• 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

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.

Imagine that. We now have a CIC that actually informs himself of all the options and ramifications of an air strike before committing. I knew he was too smart!
 
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.
Those "3am" ads the Hillary campaign ran were so spot on.
 
If he's considering a "retaliatory" military strike against al Qaeda for what the bomber did . . .

Then what the hell is the bomber doing sitting in the criminal justice system?

Is it a criminal matter, or is it war?
 
Will we here about the civilian casualties as we did with Bush?
 
Those "3am" ads the Hillary campaign ran were so spot on.

So...You're the president of the United States. A failed terrorist attempt just occurred. The government of the country in which the terrorist comes from is willing to work with you...It's 3 am. What do you do?
 
So...You're the president of the United States. A failed terrorist attempt just occurred. The government of the country in which the terrorist comes from is willing to work with you...It's 3 am. What do you do?

Nuke Amsterdam of course. :doh


Edit: and you get thanked for impeccable timing
 
Last edited:
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.

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.....:(
 
If he's considering a "retaliatory" military strike against al Qaeda for what the bomber did . . .

Then what the hell is the bomber doing sitting in the criminal justice system?

Is it a criminal matter, or is it war?
same reason richard reed was in the criminal system.
 
So...You're the president of the United States. A failed terrorist attempt just occurred. The government of the country in which the terrorist comes from is willing to work with you...It's 3 am. What do you do?
go back to sleep.
 
That's just it. Fighting Tarzan by hitting the girl scout at the door doesn't make much sense. Those supporting going into Iraq never got that. Unless a country is behind the attack, it makes no sense to bomb or invade that country.
 
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.....:(

Where to even begin with this putrid pile of words...

First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!"

Second, the fact of where the 9/11 terrorists came from had anything to do with Iraq. After 9/11 the Bush Administrations statement was that they were going to aggressively persue states who sponsored terrorist action. Not specifically the terrorist action on 9/11, not specifically terrorist action by al-qaeda. Iraq qualified for this as there was history, both past and present, of Sadam financing and supporting terror not to mention the more spurious notions that there may've been contact with him and Al-Qaeda as well.

Third, just because the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi of birth doesn't mean we should've gone after Saudi Arabia. If 5 american born individuals immigrated into China, trained by the Chinese military, financed by the Chinese government, and then came back into America and set off some bombs should we go to war with the United States of America because those 5 happened to ethnically be American, or should we focus on the government that funded and supported them. Which, I should point out, IS what we did as the direct retaliation to 9/11. The DIRECT, immediete response was Afghanistan, not Iraq, whose government did directly have influence into the attack at hand. Iraq was less a direct sult of 9/11 and more a derivative of the War on Terror mantra and philosophy that grew out of that attack. So no, attacking Saudi Arabia simply because thats where these guys were born would've been asinine.

Fourth, the Saudi's are not simply Bush Clan Friends, they're American allies. We have very strong diplmoatic ties with Saudi Arabia and the government there is an ally in the War on Terror. While there are definitely portions of the Saudi population that are problematic the government, by and large, are far more diplomatically alligned to us and useful than say those of iraq, afghanistan, iran, etc. Not only would it have made no sense to retaliate against them simply because the people that did it were from there, but it would've made no sense from a political, diplomatic, and strategic angle as well.

So....was there a point to your post other than to try and bash Bush, rant about the war, and make incredibly inaccurate and factually flimsy comments? Cause I'm not seeing one.
 
same reason richard reed was in the criminal system.
You DO recognize that this response doesnt actually answer the question, right?
 
If he's considering a "retaliatory" military strike against al Qaeda for what the bomber did . . .

Then what the hell is the bomber doing sitting in the criminal justice system?

Is it a criminal matter, or is it war?

You forget:

Liberals are consistent in their positions only in that they will take whatever position that will allow them to gain/retain as much political power as possible.

So, when that position is ‘war’, they will act as if it is an act of war; when that position is ‘crime’, they will act as if it is a criminal act.
 
If he's considering a "retaliatory" military strike against al Qaeda for what the bomber did . . .

Then what the hell is the bomber doing sitting in the criminal justice system?

Is it a criminal matter, or is it war?

outstanding question

obama is utterly incoherent
 
Where to even begin with this putrid pile of words...

First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!"

Second, the fact of where the 9/11 terrorists came from had anything to do with Iraq. After 9/11 the Bush Administrations statement was that they were going to aggressively persue states who sponsored terrorist action. Not specifically the terrorist action on 9/11, not specifically terrorist action by al-qaeda. Iraq qualified for this as there was history, both past and present, of Sadam financing and supporting terror not to mention the more spurious notions that there may've been contact with him and Al-Qaeda as well.

Third, just because the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi of birth doesn't mean we should've gone after Saudi Arabia. If 5 american born individuals immigrated into China, trained by the Chinese military, financed by the Chinese government, and then came back into America and set off some bombs should we go to war with the United States of America because those 5 happened to ethnically be American, or should we focus on the government that funded and supported them. Which, I should point out, IS what we did as the direct retaliation to 9/11. The DIRECT, immediete response was Afghanistan, not Iraq, whose government did directly have influence into the attack at hand. Iraq was less a direct sult of 9/11 and more a derivative of the War on Terror mantra and philosophy that grew out of that attack. So no, attacking Saudi Arabia simply because thats where these guys were born would've been asinine.

Fourth, the Saudi's are not simply Bush Clan Friends, they're American allies. We have very strong diplmoatic ties with Saudi Arabia and the government there is an ally in the War on Terror. While there are definitely portions of the Saudi population that are problematic the government, by and large, are far more diplomatically alligned to us and useful than say those of iraq, afghanistan, iran, etc. Not only would it have made no sense to retaliate against them simply because the people that did it were from there, but it would've made no sense from a political, diplomatic, and strategic angle as well.

So....was there a point to your post other than to try and bash Bush, rant about the war, and make incredibly inaccurate and factually flimsy comments? Cause I'm not seeing one.

any war on terror that failed to address saddam hussein would hardly be a war on terror

the baathist butcher was one of the world leaders in international terrorism for a quarter century
 
Where to even begin with this putrid pile of words...

First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!"

Second, the fact of where the 9/11 terrorists came from had anything to do with Iraq. After 9/11 the Bush Administrations statement was that they were going to aggressively persue states who sponsored terrorist action. Not specifically the terrorist action on 9/11, not specifically terrorist action by al-qaeda. Iraq qualified for this as there was history, both past and present, of Sadam financing and supporting terror not to mention the more spurious notions that there may've been contact with him and Al-Qaeda as well.

Third, just because the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi of birth doesn't mean we should've gone after Saudi Arabia. If 5 american born individuals immigrated into China, trained by the Chinese military, financed by the Chinese government, and then came back into America and set off some bombs should we go to war with the United States of America because those 5 happened to ethnically be American, or should we focus on the government that funded and supported them. Which, I should point out, IS what we did as the direct retaliation to 9/11. The DIRECT, immediete response was Afghanistan, not Iraq, whose government did directly have influence into the attack at hand. Iraq was less a direct sult of 9/11 and more a derivative of the War on Terror mantra and philosophy that grew out of that attack. So no, attacking Saudi Arabia simply because thats where these guys were born would've been asinine.

Fourth, the Saudi's are not simply Bush Clan Friends, they're American allies. We have very strong diplmoatic ties with Saudi Arabia and the government there is an ally in the War on Terror. While there are definitely portions of the Saudi population that are problematic the government, by and large, are far more diplomatically alligned to us and useful than say those of iraq, afghanistan, iran, etc. Not only would it have made no sense to retaliate against them simply because the people that did it were from there, but it would've made no sense from a political, diplomatic, and strategic angle as well.

So....was there a point to your post other than to try and bash Bush, rant about the war, and make incredibly inaccurate and factually flimsy comments? Cause I'm not seeing one.

Some of this post can be used to rebuke a couple of the earlier posts regarding slow Obama.

Remember folks, Bush's decisions did not come immediately.
 
Those "3am" ads the Hillary campaign ran were so spot on.

I think Hillary got it wrong.

I think Obama would tell Michelle to answer the phone and tell her to tell them to hold on and then go back to sleep.
 
obtuse obama is characteristically all over the place on this one

just like iran, just like afghanistan, just like gitmo, just like china---utterly incoherent

his arguments, his positions, DO NOT HANG TOGETHER

he started on this story by having his homeland secty say all was "clockwork"

then, he's all about "isolated extremists" and "criminal suspects"

and he's gonna conduct a "review"

next, he goes, "systemic failure," "totally unacceptable," "catastrophic breach"

now, he's suddenly suggesting military strikes vs yemen

unbelievable

how could anyone stand up for this guy?
 
You do know that in the decision-making process there are sometimes several options that they try to weigh in on, right?
 
if you're president, your argument needs to be credible

it therefore must be consistent, coherent, cogent

it must inspire confidence

hello

how could anyone stick up for this guy?

he's not gonna be the same man tomorrow
 
Some of this post can be used to rebuke a couple of the earlier posts regarding slow Obama.

Remember folks, Bush's decisions did not come immediately.
Any that made the news?
 
Back
Top Bottom