Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're screwed on the lost drone, but that happens. I think it will be good for the economy. We obviously built it, so we can fight it is other try to reverse engineer the drone. But,more importantly, we need to get to work on building new technology. It will be good for the economy. And guess, what it will be federally funded, and it WILL CREATE JOBS.
Can't have that both ways either. If defense contracts are real jobs, other forms of federal spending are too.
Wow, this is great logic. Imagine all the jobs we could create if we gave Iran, Russia, China, North Korea et al, all our military and civil technology secrets!
So wait. Obama is responsible for getting Bin Laden, yet has no responsibility for this? The left can't have it's cake and eat it too.
It depends on how you want to look at things. Judging by the facetiousness in which you made your original post, it's pretty clear the intent was rather to make another slight at Obama rather than present your thoughts in a clear manner consistent with a well thought out point of view.
Does Obama deserve credit for killing Osama bin Laden? Yes and no. Did he personally fly in to Pakistan, repel from a helicopter, kick in the door of the Abbottabad compound, storm his way up several flights of stairs killing several people along the way, and then shoot bin Laden in the face? No. The credit for that goes to the DEVGRU team who did all of those things.
However, Obama's responsibilities were for making the call to fly military helicopters into a sovereign country, a nuclear armed country at that, and to perform a military mission on that country's territory. Had the helicopters been shot out of the sky or had problems ensued with the operation that ended up in catastrophe, that failure would have rested on Obama's shoulders because he was the one who made the call. Similarly, the stealth helicopter that ended up staying in Pakistan is a result of the judgment call Obama made to go into Pakistan. It was part of the risk to go and get bin Laden. Was it worth it? I think most people would agree that sacrificing stealth helicopter technology for bin Laden was a good tradeoff.
Thus, Obama should get the credit for making the judgment call and taking the risk for sending troops into a sovereign territory so as to take out this nation's number one enemy - not for personally kicking in the door of the Abottabad compound.
On a related note, the call to fly drones into Iran probably came from Obama too. It is a sovereign territory and it does have potential nuclear capabilities. The risks of a drone getting shot down do rest on Obama's shoulders if he was the one who made the call. As for which drone was to be used, it's highly unlikely that Obama was presented with a "menu" of drones with which to spy on Iran with. Chances are that he gave the order to "spy" on Iran and the military and/or CIA selected the device they best thought would do the job. The idea that a President would tell an Army soldier what gun to use in combat is just as absurd as thinking the President decided which drone to use in Iran.
Is he ultimately responsible for the loss of the drone? In so much as making the call to spy on Iran, then yes, I would say he is ultimately responsible for the loss of the drone. Was he aware that it was a Top Secret drone with various technologies? Probably not until after the thing was shot down.
This then leads to the same devised round of questioning that we came to with the bin Laden argument. If we uncovered solid, detailed information that Iran was manufacturing nuclear weapons and we were able to specifically pinpoint the locations of those manufacturing facilities, the credit would ultimately fall on Obama's shoulders for making the call. Again, it's a matter of weighted risk. Is the loss of a drone (and possibly it's technology) worth the risk of finding out to what extent Iran's nuclear program exists? Based on the fact that we're probably still flying drones over Iran, I'd say that the call has been made that it's well worth the risk. After all, the whole purpose of drones is to keep our American boys from getting shot down in enemy territory or getting killed. I'd say the purpose of the drone worked out rather well in this case.
It depends on how you want to look at things. Judging by the facetiousness in which you made your original post, it's pretty clear the intent was rather to make another slight at Obama rather than present your thoughts in a clear manner consistent with a well thought out point of view.
Does Obama deserve credit for killing Osama bin Laden? Yes and no. Did he personally fly in to Pakistan, repel from a helicopter, kick in the door of the Abbottabad compound, storm his way up several flights of stairs killing several people along the way, and then shoot bin Laden in the face? No. The credit for that goes to the DEVGRU team who did all of those things.
However, Obama's responsibilities were for making the call to fly military helicopters into a sovereign country, a nuclear armed country at that, and to perform a military mission on that country's territory. Had the helicopters been shot out of the sky or had problems ensued with the operation that ended up in catastrophe, that failure would have rested on Obama's shoulders because he was the one who made the call. Similarly, the stealth helicopter that ended up staying in Pakistan is a result of the judgment call Obama made to go into Pakistan. It was part of the risk to go and get bin Laden. Was it worth it? I think most people would agree that sacrificing stealth helicopter technology for bin Laden was a good tradeoff.
Thus, Obama should get the credit for making the judgment call and taking the risk for sending troops into a sovereign territory so as to take out this nation's number one enemy - not for personally kicking in the door of the Abottabad compound.
On a related note, the call to fly drones into Iran probably came from Obama too. It is a sovereign territory and it does have potential nuclear capabilities. The risks of a drone getting shot down do rest on Obama's shoulders if he was the one who made the call. As for which drone was to be used, it's highly unlikely that Obama was presented with a "menu" of drones with which to spy on Iran with. Chances are that he gave the order to "spy" on Iran and the military and/or CIA selected the device they best thought would do the job. The idea that a President would tell an Army soldier what gun to use in combat is just as absurd as thinking the President decided which drone to use in Iran.
Is he ultimately responsible for the loss of the drone? In so much as making the call to spy on Iran, then yes, I would say he is ultimately responsible for the loss of the drone. Was he aware that it was a Top Secret drone with various technologies? Probably not until after the thing was shot down.
This then leads to the same devised round of questioning that we came to with the bin Laden argument. If we uncovered solid, detailed information that Iran was manufacturing nuclear weapons and we were able to specifically pinpoint the locations of those manufacturing facilities, the credit would ultimately fall on Obama's shoulders for making the call. Again, it's a matter of weighted risk. Is the loss of a drone (and possibly it's technology) worth the risk of finding out to what extent Iran's nuclear program exists? Based on the fact that we're probably still flying drones over Iran, I'd say that the call has been made that it's well worth the risk. After all, the whole purpose of drones is to keep our American boys from getting shot down in enemy territory or getting killed. I'd say the purpose of the drone worked out rather well in this case.
So Obama personally gives the go ahead for the Bin Laden mission, no credit...
...but some operative in the CIA gave the go ahead for the use of this drone in the area, and it's completely Obama's responsibility.
Funny stuff!
I don't think he is responsible for either. However if he claims credit for Bin Laden, he gets blame for this. Either knock off talking about Bin Laden or get this hung around his neck.
It depends on how you want to look at things. Judging by the facetiousness in which you made your original post, it's pretty clear the intent was rather to make another slight at Obama rather than present your thoughts in a clear manner consistent with a well thought out point of view.
Does Obama deserve credit for killing Osama bin Laden? Yes and no. Did he personally fly in to Pakistan, repel from a helicopter, kick in the door of the Abbottabad compound, storm his way up several flights of stairs killing several people along the way, and then shoot bin Laden in the face? No. The credit for that goes to the DEVGRU team who did all of those things.
However, Obama's responsibilities were for making the call to fly military helicopters into a sovereign country, a nuclear armed country at that, and to perform a military mission on that country's territory. Had the helicopters been shot out of the sky or had problems ensued with the operation that ended up in catastrophe, that failure would have rested on Obama's shoulders because he was the one who made the call. Similarly, the stealth helicopter that ended up staying in Pakistan is a result of the judgment call Obama made to go into Pakistan. It was part of the risk to go and get bin Laden. Was it worth it? I think most people would agree that sacrificing stealth helicopter technology for bin Laden was a good tradeoff.
Thus, Obama should get the credit for making the judgment call and taking the risk for sending troops into a sovereign territory so as to take out this nation's number one enemy - not for personally kicking in the door of the Abottabad compound.
On a related note, the call to fly drones into Iran probably came from Obama too. It is a sovereign territory and it does have potential nuclear capabilities. The risks of a drone getting shot down do rest on Obama's shoulders if he was the one who made the call. As for which drone was to be used, it's highly unlikely that Obama was presented with a "menu" of drones with which to spy on Iran with. Chances are that he gave the order to "spy" on Iran and the military and/or CIA selected the device they best thought would do the job. The idea that a President would tell an Army soldier what gun to use in combat is just as absurd as thinking the President decided which drone to use in Iran.
Is he ultimately responsible for the loss of the drone? In so much as making the call to spy on Iran, then yes, I would say he is ultimately responsible for the loss of the drone. Was he aware that it was a Top Secret drone with various technologies? Probably not until after the thing was shot down.
This then leads to the same devised round of questioning that we came to with the bin Laden argument. If we uncovered solid, detailed information that Iran was manufacturing nuclear weapons and we were able to specifically pinpoint the locations of those manufacturing facilities, the credit would ultimately fall on Obama's shoulders for making the call. Again, it's a matter of weighted risk. Is the loss of a drone (and possibly it's technology) worth the risk of finding out to what extent Iran's nuclear program exists? Based on the fact that we're probably still flying drones over Iran, I'd say that the call has been made that it's well worth the risk. After all, the whole purpose of drones is to keep our American boys from getting shot down in enemy territory or getting killed. I'd say the purpose of the drone worked out rather well in this case.
Lol, despite the pompous tone of your post. It took you several paragraphs to make the point I made in several sentences. However our conclusions were different. Well done.
So Obama personally gives the go ahead for the Bin Laden mission, no credit...
That's because the bin Laden raid was a success, duh. If it had gone wrong - and there was of course a very real risk of that - shorebaby et al. would still have been yelling from the rooftops about how Obama should have resigned in disgrace.
That's because the bin Laden raid was a success, duh. If it had gone wrong - and there was of course a very real risk of that - shorebaby et al. would still have been yelling from the rooftops about how Obama should have resigned in disgrace.
Of course that's untrue. I woud not have called for his resignation, I woud have been critical. The buck stops with the President. See Carter's doomed rescue attempt.
That's because the bin Laden raid was a success, duh. If it had gone wrong - and there was of course a very real risk of that - shorebaby et al. would still have been yelling from the rooftops about how Obama should have resigned in disgrace.
In other words you're all for giving credit where credit is due but seem to believe blame for failures should not be equally assigned.
Can't say that comes as a surprise but thanks for clarifying your position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
