Is Obama going too far in appeasing the military?

[Cal33]

Many congressmen, including Barney Frank, are all out for disengaging from the Middle East,
and as soon as possible. Most Democrats are for it, too. But disengagement from the Middle
East carries a whole sloop of problems all its own, the details of which none of us could
possibly know about, including the objections from our military people, aided by the
War Industry Corporations. Obama seems to be having a chilly time dealing with them. Is he
in this war only to appease them, too?

[rug]

1. There is no national interest in this.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. No national interest?

Really?

[rug]

4. None.

Really.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

18. Really.

You home has a wood-burning furnace?

You don't use anything made of plastic?

You grow all your own food?

Think again...

[AnArmyVeteran]

17. I agree, none!

All previous meddling through the years has only led to more problems in the future. If the only reason we are involved in that area is for protection of Israel we could have better used the trillions of dollars we spent there to relocate every Israeli to the US and give up that rock covered land. The only reason we are there is to continue archaic religious wars our country should have no involvement in. Our military and our resources should be used to defend and protect the borders of the United States and Americans. All of our involvements in the Middle East have led to disasters and hatred toward Americans and even caused new threats of terrorism.

Everytime the US supports oppressive regimes or colludes with Middle East tyrants against their people we make problems worse. Our leaders have sold out the American people as well as the people in the Middle East by siding with corrupt oil companies for the past 80 plus years to steal the resources from under the feet of the poorest people on Earth. It shouldnt be a surprise to anyone that the people who have been victimized by collisions between the US government, US corporations and oppressive Middle East leaders have resulted in hatred toward the United States. If a foreign country did the same to our country Americans would despise them as much as terrorists hate us. And Americans would do all they could to seek revenge against those who conspired to oppress them and keep them living in hopeless lives while their nation's resources were being stolen from under their feet.

So yes, the answer to the original question is 'none'.

[Cal33]

6. You are correct. Only private interests: 1. The military officers

for advancements in their careers, and 2. The war industry corporations for profit.

And the price? Annihilation of small nations and their people - including the deaths
of many of our young soldiers, who are mere pawns to be used by our Military/Industrial
complex.

Talk about CONSCIENCELESS PREDATORS! When one war ends, soon they'll find reasons to
drum up another. There is NO END to their GREED for MORE PROFIT.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[USArmyParatrooper]

5. No.

He has been consistent with his stance on both Iraq and Afghanistan since before he was even in the US Senate.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. So you think such 'stances' should remain unchanged by

real events, for many, many long years? How is that good, to have the same stance no matter what happens? How long should we do this? Eternity? What's the stance on exit? How do we know we have 'won'?
The argument that his thinking is static and stuck in the past seems like a poor defense to me.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. They are a Nation under themselves

and more powerful than many Nations.

I thought If Kerry won that the Dept of Defense would need a through cleaning.

I FEAR THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, THEY HAVE THEY MEANS , MONEY AND WAYS
TO KILL ANYONE THEY WANT AND MAKE IT SEEM LIKE AN ACCIDENT.

I feel Obama knows this and that's why he kept Gates, who is a Republican.
I think, Obama knows enough now to see what the risks are.

JFK ........... didn't pay attention enough to the CIA and you know what happened then.
Now, they are even more powerful, even though he has his 'guy' in there.

The people in real power in the CIA and Defense are CAREER, not appointees

I think Obama knows the TIGHTROPE he is walking on as a Democratic Prez.

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. Dude, seriously...

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

And Eisenhower and in the same address Eisenhower warned about the "undue influence" of the MIC, he also spoke at length about its necessity.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. The HEADQUARTERS, for the Defense Dept got slammed on 911

My Dad, worked there under the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon. I know how many floors are below the Gym there are. I've seen the security, the cameras, inside and out.

NOW THINK ABOUT IT....... the headquarters got hit during 911

My Dad worked at Andrews Air force Base after the Pentagon.
We Lived in Arlington at both times, He could drive in Rush Hour Traffic
faster than what came out of Andrews that day.

You buy that story, about the Pentagon, then you don't get it.

Strange no cameras except ONE on 911 recorded when 23 were not functional.

Where was Dick Chaney that day?

SCARED OF THE MILITARY?

Yeah, Nah........... 4 guys in a commercial airplane beat
OUR MIGHTY AIR FORCE and got their HEADQUARTERS IN ONE DAY


YOU BELIEVE THAT STORY...... then they need even more power and money

[Pavulon]

16. Yet our ability to order 18 Ohio Class subs, all the ICBM, or B2's carrying B61

gravity dropped nuclear weapons to respond to or initiate a blind nuclear strike was unphased. Our ability to fight a war if N. Korea invaded the south was unfazed, the entire US Navy was still online.

Some assholes flying airplanes into stuff is not what the military is tooled up to respond to. The command and control structure was not disrupted.

I hope you dont leak into trooferisim, shame to be associated with those retards.

[Cal33]

15. About the Defense Department, I've always wondered why

Gen. Wesley Clark wasn't asked to head it. He's one of the few top officers that's a
Democrat. From what I've read, he was one of the few officers who wasn't afraid of
speaking his mind to his superiors. And what he said was always well reasoned out.
He had always been the first in his class, all the way from first grade, through West
Point, and the diplomatic school for promising officers who were candidates for
becoming generals and admirals. His services in the Balkans and at NATO were
exemplary.

Now you've given your opinion as to Obama's possible reason for having appointed
Gates. It seems to be a good one. With so many anticipated changes of top personnel
among Obama's advisers and cabinet members coming up soon, do you think it might be a
good choice to name Gen. Clark Sec'y of Defense, and do you think he'd do a good job of
cleaning up the Pentagon?

I can already sense that most of the top military in the Pentagon would be against him.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

19. isn't there a time requirement in regards to that?

least that is what i seem to remember back when this was first discussed, and i think Wesley Clark still had a year or more left before he could be appointed

[Cal33]

20. I didn't know that there was a waiting period after a military

officer retires before he could become Secretary of Defense. Thanks for this
information. BTW, Gen. Clark did run for the presidency way back in 2004, didn't he?

I am having some trouble with this thread. Although the front page of "General Discussion"
shows that there are 27 posts to this thread, only 19 have shown up. And yours is # 19.
I just can't get to read the others. I suppose my present post will be #28, and I
wonder if it will go through.

I'll have to contact the administration for an explanation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Obama and the Pentagon are trying to save face by not acknowledging they lost another war.

Obama to show he's "tough" on terror and the Pentagon to show that they're not really as obviously incompetent as they've proved to be for the last 50 years.

Congress is going along by funding the ongoing FUBAR so they won't be accused of not "supporting the troops" that are being sent to kill and die for the ambitions of generals and politicians.

[Bigmack]

11. In the History of Rome...

Rome was declining, and for a period of time in the 3rd Century Rome was ruled by "Barracks Emperors".

History repeats itself.

[msongs]

12. Republicans, the military, and who else. nt

[Cal33]

14. A qualification: Some " higher-ups" among the Republicans and

the military (certainly not the masses who are unaware of what's going on and are being
led by their noses, and the common soldiers who have to do as they are told). Then, of course,
some of the CIA, as mentioned by Ichingcarpenter to carry out the behind-the-scenes work.

It seems to me the vast majority of the people have no idea about the goings-on. There
are even people taking part in this without knowing the real intent of what they are doing.

So the numbers of those who actually know are quite small.

[Cal33]

22. Sorry folks, 8 posts are missing from this thread. I am trying to

find out why. I've written to the administration, but probably won't have an answer
till Monday sometime.

[Owl]

21. Yes.

[Cal33]

23. I got a reply from DU.com, saying,

"A right-wing troll posted in your thead. His response was deleted, along with the replies to it."