Presidential Election: 2012

[shmogt]

How relevant is this to who we should vote for? These big "war" decisions often divide people so it's not surprising that sometimes the president pisses off a lot of the nation because his decision swayed wrong.

I want to see our automotive industry and tech sector thrive and a president who supports the educational values that will make us adapt and improve.

I think war is an important one especially since they all have different views on what to do. Although there are many other important issues too.

Here is a video of an actual troop pretty much saying all the points I have made before and sharing many other views of the troops themselves.

 

[Joey D]

You know you can find just as many things that show the complete opposite of that right? One man's testimony isn't evidence enough to say the whole US military is over there killing anything that moves. And even at that, he's talking about the Illuminati which is seeped in conspiracy.

If there was truth to the US military, as a whole, killing anyone they see fit, you'd have every media outlet in the world on it. I know there are soldiers that do murder innocent people, but they are not even close to the vast majority.

 

[Tornado]

Illuminati...


Really? Really?

 

[shmogt]

I didn't say the majority are doing this. Most of the time these troops aren't doing **** there just sitting around at the base or on boring patrol missions. Even more reason to bring them home. However when there is a mission if someone tells them to kill whoever is there they have to do it. I'm not blaming the soldiers that's there job, but just being there is wrong. I'm not going to get into illuminatey that's his views not mine. However I will say the federal reserve which US gets all its money from chargers the US interest in the money they give. The US has to pay back the money borrowed and interest on that just like everyone else has to do when you borrow money from the bank. The problem is its literally impossible to pay back the money because the US is giving the money away to fix roads, build things, federal bail outs and other things which do not make them money. If you take a loan and just spend all the money and do not use it to invest into something that will be able to make you more money so you can pay back the loan and interest you will be in debt. The Rockefeller family owns the federal reserve which technically means they own US just like a bank would own all your stuff when you can't pay them back. You can do your own research on that tho.

 

[ChaosStar79]

My this thread has had a busy day.

The US isn't a dictator nation, you really need to look up what a dictator is. Sure we could be seen as a terrorist group, but that really would only be outside the Western World an even then I'm going to guess most countries don't see us that way at all.

The US is very much a dictator in the spirit of the word and clearly we are a terrorist nation by definition. "Shock and Awe"- That says it right in the title. Of course, we are not the first nor are these dreaded beings that we are hunting down so vigilantly. Terrorism is merely a tactic of war and has been in use since man discovered fire as a weapon. A war on Terror is just stupid. You can't blow up an idea. Unfortunately.

And no Obama couldn't have ended it day one without a catastrophic backlash from war supporters in the US and out allies. Just opting out of a war that we started would basically be leaving an entire region in shambles and letting the people fend for themselves after we completely shook up there way of life. It would be similar to me coming into your house with you still living in it, destroy everything and then just tell you to deal with it as I leave.

Obama knew for however many days after winning the election that he was taking office. During that time would have been a prime opportunity for him to begin working out the details with our allies and informing them of our coming promised policy change. Then Viola! O takes office and everyone wins. As far as shambles go, that is what occurs in a war zone and no one should expect any different. Until the natives can put down their guns, they can't rebuild. If you were to come in my house and do as you said, the only thing I would want is for you to leave asap. After you go in and murder someone's family member, you aren't usually asked to stay afterwards to lead the Grief Therapy. I think the same holds true here.

And if you don't know why the Middle East region is important perhaps you should do some more investigating. The number one reason the Middle East is so important to the Western World is oil, they have and we need it. A close second is religious ties, the 3 or of the 5 biggest religions in the world have roots in the Middle East. You need to protect those interests whether you agree with it or not.

There are plenty of resources for oil that don't involve this region. Religious ties be damned. That's the very last thing we need to protect. Let their Gods protect them and lead them to whatever constitutes a victory.

I would still like to see proof that US soldiers are murdering innocent people in a large scale. I'm sure there are some that have done some rather questionable acts, but as a whole I highly doubt the US military is acting like a terrorist group.

I mean this literally- Every soldier that I have talked to after serving actively in the Middle East War theatre has said nothing but horrible things about what is going on and what they/we have/are doing to the people of these lands. There has not been one that has been ok with their time deployed. Surely some are, but after what I have been told, I don't see how. I don't think anyone is saying that the US is lining up Iraqi's and mowing them down, but our presence in the region and manipulation of it's affairs and ideas are to blame for the deaths of so many. And our Continued presence and involvement is what makes this war possible. When we leave the region, then the 'terrorist threat' will gradually die as down to 'acceptable' levels. Trying to occupy long enough to kill every person that takes up arms against it's occupiers will only lead to mutual destruction. We have no goal so there can be no victory. Occupation is merely a stage, not a sustainable strategy or endgame. Integration is futile, so that leaves just Withdraw.

 

[hampus_dh]

Illuminati...


Really? Really?

Really.

 

[shmogt]

Really.

Lol

 

[Famine]

Considering how the US gets involved in almost every war, Obama did a great thing by not sacrificing American soldiers.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright. That leads to this how?:

Obama started a war and it is over and no Americans died.

The US is still engaged in 2 wars Bush stuck his nose in starting over ten years ago! Can't you see a between the two strategies?

The strategy of starting a war you didn't start, ending a war you didn't end and not having any of your troops die while barely helping your allies?

"U.S. military forces are on the leading edge of the coalition operation, taking out Libya’s integrated air and missile defense system."
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63225

The US had a major role.

The US had no role at all. US forces under NATO command were used - largely F15s enforcing the no fly zone early in the conflict and cruise missile shots at anti-aircraft installations. The USS Enterprise battle group was sat in the Mediterranean, alongside the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulles, two Canadian destroyers and two British nuclear submarines - all of which were also under NATO command and got there first. Oh and UK and Canadian special forces (SAS, SBS, JTF2), but no American.

Of all of the armed forces there, almost all of the action was French, British and Canadian forces. The remainder were Belgian, Greek, Turkish, Dutch, Italian, Norwegian (amongst others) and US. They were a NATO operation enforcing a UN resolution.

Then the US did what it usually doesn't, let others do some work- it is not odd to give the guy in charge credit for the strategy that was implemented.

Obama wasn't in charge, nor was the US's involvement to "let" other nations do "some" of the work. US forces were used, by NATO. They just weren't used much - the French alone accounted for 35% of all operations!

That still doesn't tally with:

Obama started a war and it is over and no Americans died.

He didn't start it. The Libyan Civil War was the Libyan people (now represented by the NTC) against Qaddafi and the country's military. The UN (of which the US is part) passed a resolution to establish a no fly zone - at the behest of France's President Sarkozy and British PM Cameron - over the north of the country for humanitarian reasons (so that Qaddafi didn't simply napalm resisting towns) and NATO (of which the US is part) enforced it, by flying aircraft from multiple countries - including Belgian F16s, Canadian F18s, Italian Tornados and F16s, US F15s, Harriers and E3s, Spanish F18s, Swedishs Grippens, Turkish F16s, UAE F16s and Mirages, French Mirages and Eurocopters and British Typhoons and Tornados. US Predator drones were used to destroy AA installations, along with British and US Tomahawks - all under the command of the Canadians.

Obama's contribution was consulting with lawyers, sending a letter to Sarkozy and appearing on TV. Why is he being credited with starting a war and it ending with no American casualties?

Ron Paul wouldn't have done anything, which is not a bad idea, and every other republican would have went into a full blown war.

Conjecture. At best. That notwithstanding you're crediting Obama (D) with starting a war that he had practically no involvement in at all, while decrying Republicans for starting wars...

 

[Joey D]

The US is very much a dictator in the spirit of the word and clearly we are a terrorist nation by definition. "Shock and Awe"- That says it right in the title. Of course, we are not the first nor are these dreaded beings that we are hunting down so vigilantly. Terrorism is merely a tactic of war and has been in use since man discovered fire as a weapon. A war on Terror is just stupid. You can't blow up an idea. Unfortunately.

Dictatorship involves one party with absolute power. While the US is somewhat in charge, we are passing off control to the Iraqi's. I'll agree that democracy might not be the best way to govern Iraq but that's what they are going to get. I still don't understand how you think the US is a dictator in all this? I will agree they are an occupying force though.

As for being terrorist, we are not. Terrorist intentionally attack civilian targets for political or ideological gains. While we are attacking targets, we are not going after civilians. If we were there would be a huge media backlash that would carry over to the American population.

Obama knew for however many days after winning the election that he was taking office. During that time would have been a prime opportunity for him to begin working out the details with our allies and informing them of our coming promised policy change. Then Viola! O takes office and everyone wins. As far as shambles go, that is what occurs in a war zone and no one should expect any different. Until the natives can put down their guns, they can't rebuild. If you were to come in my house and do as you said, the only thing I would want is for you to leave asap. After you go in and murder someone's family member, you aren't usually asked to stay afterwards to lead the Grief Therapy. I think the same holds true here.

You seriously think Obama could have come up with an exit plan in 6 weeks without having any of his cabinet or even being privy to all the information? Not to mention everything that he needed to work on.

There are plenty of resources for oil that don't involve this region. Religious ties be damned. That's the very last thing we need to protect. Let their Gods protect them and lead them to whatever constitutes a victory.

Yes, there are other places we get oil from but the US still imports some 60% of it's oil. We need the Middle East to keep supplying us to keep the price at a "reasonable" level.

As for religion you can say it can be damned all you want but the fact is two of the World's biggest religions, Christianity and Judaism, have major influence in the US. If you lose the respect of either of those groups you will lose support for many other things in the US. And having their Gods protect them? Ya it's all the same God.

I mean this literally- Every soldier that I have talked to after serving actively in the Middle East War theatre has said nothing but horrible things about what is going on and what they/we have/are doing to the people of these lands. There has not been one that has been ok with their time deployed. Surely some are, but after what I have been told, I don't see how. I don't think anyone is saying that the US is lining up Iraqi's and mowing them down, but our presence in the region and manipulation of it's affairs and ideas are to blame for the deaths of so many. And our Continued presence and involvement is what makes this war possible. When we leave the region, then the 'terrorist threat' will gradually die as down to 'acceptable' levels. Trying to occupy long enough to kill every person that takes up arms against it's occupiers will only lead to mutual destruction. We have no goal so there can be no victory. Occupation is merely a stage, not a sustainable strategy or endgame. Integration is futile, so that leaves just Withdraw.

Just because the people you've spoke with say horrible things doesn't mean it holds true for the military as a whole. I've spoke with several people who have done multiple tours and they never once spoke of anything horrible that happen. It sounded like they did roughly the same thing as a urban area SWAT team would do. There was even a guy on Reddit talking about how awesome the Middle East is and how he doesn't want to come home. But once again this proves nothing.

If it was as horrible as you would like us to believe then there would be far more attention from the media over it. I'm not saying that there aren't groups of soldiers that have done awful things or experience the horrors of war though. War's never pretty but I don't think it's as bad as you are making it sound, at least not this war.

 

[Tornado]

I mean this literally- Every soldier that I have talked to after serving actively in the Middle East War theatre has said nothing but horrible things about what is going on and what they/we have/are doing to the people of these lands.

This also isn't a source.

 

[shmogt]

This also isn't a source.

Where are all of your sources proving otherwise other than what the US government is telling you? They obviously aren't going to come out and say they did anything wrong.

 

[Dapper]

Famine, you grasp at straws as if your life depends on it. My original comment was about how Obama handled war. He handled it differently than any other presidents. The US did play a role, whether you agree or not, they did. Obama had a direct role in how big a role we played, he is the commander in chief of the military ya know.

Everyone knows how the Libyan war started, and the US didn't need to get involved. The fact is the US played a part and no American soldiers died.

The useless straw grasping, like quoting something over and over after it was clarified, doesn't help prove your point, it merely shows you have nothing else to do besides holding onto a couple misspoke words that have since been unmisspoken.

Save yourself the effort, don't quote me saying Obama started the war and take that as the war didn't start until Obama said go, the US's involvement started, thus when it concerns me, when he said go. So the US war in Libya did start when Obama said so. And guess what, no American soldiers died.

 

[Famine]

Famine, you grasp at straws as if your life depends on it. My original comment was about how Obama handled war. He handled it differently than any other presidents. The US did play a role, whether you agree or not, they did. Obama had a direct role in how big a role we played, he is the commander in chief of the military ya know.

Everyone knows how the Libyan war started, and the US didn't need to get involved. The fact is the US played a part and no American soldiers died.

The useless straw grasping, like quoting something over and over after it was clarified, doesn't help prove your point, it merely shows you have nothing else to do besides holding onto a couple misspoke words that have since been unmisspoken.

Save yourself the effort, don't quote me saying Obama started the war and take that as the war didn't start until Obama said go, the US'a involvement started, thus when it concerns me, when he said go. So the US war in Libya did start when Obama said so. And guess what, no American soldiers died.

And this is still complete and total rubbish. The Libyan Civil War did not require Obama's consent. The NATO action in Libya - which was not warring but peacekeeping - occurred regardless of Obama. Obama played no role in commanding the troops nor any strategies, even the US troops who were sequestered by NATO and commanded by a Canadian.

Obama did not start a war. In fact he was barely involved in it.

If you don't want to be repeatedly pulled up for posting utter tripe as if it were fact, don't post utter tripe as if it were fact. Saying that Obama started a war is utter tripe. Defending this position with vague claims that are also untrue is also utter tripe.


Though at least this time you're not pretending you meant something else.

 

[Keef]

Conjecture. At best. That notwithstanding you're crediting Obama (D) with starting a war that he had practically no involvement in at all, while decrying Republicans for starting wars...

Doesn't matter who started the conflict, the problem is that our national sovereignty is being eroded by, and decisions on whether or not the US takes part in military actions are being ceded to, this ridiculous organization called the United Nations. I don't care who's decision it was for the US to support the effort, their decision was a bad decision, and Obama's and Congress's decision to go along with it was also wrong.

The document says that the President is the Commander in Chief of our military, and that Congress is tasked with officially declaring a war. Both parties must be present and in agreement in order to involve our military in conflicts overseas. Anything less is unconstitutional. It should never have happened, and frankly I am embarrassed that my country has fallen to its knees and become dependent on a group of other nations in order to decide when, where, and how to use its military.

 

[Dapper]

Look at my original statement. All your rubbish is completely unneeded. It is a war, Obama was involved, and no US soldiers were hurt.

Everything else you say, pretty much everything, is worthless to the point being made. The US was involved in a war and it not costing tons of lives and several years. These are facts despite anything you think.

Your defense is "it was peace keeping", so what? It is still a war.
Then you keep bringing up NATO, but the US was still involved!
All your arguments are completely worthless.

 

[Tornado]

Look at my original statement.

I just did.

It is a war, Obama was involved, and no US soldiers were hurt.

This wasn't what it was.

 

[Famine]

Look at my original statement.

Obama started a war and it is over and no Americans died.

A falsehood - one which has been repeatedly pointed out to you - followed by two irrelevances. And you have the cheek to say anything that anyone else posts is rubbish!

It is a war, Obama was involved, and no US soldiers were hurt.

There was a war, but neither the US nor Obama were involved. It's called "The Libyan Civil War" and, last I checked, neither the US nor Obama is Libyan.

(oh, incidentally, the two US airmen who ejected from their F15 were hurt. But then they're airmen, not soldiers)

The US was involved in a war and it not costing tons of lives and several years. These are facts despite anything you think.

Except the very first part - the US was involved in a war.

Your defense is "it was peace keeping", so what? It is still a war.

You're still missing vital points. NATO forces were not involved in the Libyan Civil War. What they were involved with was establishing a No Fly Zone, which they enforced by taking out AA placements that could shoot down the NATO planes enforcing it. The No Fly Zone was established, at the behest of the United Kingdom and France, by a UN Resolution, with the ideal of preventing Qaddafi's planes indiscriminately bombing towns with resistance forces in them and killing the populace.

So, the No Fly Zone was a peace-keeping mission established by UN Resolution and enforced by NATO. There was no involvement in the Libyan Civil War from NATO forces.

Then you keep bringing up NATO, but the US was still involved!
All your arguments are completely worthless.

This is almost a religious argument for you (again). You have a predefined belief set and you simply refuse to accept anything that will change it (again). You're only interested in proselytising and not receiving information (again). Clinging onto "Obama started a war" and giving him any credit at all (or blame) for events in Libya is... mind-blowing.

The US was not involved in a war. Obama did not start a war that the US were not involved in. There is no part of the Libyan Civil War that the US deserves any credit or blame for and there is no part of UN Resolution 1973 nor its enforcement that Barack Obama deserves any credit for.


Though as Keef mentions, for a C-in-C to give his troops to someone else to tell what to do does rather seem unconstitutional. I suppose at least Bush took his own troops into Iraq rather than telling them to take orders from a Canadian...

 

[Tornado]

Where are all of your sources proving otherwise other than what the US government is telling you? They obviously aren't going to come out and say they did anything wrong.

It doesn't work that way.


You are the one claiming that the U.S. military have been indiscriminately killing the entirety of the population of Iraq/Afghanistan. You are the one that needs to prove the validity of that idea. It isn't mine or Joey's job to prove you wrong when the things you are stating are the the ones whose only support are a bunch of "he said she said" statements.

 

[shmogt]

It doesn't work that way.

You are the one claiming that the U.S. military have been indiscriminately killing the entirety of the population of Iraq/Afghanistan. You are the one that needs to prove the validity of that idea. It isn't mine or Joey's job to prove you wrong when the things you are stating are the the ones whose only support are a bunch of "he said she said" statements.

I never said they are killing everyone and everything. However if there orders are to kill one person and ten other non people are around those people are seen as just as guilty and are legible to be shot. Once again every single person who died whether it be US or there enemies was a total waste since the US should not have been there. So many people died and it was all based on false information that there were bombs of mass destructions which they even admitted was not true. It makes no sense that after that came out that the US would stay for years and years afterwards. How can any of you disagree with this?

 

[Dapper]

A falsehood - one which has been repeatedly pointed out to you - followed by two irrelevances. And you have the cheek to say anything that anyone else posts is rubbish!

You aren't pointing anything out, you are grasping at straws, grabbing for what isn't there. Thanks for not reading my post, then responding to an earlier post that was clarified.

There was a war, but neither the US nor Obama were involved. It's called "The Libyan Civil War" and, last I checked, neither the US nor Obama is Libyan.

To say US missiles hitting a perceived enemy, protecting civilians, is not being involved is rather delusional.

You're still missing vital points. NATO forces were not involved in the Libyan Civil War. What they were involved with was establishing a No Fly Zone...

That is being part of the war. Being on one side, being engaged, being there means being involved.

This is almost a religious argument for you (again). You have a predefined belief set and you simply refuse to accept anything that will change it (again). You're only interested in proselytising and not receiving information (again). Clinging onto "Obama started a war" and giving him any credit at all (or blame) for events in Libya is... mind-blowing.

You don't get it.

The US was not involved in a war. Obama did not start a war that the US were not involved in. There is no part of the Libyan Civil War that the US deserves any credit or blame for and there is no part of UN Resolution 1973 nor its enforcement that Barack Obama deserves any credit for.

You clearly do not understand plain text.

How come no one gives Obama credit for handling war without killing massive amounts people who shouldn't have died?

I think swiftly taking care of two major 🤬 without the useless killing of thousands of soldiers and civilians, like dub-ya did, is maybe not worth a nobel peace prize, but it worth at least a little bit of credit.

Osama was killed with no civilians killed or soldiers, and Qaddafi's car was blown up (by a US drone) with no civilians or soldiers killed.

You keep wishing I said things that I didn't say. The guy deserves credit for what he accomplished, and how he didn't do it like our last president did. Now you can stop wishing I said that Obama was the reason for the war in Libya and that he saved the world by doing so.

 

[Famine]

He's still going.

You aren't pointing anything out, you are grasping at straws, grabbing for what isn't there.

Every time you claim Obama had any involvement in either the Libyan Civil War or the NATO peace-keeping mission enforcing the No Fly Zone, you are restating a falsehood.

Thanks for not reading my post, then responding to an earlier post that was clarified.

Ah, a new definition of "clarified". This one apparently means "Pointed out as utter gibberish and not subsequently retracted by the claimant".

To say US missiles hitting a perceived enemy, protecting civilians, is not being involved is rather delusional.

Well now, here we are making up things I didn't say and ascribing them to me. I wondered when we'd reach this point.

The US didn't fire any missiles at any "enemy". NATO forces, under Canadian command, fired missiles owned by several nations' armed forces at anti-aircraft installations. NATO had no "enemy" in the Libyan Civil War, it was merely protecting its own assets and preventing either side from causing genocide. Although in this instance the Qaddafi loyalists were the more likely party to do so, neither side were "enemy".

That's what peace-keeping missions are all about. And Barack? Didn't lift a finger for it.

That is being part of the war. Being on one side, being engaged, being there means being involved.

See above.

US forces were involved, but not for either side of the Libyan Civil War and under the control of NATO, lead by a Canadian. The USA, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you, were not involved.

You don't get it.

You clearly do not understand plain text.

Ah yes, because my repeatedly pointing out that the USA were not involved in the Libyan Civil War, rather US forces under NATO command were involved in enforcing the UN Resolution 1973 in a peace-keeping and humanitarian mission, and your stubborn refusal to accept this, repeatedly, untruthfully claiming that the USA were involved in a war that Barack Obama started is in some way directly linked to my lack of reading comprehension...


You do this every time. Make an outlandish claim based on some belief you have, ignore direct fact contradicting it, distance yourself from your original claim (usually blaming people misquoting or editing your words, somehow) and then just descend into petty insults about other people's intelligence. I suggest that if you cannot participate in adult debate, you should stop trying. I suggest that if you feel moved to insults again, this will cease to be a suggestion.

Osama was killed with no civilians killed or soldiers

What?! Have you even been watching the news in the last decade?

and Qaddafi's car was blown up (by a US drone) with no civilians or soldiers killed.

Oh. That'll be a "no" then. Not even the US DoD makes that claim (though they do say that a Predator - along with a French Mirage - fired upon a convoy of 11 cars believed to contain Qaddafi. Both under NATO command, just so's you know).

The guy deserves credit for what he accomplished, and how he didn't do it like our last president did.

When he accomplishes something that doesn't involve ignoring campaign promises or the pesky ol' US Constitution, let us know.

You're right though, he did things differently to Bush. Instead of letting the UN pass a Resolution that they couldn't be bothered to enforce and enforcing it themselves, he let the UN pass a Resolution and take US soldiers away from his control to enforce it. Go Barack!

 

[Dapper]

US forces were involved...



...USA were not involved

Which is it? And, for hopefully the last time, he deserves credit for not being so involved, like our last president surely would've been.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Dictatorship involves one party with absolute power. While the US is somewhat in charge, we are passing off control to the Iraqi's. I'll agree that democracy might not be the best way to govern Iraq but that's what they are going to get. I still don't understand how you think the US is a dictator in all this? I will agree they are an occupying force though.

As for being terrorist, we are not. Terrorist intentionally attack civilian targets for political or ideological gains. While we are attacking targets, we are not going after civilians. If we were there would be a huge media backlash that would carry over to the American population.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
ter·ror·ism
 
 [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorship
Definition of DICTATORSHIP
1
: the office of dictator
2
: autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3
a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

I'd say we fall safely into both definitions.

You seriously think Obama could have come up with an exit plan in 6 weeks without having any of his cabinet or even being privy to all the information? Not to mention everything that he needed to work on.

Yes. A new president is not kept in the dark until they take office. Privy is given to them ahead of time so that they can competently take charge on day 1.

Yes, there are other places we get oil from but the US still imports some 60% of it's oil. We need the Middle East to keep supplying us to keep the price at a "reasonable" level.

Or maybe just drill here at home in the vast wildernesses of Alaska or offshore or wherever. The abundance of oil resources is by no means limited to the Middle East, despite our tendency to play it off as though it were.

As for religion you can say it can be damned all you want but the fact is two of the World's biggest religions, Christianity and Judaism, have major influence in the US. If you lose the respect of either of those groups you will lose support for many other things in the US. And having their Gods protect them? Ya it's all the same God.

Whatever god it is doesn't concern me and if these people believe so strongly in the omnipotence of said god or gods than they have nothing to fear. Surely their savior can take care of their holy sites on his/her own.

Just because the people you've spoke with say horrible things doesn't mean it holds true for the military as a whole. I've spoke with several people who have done multiple tours and they never once spoke of anything horrible that happen. It sounded like they did roughly the same thing as a urban area SWAT team would do. There was even a guy on Reddit talking about how awesome the Middle East is and how he doesn't want to come home. But once again this proves nothing.

If it was as horrible as you would like us to believe then there would be far more attention from the media over it. I'm not saying that there aren't groups of soldiers that have done awful things or experience the horrors of war though. War's never pretty but I don't think it's as bad as you are making it sound, at least not this war.

This also isn't a source.

This is a source, just as any interviewer will use the person interviewed as a source. If I need first hand information on something and I interview someone who was there firsthand, that becomes a source, and is citable in any college paper or news publication. If you were hoping for name, rank, and serial number, you are just out of luck.

Doesn't matter who started the conflict, the problem is that our national sovereignty is being eroded by, and decisions on whether or not the US takes part in military actions are being ceded to, this ridiculous organization called the United Nations. I don't care who's decision it was for the US to support the effort, their decision was a bad decision, and Obama's and Congress's decision to go along with it was also wrong.

The document says that the President is the Commander in Chief of our military, and that Congress is tasked with officially declaring a war. Both parties must be present and in agreement in order to involve our military in conflicts overseas. Anything less is unconstitutional. It should never have happened, and frankly I am embarrassed that my country has fallen to its knees and become dependent on a group of other nations in order to decide when, where, and how to use its military.

I agree completely.

When he accomplishes something that doesn't involve ignoring campaign promises or the pesky ol' US Constitution, let us know.

You're right though, he did things differently to Bush. Instead of letting the UN pass a Resolution that they couldn't be bothered to enforce and enforcing it themselves, he let the UN pass a Resolution and take US soldiers away from his control to enforce it. Go Barack!

👍👍

 

[Famine]

Which is it?

Both. That's the point that I've been trying to drive home to you...

US forces under NATO control (in this case lead by a Canadian). Not the USA. The military and tactical decisions were taken by NATO, not the USA.

 

[Tornado]

This is a source, just as any interviewer will use the person interviewed as a source. If I need first hand information on something and I interview someone who was there firsthand, that becomes a source, and is citable in any college paper or news publication. If you were hoping for name, rank, and serial number, you are just out of luck.

At which point it ceases to be a source and devolves into "he said she said".

 

[ChaosStar79]

At which point it ceases to be a source and devolves into "he said she said".

Negative. It's called Source Protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

 

[Tornado]

So you're a journalist now? The fact of the matter is, "some guy I know said so" is not proof of information validity in a debate; especially when you are using the information to try to prove things that it does not support even if it was.

 

[shmogt]

At which point it ceases to be a source and devolves into "he said she said".

Than what to you makes it a real source? Someone said it and than someone repeated it later. If I watch something on CNN and tell someone I'm just getting my info from the new guy who doesn't no anything compared to an actual solider who was there and speaking on behalf of how all the soldiers truly feel about this war not just what these politicians are telling everyone.

 

[Tornado]

Than what to you makes it a real source? Someone said it and than someone repeated it later.

The credibility of the person speaking on behalf of the third party, for starters. "Random guy on internet repeats what some guy he knows IRL told him" is not a credible source of information.

If I watch something on CNN and tell someone I'm just getting my info from the new guy who doesn't no anything compared to an actual solider who was there and speaking on behalf of how all the soldiers truly feel about this war not just what these politicians are telling everyone.

All this shows is that you completely ignored what Joey said.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Whether you consider it a source or a goldfish doesn't really make any difference. And I never claimed to be a reporter, however that makes no difference whatsoever in what I stated. Freedom of the Press is not limited to those with media outlets waiting to publish what they write. I have this right the same as you, the same as anyone that wishes to exercise it.