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: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by Crakeur

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

How true, how true.

We definitely would not want history to repeat itself at our expense.

I second your motion for closer ties and bases in the region.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:47 PM
In theory Obama has only to say "jump" & the military should respond "how high ?". Doesn't work like that, though, with Democrat Presidents.

It won't be long into his Presidency when the military start playing their little games.

Stories leaked to the press about aircraft grounded due to lack of fuel, tanks lying idle for the wont of spare parts, ships tilting and riding at anchor due to the lack of personnel (low wages, you see, can't get the staff nowadays). And you'll see disabled Vets wheeled on screen to berate Obama for the sins of his predecessor, low pensions, poor hospital care etc etc. Obama will be deliberately fed duff intell, or he won't be briefed on things he needs to be. Missions will start getting botched, "accidentally on purpose".

And the only person responsible will be that liberal, commie President Obama. Poor guy. He isn't even in office & we can already see the way it'll go.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:06 PM
No one, and I mean no one will agree more that our military, commanded by generals more politicians than commanders, screwed the pooch in Iraq part 2.

Once the Iraqi military was defeated, American and British forces should have pulled back and roamed the desert. Let them have their civil war.

In the meantime, this lean, constantly shifting, roaming Army just over the horizon would be a serious worry. Not just to Iraqi factions, but would certainly worry Syria and Iran.

Eventually, even in a civil war, one side or the other will eventually be unable to kill further, or be unwilling to be killed further, and the struggle would have been over. Then, and only then - we could have moved in to assist them in forming a government. Like a fight between brother, if you jump in to break it up, they'll both jump on you.

Yeah. We should have had the Iraqi war over in the first twelve month, had we followed the principles of warfare.

Bush got some really crappy advice from some really brilliant people. But they forgot the most basic concept of problem solving: Keep it simple. Simple works. Simple does not break down.

Because of this mismanagement, and the extended struggle, the desire for change has now led to a man who knows as much about fighting as he knows about setting the head space on a Browning .50.

Perceptions. Carter was perceived as impotent. The very day Reagan took the oath of office, the Iranians released all hostages. Reagan was an unknown. A feared unknown.

Barack Obama is an known, green, fight avoider. Not my fault. Just the way it is.

I also notice the number of Muslim countries that were supporting Obama. Wonder why?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by groingrinder

I can agree with that my friend, it seems that the American families of soldiers fighting for corporate ridden wars in the middle east.

Decided to give the finger to McCain and the 6 years of wasted Americans soldiers times in two good for nothing wars and the death and waste of Iraqis lives thanks to the Bush administration and his corporate cronies.

And let no forget that while the big corporate America and the military private industrial complex reap the benefits of the blood of Innocent our nation has fallen into a recession and an economic meltdown.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by marg6043]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by groingrinder
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.

Well, when Carter was president, the Iranians overran our embassy and took hostages.

Clinton had a bunch of dead Rangers in The Mog to claim as a "victory".

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by dooper

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

First, I take issue with your thread title. Repulsion, revulsion..."puked out"? Also, that "white-flag of surrender" is Palin's rap, I did not see you quote or give credit. Curious. Next thing you'll be saying is "Talking Points Memo is fed up..." just like Bill-O. I found nothing in your original posting that had any real logos, just a ton of pathos/fear.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by pluckynoonez]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:28 PM
"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. "

Thanks Cosmic Egg and Dreamsnatcher for bringing some intelligence to the debate. It's especially powerful to Americans when Ex-military tell it how it is.

I was trying to come up with an analogy to get across the jaw-dropping feeling of disbelief I feel watching people so thoroughly brainwashed duke it out over non-existent terror groups and puppet presidents. It's really amazing. The only metaphor I can think of is its like watching an intellectual cripple fight.

OP, if you think terror is real, go to youtube and look for the Aaron Russo/ Alex Jones interview about Nick Rockerfeller.
Better still, don't bother, you might learn something... instead of that, why not write a long post full of half-facts, verbal aggression and intellectual frustration and post that. After that, go to your tap and fill up a big glass of Fluoridated water and drink it all down.
There, that's better.

P.S. CIC is Zbigniew Brzezinski

[edit on 5-11-2008 by HiAliens]

[edit on 5-11-2008 by HiAliens]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by pluckynoonez

Yes, it is entirely possible that my premise is incorrect that Obama is a coward.

Note however, that Russia has already seen a crack, and is taking advantage?

Seems my viewpoint isn't lost on the Russians, and I'm sure in the days, weeks, and months ahead, we'll see more full-court presses.

Folks like to point to the utter failure of Vietnam, but they just look at the numbers, and miss one point I made in this post earlier.

You'll recall the ominous days of the Cold War. The Soviet Union, dominated by Russia, looked at the war in Vietnam, and came to a cold realization.

If the Americans will fight so hard at such costs for something they really don't care for - how much harder will they fight us if we pour across the border?



Without credibility, you will blunder beyond decades.

Obama is clearly without credibility.

So we'll be tested, and each time it will be our military who has to provide some backbone.

And we'll be tested again. And again.

One time, it will be pass/fail.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by dooper

I am sorry, but what you are espousing is the politics of fear. Terrorism is the new communism, and while Russia can easily rolled into that ball, it would be best to talk to them and not tell them what to do or isolate them. Don't fear the reaper, I think that is a song or something...Deep Purple? The point is, this fear/fear/fear of the world does no one good. Breathe, relax, the boogeyman died under my bed years ago.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
I didn’t vote for Obama...I am very interested in what he will do and how he builds his cabinet. The only saving grace will be that he gets strong military advisers and is not afraid to use strong arm when the time comes. Meeting one on one with Terrorist countries or countries that are not doing what needs to be done is not the answer. But, six party talks-just bogs down the process. He would be foolish to bring home all our troops from the middle east. We need them there-just like the bases and troops we maintain in Japan, Germany and Korea.

The military will get smaller-just like it did under Clinton-I hope if there is a situation that he won't just fire a couple of cruise missiles at it.

We absolutely need the missile shield-IF Iran or some other rogue nation launches an attack against us or our NATO/Partner nations we need a common defense. I would rather have a Defense system that doesn't require American Lives.

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

That is a totally leap. There is no basis for such a claim.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:17 PM
So who was the rogue nation in WWII, was it Britain or Germany?

What's your definition of Rogue Nation?

from wikipedia: (((my brackets)))

"Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by (1)authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, (2)sponsor terrorism, and seek to (3)proliferate weapons of mass destruction."

(1) Bush shredded constitution, Obama often voted for Bush's bills.
(2) 9/11 inside job+ rampaging through the middle east
(3) U.S. biggest arms dealer in the world along with China.

Rogue Nation: A state that will not completely bow down to the western globalist agenda and must be demonised and then subdued. Preferably able to mount a resistance weak enough to make the U.S. look big and tough but strong enough to justify huge military expenditure.

Pwnt by your own definition.


Also, do you have any idea at all about the President of Iran and who he is apart from some twisted, often unsubstantiated soundbites on CNN or Faux?

Be honest, how many words have you actually heard him speak? Check out the full 60 minute Larry King interview if you have the attention span, it's a real eye opener.
[edit on 5-11-2008 by HiAliens]

[edit on 5-11-2008 by HiAliens]

[edit on 5-11-2008 by HiAliens]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by pluckynoonez

Plucky, I don't personally fear the reaper. He's nothing like portrayed in cinema. More like the little fat guy on Seinfeld. Yeah, we're very familiar with each other. My turn is soon enough, and with our mutual familiarity, he knows he won't have to ease up on me on cat's feet. All he'll have to do is extend his hand, and I'll take it.

But, it isn't me I'm concerned for.

I've seen the results of weakness first hand. Our upcoming Commander-in-Chief is in for a number of surprises, and slick talk off a teleprompter isn't going to get him through. And just as in the rest of the animal world, the clearly weak one instantly becomes prey.

What concerns me is that when our leaders make dumbass decisions, it is our troops who have to make the payments.

Just real curious on how they feel.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:39 PM
Interesting that you picked the Democratic presidents of choice. What about FDR? Hmm? Inherited the Depression and did a good job during WW2. What about JFK? What if he had been a "coward" during the Cuban Missile Crisis? What if he blinked? Were these guys "cowards" too?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Waldy
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.

Oh, the irony.

You're not serious. You must be baiting.

But, just in case...

No military? I crave peace just as much as the next guy, but are you out of your "adult" mind?!

The President-elect may be a "diplomatic genius". But, in all reality, we have no idea yet, do we? Or, do you know something more about him than the rest of us, and if so, could you enlighten us?

I hope [there's that word] that President Obama will be able to lead this country with strength, integrity and the ecumenical spirit, if you will, that we need to Unite in more than just name.

That said, I know he's not foolish enough to think, for one moment, that the "most powerful" [i.e. most hated] country in the world can operate without a military.

The more I think about it, the more I think I just got trolled. Oh well. Good one.

[edit on 11.5.2008 by ItsTheQuestion]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by dooper

I also notice the number of Muslim countries that were supporting Obama. Wonder why?

Yeah. Some Christian ones, too.

Didn't Al Qaeda endorse McCain?

Wonder what all this stuff means?

Not what they want us to think.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by intrepid

Let's see. We were surprised at Pearl Harbor, and had little choice in the matter during the Second World War. So are you suggesting that Roosevelt's wisdom and intuition enabled our successful entry and conclusion?

Oh yes. Kennedy. Another Democrat who lost his balls at the Bay of Pigs, and abandoned many a good man on the beaches. Proven to be a man without courage, the Soviets were emboldened to push the envelope, and load up Cuba with missiles.

This is exactly what I'm talking about!


And before you know it, the entire thing is almost out of control. That's why we had our finger on the button, and were just a few hours short of World War Three. A full nuclear exchange.

Perceptions of weakness. Perceptions of no resolve.

Mistaken perceptions.

Thanks. You just made my point.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by intrepid
Interesting that you picked the Democratic presidents of choice.

Pretty ho-hum to me. According to the OP, are they all "cowards?"

All the Bush haters can give their seats to the Obama haters. Same ship, different day.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:02 PM

Originally posted by dooper

Thanks. You just made my point.

Only if you are living in Lala land. Why don't you wait until the man screws up before you castigate him as opposed to running on the record of past presidents?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:08 PM
Intrepid. I very much respect your views. It's my fault for not communicating effectively.

You suggest we wait until he screws up. That is a solid, valid point.

My point is that he will be perceived as weak, and thus non-problems will suddenly be thrust upon him. Thus, the high potential for mistakes.

It doesn't take much for things to get out of hand. I recall during that Cuban missile crisis as a kid, the B-52's circling the town ready for the final order. Even our military had moved their families out, they were that fearful.

Until proven otherwise, Obama will be perceived as green as a rainforest, and with his faux pas on international matters, he will also be perceived as weak.

Some challenges unfortunately, are challenges to the death.

This is not an on-the-job-training exercise.

Some folks play for keeps. And you don't always get to choose your enemies. Who have their own schedules.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by Niall197

I don't think the military will start playing their "little games."

If you are a soldier, especially the infantry, you are basically a gunfighter. And if you are a gunfighter, you should be good with your gun. Well, guess what?

Most of our soldiers do not have sufficient range time and ammunition to become good with their weapons.

So if you hear of shortages, it's likely true.

We rather fund high tech weaponry, which of course is necessary, but at the expense of supplying our troops with the needs of today.

Let's see what our new commander in chief, compelled by a liberal congress and senate actually do.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in