Author Topic: The Debate and national security  (Read 825 times)

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2008, 11:59:54 AM »
To take this one step further McCain's idea of say one thing in public and do another behind the scenes is exactly what has gotten this country into the problems with these religious fanatics. It wasn't so long ago that even George Bush Jr, had the Taliban in Texas for a visit while he was Govoner trying to set the deal up for Unicol and the gas line in Afghan.

I think it's good to see a leader like Obama say that his will do something if it needs to be done, rather than claiming he won't in public but then doing it anyway. Everyone knows they will done it anyway, so might as well tell the truth, rather than treat the US public like Unicorns and tooth fairies really exist.

What you fail to realize is that when a Presidential Hopeful becomes President, what he/she said along the way is remembered.  You would be very naive to believe that Al Quaida will not take Obama's public statement that he will attack whenever he feels prudent, and use it to help sway their cause.

That's the problem with saying stuff in public.  

By you logic, perhaps the President's plans with his chiefs of staff to develop strategy to combat terrorists should be discussed in public, eh?
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2008, 12:03:48 PM »
Yet knowing Pakistan is now unfriendly too us, McCain still supports giving them military aid money that they are currently spending to build up their military to confront India rather than fight the insurgent like how it was agreed to be used. Supporting that and believing in the Unicorns that McCain rides are what is naive.

It's amazing how fast the right wing Republicans shy away from the terrorist threat when it's not their guy whom wants to fight it.

A large portion of Pakistan still supports us, especially their military.  Unfortunately as I said before, they are heavily infiltrated by terrorists and are controlled by a President that is naive in foreign affairs and the true state of his country.  He won't sit long. 

We need to prevent the Islamic Facists from gaining a firm hold of the country, but not announce how we are going to do it and further give the Islamic Facists more power.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline crockett

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2008, 12:08:36 PM »
What you fail to realize is that when a Presidential Hopeful becomes President, what he/she said along the way is remembered.  You would be very naive to believe that Al Quaida will not take Obama's public statement that he will attack whenever he feels prudent, and use it to help sway their cause.

That's the problem with saying stuff in public.  

By you logic, perhaps the President's plans with his chiefs of staff to develop strategy to combat terrorists should be discussed in public, eh?

Maybe you should need this.. it's from almost a year ago..

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/05/world/fg-uspakistan5
"strafing"

Offline crockett

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2008, 12:16:14 PM »
What you fail to realize is that when a Presidential Hopeful becomes President, what he/she said along the way is remembered.  You would be very naive to believe that Al Quaida will not take Obama's public statement that he will attack whenever he feels prudent, and use it to help sway their cause.

That's the problem with saying stuff in public.  

By you logic, perhaps the President's plans with his chiefs of staff to develop strategy to combat terrorists should be discussed in public, eh?

Oh I guess you missed the part where Bush said that military action against Iran was not out of the question.  Oh but wait.. what was it McCain said about Iran..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9688222

Humm I guess by your logic McCain is quite naive in talking about military tactics in public and openly saying military action aginst another country is not out of the question.

oh but here is maybe a news source you can't call evil liberals..

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep18/0,4670,USIran,00.html

Republican candidate John McCain's approach is similar. He emphasizes retaining the military option. Democratic candidate Barack Obama would consider unconditional talks with Iran. He has not ruled out a military option.

Oh my, is McCain not doing exactly what you just complained about Obama doing?

Somehow I bet this is "diffrent" though..  :rofl
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 12:17:47 PM by crockett »
"strafing"

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2008, 12:16:26 PM »
Maybe you should need this.. it's from almost a year ago..

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/05/world/fg-uspakistan5

Perhaps when that article cites sources, I might consider it with more than a grain of salt.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2008, 12:19:37 PM »
Oh I guess you missed the part where Bush said that military action against Iran was not out of the question.  Oh but wait.. what was it McCain said about Iran..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9688222

Humm I guess by your logic McCain is quite naive in talking about military tactics in public and openly saying military action aginst another country is not out of the question.

oh but here is maybe a news source you can't call evil liberals..

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep18/0,4670,USIran,00.html

Republican candidate John McCain's approach is similar. He emphasizes retaining the military option. Democratic candidate Barack Obama would consider unconditional talks with Iran. He has not ruled out a military option.

Oh my, is McCain not doing exactly what you just complained about Obama doing?

McCain should not have joked with the "Bomb Iran".  It was wrong as well.

The likely hood of us ever having to deal militarily with Iran is fairly low.  There are other countries that will deal with that when the time comes.

Pakistan we are dealing with, and Obama was wrong for saying what he did.  It further shows his inept abilities when it comes to dealing with the terrorist threat.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline crockett

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2008, 12:22:05 PM »
Perhaps when that article cites sources, I might consider it with more than a grain of salt.


Their sources were the US govt and a security report that was publiclly released. Even says so in the article.. go dig it up if you don't believe it.
"strafing"

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6142
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2008, 12:41:45 PM »
Quote
Do you not remember all the flack you Republicans gave Clinton because he didn't take the opportunity to kill bin Laden by making a strike inside another country? Are you now saying what he did was right?

This statement hasn't been addressed yet that I can see.

Folks on this board didn't give Clinton flack for not striking bin Laden inside another country, we gave Clinton flack for repeatedly failing to take action against bin Laden when the chances were there. Clinton had reasons for not taking action (at least one of them valid imo) and those reasons are subject to debate.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6142
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2008, 12:43:15 PM »
Quote
Oh and Hillary has never been "my girl' I dunno where you pulled that one from.

Oh come on, you two are dating in secret. It's ok, you can admit it, we won't give you to much grief.  :devil
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6142
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2008, 12:49:59 PM »
Quote
I've never said more troops weren't the answer in Iraq, we have needed more troops there from the start just like we did in the past. However myself and just like Obama's position I would never support more troops under the Bush admin's past mismanagement since that war started.

I really think that the failed strategies in the Iraq war early on were due to decisions and advise that Rumsfeld was responsible for. (I don't have proof of this, just my opinion.) Since Rumsfeld was replaced as Secretary of Defense things have gradually gotten better in Iraq. Granted, it has taken some time to reverse the mistakes that were made. To Bush's credit he realized the deficiencies Rumsfeld was bringing to the table concerning the Iraq war and replaced him.

For the life of me, I have never understood why we completely dismantled both the Iraqi Army and Police. I also don't understand why it is taking so long to retrain a new Army and Police force.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2008, 01:13:42 PM »
i wonder if that statement will hurt obama's approval rating in Pakistan?

Offline Timofei

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 148
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2008, 01:27:54 PM »
There are other countries that will deal with that when the time comes.

Again some beautiful rhetoric BS.
Have you actually served in military, even in peacetime ?
You should volunteer to be in the first wave of infantry who is doing the "dealing".
Oh these brave internet warriors. :rofl
Proverbs 15:17 "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred herewith."

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2008, 01:30:57 PM »
Quote
For the life of me, I have never understood why we completely dismantled both the Iraqi Army and Police. I also don't understand why it is taking so long to retrain a new Army and Police force.

That might be due to screening out everyone that isn't loyal to the new regime; And it might have been one of the reasons' that the old force was disbanded, as well...The old army might have simply just waited for us to leave, and staged a 'coup'. This might have been what Rumsfeld was afraid of. And it's taking a long time getting a new force together for the same reasons. We want to leave an Army that will protect what we've sacrificed so much for.

That's just my theory; And I don't normally support Donald Rumsfeld, but this would make sense to me. Iraq might be pretty difficult to keep politically stable.

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2008, 06:00:48 PM »
Again some beautiful rhetoric BS.

Other countries will deal with Iran.  I can give you a guess as to who will be first to roll in.  The fact of the matter is that people like you would whine to high heaven were we to actually have done something about it already.

Go troll somewhere else.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Re: The Debate and national security
« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2008, 06:16:22 PM »
Again some beautiful rhetoric BS.
Have you actually served in military, even in peacetime ?
You should volunteer to be in the first wave of infantry who is doing the "dealing".
Oh these brave internet warriors. :rofl

The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.