• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Support Grows to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

1. Actually, it isn't--when it's your job. It's a matter of actually sitting down and DOING IT.

2. You DON'T think that they need a clear mission? THEN WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE THERE???? AND HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN WE'RE DONE? Or do you plan on having 100,000+ troops in a-ghan indefinitely???

3. I was similarly critical of Bush for lacking a plan/direction. I have no problem with committing our military to kick the ass of any country--as long as we have clear goals/objectives in doing so.

Not really a pacifist, but I like us to have a plan.

I agree 100%. The only difference that I have with you is that when there was no mission from the start it is not that easy trying to mold a mission out of oatmeal if you get what I mean.
 
No...I've said that the President is the one who needs to define the mission.
I've also said that I don't expect him to be able to do that easily where there hasn't been a clearly defined mission from the beginning in over a decade.



So how long does he need? How long are you willing to let troops sit in hostile terrirtory while you CiC "decides" ?
 
So how long does he need? How long are you willing to let troops sit in hostile terrirtory while you CiC "decides" ?

They've been sitting in hostile territory for a decade without a plan. I'm willing to give more than a couple of weeks before deciding to amplify it.
 
I agree 100%. The only difference that I have with you is that when there was no mission from the start it is not that easy trying to mold a mission out of oatmeal if you get what I mean.

Then that should be his sole focus right now, and he should not divert his attention with other mundane activities until he's created his goals/objectives for our armed forces, who it needs to be said, are being shot at, waiting for him to decide.
 
The problem is that for 8 years, the military has not had a clearly defined mission, goal, or terms of victory leading to withdrawal of U.S. forces. If Obama is continuing Bush's ill-conceived and ill-defined strategy, that's f'ing scary.

Do you know what it reminds me of? Clinton & Somalia. That's what scares the pee out of me.

You do know that it was Bush 41 that sent troops into Somalia?

Clinton was smart enough not to get stuck in a quagmire, and got them out ASAP.
 
Then that should be his sole focus right now, and he should not divert his attention with other mundane activities until he's created his goals/objectives for our armed forces, who it needs to be said, are being shot at, waiting for him to decide.

I'm not sure that focusing 100% of his time on the issue is going to be able to help salvage what was a botched and ill-conceived mission from the beginning.
 
I think they will be waiting for awhile before a coherent plan is formulated. Obama, unfortunately, seems to be more concerned about his image than about doing what is right. I don't agree with DADT in any way, but I think his timing on trying to end it has more to do with him caring about his image and the fact that he doesn't like being criticized for his inaction. Meanwhile, our troops are in harms way waiting for him to make a decision. I'm honestly curious how anyone can defend this.
 
You do know that it was Bush 41 that sent troops into Somalia?

Clinton was smart enough not to get stuck in a quagmire, and got them out ASAP.




Clinton left men to die. Clinton was more concerned with international reputation, than the lives of those he kept in harms way.
 
I'm not sure that focusing 100% of his time on the issue is going to be able to help salvage what was a botched and ill-conceived mission from the beginning.

Then he should be spending 100% of his time focusing on getting our people out, ASAP.

Jesus Christ.
 
That's the thing...I'm NOT an-Obama hater, but he was elected (by me and others) to do a job, and that job wasn't to focus on public appearances.

Amen. Nor am I. I actually voted for the guy. However, his performance thus far has been disappointing to say the least.
 
Those are exactly the facts.

President Bush the Elder sent U.S. forces into Somalia in December 1992 to aid the United Nations in relieving a massive famine. In May of 1993, four months into his term, President Clinton declared that mission accomplished and pulled out most of the U.S. forces. In a speech on the South Lawn to associate himself with the effort, he extolled the decision to intervene: "If all of you who served had not gone, it is absolutely certain that tens of thousands would have died by now." It was a "successful mission," he said, and "proved yet again that American leadership can help to mobilize international action ..."

But back in Somalia, with no U.S. deterrent, Somalia's warlords began fighting again. After a series of bloody attacks on U.N. peacekeepers, Mr. Clinton launched a new mission: In August 1993, he sent in a force of Rangers and Special Forces units to capture the brutal warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid and restore order.

That force asked for heavy armor -- in the form of Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles -- as well as the AC-130 gunship, but the Clinton Administration denied those requests. On October 3 on a mission to pick up Aidid, two Black Hawks were unexpectedly shot down; in the ensuing urban gun battle, 18 American soldiers were killed and another 73 injured.


Many military experts believe that if the U.S. forces had had armor, fewer would have died. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin resigned two months after Somalia, having acknowledged that his decision on the armor had been an error. A 1994 Senate Armed Services Committee investigation reached the same conclusion. But perhaps the most poignant statement came from retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Joyce, father of Sergeant Casey Joyce, a Ranger killed in Mogadishu: "Had there been armor ... I contend that my son would probably be alive today ..."

Mr. Clinton's responsibility in Somalia doesn't stop there. Despite the mistakes that October day, Aidid had been struck a blow. The U.S. military, with 18 dead, wanted nothing more than to finish what it had started. Mr. Clinton instead aborted the mission. The U.S. released the criminals it had captured that same day at such great cost, and the U.N., lacking U.S. support, was powerless to keep order. Somalia remains a lawless, impoverished nation. Worse, the terrorists of al Qaeda interpreted the U.S. retreat from Somalia as a sign of American weakness that may have convinced them we could be induced to retreat from the Middle East if they took their attacks to the U.S. homeland.

Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2002

But this thread isn't about Somalia. However, I'd be happy to pursue this subject with you on the military board, if you'd like.
 
Last edited:
Then he should be spending 100% of his time focusing on getting our people out, ASAP.

Jesus Christ.

Do you really believe that it is that simple?

Perhaps the answer isn't a complete pullout or amplifying the effort.

I don't know what the answer is...that's the problem when you are left to clean up somebody elses mess.
 
So how long does he need? How long are you willing to let troops sit in hostile terrirtory while you CiC "decides" ?

The Iraq War began in March of 2003. It wasn't until January of 2007 that a coherent campaign plan was formulated by the Bush administration. So if Obama is anything like Bush, the answer to your question is just under four years.
 
don't know what the answer is...that's the problem when you are left to clean up somebody elses mess.

Quit acting like he's a victim. He volunteered FOR THIS JOB, knowing he would be cleaning up a mess. He has failed to do his job, to date, while thousands of U.S. service personnel anticipate yet another holiday spent away from their families, being shot at. Maybe you would feel more strongly about this, as I do, if you had a personal investment in this issue.

While our guys and gals are being shot at, waiting for Obama to decide what their job is, he's busy, appearing on Letterman.

Feel free to defend that, but it will make you look like an imbecile.

My boyfriend spent a year in Tikrit. He won't be mobilized for another 4 years to go back, but his friends and their families are being directly impacted by Obama's indecision. We both voted for Obama, and we are both EQUALLY unhappy with his inaction on this issue.

If you think that this is a bunch of nothing criticisms by Obama foes, you're sadly mistaken. These are people who took a chance and voted for Obama and are now afraid of what they've purchased for the next 4 years.
 
Last edited:
Quit acting like he's a victim. He volunteered FOR THIS JOB, knowing he would be cleaning up a mess. He has failed to do his job, to date, while thousands of U.S. service personnel anticipate yet another holiday spent away from their families, being shot at.

While our guys and gals are being shot at, waiting for Obama to decide what their job is, he's appearing on letterman.

Feel free to defend that, but it will make you look like an imbecile.

I'm not claiming he is a victim....I'm just not going to expect him to solve a decade old problem overnight. Sorry.
 
Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2002

But this thread isn't about Somalia. However, I'd be happy to pursue this subject with you on the military board, if you'd like.

Yes, we can discuss another time, but I'll just mention that that is a WSJ opinion piece.

The facts that Bush 41 sent troops in, and that Clinton pulled troops out is not in dispute by anyone. Your argument will be reduced to arguing tactics and if the mission should have continued with even more dead US soldiers.
 
9 months isn't OVERNIGHT.

Is there anything he could do that you might criticize? Just hoping for some objectivity here.

I've already given several.

What do you think the answer is?

Should Obama send in more troops and subject our military to another endless 5-6-7 tours of duty?
Bush has already broken and over-extended our military to the point of exhaustion....

Or do we completely pull-out?

Obviously...continuing with the same old failed Bush plan is not the answer...but again....the people crying the loudest for Obama to do something are the same ones (for the most part) who sat silent under GWB's lack of a plan.

What is the answer?
 
Last edited:
I think they will be waiting for awhile before a coherent plan is formulated. Obama, unfortunately, seems to be more concerned about his image than about doing what is right. I don't agree with DADT in any way, but I think his timing on trying to end it has more to do with him caring about his image and the fact that he doesn't like being criticized for his inaction. Meanwhile, our troops are in harms way waiting for him to make a decision. I'm honestly curious how anyone can defend this.




Exactly.... :thumbs:
 
Yes, we can discuss another time, but I'll just mention that that is a WSJ opinion piece.

The facts that Bush 41 sent troops in, and that Clinton pulled troops out is not in dispute by anyone. Your argument will be reduced to arguing tactics and if the mission should have continued with even more dead US soldiers.




If we had the appropriate CAS as requested by those on the ground, there would be less dead US soldiers, not more in Somalia.
 
Should Obama send in more troops and subject our military to another endless 5-6-7 tours of duty?
Bush has already broken and over-extended our military to the point of exhaustion....

Or do we completely pull-out?

Obviously...continuing with the same old failed Bush plan is not the answer...but again....the people crying the loudest for Obama to do something are the same ones (for the most part) who sat silent under GWB's lack of a plan.

What is the answer?

I don't know what the answer is, but then, it's not my job to know. It IS Obama's job.
 
Back
Top Bottom