Page 20 of 38 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 373

Thread: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

  1. #191
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Thank you ADK for adding nothing of use and just more of your very typical and tired Bush bashing. That information was already posted, and was already irrelevant to countering the fact of how long it took Bush to INVADE Iraq, contrary to the first post by Utahbill that started this all in which he acted like Bush immedietely attacked Iraq after 9/11 rather than taking 2 years.

    The fact is you can make a lot of complaints about Bush and his Presidency. One you can't make is that he rushed into or didn't take enough time to consider entering the Iraqi conflict after 9/11, because it took TWO YEARS.
    You're quite welcome.

    Oh wait, you're serious... aren't you?

    I never said he "rushed" into Iraq. I do support that this was one of his highest desires, along with his and Cheney's Patriot Act. (Ever wonder how they got that written up so soon after 9/11? Bush signed this into law on October 26, 2001, a mere 45 days after 9/11. Ever hear of a bill getting thru Congress so fast? Hmmm, how did they do that? And don't forget how Bush "instructed" congress to not read it first!)

    Zyphlin, if you have evidence, any evidence at all, that Bush did not want to go to war with Iraq all along then please, show it. Lacking any such evidence, I think I'll stick with all the proof that clearly shows Bush certainly DID want to invade Iraq all along. He lied to all of us. He used the biggest attack on our country as an excuse to play his selfish rich boy game. The fact that so many lemmings followed him off his cliff is absolutely dumbfounding.

    Why Did the Bush Administration Really Decide to Invade Iraq?
    by David T. Pyne, Center for the National Security Interest
    16 July 2003

    Following 9-11, neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration tried to create the illusion of a connection between Iraq, a secular socialist state, and Al Queda, an Islamist extremist terrorist group. This effort was unsuccessful.

    Three months after US military forces smashed the last major Iraqi resistance to the US invasion and captured Baghdad, and in view of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found, Americans are starting to wonder what really motivated the Bush Administration to take the nation into a war against a country like Iraq. This is particularly the case since it has become increasingly clear in retrospect that Iraq did not pose anything resembling the imminent threat to the United States that President Bush repeatedly alleged that it did prior to the US invasion.

    The Administration’s motives for the war were several. First and foremost was the President's desire to avenge his father's failure to achieve a lasting victory over Saddam and more particularly his desire to get back at Saddam for an alleged assassination attempt against former President Bush Sr. in 1993.

    Second, the Bush Administration neoconservatives invaded Iraq in furtherance of their grand plan to remake and democratize the Middle East by the force of arms in an attempt to make it safer for Israel. Of all the members of the axis of evil for the Bush Administration to wage war against, Iraq was the most “doable,” owing to the incessant demonization of Iraq stemming from 1990 onward by both Bush Administrations and the Clinton Administration. In addition, Iraq, which once boasted the fourth largest army in the world, had seen its armed forces decimated to only forty percent of its pre-Gulf War One military strength by US military action in Gulf War I.

    What the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration fail to realize is that Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite, and Syria majority radical Sunni, so that if these countries were to become true democracies they would elect anti-American tyrants and terrorists as their leaders. In fact, Iran is a democracy today and has done precisely that. Moreover, Iran is a far greater threat both in terms of their nuclear capability, IRBM capability and support of terrorists including Al Queda, which is far more pronounced than was ever the case with Iraq.

    Realist conservatives opposed the neo-conservative internationalist plan to invade Iraq out of fear that our invasion would merely serve to transform Iraq into a carbon copy of terrorist-supporting Iran that would truly threaten the US homeland as secular Baathist-led Iraq never could or would. Now, the United States is faced with a no-win scenario. If the US withdraws from Iraq, as it is in its national interests to do, it will leave behind a country dominated by supporters of international terrorism against it where one did not exist before. If the US continues to occupy Iraq with 150,000 troops, it will begin losing an increasing number of soldiers, as recent news headlines have indicated, and waste billions without any real hope of achieving a pro-Western democracy as the population continues to radicalize against those they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be foreign occupiers and invaders.

    Third, the Administration invaded Iraq in an attempt to re-empower the United Nations by forcing it to enforce its resolutions even more aggressively than it wanted to. Far from opposing the UN like all conservatives should, the Bush Administration consistently used Iraq's alleged violation of eighteen UN sanctions as their prime justification for the war. Furthermore, the Administration initially attempted to avoid getting approval from Congress, the only constitutional authority on whether the US can or cannot initiate the use of military force against another country which has not first attacked us.

    The Bush Administration attempted to use every possible justification they could come up with in the hopes of obtaining greater popular support for the war both at the national and international level. They needed to do so because Saddam and Iraq had committed no aggression or act of provocation to justify an all-out attack against it by the United States. In a dozen years since Gulf War One nothing had changed. Saddam was firmly in the box and everyone knew it. In fact, in 1998 there was tremendous international pressure to drop UN sanctions against Iraq due to their prior large-scale compliance with UN mandates. Almost immediately following 9-11, neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration led by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others tried to create the illusion of a connection between Iraq, a secular socialist state, and Al Queda, an Islamist extremist terrorist group. In this attempt they were almost entirely unsuccessful.

    Secretary Wolfowitz actually admitted that the WMD justification was “the only one that stuck” despite scanty evidence of a continuing Iraqi WMD program and the fact that Iraq had already destroyed most of its WMD arsenal under UN supervision. Iraq posed a far lesser threat in 2002 than in 1990 before the First Gulf War. Ultimately the Administration's justification of "liberating" the Iraqi people was just an afterthought. The American people didn't hear a word about the need to “liberate” the people of Iraq until just before the war. The Administration used that word to cover up the fact that they were using US military forces illegitimately to launch an aggressive war upon a country that had never attacked us, and, as Secretary of State Colin Powell eloquently put it less than two years ago, “threatened not the United States.”

    Once the war began, suddenly we were told that finding WMD was no longer a top priority and international inspectors were told they would not be welcome in the new US occupied Iraq. One wonders if the Administration might have obtained intelligence that Saddam had in fact destroyed what little was left of his arsenal before the US invasion, but decided not to release this info to the American public to avoid the embarrassment and a major loss of US prestige and credibility which was by then firmly on the line in Iraq. With their credibility already badly damaged by this deception wrought upon the American people over the real rationale for the war, we may never know for sure.

    It is high time for the American people and their duly elected representatives in Congress to demand that President Bush, who proclaimed “mission accomplished” in Iraq in a speech over two months ago, to declare victory and withdraw all US troops from Iraq by Christmas. The indefinite commitment of over one-third of our Army to the occupation of Iraq leaves the US incapable of sending reinforcements to help defend against hypothetical attacks against our allies on the Korean peninsula and Taiwan, where the next conflict will likely erupt.

    The Administration’s attempt at nation-building and indeed empire-building in Iraq constitutes the very antithesis of conservatism and is doomed to ultimate failure. If continued, it will further provoke an increasingly visible global backlash of anti-Americanism which will likely culminate in further catastrophic terrorist attacks against the US homeland, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and perhaps thousands more Americans. The prompt withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is absolutely necessary to minimize further loss of life among our heroic and selflessly-serving military servicemen. It is also essential to do so in order to conserve our military strength and save untold billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for winnable missions that clearly advance, rather than jeopardize the US national security interest.
    See: Why Did the Bush Administration Really Decide to Invade Iraq?

    There's plenty more. Let me know if I can further help you.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Only within parameters established collectively by all parties and ideologies.
    No. The fact of the matter is that liberals are most easily identified when they're walking away from you. That's how you know they've consistently lied their asses off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Hyperbole.
    Al Franken....somehow he got more votes from some precincts than there were registered voters.

    That's called "stealing the election".

    Al Gore tried pulling the same kind of crap in Floriduh! but failed, because Al Gore and liberalism are big failures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    The Supreme Court makes it impossible for anybody to consistently break the U.S. Constitution, or at least, it makes them not culpable for breaking the U.S. Constitution.
    Well, maybe in the universe you're from, but in this universe, on this planet, the USSC allows all sorts of clear constitutional violations without blinking.

    The USSC also reverses itself, which means it's OPINION on the Constitution merely has legal status, but is not itself the arbiter of what is really in agreement with the Constitution or not.

    Only people who lack the logical ability to support their own argument use the Supreme Court as their authority to close arguments they can't win. I personally place only limited value on the opinions of old men in black dresses.

  3. #193
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    I think you are confusing liberals with Democrats. That is what political parties do.
    Actually, I am lumping them together, mostly out of habit. I understand that they are not all-inclusive of one another, and that the further left a liberal leans the more likely he is to hold a ideological position over a politically expedient one.

  4. #194
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by ScummyD View Post
    Don't forget that before that Clinton made regime change in Iraq a matter of American law.
    Just not invasion.

  5. #195
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by ScummyD View Post
    So says you. OBL says otherwise.
    You listen to talk too much and ignore actions. OBL has not vested much in Iraq. He doesn't have to in order to meet his needs. As long as he can manipulate us with simple talk, there's no reason for him to do more.

  6. #196
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    First of all, I apologize for responding to Boo on this thread as my response has nothing to do with the thread topic.

    Secondly, a question, Boo, do you have Bush derangement syndrome that would have you and others divert from the topic of the thread to make this about GW Bush again and again and again? You really need to get over it and focus more on the problems we have today. I really shouldn't have responded with the information I posted and should have posted the links but since this thread isn't about Iraq I will save those links for another day.
    I'm not sure I'm the one who diverted it. And I'm too lazy t go back and look. But knowing how we got here should inform us on how we see the possible solutions moving forward. As long as anyone (or more accurately, enough people) seriously believes Bush did the right thing, we run the risk of repeating the same mistake again.

  7. #197
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    No. The fact of the matter is that liberals are most easily identified when they're walking away from you. That's how you know they've consistently lied their asses off.
    "The fact of the matter?"

    There's no way of empirically verifying that liberals are identifiable in that way or that doing so would make them liars, which makes his DOUBLE HYPERBOLE and in all probability a lie.

    Al Franken....somehow he got more votes from some precincts than there were registered voters.

    That's called "stealing the election".

    Al Gore tried pulling the same kind of crap in Floriduh! but failed, because Al Gore and liberalism are big failures.
    Contested elections occur all the time, at county, state, and federal levels of government, which is why there are preexisting measures for addressing them. Miscalculations of the vote occur in almost every election, but only become significant when the election is disputed to the point of miscalculation may actually change the outcome of who becomes an official. You would have to source your claim, but if there are more votes than registered voters in some precincts and these votes were counted as legitimate, then it must have been any number of recording problems, not all of which disqualify the vote (the fault may lie with county officials). The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the matter and would have been forced to address that subject, so I imagine fault was determined to lie with the public officials, or that that particular miscalculation (once accounted for) still did not outweigh the other miscalculations that were in Coleman's favor, meaning Al Franken could still win even if he wrongly received more votes in some districts. Hence, it is not necessarily "stealing" the election just because he got more votes than are existing registered voters, because there are several other kinds of potential miscalculation.

    What happened in Florida was a completely differently miscalculation, one where certain voters did not fulfill the registration requirements exactly, or so said the Supreme Court.

    Well, maybe in the universe you're from, but in this universe, on this planet, the USSC allows all sorts of clear constitutional violations without blinking.

    The USSC also reverses itself, which means it's OPINION on the Constitution merely has legal status, but is not itself the arbiter of what is really in agreement with the Constitution or not.

    Only people who lack the logical ability to support their own argument use the Supreme Court as their authority to close arguments they can't win. I personally place only limited value on the opinions of old men in black dresses.
    The meaning of the U.S. Constitution was debated at before, during, and after its ratification, with the passages liberals use to justify their policies being cited by proto-liberals (who helped ratify the U.S. Constitution) to justify theirs. The U.S. Supreme Court was established partially because everybody knew these debates would require a judicial resolution; although both sides had something to lose by trusting in the Supreme Court, the government established by the Articles of Confederation was too weak to execute an effective foreign policy. The survival of the republic depended on an at least somewhat stronger central government, so both Federalists (strong central government, with market interventionist programs) and Anti-Federalists (stronger but still weak central government) at the convention took a gamble that it would be their side who won the battle in the courts. Unfortunately for the Anti-Federalists, the seeds for a large central government survived because even after their political party was marginalized and then destroyed, former Federalists continued their lifelong appointments (under Washington and John Adams) in the judicial branch and continued to rule favorably on the powers enjoyed by the central government.

    However, since both these authorities helped draft and ratify the U.S. Constitution, you can't say their interpretation is unconstitutional; their interpretation went into the making of the U.S. Constitution. Since liberal justification is appropriated from the original Federalist interpretation, our premises enjoy immunity from sweeping accusations of unconstitutionality.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 01-04-10 at 04:49 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  8. #198
    Educator
    ScummyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    06-09-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,130

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You listen to talk too much and ignore actions. OBL has not vested much in Iraq. He doesn't have to in order to meet his needs. As long as he can manipulate us with simple talk, there's no reason for him to do more.
    That "talk" underpins most of his writings. I suspect you have not read much of anything OBL has written and so wouldn't know and thus ignore and discount it because you are not familiar with it. That leads you to argue inaccurate positions based on faulty conclusions which do not account for all the availabel evidence.

    The idea that a constitutional democratic government in Iraq is a gift to OBL is absurd, literally. It is in point of fact the antithesis of everything he believes in.

  9. #199
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm not sure I'm the one who diverted it. And I'm too lazy t go back and look. But knowing how we got here should inform us on how we see the possible solutions moving forward. As long as anyone (or more accurately, enough people) seriously believes Bush did the right thing, we run the risk of repeating the same mistake again.
    It is you that continues to believe it was a mistake. the fact that we weren't attacked for the remainder of the year and the fact that actual al Qaeda were killed in Iraq cannot be refuted. Attacking and killing terrorists is never a mistake.

  10. #200
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    And he just got Obama to throw 100,000 more troops there..correct? How diesn't that wok out? But, you won't see Scheuer..or yourself(you personally support this Afghan surge) will make the Christmas gift or playing right into Osama Bin Laden's hand here because both of your position are founded on politics and anti-Bushism.
    Show me where I have personally supported the surge in Afghanistan. However, one important difference is that many believe the enemy is in Afghanistan (Pakistan). They were not in Iraq, and by and large never were. OBL got the best of everything. He was able to use Iraqis without any major investment of his resources.


    It made sense.....to invade Afghanistan like Osama wanted us to? And I can find where you opposed Bush in Afghanistan, you mentioned often, JD, that his policy on taking prisoners was unethical and against your moral compass. You opposed his imprisoning terrorists, denied him decisions on what to do with those terrorists, and claimed for the length of the Bush Presidency that Gitmo...not the terrorist infested Taliban regime was the world's worst eyesore. No Sir, I can find where you opposed Bush in Afghansitan.
    I said some sense. OBL was there. However, it was not well thought out. I liked Scheuer's idea of simply going in on 9/12/01 and getting him (we knew where he was) and leaving. It would have sent a much stronger message and not helped OBL or Al Qaeda.

    As for actions like torture and other immoral and illegal acts, this is quite different than opposing any action in Afghanistan. In fact, it is quite dishonest to suggest that if you don't accept all actions, you don't support any.


    Told me on WS that you did.
    Don't know who you are and you may well have wrong who I am. Who knows. But I suspect you're one who gets a lot wrong because you can't make distinctions. It is also possible that new information and assessment led to a change in view. Again, who knows as I don't know to what you refer.

    To be perfectly fair, Osama snuck 19 terrorists into this country and attacked us on 9-11-01. I actually think it was Scheuer who misunderstood his job. He was focusing on killing Osama abroad, he missed the fact that Osama was trying to kill us here. Oh, I'll agree he was not given proper info, the the agencies weren't sharing info, that much was clear. But, Scheuer missed this boat, reality shows us this much.
    As we had warnings about him trying to kill us here, I suspect you have yet another thing wrong. It happens.

    And who wasn't Scheuer sharing with?
    CIA and FBI weren't sharing. To get the 9/11 terrorist before they acted, as I understand it, would have only required those two to share information. It was the most likely thing that could have prevented it.

    I feel strongly about it as well. The reason I cannot fathom anyone now taking this incompetent seriously. You do remember his blatherings about Iraq giving access to the Arabian Peninsula to al-Qaeda? Yes?


    Don't know. What I do now is that Osama did sneak 19 terrrorists under our noses to kill thousands and that it could have been prevented on several levels. But, the 96-99 head of the OBL desk at the CIA should have known something. And this theory of easier to kill him in Afghanistan....does anyone still believe that much less him? C'mon!
    Well, it would not have been prevented by killing OBL. He wasn't that deeply involved in it. Remember, reports are he was surprised when it happens. There was no country we could have invaded that would have prevented them from coming. Again, to my knowledge the only thing that had a chance was for the CIA and the FBI to speak to each other.

Page 20 of 38 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •