• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

Why indulge in mutually exclusive dichotomies, especially considering all that accomplishes is to create an unecessary framing device?

because holder has to decide whether to run him thru civilian court or military tribunal

the framing device is which room to use

hello
 
because holder has to decide whether to run him thru civilian court or military tribunal

the framing device is which room to use

hello

and that has what to do with whether or not to initiate a targeted military strike?

and hello to you, young fellow.
 
well, prudent policy usually does not contemplate military strikes against criminal targets, gramps

military strikes are more commonly associated with acts of war
 
Slow up there, Zyph.

According to someone who was there, candidate Bush was saying "IRAQ!" two years before 9/11.



Oh, but there's more...

Again, according to someone who was there, President Bush was saying "IRAQ!" at his very first security meeting, well before 9/11.



So, y'know, I'm just sayin'...

Nicely done. :bravo:
 
Perhaps GWB should have taken even more time than he did before deciding to attack IRAQ. After all, most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. But I guess we can't attack SA, where the Bush clan has friends.....:(

The Sauds began developing Sunni radicalism during the Khomeini days. They did this to counter the Shia fanaticism that was being groomed by Khomeini and then they did it to combat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Since Afghanistan, Sunni fanaticism and extremism have killed Americans all over.

The Sauds continue to finance and build madrasas across the globe. In fact the House of Saud have built 1500 mosques, 202 colleges, 2000 Muslim schools over the decades outside of non-Islamic countries. Wahabbi madrassas in Pakistan grew from 2861 in 1988 to 6761 in 2000.

On top of this Saud activity abroad to encourage Islamic terrorism and fanatcism, the U.S. and others have received oil from them since the 1930s.


So.....what am I trying to say here? Given the long span of U.S. Presidents that this has occurred and the clear knowledge so many of them had about this escallating religious problem.....contributing it all to the Bush clan is a very stupid thing to do. In fact, some may even call it Michael Moore'ish.

Unless my information is wrong and we only recieved oil from the Sauds between Bush's election and Obama's? I guess what saved the Sauds in the past and now is their charm, but under Bush it was his personal friendship? Or do the other president's even know where our oil comes form? It's truly a mystery.
 
Link
Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot - Times Online

Here we go again, Obama has to gather in all the intelligence then of course he will need the advice of Carter & Kerry, by the time he actually gets around to doing something it will probably be time to install his successor.

So we are going to help Yemen combat the terrorists in their country?

I found this bit from the article interesting:
Two former inmates of the Guantánamo Bay detainee camp who were returned to Yemen via Saudi Arabia in 2007 are thought to have assumed the leadership of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the group that claimed responsibility for the attempted airline bombing.

Muhammad al-Awfi and Said Ali al-Shihri are believed to have been the targets of a pair of airstrikes on suspected terrorist training camps in the east of the country before Christmas that the Yemeni Government says killed more than 60 militants.

Sounds like the various intelligence groups still can't work together seamlessly.
 
This attempt demands a public show of discipline towards the offenders and to whoever else who happens to be "coincidentally" near them when it happens. Quiet displays of retribution do nothing to dissuade future possibilities.

Clinton taught us that his quiet comfortable "kill nobody" tactics encourage their conviction and sense of accomplishment.

Bush taught us that improper planning is deadly to our troops.

Obama has the benefit of learning from both. But is this a military issue or is it not? Because if it is (and no doubt there are plenty of flip floppers out there), then all of it is.
 
Last edited:
This attempt demands a public show of discipline towards the offenders and to whoever else who happens to be "coincidentally" near them when it happens. Quiet displays of retribution do nothing to dissuade future possibilities.

Clinton taught us that his quiet comfortable "kill nobody" tactics encourage their conviction and sense of accomplishment.

Bush taught us that improper planning is deadly to our troops.

Obama has the benefit of learning from both. But is this a military issue or is it not?

This specific instance, not really military. However, terrorism may well be both and not just one or the other. It really depends on any specific circumstance.
 
This specific instance, not really military. However, terrorism may well be both and not just one or the other. It really depends on any specific circumstance.

No it doesn't. What's the difference? If he had blown the plane up would we involve the police or the military for matters that originiate abroad? We have a CIA and an FBI for a reason. They have been defining their activity as a war for a very long time. We are the only fools that pretend it is not and that every incident is a single incident in which nothing is connected. Well how many single incidents does it take?

But let's just say that it is a police matter and that many of them are. When do we send over the FBI to start investigating? Or do we rely on the local governments who largely look away as long as their fanatic organizations project violence elsewhere?

Every single terrorist attack or attempt needs to be followed up with such a devistating attack that even our allies cringe. These are not children. This is not a "time out" solution. Europe's in ability or desire to address it when it was only bothering them has encouraged its growth. Today, it seeks to cross the ocean to our shores. We used to be safe from this (considering that Americans ignored dead Americans in uniforms abroad of course). It is getting worse.
 
Last edited:
Why not just cooperate with the Yemenise in taking these people out like any other country in the world would?

Providing the U.S. with targets is all they need to do. "Just" allowing the Yemenise to handle it tells the rest of the fanatic based in the region nothing. More proactivity before 9/11 may have altered a lot.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't. What's the difference? If he had blown the plane up would we involve the police or the military for matters that originiate abroad? We have a CIA and an FBI for a reason. They have been defining their activity as a war for a very long time. We are the only fools that pretend it is not and that every incident is a single incident in which nothing is connected. Well how many single incidents does it take?

But let's just say that it is a police matter and that many of them are. When do we send over the FBI to start investigating? Or do we rely on the local governments who largely look away as long as their fanatic organizations project violence elsewhere?

Every single terrorist attack or attempt needs to be followed up with such a devistating attack that even our allies cringe. These are not children. This is not a "time out" solution. Europe's in ability or desire to address it when it was only bothering them has encouraged its growth. Today, it seeks to cross the ocean to our shores. We used to be safe from this (considering that Americans ignored dead Americans in uniforms abroad of course). It is getting worse.

The military best fights other nations. Things like the mob and Al Qaeda less so. Even if we destroyed ever country a terrorist ever came from, we would not defeat the terrorist groups for the simply reason, they don't represent the that country, are not working for that country, are not under the control of that country. It is flawed logic to connect the two.

No country has attacked us. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq attacked us. And our invading those countries have not lessened the danger at all. Failure to recognize the problem for what it is, sends us down the wrong path. And that is exactly the error Bush made made.
 
Providing the U.S. with targets is all they need to do. "Just" allowing the Yemenise to handle it tells the rest of the fanatic based in the region nothing.

And if the U.S bombed unilaterally that would help the fanatics alot more. The U.S is already deeply unpopular across the region and thats not just among fanatics. Worsening the situation is not in its interests, however it is in the interests of Bin-Laden and the like.
 
Last edited:
The military best fights other nations. Things like the mob and Al Qaeda less so. Even if we destroyed ever country a terrorist ever came from, we would not defeat the terrorist groups for the simply reason, they don't represent the that country, are not working for that country, are not under the control of that country. It is flawed logic to connect the two.

No country has attacked us. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq attacked us. And our invading those countries have not lessened the danger at all. Failure to recognize the problem for what it is, sends us down the wrong path. And that is exactly the error Bush made made.

Welcome to the 21st century of warfare. No "country" will ever be our military enemy again unless they are stupid. The military best fights when it has a clear enemy. And the military has proved time and again to be able to adapt. It is not the military that can't figure this out. And "Bush's path" was no mistake. The mistake is how people still insist that we exist within the rules of the Cold War and pre-Cold War.

When an entire region's importance hinges on the world's most precious energy source and is on a path to hell... and its reaction is to export terror...our enemy becomes more than just a single nation's flag or military uniform.
 
Welcome to the 21st century of warfare. No "country" will ever be our military enemy again unless they are stupid. The military best fights when it has a clear enemy. And the military has proved time and again to be able to adapt. It is not the military that can't figure this out. And "Bush's path" was no mistake. The mistake is how people still insist that we exist within the rules of the Cold War and pre-Cold War.

When an entire region's importance hinges on the world's most precious energy source and is on a path to hell... and its reaction is to export terror...our enemy becomes more than just a single nation's flag or military uniform.

Maybe. As far as warfare goes. No, as far as Bush goes.

if you're talking about oil, and it has become this important, I suggest we find something else. We don't own the ME. And if we think we do, OBL is right about us.

But you cannot beat King Cong but punching out Fay Wray. Al Qaeda doesn't care what we do to Iraq. But they can use Iraq to hurt us. Same with Afghanistan or any other nation you can invade, bomb, attack. You simply can't defeat them by beating up on someone else.
 
And if the U.S bombed unilaterally that would help the fanatics alot more. The U.S is already deeply unpopular across the region and thats not just among fanatics. Worsening the situation is not in its interests, however it is in the interests of Bin-Laden and the like.

I find cowardice in assuming that proper retaliation will please Bin-Laden...and the like. I also find it senseless to argue about unilateralism in a world full of unilateral activity. I guess it takes France and Germany to be onboard to make it non-unilateral? This argument that America acted unilaterally with Iraq was always satuid considering that it was no where near alone. Of course...that's me.

The anti-Americanism that exists across the region was rooted long before Amerca even messed with Iran thanks to Qutb. I am not interested in America's popularity when it comes to the rest of the world. It is because we placate to popularity that we find ourselves constantly dealing with issues that we should have already dealt with. I do not care that toppling a dictator will encourage the slaughter of Muslims by other Muslims. I do not care that Muslims find themselves without pride because the rest of the world is having to deal with their terrorist creations.

Until, Muslims decide that enough is enough and deal with their wrecked culture once and for all, they will have to contend with American bombs. Civilizations all over the world were colonized by Europeans and many of those colonies have become stong independant nations that are a part of the international stage. India? China? The U.S.? Egypt? That's off the top of my head, but you know there are more. Considering this, the Middle East has no excuse other than their culture. Trillions of dollars have flooded this region for oil, yet we are accused of stealing it. It is 2010 and this region can't even produce a car for the world's needs. Not one sense of real contribution towards the globe's prosperity and growth. I am a firm believer that much of their views towards the West, especially America, is based on long gone European imperialism and our success.

I've become a huge fan of what the British used to call..."punitive strikes."
 
I've become a huge fan of what the British used to call..."punitive strikes."

Such as what British historian John Keegan said in September 2001:
"Efforts to occupy and rule [Afghanistan] usually ended in disaster. But straightforward punitive expeditions ... were successful on more than one occasion.

It should be remembered that, in 1878, the British did succeed in bringing the Afghans to heel [with a punitive expedition]. Lord Roberts' march from 'Kabul to Kandahar' was one of [Queen] Victoria's most celebrated wars. The Russians, moreover, foolishly did not try to punish rogue Afghans, as Roberts did, but to rule the country. Since Afghanistan is ungovernable, the failure of their efforts was predictable ...

America should not seek to change the regime, but simply to find and kill the terrorists. It should do so without pity."

Clueless into Kabul - Michael Scheuer - The American Interest Magazine
 
Such as what British historian John Keegan said in September 2001:
"Efforts to occupy and rule [Afghanistan] usually ended in disaster. But straightforward punitive expeditions ... were successful on more than one occasion.

It should be remembered that, in 1878, the British did succeed in bringing the Afghans to heel [with a punitive expedition]. Lord Roberts' march from 'Kabul to Kandahar' was one of [Queen] Victoria's most celebrated wars. The Russians, moreover, foolishly did not try to punish rogue Afghans, as Roberts did, but to rule the country. Since Afghanistan is ungovernable, the failure of their efforts was predictable ...

America should not seek to change the regime, but simply to find and kill the terrorists. It should do so without pity."

Clueless into Kabul - Michael Scheuer - The American Interest Magazine

So, don't invade. Don't nation build. Just bomb?
 
I find cowardice in assuming that proper retaliation will please Bin-Laden...and the like. I also find it senseless to argue about unilateralism in a world full of unilateral activity. I guess it takes France and Germany to be onboard to make it non-unilateral? This argument that America acted unilaterally with Iraq was always satuid considering that it was no where near alone. Of course...that's me.

The anti-Americanism that exists across the region was rooted long before Amerca even messed with Iran thanks to Qutb. I am not interested in America's popularity when it comes to the rest of the world. It is because we placate to popularity that we find ourselves constantly dealing with issues that we should have already dealt with. I do not care that toppling a dictator will encourage the slaughter of Muslims by other Muslims. I do not care that Muslims find themselves without pride because the rest of the world is having to deal with their terrorist creations.

Until, Muslims decide that enough is enough and deal with their wrecked culture once and for all, they will have to contend with American bombs. Civilizations all over the world were colonized by Europeans and many of those colonies have become stong independant nations that are a part of the international stage. India? China? The U.S.? Egypt? That's off the top of my head, but you know there are more. Considering this, the Middle East has no excuse other than their culture. Trillions of dollars have flooded this region for oil, yet we are accused of stealing it. It is 2010 and this region can't even produce a car for the world's needs. Not one sense of real contribution towards the globe's prosperity and growth. I am a firm believer that much of their views towards the West, especially America, is based on long gone European imperialism and our success.

I've become a huge fan of what the British used to call..."punitive strikes."

So you think you can just bomb the entire region into submission? Good with that :doh

Al-Qaeda supporters are hardly a majority in the region. But generally if you bomb someones country they will perceive you as an enemy (people are strange like that) how is making additional enemies in your interests? Alot of these people hate Al-Qaeda. Why alienate them?
 
So you think you can just bomb the entire region into submission? Good with that :doh

Al-Qaeda supporters are hardly a majority in the region. But generally if you bomb someones country they will perceive you as an enemy (people are strange like that) how is making additional enemies in your interests? Alot of these people hate Al-Qaeda. Why alienate them?
Al-Qaeda is responsible for attracting the bombs. They oust our enemies the bombs will stop. They continue to allow them to remain and operate like they did before we were even in their country or bombing them then they should expect hell to rain down from above. When they come to realize the awful cost of harboring and allowing our enemies to operate they might consider changing their ways.
 
Last edited:
So, don't invade. Don't nation build. Just bomb?

You want an honest answer?

Yep, if they are really serious they should bomb everything with impunity, otherwise its just wasted effort.

It sucks for the people who had nothing to do with any of it but destroying everything gives your enemy no place to hide.

Although I don't support another war.
 
So, don't invade. Don't nation build. Just bomb?
Bomb. And insert SOF where and when needed. When you invade and begin nation building you only create an entirely new responsibility for yourself on top of killing Islamists.
 
Bomb. And insert SOF where and when needed. When you invade and begin nation building you only create an entirely new responsibility for yourself on top of killing Islamists.

To a degree, I concur. Less thrilled about the bombing, as I think we get some of that wrong, and hurt ourselves. But something more surgical, less blunt, maybe. Has potential.
 
Back
Top Bottom