Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on August 01, 2007, 04:45:28 PM
-
Hillary called Obama naive. I hate to agree with here (on ANYTHING) but it seems to fit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7
So let me get this straight. Obama has said from the get-go that invading toppling Saddam, with an international coalition, was bad. Now, if elected he would immediately pull out of Iraq, send the troops to Afghanistan and (WAIT FOR IT) invade Pakistan?:O Truly a master of military virtue and foreign policy. Way to go, 'Bama:aok . Next time, check to see of the gun is loaded before aiming it at your foot.
-
the idea of an untouchable sanctuary inside Pakistan called "the Tribal Lands" really doesn't sit well with me. Especially when these tribal lands are harboring AQ operatives actively planning more 9/11 attacks against the US.
If it takes a rookie like Obama to get into that sanctuary, then I would be willing to support the guy. As it is, Bush has done nothing except let loose a caged Tiger in Iraq by deposing the resident zookeeper there, costing an additional 3000 american lives and billions upon billions of our dollars doing it.
The tribal lands in Pakistan have to be dealt with.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
If it takes a rookie like Obama to get into that sanctuary, then I would be willing to support the guy. As it is, Bush has done nothing except let loose a caged Tiger in Iraq by deposing the resident zookeeper there, costing an additional 3000 american lives and billions upon billions of our dollars doing it.
The tribal lands in Pakistan have to be dealt with.
Absolutely. I am starting to see Obama in a different light.
-
Bin Laden is a rock star in Pakistan---we go into Waziristan enmass, (nothin wrong with little raids) Mussharef either looks weaker than he already is (they tried to assassinate him twice), or he is forced to slap us back to save face, and we lose behind-the-scenes support
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Hillary called Obama naive. I hate to agree with here (on ANYTHING) but it seems to fit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7
So let me get this straight. Obama has said from the get-go that invading toppling Saddam, with an international coalition, was bad. Now, if elected he would immediately pull out of Iraq, send the troops to Afghanistan and (WAIT FOR IT) invade Pakistan?:O Truly a master of military virtue and foreign policy. Way to go, 'Bama:aok . Next time, check to see of the gun is loaded before aiming it at your foot.
If you don't understand the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan well you will never understand the point he's getting at. He supports a war on Terror not a war for oil and big money contracts.
An International coalition in Iraq..lol lets get real here.. It was nothing more than a coalition of the willing. Iraq invasion had almost no International support.
-
Originally posted by crockett
If you don't understand the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan well you will never understand the point he's getting at. He supports a war on Terror not a war for oil and big money contracts.
An International coalition in Iraq..lol lets get real here.. It was nothing more than a coalition of the willing. Iraq invasion had almost no International support.
Well...it had the support of the nations who WEREn'T getting cash under the table from Saddam:D
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Well...it had the support of the nations who WEREn'T getting cash under the table from Saddam:D
Soooooooo TRUE
-
Sounds good on virtual paper but I have to wonder if he really would sign the order to put the boots on the sand.
-
The same people who think Saddam, who murdered thousands, if not millions, and started two major wars of aggression, should have been left in power, to control the problems in Iraq, are entirely willing to invade Pakistan, causing Musharrif (sp?), who has been a fairly decent but not perfect ally, to be overthrown one way or another. Absolute brilliance. NOT! If you think Iraq is a disaster, remember there are supporters of bin Laden in Pakistan, which HAS nuclear weapons, looking for a reason and an opportunity to over throw the current U.S. friendly regime. Imagine warlord buddies of bin Laden with control over nuclear weapons.
-
As opposed to people that forget or just ignore that Saddam was our ally when we supported if not outright goaded him to invade Iran.
Anyone here actually voiced their disapproval of Iraq's invasion of Iran when he was our ally?
How about when he used chemical weapons against Iranian troops?
Where was the outcry then?
Iraq was better off with Saddam in power that it is now.
We would be better off.
Edit...
I might just vote for Obama. I just don't like nor do I trust Hillary.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The same people who think Saddam, who murdered thousands, if not millions, and started two major wars of aggression, should have been left in power, to control the problems in Iraq, are entirely willing to invade Pakistan, causing Musharrif (sp?), who has been a fairly decent but not perfect ally, to be overthrown one way or another. Absolute brilliance. NOT! If you think Iraq is a disaster, remember there are supporters of bin Laden in Pakistan, which HAS nuclear weapons, looking for a reason and an opportunity to over throw the current U.S. friendly regime. Imagine warlord buddies of bin Laden with control over nuclear weapons.
You don't seem to understand.. We should be in a war on Terror. Saddam might have been a total D**kwad but he wasn't supporting terrorism. Also like it or not, the middle east was more stable with him in power. Much more stable than what it is now.
We should have finished the job in Afghanistan before we looked else where. Especially when elsewhere had nothing to do with 9/11 nor a terrorist threat to the US or our allies.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
As opposed to people that forget or just ignore that Saddam was our ally when we supported if not outright goaded him to invade Iran.
Anyone here actually voiced their disapproval of Iraq's invasion of Iran when he was our ally?
How about when he used chemical weapons against Iranian troops?
Where was the outcry then?
Iraq was better off with Saddam in power that it is now.
We would be better off.
Edit...
I might just vote for Obama. I just don't like nor do I trust Hillary.
Exactly we also gave him the green light to invade Kuwait. We publicly stated that we would not interfere if Saddam invaded Iraq, Saddam took that as a green light. After all we were allies with him at the time.
Of course soon as he did that we changed our tune.
-
The same people who think Saddam, who murdered thousands, if not millions, and started two major wars of aggression, should have been left in power, to control the problems in Iraq, are entirely willing to invade Pakistan, causing Musharrif (sp?), who has been a fairly decent but not perfect ally, to be overthrown one way or another. Absolute brilliance. NOT! If you think Iraq is a disaster, remember there are supporters of bin Laden in Pakistan, which HAS nuclear weapons, looking for a reason and an opportunity to over throw the current U.S. friendly regime. Imagine warlord buddies of bin Laden with control over nuclear weapons.
Virg's right, and no one can deny it, that Saddam killed quite some number of kurds, maybe even with poison gas. However, we were pretty quiet about the recent Turkish attacks on the same kurdish area. We're gonna get discredited on the save-iraq-from-genocide excuse if we allow that to continue.
Where the real problem lays with Musharref, is in whether or not he truly is friendly to the U.S., and not actually aiding/hiding the Taliban. We've had to rely heavily, perhaps too heavily, on Pakistan't Intel service, which was in tight enough with the Taliban during the Soviet occupation, to give the Tal's the lion's share of U.S. donated weapons' and logistic support. Myself, I would'nt trust Musharref(or any of his appointed ministers') farther than I could throw them.
Which brings us to the last. Pakistan might prove to be the real Pandora's box of the whole affair. An unstable govt. there, which could lose control of it's weapon stockpile, is one scenario. Another would be an attack/invasion by U.S. forces, which might bring about the voluntary release of Nuclear Weaponry to a determined terrorist group. Then, what do you do? I don't doubt that we could overrun Pakistan the same as Iraq, but even after the whole country's secured, and some nuke's are missing, What then? Especially if one of them is used in a major metropolitan city (MUCH worse than 9/11) and you've already occupied the country of origin? Who do you invade in retribution then? It's when you look down this road, that you realize that it goes into a deep hole. I mean, I'm sure that any military option on the board would include eliminating/neutralizing any weapons' stockpiles that the Pak's have, but I'm sure that if they even sensed hostilities, that any parties interested in obtaining a weapon might be given access to them before any such strikes, or moved or protected from same.
I'm sure that the Pak's intel service's monitor our political and media venues. I'm sure that someone caught that pip by Obama. If so, They may already be preparing for a future confrontation with the U.S., in one way or another...
In this, I really hope that I'm wrong. I don't want anything like this to happen, It would really be the worst thing, to turn on the news, or open up a paper, and seeing a headline about an american city being wiped out by a bomb that ultimately, came from an allied state.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The same people who think Saddam, who murdered thousands, if not millions, and started two major wars of aggression, should have been left in power, to control the problems in Iraq, are entirely willing to invade Pakistan, causing Musharrif (sp?), who has been a fairly decent but not perfect ally, to be overthrown one way or another. Absolute brilliance. NOT! If you think Iraq is a disaster, remember there are supporters of bin Laden in Pakistan, which HAS nuclear weapons, looking for a reason and an opportunity to over throw the current U.S. friendly regime. Imagine warlord buddies of bin Laden with control over nuclear weapons.
what he said
there is a reason we haven't invaded the wild wild west of pakistan already
the last thing you want is to have Musharraf lose control of his nukes
this administration realizes that, just wonder if the next one will as well
-
Originally posted by crockett
If you don't understand the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan well you will never understand the point he's getting at. He supports a war on Terror not a war for oil and big money contracts.
An International coalition in Iraq..lol lets get real here.. It was nothing more than a coalition of the willing. Iraq invasion had almost no International support.
Forgive me, but the ignorance and complete lack of historical perspective contained in these statements is mind boggling! Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, providing legitimancy to the multi-national coalition of over thirty nations that either participated in or otherwise materially supported the invasion of Iraq. THAT is historical fact. Of course it was a coalition of the willing. What else could it possible be? If you think we had insufficient justification for Iraq, what possible justification could you put forth for armed incursions into a sovereign allied nation?:huh Mexico is not doing enought to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficing into the US. Lets invade them!:rolleyes:
Obama has not support any of the measures or steps taken so far to combat terror. His statements about Pakistan are simply his attempt to portray himself as tough on terror, and shows his complete lack of the political and military realities. Instead they reveal a man with no deapth of experience or understanding. Invade Pakistan? A nation of 160 million armed with nuclear weapons and a barely contained jihadist leanings? You think controlling Bahgdad is tough, try a nation with eight times the population and terrain that is tailormade for hit and fade insurgency tactics.
And Crocket, Saddam was supporting terror activities against the West, and providing safe harbor for them (including Al Quida). That has also been positively established. That, coupled with his breaking the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War and the universal belief by ALL major western intelligence agencies that he was trying to preserve and rebuild his WMD program made Iraq a logical target for prosecuting the WOT.
-
subaru... you are talking the primary. I am sure that the liberals here will vote for any democrat that is in the race in the end. You will vote for hillary if she wins the primary.
lazs
-
Originally posted by crockett
If you don't understand the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan well you will never understand the point he's getting at. He supports a war on Terror not a war for oil and big money contracts.
Considering out defense of china’s Nan king region to protect it’s oil reserves led to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and our eventual involvement in WWII.
I guess you would not have supported that war either?
-
It really doesn't matter where you fight so long as it hurts the enemy and is a good place for you.
In the end.. it is about economy and keeping it out of your yard. The soviets lost because they couldn't win the economic war. It mattered not if they backed vietnam or afghanistan.. if we could get em to commit their money... they lost.
It matters not if we fight islamofacists in iraq or in afganistan.. if we can get em to fight and die and commit their resources someplace out of our back yard.
lazs
-
Hilts is right. We face the same philosophical issues Truman did with the Korean War and the Chinese/Russians. Kind of hard to blame the Iranians for wanting the bomb -- it really does make a difference in diplomacy and politics.
Charon
-
Forgive me, but the ignorance and complete lack of historical perspective contained in these statements is mind boggling! Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, providing legitimancy to the multi-national coalition of over thirty nations that either participated in or otherwise materially supported the invasion of Iraq. THAT is historical fact.
And Crocket, Saddam was supporting terror activities against the West, and providing safe harbor for them (including Al Quida). That has also been positively established. That, coupled with his breaking the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War and the universal belief by ALL major western intelligence agencies that he was trying to preserve and rebuild his WMD program made Iraq a logical target for prosecuting the WOT.
These are gross overstatements. Only Great Britain provided any substantive support beyond token gestures, with the governments of our coalition partners being generally at odds with their populations. It was a paper coalition backed up by a handful of troops here or there and the US and British military and economies shouldering the major burden, and even there, economically, the US by far more than the entire coalition combined.
As for supporting terrorism, there are probably 10 other countries in the region that supported radical Islamic terrorism to a far greater extent. Stalinist style secular dictators don't like to have competitors in their borders. Even the Bush administration (with the exception of Cheney) had backed away from this position fairly early on. Iran was a far more logical target under this framework, and for that matter Saudi Arabia.
Now, Saddam did break the cease fire agreements and did inhibit the inspection process. But, he had no active WMD program and was nowhere near close to making a bomb or a bomb infrastructure for that matter, but maybe 10 years or more down the road he could have managed a regional threat. IMO, I don't believe Bush lied but rather WMD were used as the most powerful selling tool for an invasion/realignment in the ME policy his senior foreign policy cabinet members had pushed since the 1990s. Too bad for bush his assumptions of WMDs (shared by many in the international and political community) turned out to be false. And, too bad the assumptions of the PNAC looked better on paper than they worked in practice.
Had the Iraqi's welcomed us with open arms and set up the immediate US-friendly democracy that Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld etc. expected -- our bastion in the Middle East -- then nobody would care either way today from liberals to the media to the triumphant self proclaimed conservatives. Everybody loves a winner.
As you point out though, the invasion was technically legal, with UN support and with the support of the Democrats in Congress.
Charon
-
Regarding Pakistan. It would be far easier and less costly to the Western nations if they just told India that they could have Pakistan. Then they could resolve it amongst themselves. Both sides there have nukes aimed at each other.
This should not be taken as an endorsement for that action, just pointing out that obama hasn't a clue to the regional background there.
That and this is a bona fide for the sarcasm impaired. :noid
-
Charon: I don't in general disaggree with what you're saying. Certainly international support was tepid by all but a few nations, but it was support nonetheless. And yes, there are other countries in the region that were/are more activily supporting Islamic terrorism; however, we had not even a pretense of international legitamacy to attack them. The possibility that we might establish a stable, friendly democracy right in the middle of this decidely unfriendly region was a worthy goal. My point is that if one holds the position that we had insufficient cause to invade Iraq, then unilateral military action in Pakistan is even less justifiable. It would be the absolute dumbest, most dangerous move we could make at this critical juncture in history; in short, it would be the shortest, most direct route to regional (if not global) armeggedon.
-
No thanks.
-
My point is that if one holds the position that we had insufficient cause to invade Iraq, then unilateral military action in Pakistan is even less justifiable. It would be the absolute dumbest, most dangerous move we could make at this critical juncture in history; in short, it would be the shortest, most direct route to regional (if not global) armeggedon.
Then I agree completely.
Obama is really showing his Junior Senator status. He's just a Dick Durban hand puppet anyway. With luck we'll find a few more questionable real estate deals before Nov 08.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
... then nobody would care either way today from liberals to the media to the triumphant self proclaimed conservatives. Everybody loves a winner.
Charon
you are very wrong there
politics trumps cause this days
Even if Iraq was Disney of the Middle East, the dems and their allies in the media would ***** about something concerning it, probably all the $$$ it took to get Mickey Mouse there stating those $$$ should have been spent on the dems voting base - those on the gov dole
did you forget? Bush is da evil!!!!! LOL
ps
IMO Iraq was all about Iran from day one ... I don't care the reason/excuse that got our troops next door to them, I think it is foolish to remove them before the Iranian nuke threat is eliminated ... hope we don't find out the hard way i am correct.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Forgive me, but the ignorance and complete lack of historical perspective contained in these statements is mind boggling! Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, providing legitimancy to the multi-national coalition of over thirty nations that either participated in or otherwise materially supported the invasion of Iraq. THAT is historical fact. Of course it was a coalition of the willing. What else could it possible be? If you think we had insufficient justification for Iraq, what possible justification could you put forth for armed incursions into a sovereign allied nation?:huh Mexico is not doing enought to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficing into the US. Lets invade them!:rolleyes:
]
Oh so wait, so now the entire reason it was ok to go into Iraq was because he broke a cease fire agreement? You really think that would be enough to convince the American people and the world to attack Iraq?
I thought it was about WMD's and evil terrorists.. That's what your boy kept claiming.
Originally posted by Sabre
Obama has not support any of the measures or steps taken so far to combat terror. His statements about Pakistan are simply his attempt to portray himself as tough on terror, and shows his complete lack of the political and military realities. Instead they reveal a man with no deapth of experience or understanding. Invade Pakistan? A nation of 160 million armed with nuclear weapons and a barely contained jihadist leanings? You think controlling Bahgdad is tough, try a nation with eight times the population and terrain that is tailormade for hit and fade insurgency tactics.
]
Maybe it is, but much can be said about most of what George Bush says.. He always says one thing and does another. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or Terrorism again? I'd rather attack a nation whom was actually harboring terrorist.. Even if that nation was a "so called" ally.
BTW so I assume if we knew where bin Laden was right this min, and he happened to be in Pakistan.. You would be against striking him if Pakistan was giving him safe harbor and refused to go after him?
Originally posted by Sabre
And Crocket, Saddam was supporting terror activities against the West, and providing safe harbor for them (including Al Quida). That has also been positively established. That, coupled with his breaking the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War and the universal belief by ALL major western intelligence agencies that he was trying to preserve and rebuild his WMD program made Iraq a logical target for prosecuting the WOT. [/B]
Oh really? so Saddam was giving safe harbor to al Qaeda and he supported terrorism? Really who told you that George Bush?
I guess you haven't been brought up to speed on the current retrotec. I'll try to help you. I know you will never believe anything that I say.. So how about right from the horses mouth..
George Bush says no links to 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LwMTjeu5f4
Dick Cheney says, Iraq has no provable links to al Qaeda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It really doesn't matter where you fight so long as it hurts the enemy and is a good place for you.
In the end.. it is about economy and keeping it out of your yard. The soviets lost because they couldn't win the economic war. It mattered not if they backed vietnam or afghanistan.. if we could get em to commit their money... they lost.
It matters not if we fight islamofacists in iraq or in afganistan.. if we can get em to fight and die and commit their resources someplace out of our back yard.
lazs
Seems to be working the oppiosate of how you would like. We are slowly losing our allies and our econemy is suffering from the war. Meanwhile the "islamofacists" as you call them are gaining more and more support while we lose the little support we had.
Great plan..
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Charon: I don't in general disaggree with what you're saying. Certainly international support was tepid by all but a few nations, but it was support nonetheless. And yes, there are other countries in the region that were/are more activily supporting Islamic terrorism; however, we had not even a pretense of international legitamacy to attack them. The possibility that we might establish a stable, friendly democracy right in the middle of this decidely unfriendly region was a worthy goal. My point is that if one holds the position that we had insufficient cause to invade Iraq, then unilateral military action in Pakistan is even less justifiable. It would be the absolute dumbest, most dangerous move we could make at this critical juncture in history; in short, it would be the shortest, most direct route to regional (if not global) armeggedon.
Well honestly it's your guy George Bush whom said "you are either with us or against us". So it seems that's just another catch phrase for the papers right?
Was it not Bush whom first said al Qaeda should have no hiding ground? You are either with us or against us? Obama is actually just repeating what George Bush said. The diffrence is George Bush "said it" first, but has failed to carry through with it.
-
Oh really? so Saddam was giving safe harbor to al Qaeda and he supported terrorism? Really who told you that George Bush?
I guess you haven't been brought up to speed on the current retrotec. I'll try to help you. I know you will never believe anything that I say.. So how about right from the horses mouth..
George Bush says no links to 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LwMTjeu5f4
Dick Cheney says, Iraq has no provable links to al Qaeda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ [/B]
Your own links don't support your statements.
Iraq did have ties to terrorists, Iraq did give safe harbor including medical care to at least one Al-Qaeda member. There were also terrorist training camps in Iraq. It has also been documented that Zarqawi, former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq had himself and his organization in Iraq before we invaded.
Just a couple of the links from my google search *terrorist training camps in Iraq*
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
Saying Iraq had no ties to terrorism is just as rediculous as saying Iraq had ties to 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Your own links don't support your statements.
Iraq did have ties to terrorists, Iraq did give safe harbor including medical care to at least one Al-Qaeda member. There were also terrorist training camps in Iraq. It has also been documented that Zarqawi, former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq had himself and his organization in Iraq before we invaded.
Just a couple of the links from my google search *terrorist training camps in Iraq*
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
Saying Iraq had no ties to terrorism is just as rediculous as saying Iraq had ties to 9/11.
So you want to justify a war that over 3 thousand US soldiers have died, who knows how many of the coalition of the willing and private contractors much less the thousands of civilians whom have all died for one tango meeting and 3 training camps.
Damn I wonder when we will be invading Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, ect..ect..ect..
If we knew where these camps were, wouldn't a few cruse missiles have been slightly most cost effective?
-
So you want to justify a war that over 3 thousand US soldiers have died, who knows how many of the coalition of the willing and private contractors much less the thousands of civilians whom have all died for one tango meeting and 3 training camps.
I'm not trying to justify the war. I am showing the inaccuracy of your previous statements regarding Iraq's ties to terrorism. According to one of the links I posted, approximately 8,000 terrorists were trained at those camps. How many innocent people do you think 8,000 terrorists could kill? Left unchecked, how many thousands more terrorists would have been trained?
If we knew where these camps were, wouldn't a few cruse missiles have been slightly most cost effective?
I don't think we did know the locations prior to the invasion since they weren't found until afterwards. So I don't think cruise missiles were a viable option.
Also note that one of those articles I linked talks about the trainees links to organizations that had links to Al-Qaeda. (Note I did not mention Saddam ;) )
-
Oh btw correct me if I'm work the guy in your second link.. Sabah Khodada
It just hit me.. that was the guy the admin used to help sell the war, but wasn't his info later proven to be wrong? He was the guy that claimed Iraq was training terrorsts to hi jack airplanes or something.
Sorry but if that's the same guy then he was proven to be F.o.S.
-
crokett.. how is it "not working" I don't care how much is spent on a war.. it is just that much less the government has to spend on "programs" that only grow and grow and grow and...
Wars get paid off... tax based socialism only grows bigger every day for all eternity.
And... how is it not working that we are fighting them on the ground we choose? when was the last terrorist attack here?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
crokett.. how is it "not working" I don't care how much is spent on a war.. it is just that much less the government has to spend on "programs" that only grow and grow and grow and...
Wars get paid off... tax based socialism only grows bigger every day for all eternity.
And... how is it not working that we are fighting them on the ground we choose? when was the last terrorist attack here?
lazs
Great rationale.. don't spend money on the citizens of your own country whom pay taxes. It's better to spend money on killing people because it's better to kill people than let liberals have their way.
Great way to think of it larzs, that's just freaking awesome..I mean it's not like the money the govt spends comes from taxes that Americans pay or anything. I mean why would we spend tax money to help Americans.
Oh wait, maybe you are right, it's not tax money after all it's borrowed from China.. :cry
-
Oh btw correct me if I'm work the guy in your second link.. Sabah Khodada
While I don't recall the guys name you are thinking of off hand, this name doesn't seem at all familiar and I think it would be if it was the same guy. Although if it is the same guy it wouldn't be the first time my memory has failed me. :D
Otoh, I think the guy you are thinking of is the guy that gave false information about Iraq's WMD programs. I don't recall hearing about anyone giving false information on training camps. Also, these camps weren't found until after the invasion.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Well honestly it's your guy George Bush whom said "you are either with us or against us". So it seems that's just another catch phrase for the papers right?
Was it not Bush whom first said al Qaeda should have no hiding ground? You are either with us or against us? Obama is actually just repeating what George Bush said. The diffrence is George Bush "said it" first, but has failed to carry through with it.
Ah, I misunderstood you, Crocket. It sounds in fact like you completely support Bush's policies, but feel he has not pusued them with sufficient vigor. Now I get it. And here I thought you were just suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Phew! Glad we cleared that up.:aok
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Ah, I misunderstood you, Crocket. It sounds in fact like you completely support Bush's policies, but feel he has not pusued them with sufficient vigor. Now I get it. And here I thought you were just suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Phew! Glad we cleared that up.:aok
I support a war on terrorism not a war for profit and oil. George Bush has failed to pursue a war or terrorism but instead chosen to pursue a war for profit and oil in Iraq.
Had George Bush chosen to do what he promised and fight terrorist, even though I didn't vote for him nor did I like him I would have supported him.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I support a war on terrorism not a war for profit and oil. George Bush has failed to pursue a war or terrorism but instead chosen to pursue a war for profit and oil in Iraq.
Had George Bush chosen to do what he promised and fight terrorist, even though I didn't vote for him nor did I like him I would have supported him.
your first statement is your opinion
the second, I just don't believe LOL
don't worry, whatever dem u vote for I am sure will do a much better job finding OBL and saving the US and the world from the islamic cheekbones terror threat
LOL LOL LOL
-
Originally posted by crockett
Great rationale.. don't spend money on the citizens of your own country whom pay taxes.
you don't get it do you ...
the tax money lazs talks about is spent on those who DO NOT pay taxes - you know, the gov dole dem voting base
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Well...it had the support of the nations who WEREn'T getting cash under the table from Saddam:D
Obama is only posturing with his tough talk, this is a calculated move by his handlers to make him look hes not a tuna smelling ax-wound. If he gets elected (shutter) the DNC will pull his strings and he'll do what every other party hack before him has done; dance to the tune of the party, not the country. All those pre election promises can be easily dismissed, like so:
"...realities have changed since then.." said Pres Obama while defending his decision not to attack the Taliban inside Pakistan... dems will back him, rubs will slam him, DC business as usual.
Not to be overly technical, but Saddam was dealing in Euros, not cash.. which is kinda a big deal. Euro companies need dollars to buy oil, so they must do business to exchange their euros into dollars, usually at a loss. Saddam, who was sitting on oil that will reach peak production with the Saudis by 2010, was going to sell oil in euros. A direct threat the dollar.
The US switched Iraq back to the dollar... which by 2003 was worth 13% less than the euro, ergo the puppet gov perception.
Taking a page from Saddams play book to hurt the US economy, Iran now considers the US dollar "the currency of the enemy" and will begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE by selling oil in euros. .. another direct challenge to the US dollar in the international oil market.
Oil buyers will have a choice: 1 barrel of Oil for $60 US dollars on the NYMEX / IPE, or for 45-50 euros from the Iranian Bourse... until we bomb them.
Interesting article here:
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Taking a page from Saddams play book to hurt the US economy, Iran now considers the US dollar "the currency of the enemy" and will begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE by selling oil in euros. .. another direct challenge to the US dollar in the international oil market.
Oil buyers will have a choice: 1 barrel of Oil for $60 US dollars on the NYMEX / IPE, or for 45-50 euros from the Iranian Bourse... until we bomb them.
Interesting article here:
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
that and his nuke farm are enough in my book to take "corrective" action
sorry, but as a US citizen, I place the security and future of my country over all others
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that and his nuke farm are enough in my book to take "corrective" action
sorry, but as a US citizen, I place the security and future of my country over all others
As a citizen you shouldn't be pissed at the Iranians, they're taking advantage of the pathetic manor in which our so called "leaders" have sold us out.
If the US economy collapses, roll on over to the local RNC / DNC chapter and personally thank them.
The title is cheese, but the whole euro vs dollar thing is talked about in this video... (start at 35 min for the petroldollar theory)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws
-
a devalued US dollar is good for US exports and bad for US imports and bad for sending US jobs overseas.
-
a devalued US dollar is good for US exports and bad for US imports and bad for sending US jobs overseas.
Explain this in more detail, please.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
your first statement is your opinion
the second, I just don't believe LOL
don't worry, whatever dem u vote for I am sure will do a much better job finding OBL and saving the US and the world from the islamic cheekbones terror threat
LOL LOL LOL
Yea because it wasn't a Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that just gave our boarder patrol and extra 3 billion to put more boots on the ground.
The Republican tough on terror president planed to overturn it but the Dem's undercut him first, to get it through.
The same democratic Congress also passed the funding to get all cargo ships scanned for nukes piror to entering the US. Same with all cargo aircraft. Tough on terror Republicans couldn't be bothered.
The Democratic led Senate today voted in a bill to put tougher regulations on lobbyists.. To keep them from buying our politicians. ie like Ted Stevens..
What did the Republicans do the last 7 years? Besides get us in a war and give our country away to the highest bidder and run it into a defecate that will likely never be paid off in our life times? If this is what the Dems have in store for us, I'm all for it.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what he said
there is a reason we haven't invaded the wild wild west of pakistan already
the last thing you want is to have Musharraf lose control of his nukes
this administration realizes that, just wonder if the next one will as well
it's catch 22. go in hard on the taleban and aq in pakistan and musharraf falls over and islamic militants take control. keep the status quo with the taleban and aq using pakastan as a safe haven from nato and the probability is that the afghan mission will fail with the likley result that the militants not only regain afghanistan but ultimatly take pakistan as well, which would be an intolerable situation for the west. then the real war starts, iraq would be a sideshow in comparision.
-
(http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/cartoons/toon080307c.gif)