Obama Failure Thread Part IV

Yet again.. Peacekeeping operations are, by and large, short term affairs that can be sustained better using in country bases during the period of occupation and resupply operations can/should be carried out by our allies in that area. Hell, the US doesn't necessarily have to be the ones with boots on the ground. For Middle East operations, is there a reason why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan and their relatively large militaries can't be relied upon maintaining stability in that region? Of course, there is issues with the Sunni, Shi'ite, etc. divide, but, with the exception of Iraq, the Shi'ite dominated countries are outside the US's sphere of influence anyways.

Yet again, there is no reason why carrier fleet resupply operations can not be conducted through ally bases. The US resupplies the fleets of our allies through our bases and there is no reason why we should not expect the same through their bases.

A US fighter jet might not be able to get to Taiwan on a single tank of gas, but a ROK and JSDF fighter can, not to mention carrier based fighters, etc, etc. The US also has numerous territories scattered around the world that it is already using as military bases and a very large naval base centrally located in the Pacific that it can use to launch major operations from. Additionally, any operation that requires large force reaction within a few days is exceedingly rare and is largely improbable to carry out simply because of the politics involved.

Have you not been paying attention to SE Asia lately? China hasn't viewed the US as a disinterested party for decades and any increase in the size of JSDF would be offset by decreases in the US presence.

 

And also, the ability of the US to act quickly also makes a need for such operations rare.

Obviously, the US isn't disinterested and the principals know that. That's (part of) the point, and the US presence acts as a lock against a rise in tensions that an invasion-capable Japanese force or an independent surge by Taiwan, say, would cause.

 

We're on a primarily US based soccer board and people are calling for the removal of US trip from Germany?

Christ, with that type of thinking we'll never win a World Cup.

 

We should move all our armed forces to T&T. That'd get us at least home-field advantage.

 

Dear Bill - Either vote for Mitt or STFU

 

Who facts checks for Maher? He's on the long list of idiots who actually believe the "study" about Obama's lack of spending. And giving Obama credit for increased drilling is plain wrong.
Maher is a sissy.

 

Then it'll be just like he didn't vote at all...

 

More importantly, he's pouring money into Obama's campaign. He could split himself into 100 pieces and have each piece vote for Romney, he'd still be doing more for Obama.

 

But it's true, that study...do you have any evidence to suggest it's wrong? Why do you say it's wrong when it's not? You just don't know what you're talking about.

 

Obama has a (D) after his name. Therefore, he's a Spendocrat and a tree hugger. The End.

 

That would indeed be bad if the President thought that the Poles operated death camps. Not bad at all if he meant "death camp [operated by Nazis] located in Poland."

 

People intentionally misunderstanding a slightly awkwardly phrased point suck.

 

Chill out. It's up to the individual to decide what he/she constitutes an actual fail. CNN seemed to think it noteworthy, maybe others will as well. Otherwise, keep the comments to yourself. Thanks.

 

Your comment specifically was uncalled for. Unless you'd like to elaborate on it.

No? That's what I thought.

 

Actually, your hypersensitivity is uncalled for. Or is there a reason for you to be sensitive?

Care to elaborate?

 

If he's trying to insinuate what it appears he is, then calling him out on it is hardly uncalled for. That's why he should explain his comment in greater detail. Otherwise it's just a drive-by comment we could all do without.

 

If you can't handle a drive-by insult, this isn't the place for you.

 

Maybe not, maybe not.