Koolblue13 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Not to point out the obvious here, but isn't that the entire and complete reason we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan? If there was no threat of an attack, we wouldn't have enemies. We do, so we are at war in two + countries. Isn't this the entire point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 You are correct sir. I would freak a little. I find it funny how there are none of the bad arabs around. They are all Indian now. I buy my chew from a little store that I must admit I racial profiled as arabs. They always got that weird whining music cranking. I know that sounds ignorant as hell, but I'm human. I know this is something you probably would not be interested in but if I were you I would look to see if any of your local churches/community centers are doing cultural exchanges or open dialogues with Arab American centers or Muslim religious groups. There are a ton of them going on right now around the country, and they are perfect for someone like yourself I think. I think you would really be surprised how different Arab-American culture is than you think. I am not Arab, but I have very close family friends and school friends who are. They love rock and rap, chilling out, playing video games, going out to eat. They are really normal people who love America, want their kids to go to good schools, and want to live safe normal lives like everyone else. I have never met one who was not sick to their stomach about radical Islam. I think an open dialogue/cultural exchange would do wonders for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 This is nothing more than a political setup. When the next attack happens - and it definitely WILL happen someday - Cheney and his boys can point the finger and say "See! Obama made us less safe! My past methods like Gitmo and extraordinary rendition clearly have been vindicated!" It's a no-lose proposition for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 This is nothing more than a political setup.When the next attack happens - and it definitely WILL happen someday - Cheney and his boys can point the finger and say "See! Obama made us less safe! My past methods clearly have been vindicated!" It's a no-lose proposition for him. Rather like the Bush blame for 9/11.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Rather like the Bush blame for 9/11.:2cents: I don't blame Bush for 9/11, but I do blame him for the mess he made of the War on Terror afterwards. And if another attack happens, it won't be because of Obama's new policies. It will be because Bush took all the global goodwill and sentiment after 9/11, and instead of using it to lead the world in a massive effort to eradicate terrorism, he pissed it all away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Rather like the Bush blame for 9/11.:2cents: Umm, I don't think you got my point. Did the Democrats go out of their way BEFORE 9/11 to say that Bush's policies were going to cause a massive terrorist attack? Cheney is attempting to mend the neo-cons' historic legacy and vindicate them in the public eye. The best way to convince people that the actions of Bush Administration were good and necessary is to convince them that whenever there is a future attack, it can be blamed directly on not doing things the way the Bush Administration did them. Cheney can't lose. Another attack is coming, and if it fails, there will be another one after that, and after that. And it has nothing to do with whether Obama symbolically closes Gitmo or makes a speech from an Islamic country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I don't blame Bush for 9/11, but I do blame him for the mess he made of the War on Terror afterwards. And if another attack happens, it won't be because of Obama's new policies. It will be because Bush took all the global goodwill and sentiment after 9/11, and instead of using it to lead the world in a massive effort to eradicate terrorism, he pissed it all away. believe it or not, I agree with most of what you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Umm, I don't think you got my point.Did the Democrats go out of their way BEFORE 9/11 to say that Bush's policies were going to cause a massive terrorist attack? Cheney is attempting to mend the neo-cons' historic legacy and vindicate them in the public eye. The best way to convince people that the actions of Bush Administration were good and necessary is to convince them that whenever there is a future attack, it can be blamed directly on not doing things the way the Bush Administration did them. Cheney can't lose. Another attack is coming, and if it fails, there will be another one after that, and after that. And it has nothing to do with whether Obama symbolically closes Gitmo or makes a speech from an Islamic country. I understood you man. Even though it's not a precise analogy, there is definitely similarities at how each side reacts to things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 believe it or not, I agree with most of what you said. Holy ****! Never thought that would happen lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 This is nothing more than a political setup.When the next attack happens - and it definitely WILL happen someday - Cheney and his boys can point the finger and say "See! Obama made us less safe! My past methods like Gitmo and extraordinary rendition clearly have been vindicated!" It's a no-lose proposition for him. Someone in this thread got what Cheney did exactly right. For those that worry about Obama being soft, I suggest you pay close attention to how he handles afghanistan. Within the first couple weeks he was criticized by Pakistan for ordering drone attacks over the border and he will be adding thousands of more troops there as well. IF he was soft, he would do neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Someone in this thread got what Cheney did exactly right.For those that worry about Obama being soft, I suggest you pay close attention to how he handles afghanistan. Within the first couple weeks he was criticized by Pakistan for ordering drone attacks over the border and he will be adding thousands of more troops there as well. IF he was soft, he would do neither. In order to drive out the taliban and Al Queda from Afghanistan Obama has to hit those targets in Pakistan. There was a report that came out last year sometime that was published by the RAND corporation describing that this was the problem that the Russians faced and ultimatly led to their demise. But from what I am hearing from my friends in the Intel community that Cheney may be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 In order to drive out the taliban and Al Queda from Afghanistan Obama has to hit those targets in Pakistan. There was a report that came out last year sometime that was published by the RAND corporation describing that this was the problem that the Russians faced and ultimatly led to their demise. But from what I am hearing from my friends in the Intel community that Cheney may be right. Right about what, exactly? (I'm genuinely curious). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Right about what, exactly? (I'm genuinely curious). A possible biological and or nuclear attack in the future. This all they can tell me we talked about the cheney article yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 A possible biological and or nuclear attack in the future. Sure, but what Cheney was saying is that Obama's policies are allowing that to happen right? So my question is, how exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 For those that worry about Obama being soft, I suggest you pay close attention to how he handles afghanistan. Within the first couple weeks he was criticized by Pakistan for ordering drone attacks over the border and he will be adding thousands of more troops there as well. IF he was soft, he would do neither. Just curious on this since it was W that ordered both. You saying W was right and O is correct not to have remanded the orders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Just curious on this since it was W that ordered both.You saying W was right and O is correct not to have remanded the orders? Yes, I believe that W was correct in his assessment on that one. He just didn't leave enough troops there to be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Rather like the Bush blame for 9/11.:2cents: Who blames Bush for 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Sure, but what Cheney was saying is that Obama's policies are allowing that to happen right? So my question is, how exactly? Becuase he is going to have a tighter leash around the Intel community because the waterboarding issue, and trying to make everything more transparent in the government. By limiting weaponizing space which will include certian spy satilites to be selfed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Becuase he is going to have a tighter leash around the Intel community because the waterboarding issue, and trying to make everything more transparent in the government. By limiting weaponizing space which will include certian spy satilites to be selfed. Gotcha. But that's long term stuff right? I thought Cheney was talking sometime in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Their is a reason that Clinton had certian files deemed classified so that the 9/11 commision couls not look at them. But I blame Clinton and Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 A possible biological and or nuclear attack in the future. This all they can tell me we talked about the cheney article yesterday. Of course. We all know that. It's Cheny's claim that Obama's policies are making us less safe that I am wondering about. Was there any talk about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Who blames Bush for 9/11? Phantom Liburls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Gotcha. But that's long term stuff right? I thought Cheney was talking sometime in the near future. I am talking about 18 months to 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Who blames Bush for 9/11? I'm sure there is some nutjob out there who does. Hell, the Republican in the cubicle next to mine blames Clinton. But I don't recall anyone in the tailgate baming Bush, except for maybe Ken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Of course. We all know that.It's Cheny's claim that Obama's policies are making us less safe that I am wondering about. Was there any talk about that? No we just talked about the Cheney claim. People really dont like talking about politics where I work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.