• 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

Conservative said:
It is you that continues to believe it was a mistake.
Click to expand...
Based on the information available at the time and the threat connected to that information, going after Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do.
 
Charles Martel said:
Wanted us in Afghanistan...correct. Where Obama has just sent 100,000 more troops, does this 'goal' of Osama's..of wanting to hurt us, isn't Obama then falling right into Osama's hands?

Secondly...and Conservative, this is where Boo's argument disintegrates....did Bush's invasion of Iraq "remove us from Islamic lands?" Did it lessen influence on Islamic lands? How could this be a Christmas gift if he wanted us out of Iraq?

I mean his entire 1998 Fatwa declaring war against the US is about Iraq, he HATED the fact that we were in Iraq, this idea is was a Christmas gift giving them somewhere to attack us, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq! They already had a plethora of arenas to attack us, we were already in Iraq flying no fly zones, already in Yemen, the Gulf States, steaming in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, remember...it was our presence in the ME at all Osama was offended by, obviously al-Qaeda already had gifts to attack, both US military and embassy/civilian targets.
Click to expand...

It continues the error, but most the damage is already done. You being silly here doesn't help advance the discussion. He didn't declare the Fatwa in 98 over Iraq and no one claims he did. Believe it or not, something can already be in play and you can still affect it either positively or negatively. You can do things that help or hurt, that improve or worsen. You can be smart or stupid.

We were already in Iraq and...can you give us proof this was what he wanted? Do you have his writings or is this Scheuer's guess? In other words, does Osama, through words to his own or us, mention this strategy? At all?
Click to expand...

I did find something long ago. Not sure I want to look for it again. When I get back to my other computer, I'll see if I still have it.

Osama also preferred we leave Iraq alone.
Click to expand...

As Afghanistan didn't work out as he hoped, it seems to have been a reasonable plan B for him.
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
Based on the information available at the time and the threat connected to that information, going after Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Nothing we actually had justified going in.
 
Goobieman said:
Based on the information available at the time and the threat connected to that information, going after Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Not according to the anti Bush crowd who ignore any threat until that threat actually turns into action. Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 which supported regime change and gave the reasons for it. Most here haven't a clue nor any interest in reading that Act. They will instead point to the provision in that act which did not support military action at that time. They then ignore the resolution passed by Congress which did authorize military action. The underlying issue in both are the reasons which those against the war totally and completely ignore.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Iraqis who claimed the name Al Qaeda in order to get some support? Or the foreign element, small as it was, who mostly had no connections to any terrorist organization prior to going into Iraq? If you manufacture some to kill, while not really attacking the people who attacked you, it's a mistake.
 
Conservative said:
Not according to the anti Bush crowd who ignore any threat until that threat actually turns into action.
Click to expand...
And maybe not even then.
Given the threat posed by whackos (be they leaders of states or non-governmental entities) with WMDs, especially nuclear WMDs, to not act pre-emptively against said whackos is criminally irresponsible.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hardly. Nothing we actually had justified going in.
Click to expand...

Read the Iraq Liberation Act and the Resolution authorizing the removal of Saddam Hussein as to the reasons. It was non partisan in both cases and only became partisan when things turned bad in the early years showing true politics and posturing to be in the right side of the issue. GW Bush was re-elected after the invasion of Iraq and never got the true credit for winning the war in Iraq and keeping us safe for 7 years after 9/11. Only a naive, gullible liberal would continue to try and re-write history and ignore how killing terrorists in Iraq kept them from coming here.

You have always said that Iraq was a civil war and yet in a true civil war there would have been massive killings not isolated bombings. You seem to gleefully point to Iraq casualties figures which cannot be confirmed or even verified as to civilian casualties or even if those were true civilians killed.

Nothing is going to change your mind on this issue but to continue to dwell on it today serves no purpose. Let me know when Obama pulls the troops out of Iraq, when he changes his Sec. of Defense, and when he actually changes the "Bush Doctrine" on Iraq
 
Conservative said:
Read the Iraq Liberation Act and the Resolution authorizing the removal of Saddam Hussein as to the reasons. It was non partisan in both cases and only became partisan when things turned bad in the early years showing true politics and posturing to be in the right side of the issue. GW Bush was re-elected after the invasion of Iraq and never got the true credit for winning the war in Iraq and keeping us safe for 7 years after 9/11. Only a naive, gullible liberal would continue to try and re-write history and ignore how killing terrorists in Iraq kept them from coming here.

You have always said that Iraq was a civil war and yet in a true civil war there would have been massive killings not isolated bombings. You seem to gleefully point to Iraq casualties figures which cannot be confirmed or even verified as to civilian casualties or even if those were true civilians killed.

Nothing is going to change your mind on this issue but to continue to dwell on it today serves no purpose. Let me know when Obama pulls the troops out of Iraq, when he changes his Sec. of Defense, and when he actually changes the "Bush Doctrine" on Iraq
Click to expand...

Again, I have read it. Saddam wasn't a good guy and his eventual removal would be a positive. But to do so in the most costly way, a way in which two presidents before Bush jr knew better than to do, wasn't necessary, and nothing in that act justified going in.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you talking about Iraqis who claimed the name Al Qaeda in order to get some support? Or the foreign element, small as it was, who mostly had no connections to any terrorist organization prior to going into Iraq? If you manufacture some to kill, while not really attacking the people who attacked you, it's a mistake.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that no al Qaeda were killed in Iraq? I suggest a little better research before posting. While at it explain to me why Bin Laden Claimed that Iraq was the central front in the war against the west?

Consider what bin Laden said about the importance of the war in Iraq in December 2004:

"I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.

The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic nation, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation. The nation today has a very rare opportunity to come out of the subservience and enslavement to the West and to smash the chains with which the Crusaders have fettered it."

I thought Saddam Hussein was a secular ruler and hated by Bin Laden.
 
And maybe not even then.
Given the threat posed by whackos (be they leaders of states or non-governmental entities) with WMDs, especially nuclear WMDs, to not act pre-emptively against said whackos is criminally irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein wasn't a whacko. He had a clear and distinct view of the only strategy to keep himself in power against internal enemies (the Kurds), regional enemies (Iran) and international enemies (NATO) and generally did his best to execute that strategy. The only "whacko" thing he did was invade Kuwait, and he could not have predicted NATO's severity; he probably thought he had some political capital with the West and that, even if the West did not allow him to occupy the country, he would still get some kind of gain from the venture. It was hardly dissimilar to Russia invading Georgia or any other number of conflicts which occur between small countries in the developing world, most of which NATO does not react to. In this case, there were certain political currents in Western nations (especially in the United States) that Saddam failed to anticipate. After Kuwait, he kept a pretty low profile, rejecting overtures from radical Islamic terrorist groups to become party to anti-Western plots, specifically because they could only provoke further hostility from NATO, which obviously overpowered him.

Saddam was by no means a good man, but he did not formulate his plans irrationally.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
So you are saying that no al Qaeda were killed in Iraq? I suggest a little better research before posting. While at it explain to me why Bin Laden Claimed that Iraq was the central front in the war against the west?

Consider what bin Laden said about the importance of the war in Iraq in December 2004:

"I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.

The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic nation, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation. The nation today has a very rare opportunity to come out of the subservience and enslavement to the West and to smash the chains with which the Crusaders have fettered it."

I thought Saddam Hussein was a secular ruler and hated by Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Saying none would be an absolute. It would only take one to make it false. I'm saying very few that weren't either Iraqis or people not associated with any terrorist group prior to coming to Iraq. This means our enemy invested very little in Iraq and we were never really fighting them.

As for OBL's rhetoric, he wants to keep us tied up there. What else would he say. If he really wanted us gone, he have supported Bush. That would have made people think about voting for someone else. He have it peaceful there so we might leave. Instead, he plays us for suckers, realizes to few think it through. Manipulates useful idiots with just a few words.
 
Goobieman said:
Your opinion, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a supported opinion. There were no stockpiles of wmds, no working with Al Qaeda, no training Al Qaeda, no real sponsorship of terrorism (lets not get into rebuilding homes destroyed in Palestine), no imminent threat, inspectors on the ground, so the supportive evidence is on the side of my opinion. 4500 Americans, not to mention coalition forces, 100,000 civilians, and billions of dollars, for what?
 
Boo Radley said:
Show me where I have personally supported the surge in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Send me the link to the old Whistlestopper server, and I'll show you. Changing your mind one of your best talents, but, seen thru.

I liked Scheuer's idea of simply going in on 9/12/01 and getting him (we knew where he was) and leaving.
Click to expand...

How about going on on 9/12/96 and getting him Michael??!! So Dr. Scheuer, let me get this straight. Your solution...given you're the ex desk chief for the CIA...is to go after him AFTER 9-11?:doh

For the love of God?

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.
Click to expand...

You opposed the imprisoning of enemy combatants on the battlefield, JD, it was in fact your position that these men should receive Constitutional protections. You're being disingenuous, JD, I do have a memory.

Don't know who you are and you may well have wrong who I am. Who knows.
Click to expand...

You know exactly who I am and vice versa.;) Your famous wink smilie, the only one to bring up Scheuer the disgraced CIA desk Chief.

It is also possible that new information and assessment led to a change in view.
Click to expand...

Oh I'll bet. You just remember that Oldschool hasn't moved...an iota. Still considers Gitmo a stroke of genius, still considers Lancet a joke. New info has come to light including no combat deaths in Iraq for example.....but no matter the new info....that you're using to change your mind...or he's using to change his.....my argument stands like Stonewall at Bull Run. As correct then as it is now.:cool:

CIA and FBI weren't sharing.
Click to expand...

I suppose this no fault of the 96-99 OBL desk chief at the CIA?:shock:

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.
Click to expand...

And for the American public to realize we were at war. We'd ignored the USS Cole, US embassies, the first World Trade Center bombings, we'd hate air rage passengers get out of hand, we were sitting ducks...open for attack.

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.
Click to expand...

This:

"There was no country we could have invaded that would have prevented them from coming."

right after this:

"I liked Scheuer's idea of simply going in on 9/12/01 and getting him (we knew where he was) and leaving."

So, we couldn't have invaded any country as Osama wasn't deeply involved.....but invading afterwards and snatching "him" up..the one not deeply involved...that idea you like?

Now I'm positive who this is, contradicting your own arguments was a habit of only one author in that site...or in here. Happy New Year JD.

On a side note, not too lengthy as the Mods get upset?

Georgia Tech tough, good luck to Iowa.

As well, a family member also a Falcon fan, this was your first back to back winning seasons, congrats. Too bad about the playoffs, next year probably.
 
Morality Games said:
Saddam Hussein wasn't a whacko.
Click to expand...
By what measure?
He was a whacko if for no reason other than he deliberately painted a picture of possessing WMDs and WMD programs so that the world would think he had them, even though he knew that he would be invaded because of it.

So, his plan to retain power was to make us think he had the very thing that we were about to invade in order to remove.

About the only way this is not insanity is if you think he thought that we weren't REALLY going to invade him.

The only "whacko" thing he did was invade Kuwait, and he could not have predicted NATO's severity;
Click to expand...
That was gross miscaluculation, not insanity.
Remaining in Kuwait after it was clear he was about to be forcibly removed?
-That- was insanity.
Saddam was by no means a good man, but he did not formulate his plans irrationally.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- his actions illustrate just that -- in bouts, if not wholesale.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing wrong with a supported opinion.
Click to expand...
That's not what you offer.
There were no stockpiles of wmds
Click to expand...
Whch was determined post-facto.
no working with Al Qaeda, no training Al Qaeda,
Click to expand...
Red herring
No claims to that effect were offered as reason for the invasion.
no imminent threat,
Click to expand...
None necessary, given the nature of the threat.
inspectors on the ground
Click to expand...
Who were contunually and deliberately delayed, to the point of ther leader reaching the conclusion that Iraq had "not made the fundamental decision to disarm".
so the supportive evidence is on the side of my opinion.
Click to expand...
Obviously not.
4500 Americans, not to mention coalition forces, 100,000 civilians, and billions of dollars, for what?
Click to expand...
The liberation of Iraq and the certain removal of Saddam as a threat to the region and to the US. That's a -singificant- return on investment.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
It continues the error, but most the damage is already done.
Click to expand...

Out troops experienceing record losses in Afghansitan, wasn't this OBL's plan that Obama now eats hook, line, and sinker.

You being silly here doesn't help advance the discussion. He didn't declare the Fatwa in 98 over Iraq and no one claims he did.
Click to expand...

He doesn't mention Iran. His rage clearly over Iraq, he mentions it several times. You are still in error even though it's a new year.

Believe it or not, something can already be in play and you can still affect it either positively or negatively.
Click to expand...

Not disputing this. The fact is, we invaded Iraq and Osama Bin Laden clearly didn't want us anywhere near Iraq, considered it immoral. This idea is wa s Xmas gift is a guess by Scheuer and yourself and it's a wrong guess. Supposition and guesses were always your process, JD, I could read you like a book and I obviously still can.

When I get back to my other computer, I'll see if I still have it.
Click to expand...

You do that.

As Afghanistan didn't work out as he hoped, it seems to have been a reasonable plan B for him.
Click to expand...

Seems to be reasonbable isn't proof, the fatwa I linked to solid proof. Osama didn't want us in Iraq and attacked us because of it. He chortled on about the decimation and destruction. His concerns were for our presence in the ME and especially Iraq and I quote:

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
Click to expand...

See that...ferocious war...devastation...fragmentation? See that we we should have been content with the "protracted blockade(meaning we were already there blocking sea lanes and flying no fly zone enforcements. He didn't want us anywhere near Iraq and considered it "using the Peninsula as a staging post."
It's all right there in black and white, JD.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bush didn't do the right thing.

However, since once we were committed the right thing to do was stay the course and finish the project, the net result of Bush's actions was an improvement over the prior situation and hence in the end it can be argued that what he did was right.

Can you tell us if your Messiah is ever going to do anything right?
 
Charles Martel said:
How about going on on 9/12/96 and getting him Michael??!! So Dr. Scheuer, let me get this straight. Your solution...given you're the ex desk chief for the CIA...is to go after him AFTER 9-11?:doh

For the love of God?
Click to expand...

As Boo has already pointed out you don't seem to understand the difference between an analyst like Scheuer and a decision maker like Clinton.
 
Morality Games said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's probably something. It's probably not a lie, though.

Morality Games said:
Contested elections occur all the time, at county, state, and federal levels of government,
Click to expand...

We're not discussing a contested election. With Franken we're discussing an election in which some precincts reported more votes for Franken than there were registered voters.

That's called "fraud", if you're honest. I'm honest, I call it fraud. You refuse to call it fraud. Explain.

Morality Games said:
What happened in Florida was a completely differently miscalculation,
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. Gore calculated that he could steal the election and Bush calculated that he wasn't going to give up. Since the fact that Gore had fewer votes than Bush in Floriduh cannot be disputed, you people want to play games with the truth instead.

Bush got more votes in Floriduh.

Period.

That's it.

End of story.

You can't deal with the facts, so you follow liberal rule #1 and lie your ass off about this.

Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right.

The Tenth Amendment trumps "general welfare".

Don't like it? Move to a country that isn't based on the concept of limited government, you have no place in mine.
 
Charles Martel said:
Out troops experienceing record losses in Afghansitan, wasn't this OBL's plan that Obama now eats hook, line, and sinker.
Click to expand...

Troops are just one part of the plan. Once we decided to nation build, he could count on more than just troops. Again, I would prefer less presence there. I'm not in favor of the surge.


He doesn't mention Iran. His rage clearly over Iraq, he mentions it several times. You are still in error even though it's a new year.
Click to expand...

Does it matter (I misunderstood your reference, my error)? Again, it has little to do with today. Or 2003. Or my argument. In the end he wants us out of there, but to do that he must hurt us. He can't any other way. He needs us closer, as other attacks won't accomplish anything.

Not disputing this. The fact is, we invaded Iraq and Osama Bin Laden clearly didn't want us anywhere near Iraq, considered it immoral. This idea is wa s Xmas gift is a guess by Scheuer and yourself and it's a wrong guess. Supposition and guesses were always your process, JD, I could read you like a book and I obviously still can.
Click to expand...

Again, a plan B. Not his desired plan, but he was left with little else at the time, so it was a Christmas gift. And he clearly benefited. Our own CIA declared Al Qaeda was as strong as ever. He could use Iraqis, and recruit those with no prior terrorist history, and not invest heavily in Iraq at all, and still have us bleed.



Seems to be reasonbable isn't proof, the fatwa I linked to solid proof. Osama didn't want us in Iraq and attacked us because of it. He chortled on about the decimation and destruction. His concerns were for our presence in the ME and especially Iraq and I quote:
Click to expand...

Again, his original plan was to have us in Afghanistan. Iraq was the only option he had left at the time, and it was a gift. SO, your quote doesn't really address that. It may be something he didn't want, but it was better than the alternative.

See that...ferocious war...devastation...fragmentation? He didn't want us anywhere near IRaq and considered it "using the Peninsula as a staging post."
It's all right there in black and white, JD.
Click to expand...

And that is what Bush wanted to do with Iraq, I believe. But again, talk aside, Al Qaeda has invested very little in Iraq. They didn't have to. And OBL's goals were met there.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hardly. Nothing we actually had justified going in.
Click to expand...

Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship whose leaders seized power at gunpoint against the will of the people.

Explain why any justification is required to remove gangsters from positions of authority.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship whose leaders seized power at gunpoint against the will of the people.

Explain why any justification is required to remove gangsters from positions of authority.
Click to expand...

Should we do this with every country around the world? but let's look at what happened. We let Saddam take power. We let him brutally rule for a long time. We let him kill his own people. then, when all of that was essentially over with (the killing was at a very low ebb), then and only then we decided to bring war to the Iraqis people. MY God, why wouldn't they be thankful. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom