• 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!

Paratrooper's Mom Begs Obama: 'End It'

American said:
No, being decisive is the only reasonable position.
Click to expand...

Until rash action leads to more deaths and destruction than careful assessment.

I think it takes a lot of gall to enthusiastically support "decisiveness" when it could very well cause more deaths among our troops, whom you are allegedly so worried about.
 
Morality Games said:
Until rash action leads to more deaths and destruction than careful assessment.
Click to expand...
Decisive action doies not necessitate rashness, nor does it preclude careful assessment.

I think it takes a lot of gall to enthusiastically support "decisiveness" when it could very well cause more deaths among our troops, whom you are allegedly so worried about.
Click to expand...
I think it takes a lot of gall to denounce "decisiveness" out-of-hand when the lack of same could very well cause more deaths among our troops, whom you are allegedly so worried about.
 
American said:
No, being decisive is the only reasonable position.
Click to expand...

I made a decisive position. Parents should not be the deciding voice on military action. This stance does not change if I agree with the parent or I disagree with the parent. It is a principled position, not one that is fickle akin to a President deciding what to do simply on poll ratings. Presidents should not be making military decisions based on what makes a parent happy.

I agree we need to send those troops in, and we needed that decision to be made weeks ago. That doesn't change the fact that I do not think, nor want, a President to make decisions based on the complaints or pleas of parents. Unlike those of you bellowing out about this becasue it fits your fickle political position today, I base my actual political views on these things called "principles" and they don't shift like the wind like the daily gallop poll. Parents should not be setting military policy. They shouldn't have when they were asking Bush to "end it" and they shouldn't now with Obama.
 
Morality Games said:
Until rash action leads to more deaths and destruction than careful assessment.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
Decisive action doies not necessitate rashness, nor does it preclude careful assessment.
Click to expand...

Both of you are missing the point here and being bamboozled by American.

This thread isn't about desisiveness. Whether or not Obama should take his time to decide to send troops or make a choice swiftly isn't the issue here. The issue is whether Obama should be listening to a PARENT about MILITARY decisions.

That has nothing to do truly with decisiveness or rash action. It doesn't matter if the Parent was saying "end it" as in bring the troops home or "End it" as in end his indecisiveness. What matters is the principled notion that the Commander in Chief should not be letting the pleas of a grieving parent decide his choice for what is best for the defense of this entire nation.
 
Zyphlin said:
I made a decisive position. Parents should not be the deciding voice on military action. This stance does not change if I agree with the parent or I disagree with the parent. It is a principled position, not one that is fickle akin to a President deciding what to do simply on poll ratings. Presidents should not be making military decisions based on what makes a parent happy.

I agree we need to send those troops in, and we needed that decision to be made weeks ago. That doesn't change the fact that I do not think, nor want, a President to make decisions based on the complaints or pleas of parents. Unlike those of you bellowing out about this becasue it fits your fickle political position today, I base my actual political views on these things called "principles" and they don't shift like the wind like the daily gallop poll. Parents should not be setting military policy. They shouldn't have when they were asking Bush to "end it" and they shouldn't now with Obama.
Click to expand...

I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it. There are so many parents for or against the war and they all have children serving. The media likes to isolate single cases and blow them out of proportion given the public opinion trends toward the current administration. When war is not popular, you hear about more dissenters; when war is popular, all you see is support; meanwhile both sides always exist simultaneously.

This woman does not and should not have any sway on the current administration, no matter how many agencies pick up her story.
 
Goobieman said:
Decisive action doies not necessitate rashness, nor does it preclude careful assessment.


I think it takes a lot of gall to denounce "decisiveness" out-of-hand when the lack of same could very well cause more deaths among our troops, whom you are allegedly so worried about.
Click to expand...

No matter what choice Obama makes, it will probably lead to a multitude of very bad outcomes for the United States and the people of the Middle East. The only question is if that badness will be mitigated by immediately dispatching the requested troops and re-writing the strategy or pursuing some other course of action. I don't know if it will turn out later that an immediate response was the correct choice, but I do know it is impossible for anybody to know, as of this moment, that is the right thing to do. Hence, what Obama is currently doing at least "makes sense," even if it isn't the right thing to do. Nobody has a right to feel upset toward Obama on this issue, because nobody has good enough knowledge of what the best course of action is. Anybody advocating any position may very well be contributing to the death and suffering of our troops and the people of the countries involved.

That's why you don't want to go to war to begin with, because you won't know what the best course of action for preserving lives and achieving your goals will be. War rests on too many things outside your control.

Right now Obama is thinking about sending a small number of troops (10,000) to serve as additional trainers to Afghanistan security forces, which signals approaching withdrawal. That's unfortunately one of the better options the United States has, because regardless of whether or not tribal loyalties, bribery, and other corruptions cause the new republic to fracture and divide up as may also occur with Iraq, it seems as though Afghanistan as a nation is going to break up, if the United States continues our presence there, just to spite us.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Cindy Sheehan of the right. :) Oh no wait....this one is legitimate because she's trying to make Obama look bad....
Click to expand...

The difference being, that this lady isn't trying to undermine our soldiers while they're serving this country on a far away battlefield.
 
Redress said:
So you assume some one with less information about a situation is making the right decision, while some one with more information than her, you or I is wrong.
Click to expand...

She wants her son to receive the support that he and his comrades need to win the fight. How is that wrong?
 
apdst said:
She wants her son to receive the support that he and his comrades need to win the fight. How is that wrong?
Click to expand...

Mostly because it is easier said than done. Anyway, saying it isn't wrong; politicizing and moralizing it is.
 
apdst said:
The difference being, that this lady isn't trying to undermine our soldiers while they're serving this country on a far away battlefield.
Click to expand...

Both are women expressing emotional appeals without any consideration of what negative impact granting their appeal could cause.

Cindy Sheean wanted soldiers to come home. This women wants more to go to war. Both for purely emotional reasons.
 
Redress said:
What is not supposed to happen? People using a military situation to try and score political points?
Click to expand...

Well, of course not.

The Messiah and the Democrats protested the war only to hack at the roots of the Bush.

They don't want anyone undermining their incompetent Messiah over the same subject.

No, can't have that, even though their incompetent Messiah persists in keeping the troops on the battlefield and persists in refusing to define what they're there for.

Every American in who died in Afghanistan after the Messiah made his "I'm too ignorant to define "victory" in Afghanistan" speech became the Messiah's dead American.
 
Morality Games said:
No matter what choice Obama makes, it will probably lead to a multitude of very bad outcomes for the United States and the people of the Middle East.
Click to expand...

It's the Messiah's job to minimize the damage.

Since he can't even define "victory" for the conflict, there's no chance that he's going to do anything effective.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, of course not.

The Messiah and the Democrats protested the war only to hack at the roots of the Bush.

They don't want anyone undermining their incompetent Messiah over the same subject.

No, can't have that, even though their incompetent Messiah persists in keeping the troops on the battlefield and persists in refusing to define what they're there for.

Every American in who died in Afghanistan after the Messiah made his "I'm too ignorant to define "victory" in Afghanistan" speech became the Messiah's dead American.
Click to expand...

The two situations aren't comparable. Criticizing the Iraq-aspect of the War on Terror is the only sensible position to take, since it was about everything except the War on Terror and detracted from it.
 
Morality Games said:
No matter what choice Obama makes, it will probably lead to a multitude of very bad outcomes for the United States and the people of the Middle East....
Click to expand...
I am really not sure how any of this addresses what I said.

You're trying to equate decisiveness with rashness.
There is no necessary relationship between the two.
 
Goobieman said:
I am really not sure how any of this addresses what I said.

You're trying to equate decisiveness with rashness.
There is no necessary relationship between the two.
Click to expand...

The relationship doesn't have to be one of casual necessity, it can be conditional so long as it is the case in fact. Given that immediate action 'may' (that is, there is a fairly good chance) cause more trouble than it solves, immediately deploying more troops could fairly be considered rash. The only way decisiveness certainly isn't rash is if it is probably not going to result in more trouble than it solves. Because deploying more troops to Afghanistan could entangle us deeper in a war we aren't sure if it is in our interest to be further immersed in, sending more troops immediately on request is rash. On the other hand, immediately leaving is also not a good idea when you may not want to be that suddenly untangled from a conflict that deeply concerns your interests.
 
apdst said:
She wants her son to receive the support that he and his comrades need to win the fight. How is that wrong?
Click to expand...

You realize its all just how you spin it right?

She wants her son to receive the support that he and his comrades need to win the fight.

Or go back in time 4 years

She wants her son and his comrades to be brought out of harms way and removed from a war we shouldn't be in and has no defintive way to achieve victory.

Do you HONESTLY believe that parents calling for the end of the Iraq War was doing so becasue they wanted to undercut the troops effort and not because they simply wanted their children safe? Do you think the majority were going "mwhahaha, here's how we can screw Bush and stop this war effort, by taking advantage of our sons situation" and not going "I just want my baby back safe and sound".?

The REASON these parents are likely saying what they're saying, when it comes down to it, is that they want THEIR CHILD safe. This is a fully reasonable, understandable, natural mentality for parents. I'd rather that almost no parent is pleaing for something to be done in regards to this war and relating to their child that is for a reason other than they think it will best help their child.....people just disagree on what will best help them.

But its for those reasons that a President should, in no way, decide on military strategy based on what PARENTS want. This is because a Presidents care first and foremost should be for the well being of the country while a Parents care first and foremost is likely to be for their child...and soemtimes those things may not be one in the same.
 
Hatuey said:
Cindy Sheehan of the right. :) Oh no wait....this one is legitimate because she's trying to make Obama look bad....
Click to expand...

Call me when this lady starts visiting Hugo Chavez and Hamas, and starts calling Obama a war criminal.

Sorry, telling the Messiah to get up off his ****ing ass and make a decision doesn't even remotely equate to what Cindy "my son doesn't need a grave stone" Sheehan did.
 
Morality Games said:
The relationship doesn't have to be one of casual necessity, it can be conditional so long as it is the case in fact. Given that immediate action 'may' (that is, there is a fairly good chance) cause more trouble than it solves, immediately deploying more troops could fairly be considered rash. The only way decisiveness certainly isn't rash is if it is probably not going to result in more trouble than it solves. Because deploying more troops to Afghanistan could entangle us deeper in a war we aren't sure if it is in our interest to be further immersed in, sending more troops immediately on request is rash. On the other hand, immediately leaving is also not a good idea when you may not want to be that suddenly untangled from a conflict that deeply concerns your interests.
Click to expand...
Your position is supported by probabilities that are based on your assumptions. Unless you can show that your assumptions are accurate, your position is unsound.
 
Redress said:
So you assume some one with less information about a situation is making the right decision, while some one with more information than her, you or I is wrong.
Click to expand...

He is like a dog's dick... all over the place.
He is failing to follow his own pre election rhetotric and March 27 speech.
He is failing to lead.
He is failing.
Epically.
Our troops have to hate it.
Our enemies savor it.

WORDS... JUST WORDS.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNNmJ70l1zA"]YouTube- March 27, 2009: The Day in 100 Seconds[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Mostly because it is easier said than done. Anyway, saying it isn't wrong; politicizing and moralizing it is.
Click to expand...

SO, since it's going to hard, we shouldn't do it? You say that as if the reinforcements aren't even available; non existant.

It's hillarious how the Libbos have changed the nature of political debate since their boy got into office. Ya'll weren't saying that a few years ago.
 
Zyphlin said:
You realize its all just how you spin it right?

She wants her son to receive the support that he and his comrades need to win the fight.

Or go back in time 4 years

She wants her son and his comrades to be brought out of harms way and removed from a war we shouldn't be in and has no defintive way to achieve victory.

Do you HONESTLY believe that parents calling for the end of the Iraq War was doing so becasue they wanted to undercut the troops effort and not because they simply wanted their children safe? Do you think the majority were going "mwhahaha, here's how we can screw Bush and stop this war effort, by taking advantage of our sons situation" and not going "I just want my baby back safe and sound".?

The REASON these parents are likely saying what they're saying, when it comes down to it, is that they want THEIR CHILD safe. This is a fully reasonable, understandable, natural mentality for parents. I'd rather that almost no parent is pleaing for something to be done in regards to this war and relating to their child that is for a reason other than they think it will best help their child.....people just disagree on what will best help them.

But its for those reasons that a President should, in no way, decide on military strategy based on what PARENTS want. This is because a Presidents care first and foremost should be for the well being of the country while a Parents care first and foremost is likely to be for their child...and soemtimes those things may not be one in the same.
Click to expand...

It's not spin. The fore, is wanting our troops have the resources they need to win the fight, therefore ending the war and boosting troop morale.

The latter is defeatism, regardless of the motivation, it's still defeatism. History has proven that anti-war dissent only prolongs the war, it doesn't shorten it. We could have wrapped Vietnam up by '68, if not for the war protestors.
 
Goobieman said:
Indeed.
Tell us what you thought of Sheehan's actions and criticisms.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/21868-sheehan-vs-pelosi.html#post588599

Pelosi and Sheehan have nothing in common. Sheehan is a man.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...ter-referring-john-edwards-19.html#post505741

Holding hands with Hugo Chavez doesn't need demonizing. She's holding hands with a self professed enemy of the U.S.A.. Doesn't get much worse then that IMO. She's a lady who wont get over the fact that her son signed up for the military. He accepted to take all the risks involved in that particular line of work. He died. I feel sorry for her and her son. However dying is a risk people who join the military take. She can't blame the president for a choice her son made. She might as well blame Congress for providing the funding for this war or the 3/4 Americans who supported Bush when this war started.
Click to expand...

Now go bother your parents I'm tired of you following me around. Trust me on this one. Unlike you - consistency and words like logic aren't things I have trouble with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom