Obama and Hillary's fight against terrorism

[betsy]

Why do they publicly announce their strategy?

If there's anyone who can understand the dynamics behind that, it has to be a supporter of Hillary and Obama.

Can a supporter please explain that to me.

Obama laid out plans what they'll do, ahead of time......giving the enemies a heads up! He'd give the time-line too.

Who does that? Only an idiot!

Aren't those treasonous? Giving information like that to the enemy can get an ordinary guy executed in the good ol days of war-fighting. Ahhhh.....the time when common sense prevailed.

And here are Obama and Clinton now, not only giving the enemy the time to prepare, or to flee......but risking the lives of US and ally soldiers, to boot! Anybody ever thought about that?

Just think of football. Teams huddle to do SECRET plan on how to win the game. What more when you're at war?

If there's anyone who's so full of themselves.....it'll be Obama and Clinton.

"Here's what I'll do," they say.....and they give their plans away. "See how brilliant I am."

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

If there's any clear evidence that they negligently, and wilfully, put soldiers (and civilians) at risk....this is it.

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Link?

[betsy]

In his speech, Obama not only gave the info that combat in Afghanistan ends that year...and VOWING he will not commit ground troops to the effort.

When you're at war, why will you have to make that clear?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWCNdWpmW6o





“To stop the advance on Erbil I’ve directed our military to take targeted military strikes against ISIL convoys should they move toward the city,” Obama added.“

VIDEO LINK

You don't give out information, period!

Afghanistan: Barack Obama sets date of July 2011 to begin withdrawal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6705332/Afghanistan-Barack-Obama-sets-date-of-July-2011-to-begin-withdrawal.html

Edited August 17, 2016 by Michael Hardner
ADDED VIDEO LINK

[betsy]

No wonder Hillary didn't think much about using her private server for emails!

If Obama has no qualms giving a heads up to the enemy just so he can look good in front of the camera.....why should we expect any different from his Secretary of State? Convenience takes precedence.

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

So you would say Bush and Cheney committed treason not for lying to invade Iraq but for signing the U.S./Iraq Status of Forces Agreement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Edited August 16, 2016 by BubberMiley

[segnosaur]

Why do they publicly announce their strategy?

If there's anyone who can understand the dynamics behind that, it has to be a supporter of Hillary and Obama.

Can a supporter please explain that to me.

Obama laid out plans what they'll do, ahead of time......giving the enemies a heads up! He'd give the time-line too.

Who does that? Only an idiot!

You are right...

I mean, just take a look at this set of plans to combat ISIS...

From: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-lays-out-foreign-policy-plan-including-how-fight-n546056

- Attack oil fields

- Concentrate on ISIS rather than Assad

I mean, who actually gives away details like that?

Oh, wait a second... that was Trump who said those things..

A few things to note:

- Every leader (or candidate) gives information about how they will handle foreign affairs, including in this case how to defeat terrorists. This includes Trump, as I have shown above. The fact that you would condemn Obama and Hillary over this while ignoring similar statements by Trump is an example of hypocrisy

- In general, statements made leaders and candidates are fairly vague... Its not like anyone is giving specific coordinates about when/where American troops will be at any specific time.

- The U.S. is not a dictatorship... Troops cannot be ordered around secretly, and the president does have to deal with Congress-critters. Even simple logistics comes into play. ISIS has a lot of idiots who are supporters, but do you honestly think they are stupid enough to not notice "Hey, the Americans are moving troops"?

[Guest]

While stumping for Trump, Giuliani said "Under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office." Many questioned Rudy's sanity and hyper-partisanship by pointing out that he was mayor of New York City during the worst attack on US soil since the War of 1812. However, Rudy didn't forget about 9/11, his embarrassingly weak point was that after Sep 11 there weren't any other foreign attacks on US soil because the Repubs, led by W did great things to protect the country.

The problem is Jeb, tried this incredibly foolish argument and Trump himself squashed it.

"What does that mean 'he kept the country safe after 9/11?' In other words, we had this major catastrophe after that. What does that mean ‘after that?’ I don’t know. I’ve heard that for years. … What about during 9/11? I was there. I lost a lot of friends that were killed in that building. The worst attack ever in this country—it was during his Presidency.

We had the worst attack ever, by the way after that we did Ok. That’s [like saying] the team scored 19 runs in the first inning, but after that we played well. I don’t think so." - Trump

[betsy]

So you would say Bush and Cheney committed treason not for lying to invade Iraq but for signing the U.S./Iraq Status of Forces Agreement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

????

We're talking about giving specific information.

You are right...

I mean, just take a look at this set of plans to combat ISIS...

From: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-lays-out-foreign-policy-plan-including-how-fight-n546056

- Attack oil fields

- Concentrate on ISIS rather than Assad

I mean, who actually gives away details like that?

Oh, wait a second... that was Trump who said those things..

A few things to note:

- Every leader (or candidate) gives information about how they will handle foreign affairs, including in this case how to defeat terrorists. This includes Trump, as I have shown above. The fact that you would condemn Obama and Hillary over this while ignoring similar statements by Trump is an example of hypocrisy

- In general, statements made leaders and candidates are fairly vague... Its not like anyone is giving specific coordinates about when/where American troops will be at any specific time.

Apples and oranges.

I'm talking details about war plans.

It's one thing to say we'll concentrate on ISIS (after all, ISIS is the immediate threat to the west), but quite another when you lay out that you'd "directed the bombing of ISIS convoys that go towards the city."

The latter is a detailed strategic plan.

- The U.S. is not a dictatorship... Troops cannot be ordered around secretly, and the president does have to deal with Congress-critters.

BS.

Congress was there in WW2! It's nothing new.

Even simple logistics comes into play. ISIS has a lot of idiots who are supporters, but do you honestly think they are stupid enough to not notice "Hey, the Americans are moving troops"?

Unless some idiot leader inform them that soldiers are leaving Afghanistan, people would only wonder where the soldiers are moving to! They can only make their speculation.

You don't disclose your specific move at war-time!

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

The U.S./Iraq Status of Forces Agreement contained specific information about how and when they would be leaving Iraq. Why is it treason to say when they're leaving Afghanistan but fine to say when they are leaving Iraq?

[betsy]

The U.S./Iraq Status of Forces Agreement contained specific information about how and when they would be leaving Iraq. Why is it treason to say when they're leaving Afghanistan but fine to say when they are leaving Iraq?

It wasn't the only example that was given.

Furthermore, it's not the same thing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The agreement with Iraq was about ending the war!

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003.

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

It was about ENDING THE WAR!

Just like the example you gave of Obama saying they planned to leave Afghanistan, thereby ENDING THE WAR.

And just so you know, your statement that saying they will bomb ISIS members as they advance is not "a detailed strategic plan." I don't think you even really believe that.

[cybercoma]

The U.S./Iraq Status of Forces Agreement contained specific information about how and when they would be leaving Iraq. Why is it treason to say when they're leaving Afghanistan but fine to say when they are leaving Iraq?

Because Obama.

[BubberMiley]

Furthermore, it's not the same thing with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It was exactly the same thing.

[betsy]

Just like the example you gave of Obama saying they planned to leave Afghanistan, thereby ENDING THE WAR.

And just so you know, your statement that saying they will bomb ISIS members as they advance is not "a detailed strategic plan." I don't think you even really believe that.

Their war was with the Taliban!

He didn't give directives to bomb ISIS members! READ! Understand what you read!

"Bomb ISIS convoys that go towards the city," is pretty much detailed!

Edited August 16, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Their war was with the Taliban!

And the Iraq war was with Iraqi insurgents, which became ISIS. What's your point?

"Bomb ISIS convoys that go towards the city," is pretty much detailed!

No, it's vague and general. It also doesn't mean that those were the only people they were bombing (which I must assume is your point, because you haven't articulated that very well).

[Hal 9000]

This is a phenomenon that has always intrigued me. Why would you tell your enemies what you are willing or not willing to do? Why would you tell them your plan? It makes no sense whatsoever! I'm sure it comforts the enemy to know when and where you'll strike, how many troops you'll use and even what forces - not to mention telling them that you refuse to use certain tactics or weapons - but is that the best course of action for fighting a war? Does any other country do this? Most countries prefer to let the enemy think the'll do more or go further than they actually might.

Also, on the other side of the ledger, people are so used to this backwards mentality that they instantly start insulting a person like Trump because he prefers to keep silent about possible tactics, he refuses to take nukes off the table and main stream media starts fear mongering that Trump wants a nuclear war - forget that every indication is that he wants nothing to do with involvement in the middle east (other than ISIS).

[WestCoastRunner]

This is a phenomenon that has always intrigued me. Why would you tell your enemies what you are willing or not willing to do? Why would you tell them your plan? It makes no sense whatsoever! I'm sure it comforts the enemy to know when and where you'll strike, how many troops you'll use and even what forces - not to mention telling them that you refuse to use certain tactics or weapons - but is that the best course of action for fighting a war? Does any other country do this? Most countries prefer to let the enemy think the'll do more or go further than they actually might.

Also, on the other side of the ledger, people are so used to this backwards mentality that they instantly start insulting a person like Trump because he prefers to keep silent about possible tactics, he refuses to take nukes off the table and main stream media starts fear mongering that Trump wants a nuclear war - forget that every indication is that he wants nothing to do with involvement in the middle east (other than ISIS).

I'm guessing that you and Betsy are more knowledgeable than the top ranking officials?

[Hal 9000]

I'm guessing that you and Betsy are more knowledgeable than the top ranking officials?

I'm not more knowledgeable militarily per se, but from a common sense perspective - maybe.

[Big Guy]

If the USA public were kept from knowing at least a little of what was happening in Vietnam, their troops would still be there fighting the fight. It was the public that forced the hand of the administration of Johnson.

[Argus]

I'm guessing that you and Betsy are more knowledgeable than the top ranking officials?

It is politicians making these pronouncements.

[Hal 9000]

You'd think the Americans would've learned from the British tactics in the american revolution.

British: "We will announce our arrival, we will wear bright red jackets and march in a straight line".

Patriots: "Oh OK, I guess we'll just have people wear their normal dingy coloured clothes and hide then in the bushes and trees and wait for you".

[BubberMiley]

You'd think the Americans would've learned from the British tactics in the american revolution.

I think they did, seeing as you or Betsy haven't provided any instances where they gave away sensitive information that jeopardized any troops. All you've provided is a vague promise to bomb ISIS when they advance and a timeline for withdrawal that was similar to Bush/Cheney's timeline for withdrawal.

You also fail to realize that what they say they are going to do might not wind up being what they actually do.

[segnosaur]

You'd think the Americans would've learned from the British tactics in the american revolution.

British: "We will announce our arrival, we will wear bright red jackets and march in a straight line".

Patriots: "Oh OK, I guess we'll just have people wear their normal dingy coloured clothes and hide then in the bushes and trees and wait for you".

Slight derail....

Actually, the idea that the British were foolishly marching in a straight line while the Americans pick them off using guerilla tactics may actually be a myth. (Mel Gibson movies notwithstanding.)

Most battles had both sides using the "Line up and shoot at each other" tactic. They almost had to... weapons available were usually not very accurate, so the only way to ensure at least some of your enemy was killed was to fire a whole lot of guns in the hope that at least a few bullets would hit something. Plus, reload times were rather long... anyone trying to ambush a group of British soldiers would probably 1) miss, and 2) get killed while frantically trying to reload, as the rest of the soldiers either shoot you, or stab you with their bayonets.

It is true that there was some use of guerilla tactics, but they were only a minor part of the war, and were employed by both the Americans and the British (not to mention native groups, who were more likely to be pro-Britain.)

http://www.cracked.com/article_20306_5-myths-about-revolutionary-war-everyone-believes.html

[Hal 9000]

Slight derail....

Actually, the idea that the British were foolishly marching in a straight line while the Americans pick them off using guerilla tactics may actually be a myth. (Mel Gibson movies notwithstanding.)

Most battles had both sides using the "Line up and shoot at each other" tactic. They almost had to... weapons available were usually not very accurate, so the only way to ensure at least some of your enemy was killed was to fire a whole lot of guns in the hope that at least a few bullets would hit something. Plus, reload times were rather long... anyone trying to ambush a group of British soldiers would probably 1) miss, and 2) get killed while frantically trying to reload, as the rest of the soldiers either shoot you, or stab you with their bayonets.

It is true that there was some use of guerilla tactics, but they were only a minor part of the war, and were employed by both the Americans and the British (not to mention native groups, who were more likely to be pro-Britain.)

http://www.cracked.com/article_20306_5-myths-about-revolutionary-war-everyone-believes.html

It wasn't a derail - until just now.

I'm still speaking to the foolish idea of letting the enemy know your tactics.

P.S - I haven't seen the movie.