• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama’s novel definition of ‘hostilities’

hose trying to cause problems for what we're doing in Lybia better be ready for the rammifications of our exit.

It will show Assad in Syria and Saleh in Yemen that all they have to do is wait us out. Other dictators in the region will see the same thing.

Even when we don't have troops involved, we'll turn our back on people.
 
RJKarl said:
hose trying to cause problems for what we're doing in Lybia better be ready for the rammifications of our exit.

It will show Assad in Syria and Saleh in Yemen that all they have to do is wait us out. Other dictators in the region will see the same thing.

Even when we don't have troops involved, we'll turn our back on people.
Click to expand...

First, we jumped into the Libya game awfully late in the name of saving lives. Had we jumped in earlier, we not only save more lives but probably boot Kaddafy Duck to boot. The question is now that we are there, what are we trying to do? Save lives? Overthrow Kaddafy Duck? Both? OK, then why? What are our short and long term interests there? These need to be articulated.

Second, if Assad and Saleh are waiting us out, that's the first I've heard of it. We aren't involved in Syria. Saleh just got fucked up by an RPG from his own people while we take advantage of the unrest in Yemen and continue to bomb the AQ guys there like we have been doing for 10 years now.
 
READING is fundamental.

IF we leave, they will see it as weakness and the inability to do even the easiest thing in the region.
 
why would they see it as weakness? We aren't doing anything to them personally, and we've had a commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan for about 10 years now.

Those guys see us as anything but weak, but they know that they're relatively safe (except the Yemen guy) given the geopolitics of the region. It has little to do with our military might or lack thereof. We could take them out if it was in our interest to.
 
RJKarl said:
You've used David Horowitz as a source. you've used Drudge repeatedly.

We'd be blind if we didn't see if you entore POV for the past six months is attack, attack attack.
Click to expand...

You are too much

A) I have hardly posted on here or the other political board in the past 6 months

B) The op/ed I posted in this thread is by Eugene Robinson...one of the biggest Obama supporters in the MSM.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
You are too much

A) I have hardly posted on here or the other political board in the past 6 months

B) The op/ed I posted in this thread is by Eugene Robinson...one of the biggest Obama supporters in the MSM.
Click to expand...

Search: Posts Made By: SkinsNDeacs ; Forum: RJKarl's Political Asylum

Showing results 1 to 25 of 84
Search took 0.02 seconds.
 
RJKarl said:
READING is fundamental.

IF we leave, they will see it as weakness and the inability to do even the easiest thing in the region.
Click to expand...

Not weighing in on the current debate, just wanted to say that about 5 years ago this very same argument was being made. However, at the time, roles were reversed.

Pretty funny how we have come full circle.
 
GaDeac said:
Not weighing in on the current debate, just wanted to say that about 5 years ago this very same argument was being made. However, at the time, roles were reversed.

Pretty funny how we have come full circle.
Click to expand...

Not the least bit comparable. We started a war of choice with tons of American boots on the ground in Iraq.

We have no troops in the ground in Lybia.

The way we went to war in Iraq was immoral.
 
I would also think to be involved in "hostilities" our troops would have be shot at.
 
Dumbest definition of "hostilities" ever.

Let's go ahead and nuke pakistan. As long as there are no troops getting shot at we won't be engaged in hostilities.
 
I think it counts as hostilities if I shoot at my neighbor's house, even if he doesn't shoot back.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
why would they see it as weakness? We aren't doing anything to them personally, and we've had a commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan for about 10 years now.

Those guys see us as anything but weak, but they know that they're relatively safe (except the Yemen guy) given the geopolitics of the region. It has little to do with our military might or lack thereof. We could take them out if it was in our interest to.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that apply to every square foot of the planet? The question is why aren't we.
 
If you don't think bombing a country isn't a hostile act, thus engaging in hostilities, you are an idiot. You don't have to have boots on the ground to engage in hostilities. To argue that you do have to have boots on the ground is simply justifying the bombings because the person you support is in power and making the decision.

If anyone were to bomb the U.S., we would say they were being hostile to us. Japan was hostile to us in 1941. Terrorists were hostile to us in 2001. What we are doing now is a hostile act, thus we are engaging in hostilities, towards the current Libyan government.

That being said, I do not think us engaging in these hostilities is a bad thing.
 
It's kind of absurd to argue that if the other side can't hit you back that you're not in hostilities with them.

It seems that the real mission in Libya is to knock down Qaddafi but perhaps not necessarily put these rebels in power, either. Basically, it appears we'd like Libya to be a zero sum game until a better option presents itself.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I think it counts as hostilities if I shoot at my neighbor's house, even if he doesn't shoot back.
Click to expand...

But we're not shooting. We're directing where to shoot and are not in danger.

If you shoot at your neighbor's house from your house. He can shoot back if he so chooses.

Our guys are hundreds of thousands of miles away and in range of being shot at.
 
GaDeac said:
If you don't think bombing a country isn't a hostile act, thus engaging in hostilities, you are an idiot. You don't have to have boots on the ground to engage in hostilities. To argue that you do have to have boots on the ground is simply justifying the bombings because the person you support is in power and making the decision.

If anyone were to bomb the U.S., we would say they were being hostile to us. Japan was hostile to us in 1941. Terrorists were hostile to us in 2001. What we are doing now is a hostile act, thus we are engaging in hostilities, towards the current Libyan government.

That being said, I do not think us engaging in these hostilities is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

We aren't flying bombing raids. That would be hostilities.
 
RJKarl said:
But we're not shooting. We're directing where to shoot and are not in danger.

If you shoot at your neighbor's house from your house. He can shoot back if he so chooses.

Our guys are hundreds of thousands of miles away and in range of being shot at.
Click to expand...

If I call in locations to a sniper aiming a gun at my neighbor's house, we are in hostilities. It's a legal fiction to argue otherwise.
 
I think when they wrote the War Powers Act "hostilities" meant putting people in theater of war and at risk.

I don't think it meant providing intelligence while putting no troops at risk.

That being said. He's made a mistake in not putting forth some more info to the right committees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top