• 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

ScummyD said:
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.
Click to expand...

What a load of BS.

Perhaps not you, but you are wrong here........I do know what I'm talking about. I would have been gone, especially if I had labeled his or his fellow Mod's nonsense a bunch of BS.

But this ain't about unqualified Moderating or childish behavior, I vote we move on.
 
Boo Radley said:
A cockroach is not something that should be imitated or admired.
Click to expand...

But..rather than watch them crawl all over your home, why not at least spray. Remember, it was your opinion we release many of these cockroaches after capture, remember?
 
Charles Martel said:
What a load of BS.

Perhaps not you, but you are wrong here........I do know what I'm talking about. I would have been gone, especially if I had labeled his or his fellow Mod's nonsense a bunch of BS.

But this ain't about unqualified Moderating or childish behavior, I vote we move on.
Click to expand...

Of course you vote we move on because your assertion is baseless and a stupid thing to say.
 
Charles Martel said:
But..rather than watch them crawl all over your home, why not at least spray. Remember, it was your opinion we release many of these cockroaches after capture, remember?
Click to expand...

Never said otherwise. You're not really getting what's being said. And no, I'm for releasing those who are not cockroaches, but innocent people. We can't know who they are for the most part without following some rule of law. You seem to making more than a few inaccurate assumptions.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
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!
Click to expand...

Like Clinton did... ignoring the advice of his generals to smack a Sudanese pill factory and Afghani hillside! I did not mention his using these strikes, opposed by his generals, to cover for the creaking of b-Lewinsky by the way.

Or like Bush... who got Democrats support to use force.

I think Obi is probably dying for a smoke... or three... the world is more complicated than he thought when he was standing between those styrofoam Greek columns... thinking... All Hail Caesar... This is the time you have been waiting for...All Hail Caesar!

[ame="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7bn2b_evan-thomas_news"]Dailymotion - Evan Thomas - a News & Politics video@@AMEPARAM@@http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x7bn2b@@AMEPARAM@@x7bn2b[/ame]

.
 
Last edited:
ScummyD said:
Of course you vote we move on because your assertion is baseless and a stupid thing to say.
Click to expand...

Actually, a simple and unrefined "what a load of BS" would be an example of baseless and stupid. What I said was reality, you don't agree, we move on.
 
Charles Martel said:
Actually, a simple and unrefined "what a load of BS" would be an example of baseless and stupid. What I said was reality, you don't agree, we move on.
Click to expand...
Next time just refrain from such asinine comments that have nothing at all to do with this forum and are the product of your paranoid obsessions about some modeleone on another site. Save everybody the exercise in idiocy.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're not really getting what's being said.
Click to expand...

But I'm certain who it's said by though and JD, I've heard and read it all before, I get exactly what is being said, I'm simply proving it wrong.

And no, I'm for releasing those who are not cockroaches, but innocent people.
Click to expand...

Long as the cockroach isn't armed, you release him. And even if held, you are for forwarding Constitutional rights even to those captured abroad.

We can't know who they are for the most part without following some rule of law.
Click to expand...

1) "some" rule of law or written rule of law?
2)Obama continues to imprison men abroad even expanding the Bagram prison, is he suddenly able to know who they are.
3)There is no history of our Constitutional rights being afforded enemy combatants captured abroad. Ever. During WW2, we brought tens of thousands of prisoners from all enemy nations here to the continental US. Never were they afforded our laws.

You seem to making more than a few inaccurate assumptions.
Click to expand...

For example?
 
j-mac said:
YouTube- What the Democrats Said About Saddam Hussein - Part 1

Just a taste, but you know full well that in 1998, and forward that demo's themselves were calling for the removal of Saddam.


j-mac
Click to expand...


I know this thread has grown but I couldn't not answer. Ever heard of Operation Desert Fox? Nobody denies it happened okay. But where is the evidence of the "demo" calling for an invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam? "Removal of Saddam" can take many forms, mostly they were hoping that the Iraqis would rise up and then the US would provide support. Only Bush decided to invade and takeover the country.

This is a prime example of how the extreme of both sides manipulate information to spin things their way. One of the quote in the video was actually given by Bill Clinton when he announced the bombing of Iraq in 1998. Maybe he supports the invasion itself in 2003, but when he made that speech, it was in support of the bombing. Even though he saw Saddam as a threat he chose a less extreme means of neutralizing that than the one Bush took. You may think less of Clinton for that, but to use that quote to imply he supports the 2003 invasion when he said that is simply dishonest.
 
MSgt said:
I don't understand the absolute ignorance into these matters people have. Perhaps it's my military background that make these things a focus while others were concerned with Monika Lewinsky/Bill Clinton escapades.

It was later into the Clinton administration that President Clinton was trying to inform people about a man named Osama Bin Laden. Also, throughout his presidency, President Clinton had bombed Iraq 4 separate times. The last time even involved the high-and-mighty French in 1999. However, General Zinni reports in his book that in 1999 he was given targets that did not seem appropriate to WMD locations. When he asked about these targets he was told that "these are possible WMD threats."

When he Osama Bin Laden released his justification letter after 9/11 to the American people, he stated that the "starving children of Iraq" and "western presence in the holy land" was an offense to Islam by the U.S. Was he right? I would say that it was also an offense to what we are supposed to stand for.

By 2002, the White House, the Pentagon, and the military was fed up with our 11 year UN mission to contain a dictator that should be rotting under the ground. In 2003, we launched the mission to rid ourselves of this prick once and for all.
Click to expand...

Dude, to steal a quote from scummy: Read for comprehension.


Taking out Hussein was not "essential" to the poorly named War on Terror. That was all BS for the morons who can't understand things beyond their DirectTV.

Why not other "horrendous and more dangerous dictators?" Because other dictators weren't our twelve year mission coming to an end. What other dictator belonged to us for twelve years? What other dictator brutalized under our watchful eye for a despicable UN "food-for-oil" exchange? What other dictator invaded two neighboring countries and was a constant thorn in a region where the entire world receives oil? What other dictator was used as a justification for 9/11?

As a bonus, we get to seed a "democracy" in the heart land of terrorist hell. Removing him (12 years late) in exchange for another dictator was not an option.
Click to expand...


Blah, blah, blah. Is this an illogical game you like to play? Just put sentences together and hope they make sense? So what if he's "our twelve year mission coming to an end" or "belonged to us for twelve years" (whatever the hell that means)? So we can't keep someone who "brutalized under our watchful eye for a despicable UN "food-for-oil" exchange" but we should keep someone who keep his people starved and incarcerated "under our watchful eyes", or who is involved in systemic killing "under our watchful eyes"? Or is it the "oil for food" programme that 's the problem? So one can be a dictator, but one can't be a dictator that corrupt a UN programme? Try making sense of that. And another country that "invaded two neighboring countries and was a constant thorn in a region where the entire world receives oil" would be Israel. Are you suggesting Israel should be invaded too? Which of the terrorists involved used Iraq as a justification for 9/11? And even if it was, so what? That has got to be the most irrelevant reason I've ever heard, ever. So many terrorists use Palestine and its support of Israel as a justification for attacking the US. Are you suggesting the US should invade either country?


And that project of seeding "democracy" in the region is going well isn't it? If only there weren't corrupt government, and bombs going off every few days, everything will be so perfect, no?
 
ScummyD said:
Your comparison is silly to say the very least. I know liberals love to trot out McCVeigh and Christians anytime a discussion on radical Islam happens, but the level and scale of violence on the part of Muslims bears no relation to that of Christians. Diverting attention away from Muslims to Christians is silly and unreasonable. If you want to go tit for tat, you list violence committed in the name of Christianity in recent decades and I list that committed by Muslims, then I will simply blow you out of the water ten times over. It's not even comparable. No where even remotely close.
Click to expand...

:roll: So what if it is true that "violence committed in the name of Christianity in recent decades " is less than "that committed by Muslims"? Does that mean that Islam is a more violent religion than Christianity? If it is so, you should stop eating ice-cream, because it makes you want to kill people.
 
Who's hitting the streets and burning flags, Christians or Muslims?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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...

Because if removing "a gangster strongman from a position of supreme leadership of a country with significant military potential" is all the justification you need to invade a country, then probably half the countries in the world (but particularly the resource rich ones) are vulnerable to invasions by superpowers like the US or China. What if China decides to invade Venezuela because she "thinks" that Chavez "a gangster strongman from a position of supreme leadership of a country with significant military potential"?
 
Blackdog said:
That equating Christian violence to Muslim violence is ridicules. :roll:
Click to expand...

As much as the logical fallacy seemingly perpetuated by the anti-Muslims comments here so far (American's being case in point).
 
Last edited:
ScummyD said:
Next time just refrain from such asinine comments that have nothing at all to do with this forum and are the product of your paranoid obsessions about some modeleone on another site. Save everybody the exercise in idiocy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, asinine comments a forum given right upon which you excel at, you ain't got that market cornered, I'm permitted a few. We move on, Scummy.:beatdeadhorse
 
Moving on into the larger picture from the thread topic, Obama is looking to this solution of military interference into Yemen...that I support by the way and has Congressional approval. But that locks him in does it not? Can he wage war with the military and trial those accused after captured abroad in the US civilian courts? Can he expand into Yemen after Hellfire missile parties in Pakistan while surging in Afghanistan and still not be calling this a war on terror? How do you reconcile having it both ways?

Firstly, do we afford prisoners in any war who are captured abroad access to our courts? Yes..or no?

Secondly, look to Afghanistan where Obama has himself quite a thriving prison, the Bagram prison growing as we speak, ongoing operations from Obama's 50,000 man surge surely to swell the ranks, what are we doing with those men? Why aren't Afghans permitted access to our courts when captured abroad by our military. And are all of these men Afghans or do they come from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, or in this latest bombing in Afghanistan against the CIA, a Jordanian.

Let's take this Jordanian.....contemplate his equipment failing much like Alhaji's on that airliner? What is reported thus far is that this man was a double agent. A doctor fro Jordan who had gained the trust of American CIA agents, was permitted access to the compound.

Imagine now in US hands.....an agent with who knows how much information that would perhaps save American soldier's lives during this Obama/US surge. do we transport him to a US courtroom and give him a lawyer? Pretend he has Constitutional rights, bring him to NY?

Or...do we take him to Bagram for intial interrogation.....then transport his happy self to Gitmo...specific behavior modifications will be applied and we find out what the good doctor knows?

Is this in fact a war or a crime fighting endeavor? Or both?
 
nonpareil said:
As much as the logical fallacy seemingly perpetuated by the anti-Muslims comments here so far (American's being case in point).
Click to expand...

That is because the vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Muslims.

No fallacy in that.

I think Americans are more likely to not be PC and tell the truth of the situation.

Your reasoning is flawed and no excuse for trying to equate Christians with terrorist attacks.
 
Charles Martel said:
I'm simply proving it wrong.
Click to expand...

I really don't see how.


Long as the cockroach isn't armed, you release him. And even if held, you are for forwarding Constitutional rights even to those captured abroad.
Click to expand...

I'm for rule of law. Our actions are subject to rule of law and not just rights.


1) "some" rule of law or written rule of law?
2)Obama continues to imprison men abroad even expanding the Bagram prison, is he suddenly able to know who they are.
3)There is no history of our Constitutional rights being afforded enemy combatants captured abroad. Ever. During WW2, we brought tens of thousands of prisoners from all enemy nations here to the continental US. Never were they afforded our laws.
Click to expand...

There's no history of a never ending war either. We're not at war with any country at the moment. Instead, we're fighting individuals, groups, and not nations. Not something that best fits traditional warfare. And something open to the possibility of error to an even greater degree than wars of the past have presented.



For example?
Click to expand...

My position on the surge in Afghanistan for one. Nor do I wish to have terrorist running all over my home or nation as you suggest (a foolish suggestion btw). Nor have I ever suggested anywhere that guilty people be released. And you can't call someone guilty if you can't prove their guilt.

So, yes, you have a few things wrong, a few inaccurate assumptions on your part.
 
Blackdog said:
That is because the vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Muslims.

No fallacy in that.

I think Americans are more likely to not be PC and tell the truth of the situation.

Your reasoning is flawed and no excuse for trying to equate Christians with terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who does not understand either logic or statistics.

First, how do you calculate "the vast majority of attacks", define it properly and show me where you found your number or how you came to that conclusion.

Secondly, correlation is not causation. Even if (a big if) it is true that "the vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Muslims", it doesn't necessarily follow that the religion Islam is the cause. Have you ever looked at other variables for the violence: poverty, conflict, lack of job (life) opportunities, social life etc? The North Irish catholics killed plenty of people, why do people not jump to the conclusion that Christianity (or the Irish gene) causes violence? Perhaps because most Christian (or Irish) will never commit violence in their life? Out of 1 billion or so Muslim, most will never commit violence in their life, why is that if Islam is the religion of violence? So the flawed reasonings in on the part of those who see the prominence of Muslim terrorists in the media right now (or "in recent decades"), and jump from there to flimsy conclusions Islam as a religion. That is lazy reasonings and faulty logic.
 
Boo Radley said:
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?
Click to expand...

Neutered cats?

Boo Radley said:
As I said in the first answer, why not invade all such countries?
Click to expand...

Because we don't want to.

Just because we exercise choice and discretion in the matter does not imply that such acts are unjustified when we do choose to do them.
 
nonpareil said:
Spoken like someone who does not understand either logic or statistics.
Click to expand...

Ahhh a personal attack. Not a good start.

nonpareil said:
First, how do you calculate "the vast majority of attacks", define it properly and show me where you found your number or how you came to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I guess the news every day is not enough? You need statistics? And you say I don't understand?

nonpareil said:
Secondly, correlation is not causation. Even if (a big if) it is true that "the vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Muslims", it doesn't necessarily follow that the religion Islam is the cause.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said the religion is the cause? I never said any such thing.

So your comment above has nothing to do with what I said or it's meaning.

Islam, is not the only cause, but it does contribute. Denying this is just ignorance.

nonpareil said:
Have you ever looked at other variables for the violence: poverty, conflict, lack of job (life) opportunities, social life etc? The North Irish catholics killed plenty of people, why do people not jump to the conclusion that Christianity (or the Irish gene) causes violence? Perhaps because most Christian (or Irish) will never commit violence in their life? Out of 1 billion or so Muslim, most will never commit violence in their life, why is that if Islam is the religion of violence? So the flawed reasonings in on the part of those who see the prominence of Muslim terrorists in the media right now (or "in recent decades"), and jump from there to flimsy conclusions Islam as a religion. That is lazy reasonings and faulty logic.
Click to expand...

Again this has nothing at all to do with my point.

It does not change the FACT that terrorism is perpetuated by Muslims in the majority of cases. It does not change the fact that trying to compare Christianity to Islam (in the context of your initial statement) is in itself ridicules.

Now if you are finished with your personal attacks and fallacy filled rant?
 
Last edited:
nonpareil said:
Because if removing "a gangster strongman from a position of supreme leadership of a country with significant military potential" is all the justification you need to invade a country, then probably half the countries in the world (but particularly the resource rich ones) are vulnerable to invasions by superpowers like the US or China.
Click to expand...

No.

China, a country run by strongmen and gangsters (what are euphemistically called "socialists"), has no moral authority to do any such displacement.

Also, do you believe those countries aren't vulnerable to a morally justifiable invasion by the US? Because by my standards, they are, the only issue is the answer to the "what's in it for us?" and "how much will this cost us?" questions that we need to answer for ourselves before we take action. That's it.

We get to choose our own battles.

In some ways the US is still a free country.

Dig?


Boo Radley said:
What if China decides to invade Venezuela because she "thinks" that Chavez "a gangster strongman from a position of supreme leadership of a country with significant military potential"?
Click to expand...

Then China, being a strongman country itself, is wrong. Also, as the big dog on the planet, the US gets to decide if we should allow that, in our own assessment of our own interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom