Forum:Obama's wars

"How well are Obama's wars going? Are they meeting long term objectives? Are Obama's wars meeting a reasonable return on investment in terms of advancing America's interest? Are Obama's wars significantly advancing the welfare of mankind? How strategically sound are Obama's wars and how well are they being carried out?"

Well, let's see... Osama bin Laden is dead -- something Bush didn't accomplish and reportedly fucked up.

We've left Iraq (which could hardly be called Obama's War) on the timetable George Bush agreed to.

Libya -- Qaddafy dead, without a single US casualty.

You want to debate Obama's military successes? Bring it on, buster. MDB (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I voted for "You mean they're not the same person?" in the poll above. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Suddenly they are "Obama's Wars", as if he stated either the Iraqi or Afghan campaign.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

unmanned drones

 * Bring it on? Ok, let's see what the liberal atheist George Soros front group, Human Rights Watch says about Obama's military successes:
 * While the laws of war do not prohibit intelligence agencies from participating in combat operations, states are obligated to investigate credible allegations of war crimes and provide redress for victims of unlawful attacks. The US government’s refusal to acknowledge the CIA’s role in targeted killings or to provide information on strikes where there have been credible allegations of laws-of-war violations leaves little basis for determining whether the US is meeting its international legal obligations. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 20:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, Rob, I know Soros is one of the great conservative boogeymen -- I picture conservative mothers telling their children, 'if you don't behave, George Soros will come and make you get gay married to a liberal Muslim abortionist!" -- but that won't wash here. MDB (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your totally relevant and intelligent contribution, Ken. We're very proud of you! RachelW (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, when a republican is in the white house, that's the kind of talk that makes real conservatives suspect you hate 'merica. I will grant you that the liberal atheist abortionist global warmist evolutionist jew queer George Soros has legitimate concerns about the operations. I'm not sure how much they weigh on success/failure, though. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot Nazi. He was a nasty 14 year old Nazi, too. RachelW (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep'n Rachel, can't address the issue again, huh? (A) Bob Woodward, of Deep Throat and Watergate fame, coined the term "Obama's Wars"; (B) Wikipedia states, "A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens." (C) U.K.-based investigative reporters working with the Sunday Times have determined that ''“since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed (by CIA drone attacks in Pakistan), including more than 60 children.”; (D) "Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to President Barack Obama and in a questions and answers document. A dramatic increase in the use of CIA drone strikes underscores the need for the US to demonstrate that the CIA adheres to international legal requirements for accountability".

So there's your fucking criticism of Obama's military successes, and none of it comes from Romney, Palin, Bush, Gingrich, Andy Schlalfy, or Ken Demyer. In fact, those assholes are strangley silent, not so? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 282-535 is a terrible number. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis is even worse.Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rob: Bob Woodward did coin the term, therefore they are Obama's Wars. And he's got another good point: When conservatives wage war, there are no civilian causalities. And if there ever were any, you can be sure that the conservative president would quickly offer his neck, and the necks of those serving in the armed forces, as restitution. Everyone knows conservatives love a good apology tour. Maybe Jeb Bush can go on one when he's elected. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That same reasoning about collateral damage could have come put of the mouth wp:Timothy McVeigh, especially vis-a-vis the child victims. And the Iraqi comparison raises the question about immunity for both sitting and ex-executives (per Chomsky. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It also could have come out of the mouth of Wilt Chamberlain, and do you know how much pussy he got? Lots, Rob. A stinking mountain of it. But I do agree that if collateral damage cannot be avoided with certainty, we should probably just give up and let the terrorists win. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it's ok to kill children. Good. At least now we have that on record. Now, care to address any of the specific points? Like Obama's unwillingness to comply with international standards of conduct and legal requirements? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm agreeing with you: I'd rather the US endure 1,000 9/11's than potentially kill a few Pakastani kids. Regarding Obama's willingness to comply with your international double standards, I do think there is something to that, but it's just odd hearing it coming from a RINO. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the immortal words of Richard Nixon, God Praise him and Bless him, "Let me make this perfectly clear...", I ain't no fucking RINO. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to international law there are no double standards and no debate whatsoever about UAV strikes against targets in Pakistan: they're illegal. In fact they're an act  of war. However if the Pakistanis don't want their sovereignty violated and their Madrassahs blown up they should get off their arses and deal with the terrorism problem themselves. Except, oops, they don't want to. Because in what passes for their minds, Haqqani and the Taliban are a valuable tool for exerting political influence in the region. --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, hmmm, so, should Obama give back the Nobel Peace Prize after whacking out 60 children? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Ken, why so many accounts? Cow...Hammertime! 21:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Obama didn't whack ANY kids. Some 19 year old SAC did it, and he probably only dimly remembered that his blinged-up Wii was controlling a real MQ-9 loaded with Hellfires and SDBs. Should Obama hand back his (unearned) prize for ordering the strikes? No, don't be silly. Those targets need to be hit, and if the Pakistanis won't do it themselves the USA and UK have to. --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those kids were muslims, Rob. It's not like they were going to heaven. Who cares if a few kids miss out on squandering their lives in a squalid hellscape like Pakistan when they're inevitably going to end up being eternally tortured by your loving god? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given a choice between Pakistan and hell I'd go with Old Nick any day. At least a lake of fire would kill the flies, and the brimstone would beat the ever-present smell of scabby goats and faeces. --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ECx4) Ahhhhh, I see. They were only following orders. That's how Obama can justify slashing the Pentagon budget for carrying out his orders. Then he can get back to his pacifist roots of breaking the wartime mentality. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ever been in a war, Rob? I've been in four. Breaking the wartime mentality sounds like a fucking good idea to me. --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Been in war? My generation fought the Cold War. I'll stack up our sacrifices and accomplishments with any generation's wars, the WWII generation, the Crusaders, any of 'em. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 22:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sitting on your sofa with a six pack watching Red Dawn doesn't count, you fucking nobstick. I asked if you, personally, have BEEN in a war, seeing as you seem so keen on maintaining a wartime mentality. --Fergus Mason (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, do you sympathize with terrorists more than you hate America or is it the other way around? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends who's President, doesn't it? Bush was taking necessary steps to protect American interests against the Axis of Evil Enemies; Borat Osama is killing innocent kiddies for fun. Welcome to RobWorld. --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that we've conceded that the actions are illegal, I'm interested in hearing Rob's conservative alternatives to raining death on terrorists. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to know that myself. Shitty as collateral damage is, what can you do when the people you have to kill like to hang out in Madrassahs full of kids? --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Rob, If we're still in Afghanistan by the time Santorum is elected, will they be "Santorum's Wars?" Would you have preferred it if Obama withdrew all of our troops on 1/21/2009? Does the death of civilians automatically mean that we failed in Iraq/Afghanistan? Isn't "I ain't no fucking RINO" exactly what a RINO would say? Don't you think Nixon should praise God, like a good Christian would, and not the other way around? Do you think every war where we had collateral civilian deaths was a failure too? Did you read what this discussion was about before blundering in like a drunken jackass pachyderm? Do you like when somebody answers you with a bunch of questions? Fail to answer any of these questions and lose all credibility. Tesformes (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He has credibility? --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have said, "In the words of Nixon, Allah bless him and keep him..." if that would have helped you capture the idiom. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, "let's make this perfectly clear": "non-compliance to international law" isn't a liberal problem or Obama's problem — it is an American problem. That's what happens when you think for 80 years of other countries only as fields on a map that should be your color. -- 21:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. But try telling that to a brainless partisan. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hallo kettle, this is pot. Message, over... --Fergus Mason (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pff Rob's already outed himself as a fucking dirty commie RINO, and they're not partisan. Cow...Hammertime! 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's certainly outed himself as something. I suspect it's a bit like mormon, but with one less m. --Fergus Mason (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I guess the consensus is that Ken is an American-hating Al Qaeda sympathizer, and every wartime president since the advent of international law is a war criminal. RachelW (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one way of putting it. I just think he's a throbber. --Fergus Mason (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whattsamatta, nobody got the balls to go on record? stand up for what you profess to believe in? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 22:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Prove you got em Rob. What's your alternative to drone bombings and selective indifference to international law? Occasionaluse (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's get a consensus of what we're talking about here; so far I don't see a single vote for "necessary adjunct of war", so I'd be pissing in the wind to answer that, no? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 22:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we just don't take you seriously enough to care. RachelW (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So we can put you in the Obama is a babykiller column then, no? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, but I'm a liberal so I don't care about anything as long as my party is in power. RachelW (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeesh, what an ugly exchange. Rob, I think that Obama's continuation of many of Bush's tactics (albeit not torture, thankfully) does make a lot of liberals uncomfortable. He gets a lot of leeway on being a hawk because he's a liberal - as they say, only Nixon could have gone to China. But it cannot be denied that Obama is just a lot better at these things than Bush. He is competent and somewhat villainous, rather than incompetent and wildly villainous. That is progress, at least, although it doesn't mean that liberals should support someone who promises the same next time.-- 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would (confidentially) agree with all of that. The drone program is a technological improvement Obama rubber stamped. If Hitler or Mother Theresa were president, they and their supporters (as this thread began) would boast about killing the enemy with no casualties of our own. There are ethical questions about killing stone age speer-chuckers with a Hellfire missile and the "humane rules of war" (invoking a popular oxymoron). The Soros funded front Human Rights Watch provides perfect deniability for everyone. But rightly or wrongly, as gas hits $4.50 or $5.00 per gallon, I would guess Obama's queasiness about answering the collateral damage question could become more uncomfortable. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 12:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to blame Obama, who has sped through oil permits at a ridiculous rate. The USA became a net exporter of oil last year, did you know that?  Oil production is at an eight-year high.  But since he doesn't get any credit from that, but is in fact attacked for being anti-oil, it's hard to see why he might have any incentive to act further in favor of raising oil availability.  That's the problem with the GOP's reckless lies: they diverge from reality so far that they cease to incentivize any change in behavior.  Obama has been a military hawk, ardently pro-capitalism, and a huge oil booster - when he's attacked for being too militarily weak, a crazy socialist, and being anti-oil, then of course he's going to stop giving a damn about such things.  Don't look to him sweating about it too much.-- 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any percent increase from a low base seems huge, it's just in the numbers. The gauge of oil availability is ultimately the pump price -- the ability of the supply to meet current market demand. If the US is to recover & have job expansion, that means more people driving to work, more people with the ability to spend time on leisure driving and consumer shopping. As a consumer driven economy, that means trucks have to deliver goods at warehouses and shops throughout the country. So job improvement & economic improvement goes hand in hand with higher pump prices and lower standard of living. It's a structural impediment built in to the US economy now (since about 1967). It would be true whoever is president. But is a plain fact that Mr. Obama really didn't have the intellect to grasp some of this until he was forced to the past year or so. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 13:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IOW, If the US is a net exporter of oil, it is only cause unemployment is so high and domestic demand is down. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 14:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your basis for concluding that the price at the pump is the most important indicator of the oil supply? Because most economists (or anyone with sense) would disagree.  For example, when Obama came into office, gas prices were at something like $1.85 or similarly super-low.  Does that mean that the oil supply was great for that period?  No, of course not... prices just plummeted because of the financial crisis.  In late 2007 and 2008, prices were at about the same levels as now.  By your logic, supply got steadily worse under Bush, then got really bad, then suddenly became amazingly good for about half a year, and since then has steadily degraded.  That isn't what happened.
 * Gasprices.gif
 * That data explicitly and obviously contradicts you, and is a good example of Republican denial of reality.-- 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two key prices (1) crude oil, which is a reflection of worldwide demand, and (2) pump price, which is a reflection of US domestic demand. The two sometimes move in tandem, sometimes not. However, US domestic demand has a large impact on the worldwide crude demand.
 * Crude peaked at about $147 about Sept. of 2008, when US domestic demand dropped and the US entered recession (unemployment rose, GDP contracted, stock market fell. etc.). It fell to about $60, and stabilized around $70 for some time, rose to about $90 on world demand, while the US remained mired in recession and slack domestic demand. Now, as US domestic demand picks up, world crude prices have shot above the $100 level. The two (world crude & US pump) prices now are moving in tandem once again. How long this will continue is a matter of speculation; we know from past experience $4+ pump price & $147 per barrel will strangle US GDP growth. However since that past experience, the Federal Reserve Board has since expanded it's balance sheet to provide more liquidity to accommodate the demand for cash and the ability to pay for imports. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, those sure are some facts tangentially related to the discussion. I assume the fact that you're changing the subject means you admit you're wrong, since there wasn't a word in there about supply or production?
 * I'm not an idiot; you can't always do this same tactic and not have me notice. These databelches are not to the point.-- 22:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, so you are focused on US pump prices. Would you agree that from about Jun 2008 til Jan 2009, US pump prices fell from about $4 to $2? (according to the chart you provided). Then, US domestic pump prices turned around and began rising throughout 2009, while US payrolls (or the number of people employed) continued to fall? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not what I'm focused on - that's what we were discussing. We were discussing the realpolitik situation with Obama and his actual record rather than the distorted view of things, and you mentioned that rising gas prices at the pump would make him uncomfortable and more willing to engage in military action to combat it - exactly what you meant by that is hard to determine, since I can't think of any "collateral damage" that would help the matter. I took issue with your characterization, pointing out that Obama has been very much pro-oil. You replied, among other things, with the assertion that the "gauge of oil availability is ultimately the pump price." I found that ridiculous, and pointed out why it was ridiculous with relevant data about the recent trends in pump price and how they don't correlate with production, but rather with a variety of factors - the financial crisis being the biggest recent one. By this, I am indicating that your assertion about the gauge of oil supply being pump price was obviously wrong. Inexplicably, you seem to have "replied" with a brief description of recent crude prices and how they rose and fell, something already presented in a chart I provided. It's completely immaterial, not a matter of my preference of focus. Yes, I would agree that pump prices fell dramatically with the financial crisis. Yes, they have been rising ever since. But there's no reason to correlate them with domestic payroll - they aren't driven by the actual market consumption, as I have been explaining. If they were, then the two most important factors would be oil production or consumer demand, which rose and fell, respectively (i.e. if they were the most important factor, then the cost of gas should have dropped). In other words and by your own admission, the pump price did the opposite of what we would expect if crude production and domestic demand were the most important factors. Instead, the pump price rose, as you point out. In fact, it rose in a pretty good correlation with the health of corporate America, which immediately started trending up. It's almost as if - stay with me now - oil is being traded as a commodity.-- 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, fine. Let's move forward. I'm making the assertion that (a) while the size of the US workforce fell throughout the year of 2009 (my chart), (b) the US pump rose (your chart). And further stating this was because of global economic recovery, while the US remained mired in recession. I am further stating, now that the US has joined the global recovery, both world crude prices, and US domestic pump prices both are rising, and shall continue to rise. At what point they break, or we see a peak in both US employment & US domestic pump prices (such as in Sept. of 2008), is currently unknown. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 00:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AD said,"In fact, [pump prices] rose in a pretty good correlation with the health of corporate America."
 * Using the Dow as AD does, creates a meaningless correlation. It's not an indicator of "the health of corporate America"; if that were true, why can't corporate America fund the Federal Government's operating deficit? Why does the US Treasury have to turn to China, and not Wall Street, to sell T-bills? Cause Wall Street & corporate America is broke.
 * The decision of investors to purchase stocks is not related to the pump price. The health of the Dow in the period AD cites is simply a reflection of what investors hoped to gain in relation to other investments, such a interest rate bearing investments, which have not been healthy, or the returns negligible. Real estate sucks. And Euro denominated assets likewise have been in the toilet. The Dow that AD cites, was the only game in town. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 16:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Collateral damage poll
Let's get a concensus. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)  "Collateral damage is a necessary adjunct of war." "Collateral damage only occurs when a Republican or conservative is involved." "The Nobel Peace Prize grants the recipient immunity from prosecution under the Nuremberg precedent." "Who cares? they weren't going to vote for us anyway." "Goat" "Rob is a fucking idiot" "Consensus is spelled with an 's', you English-language-only-suppporting-idiot"
 * Could we open a WIGO:Rob page already since that's what this is rapidly becoming? Vulpius (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, where the fuck was your sense of moral outrage when Bush started two wars? --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody's talking about the real problem: Obama's massive troop buildup in Germany . I must admit I missed it. Whoover (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have to do all of your research, Ken? But before you get your pants all wet, it's a logistics center. -- 01:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A few people touched on this already but my biggest issue in reading is the reminder that Conservapedia and its sysops (of which Rob was one), was rather wholeheartedly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush presidency (with Ken of all people perhaps being the occasional dissenting voice). Now those same wars are inherited by Obama, suddenly the site and the people associated with its highest ranks are suddenly anti-war when it comes to these two theaters. Concerned about casualties of the civilians of those nations while never expressing concern before January 2009. Better still, originally objecting having US military forces being subjected to international standards or agencies, suddenly international and UN law matters and should be applied. It is the rank hypocrisy of it all. I would see some of Rob's points if he and by proxy, CP, had been consistent in their POV; but because its a flip-flop that precisely coincides with the party of the current president, it isn't about the children of Iraq or Afghanistan, its about the fact the President has a D after his name, no more.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lookit, this is absurd. Let's leave the ad hominem directed against anyone (Obama, Kendoll, RachelW, etc.) behind. If the issue is hypocrisy, Guantanamo, the Afghan surge, the fact that twice as many Americans have been killed under Obama in three years than all eight years of Bush combined (CRS Reports, Page 3 pdf Table 2), collateral damage, what Obama and supporters said about "dumb wars" vs what they say now. If you think turning Obama into a cold-blooder killer who doesn't understand the economy is a winning issue among the unconverted, Good Luck. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Waaahh! Obama got too many Americans killed in Afghanistan! Waaahh! Obama is using unmanned drones to attack terrorists! Occasionaluse (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me Rob, do you think Obama called up the fucking Taliban and told them where to go to kill Americans? Did you bother to wonder WHY more Americans were killed? What conditions on the ground might contribute to that? No, of course not, it's Obama's fault. You're so fucking predictable I almost feel bad pointing out when you've got diarrhea dribbling out of your slack-jawed mouth and onto your shoes, but I'm still banned from CP so you're my bitch for the next week until I get the real Ken back. At least he surprises me sometimes. RachelW (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. My point is, the argument is a wash. Accusing GOPers, et all, of hypocrisy is laughable, since Obama & the Left re-wrote the How-to manual on winning elections. Many critics of Obama are only following that instruction book.
 * Here's the problem: Obama boasting of being a killer should either be (a) labeled inappropriate by his own believers and followers, or better yet (b) responded to with stunned silence. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And how should an exponential slaughter of terrorists combined with a linear growth in armed forces casualties (thanks to unmanned drones) be responded to by conservatives who wanted safer troops and more dead terrorists? There is hypocrisy on both sides, but it's absolutely astonishing from conservatives. I really truly believe that conservatives are scumbags. Rob, I really believe that you want fewer unmanned drones so more troops can die just so you can use it as political fodder. Really, I think you're a piece of shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a sweeping generalization. Neither Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachman, Cain, Palin, or anyone else AFAIK addressed these issues -- perhaps that's a factor in the lack of enthusiasm for any of them -- I don't really know. But this tit-for-tat, Bush did this Obama did that, at least Obama killed bin Laden despite his Stimulus having failed, IMHO will fail. And it's up to the True Believers of Obama and his political faith, to not follow the boss's lead in trumpeting killing anyone (bin Laden, Khaddafi, 7,000 terrorists, 300-500 civilians, 60 children, or 1200 US Service personal). And not following the boss's lead on this point may be a challenge for some True Believers. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * twice as many Americans have been killed under Obama in three years than all eight years of Bush combined No, Rob, your citation only talks about American deaths in Afghanistan. I'm not sure whether you were being inarticulate or intellectually dishonest.
 * Anyway, your new found regard for dead civilians and service people is hard to take seriously. It seems more like your using them as ammunition in a partisan fight than anything else. If you truly cared you'd have spoken up during Bush. You also wouldn't be boasting about the Cold War. The crimes committed in Vietnam alone easily outdo anything either Bush or Obama have done.
 * Like usual, I have no idea what exactly is going on in your mind. If you want someone here other than yourself to badmouth Obama I'll be happy too. He lied when it came to closing down Guantánamo. He is a hypocrite for lambasting Bush for going to war without congressional approval and then doing exactly that in Libya. He promised change, but brought the same old faces into his administration. He moved quickly and did much when the wealthy were in trouble, but didn't do nearly enough for the poor. Unlike a few on the left, I didn't expect too much from him. Yet he still managed not to live up to my meagre expectations. And you know what? I'm still voting for him in November, 'cuz as bad as he the Republicans are still even worse. Anyway, let's see if your new found pacifism holds whenever they get the office back. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understands criticizing the way Obama handles the wars themselves and his overall strategy; these are legitimate concerns. After all as Harry Truman has said, "the buck stops here".  However you're not criticizing Obama for making mistakes in the conflict, you are coming after him for methods used in the war that Bush also used; hypocritically you'll (CP sysops) never came after Bush for that; now why the sudden one-eighty? Well because now its a Democrat in office and you'll don't want him there, so instead of finding legitimate reasons to go after Obama, you go after him for having to fight a war he inherited from the last administration and has no choice but to somehow conclude while attempting at least achieve some of our objectives and honor.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@BMcP
 * The CRS cite is a legitimate characterization of the issue and not dishonest in anyway;
 * My newly found distaste for dumb wars is as hypocritical as Obama's taste for blood;
 * I know what it's like to have a misguided idiot leading my party & ideology, so I'm symapthetic. I bit my lip and remained silent for years on many crucial points, except perhaps when career opportunists called Iraq & Afghanistan dumb wars (plural, meaning both).
 * I agree wholeheartedly, boasting of bin Laden's death should not be ammunition in a partisan food fight.
 * Vietnam was a Hot War in the Cold War, just one 10 year long front; I'd love to get into specifics of the Cold War, perhaps that's why I founded Wikipedia's Cold War History Porject.
 * Your impartial criticism is social policy is genuine and appreciated.
 * "Men nearly always follow in the footsteps laid by others", as Machiavelli said. And my criticism of Obama is following by the faculty of mimesis to electoral success laid out by Barack Hussein Obama. Innovation and improvement is the driving force of growth, and Obama innovated and improved, by the use of despicable, unfair, and hypocritical criticism of George Walker Bush, the way to conduct a campaign election.
 * It is up to Obama's followers to not follow the man in trumpeting killing of bin Laden or anyone as a reason to re-elect him. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama's taste for blood is as old as the day is long, remember? Obama wanted to kill infants and your grandparents. It's when he's thirsty for the blood of America's enemies that sends you into a conspiracy riddled hypocrisy tailspin. 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Straits of Hormuz

 * I'll bet $110 the day Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz Obama real quick will trade blood for oil. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 23:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And? Thats iran being stupid and asking for the world to stop caring if it is attacked. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever I read a post that makes no sense in context I can always jump to the end and find that Rob has written it. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 23:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me rephrase and put it in context. If Iran were to close the Straits of Hormuz and gas at the pump hit $5, Obama instantly would become a fascist babykiller willing to trade blood for oil -- and the American people will be behind him. He only needs to pray it happens before the election, cause he's unlikely to react afterwards. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 00:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So when is American military action justified? When they close the strait?  When they attack one of our allies?  When they conduct terrorist action on an ally?  How about on American soil?  Or is shedding of blood by America never allowed?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why people take Rob seriously when he write things like this, it is little better than trolling (I give him the benefit of the doubt he is trying to make some point). Rob is a hyper-partisan who sees the world in red and blue. I doubt he has much of political out look other that US=capitalism=Republican=good, communism=Democrat=Anti-US=bad. He actually enjoys politicks and the silly word games involved, whether wikipolitics (the lamest form) or when he make believes he is an analyst who knows what the "average Joe on the street thinks" because of the gas price. He doesn't really care that Obama is a baby-killing oil-thief, he just remembers that people said it about Bush, it made him feel bad because people who oppose him politically said something about "his side" and now he gets the chance to say it about Obama. Rob enjoys his tu quoque fallacies because it means his baseball team party can score political points without having to actually have to both with tiresome intellectual things like coherent political ideologies and theories of governance. A few catch phrases, some cheep dirt points, and the price of gas is all Rob need to "win". -  π    03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're all wrong. Sure, maybe some of my language is parched in idioms familiar to both the left & right, it's shocking to some leftists to hear their own nonsense thrown in their face. What happened t the anti-War movement in the Bush years? They threw away their anti-War posters and now are Occupying port-a-potties in public parks screaming "tax the rich". Some commitment to justice and a cause, huh? like the cause of innocent dead in Iraq. That is a farce, cause the same occupiers now see no problem if Obama were to exchange blood-for-oil if war with Iran comes. My point simply, if war with Iran comes, the American people would be behind President Obama 100%. He'd be a fool not to grasp at the opportunity, especially months before a general election. To waver at a point like this, even for an instant, would cost him the election. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 03:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are so full of shit. There's no way in hell I would support a war with Iran. What the hell do you mean by anti-War posters? Do you believe the shit you spew? Cow...Hammertime! 04:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-war & Occupy movements

 * Case in point: See wp:Code Pink, which needs updating. Jesus Christ, it's getting pretty piss-poor and disorganized when I have to put you in touch with you sources of your talking points. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 08:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Always nice of you to stay relevant. Thanks, Rob. Oh wait, that WP link shows that they were protesting up through 2011 and it looks like they're still doing so, but also jumping on the Occupy bandwagon. How is this my talking point? I don't give a shit what a group of protesters are doing. These are your nonsense talking points. Cow...Hammertime! 13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the WP article looks like a CP article, at least three years out of date. Code Pink gave up on Iraqi collateral damage and its community organizers have turned to the Occupy Movement and promoting domestic socialism.
 * No wonder nobody takes these views seriously, their obvious lack of commitment to any cause. I'll look for

occupy-gay-environmentalists-against-the-war and see if they're finally on the same page. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just hope the terrorists get a few more wins before Obama gets reelected...for the sake of conservatism, of course. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Game: take a shot every time Rob posts a non sequitur. Last person remaining after everyone else has died from liver failure wins. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Jesus Fucking Christ are you guys dense. Let's spell it out one more time: If Iran attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz before the election the American people will support the incumbent Commander-In-Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama, 100% (maybe Code Pink might dissent, but they're a miniscule minority and the American think they are fucked in the head anyway). If the Commander-in-Chief were to waver in nuking Iran off the map (I'm being hyperbolic), he runs the risk of "doing a Jimmy Carter". nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, you're making a bit of sense now. There's a first time for everything I guess. I agree that if Iran tries to close the strait Obama will have to take action, and will receive the support of most people who aren't running for President (they'll have to find some reason why Obama is wrong, it's all they have). Chances are that will be some shooting amongst ships in an attempt to prevent a blockade. In such a case people will likely rightly see this as Iran's doing, blame them, and support Obama's actions. If, on the other hand, we have an Iraq-style shock and awe and invasion, we'll see a very different response from both the left and the right. I don't think that's about to happen, as it really wouldn't be to anyone's advantage. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Best case scenario: Iran attempts to close the Straits of Hormuz or does a missile attack on US warships sometime after the conventions, precipitating a crisis. President Obama reacts swiftly and looks like Winston Churchill. GOP nominee is reduced to saying publicly, "the president is doing the right thing and I support him". nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am hereby issuing a decree: Rob, from now on, if you wish to comment on anything you must do so with succinct bullet points summarizing the point you are trying to make, because, quite frankly, when you try to actually string sentences together you begin to make no sense whatsoever. Additionally, separate bullet points are much more forgiving on non-sequiturs, which is apparently the only way you are able to communicate. Really, I don't know how you go from the Strait of Hormuz to Code Pink just like that. This will enable us to respond to your feeble attempts at argument and discussion without needing to pick apart a few thousand errant thoughts. Let's give it a try; I think it would look something like this: Am I doing all right so far? If this does summarize part of your argument I think we can maybe move the discussion on to why you're largely wrong, or, when you are right (some anti-war groups are involved with the occupy folks), it's basically irrelevant. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Liberals are only anti-war when a Republican is in office.
 * Anti-war demonstrators have abandoned that cause and are now part of the occupy movement, which is bad.
 * Or like this:
 * Leftist protesters are unconvincing in moral arguments due to a lack of commitment.
 * Code Pink is an example.
 * Code Pink was founded as an anti-war organization critical of US foreign policy.
 * Code Pink has transformed itself into an organization critical of US social and economic policy.
 * Code Pink has abandoned its moral concerns about collateral damage of innocent Iraqi children slaughtered by US bombs in favor raising taxes on Americans above a certain income level.
 * Code Pink's objectives since its founding have often coincide3d with the political views of Barack Obama and other extreme leftists.nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Code Pink was basically a response to the Iraq War, and the Iraq War is over (or so they say), so they're embracing other causes now. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not entirely sure they've abandoned concerns over collateral damage, but in any case, accidentally bombing innocent people due to incompetence is a military issue much more than a political one. Unless you want to argue that they're intentionally bombing civilians on the orders of the commander-in-chief, but I don't think that's the point you're making. Whether or not we should be targeting Al Qaeda operatives with drones as we are currently doing is certainly a debatable issue, but much more nuanced than "should we bomb the living hell out of, and then invade and occupy, a country that did not attack us on 9/11, but generally adheres to the same religion as those who did?" Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In actuality Code Pink was founded to protest the War on Terror, and predates both Iraq & Afghanistan. It derives its name from the color codes established by the Dept. Of Homeland Security. It has always had a domestic agenda, they disrupted Enron hearings, for example. It's largely a group of bourgeois housewives with a lot of idle time who enjoy telling the rest of America how immoral they are and corrupt the capitalist system is.  nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 17:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit I don't know much about the group, but according to WP they were founded in late 2002, well after Afghanistan and at a time when Iraq was in the works. Furthermore, apparently they claim they are ""a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming activities." I guess you can argue that they're not as engaged in the Afghanistan issue as perhaps they should be (I don't know myself), but still, this is, as you say, a small group of lefty activists, so I'm not sure why you care so much about what they're doing. Sure, you can argue that the statement above is overly broad and they should concentrate on more specific issues, but that's their choice. You're free to criticize them. Now did you have a more general point on this thread, or was it just about bashing Code Pink? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Code Pink has won a victory under President Obama, their name is derived from the Homeland Security Color Code advisory system as a way to mock it, which Obama promptly did away with. Code Pink was one of the first anti-war groups to oppose not only Afghanistan, but the War on Terror in general. Do you see these Code Pink leaders of the Occupy Wall Street movement protesting slaughter of civilians & terrorists by unmanned drone attacks? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On its website, Code Pink lists allegations of US war crimes, and states that thousands of civilians were killed in Fallujah in 2004 due to the actions of the US military.[7] Along with other groups, they gave over $600,000 worth of humanitarian aid to refugees of Fallujah in 2004.
 * Geez, if they have that kinda cash, maybe they can settle up with this guy suing the US for $500,000 for killing his family in a drone attack. But they're strangely silent now. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 19:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're implying Obama got rid of the color coded terror warning system because of Code Pink? Sure. Nice try. Also, do you have a source for saying they're against the war on terror in general (or even what that means?) or are you just assuming that because of their name? Have I seen Code Pink leaders protesting drone attacks? Don't know. I haven't been watching, nor do I know what a Code Pink leader looks like. The occupy crowd has grievances all over the place, and it wouldn't be out of character for some of them to take issue with drone attacks as well as all the other stuff. Anyway, do you deny that civilians were killed in Fallujah due to actions by the US military? If so you're probably the only one. Giving money for humanitarian aid there seems like a noble action to me. Or, instead of giving hundreds of thousands of dollars for humanitarian aid, they could give it all to a single guy who lost a family member. Does that make more sense? In any case, your attempt to equate a handful of civilians accidentally killed by drones in the past few years with the hundred thousand or so killed during the intentional invasion and occupation of Iraq isn't going to work. It's not mu job to defend Code Pink anyway; I barely know who they are. But if you're looking for someone to condemn drones killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, then sign me up on the condemnation list. If the folks operating these drones can't tell the difference between an terrorist cell and a wedding ceremony or whatever maybe we need people in our military who aren't incompetent. If we can't find any maybe we should end all drone attacks and the like. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Code Pink founder Jodie Evans is listed on Obama website as key fundraising bundler.
 * Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin is major organizer of the Occupy Washington, D.C. protest.
 * Six weeks ago Code Pink's website added the names of Barack Obama & Leon Panetta to it's War Criminals archives. "

since taking office Obama doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan; he fought to extend the U.S. occupation in Iraq– and partially succeeded; he dramatically expanded the use of killer drones from Pakistan to Somalia; and he requested military budgets that would make George W. Bush blush.
 * So, that begs the question, Who betrayed who? Did Code Pink & Occupy DC protestors betray Obama because he's acted like Bush/Cheney on steroids? or has Obama betrayed his original fundraisers and organizers by becoming conservative? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 20:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Rob, it doesn't "beg the question". You've been told before, it "raises the question". 23:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * tl;dr RachelW (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Dick, here's your link between both Code Pink & Occupy DC's anti-war on terror & the Anti-war in Afghanistan.


 * Hang on, weren't you arguing a few minutes ago that Code Pink has no problem with dead Iraqi children when Obama's in charge? Now you're quoting them as trying to indict him on war crimes charges. Which is it, or don't you know anymore? As for who betrayed whom, I don't think anyone betrayed anyone. I imagine groups like Code Pink got an idea in their heads that Obama was going to change everything, while those of us on Earth knew he'd change very little, but we he did change would largely be for the better. Guess which one of us was right? Obama never said he'd end the war on terror. Also, I hardly think you can call Obama Bush/Cheney on steroids. The best you could get is Bush/Cheney lite. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well we've seen Obama cave to Code Pink and shit-can DHS's Color Code. While it appears Code Pink has remained true to it's anti-war anti-military agenda, Obama evidently was willing to take its cash and exploit its street organizers. Now Obama's faced with a dilemma, betray his extremist roots and show leadership in the face of the Iranian threat, or cave in to anti-Americanism and let gas prices destroy our standard of living. My bet is he'll stand up and show leadership if the crisis erupts before the election; if the crisis erupts after the elecgtion, and God forbid he's still president, my fear is he'd cast his lot with Code Pink. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You lost all credibility when you said Code Pink was behind the abandonment of the oft ridiculed and largely ineffectual color code system. That's just blatantly ridiculous. The rest is just silly speculation. If Iran blockades the Strait of Hormuz they will have committed an act of war, and something will surely happen. I doubt it will be an invasion of Iran, but we'd likely see NATO as a whole involved, and some Iranian warships resting on the sea floor. From there, who can say, but Iran stands little to gain regardless. Really you basically just contradicted your entire thesis up to this point.Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is a likely scenario? Iran attacks a US warship with a land missile. Would there be time for a summit of NATO heads of state to debate a response? Mostly likely Obama will invoke the wp:Carter Doctrine. But Brzezinksi said moments ago the Price of Iran war will be disastrous for US]. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!! (88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate ) 01:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eah? The Zionists and Iran have been fighting for a while. I'm not sure why the US gov is giving weapons and arms to the Zionists other than that the US gov are Zionists (due to their influence in the media, financial institutions buying politicians, religion/holocaust, and government empoloyees).
 * Likely scenario? I don't know but here is a guess based on the propaganda I've been viewing. More terrorism/paramilitary within Israel/Palestine, Iran, US homeland, embassies, allies. United Nations passes more resolutions against Zionist apartheid/colonialism. Zionists threatening more countries who aid or express agreement with Iran. Zionists "conquer" Iran and make more enemies. Everyone "realizing" dollar is far overvalued leading to skyrocketing inflation and inability of the US to borrow more money from China. Then the Third World War starts to effect Americans through the economy, so they start to rebel. Zionists start utilizing incarceration without trail that Obama gave them, YAY FOR DEMOCRATIC DEMOCRACY!!! Civil war. Eliot dumps the frogs out the window. Game of frogger ensues but the asphalt is so hot due to climate change, all the frogs choke on the out-gassing fumes. The rest is your problem. Unicow (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)