What is Obama thinking?

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by isucyfan

Since you asked...

I don't think I would have invaded at all. You can't tell me there wasn't a better way to go about managing Saddam. I would have no problem with the pres if we were mired in Afghanistan, where people who attacked us actually are. Instead of cutting down the wasps' nest, all we are doing by invading and occupying Iraq is poking the nest with a stick...repeatedly.

As far as the house, senate, and other agencies...they need to be held accountable, too. Instead of doing this, Bush gave Tenet a medal of honor. Can you say "crony"? I'm not saying that the Dems are great, or blameless, I just can't see how it can get any worse than it is now. I hope the winds of change that blew through during the midterms continues in '08.

Did I get your vote? If you don't want to reply, I heard the term "Executive Privilege" gets you out of a lot.

That and "I don't recall..."

[cycloneworld]

Originally Posted by isucyfan

Since you asked...

I don't think I would have invaded at all. You can't tell me there wasn't a better way to go about managing Saddam. I would have no problem with the pres if we were mired in Afghanistan, where people who attacked us actually are. Instead of cutting down the wasps' nest, all we are doing by invading and occupying Iraq is poking the nest with a stick...repeatedly.

Islamic terrorists are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United States, the UK, etc, etc, etc. And the "I would have no problem with the pres if we were mired in Afghanistan" quote is priceless. We would be hearing the exact same stuff from the left (AND the right for that matter) as we are now...but we would say Afghanistan in place of Iraq, I almost gaurantee it.

Originally Posted by isucyfan

As far as the house, senate, and other agencies...they need to be held accountable, too. Instead of doing this, Bush gave Tenet a medal of honor. Can you say "crony"? I'm not saying that the Dems are great, or blameless, I just can't see how it can get any worse than it is now. I hope the winds of change that blew through during the midterms continues in '08.

Did I get your vote? If you don't want to reply, I heard the term "Executive Privilege" gets you out of a lot.

If you don't think it could get any worse in Iraq, then you are just naive. It could be WAY worse than it is now. If you are saying that things at home couldn't be worse right now, that's even sillier.

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by isucyfan

Since you asked...

I don't think I would have invaded at all. You can't tell me there wasn't a better way to go about managing Saddam. I would have no problem with the pres if we were mired in Afghanistan, where people who attacked us actually are. Instead of cutting down the wasps' nest, all we are doing by invading and occupying Iraq is poking the nest with a stick...repeatedly.

As far as the house, senate, and other agencies...they need to be held accountable, too. Instead of doing this, Bush gave Tenet a medal of honor. Can you say "crony"? I'm not saying that the Dems are great, or blameless, I just can't see how it can get any worse than it is now. I hope the winds of change that blew through during the midterms continues in '08.

Did I get your vote? If you don't want to reply, I heard the term "Executive Privilege" gets you out of a lot.

Hindsight is 20/20. Here's my opinion on the military strategy after 9/11, from all that I have read and heard on the subject, including a lifetime spent reading military history. I believe it was decided, and the speeches of the time bear it out, that target one was Al Qaeda as an organization. Target two was any nation that provided support to them. Without the support of a nation-state, they are unlikely to acquire weapons that can really hurt us.

#1. Afganistan.....no brainer. That's where Al Qaeda was based. Attack them directly, and take down the government that provided safe harbor.

#2. Iraq.....Iraq had proven to be an international wildcard, and a thorn in our side since the gulf war. They had a proven track record of openly supporting terrorist causes. They also openly defied the international community at every turn. It was probably thought to be the easiest target in this war, and we had a causis beli that was considered strong enough to garner international support.

#3. Iran......probably the biggest supporter of international terrorism, and probably the key target in the war on terror, besides Al Qaeda itself. With American troops stationed in Afganistan and Iraq, and also the third threat of a seaborn invasion, Iran would be squeezed by the pressure, and a military takedown would be highly possible, as they could not defend on one or two fronts, let alone three.

#4. Syria.....after items 1-3, Syria probably folds from the pressure, and stops cooperating with terrorists.

Afganistan was an unmitigated success. Sure there are still problem areas there, but this was the first "next Vietnam". And, unfortunately, the military did not catch Bin Laden or his 2nd in commmand. The planning went wrong when the international community not only did not support our intentions in Iraq, but actively opposed us. After going in anyway, without that support, we did not have the support needed to finish the job with Iran, and Iran knew it. They were free to stir the pot in Iraq as much as possible, further decreasing the likelihood of our invasion into Iran. Recent history has shown our enemies that our politicians do not have the stomach to stay the course. I respect Bush in that, but his planning and lack of diplomatic ability in the lead up to Iraq doomed his plan.

[Flag Guy]

I'm glad to see someone hasn't forgotten about Osama or Al Quida... which is opertating as strong today as it was on 9/11... because they've been able to establish training camps in countries where we can't strike.

It may not be completely wise to go into countries without permission, but I'm not totally opposed to the idea either if other means fail. I would rather diplomatically find solutions to getting permission, but something does need to be done

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by Flag Guy

I'm glad to see someone hasn't forgotten about Osama or Al Quida... which is opertating as strong today as it was on 9/11... because they've been able to establish training camps in countries where we can't strike.

It may not be completely wise to go into countries without permission, but I'm not totally opposed to the idea either if other means fail. I would rather diplomatically find solutions to getting permission, but something does need to be done

Something is being done. They just can't put it on the front page, because Musharraf's government would be taken down. Saudi Arabia is also helping us on a large scale, but that can't be publicized either.

Little known fact......Saudi Arabia dumped large amounts of oil into the market in 1985, at the request of the Reagan administration. This put a tremendous burden on the Soviet economy, as oil sales were the main source of cash flow for the Soviets. It was a major catalyst for the defeat of the USSR. This was quietly admitted by the Saudis around 1998 or so.

There is more going on behind the scenes than you realize.

[isucyfan]

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Islamic terrorists are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United States, the UK, etc, etc, etc. And the "I would have no problem with the pres if we were mired in Afghanistan" quote is priceless. We would be hearing the exact same stuff from the left (AND the right for that matter) as we are now...but we would say Afghanistan in place of Iraq, I almost gaurantee it.



If you don't think it could get any worse in Iraq, then you are just naive. It could be WAY worse than it is now. If you are saying that things at home couldn't be worse right now, that's even sillier.

I am simply saying that if we were to have placed the importance on Afghanistan that we misplaced on Iraq, we would be at least fighting for something related to the people that hurt us. Plus my statement is probably moot anyway because we probably wouldn't have gotten mired in Afghanistan at all, given the relative quick success we had there before getting into the firestorm that is Iraq.

And when I said that it can't get any worse than it is now, I was referring to the leadership of the country. Kind of like when a coach leads the team to a 4-8 finish, even if he is a amiable guy, you need to let someone else take that team from the depths and make it great.

[Cyclonepride]

Another interesting article. But all my conservative ramblings are just spin.

Sean Penn Praised by Venezuela's Chavez - MSN Movies News&

[247cy]

Originally Posted by isucyfan

I am simply saying that if we were to have placed the importance on Afghanistan that we misplaced on Iraq, we would be at least fighting for something related to the people that hurt us. Plus my statement is probably moot anyway because we probably wouldn't have gotten mired in Afghanistan at all, given the relative quick success we had there before getting into the firestorm that is Iraq.

And when I said that it can't get any worse than it is now, I was referring to the leadership of the country. Kind of like when a coach leads the team to a 4-8 finish, even if he is a amiable guy, you need to let someone else take that team from the depths and make it great.

Make no mistake, Iraq is a key part in the strategy in the war on terror. Cyclonepride made some key points to that effect.

The fact is that it's very difficult to wage an effective war with no presence in the area. All we have are Israel (whom the Muslim world hates more than the US of A) and some bases in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Royal Family is friendly and allows us to maintain a few military bases on their soil. The population of SA resents this fact and is pushing for the US to be booted out (where were most 9/11 hijackers from?).

We have engaged in nation building in Iraq, with the admirable hope of giving people a choice and hopefully creating an ally in the region. The jihadists are trying very hard to thwart this effort as they can see the writing on the wall for US success in Iraq. Which includes killing innocents themselves. Don't discount the efforts of Iran, Syria, etc to bloody things up in Iraq either...they would love nothing more than to exert their influence over Iraq's new government and get the US out. How large would the civilian casualty numbers be if Iran and Syria would stop lending support to insurgents?

[cyclonepower]

cyclonepride spewing his conservative veiws....go figure

[Klubber]

Obama is not naive or making foreign policy blunders as some suggest. He's following a very calculated strategy with regards to his views on foreign policy, which is to separate himself from the policies of Bush and Hillary Clinton, and paint Clinton as Bush light when it comes to Iraq and terrorism.

We know that Pakistan supports terrorism. Their intelligence organization, ISI, has ties to both Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Pakistan also supports the Madrassas, the terrorist schools which teach children a radical view of Islam and anti-west sentiment. Much of the Taliban attended these very schools. Bin Laden is also believed to be hiding somewhere near the Pakistan Afghanistan border. So there's plenty to justify going into Pakistan. Ironically, Obama is taking flak from Republicans who supported going into Iraq on false pretenses and who still support our current strategy there.

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by Klubber

Obama is not naive or making foreign policy blunders as some suggest. He's following a very calculated strategy with regards to his views on foreign policy, which is to separate himself from the policies of Bush and Hillary Clinton, and paint Clinton as Bush light when it comes to Iraq and terrorism.

We know that Pakistan supports terrorism. Their intelligence organization, ISI, has ties to both Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Pakistan also supports the Madrassas, the terrorist schools which teach children a radical view of Islam and anti-west sentiment. Much of the Taliban attended these very schools. Bin Laden is also believed to be hiding somewhere near the Pakistan Afghanistan border. So there's plenty to justify going into Pakistan. Ironically, Obama is taking flak from Republicans who supported going into Iraq on false pretenses and who still support our current strategy there.

So Obama's carefully calculated strategy is to isolate and undermine the only moderate power in an otherwise radical islamic state?

Brilliant!Attachment 607

[Johnny Tremain]

[quote=Cyclonepride;160571]Hindsight is 20/20. Here's my opinion on the military strategy after 9/11, from all that I have read and heard on the subject, including a lifetime spent reading military history. ...

#2. Iraq.....Iraq had proven to be an international wildcard, and a thorn in our side since the gulf war. They had a proven track record of openly supporting terrorist causes. They also openly defied the international community at every turn. It was probably thought to be the easiest target in this war, and we had a causis beli that was considered strong enough to garner international support. [quote]

Considering your absurd musings regarding Iraq, I would have to say that your lifetime spent reading military history would have been better spent smoking dope.

Also, an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict is spelled casus belli.

Re. Iraq and terrorist organizations, i.e. Al-Qa'ida, see link (Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare With Prewar Assessments, September 8, 2006) starting at page 60 and read on through page 112, Conclusions 1-9.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

[Incyte]

"On Friday, 1,000 tribesmen rallied in Miran Shah, the main town in North Waziristan tribal area, condemning recent military operations and chanting slogans against the United States."

If Bush is responsible for this generation of terrorists if looks like Obama is responsible for the next generation. Where is the DIPLOMACY. Sarcism intended.

[Cyclonesrule91]

Man isn't it nice to read all the hindsight opinions of all the armchair wannabee presidents out there. It's pretty easy to say what you would do 5 years after the war was started then it was to make a decision when one needed to be made. Bush made some mistakes but you want to talk about the lessor of two evils. Bring in the father of the internet Gore and he would invite Bin Laden over here after 9/11 to a joint coffee meeting to find out where we offended him. Of course Gore wouldn't have involved himself in the Iraq war because he would be too busy trying to convert all of us into tree huggers and promote $6/gallon gasoline. OH ya, that sounds better. Elect Kerry in 2004 and you'd have a president who would argue with himself on how he would stand on an issue. And the argument that the only reason Bush won in 04 was because Kerry was uglier then him? Well the crap your sniffing must be some good stuff.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and again in 2004. Bush has made mistakes in the war but if you think he wanted to take the US into war just because Hussein tried killing his father or to protect his oil interests, I have a problem with that. I have been told by military aquaintances that there is intelligence to show that there were WMD's stored in different places in Iraq and if Clinton wouldn't have been trying to play hide and seek with the one-eyed champ with Lewinski, he maybe could have stopped Hussein before they trucked the weapons to other parts of the middle east.

I for one am glad we have a president who could give a crap about public opinion when making decisions on what or what not to do. Maybe I am too gullable, but I figure the president is getting a lot more intelligence reports then us normal civilians are so he is better equipped to make a decision then all the left winged wannabee's who want to second guess decisions based off left wing media reports.

Oh and lets bring old Hillary into the mix. Considering she don't have the guts to kick her own husband out of her life when he's messing around, how the heck are we supposed to trust her with these big problems.

Man, August 30th CANNOT come soon enough...

[Klubber]

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

So Obama's carefully calculated strategy is to isolate and undermine the only moderate power in an otherwise radical islamic state?

How would his strategy isolate and undermine Pakistan? It wouldn't. Whatever happened to the great Bush quote, "You're either with us or against us?" If in fact Bin Laden is hiding along the border as most believe, and Pakistan won't do anything, then we need to, especially since Al Qaeda has also regrouped to that location as well.

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

#2. Iraq.....Iraq had proven to be an international wildcard, and a thorn in our side since the gulf war. They had a proven track record of openly supporting terrorist causes. They also openly defied the international community at every turn. It was probably thought to be the easiest target in this war, and we had a causis beli that was considered strong enough to garner international support.

Iraq was not a wild card at all. They had been greatly weakened by the first Gulf War and international sanctions, with their military being a shell of what it was then; and it wasn't exactly fearsome to begin with. The sanctions had worked; Iraq had no nuclear program and WMD as the Bushies claimed.

What proven track record of openly supporting terrorist causes are you talking about? Are the bogus aluminum tube claims and the forged documents purportedly showing sales of uranium from Niger to SH part of that proven track record?

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

Afganistan was an unmitigated success. Sure there are still problem areas there, but this was the first "next Vietnam". And, unfortunately, the military did not catch Bin Laden or his 2nd in commmand.

The military didn't catch Bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri because Rumsfeld refused to send the requisite troops needed to get the job done. Even with our commanders over there begging him to do so on a daily basis, Rumsfeld refused. We knew where Bin Laden was. U.S. forces had captured a radio from a dead Taliban fighter and were listening to OBL's daily communications. But as always, Rummy knew better. Yet another example of the Bush admin.'s unbelievable incompetence in our supposed "war on terror."

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

Something is being done. They just can't put it on the front page, because Musharraf's government would be taken down. Saudi Arabia is also helping us on a large scale, but that can't be publicized either.
There is more going on behind the scenes than you realize.

Musharraf's government is in no danger of being taken down. That's just more Bush spin used as an excuse for not going in there. Islamic fundamentalists make up a very small part of Pakistan's political parties. There's no way they could overthrow Musharraf. If they could, they already would have done so.

SA hurts us a lot more than they help. The current crop of Islamic fundamentalist ideology started in SA and branched out from there. SA is also the biggest monetary supporter of terrorism as well.

What info. do you have that something is being done? You must have covert status and are unable to tell us.