Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(key policy shift) |
m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'd take issue with this statement. The War on Terror, Afghan & Iraq operations, were alweays preventative in nature, not retribution. Killing bin Laden was pure retribution, and risks (a) further reprisal actions from al qaeda, (b) loss of a key ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan. Further, just as the Iraq operation had nothing to do with War on Terror, as GW Bush critics loudly maintained, what pray tell does an unauthorized invasion of an ally, in this case Pakistan, have to do with the Afghan War? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:35, 7 May 2011 (EDT) | I'd take issue with this statement. The War on Terror, Afghan & Iraq operations, were alweays preventative in nature, not retribution. Killing bin Laden was pure retribution, and risks (a) further reprisal actions from al qaeda, (b) loss of a key ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan. Further, just as the Iraq operation had nothing to do with War on Terror, as GW Bush critics loudly maintained, what pray tell does an unauthorized invasion of an ally, in this case Pakistan, have to do with the Afghan War? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:35, 7 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
:Hm - I wonder if no part of the War if Afghanistan was retributive, but you're right that even if part was that doesn't make it a success. I'll change the wording (as soon as I think of what to write)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 11:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT) | :Hm - I wonder if no part of the War if Afghanistan was retributive, but you're right that even if part was that doesn't make it a success. I'll change the wording (as soon as I think of what to write)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 11:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
| − | ::The execution of bin Laden marks a policy change in the war on terror: it no longer is to prevent ''future' attacks, but it focal point has been retribution for past actions. And a key ally has been sacrificed for the future. This is a marked change. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:18, 7 May 2011 (EDT) | + | ::The execution of bin Laden marks a policy change in the war on terror: it no longer is to prevent ''future'' attacks, but it focal point has been retribution for past actions. And a key ally has been sacrificed for the future. This is a marked change. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:18, 7 May 2011 (EDT) |
Revision as of 16:19, May 7, 2011
- escalated the Afghanistan War - perhaps to success when on May 1st he announced that the United States had killed September 11th mastermind and terrorist Osama bin Laden
I'd take issue with this statement. The War on Terror, Afghan & Iraq operations, were alweays preventative in nature, not retribution. Killing bin Laden was pure retribution, and risks (a) further reprisal actions from al qaeda, (b) loss of a key ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan. Further, just as the Iraq operation had nothing to do with War on Terror, as GW Bush critics loudly maintained, what pray tell does an unauthorized invasion of an ally, in this case Pakistan, have to do with the Afghan War? Rob Smith 11:35, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
- Hm - I wonder if no part of the War if Afghanistan was retributive, but you're right that even if part was that doesn't make it a success. I'll change the wording (as soon as I think of what to write)--IDuan 11:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
- The execution of bin Laden marks a policy change in the war on terror: it no longer is to prevent future attacks, but it focal point has been retribution for past actions. And a key ally has been sacrificed for the future. This is a marked change. Rob Smith 12:18, 7 May 2011 (EDT)