Obama: Change We Can Believe In

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Gee, I guess you are right, the tens of thousands of them actively, full-time, fighting over there wouldn’t POSSIBLY be doing anything else against the US with their time if they did not have that to do.

You’re completely right, there’s no way the US military could possibly be tying up their time and resources. Silly of me not to see that.[/quote]

Maybe you do that.

But that is exactly what they wanted you to do.

What do you think OBL meant when he said that he would do to you what he did to the USSR?

Hey, he is dragging an overextended empire into a guerrilla war. That is not exactly a cunning plan, but it seems to work just fine.

102

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gee, I guess you are right, the tens of thousands of them actively, full-time, fighting over there wouldn’t POSSIBLY be doing anything else against the US with their time if they did not have that to do.

You’re completely right, there’s no way the US military could possibly be tying up their time and resources. Silly of me not to see that.

Maybe you do that.

But that is exactly what they wanted you to do.

What do you think OBL meant when he said that he would do to you what he did to the USSR?

Hey, he is dragging an overextended empire into a guerrilla war. That is not exactly a cunning plan, but it seems to work just fine.

[/quote]

You don’t seem to understand the scale of the United States.

Obama can, and has, blown more money in 4 weeks than the entire War on Terror has cost and America will survive it.

In contrast, we really don’t need a dirty nuke going off in an American city. And make no mistake, the murderous kill-the-infidel Islamic extremists would love to do it and would do it if they could. We have thus far prevented them.

103

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Let’s see:

Did Al-Qaeda need the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, to motivate them for 9/11?

So why do you think they would need those wars to have motivated them for further terror attacks on US soil?

So you are saying, having already shit in their skillet, what does it matter when you kill their wives and burn their houses down?

Or kill half of their extended families when blowing up a wedding party? Hmmmm, each wedding involves a clan or two, I wonder how big a family gets before it is a “clan” and I also wonder how people who live in “clans” react to such things.

Well, I have provided a possible explanation for why no terror attacks on US soil since 2001 – their efforts have been tied up elsewhere, tens of thousands of them being devoted to fighting the US Army outside the US.

You reject that explanation.

Is it unreasonable of me to ask you to provide your own?

What is it? That Al-Qaeda just lost interest?

But how would that square with your argument that we are inciting terrorism so badly by fighting them in the Middle East? If we are, then that should hardly have dampened Al-Qaeda’s interest.

And they had enough interest to do it pre-9/11. So what is your explanation?

As for the dead terrorists and those who allowed them in their immediate proximity and got killed: Boo-hoo[/quote]

That was not really my argument.

I am saying that you are starting to speculate exactly like those people whose mere speculating you reject as, you guessed it, speculations.

So, if you claim that it might have been worse, which is of course always true, what stops me from doing the same.

We do not know whether it helped or not, but we know that that kind of money buys lots of other stuff that is probably worth more than throwing a third world country against a wall.

104

So you don’t have any explanation you’d like to offer yourself for our success in keeping Al-Qaeda from conducting further terror attacks on US soil?

By the way, citing excellent US border security would not be a plausible answer.

105

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
By the way, sloth, what was the alternative to the Iraq War?

You are Bush in 2003, what do you do?

Not go to war with Iraq. [/quote]

Seems like a no-brainer.

106

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gee, I guess you are right, the tens of thousands of them actively, full-time, fighting over there wouldn’t POSSIBLY be doing anything else against the US with their time if they did not have that to do.

You’re completely right, there’s no way the US military could possibly be tying up their time and resources. Silly of me not to see that.

Analysts: Al-Qaeda back to pre-9/11 strength

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaeda has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-11-us-terror-threat_N.htm[/quote]

Nice link.

Thanks.

Here’s one from 2009.

From npr of all people.

Oh, since obama declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, and then got his ass handed to him (especially after your link was dated), it’s going to be hard to convince people that they are at “pre-911 strength.”

JeffR

107

Probably to a no-brainer, everything seems like a no-brainer.

108

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gee, I guess you are right, the tens of thousands of them actively, full-time, fighting over there wouldn’t POSSIBLY be doing anything else against the US with their time if they did not have that to do.

You’re completely right, there’s no way the US military could possibly be tying up their time and resources. Silly of me not to see that.

Maybe you do that.

But that is exactly what they wanted you to do.

What do you think OBL meant when he said that he would do to you what he did to the USSR?

Hey, he is dragging an overextended empire into a guerrilla war. That is not exactly a cunning plan, but it seems to work just fine.

You don’t seem to understand the scale of the United States.

Obama can, and has, blown more money in 4 weeks than the entire War on Terror has cost and America will survive it.

In contrast, we really don’t need a dirty nuke going off in an American city. And make no mistake, the murderous kill-the-infidel Islamic extremists would love to do it and would do it if they could. We have thus far prevented them.

[/quote]

But I do understand it.

So does he.

You are broke and fighting two wars. He does not want you to stop. The next attack will most likely come when you seriously want to leave the war, either one of them.

Every time you will try to get out it they will pull you back in, until you, finally, will have been bled dry.

And you know what?

If his great-grandson will live to see that it would still be soon enough for him.

109

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gee, I guess you are right, the tens of thousands of them actively, full-time, fighting over there wouldn’t POSSIBLY be doing anything else against the US with their time if they did not have that to do.

You’re completely right, there’s no way the US military could possibly be tying up their time and resources. Silly of me not to see that.

Maybe you do that.

But that is exactly what they wanted you to do.

What do you think OBL meant when he said that he would do to you what he did to the USSR?

Hey, he is dragging an overextended empire into a guerrilla war. That is not exactly a cunning plan, but it seems to work just fine.

You don’t seem to understand the scale of the United States.

Obama can, and has, blown more money in 4 weeks than the entire War on Terror has cost and America will survive it.

In contrast, we really don’t need a dirty nuke going off in an American city. And make no mistake, the murderous kill-the-infidel Islamic extremists would love to do it and would do it if they could. We have thus far prevented them.

[/quote]

But not because of the war in Iraq. Those folks we’ve prevented live elsewhere, so let’s go get them right?

110

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
But that is exactly what they wanted you to do.

What do you think OBL meant when he said that he would do to you what he did to the USSR?

Hey, he is dragging an overextended empire into a guerrilla war. That is not exactly a cunning plan, but it seems to work just fine.

You don’t seem to understand the scale of the United States.

Obama can, and has, blown more money in 4 weeks than the entire War on Terror has cost and America will survive it.

In contrast, we really don’t need a dirty nuke going off in an American city. And make no mistake, the murderous kill-the-infidel Islamic extremists would love to do it and would do it if they could. We have thus far prevented them.

But I do understand it.

So does he.

You are broke and fighting two wars. He does not want you to stop. The next attack will most likely come when you seriously want to leave the war, either one of them.

Every time you will try to get out the will pull you back in, until you, finally, will have been bled dry.

And you know what?

If his great-grandson will live to see that it would still be soon enough for him. [/quote]

And you would cheer, I would not be surprised. Ah, at least, sweet, sweet retribution for your country losing World Wars I and II, an apparent obsession of yours.

Problem is, you underestimate us.

111

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So you don’t have any explanation you’d like to offer yourself for our success in keeping Al-Qaeda from conducting further terror attacks on US soil?

By the way, citing excellent US border security would not be a plausible answer.[/quote]

My last post offers one, but please use the quote button, I am getting a headache.

112

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
By the way, sloth, what was the alternative to the Iraq War?

You are Bush in 2003, what do you do?

Not go to war with Iraq.

Seems like a no-brainer.[/quote]

lumpy,

No wonder you don’t get it.

You might want to change your screen name again. This one’s all used up.

JeffR

113

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I stayed home because the GoP has become the biggest threat to conservatism. So, I really didn’t have much choice. In fact, I now cringe every time someone uses ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ interchangeabley. The Democrats are who they are, a foe of conservatism. You know where they stand.

But, the Republicans are associated with Conservatism in most people’s mind. And boy, did they ever destroyed the hell out of that brand. Republicans got Obama into the White House, not me. You know who should despise Bush and the GoP the most? Democrats? Nope. Conservatives.

Sloth,

That’s fine if it happened in a vacuum. Or, if the alternative wasn’t so incredibly toxic and dangerous.

What you, and others like you, have done is handed the election to a socialist.

That, in my humble opinion, is far more dangerous than a guy like McCain.

JeffR

Nope. Those that kept up their support for Bush, and the Iraq war, handed this election over. And, as a nice little gift wrapped present for the Dems, the GoP’s performance now has Conservatism associated with big government spending, democracy crusades, overextended military, paying mere lip service to immigration issues, etc.

And, I think your focus on us, only proves my point. The GoP can always rely on it’s “Well, still, we’re not as bad as the other guys…” No, they’re not. They’re worse. After all, they’re the ones who can (and may already have} forever destroy conservatism as a responsible and prudent force for governance. Save conservatism, if it can be saved. Don’t vote GoP.

By the way, sloth, what was the alternative to the Iraq War?

You are Bush in 2003, what do you do?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

But put up a hell of a PR show that looks like I am doing something.

And of course let Saddam phone me weekly, to report whether he has been a good boy or not, moving the country in the direction I deem desirable.

That’s incredibly lazy. Honestly, sloth, in your heart of hearts (especially given the undeclared weaponry/ties to terrorism that the U.S. discovered/documented) do you really believe that, once we made it clear he could violate the cease fire with impunity, he wouldn’t have burned our ass in some way?

Maybe even in a catastrophic way?

What’s the cost of a chemical/biological/nuclear attack even through proxy?

What would the cost have been in Iraqi life had the U.S. done nothing?

How many million of his own did he kill since coming to power?

I just sincerely believe that the cost, while awful in both U.S. and Iraqi lives, would have been less than doing nothing.

JeffR

P.S. You have noticed the major breakthroughs in that democracy, right?

P.P.S. Pretty unique to that area, wouldn’t you say?
[/quote]

Oh, wonderful. We kept a hypothetical, maybe, could’ve, from happening.

Look at the election results here. The American people aren’t interested in spending fortunes, and the lives of their sons and daughters, to bring democracy to the mid-east. Nor, are americans buying the hypothetical, maybes, mights, could happens, as a justification for war nearly as much as they were.

114

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So you don’t have any explanation you’d like to offer yourself for our success in keeping Al-Qaeda from conducting further terror attacks on US soil?

By the way, citing excellent US border security would not be a plausible answer.

My last post offers one, but please use the quote button, I am getting a headache.[/quote]

Actually, you are the one who needs to use the quote button. Your alleged already-made alternate explanation (besides the possible explanation I offered) for what I asked is nowhere to be found.

115

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So you don’t have any explanation you’d like to offer yourself for our success in keeping Al-Qaeda from conducting further terror attacks on US soil?

By the way, citing excellent US border security would not be a plausible answer.[/quote]

Why would Iraq have anything to do with it? Meanwhile terrorism increased multiples since 9/11, so what’s your point?

116

Try to keep up, 100meters.

117

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So, do you think that while the US military, as large as it is, was greatly extended or even overextended by the fight in Iraq, in contrast Al-Qaeda’s resources were so mighty that it was a drop in the bucket to them, and thus stupid or mistaken to argue that fighting on that front reduced, probably greatly reduced, their ability to wage their war on America in other ways?

How do you overextend an organization that isn’t going to attack the US as a combined army, using expensive military equipment? Do they have entitlements to pay for? Banks to rescue? Deficits to explain away to constituents? A populace with the option of voting them out of office?

When they’e ready, maybe a dozen guys already here, or waiting to slip over our border, will carry out an attack that doesn’t require costly precision guided missiles and armored vehicles.

Hell, they don’t even have to attack us here anymore! That’s their victory in all of this. They can damage us politically, fiscally, and physically without having to activate one single cell in the US. How many lives, and how much have they cost us in Iraq? In chasing them back and forth over the Pahk-ee-stahn border? And again, a deeply divided country with one party already bloodied to hell and back.

Don’t think this is the case? Look at what happened to not Bush, but the Republicans. Smacked down. Hard.

Oh, so al qaeda won?

Therefore, obama?

You might want to think this through. Especially in the context of you not voting for McCain in “protest.”

Bush could have managed his party much better and made 2006 and 2008 much less painful for the Republicans.

[/quote]

Yes, Al Qaeda won. What’s the issue? Did they get voted out of office or something because of their handling of the war?

118

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
But that is exactly what they wanted you to do.

What do you think OBL meant when he said that he would do to you what he did to the USSR?

Hey, he is dragging an overextended empire into a guerrilla war. That is not exactly a cunning plan, but it seems to work just fine.

You don’t seem to understand the scale of the United States.

Obama can, and has, blown more money in 4 weeks than the entire War on Terror has cost and America will survive it.

In contrast, we really don’t need a dirty nuke going off in an American city. And make no mistake, the murderous kill-the-infidel Islamic extremists would love to do it and would do it if they could. We have thus far prevented them.

But I do understand it.

So does he.

You are broke and fighting two wars. He does not want you to stop. The next attack will most likely come when you seriously want to leave the war, either one of them.

Every time you will try to get out the will pull you back in, until you, finally, will have been bled dry.

And you know what?

If his great-grandson will live to see that it would still be soon enough for him.

And you would cheer, I would not be surprised. Ah, at least, sweet, sweet retribution for your country losing World Wars I and II, an apparent obsession of yours.

Problem is, you underestimate us.[/quote]

Unless the money fairy has not blessed you with unlimited resources I do not think that I do.

You are a little Obama-esque in that you think that all problems can be solved by throwing money at them, which incidentally grows on trees.

They need fresh bodies and a AK47.

You need billion, after billion, after billion…

And that by the way was me counting you spend them in real time.

119

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So you don’t have any explanation you’d like to offer yourself for our success in keeping Al-Qaeda from conducting further terror attacks on US soil?

By the way, citing excellent US border security would not be a plausible answer.

My last post offers one, but please use the quote button, I am getting a headache.

Actually, you are the one who needs to use the quote button. Your alleged already-made alternate explanation (besides the possible explanation I offered) for what I asked is nowhere to be found.[/quote]

Sure it is.

They do not need to.

If you want to pull out, they probably will to pull you back in.

Until then, it is just a waste of resources.

120

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I stayed home because the GoP has become the biggest threat to conservatism. So, I really didn’t have much choice. In fact, I now cringe every time someone uses ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ interchangeabley. The Democrats are who they are, a foe of conservatism. You know where they stand.

But, the Republicans are associated with Conservatism in most people’s mind. And boy, did they ever destroyed the hell out of that brand. Republicans got Obama into the White House, not me. You know who should despise Bush and the GoP the most? Democrats? Nope. Conservatives.

Sloth,

That’s fine if it happened in a vacuum. Or, if the alternative wasn’t so incredibly toxic and dangerous.

What you, and others like you, have done is handed the election to a socialist.

That, in my humble opinion, is far more dangerous than a guy like McCain.

JeffR

Nope. Those that kept up their support for Bush, and the Iraq war, handed this election over. And, as a nice little gift wrapped present for the Dems, the GoP’s performance now has Conservatism associated with big government spending, democracy crusades, overextended military, paying mere lip service to immigration issues, etc.

And, I think your focus on us, only proves my point. The GoP can always rely on it’s “Well, still, we’re not as bad as the other guys…” No, they’re not. They’re worse. After all, they’re the ones who can (and may already have} forever destroy conservatism as a responsible and prudent force for governance. Save conservatism, if it can be saved. Don’t vote GoP.

By the way, sloth, what was the alternative to the Iraq War?

You are Bush in 2003, what do you do?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

But put up a hell of a PR show that looks like I am doing something.

And of course let Saddam phone me weekly, to report whether he has been a good boy or not, moving the country in the direction I deem desirable.

That’s incredibly lazy. Honestly, sloth, in your heart of hearts (especially given the undeclared weaponry/ties to terrorism that the U.S. discovered/documented) do you really believe that, once we made it clear he could violate the cease fire with impunity, he wouldn’t have burned our ass in some way?

Maybe even in a catastrophic way?

What’s the cost of a chemical/biological/nuclear attack even through proxy?

What would the cost have been in Iraqi life had the U.S. done nothing?

How many million of his own did he kill since coming to power?

I just sincerely believe that the cost, while awful in both U.S. and Iraqi lives, would have been less than doing nothing.

JeffR

P.S. You have noticed the major breakthroughs in that democracy, right?

P.P.S. Pretty unique to that area, wouldn’t you say?

Oh, wonderful. We kept a hypothetical, maybe, could’ve, from happening.

Look at the election results here. The American people aren’t interested in spending fortunes, and the lives of their sons and daughters, to bring democracy to the mid-east. Nor, are americans buying the hypothetical, maybes, mights, could happens, as a justification for war nearly as much as they were. [/quote]

The American people are having trouble understanding due to a leadership vacuum.

You put me in charge of P.R., and I’m out there every day fighting the War in the Press.

That Bush didn’t, or couldn’t, was his MAJOR flaw.

By the way, everything in life is based on probabilities or hypotheticals. Every conscious decision is based on your best assessment.

Bush saw a guy who used chemical weapons, broke the cease fire, cuddled up with bad guys, was in a country that, if changed, would bottle up iran, had a history of attacking our allies and our Presidents, violated u.n. mandates left and right, lied about his weapons, and decided to finish the job.

Now, you tell me, what was more likely: A. saddam would suddenly decide to cease those activities. B. saddam would feel emboldened by our vacillation.

Again, put me in front of the press press day after freakin’ day, and I guarantee Americans would get it.

Maybe I’ll run.

JeffR