Who is strong in national defense ?

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
72,765
Likes
42,933
#1
Romney said he didn't think it was worth so much effort to kill bin Laden.

Obama said he would bring everything to bare to "kill him."

And he did.
 
#5
#5
Yeah, Obama was the one who exerted all that effort to "kill him". Gtfo of here with that sh*t.
 
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
Romney said he didn't think it was worth so much effort to kill bin Laden.

Obama said he would bring everything to bare to "kill him."

And he did.
Click to expand...

Obama also said that he could see dead people and that he'd traveled to 57 states
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
I like Obama's foreign policy up to the point in comparison to what I would expect from the GOP. It's the economy stuff that bugs me.
 
#11
#11
utvolpj said:
well there you have it.

Obama- can defend 57 states
Romney- can only defend 50 states

GSM to LG
Click to expand...

57 is greater than 50 which.means Obama is superior. He is already defending states that are not states yet. He sees into.the futures .
 
#12
#12
Since we knew where he was, IMO it would have been more productive to monitor him and gain intel. Good ol fashion spy sh!t. Heck, I would be we have known for years where he was and been listening in, we sure did find and take out a bunch of his deputies. But with sagging poll numbers, I understand BO had to do something.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
Romney said he didn't think it was worth so much effort to kill bin Laden.

Obama said he would bring everything to bare to "kill him."

And he did.
Click to expand...

Revisionist history. There were a series of events that allowed the Pakis to let us do more collection in their country that the President had nothing to do with. He did sign the PD that gave greater freedom for our guys to collect and then finally go after OBL, but that was because Gates set it up right.

Yes, the President gets the credit but there were a lot of other people involved (most of whom will never get any sort of credit) who worked for years to make it happen. Obama did not bring everything to bare, he simply allowed the intel agencies and defense department to continue to work.

Giving Obama credit for OBL is about the same as giving Saddam Hussein credit for the death of Abu Nidal...
 
#16
#16
YorkVol said:
Revisionist history. There were a series of events that allowed the Pakis to let us do more collection in their country that the President had nothing to do with. He did sign the PD that gave greater freedom for our guys to collect and then finally go after OBL, but that was because Gates set it up right.

Yes, the President gets the credit but there were a lot of other people involved (most of whom will never get any sort of credit) who worked for years to make it happen. Obama did not bring everything to bare, he simply allowed the intel agencies and defense department to continue to work.

Giving Obama credit for OBL is about the same as giving Saddam Hussein credit for the death of Abu Nidal...
Click to expand...


Obama had to make the decision to send the team in, risk them and possibly a colossal failure for his presidency, piss off the Pakistanis, risk injury or death to civilians and the fall out from that, etc.

Romney would have said "Don't go. Wait, go. Wait, don't go. I'm for going, right? No? I'm not for going? What I am in favor of, again, someone remind me?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
Obama had to make the decision to send the team in, risk them and possibly a colossal failure for his presidency, piss off the Pakistanis, risk injury or death to civilians and the fall out from that, etc.

Romney would have said "Don't go. Wait, go. Wait, don't go. I'm for going, right? No? I'm not for going? What I am in favor of, again, someone remind me?"
Click to expand...

Would have said, lmao @ the clown
 
#20
#20
hog88 said:
Since we knew where he was, IMO it would have been more productive to monitor him and gain intel. Good ol fashion spy sh!t. Heck, I would be we have known for years where he was and been listening in, we sure did find and take out a bunch of his deputies. But with sagging poll numbers, I understand BO had to do something.
Click to expand...

he had no communication with the outside except by courier. Eliminate that and risk losing him

the major error came when it was publicized that we gathered all the intel from his house. The reports about the damage it could have done are disheartening. That is what he did for poll numbers
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
Obama had to make the decision to send the team in, risk them and possibly a colossal failure for his presidency, piss off the Pakistanis, risk injury or death to civilians and the fall out from that, etc.

Romney would have said "Don't go. Wait, go. Wait, don't go. I'm for going, right? No? I'm not for going? What I am in favor of, again, someone remind me?"
Click to expand...

Last part is funny, sort of.

But, the way it is set up, the go/no go decision brief lays it out pretty clearly with the risks mitigated to the point that even a failed military mission would have been spun for the right political gain. The President's decision/role is important but the professionals set it up so regardless of what idiot we've elected, he can do his part, get the credit and not break anything in the process.

Think about it. Unless we were to elect another Eisenhower, no one, not Obama, not Romney, not even a McCain, has the level of experience that would be required to fully understand, analyze and make such a decision. They are forced to rely on the professional staff to their benefit. And those professional military and intelligence folks work with the political staff to include political considerations and courses of action. They don't want a sitting president to make a bad decision because he fears the political fall out.

We've come a long way since Desert One, especially in the blame game; recall the super cluster f*&k in Mogadishu didn't hit Clinton at all, SECDEF took the fall and Clinton came out looking very sympathetic...
 
#22
#22
utvolpj said:
he had no communication with the outside except by courier. Eliminate that and risk losing him

the major error came when it was publicized that we gathered all the intel from his house. The reports about the damage it could have done are disheartening. That is what he did for poll numbers
Click to expand...

True.
 
#23
#23
YorkVol said:
But, the way it is set up, the go/no go decision brief lays it out pretty clearly with the risks mitigated to the point that even a failed military mission would have been spun for the right political gain. The President's decision/role is important but the professionals set it up so regardless of what idiot we've elected, he can do his part, get the credit and not break anything in the process.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Carter.
 
#24
#24
utvolpj said:
he had no communication with the outside except by courier. Eliminate that and risk losing him

the major error came when it was publicized that we gathered all the intel from his house. The reports about the damage it could have done are disheartening. That is what he did for poll numbers
Click to expand...

Good point, forgot about the no como.

Your right, smart money would have been to kill them all and never, never let it out that he was dead (or is he). Deny everything, should of used foriegn birds....
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
Tell that to Carter.
Click to expand...

Carter let the branches fight it out for who was going to get credit, then allowed a piss poor plan to take action. If you study that raid it was doomed for failure because the Army, Navy and Air Force all wanted a piece and Carter allowed it to happen.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top