|
Post by commiczar on Jun 14, 2009 7:44:03 GMT 10
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 14, 2009 7:55:47 GMT 10
There should be a fifth option - that he doesn't start one.
|
|
|
Post by commiczar on Jun 14, 2009 8:43:05 GMT 10
There should be a fifth option - that he doesn't start one. A good point...which I hope he never does; however, that was not the question at-hand, nor was any such option offered; as what was sought was one's best guess at where Obama's war *might* start. The premise for this poll / post was based upon past US Presidential / Command-In-Chief history; which shows that the majority of US Prez' do commit US troops into a war or war zone....some small and short-lived....others not so the case. _____________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by wrkgov on Jun 15, 2009 6:20:29 GMT 10
Committing troops isn't the same as starting a conflict. For example, Obama will probly commit more troops to Afghanistan to support ISAF, that doesn't mean it's a war he started. Obama has a big enough mess on his hands to start worrying about another war. Firstly he already has two wars on his hands, the there's the economy, the spiralling budget deficit (which, admittedly he hasn't exactly helped with his Spanish Economy sized budget of a mere $1.75 trillion) combined with soaring debt, he has to rebuild the reputation of the USA abroad.
|
|
|
Post by commiczar on Jun 15, 2009 6:37:53 GMT 10
Committing troops isn't the same as starting a conflict. For example, Obama will probly commit more troops to Afghanistan to support ISAF, that doesn't mean it's a war he started. Obama has a big enough mess on his hands to start worrying about another war. Firstly he already has two wars on his hands, the there's the economy, the spiralling budget deficit (which, admittedly he hasn't exactly helped with his Spanish Economy sized budget of a mere $1.75 trillion) combined with soaring debt, he has to rebuild the reputation of the USA abroad. Thanks for the reply....however, all of the points which you've mentioned are already well known facts...."givin's". I was really hoping to expand on the current situations that seem to be brewing in the regions / nations which I offered as the catalyst for debate, discussion, and poll vote. Maybe my message was too broad...or not specific enough.....?? SOoooooo.............I'll attempt to shed a bit more light........ Hypothetically speaking......( as no one knows ).....Using US military-presidential history as the premise, which shows that a majority of US Prezs *usually* want-or-have to "flex their military muscles"; using the examples above, does anyone see any likelihood ( remote as it may be ) that Obama *might * have to commit troops anywhere in the world...besides the two current wars that he inherited ? In other words..... Does anyone see the possibility / probability that the situations mentioned will ever come-to-a-boil; whereby, Obama will earn his "Commander-In-Chief" pay ? Regards. P.S. The "InterForum Communication & Poll" link provided above in the original post, may clear my point a bit better as well. ThanX ! ___________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by wrkgov on Jun 15, 2009 6:46:29 GMT 10
No. The only reason that nations like North Korea and Iran are behaving as they are is mostly because of fanatically anti western leaders, but it's also because of the fact that Gulliver is tied down. Whlst they know that the USA isn't really in a position to take any forceful actions against them, the US isn't the only nation that can. In the case of N Korea, China and it's defense infrastructure is a big enough deterrent (and indeed China holds a big enough sway over North korea in general) for the North to simply do whatever it likes. In the case of Iran, china holds some sway, but Russia is also the steadying hand, and it is likely to stop Iran from going too far.
No other nations really have the gall to face down the US, except Venezuela who only hold any sway because of their oil, but equally they would be nothing without US oil money. And even then Brazil will have some sort of influence over them.
|
|
|
Post by commiczar on Jun 15, 2009 7:07:40 GMT 10
Thanks for your views.....all good points...and right-on.
|
|