What is Obama thinking?

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Here, I can post for Johnny Tremain on this one:
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!"

Evidently you might have to.

Johnny, you ridiculed my argument, you called them stupid, you called me out. I answered your questions, and even tried to keep respectful about it. Now don't go wandering off, and pretend you forgot about the thread. Answer my question.

[Johnny Tremain]

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

Ok, I feel I've justified my statements. Now how about justifying yours? It's pretty easy to sit around tearing out little pieces in the arguments of others, but less easy to come up with one of your own. Can we hear your opinion as to how this war should have been waged?

War By Other Means: An Insider Account on the War on Terror by John Yoo, Endgame by Tom McInerney and Paul Vallely (both Fox News consultants), Shadow War and Disinformation by Richard Minter (a Fox News consultant) explains some of the bizarre right wing reasoning that underpins much of your current events posts.

It is unlikely that anyone who has read The Histories of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, the first work of history in Western literature, and The Art of War, one of the lesser-read works of Niccolò Machiavelli, is going to waste their life posting on this board.

This may come as a disappointment to you, Cyclonepride, but I see no reason to justify myself to you for anything I have posted on this board to date. If you or anyone else wishes to challenge my veracity on any subject I opine, you may do so. I will attempt to explain and source my position to the best of my abilities in the manner of my choosing.

As for Operation Iraqi Freedom, it is a war in which we should not have waged to begin with. But wage it we did. After four and one-half years, our prospect for a military solution (victory) is almost dead, except in the minds of all hard core right wingers, and the hope for getting out of Iraq without incurring sectarian genocide is rather bleak. While GWB is in office, I think we are screwed for any kind of meaningful change. What I see happening in Iraq is for our military, plus or minus troop strength, to more or less mark time until GWB leaves office. Hopefully, a completely new leadership, minus the Bush Doctrine, can develop some political synergies in the Middle East and in the world and effect a peace and withdrawal without incurring a sectarian or regional bloodbath.

As for the War on Terror, again, post Bush era leadership will need to nurture and develop, rather than dictate and impose, intelligence cooperation, resources, and actions with our allies and rivals to collectively identify and eradicate terrorist organizations and networks. We are not going to win the War on Terror unilaterally.

And now, my military history bibliography:
Johnny Tremain - Google Book Search

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

As for the War on Terror, again, post Bush era leadership will need to nurture and develop, rather than dictate and impose, intelligence cooperation, resources, and actions with our allies and rivals to collectively identify and eradicate terrorist organizations and networks. We are not going to win the War on Terror unilaterally.

My reading has range. I agree that some of the books I have read are out there. I read critically, and always try to keep in mind the agenda of the author. I try to take nothing at face value. I agree that Iraq has been bungled. The reasons will be studied for years. I appreciate debating with you Johnny. And this last statement just proved my point about Obama as well as I ever could.

[Klubber]

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

Where do I start? We are covertly looking for Bin Laden in Pakistan. Musharraf is willingly letting us do that. Wanted terrorists were found hiding in Iraq, with all provisions supplied by Saddam. Iraq was a wild card, as he had a vendetta against the US, and is exactly the type of dictator who would be happy to supply terrorists with weapons.

There is no credible evidence showing cooperation between SH, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. In fact, Bin Laden offered the Saudis his Mujahideen to expel SH from Kuwait during the first Gulf War. They refused, instead going with U.S. forces. The 9/11 Commission in its report stated Bin Laden sponsored anti-Saddam forces in Iraqi Kurdistan, and Bin Laden repeatedly criticized SH and his Ba'ath regime. They weren't exactly best buddies.

Sorry, but your statement that "SH is exactly the type of dictator who would be happy to supply terrorists weapons," is really absurd. Giving terrorists weapons would have directly threatened SH and his regime, with these very weapons likely being used against him. SH's self preservation would have ruled the day here.

Also of note here is that SH and the Ba'ath party were socialists in the tradition of Stalin, governing as dictators by force. However, the difference between his regime and something like the Taliban is vast. Absent is the religious extremism and oppression of women that are hallmarks of the Taliban. I'm not saying SH was a good guy, but these differences are pertinent.

[247cy]

Originally Posted by Klubber

There is no credible evidence showing cooperation between SH, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. In fact, Bin Laden offered the Saudis his Mujahideen to expel SH from Kuwait during the first Gulf War. They refused, instead going with U.S. forces. The 9/11 Commission in its report stated Bin Laden sponsored anti-Saddam forces in Iraqi Kurdistan, and Bin Laden repeatedly criticized SH and his Ba'ath regime. They weren't exactly best buddies.

Sorry, but your statement that "SH is exactly the type of dictator who would be happy to supply terrorists weapons," is really absurd. Giving terrorists weapons would have directly threatened SH and his regime, with these very weapons likely being used against him. SH's self preservation would have ruled the day here.

Also of note here is that SH and the Ba'ath party were socialists in the tradition of Stalin, governing as dictators by force. However, the difference between his regime and something like the Taliban is vast. Absent is the religious extremism and oppression of women that are hallmarks of the Taliban. I'm not saying SH was a good guy, but these differences are pertinent.

Didn't Saddam pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? You'll have a hard time convincing the Israelis it wasn't state sponsored terrorism.

[Cyclonepride]

Originally Posted by 247cy

Didn't Saddam pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? You'll have a hard time convincing the Israelis it wasn't state sponsored terrorism.

Quite publicly, yes.