The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Time to call it quits

  1. #1
    Senior Member brian breuer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Minot, ND
    Posts
    540

    Default Time to call it quits

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...AUK/story.html

    Hopefully this gets more traction and more press.

    I've never worshipped at the alter of Reagan but he made the right and tough call as outlined here:

    "Perhaps the most admirable quitter in modern presidential history was Ronald Reagan. The worst moment of his presidency came in 1983, when terrorists destroyed the US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American soldiers. Reagan vowed to retaliate, since retreating in the face of such an attack would “send a message to terrorists everywhere: They can gain by waging war against innocent people.” Less than a week later, he reversed himself and announced that he had decided to withdraw American troops. Reagan realized that staying in Lebanon would drag the United States into a complex civil war with little prospect of success. By deciding to quit rather than fight back — he called it “redeployment” — Reagan saved the country from what might have become another Vietnam."

  2. #2
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    I agree with your article. There has to be an equation of what I am going to get and what am I going to give to get it. It seems to be a lot like poker, where if you play every hand your going to lose.
    Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    931

    Default

    Excellent post. I remember that well. Further that is why Papa Bush used the same thinking not to invade Iraq when he had a chance to do so. He was smart . Baby Bush was either stupid or under the spell of that troll Cheney. Look where it got us?

  4. #4
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swliszka View Post
    Excellent post. I remember that well. Further that is why Papa Bush used the same thinking not to invade Iraq when he had a chance to do so. He was smart . Baby Bush was either stupid or under the spell of that troll Cheney. Look where it got us?
    Papa Bush got a 'Surrender Agreement' from Iraq's leaders in which they agreed to allow weapons inspections and to stay out of the 'no fly zone'. After one year Iraq's leaders had not allowed inspectors free access to look for WMD's and he had his air force consistently challenge allied air craft in the no fly zone! That coupled with ongoing reports from both US and British intelligence that Iraq's leaders had WMD, Bush Jr. went to Congress and got a green light to do what was necessary. His decision to go back into Iraq was not based just on the Intel, it was also based on Iraq's leaders ongoing breach of their surrender agreement, the fact they had attacked the Kurds, etc. If you fight a war, and your enemy surrenders, then after you leave, they ignore the terms they agreed to, what choice do you have, after warning them for over one year.....we had no choice! All this crap about Bush lied is Liberal Propaganda....nothing more....

    I am critical of how he ended the war.....he should of pulled out after Saddam was captured! Go back in enforce the agreed to activities, teach them a lesson and show the world what happens....then get out, letting them know we will come back again if they screw up again!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    Papa Bush got a 'Surrender Agreement' from Iraq's leaders in which they agreed to allow weapons inspections and to stay out of the 'no fly zone'. After one year Iraq's leaders had not allowed inspectors free access to look for WMD's and he had his air force consistently challenge allied air craft in the no fly zone! That coupled with ongoing reports from both US and British intelligence that Iraq's leaders had WMD, Bush Jr. went to Congress and got a green light to do what was necessary. His decision to go back into Iraq was not based just on the Intel, it was also based on Iraq's leaders ongoing breach of their surrender agreement, the fact they had attacked the Kurds, etc. If you fight a war, and your enemy surrenders, then after you leave, they ignore the terms they agreed to, what choice do you have, after warning them for over one year.....we had no choice! All this crap about Bush lied is Liberal Propaganda....nothing more....

    I am critical of how he ended the war.....he should of pulled out after Saddam was captured! Go back in enforce the agreed to activities, teach them a lesson and show the world what happens....then get out, letting them know we will come back again if they screw up again!
    You do have some valid points, but they are a little over simplified. There was intel that suggested that Iraq had WMD, but we then chose to ignore the rest of the info that refuted that. Even though particularly during the Clinton admin we were challenged over the no fly zone it never resulted in the loss of life or machine. They simply didn't have an air defense system that could stop us. It did result in us destroying their southern air defense at least twice. Bush made his ultimatum to Saddam about weapons inspectors. In a surprise move just previous to the invasion Saddam did allow them in with unfettered access. We had already made our decision to go to war and pulled them out. We knew going in that removing the regime was going to mean a long occupation. Pulling out after capturing Saddam was not really an option, it would have left a power vacuum that could have been exploited by terrorist. We made many mistakes in Iraq the first was holding elections to soon, the second was disbanding the military followed by not using local contractors to build the economy.


    I do not believe all the rhetoric about Bush. I do think he was a good honorable person doing the best he could, but I found him to be woefully inadequate for a position of leadership. It did not help that he surrounded himself by incompetents. (The first among these is Donald Rumsfeld followed by Dick Cheney).
    Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

  6. #6
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Henlee good comments, but one more point that I think is critical here!

    When dealing with Islamic Countries, showing weakness is a very big deal to them. If we beat them in war, then do not hold them to the surrender terms, they see this as 'weakness' and are encouraged to act again. Not just speaking of Iraq, but the message goes out to Syria, Iran, etc. etc.

    In these situation 'no action' invites others to attack you....!


  7. #7
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    If it weren't for the fact that our economy still depends on oil, I doubt we'd give a rat's patootie what the dictators there do. Whether we like it or not, we still have a stake in the ME because we ARE dependent on oil for the immediate future.

    Any time a strong dictator is removed, chaos results. We've seen it over and over. So we tried to let Iraq set up a popularly elected govt before we left. That turned out poorly because you don't learn how to run a democracy in a few years following centuries of dictatorship.

    So, when Obama helped take out Gaddafi, he just left. Since Libya also dissolved in chaos, that doesn't work much better. The only difference is whose names are on the Swiss bank accounts.

    So, then Obama decided to do neither in the Syrian situation, and that has also turned out poorly.

    Would I rather accept the risks of the Keystone XL pipeline (to achieve energy independence) rather than sacrifice more US lives for the oil of the ME? In a heartbeat. Then, as Palin has said, "Let Allah sort it out," while we go about our own business.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    Just a couple of points here also and I agree with what your saying, but some facts are left out which is pointing the blame at Obama.

    In Libya that was an EU ran operation in which we helped by destroying their air defenses. It is what we agreed to do for them for their operation. We did not take the lead on that but it might be a good response next time someone asks why we have to be the worlds police. Obama BTW took a lot of flack for a limited role and for not seeking approval from congress and acting under the war powers act.


    In Syria the president did request approval from congress and was turned down. It is unfair to hold him accountable for the failures there when he was prevented from acting.


    In regards to the keystone XL pipeline. Obama today said that the pipeline would only transport oil from Canada to the gulf of Mexico where it would enter into the world market and not directly effect the price of gas. I have not fact checked that, but that is what he said. I am still in favor of the project myself as that it would provide work even if it is temporary. He did have some other points about using the same money for long term infrastructure projects that would provide more longer term jobs. I have to look at all that yet, but it is not cut and dry.


    During Obamas presidency we have started exporting more oil than we import. I think that means that we at least have the ability to be energy independent for at least some time. My point is that the Keystone Xl is not going to be a magic bullet for energy independence nor would we necessarily be energy independent even if we could be.

    I agree with your larger point though, if we remove a government we are going to have to spend some time to set up a new one. Jumping straight into a democracy is not a good thing either. If we had to do over again in Iraq I would liked to seen a military government (our Military) that started to give them freedoms and then gradually switch to a democracy. What we did in Afghanistan and Iraq is a pretty good lesson in what not to do.
    Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    .................................................. ...................................


    In regards to the keystone XL pipeline. Obama today said that the pipeline would only transport oil from Canada to the gulf of Mexico where it would enter into the world market and not directly effect the price of gas.

    .................................................. .......................
    I have been wondering about that for some time now. Who knows what will happen. I would bet though that wherever they can get the best price is where that oil will go.
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    It doesn't matter who uses the Canadian oil or our own SD oil. Oil is a global market, and subject to supply and demand ... except when OPEC decides to make that market work to its own ends. Right now it is their desire to lower the price so that the more expensive extraction elsewhere will cause those other supplies to be decreased.

    Around $60/barrell fracking and horizontal drilling (per what I've been reading) becomes less profitable. That will cause those producers to cut back on exploration and development. The Saudis are hoping that will then give them a window to raise prices again by cutting back their own production. Tinkering with production has been the tactic of the Saudis and OPEC from the beginning of OPEC.

    Oil production increases have been from private lands. Govt lands have produced less. So, US production has increased in SPITE of Obama's policies, not BECAUSE of them. Our oil production could be even greater if those policies allowed govt lands to be used. Profit is a highly motivational factor for the private sector. That would also generate more taxes for many levels of govt.

    If Canada profits a lot from the sale of this oil, I'm happier seeing Canada prosper than those govts in the ME (not to mention ISIS which is getting a handsome income from oil sales). I don't see any real harm in having a peaceful, friendly and wealthy neighbor like Canada. I'm thinking helping them out with the pipeline is a lot cheaper & productive than spending foreign aid in countries that hate us.

    BTW, our SD oil would also travel in that pipeline, so Obama is wrong on that. Getting natural gas to Gulf ports (special types of ports that will need building and maintenance) will also be beneficial to the US economy. It will be safer for the environment, if Obama really cares. Then there will be savings from the damage NOT caused by reducing the rail accidents. Pipelines have proven safer than rail transport. Is pipeline transport also more energy efficient? I haven't seen anything on that factor.

    What we did in Afghanistan and Iraq is a pretty good lesson in what not to do.
    As was what we did in Viet Nam. If you leave a corrupt govt in place (the SVN govt was pretty corrupt), it will not have popular support, and make it easy pickin's for the bad guys. And have you noticed how we are gradually increasing the number of advisors to fight ISIS? That's how Viet Nam started.

    If the answer to ISIS is a military one, doing what our military is good at doing, then it is simply because Obama doesn't want to take the flak for a military solution to the mistake he made in underestimating ISIS and leaving Iraq vulnerable. His modus operandi is NEVER to take responsibility for his mistakes. It's always someone else's fault or circumstances beyond his control ... always. Whether it's some rogue IRS agents in the Cincinnati office or a computer glitch with healthcare.gov, it is NEVER Obama's fault. He was the one that said it was his policies on the ballot in Nov., but when those policies got a resounding thumbs down, it was because the D candidates distanced themselves from his policies. Really? And he calls climate change skeptics "deniers" with a straight face?

    He was wrong about those shovel ready jobs in 2009-10. I doubt he's any more right about using taxes for infrastructure now. Just more pork and favors for the bundlers.

    Sorry, Henlee, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first two years, but after six years and a whole bunch of outright lies (more of which surface each day, it seems), it's pretty obvious that he cannot even work with his own party except by intimidation.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •