Obama Moves Up Another Notch in My Book

#26
#26
emainvol said:
Why wouldn't he be? He gave the order, nothing more.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I am on record for not being an Obama fan or hater. To deny the stones it took to make that extremely risky call just shows a predisposed bias.

Did he go in? No. Did he pull the trigger? Absolutely not. But many politicians are on record that they would not pull the trigger on a raid of that type if given the opportunity.

Should he get the bulk of the credit? Not at all. Should he get a tip of the hat for a risky, gutsy call? Yes, unless one can't be objective at all.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
No notch for Bin Laden?
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm glad we got Bin Laden, but I don't think Obama is responsible (maybe a little responsible). I'm extremely pissed about his foreign policy in general, so it's hard to give him any credit. The guy who promised to shut down Guantanamo and get us out of Iraq within 16 months is:

Still in Iraq
Has increased efforts in Afghanistan
Has committed acts of war in Libya
is not shutting down Gitmo

Wow, his foreign policy looks exactly like W's.
 
Last edited:
#28
#28
JayVols said:
I am on record for not being an Obama fan or hater. To deny the stones it took to make that extremely risky call just shows a predisposed bias.

Did he go in? No. Did he pull the trigger? Absolutely not. But many politicians are on record that they would not pull the trigger on a raid of that type if given the opportunity.

Should he get the bulk of the credit? Not at all. Should he get a tip of the hat for a risky, gutsy call? Yes, unless one can't be objective at all.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The decision to send 40+ SEALS into that compound was so easy that UTGibbs could've made it (except his plan would be to give medals to everyone in the entire military for the kill, regardless of their involvement or action to earn it, but rather, simply to prevent one person from being more highly-rewarded for their own heroic actions, alone).

What were they going to do, bomb it? Do you know what type of collateral damage would've ensued, and what the fallout from that would've been (read: bloodthirsty Americans slaughter innocent people for revenge)? How would you have recovered the body and empirically proved he was dead - there would be no remains.

How about sending choppers in to do some close-quarters firing - how long until the Pakistani's reacted by returning fire (and then what do you have on your hands?) - or worse, OBL isn't killed and somehow escapes the compound, when't the next chance you'll have? By my count, you average exactly one per decade.

So, what other option was there on the table - I think two:

1. Do nothing (which he had been doing since receiving the first solid intel all the way back in August) - and risk him getting away...just like Clinton allegedly did when he failed to order a strike on his location....a few years previous to 9/11.

2. Send a SpecOps team in to kill him and extract the body.

You're totally right - what a tough and heroic choice President Obama made there by picking the single viable option from a whopping total of two on the table.
 
#29
#29
Tenacious D said:
The decision to send 40+ SEALS into that compound was so easy that UTGibbs could've made it (except his plan would be to give medals to everyone in the entire military for the kill, regardless of their involvement or action to earn it, but rather, simply to prevent one person from being more highly-rewarded for their own heroic actions, alone).

What were they going to do, bomb it? Do you know what type of collateral damage would've ensued, and what the fallout from that would've been (read: bloodthirsty Americans slaughter innocent people for revenge)? How would you have recovered the body and empirically proved he was dead - there would be no remains.

How about sending choppers in to do some close-quarters firing - how long until the Pakistani's reacted by returning fire (and then what do you have on your hands?) - or worse, OBL isn't killed and somehow escapes the compound, when't the next chance you'll have? By my count, you average exactly one per decade.

So, what other option was there on the table - I think two:

1. Do nothing (which he had been doing since receiving the first solid intel all the way back in August) - and risk him getting away...just like Clinton allegedly did when he failed to order a strike on his location....a few years previous to 9/11.

2. Send a SpecOps team in to kill him and extract the body.

You're totally right - what a tough and heroic choice President Obama made there by picking the single viable option from a whopping total of two on the table.
Click to expand...

Overreact much?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
I don't have a problem w/ G-S act

What's your definition of speculation? And how is it unproductive? Buying Disney is speculative b/c you are speculating that more kids will watch Mickey Mouse. Is that a bad thing? If I buy a CD from a bank, I am speculating that the bank is sound and won't go bust. If I buy stock in an oil wildcatter and they make a new discovery, how is that speculation bad? If I speculate by buying silver coins, how is that unproductive?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#31
#31
Tenacious D said:
The decision to send 40+ SEALS into that compound was so easy that UTGibbs could've made it (except his plan would be to give medals to everyone in the entire military for the kill, regardless of their involvement or action to earn it, but rather, simply to prevent one person from being more highly-rewarded for their own heroic actions, alone).

What were they going to do, bomb it? Do you know what type of collateral damage would've ensued, and what the fallout from that would've been (read: bloodthirsty Americans slaughter innocent people for revenge)? How would you have recovered the body and empirically proved he was dead - there would be no remains.

How about sending choppers in to do some close-quarters firing - how long until the Pakistani's reacted by returning fire (and then what do you have on your hands?) - or worse, OBL isn't killed and somehow escapes the compound, when't the next chance you'll have? By my count, you average exactly one per decade.

So, what other option was there on the table - I think two:

1. Do nothing (which he had been doing since receiving the first solid intel all the way back in August) - and risk him getting away...just like Clinton allegedly did when he failed to order a strike on his location....a few years previous to 9/11.

2. Send a SpecOps team in to kill him and extract the body.

You're totally right - what a tough and heroic choice President Obama made there by picking the single viable option from a whopping total of two on the table.
Click to expand...

Please, he made a risky call that could have completely backfired in our faces had Bin Laden not been there and even worse had the Seals gotten into a firefight with Pakistani military forces. Obama definitely deserves some credit in this case.
 
#32
#32
:snoring:

empty_suit_1.jpg
 
#33
#33
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I don't have a problem w/ G-S act

What's your definition of speculation? And how is it unproductive? Buying Disney is speculative b/c you are speculating that more kids will watch Mickey Mouse. Is that a bad thing? If I buy a CD from a bank, I am speculating that the bank is sound and won't go bust. If I buy stock in an oil wildcatter and they make a new discovery, how is that speculation bad? If I speculate by buying silver coins, how is that unproductive?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

a better question is to why higher taxes would control speculation?
 
#36
#36
vol4eva said:
Please, he made a risky call that could have completely backfired in our faces had Bin Laden not been there and even worse had the Seals gotten into a firefight with Pakistani military forces. Obama definitely deserves some credit in this case.
Click to expand...

Saying it was risky to me means we are lucky it worked out. If it was risky then he shouldn't have made the call.

We don't know the level of risk, or whether or not it was a good call playing the odds. All we know is it seemed to have worked out.
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
nbakerld said:
Saying it was risky to me means we are lucky it worked out. If it was risky then he shouldn't have made the call.

We don't know the level of risk, or whether or not it was a good call playing the odds. All we know is it seemed to have worked out.
Click to expand...

Are you saying risks should never be taken?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#38
#38
utgibbs said:
A very bad move with a lot of historical precedents. I'll have a look at the plan, but it should be fairly obvious we need a lot more regulation, especially of the financial sector.
Click to expand...
No. We need two things.

One, we need to basically scrap the whole convoluted mess and re-build it so that it works. That would likely cut many volumes out of finance law.

Two, gov't needs to become the referree again and stop taking sides. Justice should be blind and all should be equal in the eyes of the law.

You can "reform" finance laws from now on... and as long as the incestuous relationship exists between progressive politicians of both parties and big business.

Sounds like he's trying to take away Republican talking points. I don't think there is much in it. If he is serious, on the surface, it is a very, very bad move.
Click to expand...
Keep writing... you just keep providing proof that you have no tether to the real world... or else you are a complete fraud.
 
#40
#40
sjt18 said:
No. We need two things.

One, we need to basically scrap the whole convoluted mess and re-build it so that it works. That would likely cut many volumes out of finance law.

Two, gov't needs to become the referree again and stop taking sides. Justice should be blind and all should be equal in the eyes of the law.

You can "reform" finance laws from now on... and as long as the incestuous relationship exists between progressive politicians of both parties and big business.

Keep writing... you just keep providing proof that you have no tether to the real world... or else you are a complete fraud.
Click to expand...

All politicians are bought and paid for. PAC money/campaign bribes, er, donations should be illegal. Until then, nothing changes.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#41
#41
JayVols said:
Are you saying risks should never be taken?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You take an unnecessary risk every time you make a left turn, but I turn left, so I guess I'm not saying that.

There's risk in everything you do. We have no idea what the level of risk was when Obama made the call. It could have been fail-proof. It could have been an idiotic decision, odds-wise, and it happened to work out. We don't know. That's my point.
 
#42
#42
therealUT said:
False.



False.
Click to expand...

Thereal - I've since learned / read / seen something in the media about Delta forces having been involved in some capacity as well.

So, I stand corrected in having doubted that assertion when you made it in an earlier thread.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#43
#43
vol4eva said:
Please, he made a risky call that could have completely backfired in our faces had Bin Laden not been there and even worse had the Seals gotten into a firefight with Pakistani military forces. Obama definitely deserves some credit in this case.
Click to expand...

Name another viable option other than that which he took, and I will relent the point.

You guys sound like one of those JFK apologists who tout his wartime bravery in the South Sea by clutching another man's life jacket tether in his teeth and swimming them to safety - forgetting that it was JFK's own dereliction of duty (all crewman including JFK were asleep below, adrift and without a watch stationed when a Japanese destroyer ran them over, cutting the boat in two) that placed the man in such a precarious position to begin with.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
nbakerld said:
You take an unnecessary risk every time you make a left turn, but I turn left, so I guess I'm not saying that.

There's risk in everything you do. We have no idea what the level of risk was when Obama made the call. It could have been fail-proof. It could have been an idiotic decision, odds-wise, and it happened to work out. We don't know. That's my point.
Click to expand...

Ok. I was a bit puzzled. I think the skill, technology, dedication, and work of thousands of Americans is the reason for that success. I was/am VERY proud of our 'guys' and the skill they demonstrated in the raid.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
Tenacious D said:
Name another viable option other than that which he took, and I will relent the point.

You guys sound like one of those JFK apologists who tout his wartime bravery in the South Sea by clutching another man's life jacket tether in his teeth and swimming them to safety - forgetting that it was JFK's own dereliction of duty (all crewman including JFK were asleep below, adrift and without a watch stationed when a Japanese destroyer ran them over, cutting the boat in two) that placed the man in such a precarious position to begin with.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

D- you really are blowing my statements (I suppose I'm included with the 'guys') out of proportion. Reread the original. I never said Obama deserved anything more than a nod for making the decision. The odds were 60% he was there-not close to a sure thing. I am no great fan of Obama, but I will not refuse to recognize positives that any person does simply because I may not be their biggest fan. He made the decision to send some of if not the best guys we have after the world's #1 terrorist where 2 previous presidents chose not to do the same. Nothing more nothing less.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I don't have a problem w/ G-S act

What's your definition of speculation? And how is it unproductive? Buying Disney is speculative b/c you are speculating that more kids will watch Mickey Mouse. Is that a bad thing? If I buy a CD from a bank, I am speculating that the bank is sound and won't go bust. If I buy stock in an oil wildcatter and they make a new discovery, how is that speculation bad? If I speculate by buying silver coins, how is that unproductive?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Productivity is growing carrots and building / operating trains. It is not trading ABS, CDO, and fiat currencies.

In your sector, ensuring good carrot growers get necessary capital is productive work.

However, banks create money. Which drives growth. We desperately need a steady-state (and highly efficient) economy. The financialization of our economy over the last forty years with the resulting Depression, and the fact that all Ben Bernacke and the textbook PhDs can come up with is QE2 is testimony that Capital is bursting the superstructure of its metabolic reproduction. The epic collapse of Capitalism is nigh - even the reactionary elements on this board fear it - and we have to reassess the entire financial sector from top to bottom.
 
#48
#48
sjt18 said:
One, we need to basically scrap the whole convoluted mess and re-build it so that it works. That would likely cut many volumes out of finance law.

Sounds like Revolutionary politics to me! :good!:

Two, gov't needs to become the referree again and stop taking sides. Justice should be blind and all should be equal in the eyes of the law.

Sounds like REGULATION to me. :good!:
Click to expand...

Canidates often steal the language of their opponents to diffuse political dynamite. It's common.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top