Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Before moving on, all of your confusion on DADT may clear up by addressing this quote and my question. If President Obama made that statement, then why are we still in Iraq?



He said Combat mission. As far as I know American troops are still in the process of training Iraqi police/army to take on the major security roles. Of course once the US does leave the major security issues will likely stop anyway.

Its not like he declared mission accomplished and then left the army there for another 5 years or anything.


Edited, Jan 20th 2011 10:24pm by rdmcandie

Because active war and peacekeeping/nation-building are different things. As you are someone who is actively in the military it disturbs me that you don't know the difference.

Edited, Jan 20th 2011 11:04pm by Timelordwho

Sorry.

Your ignorance isn't my fault.I know the difference and I actually said the difference numerous times already .You just haven't been paying attention. I'm asking Kachi to tell me the difference. That was my point, if you don't know what is really going on, you will take that statement as "The war in Iraq is over", but it isn't, we're in peacekeeping. Guess what? The people against the war are complaining about people dying, none of that will change under "peace keeping". What the President had done was use words that are true, that appears to have the meaning that society wants to hear. These wars have transitioned through many phases and these phases were never televised as such. That was a political stunt to make it seem that the war in Iraq was over.



Read above.. Your fellow posters have already answered the question for you since you're scared. This isn't about President Obama being wrong, because he wasn't. He used political talk to something true that appeared to have a meaning that society wanted to hear.

Besides, you're full of BS.. You don't want to answer this, because you have no answer. The only logical answer substantiates my point. We've gone over numerous topics and now all of the sudden you don't want to address a scenario that directly correlates to your main argument? Your whole argument is that the DoD, legislators, etc. all said one thing, so these politicians must be straight forward. If you just understood the concept at first, I wouldn't have to use an analogy.

As stated again, only because I know you don't read my posts, it is legitimate to say that DADT doesn't discharge based on sexual orientation, but that's only true because heterosexuals can be discharged for the same activities. If you actually read the freaking policy, you'll see that it lists every single measurable way of homosexuality. By not asking people their sexuality when joining is just as much "allowing" them to join as allowing child molesters, adulteresses, wife beaters, druglords, etc. to join. So to say that they are "allowed" only because you don't interrogate people on those topics is very misleading, just like saying the combat mission in Iraq is over.

My background isn't blue.

I understand that we all use different skins. That's why I never use a colored font because what I think might show up well on the skin I use might not look so hot on your crappy FF skin.

Dude, you're confused. I understand the point, I'm pointing out to Kachi that the difference is misleading to people who don't know what's going on.

Side note: The US has had peacekeeping missions throughout the entire war. Wars are dynamic consisting of offensive, defensive and peacekeeping (I forgot the actual term) missions that change throughout time. Just because you changed the focus of the war doesn't mean the enemy will comply and stop attacking you.

sounds pretty gay.

The Iraq "war" ended in 2003 regardless of how long Bush stretched out the term. We went to war with Iraq. We defeated their armies and deposed their government. By any standard definition of a "War", that was it. We won.

Since then, we've been involved in nation building. Part of that includes fighting off threats from other powers who want to seize control in the power vacuum but these aren't guys trying to restore the Hussein regime or something. Part of that nation building included offensive attacks against these groups. Combat operations.

Since then, we've drawn down the bulk of our forces and changed the mission to training the nascent Iraqi army and providing support as needed although we're no longer taking the initiative in offensive missions. The combat operation has ended. Saying at this point that the "War" has ended is inaccurate but, given that it's been inaccurately described as a war for years and no one wants to say "It's not a war" because then some soldier dies and the other side is all "You said it's not a war but LOOK!", saying that the war has ended at the end of the offensive combat phase of the nation building is fairly reasonable.

No, our last official declaration of war was World War II. By in large, it doesn't make much practical difference provided you have a Congress willing to go along with the President's decisions.

Uhm, RDM is a moocher, not a producer Alma. You're suggesting something impossible.

As I just said, you haven't been over there, so you don't really have the sources to claim that "nothing" has changed or people are more or less safer. You are literally basing this off of stuff you created and things you have heard from the media.

I didn't claim that those entire wars motives were ever "peacekeeping", hence the President's statement of the end of the combat mission, my point was that there were peacekeeping missions going on throughout the wars. This is because war is dynamic and not static.

Had Bush said "That's it, we won. We're coming home!", sure. Instead he continued to call it a "war" for the rest of his administration so he & the Republicans could play up the "But we're AT WAR!!!" rhetoric and keep our forces kicking around Iraq which made "Mission Accomplished" seem hollow and naive.

So since Obama didn't say "That's it, we won. We're coming home!" either, then you would argue that we are still "at war" in Iraq?

Welcome to the point I was making.