• 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

Zyphlin said:
He was not doing anything in regards to invading it. Talking about it off handedly, before 9/11 even happened, is not equivilent of going into Iraq over 9/11 or even legitimately planning Iraq right after 9/11.



Amazing, you can not only see THROUGH the internet, but you apparently see into an alternative dimension in which things happen differently than in reality. This is a rather impressive talent you have. Perhaps you should talk to FOX to see if they’ll make a reality show based around it.



You’re trying to build a strawman right now, so I figure you’d know what it means, but apparently you don’t.

No, you didn’t say anything about “invading”…which was exactly my point. You disproved something I didn’t say, unless you take HALF of a sentence out of context. I was talking about invading. The person I was responding to talked about “invaiding”. THAT was the discussion. THAT was the context of my statement.

You not saying anything about “invading” wasn’t me creating a strawman, that was the entire basis for my complaint with your pathetic attempt at “debunking” me. You “debunked” half of a sentence by taking it completely out of context due to your desire to NOT address “invading”, which is directly what I WAS addressing.

YOU created the strawman, when you tried to prove me wrong by “proving” that Bush talked about Iraq at some nebulus point prior to invading…which I never denied, I was speaking specifically about invading which was obvious in the context and if you had addressed my entire sentence.



Not at all. Its just that you apparently are getting pissy that you and those thanking you little high-five party is being busted up due to, you know, reality and that the strawman you built up and began to wallop on was exposed as the dummy it was. Its not my fault I have to point out the context of what was said because you failed to address it at all and then immediately claimed victory…that’s yours. If you had actually dealt with what I said, instead of what you decided you had a better case against, this wouldn’t have had to happen.



Thanks for the reassurance…but nothing pathetic about it. You’re just upset because you tried to “disprove” something I never claimed and are upset cause I called you on it.

Which, looking at your time line above, isn't surprising. You're a rabid hyper partisan that can't see past "con" and has a world view completely twisted by ideology. You bag on about Reagan, Bush, Cheney, and Bush again and how horrible they are but of course mention nothing about Clinton's half assed efforts there or his policy of regime change that he put no bite behind and left his successors to deal with. You don't have the ability to judge things from an impartial position or through actual facts because you're more interested in scoring political points and attempting to land punches on the other side regardless of what you have to do to do so.

I won't sit here and say the Bush Administration didn't make blunders with Iraq. I won't sit here and say that Bush was thinking about Iraq before he was elected. I won't even say that if 9/11 didn't happen he wouldn't have found a way to go in. I may not believe all of that is true, but I can see it being possible. What I will sit here and say though is that anyone trying to say that he immedietely drove us into war with Iraq after 9/11 instead of going after the true enemies, the Saudis, is grossly mistaken and completely factually incorrect and will argue that till kingdom come, which is what I've done here. Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 to attack Iraq. I don't care what definition you want to use, there's none that equates 2 years to almost immedietely.
Click to expand...

:lol: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
 
Boo Radley said:
4500 Americans, not to mention coalition forces, 100,000 civilians, and billions of dollars, for what?
Click to expand...

A democratic islamic republic more or less friendly to the United States in the midst of fanatic islamic dictatorships.
 
Boo Radley said:
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:
Click to expand...

We let him take power? Where do you get this stuff?
 
Boo Radley said:
Should we do this with every country around the world?
Click to expand...

Should we do what, ignore the question asked of you and pretend you answered it.

Again.

What justification is required for a democratic republic to intervene and removed a gangster strongman from a position of supreme leadership of a country with significant military potential?

Answer the question.

Morality Games said:
but let's look at what happened. We let Saddam take power. We let him brutally rule for a long time.
Click to expand...

Sure did.

Explain what our advantages were at the time. Don't pretend we're as ignorant as the anti-war anti-American socialists you hang out with.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually what OBL did was take advantage of people like you by convincing you that Bush was wrong. Al Qaeda has all the time in the world and they are benefiting today because of the person in the WH. You and others like you using your freedom of speech provided exactly what OBL wanted a divided country and a country that turned away from the war against radical Islam by putting Obama in the WH.
 
Conservative said:
We let him take power? Where do you get this stuff?
Click to expand...

Well, since we didn't interfere in his taking over Iraq, we must have let him do it. Of course, preventing him from doing so would have been like, you know, interfering in the internal politics of a sovereign nation and stuff, you know, like the socialists complain about us doing when we were helping the Nicaraguans overthrow Socialist Dictator Ortega, but hey, wait, have you uncovered one of the many Lying Their Fat Asses Off Self-Contradictions of the Liberals?

Why, golllleeee, so you have!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Should we do what, ignore the question asked of you and pretend you answered it.

Again.

What justification is required for a democratic republic to intervene and removed a gangster strongman from a position of supreme leadership of a country with significant military potential?

Answer the question.
Click to expand...

It's a really stupid question, and I did answer it. But I'll expand. We have no right to invade any country for that reason. Nor did any of your leaders suggest we should. Bush didn't either BTW. That's why he set about making up reasons. Invasion should either stop on going genocide or be done to prevent an imminent threat. Neither of those conditions existed in 2003.


Sure did.

Explain what our advantages were at the time. Don't pretend we're as ignorant as the anti-war anti-American socialists you hang out with.
Click to expand...

Our advantages? Based on your question, who cares? Are you saying we have to stop strongmen unless it benefits us not to? Well, there you go. Be moral unless we have reason not to. Now that's a winning argument.
Click to expand...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, since we didn't interfere in his taking over Iraq, we must have let him do it. Of course, preventing him from doing so would have been like, you know, interfering in the internal politics of a sovereign nation and stuff, you know, like the socialists complain about us doing when we were helping the Nicaraguans overthrow Socialist Dictator Ortega, but hey, wait, have you uncovered one of the many Lying Their Fat Asses Off Self-Contradictions of the Liberals?

Why, golllleeee, so you have!
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is what you suggest we have the right to do in your question.
 
ScummyD said:
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.
Click to expand...

But I do understand the similarities. Both of these incompetents missed the boat on al-Qaeda, reality can't be defined any differently.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not in favor of the surge.
Click to expand...

Claimed you were on Ws.

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.
Click to expand...

No...wrong. In the beginning he didn't want us there, our presence itself was enough for him to declare war, our presence in the Arabian peninsula of which Iraq was the primary example. I'm waiting for proof of your guesses, here, my 1998 Fatwa spelling out what I'm saying here already crystal clear. OBL wanted us nowhere near Iraq and considered our continued occupation immoral.

Again, a plan B. Not his desired plan, but he was left with little else at the time, so it was a Christmas gift.
Click to expand...

This was Scheuer's guess, this gift, again, if you could just show Osama saying this, I might believe you. As it is, I don't, this is a ridiculous guess on your part with nothing of substance to link to.

And he clearly benefited.
Click to expand...

Al-Qaeda now known to have taken a frightful defeat and in a most upsetting of angles...Sunni Iraqis(as al-Qaeda is Sunni), took up arms paid for by Americans and fought al-Qaeda tenaciously. Many of his leadership killed, turned away by his own, eventually giving up on Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan...al-qaeda received an arse whoopin in Iraq. It also gave Americans and allied forces a good model for defeating insurgencies, saw Petreaus promoted, saw Obama take the same tactic in Afghansitan.

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.
Click to expand...

Please quote Osama as ever having said this, otherwise, it's your guess.

SO, your quote doesn't really address that. It may be something he didn't want, but it was better than the alternative.
Click to expand...

It was clearly something he didn't want. That is so crystal clear, us actually invading no Xmas gift, it would have been should we have let you or your liberal party make decisions, thank God, we didn;t.

And OBL's goals were met there.
Click to expand...

Please link to the book, source, whatever listing these goals. Show me anything that shows goals were met by OBL. The goals that were set...were Bush's. And he suceeded. Saddam dead. A self-detemrining government in its place. Now having affect on the entire ME and especially Iran. The region stabilized, oil traffic and interstate commerce rolling through the unthreatened Hormuz scorched over and watched daily by our 5th fleet.

Mission Accomplished!
 
ADK_Forever said:
You're quite welcome.

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

I never said he "rushed" into Iraq.
Click to expand...

I never said YOU said he rushed into it.

I stated that what you stated in your response to Glinda's post was rather pointless, because Glinda's point was rather pointless, because she was responding to my post concernings someones statements about Bush making the decision to invade Iraq to quickly.

See, sometimes it helps to read a thread before you jump in and just start on your normal Bush Bashing Bandwagon before actually realizing if its pertinent to what's being talked about or not.

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!)
Click to expand...

:roll:

The Patriot Act is entirely a different subject. Take your Bush Bashing Baiting elsewhere rather than trying to derail this like you do so routinely.

I never said it wasn't his desire. I don't rightly care if its his desire or not. That's not what my post, of which Glinda responded to and led to your response, was not dealing with his DESIRE. It was dealing with the ACTION of actually taking military action.

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.
Click to expand...

Why the hell should I have such evidence? Why the hell should I care about such evidence for the purpose of this thread. Stop putting words in my mouth, its embarassing how poor you are at it. Please highlight where I've argued for certainty that Bush didn't want to go into Iraq. I will say it again, once more, in big bold letters and apart from everythign else so you can fully get it...

My point was refuting UtahBills implication that Bush rushed into the invasion Iraq after 9/11.

It wasn't that he desired it before then. It wasn't that he talked about it before then. It wasn't that he didn't have vivid dreams about it while on LSD at a frat party he crashed. It was that it wasn't a decision that was rushed into after 9/11 happened.

Now, unless you can provide me some kind of proof positive evidence that we somehow magically invaded Iraq 2 years PRIOR to actually invading Iraq, all you're doing is Bush Bashing because you can't counter my actual point and thus have to latch onto Glinda's strawman.

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.
Click to expand...

Wonderful. I don't even have to get into the questionable content of your "proof" because I refuse to let you derail yet another thread with your Bush Bashing. The only person talking about whether or not Bush desired it or not originally was Glinda, who created the Strawman because of her overwhelming urge to try to score pathetic political points and her inability to do such with my actual POINT so she had to take half a sentence out of context to slide her Bush Bashing tangent into this thread.

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.
Click to expand...

Yawn, sorry, I've read enough of your tired worthless Bush Bashing trash to be beyond caring about your pathetic theatrics. Its not on topic, its not in any way shape or form countering the point I've ACTUALLY made, not the one Glinda is creating out of thin air for me, and its just your typical hatred showing through. Continue your perterbed ranting, I'm not feeding your derailing behavior any further beyond this post unless you want to address what I actually said, not what some other poster contorted my statement to mean so that she could feel like she won.
 
Glinda said:
:lol: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Click to expand...

Thanks for conceding. That would've been much easier than starting your strawman in the first place as an excuse to just lob some bush bashing into the thread and attempt to derail it.
 
Zyphlin said:
I never said YOU said he rushed into it.

I stated that what you stated in your response to Glinda's post was rather pointless, because Glinda's point was rather pointless, because she was responding to my post concernings someones statements about Bush making the decision to invade Iraq to quickly.

See, sometimes it helps to read a thread before you jump in and just start on your normal Bush Bashing Bandwagon before actually realizing if its pertinent to what's being talked about or not.



:roll:

The Patriot Act is entirely a different subject. Take your Bush Bashing Baiting elsewhere rather than trying to derail this like you do so routinely.

I never said it wasn't his desire. I don't rightly care if its his desire or not. That's not what my post, of which Glinda responded to and led to your response, was not dealing with his DESIRE. It was dealing with the ACTION of actually taking military action.



Why the hell should I have such evidence? Why the hell should I care about such evidence for the purpose of this thread. Stop putting words in my mouth, its embarassing how poor you are at it. Please highlight where I've argued for certainty that Bush didn't want to go into Iraq. I will say it again, once more, in big bold letters and apart from everythign else so you can fully get it...

My point was refuting UtahBills implication that Bush rushed into the invasion Iraq after 9/11.

It wasn't that he desired it before then. It wasn't that he talked about it before then. It wasn't that he didn't have vivid dreams about it while on LSD at a frat party he crashed. It was that it wasn't a decision that was rushed into after 9/11 happened.

Now, unless you can provide me some kind of proof positive evidence that we somehow magically invaded Iraq 2 years PRIOR to actually invading Iraq, all you're doing is Bush Bashing because you can't counter my actual point and thus have to latch onto Glinda's strawman.



Wonderful. I don't even have to get into the questionable content of your "proof" because I refuse to let you derail yet another thread with your Bush Bashing. The only person talking about whether or not Bush desired it or not originally was Glinda, who created the Strawman because of her overwhelming urge to try to score pathetic political points and her inability to do such with my actual POINT so she had to take half a sentence out of context to slide her Bush Bashing tangent into this thread.



Yawn, sorry, I've read enough of your tired worthless Bush Bashing trash to be beyond caring about your pathetic theatrics. Its not on topic, its not in any way shape or form countering the point I've ACTUALLY made, not the one Glinda is creating out of thin air for me, and its just your typical hatred showing through. Continue your perterbed ranting, I'm not feeding your derailing behavior any further beyond this post unless you want to address what I actually said, not what some other poster contorted my statement to mean so that she could feel like she won.
Click to expand...

:rofl Lookit 'im dance! Hee hee heeee!
 
Zyphlin said:
Thanks for conceding. That would've been much easier than starting your strawman in the first place as an excuse to just lob some bush bashing into the thread and attempt to derail it.
Click to expand...

Hey pal, you brought it up, but I understand. * pats Zyph's poor throbbing haid *

It's tough to admit you're making a colossal fool of yourself. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
It's a really stupid question, and I did answer it.
Click to expand...

Can you point to the post that actually contained the answer then? I've read every post visible and you haven't answered it, so maybe you could try not posting in invisible type?


Boo Radley said:
But I'll expand. We have no right to invade any country for that reason.
Click to expand...

Explain the basis of power of the totalitarian dictator and from whence his "right" to hold power derives.

No, don't bother.

Since the totalitarian dictator takes his throne by force at gunpoint, anyone with the ability to use force to displace him has an equal right to do so if they wish. Ergo, if the United States can overthrow a dictator by force of arms, we have a right to do so greater than the dictator's right to retain that throne, since the dictator himself established the foundation of his authority upon the dictum that Might Makes Right.

Welcome to the real world. We have the "right" to overthrow any totalitarian dictator we wish to bump off, by their own example. That we choose to refrain from doing so is merely indicative of our own right to choose to act in our own interests.

You've never understood the proper application of power to politics and diplomacy, have you?

So, to provide the answer to the question you dodged, is that the dictator himself, in this case Saddam Hussein, provided all the justification we needed to overthrow him at the time of our choosing.

Just in case you didn't notice, the United States was founded upon a profound disprespect for kings and tyrants.

Since I'm not a socialist, I still don't respect kings or tyrants.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Can you point to the post that actually contained the answer then? I've read every post visible and you haven't answered it, so maybe you could try not posting in invisible type?




Explain the basis of power of the totalitarian dictator and from whence his "right" to hold power derives.

No, don't bother.

Since the totalitarian dictator takes his throne by force at gunpoint, anyone with the ability to use force to displace him has an equal right to do so if they wish. Ergo, if the United States can overthrow a dictator by force of arms, we have a right to do so greater than the dictator's right to retain that throne, since the dictator himself established the foundation of his authority upon the dictum that Might Makes Right.

Welcome to the real world. We have the "right" to overthrow any totalitarian dictator we wish to bump off, by their own example. That we choose to refrain from doing so is merely indicative of our own right to choose to act in our own interests.

You've never understood the proper application of power to politics and diplomacy, have you?
Click to expand...

Also, Boo and his other liberal friends also judge everyone else by their own standards and believe other leaders around the world have the same beliefs and values as they do.

Radical Islam is using the liberals in this country to promote their perverted ideology as liberals totally ignore the reality that is the ultimate reward for a radical Islamic fundamentalis to go to Allah and take some infidels with them.

The belief that it is our responsibility to play by rules when our enemies blatantly violate those rules shows how naive and dangerous liberals have become.
 
Now.....who should the Messiah bomb to prove to the Left that he has testicles somewhere? Should we randomly bomb Yemen, whose weak government is cooperating with the US to some extent? Should we bomb Nigeria for spawning this Panty Raider? Should we launch cruise missiles to the some pirate cove in Somalia? How about if we simply launched some missiles to some point in the sea, since doing that will be no less efficacious to resolving this particular issue than throwing them anywhere else?
 
Conservative said:
Also, Boo and his other liberal friends also judge everyone else by their own standards and believe other leaders around the world have the same beliefs and values as they do.

Radical Islam is using the liberals in this country to promote their perverted ideology as liberals totally ignore the reality that is the ultimate reward for a radical Islamic fundamentalis to go to Allah and take some infidels with them.

The belief that it is our responsibility to play by rules when our enemies blatantly violate those rules shows how naive and dangerous liberals have become.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. The liberals do not care how much damage is done to the United States as long as they can spin the issue and con the public that they're a solution not the problem. The only thing they care about is their corre agenda of imposing socialism on the United States, and they sincerely beleive that they'll be able to stay on top no matter how much damage they do.

Then again, the political leadership of Germany thought the best way to control Hitler was to promote him to the Chancellorship where they can keep an eye on him. He wasn't going to do anything crazy once he took that office, right?

Right, liberals?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Can you point to the post that actually contained the answer then? I've read every post visible and you haven't answered it, so maybe you could try not posting in invisible type?
Click to expand...

Maybe it is beyond you as I answered it a second time in the post you are responding to. What does Ron White say you can't fix?



Explain the basis of power of the totalitarian dictator and from whence his "right" to hold power derives.

No, don't bother.

Since the totalitarian dictator takes his throne by force at gunpoint, anyone with the ability to use force to displace him has an equal right to do so if they wish. Ergo, if the United States can overthrow a dictator by force of arms, we have a right to do so greater than the dictator's right to retain that throne, since the dictator himself established the foundation of his authority upon the dictum that Might Makes Right.

Welcome to the real world. We have the "right" to overthrow any totalitarian dictator we wish to bump off, by their own example. That we choose to refrain from doing so is merely indicative of our own right to choose to act in our own interests.

You've never understood the proper application of power to politics and diplomacy, have you?

So, to provide the answer to the question you dodged, is that the dictator himself, in this case Saddam Hussein, provided all the justification we needed to overthrow him at the time of our choosing.

Just in case you didn't notice, the United States was founded upon a profound disprespect for kings and tyrants.

Since I'm not a socialist, I still don't respect kings or tyrants.
Click to expand...

As I said in the first answer, why not invade all such countries? We can be judge, jury and police for the entire world. So, no, Saddam did not provide any justification. That's you pretending we rule the world. Making us Saddam like. I don't buy it.
 
Conservative said:
Also, Boo and his other liberal friends also judge everyone else by their own standards and believe other leaders around the world have the same beliefs and values as they do.

Radical Islam is using the liberals in this country to promote their perverted ideology as liberals totally ignore the reality that is the ultimate reward for a radical Islamic fundamentalis to go to Allah and take some infidels with them.

The belief that it is our responsibility to play by rules when our enemies blatantly violate those rules shows how naive and dangerous liberals have become.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. No one has said anyone has the same beliefs and values. But our actions are not about them. Our actions are ours. We are responsible for what we do. That's called personal responsibility.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The liberals do not care how much damage is done to the United States as long as they can spin the issue and con the public that they're a solution not the problem.
Click to expand...
What a load of BS!
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't be silly. No one has said anyone has the same beliefs and values. But our actions are not about them. Our actions are ours. We are responsible for what we do. That's called personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

this is a war, Boo, and one of the sides believes it is the ultimate award to go to Allah by killing infidels. they cut off heads, strap bombs on their backs murdering innocent women and children, represent no country, aren't U.S. Citizens and you want to give them U.S. Constitutional rights because it is about personal responsibility?

As stated, I am glad you aren't defending my family. What if your loved one was sitting on that plane, or working in the Twin Towers, or simply in a market place and never came home because one of these animals blew that loved one up?

Noticed that you ignored Bin Laden's comments about the Caliphate and Iraq being the central front. Guess he didn't have as big of a problem with Saddam Hussein as you said.
 
ScummyD said:
What a load of BS!
Click to expand...

What a giant of an answer and he is correct about liberals being a problem.

But, ain't it great you can respond like that and not have an Atticus flying in to infrac you off the site?
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
this is a war, Boo, and one of the sides believes it is the ultimate award to go to Allah by killing infidels. they cut off heads, strap bombs on their backs murdering innocent women and children, represent no country, aren't U.S. Citizens and you want to give them U.S. Constitutional rights because it is about personal responsibility?

As stated, I am glad you aren't defending my family. What if your loved one was sitting on that plane, or working in the Twin Towers, or simply in a market place and never came home because one of these animals blew that loved one up?

Noticed that you ignored Bin Laden's comments about the Caliphate and Iraq being the central front. Guess he didn't have as big of a problem with Saddam Hussein as you said.
Click to expand...

And doing all of that, they can't defeat us. Can't come close to defeating us. So, why the hyperbolic over reaction to it.

Again, this part isn't about them. A cockroach is not something that should be imitated or admired. We can be better, more true to who we are, obey our laws, and still not lose to a cockroach.
 
Charles Martel said:
What a giant of an answer
Click to expand...
There is no need for anything of greater length. His comment was absurd.

and he is correct about liberals being a problem.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree.

But, ain't it great you can respond like that and not have an Atticus flying in to infrac you off the site?
Click to expand...
No, that's not something I would describe as great. And you don't have any clue what you are talking about as Atticus would not do anything about my calling a person out on their blatant BS.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom