Our President

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Rain,

Unsurprisingly, I’ve already answered quite clearly that deterance Post-9/11 was in and of itself plenty of reason to invade when we did.

See Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and maybe Syria.

JeffR

It’s alright. Most of us know you won’t be able to say lookat that exact thing this is why we are better.

The good Prof. is doing his best to divert the fact he has yet to answer any question posed to him. He’ll just keep asking that question back from his ‘tower’ and to him, this proves he and he alone is right.

Jeff, RJ–you answered his question well. I wish you would get the respect in turn that you showed to him.

He still hasn’t explained his value system to me where the flipping of the bird is worse than perjury and adultry in the oval office. He’ll pick and choose and then dare you to answer his BS.

That tactic is as old as Al’s shit.[/quote]

Now that you mention it…

142

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
I would and will argue that the middle east in it’s current state of moving toward democracy flux makes and will make the US safer.

How does it currently make the US safer? Do you believe that “democracy” in Iraq will get rid of all terrorists? Will democracy in Iraq root out Osama? Any speculation about the future is simply that. I am asking about right now.

[/quote]

has there been another attack on US soil–anywhere in the world?
They’re too busy fighting for survival in Afganistan and Iraq to be planning new strikes.
And why do you put democracy in quotes? More people turned out to vote in Iraq than did here.
And Osama’s under about 500 metric tons of MOAB induced rubble.

143

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Think about this, to my knowledge, this is not the United States of Iraq. How did we suddenly get turned towards providing for the posterity of another country over our own? [/quote]

It’s what we do.
We rebuilt Japan and Germany (as well as most of Europe).
We have troops in Germany, South Korea, and Japan, to help defend (or defend) them.

That was really kind of a silly question/point, Prof.

144

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
has there been another attack on US soil–anywhere in the world?
They’re too busy fighting for survival in Afganistan and Iraq to be planning new strikes.

[/quote]

Is that true? According to this:

They have increased across the world. Where are you getting the info from that terrorist attacks have all decreased because they are all being killed?

145

Pro X,

“How does it currently make the US safer?”

You keep getting answers and you keep ignoring them.

“Do you believe that “democracy” in Iraq will get rid of all terrorists?”

Nope - nor was that mission. But it was a desire to take the fight into the Middle East and fight a traditional military battle instead of asymmetrical warfare in our own cities. Our overwhelming advantage is in traditional war, so it is in our best interests to determine the battlefield rather than have it determined for us.

No one is suggesting that ‘all’ terrorists will be eliminated via the war in Iraq. After all, victory in WWII didn’t get rid of all the Nazis, as we saw on demonstration on VE Day in Berlin. But the idea is to project power and break the back on territory that is right next door to the swamps that produce them.

There is always whining that ‘it’ll produce more terrorists’. Maybe, maybe not - what is the point? There were more than enough terrorists to go around when we were sitting idle. I’ll take my chances fighting them.

“Will democracy in Iraq root out Osama?”

Not directly - but the emphasis is too much on OBL. It is not as though his capture will make all the rogue states and terror elements pack up their things and retire to golf courses. While we chase OBL, we need to think a few steps down the road - hence the axis of evil idea. Appeasement of Iran will result in a nuclear-tipped theocracy within dangerous proximity to Europe, with only France as a deterrent. Yikes. North Korea is getting squirrely. The invasion in Iraq sends a message that needed to be sent.

“Any speculation about the future is simply that.”

And I thank my lucky stars a person with your attitude doesn’t make tough foreign policy decisions. Every decision is fraught with risk and uncertainty - it takes guts and nerve. Acting on speculation is standard operating procedure.

What you want is nice, clean easy choices that arrive bubble-wrapped for your convenience. Nope. The UN had failed to provide the international security it was designed to assist in, the nation has just been attacked, and Europe has made it clear it will stand by and do nothing to defend its culture from an onslaught of illiberal hordes. What to do? The US was feeling especially vulnerable after 9/11 and realized that old debts needed to be called in. Tough choice? You bet - I always thought the war in Iraq was a huge risk. But sitting and waiting, or declaring “Peace in Our Time” with another toothless treaty is no way to make the world safer.

“I am asking about right now.”

Well, I don’t know if the Iraq war made Americans taller, smarter, or better-looking, or generate improved self-esteem, or made kids get better grades, or lowered the divorce rate - but I believe America is a better place now because, if for no other reason, future negotiations with these kinds of regimes will go a lot differently when backed with full expectations of a fist under their nose.

That makes American safer - and equity markets like safer, and so do oil markets.

146

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Is that true? According to this:

They have increased across the world. Where are you getting the info from that terrorist attacks have all decreased because they are all being killed?[/quote]

(deleted)–as you just said to me, we’re talking about the US. Not the rest of the world. Why are you bringing the rest of the world into it?
Jesus, you’re like Al fucking Shades. You set the rules of the argument, the least you could do is honor them.

147

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Is that true? According to this:

They have increased across the world. Where are you getting the info from that terrorist attacks have all decreased because they are all being killed?[/quote]

maybe you were confused when I said “anywhere in the world”. I just figured someone who claims to be as smart as you would realize I was referring to Embassies and such.

Cause you wouldn’t try to shift subjects/arguments in the middle of a debate that you’re losing, would you?

No…not the mighty Professor X.

148

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What you want is nice, clean easy choices that arrive bubble-wrapped for your convenience. Nope. [/quote]

Actually, I want people to be realistic about what is going on instead of providing comments in support of who they voted for. Like that link I provided shows, terrorist attacks have increased, not decreased since 9/11. I am actually surprised that anyone was under the impression that they had decreased. We have not been hit directly with a successful attept, but I do believe that there are actually people out there who think that they haven’t tried several times since then. To make the claim that a war in Iraq would have prevented 9/11 is ridiculous. Before 9/11, the one major weakness we had (our air traffic security) was still a weakness, war or no war. That means it is very much a valid question to ask why so many are in support of a war occuring when it did when it has increased terrorist activity world wide, spent millions of American dollars and cost thousands of soldiers their lives.

Also, understand that most who are FOR there being more specific intel before a rush to action are not against military action. I am against military action when no proper plan for follow-through had been mapped out. It was a rushed effort because the support of the American people relied on the tragedy of 9/11.

149

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Will democracy in Iraq root out Osama?”

Not directly - but the emphasis is too much on OBL. [/quote]

Also, do you really believe this? The focus is too much on OBL? Since when? Since we didn’t catch him?

150

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Four years of proof? How many years before 9/11 had it been since there was a major attack on US soil by terrorists specifically from the middle east? You might as well take credit for that too because that makes about as much sense. It isn’t like we are so wide open that terrorist attacks were going off every week. Not only that, but do you really think you are in the know about every attempt? Do you honestly think there have been no further attempts and that all of those “warnings” were just for show? There may not have been a SUCCESSFUL attempt in four years and I think everyone in this country is greatful of that. However, to think we have been SAFE for those four years is pretty damn naive.

[/quote]

How about the USS cole and the embasy in africa that was bombed. Both carried out by Al-Queda just a few years before the 9/11 attacks. Or were those not “major” enough for you? Oh and I realize neither were technically on “U.S.” soil, but they were american interests nonetheless and we haven’t seen a successful attack on american intrests outside of a war zone in 4 years. So yes, there have been less attacks for the 4 years after 9/11 than the 4 years prior to 9/11, that my friend is improvement.

V

151

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pro X,

“How does it currently make the US safer?”

You keep getting answers and you keep ignoring them.

“Do you believe that “democracy” in Iraq will get rid of all terrorists?”

Nope - nor was that mission. But it was a desire to take the fight into the Middle East and fight a traditional military battle instead of asymmetrical warfare in our own cities. Our overwhelming advantage is in traditional war, so it is in our best interests to determine the battlefield rather than have it determined for us.

No one is suggesting that ‘all’ terrorists will be eliminated via the war in Iraq. After all, victory in WWII didn’t get rid of all the Nazis, as we saw on demonstration on VE Day in Berlin. But the idea is to project power and break the back on territory that is right next door to the swamps that produce them.

There is always whining that ‘it’ll produce more terrorists’. Maybe, maybe not - what is the point? There were more than enough terrorists to go around when we were sitting idle. I’ll take my chances fighting them.

“Will democracy in Iraq root out Osama?”

Not directly - but the emphasis is too much on OBL. It is not as though his capture will make all the rogue states and terror elements pack up their things and retire to golf courses. While we chase OBL, we need to think a few steps down the road - hence the axis of evil idea. Appeasement of Iran will result in a nuclear-tipped theocracy within dangerous proximity to Europe, with only France as a deterrent. Yikes. North Korea is getting squirrely. The invasion in Iraq sends a message that needed to be sent.

“Any speculation about the future is simply that.”

And I thank my lucky stars a person with your attitude doesn’t make tough foreign policy decisions. Every decision is fraught with risk and uncertainty - it takes guts and nerve. Acting on speculation is standard operating procedure.

What you want is nice, clean easy choices that arrive bubble-wrapped for your convenience. Nope. The UN had failed to provide the international security it was designed to assist in, the nation has just been attacked, and Europe has made it clear it will stand by and do nothing to defend its culture from an onslaught of illiberal hordes. What to do? The US was feeling especially vulnerable after 9/11 and realized that old debts needed to be called in. Tough choice? You bet - I always thought the war in Iraq was a huge risk. But sitting and waiting, or declaring “Peace in Our Time” with another toothless treaty is no way to make the world safer.

“I am asking about right now.”

Well, I don’t know if the Iraq war made Americans taller, smarter, or better-looking, or generate improved self-esteem, or made kids get better grades, or lowered the divorce rate - but I believe America is a better place now because, if for no other reason, future negotiations with these kinds of regimes will go a lot differently when backed with full expectations of a fist under their nose.

That makes American safer - and equity markets like safer, and so do oil markets.

I nominate this as post of the year.

Any seconds?

Thunder, you brought the pure, no-lube penetration with that one.

Very, very nice.

JeffR

152

I wasn’t trying to shift subjects at all. You didn’t make yourself clear.

153

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Four years of proof? How many years before 9/11 had it been since there was a major attack on US soil by terrorists specifically from the middle east? You might as well take credit for that too because that makes about as much sense. It isn’t like we are so wide open that terrorist attacks were going off every week. Not only that, but do you really think you are in the know about every attempt? Do you honestly think there have been no further attempts and that all of those “warnings” were just for show? There may not have been a SUCCESSFUL attempt in four years and I think everyone in this country is greatful of that. However, to think we have been SAFE for those four years is pretty damn naive.

How about the USS cole and the embasy in africa that was bombed. Both carried out by Al-Queda just a few years before the 9/11 attacks. Or were those not “major” enough for you? Oh and I realize neither were technically on “U.S.” soil, but they were american interests nonetheless and we haven’t seen a successful attack on american intrests outside of a war zone in 4 years. So yes, there have been less attacks for the 4 years after 9/11 than the 4 years prior to 9/11, that my friend is improvement.

V[/quote]

You are right. We were hit then.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/23/uss.cole.01/
Both were considered directly attributable to Osama Bin laden…which would make him the ultimate focus of any of our efforts.
Why then do people like Thunderbolt write, "“Will democracy in Iraq root out Osama?”

Not directly - but the emphasis is too much on OBL."?

Shouldn’t the emphasis be ALL about OBL?

154

Al Shades wrote:
That video was probably made before he underwent his religious transformation (in the mid 80’s, I believe), and also evidently before he became retarded thanks to cocaine abuse and who knows what else. He wasn’t always a complete moron - the drugs did it to him.

The Drugs made him retarded…? I thought it was growing up a rich son of a politician that did it to him–trying to be like daddy and screwing up everything he put his hands on. I don’t think buying an 8-ball on friday night with your allowance is enough to make you retarded. I think we blame drugs a little too much in this country. Sure it can really mess things up if it gets out of control–and I’m not going to speculate on what out of control means. Besides, he had the money to support his habit and get the help he needed when it was convenient for him…a benifit not extended to the vast majority of individuals in this country. Wow, Dubya did some coke and felt guilty enough to to seek a “higher power”–how original.

155

Pro X,

“Like that link I provided shows, terrorist attacks have increased, not decreased since 9/11. I am actually surprised that anyone was under the impression that they had decreased.”

I was never under the impression they decreased. I think the Islamists’ backs are against the wall and the attacks are rising to a boil.

“To make the claim that a war in Iraq would have prevented 9/11 is ridiculous.”

I didn’t make that claim, so when addressing me, try and focus.

“Before 9/11, the one major weakness we had (our air traffic security) was still a weakness, war or no war.”

We didn’t have an air traffic security weakness - we had a terrorist protocol weakness.

“That means it is very much a valid question to ask why so many are in support of a war occuring when it did when it has increased terrorist activity world wide, spent millions of American dollars and cost thousands of soldiers their lives.”

Because it has already been explained to you. You have the right to disgree, but pretending that no one has offered an explanation is hogwash. As for waiting till later - no one fixes a leaky roof when it is sunshining, which is a mistake. The idea was to address this now - and there was nothing particularly rushed about taking on Saddam: we were at the end to a 12 year diplomatic rope.

We could have waited - but the typical result of waiting is that complacency sets in, we start living the good life, watching Desperate Housewives and such, and the institution charged with handling the defanging of Saddam - the UN and Kofi “Chamberlainesque” Annan - will idle by and make excuses and appease. Fast forward 6 to 10 years, when possibly even Saddam is gone and one of his demonic sons is running the show in Iraq and has no compunction with allying with terror elements.

Sit and wait? Some may want to, and that is their right. I think it a perfectly worthy choice - considering the possibilities - not to wait. Too many risks in light of what is going on in the Middle East, be it with terror groups or rogue regimes. I think we had waited long enough.

Every day of inaction and appeasement is one more dose of encouragement to the Islamists, who routinely claim that the West is too self-centered or lazy to fight back. The sooner we put them on notice that, indeed, we do hit back and with quiite a bit of sting, is the day we start winning the war against our enemy.

If that doesn’t satisfy your longings to ignore problems in hopes that they go away, too bad. But it is a reason to go to war sooner rather than later, so stop asking that question - ie, why do it now? - as if there has been no answer.

“Also, understand that most who are FOR there being more specific intel before a rush to action are not against military action. I am against military action when no proper plan for follow-through had been mapped out. It was a rushed effort because the support of the American people relied on the tragedy of 9/11.”

This rush you keep referring to is refuted by the events that led up to the invasion.

156

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Shouldn’t the emphasis be ALL about OBL?
[/quote]

I’m not quite sure it should all be about OBL. There is more ways than one to kill a beast. Sure at first you want to just cut it’s head off, most of the time that will do the trick. I think this was our strategy in afgahnistan. After a while though, you gotta start chopping off arms and legs, you gotta keep it from it’s food supply, you gotta chop down the forest that it lives in. Also, like a hydra monster, the reality that if you chop this beasts head off a new one (or two) will simply rise in it’s place is all too likely.

I almost think it might be better to not let osama martyr himself and to just keep kicking him and AL-queda in the groin repeatedly. I mean the benefits of seeing them give up, or turn on thier supporters, like they are doing in iraq, are much more powerful then simply waving thier head on a pike. I’m not saying we are or should not catch him on purpose, but I definately don’t think it will be a very big impact on the WOT and it might even make the orginazation stronger, by having thier leader martyr’d.

V

157

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I didn’t make that claim, so when addressing me, try and focus.[/quote]

I am focused and I am also speaking to several of you at the same time. Take what applies to you and go with it instead of me having to rewrite 3 different reponses. Was it that unclear?

[quote]
We didn’t have an air traffic security weakness - we had a terrorist protocol weakness.[/quote]

I would say we had both.

[quote]
We could have waited - but the typical result of waiting is that complacency sets in, we start living the good life, watching Desperate Housewives and such, and the institution charged with handling the defanging of Saddam - the UN and Kofi “Chamberlainesque” Annan - will idle by and make excuses and appease. Fast forward 6 to 10 years, when possibly even Saddam is gone and one of his demonic sons is running the show in Iraq and has no compunction with allying with terror elements. [/quote]

It isn’t about just waiting. It is about waiting until you have a complete plan in place based on more reliable intel. This was a classic example of shoot first and ask questions later. That would be great if it weren’t expensive in the form of currency and human lives.

[quote]
This rush you keep referring to is refuted by the events that led up to the invasion. [/quote]

No it isn’t. It is proven by how we were not prepared for the blatant lack of respect for life many of our enemies in that country had. While we were the superior military power, dealing with people willing to blow themselves up is a different story.

158

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I almost think it might be better to not let osama martyr himself and to just keep kicking him and AL-queda in the groin repeatedly. I mean the benefits of seeing them give up, or turn on thier supporters, like they are doing in iraq, are much more powerful then simply waving thier head on a pike. I’m not saying we are or should not catch him on purpose, but I definately don’t think it will be a very big impact on the WOT and it might even make the orginazation stronger, by having thier leader martyr’d.V
[/quote]

I personally don’t think they think this way. We think in terms of martyrdom after death. They seem to martyr the man for simply surviving. Their concept of life and death seem to be skewed anyway. The bottom line is, the ONE man responsible for all of this at its base is the one man we don’t have and have seemingly allowed many to believe isn’t even important anymore.

By the way, thanks for bringing up the other attacks. I wasn’t aware of his involvement in both.

159

How much better intel could we have had at that time. Yes it turned out to be misleading, but almost everyone believed it to be true. All the powers that be in the Senate and White House acted on the best available info at the time.

It’s alot easier to stand in judgement with retrospect as your guide.

how is it you prepare to fight terrorism better. You obviously think you know more or would have had a better plan than the Secy’s of the Armed Forces. Do you think they just said let’s go and started operations?

War is very fluid and you can’t possibly project at the beginning all the turns the enemy will take. Very much on the run.

Did it go perfect? Hell no, but that doesn’t make the decision wrong. Hell no.

Do you think the U.S. would be safer, better off financially, stronger, or less likely to be hit by terrorists had we done nothing post 9/11?

V makes a good point in that, while we don’t have OBL we have seriously dented their network. Yes attacks are up, but not of the 9/11 magnitude. Do you think it possible to eliminate terrorism, no matter how many OBLs we catch?

160

[quote]To make the claim that a war in Iraq would have prevented 9/11 is ridiculous.
[/quote]

No one made that claim. Once again, you prove that you only half read what people write. If you are going to continually do this, there is liitle need for the deabte to continue. You are making shit up. There is no debate when you are making shit up, profX.

I said that there was a very real possibility that 9/11 could have been avoided had we invaded Iraq under Clinton. Big difference. But I don’t expect you to admit it. You are hell bent on creating your own debate in which you ignore what is written in favor of shit you just make up.