining to the military. He would have pulled the US out of Iraq prematurely, in essence, raising the white flag of defeat.

He badly misjudged the Georgian/Russian head-butting, and had no idea of any facet of that conflict.

He has already indicated a naivety toward the concept of statesmanship by stating he would sit down with abrasive America-haters abroad without any preconditions.

LBJ, military genius he was, created the defeatist conditions in Viet Nam, personally approving bombing targets, tying the hands of the military with asinine rules of engagement, prolonging the war, and thus the loss of thousands of lives through his wisdom. The President giving direct orders to a B-52 tail gunner? Tens of thousands of American lives lost due to his inexperience.

Jimmy Carter, upon entering office gave all cowardly draft dodgers unconditional amnesty. He gave away the Panama canal. And when the Iranians took over our embassy, holding our people hostage, he hid out in the White House. This tarnished the reputation of the US and indicated the US was nothing more than a paper tiger.

The next Democrat President was Bill Clinton, who inherited a rolling economy due the the previous Republican "Contract with America." He introduced into the military the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of allowing homosexuals to serve within the military. Signed the Brady Bill, limiting handgun purchases. Clinton folks accessed FBI files on thousands of Americans. While in the White House, he allowed Monica Lewinsky to confuse him to the point he wasn't sure if a "HUMMER" was a form of sex, a military vehicle, or both. In Mogadishu, he didn't allow any air support or armor as it would appear too "war like" and it cost precious American military lives. Had Osama bin Laden in his sights twice, and called off the carefully prepared strikes as he didn't want to "upset" anyone. When our embassies and forces were struck, he launched a cruise missile strike against an aspirin factory, which we then paid to rebuild. He gutted our intelligence agencies, and we all know where that led.

Right now, the day after the election, Russia is putting on a full-court press, beating the rest of our enemies to the punch be threatening to nullify our efforts to install a missile defense system in Poland and other countries.

Each one of these Presidents from ignorance and weakness cost unnecessary American lives. Each one placed our very national security at risk.

If I were in the military right now, I'd be very reluctant to serve as I would never know for sure when I might be abandoned, or compelled to wave the white flag. Of all of Bush's failings, no one ever doubted his resolve to defend America.

As a serving member of the military, do you feel like whizzing on the fire, calling in the dogs, and declaring the hunt over?

Do you fear what Obama will do as Commander in Chief?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:08 AM
Coward? Really? And somehow our current 'Command in Chief' has military experience because he was in the ANG? Screw your head back on. Your argument is baseless and outright offensive. Do you think a presdient runs the military like some game of Stratego? That's crap. A brilliant military leader knows when to use his military and when not. George Custer was a highly experienced military leader. Napolean Bonapart was a highly experience military leader.

Just because an indiividual served in the military --- as honorable as that may be --- does not, by default, make them a military leader. The Commander in Chief is responsible for the well being of the nation. Not just overseeing the military.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:11 AM
He's probably going to get his first test on day 1.

Lost amidst all the hoopla last night, the Russians announced that they will move ballistic missile regiments into Eastern Europe. Obviously, they're doing this in order to pressure Obama into cancelling the missile shield.


I think the Russians, and most of our enemies, are laughing at us this morning. Hopefully Obama will prove them wrong, but I definitely thnk they're going to try to push him around, and unfortunately, I think they'll be very successful at it.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:12 AM
I never said anything about Stratego.

Perceptions, my friend. Obama is as green as summer grass, and all our enemies know it. He is perceived as very weak. Even Joe Biden knew this and cautioned the American people about it.

Now, not 24 hours later, Russia is already pushing his buttons, as he is perceived as a pushover. The Russians are masters. They understand one thing - and it's something Obama apparently doesn't have.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:17 AM
I have seen what George Bush did as Commander in Chief. President Obama will be a welcome relief to that madness. George Bush stood by and allowed America to be attacked on 9/11. Nobody brought down the twin towers on LBJ's watch. Nobody brought down the twin towers on Carter's watch. Nobody brought down the twin towers on Clinton's watch. It did not happen until GWB became president.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:21 AM
You are truly naive. Do you think this is highschool?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:23 AM
reply to post by groingrinder

True enough. The Towers were not brought down on Clinton's watch. They were planned and enabled on Clinton's watch. The US was attacked numerous times by Al-Queda and Hizballah on Clinton's watch, and our response?


I do see many, many foreign countries preferring Obama.

I love it myself when my foes are led by a coward.

"I rather fight an army of lions led by a sheep than an army of sheep led by a lion." Alexander

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:26 AM
however we may feel about it is moot...

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Makes no difference to us...he says go blow that up we go blow stuff up! he tells us to keep our hands in our pockets we do just that... if that sounds a little fuzzy then I refer you to the above oath

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by dooper

Oh, and GWB was somehow combat-tested and sturdy as a red oak? PULEEZE! I've had as much combat experience playing paintball and 2-Fort.

Russia's move has nothing to do with Obama. They're countering GWB's brilliant missile defense shield move. What would you do if YOU were Russia? Just sit back and let us put missiles on your border? We didn't like it much when they tried doing the same thing to us.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by dooper

Stop the nonsense and start thinking like an adult!

USA does not need any missile shield!
In fact USA does not need a military when there is a diplomatic genius like Obama as commander in chief.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:44 AM
What's going on in the world right now has more to do with GW than anything and he's not done yet.

I am always amazed by people who feel that a coward is someone who wants to take a less violent approach too solving problems. Talking over differences and strategies is a weakness? Since when?

Obama will have more than enough advisers in his camp with Military expertise.

Going into a country or countries with such volatile histories with guns drawn and claiming right or might (like GW has) is what exaggerated many of the problems that already existed.

Maybe it's time for a "cooler head" to prevail. how that is viewed as cowardice or weakness is beyond me...if anything I think it takes far greater strength and confidence.

Clearly using brute force is not working...these are a different kind of people with entirely different beliefs...the time for trying to beat them with fire power is it's time to learn a better way.

Ultimately with over 70K+- troops (coalition and US) over in the Middle East if talking doesn't work there is always the option of might.

Russia and Georgia have been hashing it out long before GW or even GSsenior Same with Israel and Gaza, and a host of other countries currently waring.

War is not the only solution and Obama shows great strength and common sense by admitting it and being willing to explore options.

We all know talking can't be the only solution but it's a better starting ground than coming in all fisticuffs and bully, and asking questions later.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:20 AM
Dear OP,

You are yet another fine example of blind faith and the dumbing down of the American people. Did you actually read your history books? Or are you recalling the nightly news reports? Or are you just really, really brainwashed? I don't mean to be hostile here. That is truly not my intent.

I've said it before in the forums here: I left the States over 20 years ago because I could see this coming already when I was a teenager. I've spent half my life here, in self-imposed exile and I have watched my fellow countrymen go intellectually down the toilet. I can't speak to my own family beyond mere small talk. They too are just as blinded as you are.

One day I hope to return to the country of my birth. My youngest has never been there and it would be really nice to show her that country to which she too holds nationality. But not yet. Not for a long time. Maybe after the Civil War v.2. Maybe when she's my age she can visit the museums erected to honor those citizens who figured out what went wrong and established systems to make things right because you can't expect your leaders to do it. Your leaders who want to save you are attacked and maligned for being weak, green idiots. Please, please grow up. And take some world history courses, for God's sake.

As for Russia, they are my new homeland's neighbor. We have a saying here that goes like this, "A Russian is still a Russian, even fried in butter". I will explain because it may not translate well to those unfamiliar with the parable. It means that even if you dress him up in the good stuff, he still won't taste good. You can't trust him. He will try to take over. Only a fool would believe that Putin was anything but a (ex?)-KGB, power-hungry, tiny little man with hegemonic tendencies - and in no small way. He wants to be the new Stalin and the foolish Russians mourn the loss of their dear Stalin so he, being a "strong" leader (never mind his dangerous qualities), is loved. Russians love a strong leader and that's really all he has to be. And this guy is right up there in inspiring fear as is the new Pope. Talk about history repeating itself. This generation got all the evil villians.

And don't think for a minute that Russia is not intent on taking over. Putin has it all worked out. But I digress.

You too have (had?) a leader who should have been feared but you, in your wisdom, have let him take your country away from you while you were thinking he was a stand-up guy. You no longer have a home. You just aren't bright enough to know it yet. By the time you do ... never mind. You won't work it out ever if you haven't already.

I fear for your, our, new president. I fear for his life. I fear that you, the people there in the US will not see what's happening in time to prevent what is coming. I fear you will live to regret that.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:25 AM
Dooper, I served from 88-2001, the state of our military and the problems we have come from every president. The truth of the matter is we need a bad guy in the coming years to justify all the jobs we need to create. I'd have to say one of the scariest times would be right after the wall came down and we had no one threatening us. Maybe you don't remember but people were getting paid to leave the Military. It is hard to justify spending 7-800 billion a year with no bad guy in sight. My unit was closed, my mission was canceled, I couldn't get promoted, times were rough in the early 90's until saddam invaded Kuwaitt. Game on we have a bad guy, truth is I traveled to nearly every country and most people are just trying to live life and enjoy there family. I was in Saudi 8 days after the invasion and I can tell you if Saudi's were to come to N. Carolina and start telling you how dumb you are because you like Nascar, 10 years of that would get old and you might want them to leave. Watch those videos of some of the McCain rallies where the rednecks can't understand if Obama is a terrorist or not because of his name. Those people went to Saudi and that was your ambassadors for the rest of us. By the way Saudi had more than enouh fire power to take care of Saddam, do a little search and see how much they spend on military relative to population. I think reading some of the posts about the history of the Rothchilds might enlighten you why wars are encouraged. When you fund both sides it becomes very profitable, plus those countries are then in debt to you and you have a say about what they do. One last question, when was the last time war was actually declared and what happens if actual war is declared?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:55 AM
It will be great to finally have a President who's closest friends won't make BILLIONS of dollars when we do go to war. I am so relieved for that.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:02 PM
and yet you don't mention Ronald Reagan, who pulled our troops out of Beirut after the barracks attack. This act of stupidity gave terror groups around the world the belief that, when pushed, the US will bend. This one simple act led to every terror attack against the United States since then. This one simple act led to 9/11.

Had Ronnie gone on the offensive and not pulled the troops, I think the world we live in might be vastly different.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:04 PM
Any businessman, executive, or military man will tell you that of all virtues, credibility is the most important.

"Absolute credibility leverages even absolute power. Absolute power without credibility requires disastrous demonstration, and thus invites disaster."

Michael Riggs, Edicts of Ares

Barack Obama has zero credibility.

A slick talker to be sure, but so was Neville Chamberlain:

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I can not believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."

Yep. Rather than fight while still manageable, 52,000,000 people died due to his procrastination. Ignore history all you want. You do so to your detriment.

Maybe we'll look back on these days with this leader, and shake our heads, and ponder, "what were we thinking?" We were so busy wanting change that we never bothered to ask what the change would be?

It's true that those in the military must follow lawful orders, but my question was more related to how the military feels about this slick talking coward?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:05 PM
Withdrawal in a meaningless and objectiveless war is nothing to be afraid of.

Obama actually has it right here, troops need to be shifted from Iraq to the Afghan-Pakistan border to capture Bin Laden.

Ego must never come before objectives. The objective is to smash terrorism... the best way to do that is leave Iraq and double efforts on Afghanistan.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:17 PM
Whoa, 'to capture Bin Laden' - are you serious?!
Do you really think he's still alive? Do you really think he's the 'enemy'? Do you really think thats what we're doing over there? And do you really think it would matter at all if he were to be captured or killed?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by 44soulslayer

The objective is to smash terrorism... the best way to do that is leave Iraq and double efforts on Afghanistan.

We will never smash terrorism by fighting in Afghanistan. It is hard to describe what a terrorist even is.We are fighting groups not a country and these groups exist throughout the world.

Maybe before sending more troops into Afghanistan, Obama should seek to gather or look at intelligence to try to figure out where the hell Osama really is. For all we know, he truly may be dead. By sending more troops into Afghanistan, the Afghan's could see us as occupiers and it may lead to the same type of problems we had in Iraq.

We need to get Iraq and Afghanistan stable and productive and bring our troops home for a nice long R&R. They damn well deserve it.

Let the CIA do their thing and go after the terrorist.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by jam321
We will never smash terrorism by fighting in Afghanistan. It is hard to describe what a terrorist even is.We are fighting groups not a country and these groups exist throughout the world.

Maybe before sending more troops into Afghanistan, Obama should seek to gather or look at intelligence to try to figure out where the hell Osama really is. For all we know, he truly may be dead. By sending more troops into Afghanistan, the Afghan's could see us as occupiers and it may lead to the same type of problems we had in Iraq.

Obama should look into how well the Soviets did in Afghanistan before making a big push there.

While I would love to see proof of Bin Laden's death or capture, the truth is, we might be better served establishing ties and bases in the region, where we are welcome, and keeping a very close watch on the goings on.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in