Political & Elections

pima said: He stated, paraphrasing, NATO called, and we are supporting our Allies, and that is in our best national interest.
-------------

NATO has no idea what it is doing anymore... it has been a lost organization since the Soviet Union collapsed. There is no longer a common enemy holding these countries together, and NATO continues to expand to countries that generally offer nothing to the alliance in terms of strategic capabilities (Estonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, etc) for the sole reason of trying to hurt Russia's feelings.

You will also see that "NATO called", but the US is handling the majority of the burden. How many Tomahawk missiles were fired so far? What percentage of them belong to the US? I believe roughly 95% or more belonged to the US, at roughly $1 million per missile. Does "NATO" cease to function if the US does not carry the majority of the lifting?

The US claims "there are no boots on the ground" but I would be all my money that there are special forces and CIA personnel on the ground, likely marking up targets to be bombed and providing other support. Probably modeled after the Jawbreaker missions in Afghanistan during Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec 2001.

NATO needs to look in the mirror and figure out what the hell it is trying to accomplish in the world.

My out of left field thought for NATO is that it will have a resurgence when China pressures Russia too much, and Russia requests membership in NATO, because with their declining population and vast territory, there is no way they will be able to defend their land from a militarily aggressive China. China would take the place of the old Soviet Union, and NATO would once again have an enemy to rally against.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Saturday 26th of March 2011 09:26:00 PM

"Obama with very little national experience called Bush out on everything from Gitmo to Iraq to 9/11. However, as soon as he got his 1st DPB, Iam sure he said CRAP, maybe Bush was right, and now politically I am in trouble because of my naivete on the campaign trail."

As would every candidate who is running for office. Unless you're president, you have never had to make the decisions. Every candidate no matter how much national experience they presumably have behaves any differently.

I agree John.

Obama with very little national experience called Bush out on everything from Gitmo to Iraq to 9/11. However, as soon as he got his 1st DPB, Iam sure he said CRAP, maybe Bush was right, and now politically I am in trouble because of my naivete on the campaign trail.


Bullet and I were discussing his latest Sat morning speech. Honestly, I think he has it right, but also honestly, I think it went up and over many of our citizens heads.

He stated, paraphrasing, NATO called, and we are supporting our Allies, and that is in our best national interest.

IMPO, he is correct it is in our best national interests to support them. Our Allies came with us to Afghanistan, they were not attacked on 9/11. People can debate it the 7-11 attack in London occurred due to Britain coming along with us.

We had no real issue with Kosovo from a nationalistic perspective, but we went to support our Allies.

Obama's problem is he is not communicating well with Americans. He has not been able to get that candidate Obama out there. He is lost in his message.

Well, John, I'm not a partisan hack, and I voted for Obama, partially based on his stance on the wars and mostly for his idea of "transparency."  I, who am not a partisan hack, who helped fundraise for his campaign, am NOT okay 1. with his using our troops for this "mission," or 2. with his not having addressed our representational branch of the government before using our military, which I do NOT believe should be at the disposal of other nations, or used for anything other than DEFENSE, and I mean real DEFENSE against an attacking enemy, who is directely attacking us.

1. I do not believe it stops any wars or violence from occuring in other places to put our men and women at risk.  2. As bad as this sounds, we flat out cannot afford to run our military as the world police force.  the FREE world police force.

So, you want to go ahead and send our flyers in to bring aid to Haiti, I'm with that.  But, you want to send them in to shoot at people, I don't care how many times you call it humanitarian, it isn't, it is militant, and it requires an explanation, to us.  The people who voted him in based on an entirely different agenda than the one he is currently pursuing. 

She's a partisan hack. If it were Bush doing this, she'd be trumpeting the exact opposite position.

I read this.

I really like Peggy Noonan's take on things, just in general.  She's less partisan and more common sense.

But, yeah, I've been stunned by the fact that we haven't heard from the President on this, too.  I can't see how you can use our military without talking to us about it.